Is it a 'coordination trap' or are we just inventing new terminology for a cartel? When OPEC coordinates effectively, we are not under any illusions about how their collusion is cartel behavior that inhibits competition and distorts markets. But when powerful nations do so and use their immense power (soft influence via diplomacy, economic policy, etc.) to bring a large number of other countries onto their plan, suddenly we're not using the same terminology to describe the same behavior. Ultimately taxes going to zero is a good thing because it is a sign of competitiveness between tax structures favoring more efficient governments. This artificial agreement prevents that, just as a cartel of conglomerates colluding to set price floors would be eroding competition.
> are we just inventing new terminology for a cartel?
Sure, you can call it what you like; what matters is, does it deserve the same negative connotation as "cartel"? The answer to that depends on your position on:
> Ultimately taxes going to zero is a good thing because it is a sign of competitiveness between tax structures favoring more efficient governments.
...which is incorrect, because "efficiency" is not tax rate alone, it's tax rate compared to services offered. We're not talking about countries cutting their tax rate because they're more efficient; Ireland doesn't know how to build roads cheaper than England does. We're talking about countries that decide to cut their tax rate and cut services proportionally in order to entice immigrants. They aren't any more efficient the day after they do that than the day before, they're just selling a shoddier product at a lower price point.
And it's worth pointing out, if you think of government as a product and tax rates as the price, the reason we have this problem in the first place is that the market is broken by allowing corporations to "buy" one product but "use" another. For a company to primarily operate in the USA but pay corporate taxes to Bermuda is roughly equivalent to a man who drives off the lot in a new Benz but is making payments on a used Buick. If the market were functional - if the "price" a corporation chooses to pay in deciding where to be patriated were aligned with the "value" they receive in access to infrastructure and markets - we wouldn't be here discussing this agreement because it wouldn't be needed.
