Exactly. It won't be good for us. The I.P. effects and ability to sue over lost profit have already been devastating in the precedent situations. Same types of elites involved in this legislation. I have less faith in American voters than he does. Hope the situation in Canada makes them break from it and maybe delay/end the whole thing.
>has been one of the most vocal critics of globalization and global inequality.
How can he simultaneously be a critic of globalization AND a critic of global inequality? The one thing "globalization" brings with it is low skilled jobs but relatively better jobs to underdeveloped nations en-masse, if those nations don't squander things, they can parley that into higher economic rungs (as has the US, Japan, China, throughout history.
Yes, wages stagnate in the rich countries but they increase in developing nations. Sometimes you sell goods to emerging markets but typically their PP is too small to matter and healthy local firms can take advantage of the increased local purchasing power to push into neighboring countries.
Because you can globalize inequality, such that a transnational set of very powerful oppressors can use cross-border agreements to make the lives of those disenfranchised on both sides of the border equally miserable, skimming the cream of their surplus and absconding with said fruits of labor to parts beyond the reach or purview of those stolen from, while using against them international laws that are difficult to understand and are powerless to fight?
I think the unnecessary use of word "oppressors" makes me less likely to think you're unbiased in your assessment.
I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because globalization brought with it capital inflows, job demand, skills improvement, and with that better education and strengthening of the local economy. I think it's no accident that most developing countries clamor for foreign investment (aka globalization). Many women in those countries are now independent and don't depend on arranged marriages for their future --they can earn their own living.
Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. And workers in developed economies will not have viable careers with all but a high school diploma --those days are over. You now have global competition for jobs and millions of erstwhile poor are grateful.
> Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have.
The stagnating income in the West is a result of policy, not a direct consequence of globalization. Real wages in the US are stagnating for over 40 years now (1), but GDP grew enormously in that timeframe (2). The profits are still created in the West, they just aren't distributed down to the employees.
The world economy is not a zero sum game. Its perfectly possible for western wages to rise simultaneously with Chinese and Indian ones.
Gdp grew, but so did immigration, mostly low skilled, which put price pressure on wages. Mass immigration of low skulled labor will put pressure on native low skills workers. You'd see the same in professions services, if we allowed mass high skills workers immigration.
Bringing jobs to poor countries does bring some wealth to them, so it helps reduce global inequality, but that wealth is extremely inequally shared, for several reasons (eg. the poor workforce has zero bargaining power, few labor laws etc.)--thus this also transfers more equitable profit-sharing work to much less equitable parts of the world. The net result is often debatable.
Exporting oil and mineral weath has supported many wars and dictators in Africa while undercutting farming which further destabilized them. Arguably, a near trade embargo for the last 100+ years would have left them much better off.
PS: #1 thing the developed world could do to end extreme poverty, end food subsidies.
Mostly control disease and enjoy the benefits of smaller family sizes -stretching resources amongst fewer people means more per capita.
Unfortunately, lots of religious evangelizers told the poor to have more children or opposed population control (contraception) this proved detrimental to the development of the local pop.
I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!".
So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the internet? What's the strongest case as to why it's bad and why I should lobby my congressman to push against it?
The devil is in detail, a good case for or against can be only presented after we have draft. People are going by assumptions, which may be likely part of the agreement, but assumptions none the less.
note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.
Skipping the court system in case of disputes in favor of an arbitrage.
Let's say a country established a law that prohibits smoking. A company conducting business there (selling cigarettes), can complain based on the loss of future income. According to the bilateral agreement, they demand an arbitrage that is performed in secret by a third-party and is binding and final.
The tobacco exemption only underscores the danger, as there are many other health and environmental regulations to which companies may take exception. This site has lawsuit history from a cross-section of countries that were sued by companies in the health, energy, financial, environmental and essential-services sectors:
Australia's PBS will be the first victim. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ensures that essentials medicines are available at reasonable prices, and that generics are also available.
This compromises future profits for companies that want to increase the price of certain drugs, for such purposes as making generics too expensive or simply ensuring maximum profit per dose manufactured.
Other examples could be environmental regulations which cause expenses that manufacturers and miners are unwilling to meet. Little things like pollution controls, national parks, marine sanctuaries and so forth.
The TPP also opens the path for US IP law to be imposed on Australia.
The ISDS does not specifically rule these out of contention. So they will be contended (cf: everything that is not illegal is mandatory).
Once the actual text is out, people might say, "the ISDS is such a small and insignificant part" but it is there for a reason. It will be abused, just as cigarette companies abused other FTA with Australia.
Why are you so dismissive of "the Chinese workers on the Chinese government projects took our jobs on Australian soil"?
Maybe, a better question is, what problem TPP solve?
You say "free trade is generally a good thing". Maybe it is, but a lot of knowledgeable people say that we already have free trade. Globalization is already a fact but "somebody" is pushing for more.
What we have seen in the last times is the use of international agreements and organizations in order to make the states powerless. I have problems believing this is not what this is about. Steep by steep the frog is boiling and a new brave world is being built.
You have to be very naïve to think that when the people that writes these agreements think of “America” or “Vietnam” they are thinking in the persons of America or Vietnam. Well, they are, because corporations are persons after all.
In the tradition of the Daily Show, a six-minute video on the rules of ISDS courts where (non-tobacco) corporations would be able to sue TPP governments, https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU
22 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 58.8 ms ] threadHow can he simultaneously be a critic of globalization AND a critic of global inequality? The one thing "globalization" brings with it is low skilled jobs but relatively better jobs to underdeveloped nations en-masse, if those nations don't squander things, they can parley that into higher economic rungs (as has the US, Japan, China, throughout history.
Yes, wages stagnate in the rich countries but they increase in developing nations. Sometimes you sell goods to emerging markets but typically their PP is too small to matter and healthy local firms can take advantage of the increased local purchasing power to push into neighboring countries.
I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because globalization brought with it capital inflows, job demand, skills improvement, and with that better education and strengthening of the local economy. I think it's no accident that most developing countries clamor for foreign investment (aka globalization). Many women in those countries are now independent and don't depend on arranged marriages for their future --they can earn their own living.
Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. And workers in developed economies will not have viable careers with all but a high school diploma --those days are over. You now have global competition for jobs and millions of erstwhile poor are grateful.
The stagnating income in the West is a result of policy, not a direct consequence of globalization. Real wages in the US are stagnating for over 40 years now (1), but GDP grew enormously in that timeframe (2). The profits are still created in the West, they just aren't distributed down to the employees.
The world economy is not a zero sum game. Its perfectly possible for western wages to rise simultaneously with Chinese and Indian ones.
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_...
(2): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_p...
PS: #1 thing the developed world could do to end extreme poverty, end food subsidies.
Unfortunately, lots of religious evangelizers told the poor to have more children or opposed population control (contraception) this proved detrimental to the development of the local pop.
So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the internet? What's the strongest case as to why it's bad and why I should lobby my congressman to push against it?
note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.
Let's say a country established a law that prohibits smoking. A company conducting business there (selling cigarettes), can complain based on the loss of future income. According to the bilateral agreement, they demand an arbitrage that is performed in secret by a third-party and is binding and final.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...
http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org/
This compromises future profits for companies that want to increase the price of certain drugs, for such purposes as making generics too expensive or simply ensuring maximum profit per dose manufactured.
Other examples could be environmental regulations which cause expenses that manufacturers and miners are unwilling to meet. Little things like pollution controls, national parks, marine sanctuaries and so forth.
The TPP also opens the path for US IP law to be imposed on Australia.
The ISDS does not specifically rule these out of contention. So they will be contended (cf: everything that is not illegal is mandatory).
Once the actual text is out, people might say, "the ISDS is such a small and insignificant part" but it is there for a reason. It will be abused, just as cigarette companies abused other FTA with Australia.
Why are you so dismissive of "the Chinese workers on the Chinese government projects took our jobs on Australian soil"?
You say "free trade is generally a good thing". Maybe it is, but a lot of knowledgeable people say that we already have free trade. Globalization is already a fact but "somebody" is pushing for more.
What we have seen in the last times is the use of international agreements and organizations in order to make the states powerless. I have problems believing this is not what this is about. Steep by steep the frog is boiling and a new brave world is being built.
You have to be very naïve to think that when the people that writes these agreements think of “America” or “Vietnam” they are thinking in the persons of America or Vietnam. Well, they are, because corporations are persons after all.
We should be, at least, suspicious of all this.