1 November 2015, Common Dreams, ‘Absolute Crap’ But Brilliant: Corporate America’s Plan to ‘Misbehave Without Reproach. ‘Only in the senile, decrepit, and unbelievably corrupt modern version of the United States would this sickening decadence even be considered possible, let alone doable.’ An independent investigation by journalists featured in the New York Times on Sunday offers an in-depth look at the way American corporations have used the inclusion of “arbitration clauses” within consumer contracts to strategically circumvent judicial review of their behavior and immunize themselves from class action lawsuits –”realistically the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.” “You can’t shoot someone or rob a bank and say ‘It’s OK, I have a contract.'” —Paul Wallis, Digital Journal. What the Times found was a pattern of legal dead ends for consumers seeking to find redress for perceived injustices due to various forms of corporate fraud and malpractice. Often buried deep within lengthy and difficult-to-read contracts that purchasers of products or services are forced to sign, legal experts say the injection of these arbitration clauses “have essentially disabled consumer challenges to practices like predatory lending, wage theft and discrimination.” As the newspaper reports: Read More here
Tag Archives: Economy
26 October 2015, Yale Connection. The New Climate Economy. A global study finds that climate action and economic growth can go hand in hand. ll the costs of limiting climate change harm or help the economy? One group analyzed research from around the world to assess if we can have prosperity and a healthy planet. MOUNTFORD: “The main finding is very clear. It’s come out that across all of this analysis – different countries – we can get growth and climate action together.” That’s Helen Mountford, Program Director for “The New Climate Economy” – a project of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate – a collaboration between researchers, nonprofits, and political and business leaders. As part of the project, the commission developed ten recommendations for how to stimulate the economy while reducing emissions enough within the next 15 years to prevent catastrophic climate change. The plan calls for investing at least a trillion dollars a year in renewable energy, putting a price on carbon, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. MOUNTFORD: “The action plan emphasizes the importance of halting deforestation by 2030, and starting to restore some of the degraded lands worldwide.” Other recommendations include investing in energy-efficient buildings, waste management systems, and public transportation to make cities more resilient. They’re all strategies to achieve economic prosperity while protecting the climate. Read More here
22 October 2015, Climate News Network, Hurricanes’ economic havoc as world warms. Analysis of insurance data convinces environmental economists that climate change is pushing up the cost of dealing with the disastrous effects of extreme weather events. Climate change could already be costing the US billions of dollars each year in hurricane damage alone. Economists from Mexico and Europe believe that somewhere between $2bn and $14bn of the financial costs of hurricane damage in 2005 could be attributed to the impact of global warming. This is a bold statement. But Francisco Estrada, an environmental economics researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and European colleagues report in Nature Geoscience that they have looked at the pattern of economic losses from hurricanes that matches a rise between 1990 and 2005 in the number and intensity of tropical cyclones. They say that this upward trend in loss “cannot be explained by commonly-used socioeconomic variables”. The distinction is an important one. Economic damage from climate-related events − ice storms, drought, flood, windstorms and heatwaves – has been on the increase for decades, but one explanation for this is population growth and economic development, even in the poorest regions. Read more here
7 October 2015, The Conversation, Oh no, we forgot about China – the flaw at the centre of the TPP. Like many trade policy initiatives, the newly finalised 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is motivated by a desire to help domestic exporters get better foreign market access. The key idea is one of mutual concessions – in exchange for foreign market access we give up some of our own subsidies or protection. Despite the headlines, however, the TPP agreement has little to do with the economic argument for free trade. This is because the economic gains from trade trade don’t come from exporting more, or from preferential market access. They have nothing to do with mutual concessions. Rather the gains from trade are derived from being able to import at lower prices. This means that costs of trade barriers are incurred by consumers in the country that imposes the trade barriers. Consequently the benefits of free trade can be mostly gained by removing one’s own trade barriers. This is the approach the Australia took toward trade policy when it unilaterally reduced tariffs throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This generated economic gains to Australians and didn’t require armies of lawyers and bureaucrats to manage the preferential access as rules of origin or tariff schedules. When one thinks about the costs of trade barriers and the benefits of trade liberalisation in these terms, it is easy to see major flaws in the TPP as an economic policy. Firstly because tariff barriers are all already very low between the member countries, any economic gains that might be realised by mutual concessions are likely to be exceedingly small. Reasonable estimates come up with numbers like one tenth of a percent of GDP. This, as the Nobel Laureate and economist Paul Krugman notes, is hardly world-shaking. Second, the TPP is an international club with exclusive benefits for members. Like any selective club, it’s not so much about who you let in, but who you keep out – like China. Read More here