Well, as you know, Patrick, you and I have a very deep disagreement on questions of "legitimation": you're very interested in them, and I'm not interested in them at all.
In fairness to you though, you're operating in a different political context, where some of the questions of "legitimation" that you're interested in might be more relevant to political reality than they are in the U.S. In the U.S. they are not politically relevant at all. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Patrick Bond <[email protected]> wrote: > Look, I appreciate the partial attack on TPP, especially its codification > of corporate power, but surely you'd agree the limits of Stiglitz are on > stark display here, Bob. > > 1) In July when he was at the Bellagio estate, he called the forthcoming > *Paris > climate deal a "charade"*... but now he revises with a partial > endorsement: "the world is moving, inexorably, toward a green economy." > That's simply not true, the Paris Conference of Polluters is still a > charade, even more so given how much global legitimation was passed along > to those negotiators. Here are seven reasons why, by Oscar Reyes: > http://fpif.org/seven-wrinkles-paris-climate-deal/ ... and my take: > https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/paris-climate-terror-could-endure-for-generations/ > > 2) On the *BRICS New Development Bank*, first, it will amplify all the > worst tendencies of Bretton Woods banking ( > http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/10/brics-bankers-confirm-they-will-undergird-not-undermine-western-financial-decadence/ > and my slides are here, > http://www.open.ac.uk/ikd/podcasts/brics-banking-and-debate-over-sub-imperialism > ) and second, it's no secret anymore - because his colleague Nick Stern let > the cat out of the bag in a talk he didn't know was taped - that in > proposing the NDB take the form it has, Stiglitz, Stern and the late > Ethiopian tyrant Meles Zenawi were really aiming to facilitate > multinational corporate exploitation of poor countries. To do so, they > needed to "reduce the potential for government-induced policy risk", e.g. > the kind of "unreliable" Bolivarian attack on MNCs that motivated the NDB > instead of BRICS support for Chavez's Bank of the South. Don't take it from > me, here's Stern: > > If you have a development bank that is part of a [major business] deal > then it makes it more difficult for governments to be unreliable... What > you had was the presence of the European Bank for Reconstruction and > Development (EBRD) reducing the potential for government-induced policy > risk, and the presence of the EBRD in the deal making the government of the > host country more confident about accepting that investment. *And that is > why Meles Zenawi, Joe Stiglitz and myself, nearly three years ago now, > started the idea – and are there any press here, by the way? OK, so this > bit’s off the record. We started to move the idea of a BRICS-led > development bank* for those two reasons. Coupled with the idea that the > rich countries would not let the balance sheets of the World Bank and some > of the regional development banks expand very much, and they would not > allow their share in those banks to be diluted. So essentially by refusing > to come up with more money and by refusing to let other people come up with > more money by not allowing those shares to be diluted, you’re essentially > limiting what the existing World Bank and existing regional development > banks can do. (emphasis added) > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZKQ6wQ-29w > > 3) On his belief that "The US did act with greater wisdom where *China’s > currency was concerned**,*" sure, no one wants Washington to retain its > undemocratic power over any organ of globo gov, especially the IMF. But > really, is it useful to have the yuan playing a legitimating role in the > most maniacal processes within world finance? I argue no, here: > http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/China-Sucked-Deeper-into-World-Financial-Vortex-as-BRICS-Sink--20151125-0024.html > > 4) On his TPP sensibility, "*The problem is not so much with the > agreement’s trade provisions*." Yes it is: all these trade > liberalisations have had disastrous consequences. But ultimately Stiglitz > the economist most values "basic principles of efficiency and the free flow > of goods." > > 5) Again on TPP, "Even the way Obama argued for the new trade agreement > showed how out of touch with the emerging global economy his administration > is. He repeatedly said that the TPP would determine who – America or China > – would write the twenty-first century’s trade rules. *The **correct > **approach > is to arrive at such rules **collectively, * with all voices heard, and > in a *transparent* way." The problem here is the danger that again, in > terms of legitimation, Stiglitz runs the risk of ceding this "collective" > power to *both *the 1%ers of the US and China. (If not, he should say so > explicitly.) The neoliberal faction of the Chinese Communist Party - the > guys that promote greater trade and investment, especially that they face > such a severe internal overaccumulation crisis - cannot be trusted to > represent the genuine interests of 1.4 billion people, just as Obama's lads > cannot be trusted, as we saw last month in Nairobi at the WTO summit. > > As you and your mates are close to Stiglitz, I would expect you to fight > me on these points. Fine. But if you agree with some, is there any chance > he would move left, as he did so admirably for a few months in 1998-99 > (when I first met him by accident on an airplane, as he railed so > forcefully against the Clinton Treasury and Fed)? > > It would be fantastic to see more Keynesians take the excellent > opportunity, *this week,* of new financial melting to explore the terrain > on the left. It's a shame Stiglitz had so little new to say in his last > column about China, and that in the *NYT* Krugman is stumbling so much on > the question of Chinese contagion. I always thought Stiglitz, at least, had > much more potential to look at matters with his political economic wisdom > and refrain from propping up the "basic principles" of neoliberalism. > > But correct me if I'm too ultra on this, as ever... > > Cheers, > Patrick > > > On 2016/01/11 01:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > *In 2016, let's hope for better trade agreements - and the death of TPP* > > Joseph Stiglitz <http://www.theguardian.com/profile/josephstiglitz> > > > <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/10/in-2016-better-trade-agreements-trans-pacific-partnership> > http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/10/in-2016-better-trade-agreements-trans-pacific-partnership > > Last year was a memorable one for the global economy. Not only was overall > performance disappointing, but profound changes – both for better and for > worse – occurred in the global economic *system*. > > Most notable was the Paris climate agreement reached last month > <http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/15/climate-change-deal-five-reasons-glad-five-reasons-gloomy>. > By itself, the agreement is far from enough to limit the increase in global > warming to the target of 2ºC above the pre-industrial level. But it did put > everyone on notice: the world is moving, inexorably, toward a green > economy. One day not too far off, fossil fuels will be largely a thing of > the past. So anyone who invests in coal now does so at his or her peril. > With more green investments coming to the fore, those financing them will, > we should hope, counterbalance powerful lobbying by the coal industry, > which is willing to put the world at risk to advance its shortsighted > interests. > > Indeed, the move away from a high-carbon economy, where coal, gas, and oil > interests often dominate, is just one of several major changes in the > global geo-economic order. Many others are inevitable, given China’s > soaring share of global output and demand. The New Development Bank, > established by the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China > <http://www.theguardian.com/world/china>, and South Africa), was launched > during the year, becoming the first major international financial > institution led by emerging countries. And, despite Barack Obama’s > resistance, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was > established as well, and is to start operation this month. > > The US did act with greater wisdom where China’s currency was concerned. > It did not obstruct the renminbi’s admission to the basket of currencies > that constitute the International Monetary Fund’s reserve asset, Special > Drawing Rights (SDRs). In addition, a half-decade after the Obama > administration agreed to modest changes in the voting rights of China and > other emerging markets at the IMF – a small nod to the new economic > realities – the US Congress finally approved the reforms > <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/congress-approves-imf-changes-giving-emerging-markets-more-sway> > . > > The most controversial geo-economic decisions last year concerned trade. > Almost unnoticed after years of desultory talks, the World Trade > Organization’s Doha Development Round – initiated to redress imbalances in > previous trade agreements that favored developed countries – was given a > quiet burial. America’s hypocrisy – advocating free trade but refusing to > abandon subsidies on cotton and other agricultural commodities – had posed > an insurmountable obstacle to the Doha negotiations. In place of global > trade talks, the US and Europe have mounted a divide-and-conquer strategy, > based on overlapping trade blocs and agreements. > > As a result, what was intended to be a global free trade regime has given > way to a discordant managed trade regime. Trade for much of the Pacific and > Atlantic regions will be governed by agreements, thousands of pages in > length and replete with complex rules of origin that contradict basic > principles of efficiency and the free flow of goods. > > The US concluded secret negotiations on what may turn out to be the worst > trade agreement in decades, the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) > <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/05/tpp-or-not-tpp-whats-the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-should-we-support-it>, > and now faces an uphill battle for ratification, as all the leading > Democratic presidential candidates and many of the Republicans have weighed > in against it. The problem is not so much with the agreement’s trade > provisions, but with the “investment” chapter > <https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trans-pacific-partnership-charade-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-and-adam-s--hersh-2015-10>, > which severely constrains environmental, health, and safety regulation, and > even financial regulations with significant macroeconomic impacts. > > In particular, the chapter gives foreign investors the right to sue > governments in private international tribunals when they believe government > regulations contravene the TPP’s terms (inscribed on more than 6,000 > pages). In the past, such tribunals have interpreted the requirement that > foreign investors receive “fair and equitable treatment” as grounds for > striking down new government regulations – even if they are > non-discriminatory and are adopted simply to protect citizens from newly > discovered egregious harms. > > While the language is complex – inviting costly lawsuits pitting powerful > corporations against poorly financed governments – even regulations > protecting the planet from greenhouse gas emissions are vulnerable. The > only regulations that appear safe are those involving cigarettes (lawsuits > filed against Uruguay and Australia for requiring modest labeling about > health hazards had drawn too much negative attention). But there remain a > host of questions about the possibility of lawsuits in myriad other areas. > > Furthermore, a “most favoured nation” provision ensures that corporations > can claim the best treatment offered in any of a host country’s treaties. > That sets up a race to the bottom – exactly the opposite of what US > President Barack Obama promised. > > Even the way Obama argued for the new trade agreement showed how out of > touch with the emerging global economy his administration is. He repeatedly > said that the TPP would determine who – America or China – would write the > twenty-first century’s trade rules. The *correct *approach is to arrive > at such rules *collectively, * with all voices heard, and in a > *transparent* way. Obama has sought to perpetuate business as usual, > whereby the rules governing global trade and investment are written by US > corporations for US corporations. This should be unacceptable to anyone > committed to democratic principles. > > Those seeking closer economic integration have a special responsibility to > be strong advocates of global governance reforms: if authority over > domestic policies is ceded to supranational bodies, then the drafting, > implementation, and enforcement of the rules and regulations has to be > particularly sensitive to democratic concerns. Unfortunately, that was not > always the case in 2015. > > In 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s defeat and the beginning of a new > era of trade agreements that don’t reward the powerful and punish the weak. > The Paris climate agreement may be a harbinger of the spirit and mindset > needed to sustain genuine global cooperation. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing > [email protected]https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
