Североамериканская зона свободной торговли
07 октября, 17:35

Democrats Are Right to Insist on Better Enforcement Provisions in the USMCA

“If you can’t enforce the provisions in any treaty, then you really are not protecting American w

09 сентября, 15:30

New Index Tracks Trade Uncertainty Across the Globe

By Hites Ahir, Nicholas Bloom, and Davide Furceri Español, Português Rising trade uncertainty is cited as a driving factor for “sluggish global growth” in the current issue of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook, which describes the state of the world economy. But how is trade uncertainty measured? [...]

10 июля, 15:47

Ross Perot tried to save Democrats from ThemselvesHow Democrats’ NAFTA-love lost the Working Class

Ross Perot (1930-2019) was a bit of a flake. But he also tried to save the Democratic Party from itself by attempting to warn it away from NAFTA. Clinton wouldn’t The post Ross Perot tried to save Democrats from ThemselvesHow Democrats’ NAFTA-love lost the Working Class appeared first on Greg Palast.

10 июля, 06:45

Ross Perot’s Warning of a ‘Giant Sucking Sound’ on Nafta Echoes Today

The Texas tycoon’s case on trade anticipated Donald Trump’s arguments two decades later.

20 июня, 02:35

Mexico first to ratify USMCA trade deal, Trump presses U.S. Congress to do same

Mexico on Wednesday became the first country to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) agreed late last year to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at the behest of U.S. President Donald Trump.

19 июня, 23:45

Mexico Ratifies Trade Deal With the U.S. and Canada

The United States initiated the revision of the North American trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, but Mexico is now the first to ratify the deal.

19 июня, 23:43

Mexico becomes first country to ratify USMCA trade deal via Senate vote

Mexico on Wednesday became the first country to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) agreed late last year to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at the behest of U.S. President Donald Trump.

31 мая, 21:05

Why Congress Cannot Allow the Trump Tariffs on Mexico to Stand

Over the past two and half years, President Trump has launched so many unprecedented and disrupti

31 мая, 19:00

How Trump’s Trade War Is Being Fought Around the World

Mexico, China, Japan, Europe, Canada: The White House’s various conflicts add up to a broad assault on a postwar effort to build economic ties around the world.

15 мая, 20:06

White House Reassesses Auto Tariffs as It Focuses on China Fight

A potential thaw in trade relations with Canada, Mexico and Europe comes as tension between the United States and China grows.

19 апреля, 00:16

Trump’s Nafta Revisions Offer Modest Economic Benefits, Report Finds

A government study challenges the president’s claims that the proposed North American trade pact makes far-reaching changes to the 1994 agreement.

07 февраля, 01:01

Trump Loves the New Nafta. Congress Doesn’t.

The president’s most significant achievement on trade — a revised deal with Canada and Mexico — is imperiled amid Democratic and Republican concerns.

04 февраля, 21:19

Economic View: An A- for the U.S. Economy, but Failing Grades for Trump’s Policies

The economy has been fairly strong, but economists are nearly unanimous in concluding that President Trump’s economic policies are destructive.

20 декабря 2018, 05:44

Fairly Recently: Must- and Should-Reads, and Writings... (December 19, 2018)

1. **Jon Schwarz**: _[The 10 Most Awful Articles in the Weekly Standard’s Short Life II](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/16/the-10-most-appalling-articles-in-the-weekly-standards-short-and-dreadful-life/)_: "'What to Do About Iraq' by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, 2002... 'If too many months go by without a decision to move against Saddam, the risks to the United States may increase exponentially.... We know... that Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of September 11, went out of his way to meet with an Iraqi intelligence official a few months before he flew a plane into the World Trade Center.... There is no debate about the facts'... #journamalism #orangehairedbaboons #moralresponsibility 2. **Jon Schwarz**: _[The 10 Most Awful Articles in the Weekly Standard’s Short Life III](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/16/the-10-most-appalling-articles-in-the-weekly-standards-short-and-dreadful-life/)_: "'Case Closed' by Stephen F. Hayes, 2004... Hayes spent years trying to prove that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were collaborators. 'Case Closed' is a perfect example of his work, in that Hayes successfully demonstrates two things: (1) Iraq had fewer ties to al Qaeda than any other Gulf state, and (2) he is the world’s most gullible human being. Here Hayes faithfully scribbled down the pensées of Douglas J. Feith, then Undersecretary of Defense, and known at the Pentagon as 'the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the...

19 декабря 2018, 06:12

Без заголовка

**Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott**: _[Under the Hood, the USMCA Is a Downgrade for North America](https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/under-hood-usmca-downgrade-north-america)_: "Trump... called the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) the worst trade deal ever made. Trade negotiators have branded its intended replacement... a 'modernized' improvement.The upgrades draw heavily from the Trump-abandoned Trans-Pacific Partnership.... The deal also includes costly new regulations and requirements that discourage investment, especially in the auto sector... higher prices for cars at a time when auto sales are flagging. Ford and GM are already laying off workers.... The USMCA limits trade more than promoting it... ---- #shouldread

14 декабря 2018, 21:18

Just blow it all up?, by Scott Sumner

In addition to the split between the left and the right, there’s also a split between people who favor incremental change and those who want to “blow it all up.”  In 2016, the British voted in a referendum in favor of exiting the EU.  The referendum did not have the force of law, but the government (quite reasonably) was reluctant to ignore the results of this poll.  After all, why even have a referendum if you plan to ignore it? The supporters of the Brexit campaign promised that there would be no “hard Brexit”, as the EU would want to negotiate free trade with the UK.  But they also promised that the UK would make a substantial break, with a much greater degree of freedom than before.  In other words, it would not be merely a symbolic break where (like Norway) the UK still adheres to almost all the EU rules.  The government of Theresa May found it impossible to negotiate an agreement with the EU that achieved all these objectives.  The EU demanded substantial concessions (adhering to many EU rules) in exchange for the UK continuing to have relatively free access to the EU market. Thus May negotiated a compromise that pleases neither the “leave” nor the “remain” supporters.  As of now, it clearly does not have enough support in Parliament, although that might change.  Most people in Parliament actually favored keeping Britain in the EU, and there are not enough votes for the “hard Brexit” option, a clean break.  Many fear that a hard Brexit would be extremely disruptive to the UK economy, which has close trading relations with the EU. So how should Parliament vote?  The subtitle of a recent Economist article suggests that there is radical uncertainty as to the impact of a no vote on Theresa May’s negotiated agreement with the EU: The consequences of saying no to Theresa May’s Brexit deal If Parliament rejects the prime minister’s deal next week, the result could be no deal—or no Brexit That sort of uncertainty is actually rather unusual, and reflects a change in our politics.  Most votes are between option A and B, where it’s pretty clear which option will advance each agenda.  Not in this case.  The odds markets confirm this, showing a significant probability of any number of possible outcomes, including an entirely new referendum.  Lurking in the background is the possibility of a new election, which (far left) Labour might win.  Making things even more complicated, it’s not clear what Labour would do. In retrospect, many believe that complicated legislative problems should not be solved via referenda.  Alternatively, the UK government should have said from the beginning that after the new treaty was negotiated, the British public would have another referendum where they’d choose between the negotiated agreement and the status quo.  This is because referenda are suited to deal with binary choices, and there seemed to be no majority in the UK in favor of any of the various possibilities.  Thus in 2016, those favoring a hard Brexit and those favoring a soft Brexit both voted to leave the EU, but neither group was large enough to later put together a compromise that would attract 50% of the public, or 50% of the MPs. While this dilemma is rather unusual, the exact same thing is now occurring in the US.  Donald Trump ran for President promising to (metaphorically) “blow up” the existing way of doing things.  He was unable to get rid of Obamacare, but did have enough power to renegotiate Nafta.  Once in office, he seemed to realize that Nafta was actually a pretty good deal, as the new version is not much different from the old version.  But he’s also a sort of prisoner of his populist rhetoric, and doesn’t want to stick with the old Nafta. The problem here is that it’s not at all clear that there are enough votes in Congress to pass the new Nafta agreement.  Then what?  Trump has promised to blow up the old Nafta if Congress rejects his proposal.  Similarly, Theresa May has suggested that a hard Brexit would lead to economic chaos, and the UK government has done little to plan for a hard Brexit.  (The don’t even have customs facilities in place in Dover, and there’d be massive lines for trucks from France.)  She claims that there is no plausible alternative to her negotiated agreement with the EU.  Some think this is bluffing, and that there might be a softer Brexit option, such as Norway’s arrangement.  This is complicated by the weak position of the Conservative government, and by Labour’s unwillingness to give the Tories a win.  Labour would rather see the Conservatives tear each other apart, opening the door to a new Labour government. (And I won’t even try to explain the complicated Northern Ireland problem.) And what about President Trump?  Is the promise to blow up the old Nafta a bluff?  Perhaps if Congress rejected his plan he’d actually keep the old Nafta in place, and add a few “national defense” tariffs on Mexico and Canada, as a face saving gesture.  After all, completely blowing up Nafta might cause a severe disruption in US supply chains, and perhaps a stock market slump. I’m actually not sure how bad it would be if Trump ended Nafta, as US tariffs tend to be pretty low, even on goods from countries outside Nafta.  But it would certainly be quite controversial, and perhaps not what Trump wants as he’s in delicate negotiations with China.  The point here is that just as with the UK politicians contemplating their vote on Brexit, it’s not clear whether Congressional supporters of the old Nafta should reject Trump’s proposal, or vote for it. Our politics is increasingly full of this sort of brinksmanship.  Trump has told Congress that he’ll shut down the government if they don’t approve his wall, a tactic that has become increasingly popular in recent decades.  Furthermore, this new brinksmanship seems to be a global phenomenon.  Here’s The Economist describing a dramatic change in Australia’s (conservative) Liberal Party. In politics, says one senior party member, you used to make progress through compromise. “Now, it’s, ‘If you don’t give me something I want, I’ll blow the place up.’” Perhaps Mr Abbott and his like really do have a death wish. Perhaps they fancy that defeat by the Labor Party will have a wonderfully purgative effect, clearing the wets out of the Liberal Party and allowing their faction to enjoy unadulterated rule. What is nearly certain is that a grand old party faces a whipping next year. The question is whether it can survive at all. Politics has never been polite, but it seems to be getting even rougher. PS.  I’m agnostic on both the Brexit and Nafta votes, for the reasons explained above.  That’s very unusual for someone as opinionated as me. PPS.  Here’s a picture of Theresa May along with Boris Johnson, a somewhat Trumpian politician who would like to take her place as leader of the Conservatives. (22 COMMENTS)

03 декабря 2018, 19:22

Lopez Obrador's Presidency Will Roll Back Mexico's Gains

On December 1 Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s self-proclaimed Fourth Transformation begins.

03 декабря 2018, 19:10

Lopez Obrador Spells Trouble for Mexico

On December 1 Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s self-proclaimed Fourth Transformation begins.

01 декабря 2018, 08:33

George H.W. Bush Is Dead

The former president died at the age of 94. “I want somebody else to define the legacy,” he once told his granddaughter.

14 апреля 2015, 00:30

Хиллари – 2016. Что готовит России клан Клинтонов?

Хиллари Клинтон объявила о том, что будет участвовать в президентских выборах, которые пройдут в США в следующем году. Стоит ли России ожидать очередной "перезагрузки" или нового витка обострения отношений, в случае если Клинтон победит на выборах?

24 декабря 2013, 21:02

WikiLeaks: США принуждают членов будущего Тихоокеанского партнёрства заключить невыгодную сделку

Сайт WikiLeaks опубликовал два документа, из которых следует, что переговоры по созданию Тихоокеанского партнёрства близки к тупику. В них участвуют 12 стран: США, Япония, Мексика, Канада, Австралия, Малайзия, Чили, Сингапур, Перу, Вьетнам, Новая Зеландия и Бруней. Вместе они производят более 40% мирового ВВП, сообщает RT  На этой неделе представители перечисленных государств собрались в Сингапуре, чтобы обсудить будущее торговое соглашение. После встречи за закрытыми дверями министр торговли Японии Ясутоси Нисимура заявил прессе, что США, по его мнению, должны продемонстрировать «большую гибкость». Документы, обнародованные WikiLeaks, показывают, что стороны не могут договориться по 119 пунктам, в том числе и из-за жёсткой позиции США. Пока остаётся неясным, какая именно страна из двенадцати, участвующих в переговорах, допустила утечку. «США оказывает серьёзное давление, чтобы за эту неделю закрыть вопросы по максимально возможному количеству спорных пунктов», - утверждает один из опубликованных документов. «Одно из государств указывает, что до сих пор не было сделано никаких существенных шагов со стороны США, что и явилось причиной создавшейся ситуации». Администрация Обамы призвала все стороны, участвующие в переговорах, достичь соглашения до конца этого года. Однако споры вокруг ключевых вопросов могут привести в декабре к «частичному прекращению переговоров или даже к их срыву». Создание транстихоокеанского торгового партнерства в Вашингтоне расценивают в качестве приоритета. Подчёркивается, что оно даст импульс экономикам всех стран-участниц. Однако существует мнение, что некоторые пункты соглашения могут привести к подрыву национальных интересов ряда государств этого региона. Среди спорных вопросов, в частности, право транснациональных корпораций оспаривать законодательство отдельных стран в наднациональных трибуналах. Ранее Вашингтон уже одобрил такие полномочия в предыдущих торговых соглашениях, например, в рамках Североамериканской зоны свободной торговли. Однако условия, предлагаемые тихоокеанским партнёрством, могут предоставить транснациональным корпорациям возможность оспаривать более широкий круг законов. 30 августа 2013 года WikiLeaks опубликовал документ, который касается прав интеллектуальной собственности и вызывает сильнейшие опасения у гражданских активистов. Так, организация Electronic Frontier Foundation предупреждает, что меры, перечисленные в договоре, «нанесут огромный вред свободе слова, праву на частную жизнь, а также существенно снизят возможность для создания инноваций». «По сравнению с существующими многосторонними соглашениями, глава соглашения ТРР предлагает выдачу большего числа патентов, создание дополнительных прав собственности на данные, расширение защиты патентов и авторских прав, расширение привилегий правообладателей. Наказания для нарушителей становятся строже, - сказал эксперт Джеймс Лав из международной организации «Экология Знания». – Данный текст существенно урезает существующие исключения в международном законодательстве по авторскому праву. Он обсуждался секретно и мешает распространению знаний, развитию медицины и инновационной деятельности». Данное соглашение, в случае его принятия, может усилить и расширить власть фармацевтических монополий в том, что касается лекарств от рака, ВИЧ, сердечных заболеваний, в особенности – в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе. Монополисты получат беспрецедентные права, не допуская на рынок других производителей. Последующий рост цен на жизненно важные лекарства, возможно, затронет каждого. «Данная глава соглашения о ТРР – это рождественский подарок для крупнейших корпораций, - сообщил газете Sydney Morning Herald доктор Мэтью Риммер, эксперт по законодательству в сфере интеллектуальной собственности. – Голливуд, звукозаписывающие компании, такие IT-гиганты, как Microsoft, фармацевтические компании – все получат свой кусок пирога». 

30 апреля 2013, 18:11

Доктрина Обамы. Властелин двух колец

Сергей РоговДиректор Института США и Канады РАН, академик РАН, член РСМД12 февраля президент США Барак Обама выступил в Конгрессе с посланием «О положении страны», в котором изложил приоритеты американской политики на второй срок своего пребывания у власти. На мировой арене Обама намерен поставить США во главе двух гигантских экономических блоков – Трансатлантического и Транстихоокеанского. Это должно обеспечить Вашингтону лидерство в полицентрической системе международных отношений. Такая схема стала одним из ключевых компонентов «доктрины Обамы».Читать статью