April, 08 2009, 03:02pm EDT

A Number Not to Repeat From G-20 Communique: $150 Billion in Gains From WTO Doha Round
Last week's G-20 communique claim that the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Round "could boost the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum" is not only preposterous but also damaging given the fabricated figure was employed to promote Doha Round negotiations that include further financial service deregulation, Public Citizen said Wednesday.
WASHINGTON
Last week's G-20 communique claim that the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Round "could boost the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum" is not only preposterous but also damaging given the fabricated figure was employed to promote Doha Round negotiations that include further financial service deregulation, Public Citizen said Wednesday.
The World Bank in 2005 projected that the Doha Round could account for up to $90 billion in boosted global economic activity, a figure it published after more careful analysis in response to widespread criticism of its 2003 claims that the round would generate $539 billion in new activity. Yet, even this World Bank projection was based on multiple implausible assumptions and was outweighed by the $101.4 billion in projected Doha Round tariff revenue losses that would mainly hit developing countries who use such funds to support basic government services. Even the $150 billion figure represents a rounding error when compared to the planet's pressing development needs. For people in developing countries making $100 a month, this would mean a 16-cent raise in their monthly salaries in 2015.
"The G-20 communique calling for enhanced global financial service regulation and completion of the WTO Doha Round was perverse, given the Doha Round includes further financial service deregulation," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. "Given the world is already suffering the severe economic damage of radical financial service deregulation, using fabricated projections of gains to support this contradictory demand is especially galling."
Further, the World Bank's projected $90 billion Doha Round gains would be highly unequally distributed. Of those projected benefits, only $16 billion would go to the developing world - well under a penny-per-day per capita or about 0.16 of their national incomes. And the vast majority of the meager developing country portion would go to China, Brazil and India.Indeed, a more detailed review of the World Bank data showed that the majority of developing countries, including Arab nations, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and all African countries except South Africa would be net losers were the Doha Round agenda completed.
The $150 billion figure in the G-20 document appears to come from recent speeches and articles by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, who in a Dec. 31 Newsweek op-ed wrote, "Economists conservatively estimate that a Doha deal along the lines of what is on the table today would boost global GDP [gross domestic product] by $100 billion each year. It would also cut export taxes by $150 billion."
The fabricated projection of $150 billion in Doha Round gains appears to round up, and then confuse, Lamy's two numbers and what they represent. By using the higher $150 billion number, the G-20 conflated a cut in duties with an economic stimulus. This is highly misguided and contradicts the precepts of current U.S. economic recovery policy. There are two types of fiscal expansionary policies: tax (or tariff) cuts or direct government spending. The underpinning for the Obama administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was that the Bush administration's policy of tax cuts and rebates had not yielded a sufficient multiplier effect and that direct outlays would have a higher economic impact and put more people back to work.
"Policymakers should ignore such fanciful projections, and instead push for trade policies more likely than the Doha Round to benefit development and economic recovery," Wallach said. "Instead of completing the Doha Round, which includes further financial service deregulation, countries need to create a new WTO negotiation agenda that starts with fixing the WTO's many existing problems including its Financial Services Agreement, which binds 105 signatory nations to maintain the extreme deregulation that caused the current crisis."
Moreover, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development projects that the majority of Doha Round duty cuts will come from developing countries. There are three pressing issues here: First, will the tariff cuts substitute for tax cuts that will have domestic multiplier effects in developing countries? Second, the tariff cuts can be seen as losses by developing-country governments (versus consumers in point one) looking to put together stimulus packages. In the developing world, tariff revenue as a percent of GDP can range from 15 to 40 percent of total government revenue. The G-20 communique punts on a global stimulus, so money is needed more now than ever to put together domestic stimuli. Finally, in some cases the costs of liberalizing tariffs could outweigh the projected benefit. If a tariff is a "corrective" mechanism to protect local firms or farmers from oligopolized global corporations that can "dump" their products on poor countries and unjustly wipe out local firms, the tariff is more optimal.
"There are many opportunities for positive international coordination in the face of the economic crisis, financial re-regulation, climate change, and other shared challenges," Wallach said. "The current Doha Round represents a backward-looking agenda that instead could shrink incomes and government revenues, and limit nations' ability to regulate finance, energy and other service sectors."
"At the next G-20 Summit, leaders should announce a changed course on trade and development policy that puts the environment and the needs of working families in all countries first. Moreover, G-20 leaders should press the WTO, World Bank and any other entities potentially responsible to disclose the full details and assumptions behind this and any future projections of Doha's economic impact."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Trump Taps 'Manifestly Unqualified' Peter Thiel Protégé as Acting CDC Director After RFK's Purge
A health researcher for Public Citizen said Trump's interim CDC director has "no medical or public health background and extremist libertarian views."
Aug 29, 2025
After pushing out his own handpicked Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, infectious disease expert Susan Monarez, fueling a wave of outraged resignations this week, US President Donald Trump has appointed a loyal acolyte to replace her at Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s side.
On Thursday, the president tapped one of RFK's top aides as interim CDC director: biotech investor Jim O'Neill, a man with no medical experience but extensive experience profiting from healthcare while working at billionaire GOP megadonor Peter Thiel's venture capital firm, Mithril Capital.
Unlike his predecessor, whose ouster came as she tried to push back against RFK's anti-vaccine agenda, O'Neill fits snugly into the secretary's efforts to restrict access to the Covid-19 vaccine, and potentially ban it outright, as the Daily Beast reported earlier this week.
"A tech investor with no medical or public health background and extremist libertarian views, Jim O'Neill was unfit for the number two position at HHS and manifestly unqualified to lead the CDC," said Dr. Robert Steinbrook, director of Public Citizen's health research group, on Friday.
Just as Kennedy did during his confirmation hearings, O'Neill insisted he was "pro-vaccine," noting that he was "an adviser to a vaccine company." However, this is belied by his record on the subject.
He has championed unproven cures like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D supplements to protect against Covid-19, and has accused the CDC under the administration of former President Joe Biden of downplaying the vaccine's dangers while railing against mandates.
O'Neill has also praised Kennedy's response to the measles outbreak that swept across the US earlier this year, during which the secretary downplayed the severity and cast unfounded doubt on the effectiveness and safety of the measles vaccine that had virtually eradicated the disease before vaccination rates began to decline.
"Unlike Susan Monarez," Steinbrook said, "O'Neill is likely to rubber-stamp dangerous vaccine recommendations from HHS Secretary Kennedy's handpicked appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and obey orders to fire CDC public health experts with scientific integrity."
O'Neill melds medical crankery with a Thielite strain of anarcho-libertarianism. He has served on the board of the Seasteading Institute, an organization founded by Patri Friedman, the grandson of the right-wing economist Milton Friedman, who advocates for corporations like Apple and Google to form their own floating cities at sea, which would be governed as corporate "dictatorships" free from the constraints of democratic governance.
That anti-government ethos extends to his views on the healthcare system, which O'Neill says is flawed not because of the rampant profiteering of the private companies that run it, but because it is supposedly not "free market" enough.
In 2014, he advocated for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to begin approving drugs for the market without conducting clinical trials to determine their effectiveness. "Let people start using them, at their own risk," he argued, "Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized."
He has also argued for the government to allow people to sell their own internal organs. This process often results in deteriorating health for the disproportionately poor people who partake.
While working at HHS under the administration of former President George W. Bush, O'Neill also opposed the FDA regulation of companies that use algorithms to perform laboratory tests.
At the time, he was focused on DNA testing products like 23andMe, but a report from the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen says that "a decade after he made this remark, it's clear how dangerous such a concept is," noting that "with the development and proliferation of artificial intelligence, algorithms are omnipresent in the practice of medicine, including in diagnostic tools, medical devices, AI assistants to doctors, and personalized medicine."
In addition to Thiel's ideology, he reportedly brings several conflicts of interest to the CDC director job from his time working at Thiel's venture capital firm.
Accountable.US reported Friday that O'Neill "took money from, helped incubate, or was otherwise linked to at least eight medical industry startups with direct business before the department he could help run."
These include firms he advised, like the pharmaceutical company ADvantage Therapeutics or the National Institutes of Health grantee Rational Vaccines, which manufactures herpes drugs.
It also includes four companies seeded by his Thiel-affiliated venture capital firm Breakout Labs, some of which have received government funding or have products awaiting FDA approval.
Though O'Neill agreed to divest from some of these companies and abstain from involvement in decision-making with them as part of his ethics agreement, the report notes that "he did not promise to abstain from decisions involving these companies for the duration of his term, or to abstain from doing business with them after departing HHS."
"O'Neill would be in a prime position to ensure favorable outcomes for several medical industry startups he's been financially linked to that have direct business before HHS and the CDC," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk. "How can American patients be sure that proper vetting of these companies would take place on O'Neill's watch and that public health will be a higher priority over the profits of his former clients?"
Though Steinbrook describes O'Neill as "manifestly unqualified" for the position, he said, "No credible public health authority is likely to work for Kennedy, who is dictating the agency's decisions based on whim, not science."
"The only path forward," Steinbrook said, "is for Kennedy to go, which Congress, professional organizations, medical journals, and the public should demand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'AI Death Panels': Trump Pilot Program Seeks to Bring 'Very Worst' For-Profit Insurance Practices to Medicare
The administration, warned two union leaders, "is inserting private AI companies, which have a giant financial stake in the denial of care, into the doctor-patient relationship."
Aug 29, 2025
Creating what critics are equating to "AI death panels" elderly Americans in need of care, the Trump administration is launching a pilot program in six states that will use artificial intelligence to determine whether Medicare recipients should qualify for certain procedures.
As reported by The New York Times on Thursday, the pilot program will hire private firms to deploy AI to make what are known as "prior authorization" decisions regarding whether Medicare should pay for certain procedures, including spinal surgeries and steroid injections. The program is set to run first in Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington.
According to the paper, the program will rely on algorithms similar to those "used by insurers have been the subject of several high-profile lawsuits, which have asserted that the technology allowed the companies to swiftly deny large batches of claims and cut patients off from care in rehabilitation facilities."
The way the program is being structured will also give AI firms big incentives to maximize the denial of claims for Medicare recipients, as the Times reported that "Medicare plans to pay them a share of the savings generated from rejections."
Abe Sutton, the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, emphasized in an interview with the Times that this program would not be used to review emergency services or hospital stays.
Even so, some experts and advocates have warned that this program risks bringing the same problems experienced by people who use private insurance to Medicare.
"It's basically the same set of financial incentives that has created issues in Medicare Advantage and drawn so much scrutiny," Ohio-based surgeon Dr. Vinay Rathi, who is also an expert in Medicare payment policies, explained to the Times. "It directly puts them at odds with the clinicians."
Jathan Sadowski, a senior lecturer and research fellow in the Emerging Technologies Research Lab at Monash University, also warned about private insurance practices creeping into traditional Medicare.
"The government is hiring companies using AI to make those determinations about healthcare," he wrote on X. "This is exactly the same tactic that private insurers like UnitedHealth use to delay and deny treatment."
The reported pilot program also drew harsh reviews from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), as president Randi Weingarten and the union's Retirees Program and Policy Council co-chair Tom Murphy issued a joint statement accusing the Trump administration of "attempting to transform Medicare into the very worst of private insurance."
"Instead of making life easier and better for older Americans, this administration is introducing extra hurdles that are burdensome to patients and often get in the way of their desperately needed treatments," they said. "And the administration is inserting private AI companies, which have a giant financial stake in the denial of care, into the doctor-patient relationship."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Another Act of Revenge': Trump Cancels Secret Service Extended Protection for Kamala Harris
"The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses," said a spokesman for California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Aug 29, 2025
US President Donald Trump has canceled extended Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris just as she was scheduled to go on a multi-city book tour.
CNN reported on Friday that Trump this week sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security that simply read, "You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by executive memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris."
As CNN explained, former vice presidents are entitled by federal law to six months of Secret Service protection after leaving office.
However, former President Joe Biden late in his term signed a directive that extended Harris' protection past the standard six-month window. The reason for the extension—its existence not reported publicly until Trump moved to revoke it—has not been made clear.
Harris last year was the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after then-President Joe Biden decided against running for a second term.
As California is Harris' home state, both California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass are aware of and have been discussing Harris' security situation, and CNN noted she could get added protection in the future from the Los Angeles Police Department or potentially another state agency.
In a statement given to CNN, Bass delivered a scathing denunciation of the president for revoking his former rival's Secret Service protection.
"This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more," she said. "This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the Governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles."
Bob Salladay, a spokesman for Newsom, also ripped the president for his actions.
"The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses," he said.
Harris is scheduled to go on tour starting next month in New York to promote her book "107 Days," which reflects on her failed 2024 presidential campaign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular