USMCA - The Political + Russia Transitions + Reading about Mileva Einstein
Thank you for subscribing, and if you like, please share it with friends. ~ Kevin
USMCA – The Political:
Russia’s Domestic Transitions:
Reading - Einstein’s First Wife the Brilliant Physicist:
A Quip:
Peter Principle: “every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence.”
Modlin Maxim: every incompetent person tends to rise to their level of confidence.
USMCA – The Political:
This issue is the first of a multipart series that looks at the free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States (USMCA). This major agreement was recently approved by the Senate, with 89 Senators voting in favor. While the talk around impeachment is unavoidable, it is important to take a step back and realize the Senate overwhelmingly approved a trade bill – a subject that in recent decades has been just as divisive between the parties as within them. (Perhaps more so!) We will examine the components and dynamics behind this agreement to help understand the source of this shift.
Hopefully, this outcome will also put to rest the endless trope we hear that because of partisan division, no legislative action on specific issues occurs. The context and debate around impeachment is very partisan, and yet just moments before the Senate received Impeachment articles, members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle approved the USMCA. The noise of political rancor is a constant theme, while the actual variable is the degree of support and votes for specific measures before Congress. This is another case of people overemphasizing noise and assuming it is more influential than the subtle deliberative process of Congress.
The Senate has passed the modernized #USMCA trade deal. I was happy to be one of 89 senators to vote YES. This agreement will open markets for South Dakota farmers and ranchers, who have struggled for too long in today’s agriculture economy.
The USMCA agreement threads the political needle. As mentioned, trade policy creates unusual bedfellows in politics with neither party being uniform in its philosophy. This is in part due to the general economic philosophies in the country, but also the localized effects of economic change and how those influence political actors. The general pattern of the last few decades was that the Senate could often attract sufficient support for passage, but in the House many trade agreements passed by very slim margins. For example, NAFTA received 234–200 votes in the House with yes votes coming from 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The Senate was slightly more in favor but saw a similar party split with 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats in favor, with 61 of the 100 Senators approving the agreement, which Clinton signed into law in 1993. A brief tangent - while these agreements are between countries, they are not treaties. Under the Constitution, treaties are ratified only by the Senate with a 2/3 vote.
Fundamentally, but not exclusively, trade is viewed by Congress as a revenue issue that impacts changes to tariff rates, which must be considered by both houses of Congress. USMCA is considerably different from NAFTA in outcome with the House passing it 385-41 and the Senate approving it 89-10. What are the sources of this change? We will examine the components to help understand. This change is even more significant because, just as NAFTA was approved by slim margins, that pattern continued for future agreements. For example, CAFTA garnered 54–45 votes in the Senate, and the House passed the pact by a narrow margin of 217–215. Yet, agreements with Peru, Korea, as well as Australia, are exceptions and passed by wider margins.
Sens. Sherrod Brown and Ron Wyden will vote for #USMCA! They succeeded in getting their labor enforcement proposal enshrined in the deal “and that’s why this will be the first trade agreement I’ve ever voted for,” Brown said. But he warns: “It’s not a perfect agreement.“
However, as this newsletter series will show this agreement has elements that individuals from across the political spectrum favor. Key elements include maintaining regional industries, increasing exports, lowering agriculture restrictions, and expanding labor norms. As the tweet above shows, Senator Brown of Ohio, who regularly criticizes trade agreements, came out in favor of USMCA, which became a clear signal of Senate passage.
First, this agreement amends NAFTA. While leaving many components unchanged, the revisions are in reference to the terms in NAFTA. This existence of NAFTA played a role throughout the negotiations of a baseline as well as a list of grievances among the parties involved. This weight of the past agreements has even contributed to the naming and acronym, which is harder to pronounce (and therefore harder to vilify), as astutely pointed out by Tyler Cowen. “This next point may sound slightly cynical, but here goes: Perhaps being so easy to say and remember has been part of Nafta’s problem.”
Also, before USMCA negotiations started, both Canada and Mexico were dissatisfied with elements of the agreement and expressed an interest in renegotiating NAFTA. However, not all agreements that encounter dissatisfaction are modified, as this was. In fact, in contemporary times, many trade agreements tend to have a robust shelf life. Among some of the most fascinating (at least to me) changes in international activity has been the tendency, contrary to previous eras, for treaties in general and trade agreements in particular to have no specified expiration date. Previously expiration dates allowed for treaty parties to exit if they were not satisfied with terms over time. The expiration date also provided a timeline for the parties to consider revisiting elements of an agreement, to separate elements that are satisfactory from those that are not.
While NAFTA was not set to expire, there was sufficient political momentum in each of the countries to entertain a change. In fact, I don’t think I am going out on a limb to say that we would have seen a revision to NAFTA under a Hillary Clinton Administration in the same way that Mexico saw a transition in administrations but continued with similar positions. That is not to say that each does not have distinct issues to emphasize or that the components of the deal would look different. At the same time, it is interesting to observe how, regardless of general philosophy, domestic conditions can still propel the policy choices of Congress and the President.
Realizing these mutual pressures led to deliberations between the Democrats in Congress and the trade representative. Trade Representative Lighthizer negotiated provisions requested by Speaker Pelosi and her working group, which they held leverage over for almost a year, to garner modifications. The changes included changes in labor rules as well as intellectual property issues. Democrats were also mollified by the auto sector rules on the composition of the automobiles and wage rates. Senator Portman, Republican of Ohio who was trade representative under President George W. Bush, mentioned that, “there are some aspects to it that Democrats have been calling for, for decades.” Senators Portman and Brown both represent Ohio but are rarely in agreement due to differing political philosophies. The fact that they were on the same page, in this case, embodies the monumental shift that occurred politically. As a result of these changes and the general political consensus, Lighthizer explained USMCA, “will be the model for American trade deals going forward.”
Note: The upcoming newsletter in this series will focus on agriculture, technology, and intellectual property with a follow-on issue devoted to automobiles and labor. These provisions will lend insight into how both political parties found a way to reach an agreement and support this trade agreement. This issue had the goal of explaining what happened and the next issues will examine the details to help glean insight into an often more challenging puzzle— why?
Putin speeds up Russian political shake-up, details new power center
Putin speeds up Russian political shake-up, details new power center | Reuters
President Vladimir Putin accelerated a shake-up of Russia’s political system on Monday, submitting a constitutional reform blueprint to parliament that will create a new center of power outside the presidency.
No Gold Watch:
How do powerful entrenched leaders retire? They do not seek a gold watch; they usually maneuver to sustain their power. For some figures, power is an end to itself.
Recently Russia’s President Vladimir Putin reshuffled his national organization and Prime Minister Medvedev resigned to be a deputy of the security council. In addition, Putin’s cabinet resigned. These institutional changes have attracted some attention. Even though the action is not surprising it is still consequential as Putin positions a government after he is term-limited in 2024. There is speculation that Putin is elevating the State Council, which he would presumably chair, to effect the state operation. Through this new position, he would exert influence on Russia beyond his tenure in office with presumably an eye toward transition.
When watching these internal moves, it is important to note how Putin remembers the decline of the Soviet system and the turbulence of the 1990s. There is also the general inference (though flawed) that the qualities and strength of Russia’s leaders determine the strength of Russia itself. - Note: expect a future series on Russia – U.S. relations in the months ahead.
Reading: Einstein’s First Wife the Brilliant Physicist in Scientific American
Mileva Marić grew up in Serbia (then part of Austria-Hungary) where her brilliant scientific mind was fostered at home. Her abilities earned her admittance to Zurich Polytechnic. As this paper appropriately points out, she fell in love and married Albert Einstein, where their mutual affinity (obsession really) for physics brought them closer during their academic studies. Einstein was known to skip class and spend time with Marić. Both saw their grades affected but Einstein passed his exams. However, Marić failed her exams, which relegated her to a position in early twentieth-century society as less respected. And with the loss of her dream of being a scientist, she also, with time, lost respect from her husband. However, before these personal hardships, Marić worked endlessly in partnership with Einstein. They developed ideas and research that grounded his imaginative thought experiments that resulted in the famous year, 1905, when the work revolutionized the study of Physics. In that year work on special relativity was advanced as well as the photoelectric effect and the interplay of mass and energy as shown in the equation: E=mc2. Sadly, Einstein only acknowledged their partnership in their letters.
I encourage folks interested in Einstein’s life to read Isaacson’s book on him and to view the National Geographic series, Genius.
Note: The next issue will continue with the discussion on trade with a possible section on the Senate Impeachment, as it develops.
Thank you for subscribing and I always enjoy the feedback that you can give by replying to the email. Please share with friends if you like ~ Kevin