# data[].attributes.headline
Increased Trade and Increased Green House Gas Emissions Case Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Increased Trade and Increased Green House Gas Emissions Case Study

# data[].attributes.body
As more free trade is created around the world, larger quantities of cargo are moved around the world. Goods are required to be transported from the country of production to the country of consumption. The farther away the country of production and the country of consumption are the more green house gases are released into the atmosphere by trucks and ships. Agreements such as NAFTA increased shipping from Mexico, America, and Canada by truck and agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TTP, increase more shipping across the Pacific Ocean by Cargo Ship.

This text is all about the ways that opened trade and free trade increase green house gas production throughout the world. This text also talks about a formulaic way that green house gases are produced by increased trade. The text also comes from the World Trade Organization itself so it comes from a reliable source.

This text had been added to this Padlet because it connects green house gas production increase, which is normally not associated with free trade, into light. The text talks about how good it is that free trade is increasing globally however in doing so green house gas production also increases globally.

("The Impact of Trade Opening on Climate Change.")

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: This webpage is prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility and is intended only to provide a general explanation of the subject matter it addresses. It is in no way intended to provide legal guidance with respect to, or an authoritative legal interpretation of, the provisions of any WTO agreement. Moreover, nothing in this note affects, nor is intended to affect, WTO members' rights and obligations in any way.

Expansion of international trade

The past half century has been marked by an unprecedented expansion of international trade. Since 1950, world trade has grown more than twenty-seven fold in volume terms. By way of comparison, the level of world GDP rose eight-fold during the same period. As a consequence, the share of international trade in world GDP has risen from 5.5 per cent in 1950 to 20.5 per cent in 2006. More

How does trade affect greenhouse gas emissions?

Trade economists have developed a conceptual framework for examining how trade opening can affect the environment. This framework, first applied to study the environmental impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), separates the impact of trade liberalization into three independent effects: scale, composition and technique. This framework can be used therefore to study the link between trade opening and climate change. More

Trade and transport

One concern about trade's role in greenhouse gas emissions is its link to transportation services. International trade involves countries specializing in and exporting goods in which they have a comparative advantage and importing other goods from their trade partners. This process of international exchange requires that goods be transported from the country of production to the country of consumption. So international trade expansion is likely to lead to increased use of transportation
services. More

> Introduction
> WTO and the challenge of climate change
> Climate change measures and potential relevance of trade disciplines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of trade opening on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: This webpage is prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility and is intended only to provide a general explanation of the subject matter it addresses. It is in no way intended to provide legal guidance with respect to, or an authoritative legal interpretation of, the provisions of any WTO agreement.

# data[].attributes.body
The New Deal did more than hand out jobs to Americans. These jobs were part of programs that helped the nation as a whole. One major area the New Deal improved was the environment. Two of the most influential programs of the New Deal were the TVA and CCC. The TVA created dams for Tennessee, and the CCC "employed more than 2.5 million youths working in some 1,500 CCC camps in rural areas, planting trees, constructing roads, and improving recreational facilities."

The New Deal was very influential in helping the environment out.  It was criticized for being too invloved in the ideal approach and ideal solution to the problem, but the New Deal was very good at the time, and we only now look at the New Deal with contempt because we see what it affected and what it did more fully.  The New Deal planned for the future.

This text is included in the Padlet because it provides an compelling argument of how the government-controled system of intervening in the economy, employing a large workforce and keeping high tariffs, the New Deal, positively impacted the environment.

("The New Deal and the Environment")

# data[].attributes.body
In a proposed deal between the US and the European Union, tariffs would be lowered from 3-5% to 0. This in itself does not sound like a very big deal, as it would only add a projected .99 to 1.33% to the US GDP, and some economists doubt it would do even that. However, the political impact would be huge. Countries such as the U.K, who have been considering leaving the EU would be encouraged to recommit themselves as this deal would significantly strengthen ties between the US and the EU.

Another deal that is being worked on is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal that would allow free trade between the United States and Eastern Asia. However, this deal is not only about lowering tariffs, as lots of behind the border measures shall be dealt with as well, whether it be fuel efficiency standards or safety requirements.

For nations like America, these agreements are increasingly becoming a tool for geostrategic planning. As the US reaches the apex of its political power on the world stage, agreements such as these help America to solidify global standards while they are still a world power. In other words, these deals are a way for the US to shape the global trading landscape for the 21st century.

This text is notable for its use of expert testimony, including statements from people such as Professor Lawrence Summers, a former secretary of the Treasury and director of the White House National Economic Council, Edoardo Campanella, a former economist at the World Trade Organization, and Robert Lawrence, a professor of International trade and Investment at the Kennedy School. Including testimony from these people greatly increase the pathos of the piece, as the subjects are highly qualified to provide expert information on this subject.

The text belongs in the Padlet because it provides a comprehensive look at the political advantages and disadvantages of making free trade deals, and does so from a number of different perspectives, such as that of the EU and that of America.

(Kapur)

# data[].attributes.body
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the countries of Canada, the US, and Mexico came into effect at the dawn of 1994. While the US and Canada already had few tariffs from the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement, the implementation of NAFTA immediately eliminated more than half of tariffs regarding Mexico's exports to US, with intentions to eliminate more and more tariffs, virtually all, over 15 years.

2014 marked the 20th anniversary for the implementation of NAFTA, while trade between the countries have increased, the job-creation and economic cooperation that supporters had hoped NAFTA would foster has been less than desired. The text notes that NAFTA seems to have significantly increased intraregional trade, especially between the US and Mexico. In regards to the US labor market, there exists quite some disagreement. A positive effect can been viewed from the prospective that new export-related jobs in the United States pay, on average, 15-20% more than domestic production jobs. On the other hand, it is evident that income inequality in the US has risen and by 2004, NAFTA has resulted in the loss of one million US jobs, although whether or not NAFTA is the cause of these changes remains largely up to debate. In Mexico, there again seems to be mixed reviews of NAFTA. Mexican income has increased at a slower pace when compared to other Latin American countries. Despite increased competition from subsidized American farmers, with reduced tariffs, farm exports to the US has tripled since the advent of NAFTA and the Mexican economy has become more stable. Canada seems to have fared the best since the advent of NAFTA with the creation of 4.7 million new jobs and greatly increased agicultural trade; Canada has become the US's main importer of agricultural products.

The text frequently uses references from experts such as "Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott, experts at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the authors of NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges." Quoting from experts increases the text's credibility as experts tend to be highly knowledgeable about their field after devoting hours of study to the subject. Quotes from pundits also serve to make the text more interesting, quotes are more personal than facts and statistics and emphasize key points of the text.

This text deserves to be in this Padlet because it demonstrates some economic successes that have followed NAFTA, but takes a balanced stance, on that is sensitive to interests of all countries involved in the agreement, and is receptive to the notion that there is some uncertainty on whether NAFTA was the driving force behind these changes.

(Sergie)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is a three-country accord negotiated by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States that entered into force in January 1994. NAFTA's terms, which were implemented gradually through January 2008, provided for the elimination of most tariffs on products traded among the three countries. Liberalization of trade in agriculture, textiles, and automobile manufacturing was a major focus. The deal also sought to protect intellectual property, establish dispute-resolution mechanisms, and, through side agreements, implement labor and environmental safeguards.

NAFTA fundamentally reshaped North American economic relations, driving an unprecedented integration between Canada and the United States' developed economies and Mexico, a developing country. NAFTA enjoyed bipartisan backing-it was negotiated by Republican President George H.W. Bush and passed through Congress and implemented under Democratic President Bill Clinton. It encouraged a more than tripling of regional trade and cross-border investment between the three countries also grew significantly. Yet NAFTA has remained a perennial target in the broader debate over free trade. President Donald J. Trump says the deal has shifted U.S. manufacturing production, and jobs, to Mexico, and in August 2017 his administration reopened negotiations with Canada and Mexico with the aim of reforming it.

How does NAFTA fit into the broader debate over trade policy?

When negotiations for NAFTA began in 1991, the goal for all three countries was the integration of Mexico with the highly developed, high-wage economies of the United States and Canada. The hope was that freer trade would bring stronger and steadier economic growth to Mexico, providing new jobs and opportunities for its growing workforce and discouraging illegal migration from Mexico. For the United States and Canada, Mexico was seen both as a promising new market for exports and as a lower cost investment location that could enhance the competitiveness of U.S. and Canadian companies.

While the United States had completed a free trade agreement with Canada in 1988, the addition of Mexico was unprecedented. Opponents of NAFTA seized on the wage differentials with Mexico, which had a per capita income just 30 percent [PDF] that of the United States. U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot argued in 1992 that trade liberalization would lead to a "giant sucking sound" of U.S. jobs fleeing across the border. Supporters like Presidents Bush and Clinton countered that the agreement would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year, while Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortiari saw it as an opportunity to modernize the Mexican economy so that it would "export goods, not people."

NAFTA's goal was the integration of Mexico with the highly developed economies of the United States and Canada.

How has NAFTA affected the U.S. economy?

In the years since NAFTA, U.S. trade with its North American neighbors has more than tripled, growing more rapidly than U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are the two largest destinations for U.S. exports, accounting for more than a third of the total. Most estimates conclude that the deal had a modest but positive impact on U.S. GDP of less than 0.5 percent, or a total addition of up to $80 billion dollars to the U.S. economy upon full implementation, or several billion dollars of added growth per year.

Many economists also assert that the recent troubles of U.S. manufacturing have little to do with NAFTA, arguing that manufacturing in the United States was under stress decades before the treaty. Research by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson published in January 2016 found [PDF] that competition with China had a much bigger negative impact on U.S. jobs since 2001, when China joined the WTO. Hanson, an economist and trade expert at the University of California, San Diego, says that the steepest decline in manufacturing jobs, which fell from seventeen million to eleven million between 2000 and 2010, is mostly attributable to trade with China and underlying technological changes. "China is at the top of the list in terms of the employment impacts that we found since 2000, with technology second, and NAFTA far less important," he says.

In fact, says Hanson, NAFTA helped the U.S. auto sector compete with China. By contributing to the development of cross-border supply chains, NAFTA lowered costs, increased productivity, and improved U.S. competitiveness. This meant shedding some jobs in the United States as positions moved to Mexico, he argues, but without the pact, even more would have otherwise been lost. "Because Mexico is so close, you can have a regional industry cluster where goods can go back and forth. The manufacturing industries in the three countries can be very integrated," he says. These sort of linkages, which have given U.S. automakers an advantage in relation to China, would be much more difficult without NAFTA's tariff reductions and protections for intellectual property.

Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says anxiety over trade deals has grown because wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity while income inequality has risen. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."

How has it affected the Mexican economy?

NAFTA gave a major boost to Mexican farm exports to the United States, which have tripled since NAFTA's implementation. Hundreds of thousands of auto manufacturing jobs have also been created in the country, and most studies have found [PDF] that the pact had a positive impact on Mexican productivity and consumer prices.

The pact was the continuation of a decade of economic liberalization that saw the country transition from one of the world's most protectionist economies to one of the most open to trade. Mexico had reduced many of its trade barriers upon joining the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the precursor to the WTO, in 1986, but still had a pre-NAFTA average tariff level [PDF] of 10 percent.

Mexican policymakers saw NAFTA as an opportunity to both accelerate and "lock in" these hard won reforms to the Mexican economy. In addition to liberalizing trade, Mexico's leaders reduced public debt, introduced a balanced budget rule, stabilized inflation, and built up the country's foreign reserves. Thus while Mexico was hard hit [PDF] by the 2008 U.S. recession due to its dependence on exports to the U.S. market-in 2009 Mexican exports to the United States fell 17 percent while its economy contracted by over 6 percent-its economy was able to bounce back relatively quickly. Mexico returned to growth in 2010, its GDP expanding over 5 percent, and subsequently falling to around 2 percent in 2014 and 2015.

But Mexico's NAFTA experience has suffered from a disconnect between the promises of some of its supporters-that the pact would deliver rapid growth, raise wages, and reduce emigration-and the deal's more mixed outcomes. Between 1993 and 2013, Mexico's economy grew at an average rate of just 1.3 percent a year during a period when Latin America was undergoing a major expansion. Poverty remains at the same levels as in 1994. And the expected "wage convergence" between U.S. and Mexican wages didn't happen, with Mexico's per capita income rising at an annual average of just 1.2 percent in that period-far slower than Latin American countries such as Brazil, Chile, and Peru.

Mexican unemployment also rose, which some economists have blamed on NAFTA for exposing Mexican farmers, especially corn producers, to competition from heavily subsidized U.S. agriculture. A study led by CEPR economist Mark Weisbrot estimates that NAFTA put almost two million small-scale Mexican farmers [PDF] out of work, in turn driving illegal migration to the United States. (Migration to the United States, both legal and illegal, more than doubled after 1994, peaking in 2007. However, the flow reversed after 2008 as more Mexican-born immigrants began leaving the country than arriving. Experts attribute this to stricter border enforcement, changing demographics in Mexico, and the combination of fewer available jobs in the United States along with more in Mexico.)

Many analysts explain these divergent outcomes by pointing to the " two-speed" nature of Mexico's economy, in which NAFTA drove the growth of foreign investment, high-tech manufacturing, and rising wages in the industrial north, while the largely agrarian south remains detached from this new economy. As University of Pennsylvania economist Mauro Guillen argues, Mexico's rising inequality stems from NAFTA-oriented workers in the north gaining much higher wages from trade-related activity.

Ultimately, many experts caution, Mexico's recent economic performance has been affected by many non-NAFTA factors. The 1994 devaluation of the peso drove Mexican exports, while competition with China's low-cost manufacturing sector [PDF] likely depressed growth. Unrelated public policies, such as land reform, made it easier for farmers to sell their land and emigrate. As UCSD's Hanson has argued [PDF], Mexico's struggles have largely domestic causes: poorly developed credit markets, a large and low-productivity informal sector, and dysfunctional regulation.

What impact has it had on Canada?

Canada has seen strong gains in cross-border investment in the NAFTA era: Since 1993, U.S. and Mexican investments in Canada have tripled. U.S. investment, which accounts for more than half of Canada's FDI stock, grew from [PDF] $70 billion in 1993 to over $368 billion in 2013.

However, the most consequential aspect for Canada-opening its economy to the U.S. market, by far Canada's largest trading partner-predated NAFTA, with the 1989 entry into force of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA). Overall Canada-U.S. trade increased rapidly in the wake of Canada's trade liberalization. Post-NAFTA, Canadian exports to the United States grew [PDF] from $110 billion to $346 billion, while imports from the United States grew by almost the same amount.

Agriculture, in particular, saw a boost. Canada is the leading importer of U.S. agricultural products, and one of NAFTA's biggest economic effects for Canada has been to increase bilateral U.S.-Canada agricultural flows. Canadian agricultural trade with the United States more than tripled since 1994, as did Canada's total agriculture exports to NAFTA partners.

Neither the worst fears of Canada's trade opponents-that opening to trade would gut the country's manufacturing sector-nor its highest hopes-that it would spark a rapid increase in productivity-came to pass. Canadian manufacturing employment held steady, but the "productivity gap" between the Canadian and U.S. economies wasn't closed: Canada's labor productivity remains at 72 percent [PDF] of U.S. levels.

What's next for NAFTA?

In May 2017, President Trump made good on his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA, officially informing Congress that talks would be reopened with Canada and Mexico. The three countries kicked off formal negotiations in August 2017, stating that they hope to conclude them by early 2018, before Mexican presidential elections in July of that year. While details of the talks are classified, the Trump administration has said it will focus on reducing the U.S.-Mexico trade deficit, tightening rules-of-origin requirements, reforming the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, and updating the pact to include digital services and intellectual property. Even as negotiations proceed, Trump has reiterated his threat to withdraw the United States altogether.

Among policy experts, much of the debate has centered on how to mitigate the negative effects of deals like NAFTA, whether by compensating workers who lose their jobs or providing worker retraining programs to help them transition to new industries.

There are pockets that have felt lots of pain. The existence of those pockets highlights our policy failures.

Professor Gordon Hanson,

In particular, expanding the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, which helps workers pay for education or training to find new jobs, could help quell anger directed at trade liberalization. Introduced in the 1960s, TAA was cut sharply in the 1980s, and many economists argue that its current funding levels are far from sufficient to address the increase in trade-related job losses. "There are pockets that have felt lots of pain," says UCSD's Hanson. "The existence of those pockets highlights our policy failures in helping regions and individuals adjust to the impact of globalization."

Another policy pressed by some economists, as well as by President Obama, is expanded wage insurance, which would guarantee laid-off workers a portion of their previous salaries for a set period, usually several years. Such insurance would be especially relevant for many older workers who may struggle to find work in new industries without taking a steep pay cut.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is a three-country accord negotiated by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States that entered into force in January 1994. NAFTA's terms, which were implemented gradually through January 2008, provided for the elimination of most tariffs on products traded among the three countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Does free trade effect childhood poverty? Through debates regarding free trade, issues such as childhood poverty have been ignored. Research has proven that trade does positively effect circumstances tied to the long term effect of welfare and poverty. Free trade changes the impact on domestic prices, makes an overall effect on wages and employment opportunities,and reduces the percentage of tariffs and export taxes. To increase understanding of effects from trade on poor developing countries, sector case studies were displayed on Ethiopian countries. This study had positive results such as higher prices in goods increasing overall wages and also households being able to supply themselves with their needs independently because of employment opportunities.

"Developing country governments must pay attention to these differential impacts in order to mitigate the inequities that trade liberalisation is likely to exacerbate in developing countries. Policy impacts on children need to be traced from the changes they generate on macroeconomic vari-ables (from consumer prices to individual household livelihoods) and the complexity of differential intra-house-hold effects... Additionally, there are likely to be important differences in the impact of trade liberalisation between developing countries, according to their level of market integration, relative terms of trade, bargaining power in the world economy, the composition of their economies and the degree of comparative advantage in different sectors." (Jones.)

This text uses specific examples from past studies to show the impact that free trade has the ability to make. This real world examples give proof to the authors position on the argument. The real world examples also provide a more logical position and better understanding of the benefits towards free trade.

This text was included in the Padlet because it shows the postive side to free trade and the opportunities that it provides socially. It also gives this debate a different perspective because it considers the long term effects rather than just the immediate solutions.

(Jones)

# data[].attributes.body
In a declared effort to combat drugs, trade was greatly liberalized between the US and Peru. The action proved to be very problematic for many American asparagus growers. As Peru has thousands of workers who are willing to work very cheaply, many Peruvian operations can pay the workers little wage and in turn, they have been able charge little for their products, thereby attracting more consumers. In order to stay competitive, American farmers had to then likewise reduce their prices with the ramification of reduced profits. With a lowered income, it has become difficult for many farmers to sustain their operations and many have had to downsize.

With no limits or tariffs, free trade enabled Peruvian asparagus to permeate the market at low prices. To their dismay, American farmers lost control of market prices and had to yield to reduced incomes. Many farmers were displaced from growing Peruvian industries. In these regards, free trade has negatively impacted workers of a developed nation.

The text is notable for its usage of expert testimonies of Jim Middleton, chairman of the Washington Asparagus Commission and John Bakker of the National Asparagus Council. These accounts from respectable people bolster the idea that free trade can be harmful and raise the importance of the matter.

The text belongs in this Padlet because it shows the perspective of how members of a fully-industrialized country, seemingly on top of the world, can suffer at the hand of free trade.

(Boomgaard)

# data[].attributes.body
Almost every country throughout the world will benefit from free trade in one way or another. The country of Costa Rica would have benefited from CAFTA, Central American Free Trade Agreement, because it would have access to free trade with America and the rest of Central America had it been ratified. However, at the same time, such an agreement would have given American oil companies the right to drill for oil off the coast of Costa Rica which would be detrimental to Costa Rica's pristine environment. Also, "CAFTA does not require its members to adopt internationally recognized standards for environmental protection." Because countries that would have been members of CAFTA would not be required to follow international environmental standards, companies would be able to exploit this for their personal gain even if it negatively impacts the environment. The American energy company, Harken Energy, wanted to drill for the oil off the shores of Costa Rica but the Costa Rican government stopped them from doing so. Harken Energy then "attempted to sue Costa Rica for $57 billion" which is more than the total GDP of the country. If Harken Energy was able to drill for the oil it wants then the environment would have been significantly damaged.

This text uses real world examples as well as logically states all of the environmental impacts that free trade in the Americas will have. The real world examples connect what the author is saying to the real world so that the reader can understand the connection.

This text was included in this Padlet because it shows the negative, less obvious impacts that free trade will have on the countries that utilize it.

(James)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Together with citizens all over the world, Global Exchange has organized against the global rulemakers, because we believe in a vision of global economic integration that values worker's rights, fair trade, and environmental protection over corporate profits.

We take action to uphold democracy and our right to participate in decisions about our lives and environment, to protect the human dignity of every single one of us, to protect the environment and to save lives.

The fight for fair and just economic system that puts workers and the environment above profit continues today. See our current work, Trade Justice Under in the Age of Trump for the latest.

The Battle in Seattle - Shut Down the World Trade Organization

In the late 1990s Global Exchange worked with hundreds of national and national groups and organizing spaces to mobilize tens of thousands of nonviolent protesters to converge and challenge the WTO in Seattle. This now-legendary meeting and protest has become known as The Battle in Seattle and inspired generations of activists to fight for a better global and local economy, better planet, and better conditions for workers and the global citizenry.

50,000 people went to Seattle to challenge this corporate agenda and to demand a more democratic, socially just and environmentally sustainable global economy. The protests succeeded in shutting down the trade talks and derailing the expansion of the WTO. Global Exchange stood with those outside the halls and rooms where lobbyists and government delegates negotiated, loudly declaring our opposition to the WTO because:

WTO rules are written by and for corporations, putting profits above people and the planet.

WTO rules trample labor and human rights.

WTO rules render environmental protections illegal.

WTO rules stand between dying people and the medicine that will save their lives.

The Fight for Fair not "Free" Trade Agreements

Together with citizens all over the world, Global Exchange has organized against bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, because we believe in a vision of global economic integration that values workers' rights, fair trade, and environmental protection over corporate profits. See our latest here.

Ultimately, the bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements made by our governments aggregate even more power in the hands of already powerful and destructive transnational corporations, and lead to serious declines in the welfare of citizens.

When NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was signed in 1994 by the governments of the USA, Canada and Mexico, it was supposed to have been a boon to consumers, boosted employment and strengthened economies north and south of the border. Reality has been very different. In Mexico thousands of farmers have been forced out of their livelihood when U.S. agricultural conglomerates dumped cheap corn and hogs on the market.

NAFTA also installed a corporate bill of rights, allowing corporations to launch legal challenges against governments when the legislations of one of the 'partner' countries proves a barrier to that corporation's bid for profit. Court decisions have been vacated by NAFTA tribunals that are completely unaccountable to the citizenry. Most recently, TransCanada is using this system to sue the U.S. government (taxpayers to foot the bill) for the 'billions' lost in profit over the canceled Keystone XL pipeline.

Global Exchange has organized cross-border and global resistance to these proposed trade agreements for decades - from the Battle in Seattle to organizing protests and civil society pressure against the AFTA, CAFTA, FTAA , and - the latest - the TPP.

While the future of trade under Trump is uncertain, one thing remains clear: people need to continue to fight for a fair trade system that is democratic, and puts people and planet before corporate profits.

We urge you to learn more about the impacts of past free trade agreements and join Global Exchange in action against any new free trade agreements that put corporate profit ahead of the needs of human beings and the planet.

Global Econ 101

Understanding how the current global economy works is essential to creatively design and implement the kind of global economy we want. Millions of people across the globe are already doing this - acting locally to challenge corporations in their communities, creating local, living economies. Countries are working together in international networks to fight free trade, climate change and corporate practice.

Learn more about how the global economy functions and how we can continue the fight for a more just world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Together with citizens all over the world, Global Exchange has organized against the global rulemakers, because we believe in a vision of global economic integration that values worker's rights, fair trade, and environmental protection over corporate profits.

# data[].attributes.body
When Senegal gained its independence from France in 1960, the groundnut had already been established as Senegal's major cash crop and was seen as vital to the new economy. Colonization had left Senegal economically vulnerable, so in an effort to jumpstart the economy, Senegal decided to invest in its groundnut industry. Senegal took out a loan from the World Bank with high hopes of becoming the best, most efficient producer of the groundnut and eventually bring lots of revenue to the country. Unfortunately, competition from foreign countries made it hard for Senegal to keep its head above water. Supply increased globally but with no increased demand, the price of the groundnut fell. The economy suffered as farmers were profiting less and less for their efforts. To revitalize the economy, the Senegalese government partially privatized the industry and liberalized trade, that is to say trade became more free from a removal of restrictions. Alas, this action largely backfired as many farmers could not compete with cheaper, foreign nuts that usually benefitted from countries that could afford to subsidize its farmers (subsidized farmers can afford to sell their nuts for less). With less income, more and more farmers found themselves unable to afford operating costs and their debts continued to endlessly rise.

In this instance, liberalized trade seems to have been detrimental to the economy as foreign nuts were able to flood the market at cheaper costs which made it most difficult for Senegalese farmers to stay competitive. Competition can make it hard for a developing industry to grow.

The text carries an abundance of enumeratios and appositives, for example: "In addition to its vital economic role, groundnuts are also an integral part of the Senegalese culture and ways of life, whether in terms of labor specialization, migratory cycles and culinary tastes. Mafe, a peanut butter stew, served on white rice, is among the most prized culinary delicacy of the Senegalese cuisine, among other groundnut dishes." These elements serve to increase the reader's knowledge of the country. With heightened awareness, the reader becomes slightly more likely to sympathize and concern themselves with the welfare of the people of the disadvantaged nation and to realize potential harming effects of free trade.

This text deserves to be included in this Padlet because it shows the perspective of a third-world country which could be harmed by the implementation of tree trade.

For your viewing pleasure:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtlYyuJjACw

(Badiane)

(Mediathatmatters)

("Senegal Map")

# data[].attributes.body
The New Deal was created for the primary purpose of revitalizing the economy. It was technically successful in doing so, because the USA's GDP increased as a result of these programs. However, many people forget that the other essential purpose of the New Deal was to provide jobs. The below chart demonstrates how unemployment rose in the 1930s despite the implementation of the New Deal. The programs the New Deal consisted of were supposed to make more jobs available to Americans, thereby decreasing the unemployment rate that was so high at the time. However, as seen by this graph, the unemployment rate continued to increase throughout the New Deal's implementation, only decreasing at the inception of World War II.

The chart is included as it supports the argument in favor of free trade, because the government tightened its grasp on the American economy during this time by imposing very high tariffs to protect the American economy and actively creating jobs for the citizens; yet despite its many efforts, the US government was unable to decrease the unemployment rate. The best way to improve the economic conditions of individuals in society could very well be by allowing free trade to naturally create jobs for people through an enlarged market, more demand, and increased trading.

(Fairlie)