Most recent
Trending
Top Videos
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
I used to believe in trade agreements. That was before the wages of most Americans stagnated and a relative few at the top captured just about all the economic gains.
The old-style trade agreements of the 1960s and 1970s increased worldwide demand for products made by American workers and thereby helped push up American wages.
The new-style agreements increase worldwide demand for products made by American corporations all over the world, enhancing corporate and financial profits but keeping American wages down.
The fact is, recent trade deals are less about trade and more about global investment.
Big American corporations no longer make many products in the U.S. for export abroad. Most of what they sell abroad they make abroad.
The biggest things they “export" are ideas, designs, franchises, brands, engineering solutions, instructions and software, coming from a relatively small group of managers, designers and researchers in the U.S.
The Apple iPhone is assembled in China from components made in Japan, Singapore and a half-dozen other locales. The only things coming from the U.S. are designs and instructions from a handful of engineers and managers in California.
Apple even stows most of its profits outside the U.S. so it doesn't have to pay American taxes on them.
Recent “trade" deals have been wins for big corporations and Wall Street, along with their executives and major shareholders, because they get better direct access to foreign markets and billions of consumers.
They also get better protection for their intellectual property—patents, trademarks and copyrights—and for their overseas factories, equipment and financial assets.
That's why big corporations and Wall Street are so enthusiastic about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)—the giant deal among countries responsible for 40 percent of the global economy.
That deal would give giant corporations even more patent protection overseas. And it would allow them to challenge any nation's health, safety and environmental laws that stand in the way of their profits—including our own.
But recent trade deals haven't been wins for most Americans.
By making it easier for American corporations to make things abroad, the deals have reduced the bargaining power of American workers to get better wages here.
The Trans Pacific Trade Partnership's investor protections will make it safer for firms to relocate abroad—the Cato Institute describes such protections as “lowering the risk premium" on offshoring—thereby further reducing corporate incentives to make and do things in the U.S., using and upgrading the skills of Americans.
Proponents say giant deals like the TPP are good for the growth of the U.S. economy. But that argument begs the question of whose growth they're talking about.
Almost all the growth goes to the richest one percent. The rest of us can buy some products cheaper than before, but most of those gains would are offset by wage losses.
In theory, the winners could fully compensate the losers and still come out ahead. But the winners don't compensate the losers.
For example, it's ironic that the administration is teaming up with congressional Republicans to enact the TPP, when congressional Republicans have done just about everything they can to keep down the wages of most Americans.
They've refused to raise the minimum wage (whose inflation-adjusted value is now almost 25 percent lower than it was in 1968), expand unemployment benefits, invest in job training, enlarge the Earned Income Tax Credit, improve the nation's infrastructure or expand access to public higher education.
They've embraced budget austerity that has slowed job and wage growth. And they've continued to push “trickle-down" economics—keeping tax rates low for America's richest, protecting their tax loopholes and fighting off any attempt to raise taxes on wealthy inheritances to their level before 2000.
I've seen first-hand how effective Wall Street and big corporations are at wielding influence—using lobbyists, campaign donations and subtle promises of future jobs to get the global deals they want.
Global deals like the TPP will boost the profits of Wall Street and big corporations and make the richest one percent even richer. But they'll contribute to the steady shrinkage of the American middle class.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Big Food Found Guilty in Multimillion Dollar Cover Up in GMO Labeling Fight
Palm Oil Scorecard: Find Out Which Brands Are (and aren't) Helping Save Indonesia's Rainforests
Science and Politics Clash as Humanity Nears Climate Change Tipping Point
Trending
Farms with just one or a handful of different crops encourage fewer species of pollinating and pest-controlling insects to linger, ultimately winnowing away crop yields, according to a new study.
Up to half of the detrimental impacts of the "landscape simplification" that monocropping entails come as a result of a diminished mix of ecosystem service-providing insects, a team of scientists reported Oct. 16 in the journal Science Advances.
Monocrop palm oil plantation Honduras.
SHARE Foundation / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
"Our study shows that biodiversity is essential to ensure the provision of ecosystem services and to maintain a high and stable agricultural production," Matteo Dainese, the study's lead author and a biologist at Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, said in a statement.
It stands to reason that, with declines in the sheer numbers of insects that ferry pollen from plant to plant and keep crop-eating pests under control, these services will wane as well. But until now, it hasn't been clear how monocultures affect the number and mix of these species or how crop yields might change as a result.
Aiming to solve these questions, Dainese and his colleagues pulled together data from 89 studies cutting across a variety of landscapes, from the tropics of Asia and Africa to the higher latitudes of northern Europe. They tabulated the number of pollinating and pest-controlling insects at these sites — both the absolute number of individuals and the number of species — along with an assessment of the ecosystem services the insects provided.
In almost all of the studies they looked at, the team found that a more diverse pool of these species translated into more pollination and greater pest control. They also showed that simplified landscapes supported fewer species of service-providing insects, which ultimately led to lower crop yields.
The researchers also looked at a third measure of the makeup of insect populations — what they called "evenness." In natural ecosystems, a handful of dominant species with many more individuals typically live alongside a higher number of rarer species. The team found as landscapes became less diverse, dominant species numbers dwindled and rare species gained ground. This resulting, more equitable mix led to less pollination (though it didn't end up affecting pest control).
"Our study provides strong empirical support for the potential benefits of new pathways to sustainable agriculture that aim to reconcile the protection of biodiversity and the production of food for increasing human populations," Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, one of the study's authors and an animal ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, said in the statement.
The scientists figure that the richness of pollinator species explains around a third of the harmful impacts of less diverse landscapes, while the richness of pest-controlling species accounts for about half of the same measure. In their view, the results of their research point to the need to protect biodiversity on and around crops in an uncertain future.
"Under future conditions with ongoing global change and more frequent extreme climate events, the value of farmland biodiversity ensuring resilience against environmental disturbances will become even more important," Steffan-Dewenter said.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.