I have worked with the owners of quite a few SMEs and I have experienced first hand that they spend more time & energy understanding new regulations than complying to them!
This is also what a survey by the UK's FSB (Federation of Small Business) concluded a couple of years ago!
When an SME also exports, imagine doing that for more than 1 countries/bodies of law/regulationss!
That is one of the reasons why IMO the EU Single Market needs Political Union in order to "work" for the SMEs and micro firms. Instead of the Eurozone being a playground for US, Chinese and other multinationals due to the low prices of their products in the Eurozone due to the expensive Euro! But that is another post (or posts, see my archive and labels on this blog).
Showing posts with label on regionalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label on regionalization. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
From "buy local" to "hire natives" to "invest at home (not abroad)"
Many of EU & world problems stem from systemic imbalances due to uneven freedoms for capital vs services, people/labour even goods.
It seems some policy makers et al in some EU members think that the Chinese market is more attractive than EU Single Market. A grave strategic mistake!
The China imports slowdown is bad news for those EUropeans who think exports to China can replace Eurozone & rest of EU Single Market ones.
Note that German's exports have rebounded in June after a bad month in April and a record month in March (should one try to correlate them with the exchange rate of the Euro?).
The inflation curbing policy (or obsession) of the ECB that has led to an expensive Euro for much of the 11.5 years since the introduction of the coins and notes, makes exporting to Eurozone easy. Exporting from Eurozone is the Herculian task!
In other words, the Euro exchange rate has been eroding most if not all Eurozone economies for most of the Euro years. Even Germany's. In a way, the bailouts of the GIPs are the price the Eurozone/EU is paying for the ECB/Bundesbank perennial obsession against inflation that hurts Eurozone biz, exports and tourism (especially Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece).
Are there socio--economic & poitical forces in Germany that have had enough of the uber hard DM/Euro obsession of Bundesbank/ECB? One would hope so, beceause then there is hope for a less destructive Euro exchange rate policy (that could also require a change in the mandate or powers of the ECB (almost typed: Bundesbank).
Otherwise, a key strategic option is the activation of an "Economic Fortress EU" that ought to include:
a) Exit from the WTO and reliance of specific case-by-case agreements of the EU with other countries (eg USA, Canada, India, China, etc) or groupings thereof (eg ASEAN, Mercosur or UNASUR, ACP, etc). Those could include agreement not only on trade of goods, but also services, intellectual products (and protection of intellectual property (see ACTA and the Singapore WTO agenda), economic migration, and of course capita movement/relocation).
b) Upgrading of the 4 freedoms inside in EU Single Market.
Will come back on both (a) and (b) in future posts.
My point is: capital, goods. services, labour & people should enjoy same level of freedoms at global or regional scope. The latter is more feasible
Another point is that the EU Single Market has to offer members benefits non-EU countries/economies should not have, ie more value.
Humanity has moved from city states to nation-state and now moving to region/continental-states. Like empires, globalisation is too unstable. Regionalisation will inter alia be good for the environment
It seems some policy makers et al in some EU members think that the Chinese market is more attractive than EU Single Market. A grave strategic mistake!
The China imports slowdown is bad news for those EUropeans who think exports to China can replace Eurozone & rest of EU Single Market ones.
Note that German's exports have rebounded in June after a bad month in April and a record month in March (should one try to correlate them with the exchange rate of the Euro?).
The inflation curbing policy (or obsession) of the ECB that has led to an expensive Euro for much of the 11.5 years since the introduction of the coins and notes, makes exporting to Eurozone easy. Exporting from Eurozone is the Herculian task!
In other words, the Euro exchange rate has been eroding most if not all Eurozone economies for most of the Euro years. Even Germany's. In a way, the bailouts of the GIPs are the price the Eurozone/EU is paying for the ECB/Bundesbank perennial obsession against inflation that hurts Eurozone biz, exports and tourism (especially Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece).
Are there socio--economic & poitical forces in Germany that have had enough of the uber hard DM/Euro obsession of Bundesbank/ECB? One would hope so, beceause then there is hope for a less destructive Euro exchange rate policy (that could also require a change in the mandate or powers of the ECB (almost typed: Bundesbank).
Otherwise, a key strategic option is the activation of an "Economic Fortress EU" that ought to include:
a) Exit from the WTO and reliance of specific case-by-case agreements of the EU with other countries (eg USA, Canada, India, China, etc) or groupings thereof (eg ASEAN, Mercosur or UNASUR, ACP, etc). Those could include agreement not only on trade of goods, but also services, intellectual products (and protection of intellectual property (see ACTA and the Singapore WTO agenda), economic migration, and of course capita movement/relocation).
b) Upgrading of the 4 freedoms inside in EU Single Market.
Will come back on both (a) and (b) in future posts.
My point is: capital, goods. services, labour & people should enjoy same level of freedoms at global or regional scope. The latter is more feasible
Another point is that the EU Single Market has to offer members benefits non-EU countries/economies should not have, ie more value.
Humanity has moved from city states to nation-state and now moving to region/continental-states. Like empires, globalisation is too unstable. Regionalisation will inter alia be good for the environment
Direct globalisation has failed. There's no global free movement of services & labor even goods. Why not build walls 4 capital then? Only route is via phase of regionalisation (NAFTA, EU, UNASUR, ASEAN, etc) with some links (capital, trade, services, labour/people) between regions
From "buy local" to "prefer to hire natives" only short step to "invest at home (not abroad)". That is not the solution. The solutions are at regional/continent level. And maybe someday, the global one.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Regional Systemics: South America is moving forward with UNASUR
While NAFTA is rather a "fail" and the EU is gazing at its navel, UNASUR, the African Union, the ASEAN and China, the Trans-Pacific Partnership seem to be moving forward in regional systemics.
Specifically, while the EU is suffering from Euro and xenophobia induced identity crisis, South American Integration seems to be progressing! UNASUR, which will merge Mercosur and the Andean Community (CAN) into an EU type of entity for South America selected its first Secretary General, the former president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, on May 4 (2010, for more on this see eg BBC News report).
In addition, the Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has made a passionate appeal to his country's Congress (June 26) to overcome their concerns and approve the entry of Venezuela in Mercosur (Mercosur's energy (oil) autarky will benefit from Venezuela's power in oil). Paraguay being the only Mercosur member that has not adopted Venezuela's candidacy (for more see "Lugo Calls for Venezuela’s Entry into Mercosur" in Americas Quarterly)
Note: In November 2005, a few weeks before the failed Hong Kong WTO Ministerial meeting for the Doha Round of world trade talks, George Bush failed to rally the countries of the Americas (Mar del Plata meet) for an FTA (free trade area) of the Americas. Probably, for the best, ex post facto, of all parties concerned (given eg the fate of NAFTA and the Democrats and others' stance re US international trade agreements these days)
Specifically, while the EU is suffering from Euro and xenophobia induced identity crisis, South American Integration seems to be progressing! UNASUR, which will merge Mercosur and the Andean Community (CAN) into an EU type of entity for South America selected its first Secretary General, the former president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, on May 4 (2010, for more on this see eg BBC News report).
In addition, the Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has made a passionate appeal to his country's Congress (June 26) to overcome their concerns and approve the entry of Venezuela in Mercosur (Mercosur's energy (oil) autarky will benefit from Venezuela's power in oil). Paraguay being the only Mercosur member that has not adopted Venezuela's candidacy (for more see "Lugo Calls for Venezuela’s Entry into Mercosur" in Americas Quarterly)
Note: In November 2005, a few weeks before the failed Hong Kong WTO Ministerial meeting for the Doha Round of world trade talks, George Bush failed to rally the countries of the Americas (Mar del Plata meet) for an FTA (free trade area) of the Americas. Probably, for the best, ex post facto, of all parties concerned (given eg the fate of NAFTA and the Democrats and others' stance re US international trade agreements these days)
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
On the state and potential of world systemics and dynamics
I am, in principle a "globalist", ie a believer in global (1) freedom of movement not only for goods and capital, but services and workers/job seekers as well. And humans in general, be they of employment age and potential or not (ie free immigration of all kinds). And in a world (1) democratic government to provide the IMO needed balance to the economic side (world markets). In other words global markets balanced by a global democratic government (USA or EU, ie United States or Union style).
But my main concern is that any system works for the so called "average citizen" (I prefer "real people") and for the micro and small (as well as middle size) companies. And I must thus admit that IMO the type of globalization that we have at this stage in the world is not working for the above, thus willing to consider, especially as a thinker, not only fuller/better globalization models but also models that move away from globalization and world (WTO) free trade of mostly goods and capital.
For more on my rationales for a) more and b) less globalization see: The cases for a) more and b) less globalization (including audio files, Feb 3. 2009).
12+ months after those "cases" let me add the following thoughts (or, rather, food for thought):
1) Is the future of free trade regional rather than global, ie Europe, Africa, South & Central America, ASEAN, China+, Russia+, US+, etc?
2) Is an eventual US + EU Single Market "political-economic Sci-Fi"?
3) Paul Krugman has proposed tapped a 15% tariff on all Chinese imports to the US as a way of convincing Beijing to alter its exchange rate policy.
The US could afford to become protectionist - an "economic fortress" because of the size & effectiveness of its internal (50-state) market
4) Could the EU afford to do it? Hm!
Some EU countries export mostly globally, some mostly within the EU Single Market.
Maybe an economic fortress EU would be a way for its "peripheral" members to do better in the EU's internal market. Maybe. After all, how many economies can (and/or want) to become like the German one, how many have the assets and elements (eg climate/weather?) to produce German-type products?
Hence, in terms of EU competitiveness modeling: Some EU countries/economies would benefit, some others the opposite if the EU became an "Economic Fortress".
Of course (3) and (4) would mean that the US and EU would have to leave the WTO. Maybe the future of the WTO was sealed in 2001 when a certain country entered it.
Maybe Russia has a point in having stayed out of the WTO so far. For one thing, it allowed it to raise tariffs to protect certain industries (eg cars) during the world economic crisis.
Complicated, huh? Less than one would think, IMO. The main problem, IMO, is systemic imbalances and inconsistencies. And above all, not nearly enough focus on the problems of real people and micro and small companies, in most policy making centers around the world.
Footnote (1): When I say "global" or "world" I do not necessarily imply all countries of this planet but the ones wishing to participate in a "common" socio-economic system and political government.
But my main concern is that any system works for the so called "average citizen" (I prefer "real people") and for the micro and small (as well as middle size) companies. And I must thus admit that IMO the type of globalization that we have at this stage in the world is not working for the above, thus willing to consider, especially as a thinker, not only fuller/better globalization models but also models that move away from globalization and world (WTO) free trade of mostly goods and capital.
For more on my rationales for a) more and b) less globalization see: The cases for a) more and b) less globalization (including audio files, Feb 3. 2009).
12+ months after those "cases" let me add the following thoughts (or, rather, food for thought):
1) Is the future of free trade regional rather than global, ie Europe, Africa, South & Central America, ASEAN, China+, Russia+, US+, etc?
2) Is an eventual US + EU Single Market "political-economic Sci-Fi"?
3) Paul Krugman has proposed tapped a 15% tariff on all Chinese imports to the US as a way of convincing Beijing to alter its exchange rate policy.
The US could afford to become protectionist - an "economic fortress" because of the size & effectiveness of its internal (50-state) market
4) Could the EU afford to do it? Hm!
Some EU countries export mostly globally, some mostly within the EU Single Market.
Maybe an economic fortress EU would be a way for its "peripheral" members to do better in the EU's internal market. Maybe. After all, how many economies can (and/or want) to become like the German one, how many have the assets and elements (eg climate/weather?) to produce German-type products?
Hence, in terms of EU competitiveness modeling: Some EU countries/economies would benefit, some others the opposite if the EU became an "Economic Fortress".
Of course (3) and (4) would mean that the US and EU would have to leave the WTO. Maybe the future of the WTO was sealed in 2001 when a certain country entered it.
Maybe Russia has a point in having stayed out of the WTO so far. For one thing, it allowed it to raise tariffs to protect certain industries (eg cars) during the world economic crisis.
Complicated, huh? Less than one would think, IMO. The main problem, IMO, is systemic imbalances and inconsistencies. And above all, not nearly enough focus on the problems of real people and micro and small companies, in most policy making centers around the world.
Footnote (1): When I say "global" or "world" I do not necessarily imply all countries of this planet but the ones wishing to participate in a "common" socio-economic system and political government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)