I don’t see how Doha can make it

It has been going on for 5½ years, it has come down to the so-called G4 (United States, the European Union, Brazil and India), one of whom just gave up on being able to bind its members with a constitution, and talks still broke down 2 days early.

Protectionism (mostly subsidies) are just too great a sticking point. Note also that the G4 only includes the 2 developing countries that make the biggest impact (say, with pharmaceuticals). Whatever this meeting can nut out, there’s some distance between that agreement and one agreed upon by every member of the WTO. And this is at a time when more and more people are aware of, and annoyed about, the approach international organisitions take to representation during negotiations.

It appears NGOs of various stripes are only too pleased that it’s all breaking down (too secretive, extracting rents from poor countries, etc.). I disagree. They’re welcome to think the EU, US and Japan will react to the failure of the Doha rounds by creating a World Parliament, but that strikes me as highly unlikely. It will just mean more of the same bilateral Free Trade Areas – with which rich countries extract greater rents still.

I can’t make a pun out of the words “Skilling” and “Black”

I was trying to – it was going to be along the lines of the Pots Calling Kettles Black, but with Skilling (Skillet, see? Eh? Eh?). It wouldn’t work. And I don’t see how making puns out of the name of a man doing 25 years in gaol is particularly kind.

What brings the two together is an article in today’s Guardian, ostensiby about Jeffrey Skilling, but actually about Conrad Black.

I almost posted something about Conrad Black a while ago but, to cut a long story short, Donald Trump didn’t go to Chicago.

Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of Enron, has completed his first 6 months in gaol. With 23 years, 10 months left to serve. That isn’t why Andrew Clark drew attention to him (maybe Andrew Clark is a dick, but I’ll assume for the moment that he is not).

Conrad Black, former Peer of the House of Lords, former CEO of then Hollinger International (former many things), is on trial for racketeering, obstruction of justice, money laundering and wire fraud (Patrick Fitzgerald filed the charges, by the by). Americans, by and large, do not know Conrad Black – which always amuses me.

On to the point: As Andrew Clark discusses, there’s an odd comparison/difference in the cases of Conrad Black and Ken Lay/Jeffrey Skilling, although Black is facing similar punishment. Black’s defense council has been demanding to see where the victims of his fraud are – who lost their jobs, their pensions, their health care, etc.? There are none – Black’s behaviour cost Hollinger share-holders a little bit apiece. The company lives on. Skilling and Lay cost their shareholders everything.

However, the crimes of Skilling and Lay could reasonably be supposed to have been undertaken in order to save the company (in an “I can win it back!” sense, sure, but nevertheless). Their fraud was massive, but their motives could have been more benign than we are given to believe. Not so with Conrad Black. He wasn’t covering up over-valued stocks, he was paying his wife and himself a tonne of money, throwing birthday parties for his wife, getting nice apartments, etc.. There was nothing benign about it.

There will probably be no problem with conviction, but this makes sentencing interesting – will Conrad Black get a lighter sentence than Jeffrey Skilling because he didn’t hurt as many people as badly? Should we draw parallels between attempted murder and manslaughter? As Sideshow Bob complained, they don’t give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?