A new WTO report indicates a worrying rise in economic protectionism. Countries are imposing new protectionist trade barriers at the fastest rate since the onset of the recession in 2008. Since that year, G20 countries have erected 1,583 new trade restrictions, potentially hurting the global economy.
The anti-trade sentiment fueling this growing protectionism is evident in the rhetoric of various politicians and their constituents, particularly in the US and Europe. The recent Brexit referendum delivered yet another blow to the free market rules that have been enforced for decades in the West.
Strikingly, in an age of hyper-partisanship, such trade skepticism is shared by many across party lines. In the US, trade is about the only thing on which Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree. Even Hilary Clinton has reversed her previous support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Similarly, in Europe, opposition to international trade can be seen from leftists as well as right-wing politicians like Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen. While many of the recently adopted trade measures are legitimate responses to violations by other countries, the current protectionist trend is much broader. There appears to be a growing hostility to international trade of any kind, and many of the trade barriers being imposed will only hurt the economies they’re supposed to help. If the anti-trade trend persists, the already ailing global economy will only further struggle to improve, and the prosperity of future generations will be compromised.
While some are quick to decry protectionism, it is important to note that many trade barriers are in fact valid measures in response to legitimate grievances. If one country’s illegal trade practices are hurting another country’s economy, that nation has the right to respond in lawful ways in order to protect their domestic industries. Indeed, many of the trade measures recently adopted have been in response to massive Chinese overproduction of various materials, particularly regarding steel and aluminum products. China currently produces 325 million metric tons of excess steel a year, more than twice the total amount of steel produced in Europe. The glut has led to a steep drop in steel prices, with China’s industry dumping cheap exports into countries around the world and threatening to put their domestic producers out of business, costing thousands of jobs. In response, countries have imposed high tariffs onto Chinese steel imports to protect their domestic producers. The United States, for example, has placed duties of over 500 percent on Chinese cold-rolled flat steel.
But it is not just steel that Chinese companies have greatly overproduced. There is also an oversupply of glass used in solar panels, to give one example. In response, the European Commission has imposed tariffs on Chinese imports on such materials ranging from 17.5 to 75.4 percent. Beyond the specifics, China seems to have a general disregard for international trade laws, committing a wide range of violations. When China sought to obtain Market Economy Status from the European Union, members of the European Parliament were highly critical. Of the five criteria required to acquire such a status, China fulfills only one.
Of course, responses to cheap Chinese imports are not the only legitimate trade barriers recently erected. The European Union, for example, is crying foul over discrimination against European companies in bidding for public companies, particularly in the US. Consequently, the EU is proposing legislation that would tax companies from offending countries when they bid on deals in Europe.
Unfortunately, the West’s growing protectionism goes far beyond reasonable, limited measures to protect domestic industry. There is evidently a growing general hostility to international trade. This can be seen in the strong opposition to a number of major international trade deals currently under negotiation or awaiting ratification. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) under negotiation between the US and EU has faced harsh criticism, particularly in Europe. Opponents fear that the deal would diminish Europe’s food and environmental standards, among other things. As such, the pact’s fate is highly uncertain, especially after the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. Similarly, the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) deal recently concluded between the US, various Asian countries and Australia has been widely attacked in the United States, where it still awaits congressional ratification. Critics contend that the agreement will only cause American jobs to be lost to cheap labor overseas. That many of the arguments against such deals are hard to justify on their own merits indicates a worrisome aversion to international trade of any kind.
Another striking example of anti-trade sentiment was pointed out by Pieter Cleppe of OpenEurope, a think tank. Aluminum tariffs in the EU have been wrongfully supported by European aluminum companies in a bid to protect their own lagging competitiveness when compared with non-European producers. Caving to their pressure, Brussels obliged, and enforced a 3% tariff on primary aluminum products, inflicting €15.5 billion worth of damages to small and medium enterprises reliant on cheap aluminum in the process. Even if European companies only produce some 30% of the EU’s aluminum needs, the European Commission saw fit to protect an already dying industry.
Ultimately, while trade barriers are often healthy and necessary responses to other countries’ harmful policies, the growing protectionist tendencies seen in the US and Europe are concerning. International trade brings tremendous economic benefits for the world, propelling economic growth and raising wages and standards of living. The TTP, for example, is expected to raise American incomes by $131 billion, according to one estimate. While some jobs may be lost to countries overseas, the net economic benefits are significantly positive. Trade obstructions like tariffs, however, usually do more harm than good. If politicians and ordinary citizens alike wish to make the world a better, wealthier place, they will have to stop closing their economies off to the outside world and embrace the economic realities of globalization. It is trade, not tariffs, which will bring the prosperity we seek.
Biden should abolish corporate tax for small business, and make Big Tech pay what they owe instead
If Biden wants to increase tax revenue, create jobs and protect the American Dream, he should abolish corporate income tax for startups and small businesses.
In America, mom and pop businesses pay the same tax rate as multinationals. Individual income tax has seven tax rates, depending on how much an individual has made. We need the same system for corporate income tax, instead of a flat rate that strangles small businesses. Small businesses that are essential for our post-pandemic recovery.
For companies to pay their fair share of tax, corporate tax rates need to be fair. Individuals have a progressive tax system – the more you earn, the higher rate you pay – but for companies it is a flat rate. That’s not fair, especially when the US, like many countries, is committed to the idea of corporate personhood: that a corporation is a legal person.
For small businesses – which are the majority of American businesses – there is really no difference between corporate and individual income. If the mom and pop store does well, so do Mama and Papa. This is what makes the current system even more unfair.
The inherently fair idea of progressive taxes (where the more you earn, the higher rate you pay) has deep roots in Western civilization. The famous economist Adam Smith wrote about this concept centuries ago. Even John Locke, a man who famously hated taxes, was in favour of progressive taxation. The idea originates in Ancient Greece and in the arguments of Aristotle and is intimately linked with democracy itself.
We can all agree that this makes sense for individuals. So why does this same principle not apply to business? I think it should, especially because I believe every individual has an entrepreneur within them. Anyone can – and should – be a CEO, a builder of opportunity and wealth. But government policies have to encourage that, and protect capitalism from the threat of increased social divides.
Two individuals, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos now have more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans. The share of total wealth of the upper class in the US has increased from 60% to 79% in the last 40 years, while the lower class share has decreased from 7% to 4%, and the middle class’s share has dropped from 32% to 17%.
This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t aim to raise more corporate taxes – we should. Out of $3.46 trillion revenue income realized by the US government only about $230 billion or close to 6.6% was contributed by corporates.
Some corporates can afford to pay more – especially Big Tech, because they don’t even pay the low flat rate they should be paying. In the UK, for example, Amazon paid £293 million in tax, even though it made £13.73 billion in sales in 2019 or about 2%. This is in stark contrast to the 21% corporation tax it is supposed to pay.
We need more fairness, to protect true capitalism. Fairness isn’t just a socialist value, it is about providing equal opportunity for all citizens to prosper through wealth creation.
It’s unfair that those small businesses and start-ups end up paying proportionally more than their multi-national counterparts. But this is also economically stifling: Instead of allowing founders the space to breathe, grow and make new hires, they are faced with big, strong competitors who pay effectively lower taxes (because they can afford the best tax attorneys).
The American Dream is predicated on the idea that one can start a new business, work hard and be the master of his or her own destiny. A regressive corporate tax policy, which we have now, flies in the face of this ideal.
In 2020, 804,398 new businesses were started in the US. We have to give these businesses a fair opportunity to grow. By taxing them at the first hurdle, we stifle the chance of the next Facebook and Google being born, which could equally lead to much less tax revenue down the line.
Lowering, or abolishing, start-up business tax can counter-intuitively increase tax revenue for the federal government in the long-term.
More importantly, it can remind us what America is really about, and bring our communities and generations together at a time when we need unity, growth and innovation more than ever before.
Role of WTO in Regularization of International Trade
International trade is one of the main features of the globalized world and global economy. There it needs also a well-organized institutional mechanism to regulate it. World Trade Organization is an international organization established in 1995, whose main objective is to facilitate trade relations among its member countries for their mutual benefits. Currently 164 states are its members. The activities and works of WTO are performing by a Secretariate of about 700 staff located in Geneva, Switzerland, led by the Director General. English, Spanish and French are the official languages of World Trade Organization. The annual budget of WTO is about 180 million dollars.
Since its creation it is playing an important role in the regularization of international trade. It offers a forum and facilitation for negotiating trade agreements in order to reduce the barriers in the way of smooth international trade among member countries. Thus, the role of this organization is playing very important role in the regularization of international trade which is contributing to economic development and growth of member countries in this globalized world. The World Trade Organization also offers an institutional structure and legal framework for the execution and supervising of the international trade related agreements which are very helpful in regularization of international trade. It also settles disputes, disagreements and conflicts occurring during the interpretation and execution of the components of the international agreements related to international trade. During the past 60 years, the World Trade Organization and its predecessor organization the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) have assisted to establish a solid and flourishing global trade system, by this means helping to extraordinary international economic development.
The WTO is regularizing international trade more specifically through negotiating the decrease and finally elimination of barriers to trade among countries and try to make smoothly the working of the rules and principles governing the international trade e.g. tariffs, subsidies, product standards, and antidumping etc. It also administers and monitor the execution of the World Trade Organization’s determined guidelines for trade in services, goods as well as intellectual property rights related to international trade. It also monitors and review the member states international trade policies as well as make sure the transparency in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. Likewise, it also solves disputes arising among members related to trade relations or related to the explanation of the provisions of the trade agreements. It also offers services to the governments of the developing states in the fields of capacity building of officers in matters related to international trade. WTO is also doing research on matters related to international trade and its related issues and collect data in order to find better solutions of the problems and obstacles in regularization of international trade. It is also trying to bring into the organization the 29 states who are yet not members of the organization aimed to assist and regulate their international trade according to the international standard.
One of the main barriers in way to international trade is disputes between the engaged parties. Since long this was a very critical issue limiting the trade among states. The WTO is playing very good and instrumental role in the solution of trade related disputes. Since the establishment of WTO in 1995 over 400 disputes related to trade have been brought by its member countries to WTO. The increasing number of bringing trade related disputes to WTO is showing the faith of member countries in the organization. Close trade relations have massive advantages but also create disputes and disagreements. With the increase of international trade, the possibility of its related disputes also increases. Previously, such problems and disagreements have caused in severe disputes. But at present, in the era of WTO the international trade related disputes are decreased because the member states have now dispute’s solution platform, and they are turning to the World Trade Organization to solve their trade related disagreements and disputes. Before the World War Second, there was not any such international organization or forum which could facilitate international trade and its related affairs, and there was also noany legal framework for solving trade related disputes among states of the word.
One of The World Trade Organization’s guiding principal is to continue the open boundaries for trade, ensure the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status among member countries and stop discriminatory behaviour of members towards other member(s) and bring transparency in doing international trade. It is also assisting counties to open their indigenous markets to global trade, with justified exemptions or with suitable flexibilities, promote and support to durable growth, reduce trade deficit, decrease poverty, and promote economic stability. It is also working to integrate different international trade policies and principles. The member countries of WTO are also under the compulsion to bring their trade related disputes to this organization and avoid unilateral actions. WTO is the central pillar of the current international trade system.
Russia and France to strengthen economic cooperation
On April 29, Russian President Vladimir Putin held videoconference with leaders of several French companies-members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI France-Russia) to discuss some aspects of Russian-French trade, economic and investment cooperation, including the implementation of large joint projects as well as the prospects for collaborative work.
Putin noted that the Economic Council of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is still operational in spite of difficulties, and the late April meeting was the fourth time since 2016. From the historical records, France has been and remains a key economic partner for Russia, holding a high but not sufficiently high, 6th place among EU countries in the amount of accumulated investment in the Russian economy and 5th place in the volume of trade.
Despite a certain decline in mutual trade in 2020 (it went down by 14 percent compared to 2019) the ultimate figure is quite acceptable at $13 billion. French investment in Russia is hovering around $17 billion, while Russian investment in France is $3 billion.
Over 500 companies with French capital are operating in various sectors of the Russian economy. French business features especially prominently in the Russian fuel and energy complex, automobile manufacturing and, of course, the food industry. “It could have been more if the French regulatory and state authorities treated Russian businesses as Russia is treating French businesses. We appreciate that in a difficult economic environment, French companies operating in Russia have not reduced their activity,” Putin pointed out.
The Russian Government established the Foreign Investment Advisory Council, which includes six French companies. Further, there is an opportunity to discuss specific issues related to the economic and investment climate in Russia, and that opportunity is traditionally provided at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which will be held on June 2-5.
French companies are involved in the implementation of globally famous landmark projects, such as the construction of the Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2 facilities and the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project. This, Putin regrettably said “We are aware of and regret the amount of political speculation concerning the latter. I would like to point out once again that it is a purely economic project, it has nothing to do with present-day political considerations.”
Russia intends to increase assistance to the development of science and technology. Funds will be directed primarily to innovation sectors such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, nuclear and renewable energy, and the utilisation of carbon emissions.
“We are interested in involving foreign companies that would like to invest in Russia and in projects we consider high priority. In order to do this, we will continue to use preferential investment regimes and execute special investment contracts, as you know. A lot of French companies successfully use these tools on the Russian market. For example, more than one third of 45 special investment contracts have been signed with European, including French, partners,” he explained during the meeting.
He also mentioned continuous efforts to attract foreign companies to localise their production to state purchases and to implementing the National Development Projects, as well as existing opportunities for French businesses in special economic zones. Today there are 38 such zones created throughout the Russian Federation.
Russia pays particular attention to attracting high-quality foreign specialists. Their employment is being fast-tracked, and their families can now obtain indefinite residence permits. There is a plan to launch a special programme of ‘golden visas’ whereby to issue a residence permit in exchange for investment in the real economy, a practice is used in many other countries.
Taking his turn, Co-Chair of the CCI France-Russian Economic Council, Gennady Timchenko, noted that the pandemic has changed the world, people and business, and that French companies in Russia are responsible employers and socially responsible members of Russian society.
Despite the crisis and the geopolitical situation, a number of French companies have launched production in 2020–2021. Companies such as Saint-Gobain and Danone have renewed their investments. French companies have increased their export of products manufactured in Russia; they are investing in priority sectors of the Russian economy. For example, this year the French company Lidea is launching a plant called Tanais to produce seeds. Russia is dependent on the import of 30 to 60 percent of these seeds, according to various estimates.
Despite the current geopolitical conditions and information field, there are important signals for French business and the Russian side to strengthen economic cooperation, attract investment, and create partnerships on a new mutually beneficial basis.
Co-Chair of the CCI France-Russian Economic Council, Patrick Pouyanne, noted that the meeting has become an excellent tradition, the presence of 17 CEOs and deputy CEOs of French companies shows the importance of these joint meetings, and further reflect the deep interest of French business in Russia.
In addition, Patrick Pouyanne further offered some insights into Russia-French cooperation. By 2020, twenty members of the Economic Council invested a total of 1.65 trillion rubles, supporting 170,000 jobs. These companies have operated in Russia for decades and continue investing in the Russian economy despite the sanctions and the epidemic. These companies help France maintain its status as the second largest investor in Russia. In 2020, France invested over $1 billion in Russia despite the economic difficulties caused by the pandemic.
Concluding his remarks, Patrick Pouyanne stressed that the economic operators believe everyone will benefit if Russia, France and all of Europe are not divided or isolated. This is the challenge today. Indeed, diplomacy has to continue playing an important role in settling differences, and businesses are convinced that meetings like this create bridges between Russia and France to strengthen investment and economic cooperation.
Women Rights in China and Challenges
Women rights and gender discrimination have been a problem for many years in china. Various restrictions were imposed on women...
Biden should abolish corporate tax for small business, and make Big Tech pay what they owe instead
If Biden wants to increase tax revenue, create jobs and protect the American Dream, he should abolish corporate income tax...
Vietnam’s Role in ASEAN 2021 meetings
Taking on from the meetings held under the rubric of ASEAN chairmanship of Vietnam in the year 2020, the country...
The challenge of COVID-19 in Africa
Since its emergence in December last year, covid-19 has spread rapidly around the world, flooding the health system and weakening...
China’s quad in the making: A non-conventional approach
Politics of alliance can be traced to the ancient times of the East and the West. Since it affects the...
Nord Stream 2: To Gain or to Refrain? Why Germany Refuses to Bend under Sanctions Pressure
The chances of the sanctions war around Nord Stream 2 to rage on after the construction of the pipeline is...
Rohingya crisis: How long will Bangladesh single-handedly assume this responsibility?
At least 8,60,000 Rohingya FDMNs, mostly women and children entered Bangladesh fleeing unbridled murder, arson and rape by the Tatmadaw...
Middle East2 days ago
Saudi Arabia and Iran cold war
Economy3 days ago
Role of WTO in Regularization of International Trade
Reports3 days ago
Asian Ports Dominate Global Container Port Performance Index
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan desires dialogue and cooperation with the EU
South Asia1 day ago
The World Biggest COVID-19 Crisis: Failure of India’s Vaccine Diplomacy
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Relations between Azerbaijan and the European Union
Europe2 days ago
When diplomacy cannot get the best of geopolitics: Cyprus’s lack of a way forward
South Asia3 days ago
Religion Freedom Index of Bangladesh: Current Developments and Government Responses