I've been on a bit of a gamer kick recently. Borrowed Mass Effect, beat that the other day. Then I pre-ordered the new Assassin's Creed. Then I bought Mass Effect 2, Fight Night Champion, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I beat Fight Night just an hour ago.
* * *
Intriguing gambit: US goes to the WTO to argue that China's "great internet firewall" represents a restraint on free trade.
Hey remember when groups like the ZOA were aghast at the prospect of American Jews criticizing Israel? They lost that principle real quick.
Interesting bit on WaPo about Herman Cain's racial background.
Don't see this every day: Libertarian blogger asks whether we should abolish the corporate form.
Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Friday, March 13, 2009
We Don't Have To Lose This Game
Columbia University Professor of Economics and Law Jagdish Bhagwati makes a very clever and innovative argument in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Essentially, his point is that EFCA is a good way of shielding American workers from the impacts of globalization while not resorting to protectionist measures which would interfere with free trade. Right now, most of our unionized workforce is in manufacturing sectors. Unfortunately, those sectors are the ones most likely to leave our shores.
Fortunately, there is lots of room to organize the service industry, which will be the heavy hitter that takes manufacturing's place once globalization shakes itself out. As Matt Yglesias points out, there is no intrinsic reason that manufacturing is well organized and service jobs aren't, except that the law was far more union friendly back in the days when factories were king. Passing EFCA would give some of the newer, up and coming unions (like the SEIU) a chance to make it so the new jobs created to replace departing manufacturing positions still provide decent compensation and working conditions for working and middle class families. That's a good thing.
Fortunately, there is lots of room to organize the service industry, which will be the heavy hitter that takes manufacturing's place once globalization shakes itself out. As Matt Yglesias points out, there is no intrinsic reason that manufacturing is well organized and service jobs aren't, except that the law was far more union friendly back in the days when factories were king. Passing EFCA would give some of the newer, up and coming unions (like the SEIU) a chance to make it so the new jobs created to replace departing manufacturing positions still provide decent compensation and working conditions for working and middle class families. That's a good thing.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Should They Stay or Should They Go?
A few days ago, The New York Times had an article about businesses which cater to designing products which are "Shabbat-friendly" -- that is, which won't cause observant Jews to violate their Sabbath upon use. Generally, this involves a lot of automation and a fair amount of creativity (Rabbinic maxims about "indirect effect" help a lot). Not being quite that observant myself, the exercise strikes me as a little silly, but at the same time I'm happy that people are catering to this need.
But that's not why I want to post. Rather, I was struck by the article's off-hand notation that one of the groups engaging in the work, the non-profit Zomet Institute, had its research facility located in a West Bank settlement, Alon Shvut. So I'm curious -- when Israel eventually cedes control of the West Bank (as it inevitably will, and should), what happens to the facility?* Should the Israeli organization relocate, or should it stay and maintain operations?
On the one hand, withdrawal means withdrawal. There is little indication that Palestinian groups are interested in residual Israeli institutions remaining in their territory, nor that Israeli organizations are all that keen at operating under Palestinian jurisdiction. Security, obviously, is a major problem. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but a significant stroke of Palestinian advocacy on the final status of the West Bank has taken a definitive "judenrein" tint to it.
On the other hand, a high-tech research facility would undoubtedly be a boon to a fledgling Palestinian state, giving high paying jobs, a good tax base, and trade opportunities with Israel and the wider world. Also, if I can be optimistic for a moment, it offers a chance for Jews and Arabs to work side by side in the new state to sell to the broad, global Jewish community. That's an opportunity to heal a lot of wounds. For Palestine to survive in the global environment, it's going to need companies like this located inside its borders. This group is a non-profit, but it offers the chance to be the locus of a technology hub in the future Palestinian state. I thus hope that it is able to stay. Even in a two-state solution, the destinies of Israel and Palestine will remain woven together. It is the groups that cross-borders which offer the way forward for both peoples.
* Though I think that Israel eventually will leave the West Bank, and most definitely should, the exact borders of any final settlement are, of course, unknown. It is likely that clusters of Israeli settlements near the border will eventually be incorporated into Israel proper, possibly as part of a land swap, and perhaps Alon Shvut will be included. But I'm operating off the assumption that it won't be.
But that's not why I want to post. Rather, I was struck by the article's off-hand notation that one of the groups engaging in the work, the non-profit Zomet Institute, had its research facility located in a West Bank settlement, Alon Shvut. So I'm curious -- when Israel eventually cedes control of the West Bank (as it inevitably will, and should), what happens to the facility?* Should the Israeli organization relocate, or should it stay and maintain operations?
On the one hand, withdrawal means withdrawal. There is little indication that Palestinian groups are interested in residual Israeli institutions remaining in their territory, nor that Israeli organizations are all that keen at operating under Palestinian jurisdiction. Security, obviously, is a major problem. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but a significant stroke of Palestinian advocacy on the final status of the West Bank has taken a definitive "judenrein" tint to it.
On the other hand, a high-tech research facility would undoubtedly be a boon to a fledgling Palestinian state, giving high paying jobs, a good tax base, and trade opportunities with Israel and the wider world. Also, if I can be optimistic for a moment, it offers a chance for Jews and Arabs to work side by side in the new state to sell to the broad, global Jewish community. That's an opportunity to heal a lot of wounds. For Palestine to survive in the global environment, it's going to need companies like this located inside its borders. This group is a non-profit, but it offers the chance to be the locus of a technology hub in the future Palestinian state. I thus hope that it is able to stay. Even in a two-state solution, the destinies of Israel and Palestine will remain woven together. It is the groups that cross-borders which offer the way forward for both peoples.
* Though I think that Israel eventually will leave the West Bank, and most definitely should, the exact borders of any final settlement are, of course, unknown. It is likely that clusters of Israeli settlements near the border will eventually be incorporated into Israel proper, possibly as part of a land swap, and perhaps Alon Shvut will be included. But I'm operating off the assumption that it won't be.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
How Do You Get a Libertarian To Accept Trade Favoritism?
Show her a country whose entire population will likely permanently collapse into grinding poverty if its favorable trade status is ended! Megan McArdle takes a look at Cambodia:
I think Megan is right -- Cambodia needs a few more years still to get on its feet, build up its infrastructure, and diversify its economy (like Vietnam is beginning to do). Pull the rug out from underneath it now, and it will get completely swamped by the greater economic heft of its neighbors, and might never recover.
Most developing countries start with textiles, just as England did 200 years ago. But Cambodia's garment trade is incredibly dependent on special treatment from America, where it sells almost all its wares. Since the expiration of the Multi-Fiber Agreement in 2004, which imposed quotas on textiles in the developing world, countries like China and Vietnam have been subject to special, stopgap measures to dampen down the flood of textiles they can pour into Western markets. In exchange for enacting higher labor standards (and also for being really small and poor), Cambodia has been exempted from this treatment.
In theory, this is a bad thing; trade should go where the market dictates. In practice, it's hard to criticize something which is pulling a lot of very poor people into decent-paying jobs. And Cambodia's 14 million population can hardly be said to be doing serious damage to China, or even Vietnam.
I think Megan is right -- Cambodia needs a few more years still to get on its feet, build up its infrastructure, and diversify its economy (like Vietnam is beginning to do). Pull the rug out from underneath it now, and it will get completely swamped by the greater economic heft of its neighbors, and might never recover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
