Foreign Collusion
Foreign policy isn't just for the president and Congress. The four unelected lawyers appointed by George W. Bush who constitute the Federal Trade Commission have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" with their unelected Russian counterparts:
The U.S. antitrust agencies and FAS Russia recognize that it is in their common interest to work together in technical cooperation activities related to competition law enforcement and policy. Subject to reasonably available resources, the parties may jointly engage in appropriate activities in furtherance of that interest, such as, inter alia: (a) participating in training courses on competition law and policy organized or sponsored by one another; (b) providing comments on proposed changes to competition laws, regulations, guidelines or other policies; and (c) assistance, where appropriate, in promoting understanding of sound competition policy among important supporting institutions, such as the judiciary, other government agencies, the business community, bar associations, and academic
institutions.
Translated, this means (a) taxpayers in both countries will finance junkets for career antitrust lawyers, (b) unelected Russian lawyers will have an opportunity to help rewrite U.S. antitrust laws, and (c) both governments will produce additional pro-antitrust propaganda.
Comments (3)
Paul Krugman
We need fair trade, not unregulated free trade. We need to level the playing field between inefficient and obsolete businesses and foreign competition. We need to level the playing field between ditch digging/ditch filling and productive work.
Published: November 10, 2009 10:07 PM
Ribald
Couple of nit-picky points:
Who cares whether they're elected or unelected in the context of the article? I get the feeling that Oliva isn't complaining about inadequate representation.
"Pro-antitrust"...there's already a negative prefix. Adding "pro-" seems pointless.
A couple of more significant points:
Governments often cooperate when a mutual interest is too difficult (or too distributed) to deal with on an individual basis. It's not surprising, and it doesn't mean officials are getting all-expenses-paid trips to luxurious resorts. Doesn't mean that they aren't either, but that's reality for you: ambiguous.
On "helping rewrite anti-trust law": tilting the language of the memo to that extreme is probably unwarranted. When a congressman goes to a town hall meeting, do we say that the people there are "helping rewrite" the law by commenting on it? In the case of the Russian lawyers, why do we need to be concerned if they do?
Lastly, "propaganda" means simply the purveyance of information in an attempt to sway opinion. Who would be surprised that any government agency would continue to endorse its own activities?
All in all, I am unconvinced of the significance or deleterious impact of the memo in question. Given the scale of actual government malfeasance, it's like getting trampled by an elephant and, on top of vivid descriptions of agony and suffering, adding the complaint that the elephant's skin was too gray.
Published: November 11, 2009 2:46 AM
Gene Berman
Ribald:
Generally similar opinion to yours--a yawn. It's somewhat helpful to know, however, that the foxes guarding our henhouses are trading methods and secrets with the wolves herding their sheep.
If I had to guess at their actual purpose, it would be to establish, in advance, what they'd think best to do in cases where complaint might arise from either end about some good from the other which had benefited (in such manner as to constitute a subsidy) from a favored position with respect to enforcement/nonenforcement of antitrust legislation. My guess would be that they're behind us in that specialty and that we've got producers here wanting to share their enthusiasm for bondage and discipline.
On the other hand, it could just be all about something simple and obvious: Russian women? vodka?
Do you have a brother--Theobald?
Published: November 16, 2009 6:35 AM