U.S. Wins WTO Case to destroy India's Solar Power Industry

[Bubzer]

We can expect actions like this, only 10 times worse, all across the globe, should the TPP pass...

The World Trade Organization has decided for the United States in its case to use trade rules to crush India’s nascent solar industry. Climate be damned, national sovereignty be damned, trade rules come first. Protecting multinational corporations is the highest priority to the U.S. government Saving the planet from catastrophic climate change is not. India had been successfully implementing plans to shift rapidly from dirty climate killing coal to clean solar by building a domestic solar panel production industry, but the U.S. trade representative, working in the interests of multinational corporations, will not allow it.

India's power system, predominantly fueled by coal, is notoriously unreliable, but solar power is coming to the rescue. Locally generated rooftop and industrial scale solar is empowering communities across India while reducing pollution and creating local jobs. But the U.S. trade office took offense that India had buy local provisions to protect their investments in developing their domestic solar power industry and filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO found against India’s buy local provision to provide a reliable market for India's nascent solar power panel production industry. Ironically, the big winner in this case is China, the lowest cost producer of solar panels, not the United States. Moreover, buy local provisions have been used by U.S. states to build up local industries. This case could ultimately be turned against businesses in the United States that benefit from buy local rules if China went to the WTO fight for its manufacturers.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman was positively giddy about his successful effort to stifle growing competition in the developing world that might challenge the dominance of large multinational corporations in the energy industry.

"Today, the WTO panel agreed with the United States that India's 'localization' measures discriminate against US manufacturers and are against WTO rules," Froman said. The US and India "are strong supporters of the multilateral, rules-based trading system and take our WTO obligations seriously," he said. "This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory 'localization' policies." "The United States strongly supports the rapid deployment of solar energy around the world - including in India," Froman said. "But discriminatory policies in the clean energy space in fact undermine our efforts to promote clean energy by requiring the use of more expensive and less efficient equipment, raising the cost of generating clean energy and making it more difficult for clean energy sources to be competitive," he said. The US had challenged the Government of India's imposition of domestic content requirements for solar cells and modules under India's National Solar Mission.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/26/1491700/-U-S-Wins-WTO-Case-to-Stomp-India-s-Nascent-Solar-Power-Industry?detail=facebook

[Ed Suspicious]

1. I don't want trade agreements if they restrict communities from acting locally in their best

economic interests. This makes me just plain angry.

[Bubzer]

3. What I want to know is this....

When did it become an entitlement for corporations to be able to force their products onto sovereign nations? Countries should have an inviolate right to buy local if they so wish.

[Baobab]

14. The early 90s with NAFTA and WTO GATS. They were/are the two prototypes for US-style FTAs.

One thing though, the so called "negative list" in TiSA as far as I know, is new. That is sheer insanity, having it apply to "all service sectors and modes of supply".. by default, unless its carved out now..

FYI the web site italaw.com has collected almost all of the public case documents from various arbitral cases (but keep in mind that a very great many of them are private and never get to that stage, they call that the 'fright to regulate' hah hah) and I - fortunately or not have read a great many of them, there are some real doozies in there.

For example, don't count on revolutions or landslide Presidential elections or the dissolution of your country to get you out of the obligations you take on by signing one of these things.

Do you know about Achmea v. Slovak Republic for example?


---BTW, this case with India I think, is like so many of these things, backwards. its really much more about the US which is an extremely sensitive subject so this s a way of sending the message they want to send without saying it, and that is, get ready for changes on Mode Four.. Look up "Four Modes of Supply"

Progressive Liberalisation is a one way process so there will be no going back to protectionism and discrimination against their firms.. Costs on projects will be a lot cheaper but a lot of workers are going to be priced out of the labor market in developed countries without strong union protections.

Lots of developing countries are excited about that - and are gearing up for TiSA. For example, see the web sites of Cuts -Geneva and the South centre organizations..

This has been in the pipeline for a very log time but was stalled because of the sensitivity of the subject in America and the lack of Fast Track to allow Obama to put Mode Four on the table.

I wonder how they explain it all away, i don't see them telling Americans the truth about this, do you?

[Gabi Hayes]

4. Can you think of a better Republican whinefest

regarding federal hands-off, decentralized, local control of Everything?

why aren't they pitching a fit about this?

gee, I wonder.....

[pampango]

5. The republican base has wanted the US out of the WTO (and the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and

a host of other international organizations and agreements - all 'sovereignty-robbing') for a long time.

Here are parts of the Texas GOP party platform in 2012 (it was similar in 2008 too):

International Organizations – We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

United Nations – We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil.

Law of the Sea – Adopted by the UN in 1982, we still oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.

UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ― We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

National Sovereignty – We insist that the President and Congress defend our national sovereignty in accordance with their oaths of office. Therefore we believe the United States government must remain free of external control or influence ...

Several other state GOP platforms had similar provision in 2008 and 2012. They blame most of them on Democrats, of course, which actually makes some sense many of them, or their predecessors, did originate with FDR.

[Baobab]

16. The WTO is like the Mafia, you can't just leave. they know that, Thats just an act.

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)

The FTAs are based o neoliberal ideology - which is right wing ideology.

Look at Cameron in the UK. Classic neoliberal. Hillary is a neoliberal too, so was Bill Clinton.

Somebody remind me why anybody would see Obama or Hillary or even Bill- knowing what we know now. as "liberal" in the US meaning of the word.

To leave the US would have to compensate the injured parties for their expected lost profits.

Thats the whole idea, creating a binding lock in, that gives corporations legal supranational property rights to a ratchet like state where all the things that are profitable for corporations are captured and irreversable, and the country cannot withdraw nor can they reverse course on progressive liberalisation no matter how much the poor things want to. I often find myself thinking that we'll basically be looking at a world owed by corporations fairly soon, nations are basically losing ground very quickly and the governments, especially the US are literally owned by the large baking firms and other corporate interests, and they go about their business with basically zero care any more for what the impact is on people.

Also, the 20th century institutions are being rendered irrelevant by the new corporate global governance which is based on money being everything of course, so the trade deals systematically reject and nullify anything that puts people above money, democracy especially.

Countries now basically are a means off dividing up the world, selling rights, etc.. Also they help justify wars. Neither Presidential elections nor revolutions nor dissolutions of the country change these new corporate ownerships of everything economically relevant- . Once one is signed, conditions are carved in stone unless they agree in advance to compensation, based on expected lost profits. So I can see at least - maybe three of four trillion dollar bailouts per deal - in each of the at least four pending FTAs. Why else would they put all this effort into them? They end democracy. They make government a mae for TV drama.. Thats the real scary part of whats happening, the Presidential election is basically more and more likely to soon be totally irrelevant and government we see a show, made for TV entertainment.

Thats the way totalitarian governments ALWAYS do government, BTW.

[pampango]

20. Bernie was co-sponsor of a bill in 2005 to have the US withdraw from the WTO.

The bill was defeated 338-86 in the House. 46 Democrats plus Bernie and 39 republicans voted YES.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll239.xml

WTO membership

******

Any Member may withdraw from this Agreement, as well as from other multilateral agreements. Such withdrawal shall take effect upon the expiration of six months from the date on which notice of withdrawal is received by the Director-General.

http://www.wto.am/en/membership

To leave the US would have to compensate the injured parties for their expected lost profits.

I have never heard that before. Do you have a link to that? Bernie and a bunch of Democrats must not have known that in 2005. Or perhaps they knew it was just an 'act'.

[Baobab]

29. Yes, i totally support Bernie Sanders- Okay, here the section is GATS Article XXI procedure.

This is a good introduction to any reading on this issue..

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/putting_health_first.pdf

Also this just came out, its about TPP, and its very much on point:

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/major-complications
----------


Gats Article XXI procedure- the one we signed in 1995 - but were never told about is also described in these two documents, below both of which have a lot of other related information.

http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf (This is also a must read, as it explains the problem of GATS blocking state healthcare plans, especially single payer . Its from the government of the state of Maine. Note it also shows the TiSA talks began in 2006, ten years ago!)

BTW, Single payer has to real single payer and also - cannot be "optional" that was a scam cooked up by the health insurance industry to use as bait.. also, it is guaranteed to fail, as was OC.

the reasons are simple- Adverse selection and falling incomes relative to the cost of health insurance, which is only ging to get orse as jobs vanish and wealth concentrates-

but the reality has been proven again and again by state plan after state plan all failing in the same way after approximately the same amount of time..

http://www.pnhp.org/states_flatline/State%20Health%20Reform%20Flatlines%20IJHS%20-%202008.pdf


Single payer is a working system but it has to be single payer, that sounds a bit repetitive but as I have had innumerable arguments with people i could just tell were paid confusers, I know this territiry intimately, It must be all or nothing to work. In other words, it cannot be a healthcare plan of last resort for the sick - thats called a high risk pool, it absolutely cannot exist alongside of commercial insurance plans, and charging money. There can't be fees - also because of the way WTO GATS (and TiSA, which borrows the same definition of scope) work, a health care plan has to be completely noncommercial to avoid a TiSA attack which leads straight to piecemeal privatization -... The same (GATS Article I:3 (b) and (c) - related issues apply to public education and virtually all other public services. (see links that I have posted repeatedly before or Google these phrases - especially the bolded one "For the purposes of this Agreement…

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers." )

......

http://www.citizen.org/documents/PresidentialWTOreport.pdf (Must read, also don't miss the references)

Proof that the EU has an outstanding request in to the US to harmonize state insurance plan (the 'selling of ne plan across state lines- is a precondition to entry into the US market often mentioned by experts as being a "stepping stone to no single payer ever" You'll notice that selling one policy across state lines is a consistent element of both GOP and I think perhaps also the Obama Administration has mentioned it. (if so, that would be classic Obama Administration signalling behavior that he really would like to trap us with it, but can't.)


http://www.citizen.org/documents/usa.pdf (under NAIC Model Law)

I have others - Brazil has also made that request. So a Brazilian firm wants to sell health insurance to Americans, but cant because of the 50 states. Once they come in, getting rid of them becomes unbelievably costly, and as I said that i essential to having single payer that works.


Also, of course, TiSA which is almost completed, TTIP and TPP.:

[pampango]

39. None of your links have anything to do with "To leave the US would have to compensate the injured

parties for their expected lost profits. "

You make a good case against STAYING In the WTO since that is what leads to compensating the injured parties for their expected lost profits. But LEAVING the WTO would not require "compensation the injured parties for their expected lost profits."

Bernie seems to understand this. India, the US and every other country probably understand this too. They all just have to decide whether the staying in or leaving the WTO is better for their countries.

In Russia there were recent discussions on whether to stay in the WTO (they just joined in 2012) in the wake of the sanctions levied against it by the US and EU. They have, at least for the moment, decided to stay in. In reports of their discussions that I have read there was no mention of any penalties for withdrawing from it; just a balancing of the pros and cons of WTO membership.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. USA!! USA!! Spreading democracy...or, something.

[RussBLib]

6. as I understand it, India can still build its own solar power industry

but "buy local" provisions have to go. That doesn't mean that they cannot actually buy local in India, just that it cannot be mandated.

But maybe I don't understand it that well.

[okaawhatever]

13. You're correct. This article is highly misleading. First, the WTO is a voluntary agreement and

India can exit at any time. What it does is try to level the playing field so that countries can't manipulate sectors in their economy to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

The issue isn't whether India can have a buy India first provision. They can, what they can't do is have a "buy India first" and be a member of an organization that prohibits everyone else from having one. Modi knows this. This whole thing smells political to me.

Thanks to trade agreements,the WtO, and EU China was stopped from driving every other solar manufacturer out of business with their price supports and dumping of panels.

Articles like this are designed to mislead Democrats and that is disappointing to me. We need to understand the challenges to alternative energy both here and abroad. Crap like this article doesn't help.

[Jim Beard]

28. You are correct and I want the truth rather than talking point.

I went to Kos and then the link to the original article. This is what it said....

USTR said it initiated this dispute in February 2013 because it considered that India's domestic content requirements are inconsistent with WTO rules that prohibit discrimination against imported products. The US, it said, has consistently made the case that India can achieve its clean energy goals faster and more cost-effectively by allowing solar technologies to be imported from the US and other solar producers.

Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/international/wto-rules-against-india-on-us-solar-exports-2023454.html
World Trade

[okaawhatever]

30. Thanks for that. I'm going to read the article now. nt

.

[Jitter65]

15. More BS by the BS fans, no doubt. looks like a win for the US to me.

[Baobab]

17. Exporting LNG may cause a lot of homelessness-as well as a building boomlet in the US

Even if energy costs only go up 60% thats still going to mean a lot of postwar buildings torn down and legal changes that make housung much more market driven.

Read this:

"For the purposes of this Agreement…

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."



Google that second line and you'll find that it means no NEW "public services" including housing. Also existing "services" wherever any money is involved are not considered to be public, and then GATS and TISA and TPP apply and they have to be private.The US framing is that doing it any other way is a theft from corporations. And its a one way street with no way out. That's called "progressive liberalisation"

Government spending also has to be allocated by objective criteria, not simply spent in your own country. To create jobs. Thats no longer allowed. Its discrimination.


So, the real mesage here is America is open for business, no mater how different you are, we just care about how low you bid.

Indian firms will get equal access to the bidding process, and be well situated to win, and likely get a lot of business.

Government grants are government spending. Say if they only give the builders $1000 per unit, that will mean the entire project has to be put up for competitive building. People leaving New York because of the changes will need homes, right. Affordable homes. Somewhere.

This is Obama's specialty. "Redevelopment"

[Baobab]

31. "Where have you been the last 20 years?" (Joking) (thats okay, I know.. here!)

Dont you know about neoliberalism? Globalization?

Thats okay, I can see a lot of people - almost everybody seems not to..

>but "buy local" provisions have to go. That doesn't mean that they cannot actually buy local in India,

well, that is kind of what it says, and it works both ways-

>just that it cannot be mandated.


but like here, it wouldnt be cool if you had government contracts and discriminated, the difference will be that the prohibited kinds of discrimination will shift and the most dangerous discrimination will be discriminating against foreign firms. Because firms that tried to get the work (and their bids ill likely get cheaper and cheaper as they become more and more automated, and workers work for less and less) but if they dont get it they may be able to sue and that will be a second income stream for companies that manage to automate that..Also, many of them will be allowed to engage in the kinds of discrimination that in the past triggered red flags here. Also, wages likely wont be involved, Americans, displaced workers, public opinion, may be going derserk, it wont matter.. At that point the battle will be over, we likely wont have any say in that. te time for that is closing in geneva r wherever, the fact that these negotiations have been going on for so longand have been kept secret by everybody should be humbling to us, and make us realize we have blown it and fucked up. We should understand that fif we lose this, race to the bottom is on, and understand they are going to undercut wages a lot. A real lot. So then the focus will likely be escape people will try to find a place to escape, to, but wont.


What it means is that when they buy something it has to be put up for public bidding, and companies from around the world bid on the work. An RFP, have you ever seen or responded to an RFP?

"Request for proposals"

So if I have some chunk of state money, soon there will be no minimum, and all service sectors and modes of supply not excluded now are included, i.e. "negative list" - suppose I want to spend some government money for any reason, a job, a contract that comes up every couple of years, maybe it is not the case now but eventually, not far into the future, more and more and eventually all government speding that isnt exempted by exemptions that appear to be an inside joke on us, us all, people everywhere, say in this case, offer some solar related incentive, and as part of it I have to hire "a solar contractor" to do the work, it has to be public and specified in such a way (generically and using objective criteria) that it doesn't deliberately select my fellow Americans preferentially. Not only that but if irregardless of my intent or not, it has the effect of only getting bids from my usual bidders, suddenly under newer deals, it seems to me that the risk is there that something is assumed to be wrong then because the goal of everything is to increase trade right, right..

so then I may find that that isnt enough - My fear and I think its likely real, is that the whole thing is a legal nightmare thats going to bite us hard soon, either by forcing companies to completely automate, or by resulting in NO US firms getting any of that business unless we literally dump the minimum wage and race to the bottom on wages.. and even then, I see problems with having employees because of their state of desperation and the extended families who will be depending on them may lead to insanity or suicides if somebody is fired or similar. And firings likely will be very common because of the huge labor pool of workers needing jobs, all losing their homes at the same time, Also theft will likely be a serious problem. Also the stress will cause endemic, chronic PTSD which is irreversible, leading to massive health care costs or god forbid genocide.

Desire on the par of employers to do anything to avoid this trap will not be enough because as non-gvernment sending is dependent on a middle class, the percentage f spending that is government spending will likely rise, even as the economy implodes, also the percentage of income that is not derived from work will skyrocket, currently 62 people own half the world's wealth, I predict that aproximately 25 people will own half the word's wealth by 2026 ten years from today.

terror of the masses and possible cannibalism by them, will speed the adoption of automation and make it much more urgent to have a human free workplace, exacerbating the problem still more.



---------

Foreign firms get rights that domestic firms never had to question everything if they feel like they and their workforces are being discriminated against.

[closeupready]

7. The WTO is a paper tiger.

India can and should ignore this ruling, just as the US does when it's convenient.

[randome]

9. Are you kidding? India signed the agreement to prevent exactly this from occurring.

They benefit from the same provisions in other countries.

All they have to do is open the industry to all comers and not erect trade barriers that benefit themselves. Their industry won't be 'destroyed' or 'decimated' then.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[closeupready]

11. No, I'm not kidding. The WTO does NOT enforce their rulings.

[Baobab]

18. Sure they do, look at the WTO US Online Gambling Case

Antigua v US, Antigua won..

Also, TiSA is not WTO.

[closeupready]

21. Which remained unenforced. So you reinforce my point.

Thx.

[malaise]

8. All international agencies are tools

for the empire. This shit will crack wide open one of these days

[pampango]

10. And few of those international agencies existed under Herbert Hoover. FDR started

the ball rolling on the whole international agency idea and it has grown from there.

This shit will crack wide open one of these days.

I suspect you are right. Nationalism is growing in Europe and here, particularly on the right but on the left too. The internationalism of the FDR era is dying and will probably "crack wide open" soon.

[malaise]

12. Partly true but I'm thinking more of the multilaterals

as in IMF, World Bank, WTO and GATT. WTO and GATT are more recent. Essentially they facilitate the right of corporations over citizens and governments.

I would argue that Bretton Woods created the foundation for the entire neo-liberal project and when White rejected Keynes proposal, the stage was set for today's mess.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund

Keynes proposed that any country racking up a large trade deficit (equating to more than half of its bancor overdraft allowance) would be charged interest on its account. It would also be obliged to reduce the value of its currency and to prevent the export of capital. But - and this was the key to his system - he insisted that the nations with a trade surplus would be subject to similar pressures. Any country with a bancor credit balance that was more than half the size of its overdraft facility would be charged interest, at a rate of 10%. It would also be obliged to increase the value of its currency and to permit the export of capital. If, by the end of the year, its credit balance exceeded the total value of its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated. The nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it. In doing so, they would automatically clear other nations' deficits.
Advertisement

When Keynes began to explain his idea, in papers published in 1942 and 1943, it detonated in the minds of all who read it. The British economist Lionel Robbins reported that "it would be difficult to exaggerate the electrifying effect on thought throughout the whole relevant apparatus of government ... nothing so imaginative and so ambitious had ever been discussed". Economists all over the world saw that Keynes had cracked it. As the Allies prepared for the Bretton Woods conference, Britain adopted Keynes's solution as its official negotiating position.

But there was one country - at the time the world's biggest creditor - in which his proposal was less welcome. The head of the American delegation at Bretton Woods, Harry Dexter White, responded to Keynes's idea thus: "We have been perfectly adamant on that point. We have taken the position of absolutely no." Instead he proposed an International Stabilisation Fund, which would place the entire burden of maintaining the balance of trade on the deficit nations. It would impose no limits on the surplus that successful exporters could accumulate. He also suggested an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which would provide capital for economic reconstruction after the war. White, backed by the financial clout of the US treasury, prevailed. The International Stabilisation Fund became the International Monetary Fund. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development remains the principal lending arm of the World Bank.

The consequences, especially for the poorest indebted countries, have been catastrophic. Acting on behalf of the rich, imposing conditions that no free country would tolerate, the IMF has bled them dry. As Joseph Stiglitz has shown, the fund compounds existing economic crises and creates crises where none existed before. It has destabilised exchange rates, exacerbated balance of payments problems, forced countries into debt and recession, wrecked public services and destroyed the jobs and incomes of tens of millions of people.
-----------------------------------
The IMF and World Bank orthodoxy over-ruled all that was Keynesian. Strangely it is the big Western countries who control the leadership and everything else related to these agencies.

[pampango]

19. The real point is that prior to FDR, none of these international institutions existed. Under Herbert

Hoover, there were none. FDR changed that. And many on the right (particularly Trump who wants to go back to the unilateral tariffs of the Hoover era) want to go back to the pre-FDR world.

The IMF, World Bank and GATT (part of the ITO) were proposed in FDR's Bretton Woods conference. Others did develop later either evolving from these FDR institutions or from the same internationalism that he fostered.

WTO and GATT are more recent.

GATT was actually a small part of the ITO proposed by FDR at Bretton Woods. ITO negotiations took so long that by the time it was signed, republicans were strong enough in congress to refuse to ratify it. GATT had been just a small, transitional part of the ITO to govern trade until the ITO came into existence. When congress rejected the ITO, Truman authorized GATT by executive order in 1948. So we can 'blame' Truman for GATT since FDR's ITO never saw the light of day.

I would argue that Bretton Woods created the foundation for the entire neo-liberal project ...

Bretton Woods certainly represented FDR's rejection of the isolationism of the 1920's that he inherited. All the new institutions represented an effort to have countries act cooperatively to govern how the world interacts rather than have each country act independently and, often, at cross purposes.

The institutions that came out of FDR's Bretton Woods diminished the role of what he saw as excessive nationalism (and, I suppose, national sovereignty) in the 1920's and 30's and which he partially blamed for the Depression and war in favor of more international approach.

The historical cycle from nationalism to internationalism back to nationalism and so on has happened before in history. I think we agree that we are headed to a new period of enhanced nationalism. The cycle goes on.

[jeff47]

26. FDR was in a world of 100% tariffs.

These days, tariffs are either non-existent or dwarfed by currency fluctuation. For example, Japan's average tariff on US goods is 1%. Yen vs Dollar moves far more than that.

The solutions for a 100% tariff world are not necessarily the solutions for a 0% tariff world.

[pampango]

38. "The solutions for a 100% tariff world are not necessarily the solutions for a 0% tariff world."Good

point. Of course, it is the internationalism of FDR and Truman and the institutions they created that led us from a "100% tariff world" to a "0%" one. Though the average tariff under Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Act in 1930 was 19.8%, not 100%.

How do we change from what we have now to a "5% tariff world" or a 10% one or a "25% to 45%" (take that Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley) unilateral tariff world as proposed by Trump (and smiled upon by the ghost of Herbert Hoover) without causing FDR to roll over in his grave?

These days, tariffs are either non-existent or dwarfed by currency fluctuation.

Agreed. If the value of a currency in say Greece or Venezuela falls, that is understandable and perhaps good for the country. If it falls in a healthy country as the result of manipulation that is another story.

It is hard to imagine countries worried about their 'national sovereignty' signing a trade agreement that allowed international arbitration panels to control the value of a country's currency.

It is a complicated problem with a complicated solution (whatever that is). (Demagogues like Trump always over-simplify solutions.) Going back to Hoover's 'anything goes' unilateralism, Trump's views notwithstanding, would hardly be a liberal solution. But just driving down tariffs without considering labor, human rights and environmental issues is not the answer either.

[malaise]

33. Good response ut in diminishing the role of excessive nationalism

(and national sovereignty) they also diminished the role of the state and therefore the mixed economy.

The new nationalism will be for the big Western powers while the former colonies won't be allowed to give their own people the big contracts.

[pampango]

36. FDR and Truman proposed and supported the diminishment of 'national sovereigty' represented by

these international organizations and agreements.

... they also diminished the role of the state and therefore the mixed economy.

Not in places like Sweden or Germany which belong to the same entities that the US belongs to. Apparently FDR and Truman accepted that exchange of some 'national sovereignty' for enhanced international cooperation as a net positive trade-off. They both were strong supporters of the role of the state and a mixed economy.

The new nationalism will be for the big Western powers while the former colonies won't be allowed to give their own people the big contracts.

Perhaps but there is plenty resistance here to weakening or eliminating "Buy American" or "employ Americans" provisions in government spending similar to what happened to India in this case.

[malaise]

37. True but members of the 'club' are often given a pass

I agree with you re 'plenty resistance'.
There is resistance in India as well and what this decision does is weaken the Western argument particularly given their historical relationship with the Soviet Union and the disaster that is neo-liberalism in India. India was non-aligned for a long time in the recent past. There is resistance among citizens in all countries where neo-liberalism has been imposed. The cracks will widen.

[Baobab]

32. Obama Administration and india sending message to disregard Bernie and his talk about

returning to protectionism and "job creation" in violation of the last 25 years of US policy and the policy of "progressive liberalisation"

This decision and the USTR statement is CLASSIC Obama Administration signaling behavior.


Obama really is masterful at this double messaging thing... cant you see how this is actually a message that represents the neoliberals saying we're cooperating with India to push wages down with globalization, we just cant say THAT because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

This is a "democracy" after all.. *wink*

-----------

Related!

[Recursion]

34. Wow, you're going to be really surprised and disappointed to find out where Sanders stands on this

Guess what: it's not with India having protective tariffs that prevent American exports.

[malaise]

35. If you think this is about Obama

you haven't read the history. This is about an economic system that has existed and strengthened since WW2.

Thankfully the cracks are widening and will break wide open one day.

[LittleBlue]

22. IMO this ruling is probably good for India

This means their markets will remain competitive, unlike the dumping in China which resulted in the collapse of their solar energy companies.

For the good of the people and the environment, prices should remain as low as possible so more people adopt solar power.

[JI7]

23. our doesn't destroy their industry . it just means they compete with foreigners

[Bubzer]

24. Who're you kidding... they'll be undercut by companies with old money.

They'll cease to exist in no-time flat, and then the old money will step in and raise rates to egregious levels. It happens all the time here in the states. Big business has very effective strategies for destroying small businesses.

[JI7]

25. isn't this a new industry ? one problem in India was lack of competition and

Making it difficult for new businesses to start up.

[Bubzer]

27. It's a new industry, yes... lacking much in the way of support...

Meaning easier to crush under the heel of bigger businesses. More competition isn't going to help. In fact, international competition will siphon off whatever is keeping the locally owned industry alive. I cannot fathom how you think bringing in outside competition would be good for them.