Archive for April 2013
International Trade and the Pursuit of Happiness
Today’s economic crisis has brought European morale down to a historical low. With jobs hard to find and recovery nothing but a mirage, where are people to turn for some stability, solace and maybe a bit of optimism?
A few things are taken as essentials. Eat, pray and love, we have been told, is all we need. Given this logic, all industries related to such noble pursuits, by definition, will never die. If you work in one of these areas (or in Hollywood), just relax, your job is safe. Even if the crisis lasts another couple of decades, there is still no way that restaurants will be empty, that the wine market will crash and that the real estate business of the Vatican will implode. Rich people will always buy fancy, expensive bottles. Poor people will always get drunk with cheap ones. And, together, they will happily gather in front of the church on God’s day (hopefully not with bottles in hand).
And love? Come on! Life without wine and religion is already almost impossible to conceive. You cannot, in any way, conceive life without love (pun intended). After all, when your brilliant career and your money are gone, your wife, husband or your fiancée will still be there. If not, there is always the most cost-efficient, trouble-free solution: self-love. And if all else fails, no matter how bad the crisis gets, at least the sex product industry will always flourish.
But maybe not…
As a matter of fact, sex toys are produced from the same raw materials many other labour intensive goods are made. Thus, suffering from the same “social dumping” effect other low-cost products have faced for decades. On top of that, the tariffs levied at the European borders for the import of these kinds of products are close to zero. This is not the case the other way around. On top of this the more elaborate and - apparently - efficient devices need the support of electric equipment. Electric appliances are often produced by making use of the so called rare earths (a.k.a. scarce raw materials) which are found - and jealously kept - almost exclusively in countries whose low cost imports are already threatening our sex-related manufacturing jobs.
The opening of international markets, coupled with the economic crisis, seem then to be threatening our most representative manufacturing industries. The ones that do survive are, for different reasons, operating in a non-competitive market. To be honest, what is saving the European wine industry from external competition are the legal constructs of geographical indications and appellations of origin. What is shielding the Vatican real estate business from competition is a particularly favourable treatment and the lack, and this is perfectly coherent, of an anti-trust discipline. But in the absence of protectionist tricks applicable to the love industry, will pure market forces eventually lead our glorious sex toys manufacturers to an inevitable end?
As grim as the future looks like, there might still be one hope for the future of the industry and the jobs of European workers and businessmen operating in this field. Competition, it is well known, is fiercer when companies in low labour cost countries can also take advantage of economies of scale. In this case, however, a geographically diversified demand might render this specific economic theory inapplicable.
Size matters, after all.
A few things are taken as essentials. Eat, pray and love, we have been told, is all we need. Given this logic, all industries related to such noble pursuits, by definition, will never die. If you work in one of these areas (or in Hollywood), just relax, your job is safe. Even if the crisis lasts another couple of decades, there is still no way that restaurants will be empty, that the wine market will crash and that the real estate business of the Vatican will implode. Rich people will always buy fancy, expensive bottles. Poor people will always get drunk with cheap ones. And, together, they will happily gather in front of the church on God’s day (hopefully not with bottles in hand).
And love? Come on! Life without wine and religion is already almost impossible to conceive. You cannot, in any way, conceive life without love (pun intended). After all, when your brilliant career and your money are gone, your wife, husband or your fiancée will still be there. If not, there is always the most cost-efficient, trouble-free solution: self-love. And if all else fails, no matter how bad the crisis gets, at least the sex product industry will always flourish.
But maybe not…
As a matter of fact, sex toys are produced from the same raw materials many other labour intensive goods are made. Thus, suffering from the same “social dumping” effect other low-cost products have faced for decades. On top of that, the tariffs levied at the European borders for the import of these kinds of products are close to zero. This is not the case the other way around. On top of this the more elaborate and - apparently - efficient devices need the support of electric equipment. Electric appliances are often produced by making use of the so called rare earths (a.k.a. scarce raw materials) which are found - and jealously kept - almost exclusively in countries whose low cost imports are already threatening our sex-related manufacturing jobs.
The opening of international markets, coupled with the economic crisis, seem then to be threatening our most representative manufacturing industries. The ones that do survive are, for different reasons, operating in a non-competitive market. To be honest, what is saving the European wine industry from external competition are the legal constructs of geographical indications and appellations of origin. What is shielding the Vatican real estate business from competition is a particularly favourable treatment and the lack, and this is perfectly coherent, of an anti-trust discipline. But in the absence of protectionist tricks applicable to the love industry, will pure market forces eventually lead our glorious sex toys manufacturers to an inevitable end?
As grim as the future looks like, there might still be one hope for the future of the industry and the jobs of European workers and businessmen operating in this field. Competition, it is well known, is fiercer when companies in low labour cost countries can also take advantage of economies of scale. In this case, however, a geographically diversified demand might render this specific economic theory inapplicable.Size matters, after all.
‘Europe’ and the Legacy Thatcher’s Fall on British Conservatives
Think what you will about her, the late Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister for 11 years, has left a legacy that volumes of blog articles could be dedicated to. To mark her passing, it is worth considering the subject that became the ‘Iron Lady’s’ undoing: the UK’s place, role and may I dare say, destiny, in ‘Europe’.
For all her bravado and ‘Iron Lady’ mythology, Thatcher, at the top of her game, was far more pragmatic a political animal than popular narrative would suggest. Her record on engagement with the then European Community (EC) is a case in point here. Most mental images of her Premiership evoke that most quintessential moment of hand-bagging folk-law: “I want my money back!” At the time, this was an unabashedly populist message, crafted by a struggling Prime Minister, in desperate need of revival.
The British rebate that she negotiated was, however, only a small part of the story. The British Conservative Party was the vehicle through which the UK’s membership of the EC was attained, thanks to the personal conviction of Thatcher’s predecessor, Edward Heath. She campaigned convincingly for the UK’s continued membership of the EC in the referendum campaign of 1975. Back then, it was broadly the Conservatives who were Europhile and Labour the Eurosceptics. Indeed, during their crushing general election victory in 1983, the Conservatives sort to distinguish themselves from Labour through a commitment the UK’s “European future”.
More than this, Thatcher made her own significant contribution to European integration, namely, the creation of the Single Market. The passing of the Single European Act in 1986, which saw her team-up with Socialist Commission President, Jacques Delors, (that’s right) was the treaty that paved the way for the creation of the European Union as we know it today. Importantly, it entailed the renunciation of significant chunks of national power to the supranational level.
Still, what became known as her Bruges Speech, in 1988, outlines most succinctly her ‘European vision’: an ideological opposition to the centralisation of power towards Brussels as an end in itself and the attempt to homogenise ‘Europeaness’ into a one-size-fits-all mould. Most significantly for UK policy, it symbolically defined the point from which the Conservatives ceased to be “the Party of Europe”.
The ardently Eurosceptic Thatcher of caricature however didn’t appear until the very end of her Premiership and was mainly saved for her time out of office – a few sandwiches short of the full pick-nick. Her hardening Euroscepticism was the trigger that led to Party rebellion and her downfall. More importantly for present UK policy, it spelt the beginning of a Conservative civil war over Party policy towards the EU. In the end, a turbo-charged Thatcherite Euroscepticism won.
Fast-forward from Bruges to Bloomberg and this poisoned legacy is on display. Cameron, you might have thought, might has well have blown the dust off Thatcher’s Bruges speech and read it out again. That would silence the back-benchers – wouldn't it? Not with revolutionary lines like, “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.” Conservative Euroscepticism has increasingly become a caricature of itself. Now, Cameron is prepared to abandon Thatcher’s “seat at the table” policy to attempt peace within his Party and outflank UKIP. Hardly the statesman.
Thatcher leaves therefore two quite different EU legacies. First, what she actually did as a Prime Minister: furthering European integration and Britain’s enmeshment within that process. Second, spark a civil war within the Conservative Party, which has seen a warped and uncompromising version of her final Eurosceptic vision triumph.
Where does this leave the British Conservative Party now? They preside over a political group in the European Parliament with a name as oxymoronic as you’re ever likely to come across – both Conservative and Reformist in equal measure? Most fundamentally though they face a deep policy contradiction: they want a strong single market, but not the necessarily strong supranational governance to achieve this among a club of nation-states. The more pragmatic Thatcher of the Single European Act could not even argue with this logic.
 |
| From "Yes" to "No No No!" |
The British rebate that she negotiated was, however, only a small part of the story. The British Conservative Party was the vehicle through which the UK’s membership of the EC was attained, thanks to the personal conviction of Thatcher’s predecessor, Edward Heath. She campaigned convincingly for the UK’s continued membership of the EC in the referendum campaign of 1975. Back then, it was broadly the Conservatives who were Europhile and Labour the Eurosceptics. Indeed, during their crushing general election victory in 1983, the Conservatives sort to distinguish themselves from Labour through a commitment the UK’s “European future”.
More than this, Thatcher made her own significant contribution to European integration, namely, the creation of the Single Market. The passing of the Single European Act in 1986, which saw her team-up with Socialist Commission President, Jacques Delors, (that’s right) was the treaty that paved the way for the creation of the European Union as we know it today. Importantly, it entailed the renunciation of significant chunks of national power to the supranational level.
Still, what became known as her Bruges Speech, in 1988, outlines most succinctly her ‘European vision’: an ideological opposition to the centralisation of power towards Brussels as an end in itself and the attempt to homogenise ‘Europeaness’ into a one-size-fits-all mould. Most significantly for UK policy, it symbolically defined the point from which the Conservatives ceased to be “the Party of Europe”.
The ardently Eurosceptic Thatcher of caricature however didn’t appear until the very end of her Premiership and was mainly saved for her time out of office – a few sandwiches short of the full pick-nick. Her hardening Euroscepticism was the trigger that led to Party rebellion and her downfall. More importantly for present UK policy, it spelt the beginning of a Conservative civil war over Party policy towards the EU. In the end, a turbo-charged Thatcherite Euroscepticism won.
Fast-forward from Bruges to Bloomberg and this poisoned legacy is on display. Cameron, you might have thought, might has well have blown the dust off Thatcher’s Bruges speech and read it out again. That would silence the back-benchers – wouldn't it? Not with revolutionary lines like, “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.” Conservative Euroscepticism has increasingly become a caricature of itself. Now, Cameron is prepared to abandon Thatcher’s “seat at the table” policy to attempt peace within his Party and outflank UKIP. Hardly the statesman.
Thatcher leaves therefore two quite different EU legacies. First, what she actually did as a Prime Minister: furthering European integration and Britain’s enmeshment within that process. Second, spark a civil war within the Conservative Party, which has seen a warped and uncompromising version of her final Eurosceptic vision triumph.
Where does this leave the British Conservative Party now? They preside over a political group in the European Parliament with a name as oxymoronic as you’re ever likely to come across – both Conservative and Reformist in equal measure? Most fundamentally though they face a deep policy contradiction: they want a strong single market, but not the necessarily strong supranational governance to achieve this among a club of nation-states. The more pragmatic Thatcher of the Single European Act could not even argue with this logic.
Why No One Cares About Geographical Indications
Ok, sure. The EU has tried to spread its propaganda about “famous European products” like “Tuscany olives” in America. They harp on about the climate, soil, sun, blah blah blah. I’ll let you in on a little secret. If I wanted to know about the micro climate of a 10x10 ft2 plot of land (that’s 3.048 m2 for those unable to grasp the imperial system) I would have asked.
But most likely not.
When I want a bottle of wine I go to the store and look at the things that matter. Like the brand, how much it costs, and how pretty the label is. Now let’s not confuse the label on the side of the bottle with that random sticker they put on the top. You know, the one that’s written in some strange script supposedly certifying something or another. As far as I’m concerned it’s more of a child safety seal than anything to make sure no one’s been messing with my shit.
In the mood to celebrate? Bust out the Cristal or Dom Perignon. In the market to buy a palette of the bubbly? Go to COSTCO and pick up a year’s supply of Veuve Clicquot. Why? Because they’re from La Champagne, the finest territory to produce a crisp, refined, sparkling wine? No. Because popular rap songs and widespread marketing have taught us that these brands even are champagne. Though, I doubt Drake would know the difference if you swapped in a Prosecco or Cava and told him it was Champagne.
We must not forget we’re living in times of crisis. Cost plays a factor everyday when making purchases. Given this logic, if someone in California brings back an olive cutting from Tuscany and nurtures it like one of Mr. Miyagi’s bonsai trees, why shouldn't they be able to sell their very own “Tuscany olives” at the store? If it saves me money and is passable for the original, guess what’s being served at my next cocktail party.
If these reasons aren't enough to dispel the myth of the GI fairy, just look at the Office of the US Trade Representative's website. Seeing as the only subsection under Intellectual Property is ACTA (meanwhile, the European Commission dedicates an entire page to GIs), I think it’s safe to say, that for all intents and purposes, geographical indications don’t exist.
In spite of these well founded arguments, it's likely that the EU is is going to press the issue of GI's during the comprehensive trade agreement negotiations. Should the US be coaxed into a global GI regime, I've taken the liberty to come up with a short list of products that the US should immediately seek protection as part of the country's "rich history of local and specialized agricultural production":
Mad Dog 2020, Fortified Wine
Westfield, New York
(Bonus: Comes in flavors such as Orange Jubilee and Banana Red)
Fig Newtons, Cakes, cookies, whatever you want to call them really
Newton, Massachusetts
(Picture required because who really knows what a fig looks like)
Buffalo Wings
Buffalo, NY
(Hat additional)
But most likely not.
When I want a bottle of wine I go to the store and look at the things that matter. Like the brand, how much it costs, and how pretty the label is. Now let’s not confuse the label on the side of the bottle with that random sticker they put on the top. You know, the one that’s written in some strange script supposedly certifying something or another. As far as I’m concerned it’s more of a child safety seal than anything to make sure no one’s been messing with my shit.
In the mood to celebrate? Bust out the Cristal or Dom Perignon. In the market to buy a palette of the bubbly? Go to COSTCO and pick up a year’s supply of Veuve Clicquot. Why? Because they’re from La Champagne, the finest territory to produce a crisp, refined, sparkling wine? No. Because popular rap songs and widespread marketing have taught us that these brands even are champagne. Though, I doubt Drake would know the difference if you swapped in a Prosecco or Cava and told him it was Champagne.We must not forget we’re living in times of crisis. Cost plays a factor everyday when making purchases. Given this logic, if someone in California brings back an olive cutting from Tuscany and nurtures it like one of Mr. Miyagi’s bonsai trees, why shouldn't they be able to sell their very own “Tuscany olives” at the store? If it saves me money and is passable for the original, guess what’s being served at my next cocktail party.
If these reasons aren't enough to dispel the myth of the GI fairy, just look at the Office of the US Trade Representative's website. Seeing as the only subsection under Intellectual Property is ACTA (meanwhile, the European Commission dedicates an entire page to GIs), I think it’s safe to say, that for all intents and purposes, geographical indications don’t exist.
In spite of these well founded arguments, it's likely that the EU is is going to press the issue of GI's during the comprehensive trade agreement negotiations. Should the US be coaxed into a global GI regime, I've taken the liberty to come up with a short list of products that the US should immediately seek protection as part of the country's "rich history of local and specialized agricultural production":
Mad Dog 2020, Fortified Wine Westfield, New York
(Bonus: Comes in flavors such as Orange Jubilee and Banana Red)
Fig Newtons, Cakes, cookies, whatever you want to call them really
Newton, Massachusetts
(Picture required because who really knows what a fig looks like)
Buffalo Wings
Buffalo, NY
(Hat additional)
Uncovered: The Commission Proposal to Harmonise Sex
In a shocking new discovery it has been revealed that the
European Commission is to propose a new Directive that will oblige EU member
states to replace the term sexual
intercourse, and all related words and expressions, with “More Europe!”.
According to Commission sources, the rationale for
the Directive is its necessity for the completion of the single
market. This comes as a late addition to a new push to extend the reach of the
single market in the services sector, which remains only
marginally liberalised compared to the movement of goods and people. “It’s a real
mess”, noted one Commission official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity: “there
are so many different words, terms and expressions for such a crucial services
sector that we can’t truly talk about a single market until we have at least a
minimal degree of harmonisation here.”
In spite of the official rationale, there is clearly
more to this new proposal than meets the eye. The urgency with which the proposal
has been driven through is indicative of creeping panic within the Commission to scenes of EU flag burning
on the streets of Athens and Nicosia. It has become deeply
concerned that European integration is becoming increasingly linked with
painful austerity measures and structural reforms that increase unemployment.
In response to this, the Commission is attempting to create new mental images as
to what more Europe means to ordinary EU citizens.
In a heated Council meeting, it is alleged that a
confrontation between the UK and the Commission occurred, whereby the UK expressed
deep opposition to the need to specify a quantity of ‘Europe’, noting that the
said Directive was tantamount to trying to get more Europe via the back-door The
Commission responded that, given the context of the discussion, such
comments were vulgar and inappropriate; moreover, that the very nature of sexual
intercourse, as the act of supreme union and the ultimate expression solidarity,
could only be conveyed through more, not less, Europe.
While the precise content of the proposal remains
unknown, it has been suggested that all official use of the term sexual
intercourse and its variants will be harmonised to the single term “More
Europe!” by 2015. This creates many difficult questions surrounding the pre-dated
usage of ‘old’ terms for which the Commission is expected to allow a 12-year phasing-out
period of dual-usage. This Directive would certainly have wide-reaching implications,
such as the renaming of Sex Education Classes to “More Europe! Education” and
the rewriting of biology text books and syllabi in member states.
It remains uncertain whether the Commission will be
able to succeed in taking this Directive through the ordinary legislative procedure
without having to make major concessions. A blocking coalition is, according to
one EU diplomat, being mobilised in the Council. The Commission however is counting
on the support of the main political groups in the European Parliament to champion
the Directive.
One thing is for certain however, the More Europe! Blog
will never read the same again.