# data[].attributes.body
This article is debating wether John Keynes would be in favor of Brexit by reviewing a previous speech of his. The article says he was in favor of free trade but within countries but he would also be hesitant to sacrifice a current situation for something that is doubtful in the future. They conclude that he wouldn’t support Brexit in the first place.

This article reminded me of the readings we did about Keynes, in Keynesian Economics we learned about the fundamental policies Keynes was for, such as free markets and trade. One of the main points that Brexit wouldn’t be ideal is because the uncertainty of its economic flow, and the article explains that this is why he wouldn’t be for it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WOULD John Maynard Keynes be a Brexiteer or a Remoaner? The great 20th-century economist started out as a free-trader. But he argued against "economic entanglement among nations" in an essay titled "National Self-Sufficiency" in 1933. Goods should be "homespun" wherever possible, he wrote, and "above all, let finance be primarily national." By 1945 Keynes was an internationalist again.

If nothing else, Lord Keynes was a pragmatist ("When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?," he apocryphally said.) What is certain is that he would be at the negotiating table.

How Keynes would handle Brussels today is clear from a speech to the House of Lords in December 1945 on Britain's post-war financial dealings with America. In it, he sets out what it means to get the best deal possible, even in unfavourable circumstances.

Keynes was a seasoned negotiator. He represented Britain at the Versailles peace conference in 1919. And he led the delegation that set up the Bretton Woods system on exchange rates, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the mid-1940s.

The 1945 speech, four months before he died at age 62, was in effect his "last words" to British policymakers. Keynes would have three tips for Britain's negotiators today.

First, Keynes would encourage negotiators to understand the position of their counterparts in Brussels. He implored British politicians to understand the mood in Washington. "No one would easily accept the result of these negotiations with sympathy and understanding unless he could, to some extent at least, bring himself to appreciate the motives and purposes of the other side," he stated. Hence, today's negotiators should look beyond the facts to understand the Eurocrats' motives and purposes, as well as their difficulties.
Keynes would encourage negotiators to understand the position of their counterparts in Brussels
Understanding their psychology-their "pride", "temper" and "habit"-will strengthen Britain's negotiating position, he argued. Britain should bear in mind that the major objective of negotiators in Brussels is the preservation of the European project. The European Union cannot afford to be too lenient on Britain, for fear that other countries will follow suit.

This idea-that the symbolism of a deal is as important as the deal itself-is something that Keynes would counsel Westminster today. In 1945 it was a recognition that the terms extended to Britain would form the expectations of other allies. "We naturally have only our own requirements in view," he told his fellow peers, "but the United States Treasury cannot overlook the possible reaction of what they do for us on the expectations of others." A good understanding of the other side will "minimise the causes of friction and ill will between nations" and maximise the chances of a just deal.

Second, negotiators should avoid using Britain's past contributions to the EU as a negotiating tool, while at the same time being mindful not to expose Britain's present weaknesses. Instead, Britain should focus on the future. Persuade Brussels of its future value to the EU, as a political ally as well as a trading partner.

As Keynes explained in 1945, reiterating Britain's contribution to the war was not an effective negotiation tactic: "It was not our past performance or our present weakness but our future prospects...and our intention to face the world boldly that we had to demonstrate."
Persuade Brussels of Britain's future value to the EU, as a political ally as well as a trading partner.
Third, negotiators should demonstrate their commitment to the development of the international trading system, showing the EU that Britain remains a desirable trading partner. As Keynes declared: "Above all, this determination to make trade truly international and to avoid the establishment of economic blocs which limit and restrict commercial intercourse outside them, is plainly an essential condition of the world's best hope, an Anglo-American understanding, which brings us and others together in international institutions which may be in the long run the first step towards something more comprehensive."

If Keynes were alive today, he would probably relish navigating the intellectual and political minefield that is Brexit. However, it is unlikely he would have supported it in the first place. Keynes often warned of the dangers of sacrificing present well-being for an uncertain future. "Our power of prediction is so slight, it is seldom wise to sacrifice a present evil for a doubtful advantage in the future", wrote Keynes at age 21 in "The Political Doctrines of Edmund Burke" in 1904.

Keynes would certainly appreciate the difficulties of extracting Britain from the EU, and the risks of damaging the economy, society and the political climate. As to whether leaving the EU might provide long-term economic benefits-as Brexiteers claim-that's a timescale in which Lord Keynes would gleefully note we'll all be dead.

_____________
Read Keynes's speech: Anglo-American Financial Arrangements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The great economist would strive to understand the other side and focus only on the future | Open Future

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2 (OCT. 06,2018) -Scotland and their economy

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2 (OCT. 06,2018) -Scotland and their economy

# data[].attributes.body
This article is acknowledging that the Scottish government want a state bank of their own, instead of having the British bank fill their lending gaps. It goes on to say that because other countries have done well in investing and government lending, so can Scotland because they have a comparative advantage.

This article is talking about comparative advantage in a form of knowledgeable entrepreneurs with millions of dollars to risk on new ideas. This reminded me of the article by Findlay and how David Ricardo saw the approach with goods as in this article Scotland doesn’t have physical goods but rather money and knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Scottish government is working towards a state bank, to intervene and invest in strategic priorities.

The British Business Bank already fills some of the gaps left by the more risk-averse market lenders, but is less strategic in what it seeks to do than the Scots plan to be.

After four years building up its supply of wholesale funds through retail lenders, Lord Smith of Kelvin is leading the push to stimulate demand, bringing him to Glasgow to meet small business leaders.

Time was when government was meant to get out of "picking winners" and investing in private companies. It had, for too long, been associated with picking losers, and running into ruinously expensive commitments.

That time was when ministers could direct investment decisions and pay policy in state enterprises from steel to shipyards to coal to the electricity providers and telecoms.

In Britain, that sort of intervention got a bad name. The Thatcher revolution was all about "rolling back the frontiers of the state" to let the market decide.

Well, those days are gone now. It's been noticed that other countries have done rather well by investing and by government lending - particularly where it does so in the strategic sectors where it is reckoned that the country has the makings of a comparative advantage over others.

The Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB) is being set up by the Scottish government to take a more interventionist role. It's been talked about a lot, and taken a long time to reach the starting gate, though bits of what it does have been done by Scottish Enterprise for some time.

Mission possible

A consultation on the SNIB got under way this week. Finance and economy secretary Derek Mackay bigged it up as something with "the potential to help transform Scotland's economy". It will be long-term, patient and mission-oriented.

That's a reference, first, to the short-term shortcomings of conventional lending and investing in the financial marketplace, at least in the UK.

Being "mission-oriented" sounds like the influence of Mariana Mazzucato, the London-based economist who is an economic adviser to Nicola Sturgeon, who argues strenuously for recognition and enhancement of the role of the state as an investor and shaper of the economy.

I interviewed her earlier this year.

Also advising the European Commission on mission orientation, she believes that government should set the big objectives, as President Kennedy did when he set the target of putting a man on the moon by 1970.

The missions in mind include "transitioning to a low carbon economy; responding to an ageing population and wider population health; and promoting inclusive growth through place-making and regeneration". In the consultation, you're invited to add to that list.

"The Bank will serve businesses who wish to innovate and grow but find the traditional routes to finance challenging," said Derek Mackay. "By providing a single point of access to investment, and adopting a strategic focus and risk appetite that is different, the Bank can fuel the economy and catalyse additional private sector investment."
Business finance in numbers:

£191m of equity investment in Scottish companies in 2017, up 100% on 2016

121 equity deals done last year in Scotland, up 48% in a year

£2m: Average equity deal for companies in Scotland last year, up from £1.5m in 2016

Software (24) and industrials (21) were the two sectors with the highest number of equity deals in Scotland in 2017

53% of equity deals in Scotland involved government funds

British Business Bank supports £467m of finance to Scottish smaller businesses

3,334 Start-up Loans in Scotland, with a value of £23.3m, since 2012

Source: British Business Bank
The Scottish government is committing £2bn over 10 years as initial capital for the SNIB, intended to lever in lots of additional private investment.

And while there may be widespread agreement that this seems a sensible way to go, there are some politically tricky questions - how much should this state bank pay its top executives, and with what bonus structure, if it's going to get financiers of a high calibre? And will all RSIB be constrained by the Scottish government's future policies on pay restraint for the public sector?

Crowding in

There are foreign precedents for this. KfW are the initials of something unpronounceable in German. European state aid rules are thrown up by British critics of Brussels, while they have been more imaginatively interpreted by other Europeans. Even in free market America, there is a government bank for supporting small business among other sectors such as housing.

And there are a couple close to home. The European Investment Fund has big British contributions, and also big British beneficiaries. At least the latter is going to slow to nothing much, under Brexit plans, though the deal - if there is one - may include a continued contribution from the UK.

There is also the British Business Bank, set up in 2014, but little known beyond around a hundred lenders through which it provides its funding wholesale.

Under Conservative ministers, the language of intervention in the market is a lot less prominent, and if there are sectors which are overweight in its lending portfolio, that's not by design but by coincidence.

It has become the largest venture capital investor in the UK. It operates, goes the blurb, where there is clear market need "crowding in and not crowding out private sector activity". That's to say: it is not in the same territory where mainstream lenders fund blue chip firms. It is seeking to identify areas where finance is hard to come by, often within the growth path of a growing company.

Start-ups

Much of its activity so far has been around ensuring a good supply of funds through these lenders. And 96% of lending is being carried out through channels other than the four big high street banks. Clydesdale is one of those that works alongside the British Business Bank.

The emphasis is shifting, towards more effort to stimulate demand for what it can offer. So it's going a bit more retail. On Friday in Glasgow, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were invited to hear what it does and to say what they want from it, alongside Scotland's lenders and fund-managers.

Those that don't yet exist are also welcome to take a nosy at what it's all about. It is in the market for loans of as little as £500 from its start-Up fund. That comes with some mentoring advice. The typical loan in that category is for £7500. In Scotland, 3,334 companies have been supported since that fund began in 2012 (it pre-dated the British Business Bank), totalling £23.3m in loans.

Presiding over the Glasgow bit of the roadshow proceedings was Lord Smith of Kelvin, sometimes known as Robert Smith and in his home city.

An accountant and former fund management boss, he has occupied an astonishing number of chairs in Scotland; Weir Group, SSE, Alliance Trust, the Green Investment Bank, the organising committee of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, the commission that bore his name which drew up the plans for devolving greater powers to Holyrood and, for the past year or so, the British Business Bank.

I met him ahead of the meeting with SMEs, to hear what he has in mind for this push into lending, where more stimulus is needed.

"The message is that there is finance available - risk finance, long term finance - available to small and medium-sized companies," he told me. "We're ensuring that's available through a whole range of providers. I want to hear from businesses and from financial advisory people: What are the impediments to help these small businesses get started and grow?"

Engine and Powerhouse

In Scotland, one of the stronger bits of start-up funding is the "angel" community - typically those with a few million available for risk investing in new ideas, who can put in not just their money but their expertise as experienced entrepreneurs.

This is a small enough country that they know each other, and can collaborate all the more easily.

Some 8% of UK angel investors are located in Scotland. Venture Capital funds, however, are hard to find north of the Cheviots. That tends to require a trip to London, or further afield, and it is perceived as a significant gap in the Scottish business growth support network.

The British Business Bank has given itself the explicit task of ensuring it gets out to the regions of England more, and creating networks of investing angels is one of the things it wants to do.

While Scotland has policy infrastructure in place, through Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the English regions need more of a helping hand.

So far, the Business Bank is working alongside the Midlands Engine, the Northern Powerhouse and a partnership set up for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles.

Patience is one of the virtues the British Business Bank wishes to emphasise more, just as SNIB wants to take a longer-term view than conventional lenders in the market place. So patient capital is being given a boost, with the intention of leveraging as much as £13bn from financial partners.

Get that right, and the hope is that the market for longer-term financing could be stimulated into activity without the need for government help. But that day is some way off.

"When we talk about patient capital," explains Lord Smith "a business goes for a number of years, it then needs more money to grow and become a very big company.

"What would be great for Scotland and the UK, if these small companies grew and grew and grew, and didn't sell out after a while for want of forward finance."

"In America, you'll find a third, fourth, fifth, sixth round financing. It's much more common that you'll find in the UK, and we're identifying fund managers in whose funds we'll place some of our money if they're patient capital providers."

The problem he identifies is a familiar one to watchers of the Scottish economy. Make your first three or four million, and it's tempting to get out and buy the yacht. That's one reason why Scotland has yachts, and not many medium-to-large home-grown companies.

"I think it's a mixture of a shortage of that third or fourth round funding, but also a mindset in entrepreneurs, says Lord Smith.

"I'd like to see they can grow their companies bigger and more internationally than they currently do.

"And yet in Scotland we've got one or two of these unicorns - going from start up to unicorns worth $1bn in a relatively small number of years. I'd like to see more of those, because that's what attracts investment in jobs, and the wealth of the nation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scottish government is working towards a state bank, to intervene and invest in strategic priorities. The British Business Bank already fills some of the gaps left by the more risk-averse market lenders, but is less strategic in what it seeks to do than the Scots plan to be.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 (OCT. 09, 2018) The world trading system 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 (OCT. 09, 2018) The world trading system 

# data[].attributes.body
The article goes into details about how Trump is threatening the rules of trade within countries. Trump is imposing strict tariffs on trade that has a negative impact towards European and Japanese firms. They claim that there is fear that Trump and his administration are planning on eliminating the WTO.

The first sentence of this article is a quote from Adam Smith and its need for free trade, the article by Peet and Hartwick goes into depth about the way Smith looked at trade. This article explains how other countries are trying to work with the Adam Smith mindset but Donald Trump is looking for a different way to help his own economical agenda.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"MAN is an animal that makes bargains," said Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and a champion of free trade. After reminding his American counterpart of this quote in May, the Chinese ambassador to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) added a request. "As trade negotiators, let's bargain with each other, instead of biting each other." Publicly, at least, the administration of Donald Trump has only bared its fangs.

Mr Trump is waging a trade war that this year has already hit imports worth over $89bn in 2017, including $32bn of goods from China, and $48bn of steel and aluminium (see chart 1). The fight will intensify. America plans further tariffs on $208bn of Chinese imports and is threatening duties on imported vehicles and car parts that will hit European and Japanese firms hard. As well as generating trade disputes with new tariffs, America is also gumming up the WTO's system for solving them, by blocking the appointment of judges to its Court of Appeals.
Get our daily newsletter

Mr Trump's assault on the multilateral rules-based system threatens decades of trade liberalisation, which has nudged average tariffs between America, Europe and Japan down from 22% when the system started in 1947 to around 3% by 2000, roughly where they remain today (see chart 2). Supporters of the system, both beyond the Trump administration and throughout most of the rest of the world, fear that America's president is intent on destroying the WTO and undoing this progress. They are right to worry but may be wrong to despair. A plan is brewing to save the WTO from being torn apart in the Trump administration's jaws.

At the core of modern-day multilateralism is the idea that countries sign up to a set of clear commitments. The WTO's members promise not to raise tariffs above agreed levels and to apply them based on the principle of "most favoured nation" (MFN). Applied strictly, countries should not be able to discriminate between their economic friends and foes, because a lower tariff granted to one member should be granted to all. China's membership, for example, means it must apply equal tariffs on cars coming from the EU and America. And America signs up to the same treatment of cars from China and the EU.

The system is supposed to be self-reinforcing. WTO membership involves a trade-off, between the costs of compliance and the benefits of maintaining access to a 164-strong club accounting for 98% of world trade. When deals are first struck, negotiators bargain so that the benefits of trade liberalisation outweigh the political penalties. If the penalties turn out to be greater than expected, the system has built-in safety valves. If imports are surging, subsidised or sold below cost, threatening domestic industries and jobs, members can apply defensive duties. And since 1995, if one member suspects another of rule-breaking, they have had the case heard by the WTO's panel of judges. If these arbiters decide there has been wrongdoing, they can sanction limited retaliation. The pinch of such tariffs and the shame of being labelled a rule-breaker are both supposed to ensure good behaviour.

WTOut

Understanding the American assault on this system requires identifying its various fronts. The first is driven by Mr Trump's disregard for rules. According to Axios, an American news website, he is itching to withdraw from the WTO altogether. Unshackled from the MFN principle, Mr Trump would be free to enact his own version of reciprocal trade, with tariffs that match those applied by other countries.

The prospects of an American exit are slim, as it would require the approval of Congress. But in the meantime the Trump administration is doing damage from within. Its claim that imports of steel and aluminium pose a threat to national security exploits a loophole that allows WTO members to impose tariffs in times of national emergency. Unconcerned by the erosion of trust this causes, or by damage from retaliation and higher metal prices at home, Mr Trump is undermining a set of norms that Americans have spent decades trying to build.

Such bullying is specific to this president. America's trading partners hit by its tariffs on steel and aluminium have so far tried to strike back within the rules, or in proportion to the damage done to them. Eight have launched formal WTO disputes. At home Mr Trump's tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium have prompted a bipartisan chorus of disapproval.

But other fronts in the Trump administration's trade policy have greater sticking power. They are being pushed by Robert Lighthizer, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), whose influence in the White House is in stark contrast to his low profile outside it. Unlike many in the administration, he understands how the global trading system works, from experience as a trade lawyer and as a trade negotiator in the Reagan administration. He appreciates the system's value, conceding in December that the WTO does "an enormous amount of good". And crucially, his complaints about it are shared by many in Washington, DC, and across the world.

Judge not...

Two stand out. The first relates to the WTO's appellate body-the system's supreme court. Members must unanimously approve judges to sit on a roster of seven, from which three are chosen to hear any given case. But as vacancies have arisen, the Trump administration has refused to let them be filled. From December 2019, there will be fewer judges than the minimum required to hear a case.

The Americans complain that the appellate body has become too big for its boots. Since 2011 it has not consulted WTO members when exceeding the 90-day limit to conclude a case. Often its reports are long, in part because judges make legal commentaries on arguments that were not presented by either side. To some, this is careful and principled application of the law. To others, it looks like empire-building.

More fundamentally, Mr Lighthizer fumes that this body has overstepped its remit. America's gripe is that rulings have impeded its ability to use the WTO's pressure valves. In 2003 the Bush administration was told that duties imposed to combat surging steel imports violated WTO law. (The duties were subsequently withdrawn.) In a series of cases the body has also found that the way America applies anti-dumping duties breaks WTO rules.

One particularly painful decision relates to what exactly counts as a "public body" within WTO rules. In general, members are allowed to apply defensive duties on imports supported by government subsidies. But in China, knowing where the government ends and the private sector starts is tricky. The Americans had claimed that where the government owned a majority stake in an enterprise, it should automatically count as a "public body" liable for handing out subsidies. But the appellate body ruled against them, making it harder to apply defensive duties against state-supported production.

This leads to Mr Lighthizer's second set of grievances, regarding China's place in the trading system. He claims that, when WTO negotiators agreed that China should join in 2001, they expected it to evolve towards Western-style capitalism. What has emerged instead is an economy dominated by state-subsidised enterprises with a regulatory regime geared towards the theft of American intellectual property. As a result, the system does not work.

Take first the American concerns over China's industrial policy. The WTO's rulebook has a chapter curbing state subsidies. But it has gaps, in part because when it was written American and European negotiators were nervous of subjecting their own subsidy regimes to scrutiny and did not expect China to generate the resources to hand out vast sums of cash. Now, given China's size and systemic importance, those holes look too big.

Next is the accusation that China defies the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules of the WTO. In many industries, China's government required that foreign firms investing in its market did so in joint ventures with local companies. The Americans complain that too often their firms had to hand over technology as a condition of access to the Chinese market, and then watched helplessly as partners ran off with their ideas.

Mr Lighthizer's concerns over the appellate body and China could be dealt with by negotiation, either to revisit past decisions or to fill gaps in the WTO's rules. But getting China to the negotiating table has proved hard. When it joined the WTO its accession protocol was unusually strict. It reckoned that it had already paid enough into the system, and was not about to negotiate new definitions of public bodies that could tie its hands further.

Then there is the broader problem of getting anything new agreed on multilaterally. That requires the unanimous approval of all 164 members. For years, WTO negotiations have stalled over a disagreement between richer countries, which think everyone should share a common rulebook, and those who see carve-outs for poorer countries as necessary to protect their farmers and foster development. Members like India and South Africa have been happy to hold any deal hostage to their agenda.

An earlier American solution to this gridlock was to pursue ambitious regional trade deals. In Asia the Obama administration agreed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to link America to 11 economies of the Pacific Rim, including Japan and Singapore. It included tougher rules on state-owned enterprises. Meanwhile, it was also negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU. Combining them could have created a free-trade area large enough to tempt the Chinese to the negotiating table, as well as a regulatory regime with enough weight to pull against the Chinese one.

After Mr Trump swiftly jettisoned that approach, Mr Lighthizer is spearheading a quicker, dirtier one. Dusting off an old piece of trade law, he has used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to accuse the Chinese of causing harm to America's economy. Some supposed misdemeanours fall within the WTO's rules, and so the USTR has launched an official WTO dispute. Others, which Mr Lighthizer claims relate to gaps in the rulebook, are the justification for punitive American tariffs.

This looks like a worrying bout of unilateralism, reminiscent of the 1980s, when Section 301 was used by the Reagan administration to threaten Japan with tariffs unless it curbed its exports to America. The resulting tangle of restrictions made free traders squirm, but advocates argued that aggression served a higher purpose. It rallied the rest of the world around stronger trade-enforcement rules, which led to the creation of the WTO's system of dispute settlement. This time Mr Lighthizer seems to be trying to weaken that system.

Further worry stems from the fact that it is unclear how the trade conflict with the Chinese will end, but easy to see how it might escalate. Mr Lighthizer's department has launched five formal disputes at the WTO in response to retaliatory duties against America's levies on steel and aluminium. In response to China's ones, the plan is for more American tariffs.

Lighthizer at the end of the tunnel?

Yet, amid the conflict there is still hope of salvaging a peace. As the trade cannons blast, efforts are being made to restore order. The chances of success rest on the fact that Mr Lighthizer's concerns about China are shared by others, and in particular by the EU and Japan.

The EU sees an opportunity to act as a bridge between China and America to negotiate new rules. It thereby hopes to address its own concerns over China's rise, while tempting America back into the multilateral system. The EU may disagree with Mr Trump's approach to China, but it recognises that it could harness America's aggression as a way to get China to agree to new constraints. The plan is to make China's choice clear, between an unstable trading system and one with new rules that meet the others' concerns.

The first hint of co-operation came last December, when Mr Lighthizer added his name, along with those of his counterparts from Japan and the EU, to a brief statement voicing shared concerns over "unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state-owned enterprises". China, though unnamed, was clearly the target. Since then, officials from all three places have been discussing what new WTO rules might look like. And on July 16th the EU launched a working group with the Chinese to discuss reform of the multilateral system. The trilateral talks between America, the EU and Japan are meant as an incubator for rules that could be taken to China; those between the EU and China are designed to be a sounding-board for those ideas and to prepare the ground for a proper negotiation.

A joint statement on May 31st outlined the scope of the trilateral talks. First on the agenda is the dull but important topic of notifications. Tariffs are obvious to observers, subsidies less so. To counter that problem, WTO members are supposed to notify others about support they hand out. But without penalties for failing to do so, many do not. The three are designing a way to strengthen the incentives to comply.

Second, the trio are trying to overturn the appellate judges' definition of "public bodies", by broadening it to make it easier to deem a state-owned enterprise to be an arm of the Chinese government. And third, the three are discussing new rules that would not only strengthen members' defences against Chinese subsidies but also limit them at the source.

Meanwhile, the EU has drawn up plans to tweak the appellate body's rules in a way that it hopes will satisfy America. Poor judicial decisions are in the eye of the beholder, so no procedural change could solve that. But the EU's proposal answers a number of complaints, including clarifications to the way outgoing judges' cases are handled after their term ends.

Perhaps a grand bargain is in the works. Comfortingly, there is mounting evidence that Mr Lighthizer is not out to torpedo the WTO. This year his department has filed seven new official WTO disputes, engaged actively in discussions over new rules on e-commerce, and on July 16th even called for an end to the WTO's impasse on agriculture negotiations, suggesting that the talks should focus on market access.

Even so, the chances of success are slim. Some American concerns are difficult to deal with under the WTO's legalistic processes. These work best when Chinese laws can be compared with official commitments. But with technology transfer, for example, America claims that unwritten rules force firms to hand over their technology as a condition of doing business. That makes it hard to write watertight regulations and to test them in the WTO's court, particularly if the firms involved are too scared to speak for fear of losing access to the Chinese market.

Even if America, the EU and Japan do manage to draw up what they see as a perfect set of new rules, China may not play along. It wants a stable trading system and will pay attention to a co-ordinated bombardment from its biggest markets, but it will not sign up if it thinks it will be made poorer in the long run. The Americans would like to draw up new rules without the Chinese at the table, then ram them down their throats. That would be unacceptable to the Chinese.

The next challenge will be obtaining wider agreement to a deal concocted by only four members. To poorer countries, the idea that America can be rewarded for throwing a tantrum by winning a reform of the system will be deeply distasteful. They believe that richer countries have already tipped the rules in their favour. That is why the joint statement in May included hints about bypassing the WTO's crippling requirement for consensus, instead opting for getting a "critical mass" of countries to agree.

Brink it on

Another risk to the plan is Mr Trump himself. Mr Lighthizer may be a brilliant strategist, capitalising on his boss's willingness to blow up the system in order to force the change that he wants. But he could easily fall out of favour. The plan relies on Mr Trump playing along and stepping back from the brink at the right time. He could go too early, bought off by an offer from China's president, Xi Jinping, to buy more American goods without bringing any reform to the system. Or he could hang on too long, turning the confrontation with China into one only about power and face, and not one about trade and rules.

Seen from one angle, the Americans are making a last-ditch effort to reshape the system they founded to serve their own interests. Unless they do it now, they reckon, China will become too powerful to contain. Perhaps that moment has already passed. In the 1980s, when the Reagan administration acted against Japanese trade practices, Japan's GDP was around 40% of America's. But this year, according to the IMF, China's GDP will be 69% of America's, rising to 88% over the next five years.

The Chinese may call America's bluff, hoping that when Mr Trump goes in two or six years' time, the next president will be less keen to tax his citizens by raising the cost of imports. If so, expect tariffs to continue. And for the multilateral rules-based system to become still more toothless.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world trading system is under attack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"MAN is an animal that makes bargains," said Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and a champion of free trade. After reminding his American counterpart of this quote in May, the Chinese ambassador to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) added a request.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #4 (Oct. 13,2018)-North Korea and IMF

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #4 (Oct. 13,2018)-North Korea and IMF

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about the pros and cons of North Korea possibly joining the International Monetary Fund. At a UN General Assembly, they were conversing on how North Korea can be open to the opportunity of building relations with the rest of the world. South Korea’s President stated that Kim Jong-Un is willing to join the IMF and WTO.

This article is relevant to what we were discussing in the beginning of the semester, the IMF and the WTO are important organizations and if North Korea joins it will have to adapt to its policies and give economical data. If they do we would be able to measure its GDP, HDI, and Gini-Coefficient.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the recent UN General Assembly, South Korea's President Moon Jae-in was discussing North Korea's strides to build relations and open up to the world.

He said Kim Jong-un had even said he would be "willing to join the IMF and the World Bank and other international agencies", Reuters reported.

Those ambitions, if vague for now, cast a light on the challenges North Korea will face as it tries to become part of the global economy.

The country has been economically cut off from most of the world for decades because of its nuclear programme and alleged human rights abuses, and experts say the process of joining the financial bodies would be a long one.

Nine charts which tell you all you need to know about North Korea

Imagine a North Korean family...

North Korea crisis in 300 words

Benefits to membership

Why would the socialist "hermit" state even want to join these US-dominated institutions?

Membership would give North Korea access to a huge pool of expertise, technical assistance and funds. It would also go a long way towards integrating it into the global economy.

The IMF aims to secure financial and monetary stability, while the World Bank seeks to foster economic development and reduce poverty.

Even though they have different focuses, they both seek to promote economic well-being.

For the international community, bringing North Korea into the fold would appease one of the world's most dangerous hotspots. It would also give it some influence over the long-isolated but strategically positioned country.

Economic transparency

To become a member of the World Bank, which describes itself as "one of the world's largest sources of funding and knowledge for developing countries", a country must first join the IMF.

And the IMF requires that member countries share information about their economies, do not restrict foreign exchange flows, pursue policies encouraging trade and pay a quota subscription.

'Dangerous undercurrents' in global economy

States, debt, nationalisation and money

Was your T-shirt made in North Korea?

Economic pain pushes N Korea to talks

But North Korea's economy is far from transparent and it is unclear how much international scrutiny its leader, Kim Jong-un, would be willing to accept.

"The economy of North Korea functions like a mafia state. There aren't any institutions as such except for the regime itself," said Anwita Basu, an analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

"I don't see any reason why the regime shouldn't remain secret - it's an existential thing from them," Ms Basu said. "If they reveal too much they will be weakened."

Measuring an unusual economy

Not only does North Korea not publish economic data, but it has an important black market and rampant corruption.

Most people can't live off their official salaries and market activity has blossomed in recent decades.

The typical North Korean household derives more than 70% of its income from market activities - both legal and illegal - according to Byung-Yeon Kim, economics professor at Seoul National University. He estimates more than half of market activities are illegal.

This makes measuring its economy particularly challenging.

"These market activities are quite prevalent and how to measure GDP in this kind of dual economy is a very big task," Byung-Yeon Kim said. "Even in well-developed capital economies such as Italy, it's very difficult to measure the informal economy."

Corruption is also widespread among the highest echelons of North Korean power.

"High ranking officials and the leader, Kim Jong-un, are likely to get a lot of money from foreign trade," Byung-Yeon Kim said.

"The North Korean elites export their items [to places like China] at a lower price than the world price and then they get kickbacks which is some proportion of this gap between the world price and the recorded price for exports."

The right tools for the job?

It is also unclear how much economic data the North Korean government already gathers and whether they will have the means to improve this.

"The DPRK [North Korea] hasn't published meaningful economic data since the 1960s," said Andray Abrahamian, Koret Fellow at Stanford University.

"They'll also probably need some technical assistance on collecting that data."

South Korea's central bank releases GDP figures for the North every year, based on government and intelligence service data. It says North Korea's economy saw its lowest growth rate in 20 years in 2017.

Any further data is likely to shed a negative light on the regime - something the North Koreans may consider when mulling increased transparency.

How about its human rights record?

Movement on all of this would only be likely after North Korea has dismantled its nuclear programme and economic sanctions are lifted.

But that process is taking time, with some observers saying the North is not doing enough to move towards giving up its nuclear weapons since pledging to do so at the historic Trump-Kim meeting in June.

Even then, there is the question of whether North Korea's alleged human rights abuses would pose an obstacle to membership.

The answer is probably not.

The IMF's 2017 member list features plenty of countries with questionable human rights records, such as Myanmar and Afghanistan.

The World Bank, meanwhile, has been accused of being a "human rights-free zone".

"If Pyongyang can take steps to both improve some of its human rights issues and transforms its political relationships with key countries, one can imagine a number of opportunities opening up," Mr Abrahamian said.

Ultimately politics will prevail when deciding whether or not North Korea could become a member.

"If black markets or underdevelopments were barriers to being a part of the IMF, there wouldn't be that many members," Mr Abrahamian added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the recent UN General Assembly, South Korea's President Moon Jae-in was discussing North Korea's strides to build relations and open up to the world. He said Kim Jong-un had even said he would be "willing to join the IMF and the World Bank and other international agencies", Reuters reported.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #5 (Oct. 15, 2018)- FDI and Trump's Tax Reform

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #5 (Oct. 15, 2018)- FDI and Trump's Tax Reform

# data[].attributes.body
This article is giving the statistics and reasons why Global Foreign Direct Investments have decreased by 41% and $470 billion in the first half of the year 2018. The article blames U.S president Trump’s tax reforms for the cause, making U.S firms move to China, giving them a 6% inflow rise.

This article reminded me of the various readings we did on FDI, such as Ryder and Blognigen, and although it does not talk about the negative effects of FDI, the article does state that the U.S is now the third biggest not the 1st, making China the biggest receptor of FDIs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GENEVA - Global foreign direct investment (FDI) fell by 41 percent to $470 billion in the first six months of this year, the lowest since 2005, preliminary figures from the United Nations trade and development agency UNCTAD showed on Monday.

President Donald Trump's U.S. tax reforms were the main cause of the slump, which followed a 23 percent fall in 2017, as American firms repatriated a net $217 billion from foreign affiliates, UNCTAD investment chief James Zhan said.

"The investment flows are more policy-driven and less economic cycle-driven," Zhan told a news conference, citing the U.S. tax reform and economic liberalisation in China. "Overall the picture is gloomy and the prospect is not so optimistic."

FDI, comprising cross-border corporate takeovers, intra-company loans and investments in start-up projects abroad, is a bellwether of globalisation and a potential sign of growth of corporate supply chains and future trade ties.

But it can also go into reverse as companies pull out of foreign projects or repatriate earnings. Such reversals could erode the importance of international supply chains, which became an increasingly important driver of international trade until 2011 and subsequently stagnated, Zhan said.

"If there's a lack of FDI for expansion of the value chains then of course it will impact on global value chains and therefore impact on global trade," he said. "It's difficult to tell whether we are at a turning point (in globalisation) or if this is only a slowdown."

As U.S. firms pulled money out of their investments in the first half of the year, China became the top destination for FDI, with $70 billion of inflows, a 6 percent rise.

Developing countries attracted twice as much FDI as developed countries overall. Flows into Europe fell by 93 percent, as traditional inflows to Ireland - the European base of a number of U.S. multinationals - flipped to a negative $81 billion and Switzerland saw $77 billion pulled out.

But Britain jumped to second in the global rankings, with $66 billion of inflows, as international companies shifted money into Britain with intra-company loans, reversing a relative drought in 2017.

The United States was the third biggest destination, with $46.5 billion of inflows.

Despite the overall slowdown, money going into newly announced start-up projects, so-called greenfield investments, rose 42 percent, providing a glimmer of hope that more money will follow and drive more spending and trade in future.

Greenfield investments in Asia hit a record, driven by China's $41 billion crop and a surge of southeast Asian projects, especially in Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines.

(editing by David Stamp)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global FDI Falls 41 Percent in First Half of 2018 After Trump Tax Reforms-U.N.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GENEVA - Global foreign direct investment (FDI) fell by 41 percent to $470 billion in the first six months of this year, the lowest since 2005, preliminary figures from the United Nations trade and development agency UNCTAD showed on Monday. President Donald Trump's U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #10 -Nov. 28- Tear gas on asylum seekers

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #10 -Nov. 28- Tear gas on asylum seekers

# data[].attributes.body
On the Mexican-US border there is thousands of Central Americans looking for Asylum. Unfortunately they were met with restraint and tear gas. This article goes into detail about how Trump is defending his actions to use tear gas on woman and children, Trump has even questioned on to why families would bring their children into this situation. The article also expressed that many will have to face court and the timeline will probably be a while.
As we continue to talk about migrants we can see where the patterns are, many come to the United States, making the second largest corridor in the world is the Mexican-American border according to the wiki page. Since Trump is threatening to close down the border, many will be forced to return home and others will probably settle in Mexico, growing Mexico’s migrant population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US President Donald Trump has defended the use of tear gas on a crowd of migrants, including children, trying to cross the US-Mexico border on Sunday.

Border agents were forced into action because they were "being rushed by some very tough people", Mr Trump said.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of a draconian response, while Mexico has demanded the US investigate its use of tear gas.

Mexico says it has deported nearly 100 migrants who attempted to enter the US.

Sunday's confrontation broke out after a migrants' march in Tijuana spiralled out of control, with hundreds of migrants attempting to breach barriers separating Mexico from the US.

The agony over an American dream

Humanitarian crisis develops in Tijuana

What is the migrant caravan heading to US?

US Customs and Border Protection, which polices the border, said its personnel had been assaulted and hit by stones.

Women and children were among those trying to protect themselves from tear gas fired by the authorities, sparking condemnation from activists and some politicians.

What did Mr Trump say?

Speaking in Mississippi, Mr Trump said the border agents were right to use tear gas. "Here's the bottom line: Nobody's coming into our country unless they come in legally."

He added that the gas used was "very safe" and was a "very minor form" of tear gas.

However, this was disputed by some journalists at the scene, who said the tear gas was painful even from a significant distance away.

Image Copyright @natasha_pizzey @natasha_pizzey Report

Image Copyright @natasha_pizzey @natasha_pizzeyReport

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), tear gas can cause a burning sensation in the eyes and mouth, shortness of breath, and burns or rashes. Prolonged exposure can lead to blindness or breathing problems.

The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of tear gas in war, but allows it for domestic law enforcement purposes.

How dangerous is tear gas?

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has defended the use of tear gas, saying border agents were entitled to "self-defence".

However, Mexico's foreign ministry sent the US government a diplomatic note expressing its concern about the use of non-lethal weapons, and calling for a full investigation.

Image Copyright @CBP @CBP Report

Image Copyright @CBP @CBPReport

Mr Trump also questioned why parents had taken their children to the site, and alleged that some of the people at the border were not parents, but "grabbers" who had taken children with them to improve their chances of asylum.

Ms Nielsen accused migrant caravan organisers of using women and children as "human shields" during their encounters with law enforcement, "putting vulnerable people in harm's way".

Mr Trump and Ms Nielsen did not provide evidence for their claims.

What do people at the border say?

About 7,500 migrants have arrived at the US-Mexican border in recent weeks.

The migrants, who are mostly from Honduras, but also from Guatemala and El Salvador, say they are fleeing the threat of violence in their home countries and looking to make a better life for themselves and their families.

A photograph of Maria Meza and two of her daughters escaping tear gas was widely circulated online, and used by several major newspapers.

Ms Meza, from Honduras, said she had not attempted to cross the border, and was only looking across the fence when the tear gas was used.

"I was scared," she told BuzzFeed News. "I grabbed my daughters and ran... I thought my kids were going to die with me because of the gas we inhaled."

Meanwhile, a Honduran migrant at the border told AFP the US authorities had started using tear gas as they neared the border.

"The alarm went off and they began throwing tear gas at us. A person got hit and lots of kids fainted. So some people got rocks and threw them because many kids were fainting."

The migrants have travelled in large groups, dubbed "caravans", for more than 4,000km (2,500 miles) from Central America.

President Trump has vowed to keep each migrant on the Mexican side of the border until courts have decided their cases, meaning some face a long wait.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US President Donald Trump has defended the use of tear gas on a crowd of migrants, including children, trying to cross the US-Mexico border on Sunday. Border agents were forced into action because they were "being rushed by some very tough people", Mr Trump said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9 Nov.28- Nigeria and oil coruption

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9 Nov.28- Nigeria and oil coruption

# data[].attributes.body
An analysis made by a Non-Governmental Organization in Nigeria discovered most of its oil funding was being used for something else. Fraud is the word they are using when the money they were supposed to use for oil is being used for bribes. One of the biggest corruption cases Italy and Nigeria has seen, Italy also wants the Nigerian migrants to stay in their country and they will help them out there, but the article claims they cannot be trusted.

In class we talked about some NGOs and some INGOs and how important their role in society is, if the NGO HEDA hadn’t made its analysis of Nigeria and its oil, the fraud may have gone unnoticed. We also read about migrants and how they moved to a different country to work, as these Nigerian’s did but ultimately are being rejected by Italy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A court in Milan is considering charges of corruption against Eni and Shell in a controversial oil deal that led to Nigeria losing an estimated $6bn.

The campaign group Global Witness has calculated the OPL 245 deal in 2011 deprived Nigeria of double its annual education and healthcare budget.

Eni and Shell are accused of knowing the money they paid to Nigeria would be used for bribes.

The Italian and Anglo-Dutch energy giants deny any wrongdoing.

This unfolding scandal, which is being played out in an Italian court, has involved former MI6 officers, the FBI, a former President of Nigeria, as well as current and former senior executives at the two oil companies.

The former Nigerian oil minister, Dan Etete, was found guilty by a court in France of money laundering and it emerged he used illicit funds to buy a speed boat and a chateau. It is also claimed he had so much cash in $100 bills that it weighed five tonnes.

Global Witness has spent years investigating the deal which gave Shell and Eni the rights to explore OPL 245, an offshore oil field in the Niger Delta.

It has commissioned new analysis of the way the contract was altered in favour of the energy companies and concluded Nigeria's losses over the lifetime of the project could amount to $5.86bn, compared to terms in place before 2011.

Oil giants face Nigeria 'corruption' trial

New evidence in Shell corruption probe

The analysis was carried out by Resources for Development Consulting on behalf of Global Witness, as well as the NGOs HEDA, RE:Common and The Corner. The estimated losses were calculated using an oil price of $70 a barrel as a basis.

Eni has criticised the way it was calculated because it ignores the possibility that Nigeria had the right to revise the deal to claim a 50% share of the production revenues.

Deal or no deal

Campaigners say the deal should be cancelled.

"We discovered that Shell had constructed a deal that cut Nigeria out of their share of profit oil from the block," Ava Lee, a campaigner at Global Witness told the BBC's World Business Report.

"This amount of money would be enough to educate six million teachers in Nigeria. It really can't be underestimated just how big a deal this could be for a country that right now has the highest rates of extreme poverty in the world."

Nigeria is the richest economy in Africa, but despite having large resources of oil and gas millions of people are poor.

Lucrative OPL 245

It is understandable why Eni and Shell wanted to acquire the rights to develop OPL 245, because it is estimated to contain nine billion barrels of oil.

But the process of how they secured the contract is dogged by claims of corruption.

The court in Milan is weighing evidence of how a former Nigerian oil minister, Dan Etete, awarded ownership of OPL 245 to Malabu, a company he secretly controlled.

He is accused of paying bribes to others in the government, such as former President Goodluck Jonathan, to ensure that process went smoothly.

Shell and Eni are accused of knowing the $1.1bn they paid to Nigeria would be used for bribes, claims based on the content of emails which have since emerged.

"Looking at the emails it seems that Shell knew that the deal they were constructing was misleading but they went ahead with it anyway even though a number of Nigerian officials raised concerns about this scandalous, scandalous deal," says Ava Lee from Global Witness.

No wrongdoing

The Anglo-Dutch and Italian energy giants insist they have done nothing wrong, because they paid the money to secure the exploration rights directly to the Nigerian government.

Shell issued a statement to BBC World Business Report saying: "Since this matter is before the Tribunal of Milan it would not be appropriate for us to comment in detail. Issues that are under consideration as part of a trial process should be adjudicated in court and we do not wish to interfere with this process.

"We maintain that the settlement was a fully legal transaction and we believe the trial judges in Italy will conclude that there is no case against Shell or its former employees."

Eni has also denied any wrongdoing and told the BBC that it questions the competence of the experts commissioned by Global Witness and its "partners", as well as raising the possibility that the report by the campaign group is defamatory.

Shell accused of abuses in Nigeria

The Italian oil and gas company said "as this matter is currently before the Tribunal of Milan, we are unable to comment in detail".

In a statement it noted: "Global Witness together with its partners Corner House, HEDA Resource Centre and Re: Common had requested twice to be admitted as aggrieved parties in the Milan proceedings. On both occasions, the request was firmly denied by the Tribunal of Milan."

Eni also said it "continues to reject any allegation of impropriety or irregularity in connection with this transaction".

Biggest ever corruption case

Campaigners believe this is a landmark case and the outcome of the trial in Milan will cause an earthquake to reverberate through the oil and gas industry.

Nigeria's leader is being encouraged to intervene by Olanrewaju Suraju, from HEDA. "President Buhari should reject any deal," he said.

The contrast between the way Italy deals with migrants and the actions of one of the nation's biggest companies has been raised by Antonio Tricarico of Re;Common.

"The Italian government is discouraging Nigerian migrants trying to reach Italy by claiming that it will help them at home, but Italy's biggest multi-national, part owned by the state, is accused of scamming billions from the Nigerian people."

The outcome of the unprecedented court case in Milan could force the oil industry to change how it conducts its business, especially in countries where corruption is rife, because more transparency about contracts and payments made would discourage fraud.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nigeria loses $6bn from 'corrupt' oil deal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A court in Milan is considering charges of corruption against Eni and Shell in a controversial oil deal that led to Nigeria losing an estimated $6bn. The campaign group Global Witness has calculated the OPL 245 deal in 2011 deprived Nigeria of double its annual education and healthcare budget.

# data[].attributes.body
This article expresses the concern on the new tariffs the Trump administration has put on China, with these new tariffs small business owners are growing concerned on what it means for them. It can mean higher prices and lost jobs, thus many lined up to be heard at the Trade commissions hearing in Washington hopeful that the new trade proposal’s consequences will not be as hindering as they might think.

Trade is an important part of our world, according to James Rauch it produces growth and new ideas. If Trump continuously puts limits on how the U.S conducts it’s trade it can be worrisome to business owners who rely on those products to be traded at a lower price for profit. Our GDP would also be affected if these trades are not going to be conducted fairly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Stacks of lumber slowly drying at Missouri Hardwood in Birch Tree, Mo. Credit Credit Brian Ulrich for The New York Times

Feature

Tariffs on Chinese imports have endangered small business around the United States - a growing nightmare that critics say the president could have avoided.

Stacks of lumber slowly drying at Missouri Hardwood in Birch Tree, Mo. Credit Credit Brian Ulrich for The New York Times

Sam Cobb was surprised to see so many people lined up for a hearing at the International Trade Commission in Washington on the morning of Monday, Aug. 20. The chief executive of Real Wood Floors, Cobb was a veteran of such proceedings, which were usually sleepy affairs, populated by white-shoe attorneys fighting over arcane legal definitions. For this hearing, though, the line stretched out the door and onto the sidewalk along E Street, where the people waiting to get in were surrounded by a scrum of television cameramen. In the preceding weeks, the Trump administration had floated a proposal to place punitive import tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods, and the politics of global trade had suddenly burst into the headlines.

In the packed hearing room, Cobb listened as dozens of witnesses detailed how tariffs on Chinese-made bicycles and tires and fruit juice - and the reciprocal taxes that would inevitably be imposed on American exports to China in response - would lead to higher prices and lost jobs in the United States. This was part of a series of public hearings to address a proposed Section 301 tariff list, named after the provision of the Trade Act of 1974 that permits the United States to impose tariffs on other nations in response to unfair trade practices - in this case, the administration claimed, the Chinese theft of intellectual property. The proposed tariffs would hit businesses from virtually every industry, including many that had little to do with intellectual property.

For Cobb and the 247 employees of Real Wood's affiliated companies, the stakes were high. Their business is exporting hardwood from the forests of southern Missouri to their partners in China, who mill it into veneer, laminate it to a plywood subsurface and finish it into designer flooring. The partners then ship the engineered hardwood back to Real Wood, which sells it to high-end builders from coast to coast - an ocean-spanning supply chain that nevertheless keeps costs down. The simple possibility of tariffs had killed virtually all the company's orders for engineered hardwood from China. Real Wood was already paying an anti-dumping duty of as much as 25 percent on much of the flooring it imported from that country, a tariff that the International Trade Commission had levied on a number of Chinese flooring companies whose prices it deemed to be below market value. The Trump administration's proposal called for an additional 10 percent tariff, with the threat of a further 15 percent in 2019, which Cobb claimed would force Real Wood to make large price increases and would hamstring the whole industry.

Cobb, 42, a genial, bearlike, bearded father of seven, stayed up late the night before the hearing, rehearsing his performance in the mirror of his hotel room, cutting it in half to make sure it stayed within the strict time limit. He was dressed sharp for the event, in a three-piece suit, with a pocket square and nonprescription eyeglasses to make him look smart, or so he hoped. He purchased the entire outfit in China while on one of his countless trips there.

Image

West Plains, Mo., population 12,000, is an unlikely front in a global trade war. A four-hour drive south and west of St. Louis, the small city in the Ozarks was a North-South fault line during the Civil War, a place where brothers really did wind up fighting against one another. Today the town looks like many others in the region, with abundant churches, pickups and strip malls and the occasional fluttering Confederate battle flag. "The center of nowhere," as a resident described it to me, West Plains voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016.

Real Wood's headquarters sits down a gravel road off the main highway, a collection of warehouses filled with various kinds of flooring packed onto shrink-wrapped pallets. When I visited in late October, one side of the main warehouse was piled high with finished flooring from China, veneered in different varieties of American hardwoods like white oak and walnut and hickory. On the other side were finished boards that had been manufactured in Cambodia and Indonesia. Real Wood's 55,000-square-foot facility was filled with more than $6 million in flooring, the most the company had ever had in inventory; Cobb was racing to import as much as possible from China before the additional tariff of 15 percent was imposed at the end of the year.

"It makes me wonder if anyone is pro-trade in this country anymore," he said.

When the first list of China tariffs, amounting to $50 billion on high-tech goods, was announced in April, career officials at the Office of the United States Trade Representative could see that the broad-brush taxes could have negative effects on many American businesses.

Tariffs totaling $200 billion on nearly every part of the American economy presented an entirely different magnitude of complexity, and the U.S.T.R. was ill prepared to cope with the challenge. One former trade executive, who asked to remain anonymous, told me he saw it as his duty to try to avoid harming American interests as much as possible. He began advocating that the U.S.T.R. develop a method to determine, as accurately as possible, the effects of the proposed tariff package: the number of American factories that would close, the number of jobs eliminated, the value of sales lost and so on.

"I thought the U.S.T.R. needed a systematic approach so if a court reviewed the tariffs it would be able to see a consistent analytical framework," he said. "This was for domestic legal challenges. We could show that there wasn't favoritism or politics involved in who the tariffs were applied to. I thought we should have something like that."

A formalized methodology for determining harm might also have helped the U.S.T.R. deal with the tsunami of applications for exclusion from the tariffs that arrived this fall. It became increasingly evident to some within the agency that the decision-making process was now very top down, involving the president and the cabinet with little input from career officials.

But trade hawks in the administration challenged the recommendations, the former senior official said, pushing the president to make the tariffs as broad as possible and reminding him that he had made a campaign pledge to take action against China. On one side of the argument stood anti-China figures like Navarro and Lighthizer, who advocated tariffs; on the other, the people Trump and his inner circle called "globalists," including Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and the former National Economic Counsel director Gary Cohn, who chiefly advocated protecting intellectual property and gaining access to Chinese markets for American companies and resisted widespread and untargeted tariffs. Ultimately, the former senior official recalled, the president decided that he was going to put tariffs on "all of it," and the decision was final. (The White House declined to comment on the decision-making process.)

"There was no sense of reality," the official said. It would take years to build factories in America, and who would want to spend that kind of capital with uncertainty about Trump's re-election, or the real possibility of Trump's changing his mind and tariffs being lifted? There was no evidence any of that would happen. "All the president needs is one or two people to tell him he's right."

Shortly before he announced the China tariffs, the president imposed a tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, angering allies like Germany, Canada and Britain and isolating the United States in its most important dispute with the Chinese. Greg Scheurich, the owner of a bearing-components manufacturer in Joplin, Mo., was nearly beside himself with frustration at the way the steel tariffs were threatening the 100-employee company he had built over 30 years. He needed a specific kind of steel for his bearing components, which were used in medical equipment and wind turbines. The only domestic source couldn't produce enough to keep up with demand. His business was already down 15 percent, he said, and it felt as if the government were cutting his throat, so much so that he had started thinking about the last resort: moving his plant to Canada or Mexico, where he could get the steel he needed tariff-free.

"People are making these decisions that don't know what the hell they're talking about," he said. "They don't have a clue."

On my last day in West Plains, I had lunch with the Real Wood team in their conference room, a feast of smoked beef tenderloin. The main subject of conversation was deciding who would get to go to Cambodia to install the play set they had just purchased for an orphanage there. For the Real Wood staff, people in China weren't a distant abstraction or enemy. China was in the family. Cobb had three adopted Chinese-born daughters under the age of 8, and Real Wood employees had taken in or helped dozens of other orphaned Chinese children over the years.

"I love China," Scott Gill, Real Wood's vice president of sales, told me. "The people. The food. I was amazed by the beauty of the country." He was a reluctant Trump voter and himself the father of a recently adopted Chinese boy, now 15. "Why can't we both win from trade?" he went on. "Why does it have to be zero sum?"

A member of Real Wood's finance team walked into the room. "We got our first invoice for the tariff," he said.

"We've been Trumped," someone joked.

The summary for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule provided a multidigit code for engineered wood flooring. The purchase price to Real Wood on the invoice was $65,842, and in a column across the page was a line item for the additional tax the company had to pay: $6,584.20. The sum seemed small, perhaps, but Cobb says he expects to pay more than $200,000 in tariffs before the year is out.

The president could remove the tariffs at any moment, but identifying the winners this early in the age of the Trump tariffs is difficult, if not impossible. Economists tend to agree that all sides are likely to lose, at least in the short term. Employees of a nail manufacturer in Poplar Bluff, Mo., recently told a local television station that they were counting on presidential intercession to save their jobs. In South Carolina, a television maker named Element Electronics announced that it was closing down and laying off 126 workers as a result of the tariffs, only to gain salvation when Gov. Henry McMaster and other state political figures personally interceded to get the company an exclusion, the kind of random political intervention that trade policy is meant to prevent.

In recent days, Cobb and his sales force traveled to Phoenix, Ariz., for a series of meetings with builders, hoping to win contracts to supply hardwood floors to small and midsize single-home companies across the country. The sessions went well, with Real Wood presenting its nontariffed products from Cambodia and Indonesia, not even bothering to show the favored China-made flooring styles. One builder mentioned that for his next project he might swap out hardwood flooring from China for vinyl, to save on costs.

"Do you know your vinyl flooring is on the tariff list?" Cobb asked. "It's also tariffed."

"I've heard rumors," the builder said. "What else is on the list?"

"Nails, molding, cabinetry, all types of flooring," Cobb said, citing only a few of the thousands of items subject to tariffs - no exclusions allowed - that will hit the entire American economy.

"Is that really going to happen?" the builder stammered.

"It already has," Cobb replied.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The American Casualties of Trump's Trade War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Feature Tariffs on Chinese imports have endangered small business around the United States - a growing nightmare that critics say the president could have avoided. Stacks of lumber slowly drying at Missouri Hardwood in Birch Tree, Mo.

# data[].attributes.body
The caravan that is bringing migrants from Honduras has become a problem according to trump, this is one of the largest migrant caravans from Central American that is yet to be seen. And according to Trump he is threatening to shut down foreign aid to those countries that do no help him stop the caravan.

In class we talked about human migration and that many migrant for asylum reasons, and this caravan is doing jus that. They are seeking asylum from a country that does nothing to help protect them, Trump makes this an immigration issue with threats to remove foreign aid, but as we have studied in this course, he does not have the authority to do so on his own.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

The migrant caravan was formed late last week in San Pedro Sula, a city in northern Honduras known for high levels of violence. Credit Credit Daniele Volpe for The New York Times

A caravan of migrants, nearly all of them Hondurans, is making its way north through Guatemala toward Mexico and the United States. It is the latest, and certainly the largest, iteration of a phenomenon that has occurred from time to time: big groups of Central Americans joining together to face the challenges of migration, their numbers providing security against the criminals that stalk the route north.

But this one has drawn the ire of President Trump, who warned on Thursday that he would shut down the southwest border of the United States if Mexico did not halt the group. He also reiterated his threat that unless the governments of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador stopped the caravan's progress, he would suspend foreign aid to them.

"I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught -" he posted on Twitter, "and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!"

And for good measure, perhaps with the midterm elections in mind, he took a shot at the Democratic Party, blaming it in part for the caravan of migrants.

"Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border," he wrote in another of a series of Twitter posts. "All Democrats fault for weak laws!"

Here are answers to some questions about the migrant caravan that has upset Mr. Trump this week and inflamed political concerns throughout the region.

Image

When the caravan crossed the border into Guatemala, its members traveling by foot and vehicle, it had ballooned to more than 1,000. Credit Orlando Sierra/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

The migrant caravan was formed late last week in San Pedro Sula, a city in northern Honduras known for high levels of violence. It originally numbered fewer than 200 people - in line with most past caravans. But as word spread, the mobilization quickly grew. By the time the group had crossed the border into Guatemala, its members traveling by foot and vehicle, it had ballooned to more than 1,000.

More migrants have joined this week - by some estimates it now numbers an extraordinary 4,000 people - though it has fractured into smaller groups that were making their way at varying speeds through Guatemala on Thursday.

Like the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have fled Central America in recent years, most of the caravan's participants have in mind a new life in the United States, though some say they intend to stop in Mexico. Many say they have been ground down by low wages, unemployment and poor public services in Honduras and are looking for better opportunities elsewhere. Others say they fear for their lives and intend to apply for asylum either in Mexico or the United States.

Advocacy groups, in the past, have used the caravans to draw attention to the migrants' plight and the state of affairs in their homelands. But no group has claimed responsibility for organizing this week's caravan.

President Trump warned on Thursday that he would shut down the southwest border of the United States if Mexico did not halt the caravan. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Mr. Trump made the fight against illegal immigration a central plank in his presidential platform, vowing to obtain tougher immigration legislation and build a border wall. But he has been unable to secure financing to build the wall. And after illegal border crossings declined in 2017 to a more than 40-year low, the numbers began climbing again this year, including record-setting numbers of people traveling in families in September, frustrating the Trump administration.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump's fierce attacks against immigrants were wildly successful in firing up his conservative base. And with midterm elections only weeks away, he has renewed these attacks, warning of criminals pouring over the border to threaten American citizens and suggesting that undocumented immigrants will cause economic dislocation and job loss.

He has been using those themes at every campaign rally, which have increased significantly in the last few weeks. And many Republican candidates have embraced his anti-immigrant message in their own races.

In his caravan-inspired Twitter storm on Thursday morning, the president wrote: "I am watching the Democrat Party led (because they want Open Borders and existing weak laws) assault on our country by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, whose leaders are doing little to stop this large flow of people, INCLUDING MANY CRIMINALS, from entering Mexico to U.S."

The Honduran government urged people not to join the caravan, calling it a political mobilization aimed at the president. Credit Jorge Cabrera/Reuters

Mr. Trump's initial salvos in his response to the caravan this week were directed at the Honduran government, but were quickly expanded to include El Salvador and Guatemala. He threatened all three countries with a suspension of foreign aid should they allow their citizens to continue traveling toward the United States with the intention of entering illegally. Central America has been a primary source of undocumented migration to the United States in recent years.

With the caravan having already crossed into Guatemala, there was little the Honduran government could do to arrest its progress, though the administration of President Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras deployed security forces to a main border crossing to try to prevent others from joining the migration. The Honduran government also urged citizens not to join the caravan, calling it a political mobilization aimed against the president.

Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government detained a former Honduran lawmaker who was traveling with the caravan, accusing him of failing to comply with immigration rules.

President Jimmy Morales of Guatemala dismissed Mr. Trump's threats, telling reporters that he rejected constraints placed on foreign aid. He also said he had spoken with his Honduran counterpart, President Juan Orlando Hernández, about guaranteeing the safe return of migrants who decide they want to return home, Reuters reported.

In Mexico, the government deployed about 700 National Police officers to the southern border and issued statements warning the caravan's participants against trying to enter the country illegally.

Honduran migrants resting at a church-run shelter in Guatemala City. Mexican immigration officials said that those who try to cross the border illegally will be detained and deported. Credit Daniele Volpe for The New York Times

Some migrants associated with the caravan began to arrive at Guatemala's border with Mexico on Wednesday, gathering in the town of Ciudad Tecún Umán. That stretch of the border, demarcated by the Suchiate River, is highly porous and is an oft-traveled route for undocumented migrants making their way north.

By Thursday afternoon, some participants had already crossed illegally into Mexico on rafts that ply the river and had settled in temporary shelters run by the local municipality, Ciudad Hidalgo. But hundreds of others remained on the Guatemalan side of the border to await the arrival of the rest of the caravan.

The Mexican immigration authorities have said that migrants with valid documents and visas will be allowed in, but that those who attempt to enter illegally will be detained and deported. Those seeking asylum or some other forms of protection can request it, but will have to wait in a detention center for as many as 45 days, officials said.

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo traveled to Panama City on Thursday to meet with President Juan Carlos Varela. He plans then to head to Mexico, where he is scheduled to meet on Friday with President Enrique Peña Nieto, among other officials. Migration, and the caravan, will surely be among the top issues on the agenda in Mexico City.

Maya Averbuch contributed reporting from Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: What Is the Migrant Caravan and Why Does It Matter to Trump?. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the Migrant Caravan and Why Does Trump Care?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A caravan of migrants, nearly all of them Hondurans, is making its way north through Guatemala toward Mexico and the United States. It is the latest, and certainly the largest, iteration of a phenomenon that has occurred from time to time: big groups of Central Americans joining together to face the challenges of migration, their numbers providing security against the criminals that stalk the route north.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how a farmer relies on others to keep his farm in his homeland active. It is being done by remittances and he is not the only one, it is said that remittances are expected to grow by $199billion from 2010 to 2019. The countries who benefit the most are Kenya and Philippines but none of that money is invest because it goes directly to food and housing.

The article is relevant to the information we learned about remittances and how it is a source of income higher than the GDP in some countries, this article says it is Kenya and Philippines while the wiki page says it is India, but new information is constantly being updated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I N 2016 AYO ADEWUNMI, a Nigerian-born agricultural trader living in London, bought a five-hectare farm in his homeland. It has produced little since. "I am not in the country, so I have to rely on third parties. It's just not good enough," he says.
Get our daily newsletter
Mr Adewunmi has since discovered another, potentially more satisfactory way to make such investments: through FarmCrowdy, a crowdfunding platform that lends to Nigerian farms and provides technical assistance to their owners. The two-year-old startup, which is considering expanding into Ghana, places high hopes in the African diaspora as a source of funds.

The case for such platforms goes beyond agriculture. Global remittances are expected to soar from $468bn in 2010 to $667bn in 2019. They are among the top two foreign-currency sources in several countries, including Kenya and the Philippines. Yet hardly any of the money is invested.

In part, this is because recipients use three-quarters of the money for basics such as food and housing. But it is also because emigrants who want to invest back home have few options. New investment channels could attract lots of extra cash-about $73bn a year in Commonwealth countries alone, according to research by the 53-country grouping.

Crowdfunding platforms would enable investors to put modest sums directly into smaller businesses in developing countries, which are often cash-starved. Yet of the emerging world's 85 debt- and equity-crowdfunding ventures, only a handful raise money abroad. Several platforms set up in rich countries over the past decade to invest in developing countries, including Emerging Crowd, Homestrings and Enable Impact, quickly folded.

A big problem is that few developing countries have rules about crowdfunding. Many have allowed activity so far chiefly because the industry is so small, says Anton Root of Allied Crowds, a consultancy. Cross-border transfers using such platforms easily fall foul of rich countries' rules intended to stop money-laundering and the financing of terrorism.

Some developing countries have realised that they need to act. Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia have all recently passed regulations on equity crowdfunding or peer-to-peer lending. But from a cross-border perspective, Africa seems most inventive, owing to active entrepreneurs and Western help.

Last month the British government approved a grant of £230,000 ($300,000) to the African Crowdfunding Association to help it craft model accreditation and investor-protection rules. Elizabeth Howard of LelapaFund, a platform focused on east Africa, is part of an effort to see such rules adopted across the continent. That would help reassure sending countries that transfers do not end up in the wrong hands, she says. She hopes to enlist the support of the Central Bank of West African States, which oversees eight Francophone countries, at a gathering of crowdfunders and regulators sponsored by the French government in Dakar, in Senegal, this month.

Thameur Hemdane of Afrikwity, a platform targeting Francophone Africa, says the industry will also study whether prospective laws could be expanded to the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, a grouping of six countries. Harmonised rules will not guarantee crowdfunders' success, but would be a useful step towards raising the amount of diaspora capital that is put to productive use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Investment platforms vie to capture a share of global remittances

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IN 2016 AYO ADEWUNMI, a Nigerian-born agricultural trader living in London, bought a five-hectare farm in his homeland. It has produced little since. "I am not in the country, so I have to rely on third parties. It's just not good enough," he says.