TPP: Pharmaceutical Patents

      In the US, patents on medications allow pharmaceuticals exclusive rights to market and sell a drug for the first 20 years. Many have hoped that the TPP would substantially reduce or eliminate this period. Since the US's patent duration is among the longest in the TPP, reductions were expected as all nations' patent systems are brought more in line with each others'. Pharmaceuticals, however, wanted to implement a relatively long patent period (some rumored this to be about 12 years). This would have delayed the introduction of cheap generics, and pharmaceuticals would be able to maintain their monopolies for longer. This makes medicine expensive. However, the period of monopoly is important. Producing, developing, and researching new drugs is extraordinarily expensive, time consuming, and risky. To incentive such activities, which provide society with new and superior medicine, a brief period of monopoly is needed to ensure profit. If patents were completely eliminated, there would be too little incentive to spend billions developing new drugs. So the TPP struck a middle (read: unpopular) ground. Pharmaceuticals dislike the deal because their patents will be shortened, and others dislike it because they still have patents.

      The TPP restricts new firms from marketing the same or similar pharmaceuticals within at least 5 or 8 years of the first company being allowed to do so. This reduction in patent duration upsets Pharmaceuticals because it cuts into their profits. For the duration of their patents, the company has a monopoly on that drug, which allows them to charge whatever price they like. For drugs that do not have substitutes, people suffering from the disease it treats must choose to buy the extremely expensive drug, or go without. For those with terminal or extreme illness, the later option is all but unthinkable. Thus, for the duration of the patent, companies have extraordinary pricing power, as can be witnessed by recent price hikes for many prescriptions. Since it is more expensive per pill the more you make, past a certain point, and since it is more difficult to produce a million pills in a day than a thousand, monopolistic companies also tend to restrict output, in addition to raising prices, to maximize profit. In fact, limiting the number of pills they produce is the simplest way of raising prices, because a more scarce product is more valuable. This means that not only are drugs expensive, but there often aren't enough of them. This is not to say that Big Pharma is conspiring to let millions die by withholding drugs. However, many drugs become much more widely available once generics are allowed to compete, because more companies expand production and the competition lowers the price. Thus, any measures that reduce the duration of the pharmaceutical companies' monopolies benefits consumers, as long as the period is not so short as to stop companies from researching new medicine altogether. Hence the reduction, but not elimination, of the length of the patents.

      Naturally, their are many caveats to the eight year protection period. The treaty states that a company's right to market a drug exclusively must be protected in two ways. They must do so as described in Article 18.50.1 and Article 18.50.3 either for at least 8 years or at least 5 years. If the drug is completely new, they get an 8 year period, and they get 5 years if the drug is new, but similar to existing drugs. These measures provide pharmaceutical companies with a period of monopoly to ensure that they recover their investment from developing new medicine, but allow generics to be introduced to compete with them across all member countries and drive the price down in a more reasonable amount of time.

The full text is available here, in downloadable PDF format.

By: Jonathan Wood

TPP: Official Release

      The full, final, official text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement were released on November 6th. Including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam, the text will be reviewed by each of the 12 member country's governments and will not take effect until all countries have approved it. This agreement, if approved, will be one of the largest trade agreements in history, with its current members comprising 40% of world trade. Further, the Agreement includes the possibility for additional countries to join, as South Korea is rumored to be considering, which means that its significance could grow to impact the majority of international trade.

      The goal of the TPP, broadly, is to facilitate freer trade between the member countries. Firstly, it is aimed at reducing tariffs, quotas, and other Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) among the participating countries. Additionally, the TPP aims to promote clear and transparent standards across the member countries in areas such as Intellectual Property rights, Import and Export Licensing, and other aspects of trade. On the topic of Intellectual Property, perhaps the most covered topic is the duration of patents for pharmaceuticals. This has been set at a shorter term than the current one in the United States.

      Another major clause implements great restrictions on the levying of customs duties. The vast majority of existing customs duties that are applied to members of the Agreement are going to be phased out, and none can be raised or created (except for anti-dumping and countervailing purposes). However, these duties will not disappear overnight. When all participants have ratified the Agreement, then it will come into force, triggering large reductions in the duties, as well as other NTBs. Then, over a period of several years (varying by type of duty and country), the fees will be phased out based on a minimum time table laid out in the Agreement. Countries can choose to accelerate it for themselves either unilaterally or through future agreements.

      Furthermore, all customs duties on certain goods will be indiscriminately removed. These include fees on physical ads (pamphlets, posters, etc.), temporary goods not to be used for profit (sports gear for events, cameras for new reports), and any goods worth less than US$1. Customs duties are also not to be levied on goods shipped to a country for the purpose of repair or minor alteration (such as if a recalled car needs a replacement part). These reductions represent significant steps to reducing the costs of transporting goods across these international boarders, promoting freer and fairer trade.

      There is a great deal more in the TPP, and so over the coming weeks this article will be followed by others that summarize various sections of the Agreement and analyze its potential effects on member countries and select industries that are particularly exposed to international trade.

The full text is available here, in downloadable PDF format.

By: Jonathan Wood

The Best Medicine: Why Comedy Matters in Politics

An Editorial and Reflection by Brian Contreras

Politics at home and abroad so often make people emotional, whether because of the content itself or the strong opinions people have about it, that making jokes seems to rarely be an appropriate response. All too often people will argue that it isn't the time or the place for being comedic, and that doing so diminishes the importance of the event or issue being made light of in the first place. And frequently, this is true; current events are overflowing with stories that, if not deserving of empathy, are at the very least worthy of being taken seriously.

Yet all too often, people's knee-jerk reaction to a joke being made about a pertinent issue is to call out the speaker as insensitive or untimely. And to be fair, this is generally an accurate assessment of the situation. Most would-be "comedians" are just using tragedy or conflict to satisfy a need for attention, without fulfilling the most basic requirement for being a comic - which is to say, actually being funny. Yet the problem here is the tastelessness of the attempt at humor, not the fact that an attempt was made. Because comedy is not only a basic way that humans deal with pain, but also (if done right) an erudite yet accessible format of art. Just as Pablo Picasso's Guernica or Terry George's Hotel Rwanda dealt with tragedies or social issues in a respectful but still personal manner, modern comedians have the ability to use their own unique method of communication to draw attention to issues, illustrate flaws in society, and perhaps most importantly, make people happy when they have no other reason to be.

One particularly salient illustration of the key role humor plays in the modern world is that of Hannibal Buress and his use of stand-up comedy to publicize the accusations of rape against Bill Cosby (which had been largely ignored for many years up to that point). During one of his sets Buress called out not only the older comedian and alleged rapist, but also the society that allowed him to remain unconvicted for so many years following the first victim stepping forwards. Almost immediately following the routine, websites and publications across the nation were publishing articles detailing the many accounts of sexual assault up to that point, which in turn led more women to come forwards and say that they, too, had been victimized by Cosby. The fact that it took a male comedian to make this a public issue, rather than the victims themselves, is problematic to the extreme; however, at the same time, it exemplifies the power comedy has to influence social systems.

Another recent event exemplary of this potential power is the strange tale of Seth Rogen and James Franco's stoner comedy The Interview, which openly mocked Kim Jong-un and his North Korean dictatorship. Franco and Rogen, famous for works like Freaks and Geeks and This is the End, may not seem like the likeliest candidates to cause an international cyber-terrorism crisis; but then again, you're not the Supreme Leader of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Following the announcement of the film's release by Sony Pictures, Jong-un's administration threatened retaliation; soon after, massive amounts of Sony documents and data were leaked online, and the film was eventually pulled from widespread release following the threat of further attacks, possibly physical in nature. Regardless of the actual quality of the comedy (which has received middling reviews since then), it's power to intimidate or humiliate world leaders to the point of large-scale hacking attacks against major world superpowers is astounding, and indicative of the political leverage comedy and satire can have if used under the right circumstances.

Also in the news cycle over the last few weeks has been the finale of perchance the most famous work of political satire of this century - Comedy Central's iconic The Colbert Report, a mocking news show that poked fun at conservative politics, foreign crises, and all manner of timely issues. Following his introduction through The Daily Show with John Stewart (a similar albeit less satirically-tilted program), the eponymous Stephen Colbert adopted an uber-Republican persona while discussing each day's news items. Yet the character and the man alike extended far beyond the confines of the show, with events like Colbert's biting speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, his massive DC-based "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear", or his sharp take on campaign finance reform through the Super PAC "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" demonstrating his commitment to character, comedy, and criticism. Such an expansion of the brand made him as important to the American political scene as nearly any other pundit or policy maker, and ironically enough, a man who lived behind a satirical facade became one of the most honest voices in the mass media. The loss of his irreplaceable insight and humor will be sorely missed from American televisions, all the more so because of the degree to which his comedy mattered not just as humor but as a force for social change.

But likely the most striking example of the power of humor in the world, and certainly the most fresh in our minds, is that of Charlie Hebdo - the satirical French publication that, after publishing a controversial portrayal of Muhammad, was attacked by two Islamist terrorists in what led to the direct death of twelve victims (as well as that of five more in subsequent acts of violence). Much has been said about the relative merits of the Hebdo cartoon and whether it was satirical or simply offensive in nature; this forum is not the place for such discussions. All that can be said is that the events were tragic, and the needless deaths deeply saddening. The idea that comedy (even of the offensive sort) would be cause for murder is unthinkable.

For better or worse, comedy is an immensely powerful tool, as the Charlie Hebdo staff proved through their publications that both led to and reflected on the attacks; whether one agrees with or rejects the specific stance of them or any other comedian is besides the point. To limit the freedom to make jokes (whether through law, intimidation, or violence) is to limit the human capacity for self-expression. This is not to say that there aren't limits in humor, but rather that the limits must be based on the preservation of safety and well being rather than the avoidance of offense. After all, truly powerful, world-changing art will always offend someone; that art being comedic in nature makes it no less important.

I Scream, You Scream.... Because of ISIS (Affirmation - Nathan Ausubel)

In his opening remarks, my opponent (Max Segal) raises some interesting points about the long-term goals of the US airstrikes against ISIS. He claims that United States’ objective “isn’t to obliterate ISIS” but “to secure Iraq.” My opponent also argues that airstrikes are the best option that the United States has against a borderless entity such as the Islamic State, and that the Kurds’ ground forces are performing surprisingly well against the terrorists.

Unfortunately, events in Iraq have not played out nearly as well as my opponent claims. The United States has launched airstrikes against the Islamic State for nearly half a year, and still ISIS troops are on the verge of taking over Kobani and other Kurdish cities situated on the border of Turkey. According to The Guardian, ISIS now controls “a 400-mile strip from Aleppo in Syria to Falluja in Iraq,” despite the frequent airstrikes and the efforts of the US-led coalition. To this day, ISIS remains one of the best funded terrorist organizations in the world, allowing it “to use social media to broadcast the attractions of a revived caliphate.” The United States will need to do more – much more – to drive ISIS from its current position of influence.

A good start would be getting the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakar, to change his lightbulbs sometimes...            

 My opponent argues that the Kurds have scored significant victories against ISIS. However, I see little evidence that Kurdish forces are actually driving back ISIS. Instead, the two sides seem to be locked in a stalemate. In October, we heard stories of ISIS troops fighting the Kurds within two kilometers of the center of Kobani, and we had reason to be worried, since Kobani is located only a couple miles away from the Turkish border. However, we expected – perhaps in vain – the US airstrikes to inflict some damage on ISIS. Two months later, Kobani is unfortunately still a warzone, and the Kurds have not managed to take back their city. In other parts of Iraq and Syria, especially in the Anbar province of western Iraq, ISIS has actually managed to gain land, instead of losing it to the US-led coalition.

               In light of recent events in the Middle East, we should be asking ourselves exactly what we hope to accomplish with repeated airstrikes. Is my opponent correct in his assessment that the US objective is not to obliterate ISIS but simply to secure Iraq? We need to look no further than Barack Obama to answer this question. Let me repeat what Obama said to the American people on September 10^th in his primetime address: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL.” According to ABC News, the president has repeated this same exact message – verbatim – over a dozen times. Obama has made himself quite clear: the United States will secure Iraq but doing so will require the destruction of ISIS, despite what my opponent has claimed.

 Nice job plugging me, Ausubel. Not that my words weren't just blanket speeches, but hey...

My opponent has also asserted that airstrikes are the best option to use against the Islamic State. However, in an op-ed published in the New York Times, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that “airstrikes alone won’t defeat this enemy.” Airstrikes might be an appealing option on paper, but they only work when used in conjunction with an effective offensive on the ground. Unfortunately, Kurdish forces are not strong enough to overpower the Islamic State, and neither is the “dysfunctional Iraqi army.” Meanwhile, US plans to train Syrian rebels are going nowhere. The United States needs to focus its attention on building an effective ground force, or else US airstrikes will be incapable of driving ISIS from its new territory.

 

The paragon of charity of the US with regards to Syria...

The US strategy against ISIS is not returning Iraq to more stable times, as my opponent claims. If that was true, then why would most of the Anbar Province, the largest territory of Iraq, be in the hands of the Islamic State? US airstrikes are even more of a disaster in Syria. Rather than strengthening rebel forces, the United States is instead propping up the unpopular regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Assad, who is guilty of killing more of his people than even the Islamic State, is clearly no friend of ours. However, as long as the United States is distracted fighting ISIS, Assad has a prime opportunity to win back land from rebel forces. Despite the US intervention, Syria is increasingly turning into a war zone between the Islamic State and the equally troubling figure of Assad.

Obviously, I am not eager for the United States to enter another prolonged war in the Middle East. However, until Obama realizes that he cannot win the war by airstrikes alone, the Islamic State will have a distinct advantage that cannot be overcome by Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian forces alone. The US strategy against ISIS is ineffective as it stands now, and it will need to focus increasingly on ground offensives if the United States hopes to defeat the Islamic State.

I Scream, You Scream.... Because of ISIS (Opposition - Max Segal)

It was seldom 5 years since the United States exited Iraq with whistles and ticker tape that a crime syndicate named the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria reared its all-too-powerful head in Iraq. Straight off, we heard calls for “boots on the ground” and how it was Obama’s folly not keeping troops in Iraq in perpetuity – because, you know, it’s not like we have a dormant debt crisis or that Iraq is a sovereign state. As we move further into our fight with ISIS, it is critical to understand that the only way to dominate the enemy’s home turf is to be strategic, not cathartically offensive.

Perhaps it is smartest to go about this listening to our Commander-in-Chief’s words: “After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries’ futures.” That is genuinely as smart a conclusion as any other.

 'Murica's knocking!

We must also bear in mind, it’s too early to judge about ISIS. Here is an excerpt from military specialist William Bowman:

Now, during the Operation Desert Storm in Iraq back in 1991, the U.S. was launching 650 airstrikes every day. Now, obviously we're talking about different kinds of enemies here. You're comparing terrorist fighters with mostly assault rifles to Saddam Hussein's large, mechanized army, but this gets to the main criticism here - that this is not really an air campaign. It's just strikes here and there. Some call it whack-a-mole.

ISIS is not your classic state, they say so in their doctrine, wherein they think themselves a caliphate, a hub-based functional domain. They don’t function within set borders or set territories. ISIS has land-grabs in the al-Abnar province, but only a general hold of other regions. A full-out offensive simply wouldn’t work- classic warfare only works against a state. ISIS is not. Airstrikes are the best option we have. 

We need also remember our calling. We’re dealing with a bit of guilt here, how we’re failing to secure the prosperity of every Iraqi citizen. Well, here’s some news: we’re not. Official Pentagon reports have stated: “The bombings helped the Yazidi religious sect reach safety, and thousands of them had been trapped on that mountain top.” Our goal isn’t to obliterate ISIS, though that would be nice and just, considering the inflicted damage they caused this country- it’s to secure Iraq. It would be faulty to say that we haven’t done so. The Kurds, while beleaguered, are fighting back against ISIS better and more efficiently. According to the New Yorker, the front line of the ISIS-Kurd fight in Kobani stretches a 650-mile ridgeline. What better way to attack a serpentine, sinuous battlefield than with God’s own F-16s?

 

 All we need vis a vis the Kurdish question...


Withal, we must remember: we have money, we have weapons. If we use them strategically and to the right people (see: not the Iraqi government, but grassroots defense funding to civilians), the welfare of the Iraqi state will be as promised as it ever was.

Ball's in your court, Ausubel...

I Scream, You Scream.... Because of ISIS (Affirmation - Nathan Ausubel)

Hello followers! Yet a new column between our Co-Editor Max Segal and Editor for Editorials, Nathan Ausubel. We will be doing a series of "Crossfire™" dialectics, getting to the core of issues concerning politics and beyond. Enjoy!

Stay Curious, 
FFSOM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

When the United States set out to defeat ISIS, it planned to drive ISIS from a position to inflict damage. However, even though the US has launched airstrikes, coordinated efforts of Iraqi, Syrian, and Kurdish forces on the ground, and built a coalition of countries, it has still not managed to defeat ISIS.

After three months of airstrikes, ISIS remains a serious threat in Syria. It is prepared to capture Kurdish towns along the border in spite of US airstrikes. Perhaps most troubling, ISIS has placed the town of Kobani under siege and is now advancing on three fronts. If Kobani falls to ISIS, ISIS fighters will be within striking distance of Turkey, and they will be positioned to massacre Kobani’s Kurdish residents². To make matters worse, the Syrian army recently suffered a humiliating defeat to militants that overran the command center of commander Jamal Maarouf. The attack was carried out by terrorists with affiliations to al-Qaida, suggesting that ISIS is no longer working alone³. With the help of extra recruits, ISIS is stronger than ever.

 

(ISIS's very probable plan of Pan-Arabic domination). 

 

The United States has started to train Syrian fighters, but its efforts will not be enough. The US is expecting to train only around 5,000 Syrian rebel fighters, whereas ISIS has as many as 30,000 recruits³. US training efforts are well intentioned, but the Pentagon will have to rethink its strategy if it hopes to overpower ISIS fighters.

ISIS poses a similar danger to the Iraqi government. Despite the efforts of Iraqi ground troops and despite US airstrikes, ISIS now controls most of the Al Abnar province, the largest governing unit of Iraq. ISIS has already executed three hundred members of the Albu Nimr tribe, and it is prepared to massacre even more people if they resist the ISIS takeover³. As the Iraqi government debates how to respond to the terrorist threat, ISIS is consolidating control over the region. Meanwhile, the Pentagon warns that a counteroffensive to drive ISIS from Iraq might not happen until next spring³.

(Iraq's very ineffectual Prime Minister, al-Abadi)

The US government needs to realize that its strategy against ISIS is a losing strategy. As long as Syrian and Iraqi forces are poorly trained and as long as jihadists arrive to assist ISIS, the United States cannot expect to turn the tides against ISIS. The US strategy is failing to stop the terrorist threat, and it will need to be rethought in the coming days.

Stay tuned for Max's kickass response.

¹ Ferran, Lee and Rym Mortaz. “ISIS Trail of Terror.” ABC News. American Broadcasting Company, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.

² Dearden, Lizzie. “ISIS in Kobani: Where is it and why is the battle to defend it so important?” The Independent. Independent Print Limited, 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

³ Chulov, Martin. “US plan for proxy army to fight Isis in Syria suffers attack.” The Guardian. Guardian Media Group, 2 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

 

The Bane of the Ukraine

 By Nathan Ausubel

               For the past year, Russia and Ukraine have engaged in a bitter struggle. The Ukrainian government, led by President Petro Poroshenko, wants to gravitate towards the European Union. Poroshenko realizes that an Association Agreement would bring much needed trade to the faltering Ukrainian economy, and he is eager to break free of Russian dependence. Unfortunately for him, Russian President Vladimir Putin stands in his way.

               Putin has grand plans for Russia. He wants to build Russian influence in the region by spearheading a new economic union called the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia desperately wants Ukraine to join this economic union. Putin will use any methods necessary to accomplish this goal, even stopping the gas pipes in Ukraine and refusing to pay off Russian debt to the gas company Gazprom.

               Ukraine finds itself in an unwieldy situation. Poroshenko needs to break his dependence on Russian gas, but he is faced with grim reality: according to the European Commission, as much as 66% of Ukraine’s natural gas came from Russia in 2006. If Gazprom fails to reach a gas agreement with the Kiev government, it can stop the pipes, which has immediate consequences for Ukraine and Eastern European countries. Gazprom carried through with this threat in January 2006 and January 2009, and Ukraine is certainly not eager to experience a similar situation in the future.

               To make matters worse, the European Union is reluctant to give a helping hand to Ukraine. European countries are just as dependant on Russian gas as Ukraine, if not more so, and they too face the threat of Gazprom stopping the gas. According to the European Commission, in 2007 Russia was the sole supplier of natural gas to several E.U. countries, including Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania, according to the European Commission. Russia also supplied 98% of gas exports to Slovakia and 92% of exports to Bulgaria. European countries are afraid to take comprehensive steps against Russia when Gazprom can retaliate with economic penalties.

               The European Union is, of course, responsible for some economic sanctions. It has frozen the assets of leading Russian officials and businessmen, revoked their visas, and suspended trade with leading Russian businesses with close ties with the Kremlin, such as Bank Rossiya. These efforts are, unfortunately, halfhearted at best because the E.U. is heavily reliant on Russian trade.

               With the European Union concerned with Russian commerce, only the United States can stand up to Putin. The United States’ sanctions are still selective sanctions, but American diplomats have acted faster to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for eastern separatists.

               Unfortunately, the United States’ sanctions campaign is almost certainly doomed to fail. In general, economists estimate that sanctions only have a 25% to 30% chance of success. The situation in Russia is no exception. Though the sanctions are a nuisance, Russia can bypass the sanctions by pursuing closer relations with China and Iran. Russia can also retaliate with its own sanctions. It has already banned European food products, and it is starting to seize American and European assets.

               Sanctions are failing to shift public opinion in Russia. From October 2013 to August 2014, Putin’s approval rating actually rose from 64% to 84%. Sanctions are failing to turn public opinion against the Russian government. The Russian people, more than ever, are firmly behind Putin’s foreign policy. With the Russian media leading many Russians to believe that Ukraine is led by a fascist, human rights-abusing government, Putin is finding little opposition on the home front.

               There is little more that the United States and European Union can hope to accomplish from sanctions. They rely too much on Russian trade and have too much to lose from a military confrontation to risk taking more severe measures against Russia. Ukraine will find little help from the Western world in coming days. Russia may have agreed to a cease fire, but Ukraine’s eastern regions are still under Russian de facto control. As long as Russian separatists control the eastern regions, and as long as Gazprom controls the supply of gas, Ukraine will never join the European Union.

Poroshenko’s dreams of a united Ukraine are over. With little doubt, Putin has scored a victory against the West.

Globalization and Central America

Economics Editorial

Towards the middle of my three-week study trip in Costa Rica, my group and I took an excursion to the Museo Nacional in the nation's capital, San Jose. Based out of a large stone fortress many decades old, the museum had a massive collection of Pre-Columbian  artifacts and relics. These objects, ranging from tools to jewelry to monuments, were a unique product of the indigenous population of the area. True, they weren't entirely unaffected by the surrounding socio-ethnic cultures; but at the same time, the objects were unmistakably Costa Rican, both in terms of origin and styling. They were a product of a single, specific culture, and distinct from those of neighboring ones.

But outside of the museum, Costa Rica is a product of the modern era; an era of globalized trade, cultural diffusion, and foreign influence. It's culture is one of adaptation and change; of taking in parts of other cultures and altering them to fit the local lifestyle and customs. The nation maintains a unique identity and sense of self, of course, but at the same time the marks of international contact are hard to miss. For every restaurant that sells gallo pinto or casado another one can be found serving up hamburgers or sushi.

Perhaps the clearest mark of a globalized culture and economy is the ever-present soft drink titans. As Harvard Professor of Business Administration Richard Tedlow argues, "Coca-Cola is said to be the second most well-known phrase in the world" (according to Bloomberg Businessweek). My time in Costa Rica did nothing if not enforce this. For instance, the 2014 Brazil World Cup was going on at the time of my visit, and Coke was one of their major sponsors; advertisements for the beverage were nigh-unavoidable. Pepsi had less of a presence, just like in the United States, but it was still all over the place.

It's important to clarify that these two companies are not outliers when it comes to the Costa Rican economy; rather, they are exemplary of a larger system that is able to incorporate foreign trade and industry into small-scale localized economies. Nike and Adidas, Universal Studios and Disney, Forever 21 and Apple; these and many other companies have massive footholds in the national industries, on a scale that wouldn't be out of place even in the US. 

This is the clearest expression of a process that has been occurring around the world for many years now. After all, the disruption of the indigenous culture by the Europeans so many centuries ago is a product of the very same process that can cause the establishment of a Chinatown in the middle of  a Central American city.

It is a process that shaped my experience in Costa Rica, just as it shapes all of our lives in the United States or anywhere else on the planet. It is a process that has informed the earth for many centuries gone by, and which will certainly continue to do so for many more to come. It is the process of globalization, and it is the way of the world we live in now.

Does America Produce Enough Corn?

Economics Editorial

            In 2011 America harvested 84 million acres of corn; however, only 12% was consumed as food, according to the EPA. Much of the rest is used in various products such as candles, crayons, dyes, and shoe polish. You can find corn in countless foods, diapers, sandpaper, antibiotics, paints, and even patriotic fireworks. With so many uses for corn, one may wonder why we export approximately 20% of our harvest each year. Why do we produce that extra 20%, when we don’t need it at home? Certainly a bit extra is good insurance, but 20% is a large portion. The answer can’t be sheer profits: 1 acre of corn in 2011 was worth ~$760, while 1 acre of rice was worth over $1115. So, why produce the extra corn?

            Most people would agree that the primary goal of agriculture is too feed people. And with rapid growth in population, that is obviously a growing challenge. Recently, America has been producing record levels of corn, which has vastly increased the supply of corn and should logically cause the price of corn to plummet. But it hasn’t. This is because of the rapidly growing global population, which needs to be fed. The demand for corn has increased rapidly enough for the price to stay constant, so that the supply still does not exceed demand. In fact, coupled with the demand for an ever larger amount of manufactured products and synthetic goods, the demand for corn has risen faster than suppliers can keep up, according the Chicago Board of Trade, such that inventory of corn has steadily fallen over the past few years. Thus, prices have risen from around $2 in 2006, to about $4.50 in 2013.

            The conclusion, despite producing 34% of the world’s corn, we need more. Obviously our current massive operation is insufficient at meeting the demand. Much of this demand is driven by government, not consumer, spending, through subsidies, but it is demand that affects the industry in the same way. But why corn, and not rice, which would be more profitable, and would provide more calories per acre?

Globally, America has a comparative advantage in corn, as it can produce the most corn in its fertile valleys the most cheaply. Although it could produce rice, it is not best at doing so. India, specifically the Indus Valley region, is best at producing rice, with China’s Yellow River basins a close second. India thus should focus on rice, and so should China, given that India’s production is not sufficient to meet the needs of a booming Asian population whose diet relies heavily on rice.

By: Jonathan Wood