For some Americans, low airfare carriers such as Spirit Airlines is the difference between reuniting with loved ones for the holidays and sacrificing family to save a few bucks. The inevitable scramble for airline tickets is upon us, which forces us to evaluate our options. The appeal of Spirit Airlines is obvious: how can you say no to a cheap flight when life in America becomes increasingly unaffordable? However, the unfortunate reality is Spirit Airlines completely takes advantage of their promise to provide low airfare costs.

According to Andrew Schmertz from the Huffington Post, Spirit has some of the worst customer service reviews out there. Small, uncomfortable seating along with a barrage of baggage fees. Free carry on? No such thing. Any bag over 40lbs will cost you $30, up to $100 for larger bags. Free drinks or peanuts are nonexistent, and delays are commonplace. Nonetheless, the worst offense of all is the treatment of their workers. Back in 2015, there were reports of a multitude of delayed flights due to “bad weather” reports that did not even exist. The theory was that pilot and crew strikes were the real reason for the delays, but this was never confirmed. This is not surprising as the employee reviews are far from flattering. Low wages and poor management are common complaints, as Spirit has the worst customer service known to mankind.

Despite all this, Spirit Airlines still remains a go to low airfare carrier. At the end of the day, Schmertz believes “economy over convenience” is the driving force of Spirit’s success.

The real question is, are they making as much money as they could be? With all those extra charges, is their net income any better? According to Yahoo Finance, the share price is at a stable $53.11. Compared to other airlines like Southwest with a market cap of $29.5 billion, their market cap is quite small at $3.68 billion. Spirit’s quarterly report revealed their net income was $61.9 million in the first quarter of this year, $73.1 million in the second quarter, and $81.4 million by the third quarter. Overall, they seem to be doing pretty well. Their expenses are not as high as other airlines as they do not fly to as many locations. It seems that Spirit Airlines, which puts pressure on other airlines to lower airfares. However, this will lead to lower profits overall for airlines like Southwest or United as they spend more on their flights than Spirit does. Time will tell how long Spirit will remain a competitor in the airline industry, but for now, terrible customer service and endless fees are worth it to hard working Americans.

When the “Moneyball” revolution occurred in baseball the ideas it posited spread rapidly to other sports. You could see a revolution of numbers-based analytical analysis and other financial-market principles dictating the actions of a team taking place in just about every American sport. In the NBA it manifested itself quickly in both the growth of analytics and a more market-based approach to team building strategy. Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball, even wrote an article for the New York Times focusing on the unseen value of NBA player Shane Battier.

Among the many ideas that Billy Beane’s A’s teams popularized was finding market inefficiencies in the league that you could identify though statistical analysis, and then exploit those insights for your team’s benefit. Basically, you want to find an aspect of team building that no one else is seeing, or is seeing incorrectly, and then you’re gonna make a move that counters the logic everyone else is working under. In a league like the NBA, where everyone works under the restraints of the salary cap, these small advantages of thinking make a massive difference in terms of results.

Photo Credit: Phelan M. Ebenhack

One way that teams find these advantages is through identifying “undervalued assets” or players that many teams in the league do not want because they see them as ineffective, but the astute manager sees how these players can be developed and utilized in the proper role to succeed for their teams.

I spoke to a friend who works in asset management for a private hedge fund. He told me that he was struggling with the challenges of the work. He told me that the most difficult part to figure out was that everyone in the industry is working off the same pool of information, or that’s how it’s “supposed” to be anyway, and that he had to figure out what everyone else was thinking, and then find a different angle of investment in order to make money. In a competitive environment where everyone’s jobs are dictated by the returns they create the stress this causes is palpable, even when you’re just talking to someone about it.

The same principles apply to personnel professionals in the NBA. Everyone has access to the same information, or at least they should in theory, on the players available to sign, trade or draft, and it’s these people are judged based on their returns i.e. win totals and in-game attendance. As everyone has become more attuned to league-wide trends, it becomes more difficult to find the asset that other teams are undervaluing, and thus the market becomes more competitive. As Patrick Minton of Sportsstudies.net says, “It’s one thing to have a ton of data. It is entirely another thing to know what to do with it.”

The San Antonio Spurs, under head coach Gregg Popovich and general manager RC Buford, have operated successfully this way for years. They brought many players in from Europe and South America to play for them, when many other teams had decided most players from abroad could not thrive in the NBA. The Spurs exploited the rest of the league’s lack of knowledge of these talent pools. That combined with superstar Tim Duncan helped them win five NBA championships and win the most games of any NBA team since 1996.

Source: Sports Illustrated

Daryl Morey, the GM of the Rockets and one of the biggest proponents of NBA “moneyball” principles, popularized the idea of amassing assets to package in trades for star players. A risky move because the trade may never come, and players don’t often appreciate being treated like a stock in your portfolio, but it worked when he attained superstar James Harden in a trade with the Oklahoma City Thunder.

These strategies show the value in having the intuitive ability to see the landscape of conventional thinking, but then have the courage to make the counter-intuitive move in order to exploit it. Much like in the financial markets if you go with the conventional logic, then you limit the margin on the returns you can generate. These assets are not easy to identify, and with the increasing amount of information at team’s disposal it’s becoming more difficult by the day.

 

 

 

Scientists have researched climate change for over three decades, gathering information about how the human population and our actions have affected the global temperature. At this point, there is little scientific dispute about climate change, but the United States’ newest president-elect seems to have other ideas. Donald Trump has called climate change a hoax, and he has already appointed some skeptics to his energy and environmental transition team, including Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. On November 21, 2016, Trump released a YouTube video detailing some of his plans for his first 100 days in office, and unsurprisingly, one of his goals is to end restrictions on energy production. Overall, the situation is not looking great for the status of our environment, so it may be important to look at what costs this will bring us in the future.

One important note about climate change is that it is essentially irrevocable and has a foreseeable time limit. The more we ignore this problem, the greater the problem becomes. This means that it continuously gets more expensive as a result. In 2015, Citigroup estimated that if we do not act, the cost will be up to $44 trillion by 2060. In this scenario, everyone continues living the way they have been, and we maintain the level of progress that has been made. Trump’s desire to lift energy regulations actually sets us backwards on the scale, and it is hard to imagine what the costs would be then. Last week, senior scientists said that if Trump carries through with all of his promises from his campaign, it might as well be “game over” for the environment.

Climate change is not a zero sum game. There are costs to acting and not acting, but it is important to weigh the difference. Many argue that low oil prices have lowered motivation to look for alternative sources of energy. While it may be less attractive to invest time and money into renewables, it could also be argued that because oil is so cheap, there is more space to spend money on energy efficiency without halting the global economy.

For Trump, this future catastrophe is not a huge deal because it most likely will not happen in his lifetime. For today’s millennials, climate change is yet another cost that they will have to incur. Millennials are already dealing with low incomes, high debt, and the heavy weight of social security and healthcare. This is especially detrimental to low-income, vulnerable populations because these groups are always hit the hardest in economic declines.

All of the monetary costs aside, climate change itself can and will do its own damage to the planet. There will be more frequent and extreme weather cases, disease, and deteriorating farm yields. Additionally, there will be an increase in climate-related disturbances including soil change, drought, and flooding. We are already seeing some uncharacteristically dangerous hurricanes and storms that cause severe destruction, such as Hurricane Sandy on the east coast of the US. The young people of today will have to deal with all this in a few years, and it is unclear whether or not this is even possible.

On the 8^th of November 2016, along with the US, even India, one of the fastest economies in the world, was also going through a turning point in the history of its country. India’s recently elected prime minister demonetized a large proportion of its currency by ceasing the usage of all 500 and 100 rupee notes as legal tender and replacing with them with new currency notes. Also, limitations have been placed on cash transactions, and laws have been passed for large and unusual bank deposits to be under extensive tax scrutiny.

 

This major step is aimed at combating several serious issues that the country is facing, like black money, corruption, the inflow of fake currency from neighboring countries like to fund terrorism and even the problem of smuggling.

 

Through the implementation of this revolutionary policy, any drastic increases in income of people that do not seem consistent with their past earning patterns are much easier to question and examine under tax assessment, because all the cash will now be discernible by banks and the government. To escape these tax assessments and pay fines for tax evasion and having huge sums of money accounted for, many businesses have completely wiped out their cash. There have been numerous reports of people burning down or throwing away their black money because it now has no monetary value. An expected number of one trillion rupees are to be not exchanged.

 

Also, to strengthen this step taken towards tax evasion is the imposing of more than a 200% penalty for those making deposits of cash worth more than 250,000 rupees that cannot be accounted for.

 

However, in addition to the affects on taxation and corruption, this de monetization has also had an interesting macroeconomic effect. In India, there are major industries that entirely thrive on a parallel economy run by black money. Demonetization will bar these industries and businesses and that significantly lower India’s GDP for the last quarter of 2016. However, this would only be a short-term impact that would be a small price to pay for the increasing the GDP and the overall health of the economy of the country. Additionally, as banks will experience a major influx of deposits, interest rates are likely to fall, and lower lending rates might help boost the economy. Also, the value of the rupee might enhance in the foreign exchange market because of the major decrease in circulation of currency notes in the economy.

 

As of the business forefront of the situation, investing in the real estate, luxury and jewelry industries might not be prudent as of now. This is because housing finance companies will not be willing to give real estate companies loans to companies and individuals that might be currently facing a liquidity crisis. Also owning luxury goods, especially luxury cars or jewelry is often a representation of high earnings and extra wealth, and hence the luxury industry might be adversely impacted because people might refrain from displaying their income levels by involving in such forms of indulgence. Hence investments and stock markets will definitely see volatility.

 

Comprehensively, the Modi administration has made a very forward-looking, unique and distinctive step towards counterfeiting this parallel black money economy, corruption and the circulation of fake currency. As of now, the demonetization has been having a three-fold effect on interest rates, taxation and the stock market. Nevertheless, the increasing magnitude of these impacts, volatility and destabilization to be caused by it is yet to be seen.

 

 

Should Anti-Dumping laws be dumped?

Anti dumping refers to the process by which governments levy extra costs and taxes to imports to protect domestic manufacturers. Dumping is the process by which foreign exporters enter into an international market by providing goods at significantly lower prices. Foreign exporters are both willing to do so can do it because of several reasons.

Firstly, foreign competitors might have comparative advantage over local manufacturers. Comparative advantage gives foreign importers the chance to produce the same goods more effectively because of better natural resource availability, better climate, productive skills, cheaper labor and other conditions that might provide a better environment for the same product to be made faster. Secondly, exporting to other countries is both accessible and profitable for many companies. Also, many companies are often able to find a huge demand for their product outside of their home country.

However, when these countries enter foreign markets, they have a huge impact on the foreign country and provide competition for domestic producers. Governments hence create anti dumping laws, trade barriers, and other legal restrictions towards foreign imports to improve their trade deficit, to safeguard niche and newly developing industries, and to give these companies a chance to grow and be ready to become competitive.

International trade dumping is often occurred at the cost of domestic workers and domestic companies loosing market share. However, trade barriers can also be detrimental to the overall efficiency of the economy. Trade barriers can also affect developing nations differently, because if developed nations have trade barriers, this would lead to them over producing and then dumping their products in developing nations for cheaper prices. Also, because the more richer and developed nations set the fundamental trade policies, developing nations face high barriers from these countries and cannot export from these countries to improve their own trade deficit.

Anti dumping laws and trade barriers and weather they should be implemented have always been a subject of controversy. Anti-dumping laws can sometimes be a barrier to innovation and progress, because if new advanced products are not allowed to enter the market, then domestic producers might not have the incentive to research and develop their products because of lack of competition. Also, providing more choice and higher quality to consumers is also crucial for the economy. Trade restrictions also however improve the current account balance of a country, by improving trade deficit and net exports.

The debate on weather anti-dumping laws and trade barriers should be encouraged or dumped is not one that can be resolved easily, and this debate falls under the umbrella of the debate of Keynesian versus classical economics. However a balanced argument that considers arguments of both sides would convey that government intervention and trade barriers are required to an extent, because free markets would only work in an ideal world of perfect competition, where demand and supply would purely control the market. However, in the real world, some degree of government involvement and laws are required to ensure fair competition and balance of trade across nations.

 

 

 

 

 

Anti dumping refers to the process by which governments levy extra costs and taxes to imports to protect domestic manufacturers. Dumping is the process by which foreign exporters make into an international market by providing goods for significantly lower prices. Foreign exporters are both willing to do so can do it because of several reasons.

Firstly, foreign competitors might have comparative advantage over local manufacturers. Comparative advantage gives foreign importers the chance to produce the same goods more effectively because of better natural resource availability, better climate, productive skills, cheaper labor and other conditions that might provide a better environment for the same product to be made faster. Secondly, exporting to other countries is both accessible and profitable for many companies. Also, many companies are often able to find a huge demand for their product outside of their home country.

However, when these countries enter foreign markets, they have a huge impact on the foreign country and provide competition for domestic producers. Governments hence create anti dumping laws, trade barriers, and other legal restrictions towards foreign imports to improve their trade deficit, to safeguard niche and newly developing industries, and to give these companies a chance to grow and be ready to become competitive.

It is argued that international trade dumping is often occurred at the cost of domestic workers and domestic companies loosing market share. However trade barriers can also be detrimental to the overall efficiency of the economy. Trade barriers can also affect developing nations differently, because if developed nations have trade barriers, this would lead to them over producing and then dumping their products in developing nations for cheaper prices. Also, because the more richer and developed nations set the fundamental trade policies, developing nations face high barriers from these countries and cannot export from these countries to improve their own trade deficit.

Anti dumping laws and trade barriers and weather they should be implemented have always been a subject of controversy. Anti-dumping laws can sometimes be a barrier to innovation and progress, because if new advanced products are not allowed to enter the market, then domestic producers might not have the incentive to research and develop their products because of lack of competition. Also, providing more choice and higher quality to consumers is also crucial for the economy. Trade restrictions also however improve the current account balance of a country, by improving trade deficit and net exports.

The debate on weather anti-dumping laws and trade barriers should be encouraged or dumped is not one that can be resolved easily, and this debate falls under the umbrella of the debate of Keynesian versus classical economics. However a balanced argument that considers arguments of both sides would convey that government intervention and trade barriers are required to an extent, because free markets would only work in an ideal world of perfect competition, where demand and supply would purely control the market. However, in the real world, some degree of government involvement and laws are required to ensure fair competition and balance of trade across nations.

 

 

Since 1960, our trade relationship with Cuba has been severely limited. The effort to isolate Cuba by preventing trade and travel has backfired and has not lead to the implementation of Democracy or improved human rights violations. The Cold War mentality that Cuba must be forced to change its communist ways has been unsuccessful. Therefore, if the embargo is not helping anyone, the U.S. should fully lift this trade blockade on a country that has more than paid the price.

In 2013, Cuba urged the U.S. to end the embargo during a U.N. General Assembly. According to Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, the economic damages due to the embargo amounts to $1.126 trillion. This includes decreases in tourism, costs of exports into the U.S., and loss of exports from the U.S. Instead of punishing the corrupt regime which existed during the 1960’s, the people of Cuba as a whole suffered.

Since President Obama’s election in 2009, he has actively discussed the goal to have better relations with Cuba. In 2009, the Council on Foreign Relations reports that the Obama Administration reversed limitations on travel and telecommunications. However, it has taken the administration not one but two terms to finally make moves towards lifting the embargo entirely, mostly due to conflicts within Congress.

In October 2016, the strict limits on Cuban cigars and rum were lifted.  The previous $100 limit on alcohol and tobacco no longer stands, along with open collaboration to research and sell pharmaceutical products in the U.S. These are all great steps forward, but the U.S (aka congress) still remains hesitant to lift the embargo.

Another dramatic change this October was the U.S. abstaining from the U.N. vote to lift the Cuba embargo. After 50 years of strict sanctions, the U.S is slowly moving towards full engagement with Cuba. Hopefully, this could go into full effect by the end of 2016.

Although the embargo negatively affected Cuba the most, there is evidence of positive trade impacts we have missed out on if the reversing of the embargo occurs. According to a study by the George Washington University, “Economic and Strategic Impacts of U.S Sanctions in Cuba,” the estimated trade impacts in agricultural exports could be anywhere from $400 million to $1 billion annually. In medical exports, $20 million to $600 million annually. If all restrictions are lifted, we could earn $1.6 billion in aggregate exports and create up to 20,000 jobs. The U.S is number one in agriculture production, and yet we are no longer the main supplier of meat, dairy, and grains to Cuba. This means that not only have we isolated Cuba, we have isolated ourselves due to the embargo.

Overall, allowing more Cuban imports and open trade with Cuba could bring many benefits to our economy. We must proceed with caution, for the concerns regarding human right violation in Cuba is valid. However, we might as well not be the country that worsens their economic situation and fight to help them. If we feel the need to overly involve ourselves in every other country (the countries that don’t even want our help,) what is stopping us from moving forward with Cuba?

On August 31st, South Korea’s largest container carrier declared bankruptcy.  LA Times reported on September that Hanjin’s unfortunate bankruptcy has to do with over supply of ships, low demand for capacity, and slow trade growth. The revenue from trade has been decreasing over the years but the demand for mega-ships has made it difficult for Hanjin to maintain its business as shipping company. Using Bloomberg’s words on September 16, Hanjin “and its customers are being asked to pay more than usual to bring freight into U.S. ports, creating backlog that could keep goods off shelves during the holiday shopping season.”

How did this happen? Since the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the shipping industry lost a great amount of money. For Hanjin’s case, it lost $1.1 billion in 2009. In 2010, China’s GDP growth slowed down and it affected the globe.  China’s slowed economy definitely dampened growth of Hanjin as well because China has been one of the major trading partner with Korea; South Korea makes $142 billion from export to China.  Ever since then, Hanjin has been going through a rough phase in its business. According to Journal of Commerce, Hanjin’s profit has been decreasing to the point where it had more than $5 billion in debt, and spot rates decreased significantly for Asia-Europe and Trans-Pacific.

On this year’s Spring, Hanjin attempted to get financial support from Korea Development Bank but the deal was pulled off in the middle. On April, Hanjin lost its control of operations to KDB and the company filed for court receivership in Seoul 3 days ago. Though it has been very gloomy for South Korea for having its major shipper declaring bankruptcy, there are some rumors rising recently that makes the country even more depressing. Recently, there has been a scandal involving South Korea’s president, Geun-Hye Park. Although the investigation is still on going, Korea Times published an article that there may have been connection between Geun-Hye Park’s scandal and KDB’s rejection to bail out Hanjin in Spring.

The entire story of this newly found scandal is very complex because it dates back all the way from 1970s. To summarize the scandal, the recent , investigation conducted by South Korean intelligence agency found out that president Geun-Hye Park has been controlled by her mentor Soon-Sil Choi. According to LA Times, Choi has been using president to “pressure corporations to cough up millions in donations to dubious foundations [. . .to use] like a personal ATM.” Further, a vast number of government’s classified documents were found in Choi’s personal computer with no encryption.

In other words, South Korean president has been a puppet to a wealthy civilian. Back to the Hanjin’s bankruptcy, Korea Times suspects if the fund that was planned to be used for bailing out Hanjin was used for Choi’s personal use instead. According to Korea Times article, there has been statements that the decision-makers in Korean government was positive about cash injection to Hanjin through KDB until March. The article quoted from Joongang Ilbo daily (Korean Newspaper) that there was “invisible hand” cut in and suddenly stopped the process of attempt to save Hanjin from bankruptcy. Joongang Ilbo suspects that Choi disrupted the bail out because Hanjin’s support on Mir and K-Sports (the dubious foundations Choi has been using as her personal ATMs) was not satisfying to her. Whereas LS Group, CJ group, and Doosan Group made donations more than a billion won each, Hanjin was only able to donate a lot less than each of those organizations.

Though the government strongly denies this allegation, the Korean people are losing their confidence in Korea’s economy and politics. On November 1st, Choi was detained in Korea and the scandal is going under further investigations. It is very unknown if the allegation on Choi-gate resulted a failure of saving Hanjin from bankruptcy; however, one thing is clear. With Hanjin fallen and Choi-gate on going, Korea is facing a gloomy era.

Pirates. When we think about them, most of us think of a bygone era when Jack Sparrow-esque characters sailed around the oceans under the skull and cross bones.

Maritime piracy does, however, exist to this day. Since 2011, piracy has become less prevalent yet, its presence continue to have ramifications for global trade and the international economy.

The Gulf of Aden, a narrow section of water where the Red Sea meets the Indian Ocean between Yemen and Somalia, has become a hot spot for pirates to take over ships and hold them for ransom. This stretch of water, only 920 miles long and 300 miles wide, carries 95% of the European Union’s sea trade and up to 20% of global trade. It was also the location of 53% of all incidents of maritime piracy in 2009.

Most of these attacks are classified as kidnapping as opposed to hijacking because crew members are held hostage for a ransom. In 2010, Somalian pirates are estimated to have made $238 million in ransom payments.

While this is no small sum, it pales in comparison to the cost a hijacking inflicts on global markets. Oceans Beyond Piracy estimated the total cost of maritime piracy in 2010 to be between $7 and $12 billion dollars. These figures take into account increased spending on security, sky rocketing insurance premiums, and rerouting ships to avoid the horn of Africa altogether. One World Bank report labelled these costs as a tax on global shipping as costs seep beyond just those who choose to send ships through the Gulf to all shipping companies and routes world wide.

In order to reduce the frequency of pirate attacks on ships, the European Union has partnered with private shipping companies to create The Maritime Security Centre – Horn of Africa. In place to monitor and track each ship that passes through the Gulf, this organization will operate on a budget of 6.3 million Euros in 2016.

The Maritime Security Center also established the Internationally Recommended Trade Corridor, boundaries of the safest way to travel through the Gulf of Aden and outlined a convoy schedule by which ships can decrease their likelihood of being attacked by sailing together. A collection of war ships from a group of participating nations patrol the Gulf along with air support to minimize risk.

Significant investment in the region’s safety has paid off. From 197 attacks on ships by Somalian pirates in 2011 to 0 attacks in 2015, government and private measures have successfully diminished and maybe even eradicated the threat of piracy in the Gulf of Aden.

Even though attempted and successful attacks have dropped to zero, the cost of maintaining safe passageways around the Horn of Africa will continue to put economic pressure on shipping companies. Costly security improvements on board ships, demands for increased pay among crew members, and rises in insurance premiums have added to the cost of maritime shipping. Such increases have likely led to more expensive products for consumers as well.

Where in the world is Wallonia? That’s a serious question. Do you know the answer? I’ll admit I didn’t. Not until I read about how a tiny agricultural region in Belgium that threw the brakes on a major European Union trade agreement with Canada. So how did a small region from a very small country disrupt a major economic policy agreement?

To begin, the treaty is entitled Ceta which stands for Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and it aims to do what trade deals always do: lift restrictions on economic activity between Canada and the EU. The European commission claims that, “It will lift 99% of custom duties and many other obstacles for business.” The commission also mentions specifically that this deal will, “fully uphold Euorpe’s standards in areas such as food safety and worker’s rights.” An important point for Wallonia.

Ceta has been in the works for nearly seven years. A long negotiation to be sure, but why was it so difficult? When dealing with the EU one would think that you are negotiating with one major political entity, but in this instance it was more like trying to negotiate with all 28 member states at one time. That’s because in this deal the EU granted veto power to every single member state. So if you couldn’t convince everyone to agree on this deal, then you might as well have convinced no one.

Enter the French speaking Belgian parliamentary region of Wallonia. A place that represents the voices of a mere 3.6 million people, which is a tiny number when compared to the number of people whose lives would be affected by the passage of Ceta. It has influence because Belgium has a system that prohibits a singular central government from signing these treaties for itself. The government is comprised of six separate parliaments that each represent different geographic or linguistic division within the country, and each gets a veto on any trade deal signed by the Belgians. So the Flemish parliament gets a vote, the Brussels-centered Parliament gets a say and one vote says the Wallonians can stop the whole deal.

So in this instance, the Canadians aren’t just dealing with the EU, they’re dealing with Belgium, because Belgium can torpedo the whole deal, and to convince Belgium they have to work with, you guessed it, Wallonia led by Minister-President Paul Magnette. But why did Wallonia want to stop a major trade deal? Because their major industry is agriculture, and their socialist political leadership wanted to put up a fight to protect their constituents from facing cheaper agricultural goods coming in from Canada. The classic protectionist political story that we’ve seen since the British Corn Laws. The Wallonia parliament also strove for stronger safeguards on labor, environmental and consumer standards.

So what did this all amount to? A four-page addendum to a 1,600-page trade agreement. Kind of a let down. The Walloons celebrated the concession they grabbed as a major victory. Basically, what they got was special court system to determine if investor-state tribunals are compatible with EU Law and a guarantee that the Belgian government can assess the socio-economic impact of Ceta. What the Walloon government really won was political influence. They used anti-globalization sentiment around Europe, and leveraged it in order to say they were protecting the workers.

However, the deal still went through, and it is the first major trade agreement signed by the EU with an industrialized nation. The EU leadership and Canadian Prime Minister signed the deal into provisional action earlier this week, and now it must go up for full ratification with the more than 30 national and regional parliaments that make up the EU. So Wallonia didn’t manage to stop global trade, but it does show worrying signs for those trying to consecrate trade agreements with the EU. Countries like the US and post-Brexit Britain will certainly take note.