Trump and the Paris Agreement

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/trump-climate-change.html

The article above covers the uncertainty of the Paris Climate Accord that was agreed to last year in the wake of Donald Trump being elected president. It is widely known that Trump has stated that he wants to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord. The international political community is currently divided on this issue, and now they are trying to decide what they will do if Trump does withdraw the US from the Accords, "some diplomats turned from talking of rising seas and climbing temperatures toward how to punish the United States if Mr. Trump follows through, possibly with a carbon-pollution tax on imports of American-made goods". This tax would be based on the amount of emissions that US companies have. If a company goes and switches to renewables and substantially reduces their footprint, then the tax would be decreased. Essentially they are trying to go through with the Paris Climate Accord by going around Trump. 

I personally believe that this is an important discussion for world leaders to be having right now. So much is uncertain with a Trump presidency, and it is important to plan for the worst. This deal is extremely monumental because it got countries to come together and agree about something they usually do not agree about. I think that it is great that they are planning on how they can still implement this on the US, even if Trump backs out. However, I do believe that they need to be careful. Trump can often be irrational and as a result, he might resort to extreme measures if they go through with this.

Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Colombia

This New York Times article discusses a rather interesting case in what pertains to Green IPE. In 2008, the British Colombia Liberal Party, a right-leaning party in Canada that shares many of the anti-tax, pro-business beliefs of U.S. Republicans that deny the existence of climate change, introduced a tax on the carbon emissions of businesses and families, cars and trucks, factories and homes across the province. Despite remarks by Marco Rubio that government efforts to combat climate change would destroy the economy, British Colombia's provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors' even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined. The tax reduced emissions by up to 15%, encouraged people to drive somewhat less and be more careful about heating and cooling homes, and incentivized businesses to invest in energy efficient measures and switch to less polluting fuels. Moreover, opposition for the tax has decreased from 47% of voters to 32% of voters and businesses found it to be the most efficient, market-friendly instrument available in the quiver against climate change. The province, though, has run into a couple dilemmas. Carbon emissions are rising again since the tax has frozen at 30 Canadian dollars, they're missing their goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a third from 2007 to 2020, and the collapse in gas prices is making people stray away from things like electric vehicles. Moreover, cement makers argue that imports from China and the United States grew from 5% to 40% since the introduction of the tax. It's problems like these that must be addressed in order for United States Republicans to embrace a carbon tax if they ever recognize the threat of climate change.

This article hits on just about all the focal points we discussed in class about Green IPE. The first is the set of market externalities as a result of the trade-offs created from this carbon tax. Reduction in emissions, more environmentally friendly and mindful living, and the potential creation and growth of a new market and economic growth based around new sources of energy is encouraging, but increases in imports in certain industries and gas still being seen as a more economically reliable energy source seems problematic. The Republican party would ask: how does one adopt policies to internalize social costs without stagnating economic growth? Moreover, how does one know how to correctly price carbon, especially when it seems that the tax must keep rising or else people will get used to it and keep emitting carbon? Furthermore, it doesn't seem that historic and current responsibility and the fact that the US has one of the highest emission rates per capita is heavily affecting the direction in policy change. It seems that it comes down, at its purest form, to the fact that if the right wing recognizes climate change as a threat, realizes responsibility, and realizes that reform wouldn't be detrimental to the economy, it would ultimately require states coming together to figure out a plan for reform.

Treating Workers Like People?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/a-new-business-strategy-treating-employees-well/383192/

The article cited above references corporations that are working to treat their empolyees like people and not having their needs or wants come in last place. As we discussed in class, the mistreatment of workers has had a long history in both the U.S. and around the world. Many corporations seem to believe that profits must be made this way. However, I do not believe this to be the case. As this article referenced, there is a long-term view for these companies that treat their workers with respect and dignity. As the world spreads information more and more rapidly, gaining a good reputation becomes more important for companies. People do not look to work at companies they have heard horrible things about when they know of other options where they can be paid more and treated better.

These companies are forming these policies and ideas without national or international regulations demanding that they do such. These companies make a great deal of profit and have been around as long as (and longer than many) companies that treat their workers horribly. Obviously, a profit is important in the world of business but these corporations have realized that by treating employees better they have a higher productivity, are more likely to stay, and gain more qualified employees in the long run as well.

What Globalization means for Developing Countries, and the Effects on the Home Front with the 2016 Election (Post for 11/20/16)

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/spmds9613

This article critiques the agenda that the IMF had set out on the impact of globalization on workers and their trade unions. It starts out by discussing the positive and negative aspects of globalization and how these will play a role in what the IMF has set to accomplish. It discusses the importance of fulfilling certain aspects to make sure that globalization benefits all keeping in mind what developing countries want. Trade unions in many Asian countries have great difficulty in establishing workers' rights to organize where one and a half billion live off of less than one dollar per day. Countries in Latin America worry about implications of trade liberalization for workers and their trade unions as well as complaining about privatization of public enterprises. Not only is there an issue in developing countries, but industrial countries as well such as the increase of unemployment in the U.S. The importance of this article is to show social solidarity and how due to competition it becomes impossible to fulfill in today’s world. “We have a responsibility to help promote fair income transfers, from the rich to the poor, the healthy to the sick and from employed to the unemployed.” (Camdessus)   

This relates to what we had talked about in class on globalization and the 2016 election. This article stuck out to me because of Loomis’ argument where he eventually wanted globalization to help foreign workers, and that it needed to be done correctly. Yes this is ideal, but I think this article does a great job in showing the complexity of this issue. Globalization of capital moving overseas means loss of output, trade, and employment on the home front. This is where the 2016 election comes into play, and why a lot of the working class citizens in the U.S. voted for Trump. One of Trump’s main focal points in the election was that he was going to bring the jobs back to the U.S, and is why the silent majority in rural areas of every state voted Trump. As we had talked about in class, businesses were being outsourced to developing countries in order to avoid regulations in the U.S. after the 1911 Triangle fire. This therefore causes problems for the environment and domestic labor in developing countries. The question is if corporations will bring jobs back to the U.S. and risk losing money by following those regulations. I think that by the time these jobs come back to the U.S. it wouldn’t benefit the original people who lost these jobs to outsourcing. Therefore, building on Camdessus’ social solidarity, and improving working conditions for developing countries will result in a better outcome. According to Camdessus this will help unemployed people at home, and give foreigners safe and stable jobs fulfilling Loomis’ goals.  

Economists Take Aim at Wealth Inequality

In a New York Times article, Nelson D. Schwartz attempts to tackle the global phenomenon of growing income inequality and understand new perspectives as to why it's growing and shaping both the national and global economy. It first comes with economists acknowledging the indisputable truth that the percentage of income being earned by the top one percent is going up while wages for the rest of the country are relatively stagnant. Nicholas Bloom points to inequality being magnified by technological change and what's known as skill bias, where workers with a particular expertise reap the biggest reward. Moreover, Enrico Moretti points to the fact that state tax increases prompt the highest earners to move to lower-tax locations. In addition, Bloom found a sharp divergence between pay at the most successful companies and also-rans in the same field. The highest-paid workers cluster at the winners, heightening income disparities in the overall work force. Bloom and Moretti acknowledge that the free market itself won't be able to solve this income inequality conundrum, and most academics are leery of any solution and academics' traditional tools are inadequate for the task.

I wanted to write about this article for this week's blog because it presents a couple of problems that have origins in the setup of traditional capitalism, are explicitly acknowledged in Marxism, but neither have clear solutions. Marxism argues that, in essence, the economy is negative-sum and a game of exploitation of the poor by the rich. As the rich get richer and the poor don't get any richer, this argument becomes increasingly more numerically evident. Who's to say growth is a tide that rises all ships? Although this argument exists, there's also the argument for skill bias; those who are more skilled will earn more wages. One can argue that that's simple competition. If you're better at what you do, you'll be be compensated more than the person who's less competent. Who's to say that's unfair? Same goes with more successful companies having people who make more wages. If the company is better than another company in the same industry, there's going to be a larger flow of capital and therefore more wages distributed. Although this may hold true, Moretti also points that those with more money have more opportunities to work around the tax system, creating even more of a divergence. So this leads to the broad and difficult question: If the free market itself won't fix income inequality, what can the government do? Marxist beliefs have been proven to be too extreme and detrimental to the economy, but there needs to be some form of regulation to ensure fair competition and ensure that workers will be compensated fairly for the amount of work they're doing. How much, exactly, is still to be determined.

Wealth Inequality in America

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/3-tvs-and-no-food-growing-up-poor-in-america.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=2



I read this article over the past week and it spoke to me on many levels. The article talks about what I believe is a untouched and pushed aside topic in American Politics, Child Poverty. The article talks about several children who live in poverty and what their life is like. A day in the life includes, trying to stay away from recruitment into gangs, the temptation of drugs and other substances, stealing to get by, being too embarrassed to go to school because of the close they are wearing, and going to bed wondering when their next meal will come. The article states that "The United States has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the industrialized world." with, about 1/5 of children living in low income and poverty situations. This is a serious struggle and problem in our society that not only no one wants to talk about, but also it is a problem that many do not have a solution for. 

I think this applies a lot to what we have been learning in class in regards to wealth inequality. I believe that often times ideas are centered around the international community, and that is what our class focuses on. But wealth inequality is very damaging even in America. Often times I hear the phrase "poor people in America really aren't poor". But I think that this phrase is untrue and hits America just as much as other countries. I believe that this can also tie into some of the critiques of Free trade. America is a society that has virtual free trade, yet even the people who live in the US don't seem to be benefitting. 

Marxism in the Modern World

http://marxiststudent.com/solidarity-with-south-african-students-feesmustfall/

This article was taken from a website kept by a group of students in England in support of Marxist ideas worldwide. They write a series of articles about social movements all over the world from this perspective. This article is written in criticism of the Republic of South Africa and supporting the student movement of fees must fall. The government stated that fees would not rise again after 2015. However, the fees have been raised multiple times since then. Students started this movement to demand that university must be cheaper in order for more students of color to afford a higher education and bring an end to the racial/economic divide left over after the end of Apartheid in 1994. The article also sites government corruption and bribery occurring in the country. The article also discusses the violence that is being done against the students in these movements.

In class we have discussed the Marxist ideals. I did not realize these ideals were still alive and well within the world but this website seems to show otherwise. I became familiar with this movement while I was at a University in South Africa and witnessed the anger and frustration with the current governmental policies surrounding higher education. The students who write this website work to educate people about how inequality and corruption is causing suffering throughout the world. This inequality is causing divides, violence, and revolts in many countries throughout the world. In my view, inequality is not the answer to the economic development of individual countries or the world as a whole. Equality should be the goal as it assists in the development of people as well as industries and countries. Marxism is an ideal way to view the world but that does not mean it is not to be strived toward.