Not the easiest to follow, but for those interested in the big picture of trade relations between US, EU and China this exchange between @alanbeattie and @IanaDreyer is an essential read. Real debate on key issues, and good points on both sides.
V good points but overall I stick with the conclusion that this is a v risky deal.
— Alan Beattie (@alanbeattie) January 5, 2021
1. It\u2019s overstating it to say that COM now has final say over investment. FDI screening remains a MS competency. COM has had to take a v secondary supporting role over Huawei and 5G.
1/n https://t.co/RVg2jnoFgK
Blistering stuff from @noahbarkin on EU-China deal - a must read https://t.co/92a6rxBRtU pic.twitter.com/VHRtEiOiTy
— Finbarr Bermingham (@fbermingham) January 5, 2021
I disagree with the assertion, and I ask myself against what benchmark the EU is measured here. The EU\u2019s 2019 China Communication sets out a comprehensive strategy that treats China simultaneously as a negotiating partner, an ec competitor and a systemic rival. 1/5 https://t.co/xN1XRQlK1m
— Sabine Weyand (@WeyandSabine) January 5, 2021
More from David Henig
Michael Gove: "Outside the EU, with a good trade deal in place, we can tackle the injustices and inequalities that have held Britain back."
— Jennifer Rankin (@JenniferMerode) December 26, 2020
The UK did not need to leave the EU to tackle injustices and inequalities at home. Not a new point, but true.https://t.co/fE4glUAylc
There has never been level playing field content like this in a trade deal. The idea it is any kind of UK win, when the UK's opening position was no enforceable commitments whatsoever, is ridiculous.
For the lawyers. Night. pic.twitter.com/5XvFMhcaeE
— Sam Lowe (@SamuelMarcLowe) December 25, 2020
The EU can take retaliatory action against the UK if we weaken labour standards, weaken pretty firm climate change targets, unfairly subsidise, or just in general seem to be out of line. There are processes to follow, but it looks like the PM did it again...
Final one for now. Quite how Labour gets itself in such a fuss about whether to support a deal with the strongest labour and environment commitments ever seen in a trade deal is a sign of just how far it hasn't moved on from leaving.
PS well... (sorry DAG). It certainly didn't have a good effect. And I think if we had settled LPF issues with the EU much earlier there is a good chance the conditions would have been far less stringent. By making an issue, we made it much worse.
As a lay person is it fair to say that the \u201cthreat\u201d to break international law in Ireland was possibly a strategic blunder that has now determined the future trajectory of the UK for the next 20 years? I can imagine most countries will study what\u2019s baked into this and replicate?
— Meister 1 (@blueelmacho) December 26, 2020
More from Economy
1/
Note: This report doesn’t do a dynamic analysis that makes things much clearer, but it does a thoughtful statistical analysis based upon increasingly available data.
https://t.co/5Xmt8y7lCL
A few more quotes:
2/
“The analysis also finds that lockdowns are powerful instruments to reduce infections, especially when they are introduced early in a country’s epidemic and when they are sufficiently stringent.”
3/
“lockdowns become progressively more effective in reducing COVID-19 cases when they become sufficiently stringent. Mild lockdowns appear instead ineffective at curbing infections.”
4/
“The results suggest that to achieve a given reduction in infections, policymakers may want to opt for stringent lockdowns over a shorter period rather than prolonged mild lockdowns...
5/
[THREAD] 1/10
I know people think this is fun but -- why do we have a stock market? So productive firms can raise capital to do useful things. Detaching stock price from fundamental value (Gamestop is now worth almost as much as Best Buy) makes the markets serve the real economy worse.
— Josh Barro (@jbarro) January 27, 2021
What is profit? It's excess labor.
You and your coworkers make a chair. Your boss sells that chair for more than he pays for the production of that chair and pockets the extra money.
So he pays you less than what he should and calls the unpaid labor he took "profit." 2/10
Well, the stock market adds a layer to that.
So now, when you work, it isn't just your boss that is siphoning off your excess labor but it is also all the shareholders.
There's a whole class of people who now rely on you to produce those chairs without fair compensation. 3/10
And in order to support these people, you and your coworkers need to up your productivity. More hours etc.
But Wall Street demands endless growth in order to keep the game going, so that's not enough.
So as your productivity increases, your relative wages suffer. 4/10
Not because the goods don't have value or because your labor is worth less. Often it's actually worth more because you've had to become incredibly productive in order to keep your job.
No, your wages suffer because there are so many people who need to profit from your work. 5/10