'More Realistic' Modelling Of TPP's Effects Predicts 450,000 US Jobs Lost, Contraction Of Economy
from the accelerating-the-global-race-to-the-bottom dept
Last week we wrote about a World Bank report that predicted that TPP would produce negligible boosts to the economies of the US, Australia and Canada. Of course, that's just one study, and it could be argued that it might be unrepresentative, or unduly pessimistic. That makes the publication of yet more econometric modelling of what could happen particularly welcome. It comes from Jerome Capaldo and Alex Izurieta at Tufts University, and starts off by making an important point that is too often overlooked when considering other TPP predictions:
The standard model assumes full employment and invariant income distribution, ruling out the main risks of trade and financial liberalization. Subject to these assumptions, it finds positive effects on growth. An important question, therefore, is how this conclusion changes if those assumptions are dropped.
Assuming that TPP won't change employment levels in any of the participating nations seems a stretch, not least because previous trade liberalization has caused sizable job losses, as the new study notes. At the very least, it means that those using these models to argue in favor of TPP shouldn't be making any claims about its effects on employment, since these don't exist by definition. Capaldo and Izurieta are able to look at how jobs are affected because they use a different model, which they claim is superior to the one found in most other studies:
In this paper, we review existing projections of the TPP and propose alternative ones based on more realistic assumptions about economic adjustment and income distribution. We start from the trade projections put forward in the main existing study and explore their macroeconomic consequences using the United Nations Global Policy Model.
Most of the paper is spent taking a rather critical look at previous results, and will probably be mostly of interest to economists, especially academic ones. But the final results of the new calculation are certainly worth noting:
Given the small changes in net exports, the resulting changes in GDP growth are mostly projected to be negligible. We present two sets of growth figures: ten-year totals, which measure the overall effect of the TPP on growth rates compared to the baseline, and annual averages, which measure the average changes in growth rates due to the TPP.
That underlines another point often missed: that the GDP growth figures quoted by politicians and TPP supporters reflect the overall effect after ten years. Here's what Capaldo and Izurieta found:
Total ten-year changes in growth rates are projected to be below one percent, by 2025, in all regions but two. In East Asia and Latin America, GDP growth is projected to increase by 2.18 percent and 2.84 percent respectively under the TPP. By comparison, during 2005-2015, GDP in the two regions is estimated to have grown by 50 percent and 47 percent respectively.
Although those growth figures are worse than previous predictions, they confirm that TPP's impact on GDPs will be small. What's new in this paper is an estimation of the agreement's effect on jobs:
The US and Japan are projected to suffer net losses of GDP of 0.54 percent and 0.12 percent respectively compared to the baselineWhile projected employment losses are small compared to the labor force, they clearly signal an adverse effect of liberalization not taken into account in full-employment models. In TPP countries, the largest effect will occur in the US, with approximately 450,000 jobs lost by 2025. Japan and Canada follow, with approximately 75,000 and 58,000 jobs lost respectively. The smallest loss -- approximately 5,000 jobs -- is projected to occur in New Zealand, where the increase in net exports is projected to be the largest. Overall, projected job losses in TPP countries amount to 771,000 jobs.
Also novel is the report's comments about the global effects of TPP:
when analyzed with a model that recognizes the risks of trade liberalization, the TPP appears to only marginally change competitiveness among participating countries. Most gains are therefore obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries.
Although this is just one (more) study, it does seem to confirm the more gloomy predictions for TPP. It inevitably poses a key question with yet more force: why exactly are politicians in TPP nations pushing so hard to ratify a controversial agreement that seems have few quantifiable benefits, and very considerable costs?
Globally, the TPP favors competition on labor costs and remuneration of capital. Depending on the policy choices in non-TPP countries, this may accelerate the global race to the bottom, increasing downward pressure on labor incomes in a quest for ever more elusive trade gains.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: economic losses, gdp, job loss, predictions, tpp, trade
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Out of all the politicians in the US I can count maybe a dozen that still hold true to the ideals of integrity and honouring their oath. The rest should be lined up and shot for putting their personal wealth and priviledge ahead of their jobs and oaths, even when it causes harm to the people they are supposed to be protecting and helping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because summary execution is the way to stay true to American ideals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and ..."
I'm not exactly sure corruption and greed qualify as treason. But should they receive a fair trial, and then be found guilty of treason, then I would agree with the AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They definitely don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may be right, but I'm not so sure. IANAL But IMO; If a politician was corrupt, and that corruption was giving the enemies of this country "aid and comfort" either directly or indirectly by destroying our freedoms and ideals, I could see it qualifying as treason... but again, that is my personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sarcastic there, but I sometimes don't feel it's that much on an exaggeration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think so. The definition of "enemy of the United States" is; "government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities" See citation below.
Hostilities is defined as "opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project, etc, or and act of war. "Citation below"
So I would gather from this that a politician could be considered a traitor by definition if; They knowingly received support or material aid from someone, and that someone was attempting to subvert the ideals of the United States.
Citations;
According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
(3) the term "person" means
(A) any natural person;
(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hostilities
(C) any organization, association, or group.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/enemy-of-the-united-states/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other way around: giving aid and comfort, not receiving it. And regarding your citations, the important thing is how a word is defined in law, not in a regular dictionary. I suspect opposing the ideals of the US would not qualify as hostilities for the purposes of a treason trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Semantics. Receiving money and providing a service qualifies as support, it would still qualify.
Legal definition applies as well.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hostility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably, but that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether they could be charged and convicted of treason. And unless I misread something that was the original point. I admit that the original use of the word could have been intended colloquially and not legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What does that mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain what? He hasn't been charged with treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That you know of. Even the World Court in the Hague does "sealed indictments." What do you expect would happen if he returned?
This is why Assange is holed up in a consulate. The US has been building a case against him in secret, just waiting to get their hands on (hooks into) him. The moment he steps out, he's shipped off to a partner country, they extradite to the USA, and that's the last anyone will hear of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but the implication of the question "how do you explain Snowden?" is it's obvious he has been charged with treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm libertarian (sort of; it's the closest, best word). I define "enemy" as "predator." We're presumed to have risen above that "long in tooth and claw" acceptance of predators among us preying on the weak among us. That's what civilization is. We celebrate every second Stephen Hawking beats Lou Gehrig's disease. We help the mentally or physically feeble to fit in and count as much as they can, accepting their limitations. Cf. Stephen Hawking.
I don't much care about nations or rulers or regimes. That's just gang warfare to me. Politicians playing that sort of game in a predatory manner are unwelcome in my eyes. We can all do without them. They're no better than Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Greater humanity would be greater if they didn't exist. They're throwbacks. I've no problem eliminating them from the gene pool. They don't accept our conditions, they're welcome to live off by themselves alone as best they can. We shouldn't suffer their existence among the rest of us who do live peacefully among others.
I include HRC and Trump in that category of predator. We need neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*supposed
The truth is, many of the big "L's" don't see it that way; indeed, they characterise it as "the market correcting itself." I've seen the Irish Potato Famines described in such terms and it made me sick.
I see this socially as well as fiscally, the idea that might makes right. It doesn't. It makes a mess.
We shouldn't suffer their existence among the rest of us who do live peacefully among others.
Do you mind if I pull up a chair and dream along with you? I'd love to be able to push such people out of the way and live without them.
TTIP, CETA, and TPP are predatory by nature and have little in the way of redeeming qualities. If they're negotiated in our name they ought to involve us in the negotiations instead of foisting them on us as a done deal. If they are representative of ideals, they're alien to mine. You can't live and let live from a gated community surrounded by shanty towns where the poorest, most desperate people scrape a living as best they can and that is not the kind of world I want to live in.
In the race to the bottom we're all being dragged into, that's the end result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because you can put a pretty bow on a foreign enemy attacking you financially should not allow you to escape a charge of treason!
They are knowingly GIVING AWAY AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY which is NOT A POWER DEFINED IN THE US CONSTITUTION FOR ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT!
All persons voting for and supporting TPP are the VERY DEFINITION OF A TRAITOR!
They can negotiate a lot of trade agreements but they do not have the power and authority to modify sovereignty in this manor! But since they have already successfully assaulted every other amendment to the constitution without much of a fucking peep from "The People"... tell me where and when do you expect they will stop this tyranny? That right... at the foot of a pool of someone's blood... 'The People's' which is already being spilled or 'Tyrant's' which has yet to be spilled?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The founding fathers were very clear that it is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN our government became corrupt that we need to do something about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Start by working to build consensus, then use the democratic system to effect the change you want to see. If the Tea Party types can do it, so can we.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You have a problem with that? Care to explain why? We put down rabid animals for a reason. We fight diseases for a reason. What does ignoring their predation gain anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because the rights outlined in the Constitution, such as due process and a fair trial, must apply to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm very much in favor of both. I don't assume he was talking about lynch mobs or British naval ship captains dealing with mutiny on the high seas.
I assume he was writing about slimy politicians acting like blood sucking parasites on the body politic. Awaiting a firing squad at dawn after they've been duly convicted, with due process and a fair trial, is more than they deserve. They're the aggressors (predators), assuming guilty convictions. We needn't consider their feelings. The sooner they're out of our hair, the sooner we can get back to our lives sans their intrusions upon them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do so many people struggle with obvious hyperbole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because it's not obvious. I promise you there are people who believe that corrupt politicians and judges should literally be put against a wall and shot without a trial, and I can't tell if this is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're planning an armed revolt against the government
An armed assault on any government installation would result in the kind of disproportionate violence displayed during SWAT raids. You're unlikely to achieve the results you were hoping for before they splatter your bullet-shredded corpse all over the place, then portray you in the mass media as a terrorist.
--------------------------------------
Feel free to save this comment as a .txt file to copy and paste as a response every time some prat recommends a violent revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time you have to ask why in politics the answer is: because somebody got a load of money. And often there's a politician benefited with campaign money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you serious?
Because they benefit from a redistribution of wealth to the top? The cost of unemployment is one mostly borne by the little people, either directly or in more social economies by taxation. Corporations are better off by being able to produce where it is cheapest. Greasing politicians is a small expense in comparison.
And in the U.S., the political caste is directly financed by large corporations, and in the E.U., the European Commission as a principal utterly undemocratic decision-making body is run by corporations and lobbyists.
So there is little incentive for the politicians to make sensible decisions for global economy, in particularly pertaining to poor people.
This can't go on forever. But then this was already the conclusion of Karl Marx, and he'd probably be surprised at how few untenable things have actually changed for the better in all these years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you serious?
Yup. But you still should not shit where you sleep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you serious?
It was likely the same conclusion of Spartacus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations on your win!
'My Tribe vs Your Tribe'.
Your complementary trophy has been dispatched to you, and will arrive in 3-5 business days, please stay next to your mailbox until it arrives to assure that you receive it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations on your win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations on your win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations on your win!
The politicians from both are corrupt, care more for their own power than the welfare of the public, and show glaring hypocrisy on a regular basis.
If someone wants to criticize 'trade' deals like the TPP, there's plenty to be critical of, but bringing party politics into is, as though both weren't responsible, is just distracting from the real issue, that of the TPP itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations on your win!
I'm sick to death of all you Red Team vs. Blue Team idiots. I slam both of you equally. You're both just two sides of the same coin. You're both the enemy of "We, The People", you assholes!
Which is the worst power monger slavering to get control of your tax dollars and your military, HRC or Trump?
Both of you ALWAYS SEE PARTISANSHIP NOT ON YOUR SIDE. You are both so owned by your "pick a side and fight" BS, it's pathetic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
A thousand employees making $10 a year each? Hard to imagine they would even miss the the 2.7 cents a day salary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The wealth of a country is the wealth of it's corporations
Apparently there's no race to the bottom and your earning power will increase as you gain experience.
Put a gumshoe in prior to reading this as you may end up grinding your teeth down to the gums while reading this drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think we have seen enough data on models to conclude that the economic effects are very limited in either direction, making it necenssary for politicians to look at if the compromises are politically desirable.
In theory the liberal/anarchistic way is happyness about less government interference and less laws and therefore a yes.
The conservative/nationalistic way is extreme scepticism at the amount of compromises and a high likelyhood to vote no.
The socialistic/communistic ideals should dictate that the above analysis is most relevant and the effects therefore are damaging, making them likely to vote no.
But todays politics is penetrated by special interests to an extent where politicians cannot navigate without using the trade agreement to:
1. Gather intel on what different lobbyists want
2. Look at previous donations and make up x opinions from the most opportune lobbyists
3. Play the lobbyists into a betting war for which of the x opinions he/she is to choose
4. Take the opinion with the highest pledge as his/her own or simply choose the party-line, where this small-ball extortion (not meant as the legal definition, but as a very lob-sided negotiation position where favours are traded) game has gone pro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is right up the POTUS alley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is right up the POTUS alley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is right up the POTUS alley
If you have not figured it out by now... you never will. Even if Obama came down and fired you himself you would not be able to figure it out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is right up the POTUS alley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as the RIGHT peole make money . . .
It's the way it's always been. The way it always will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As long as the RIGHT peole make money . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As long as the RIGHT peole make money . . .
What world do you live in where "the pendulum swings?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason for your key question
After spending a good 30 seconds contemplating the complexity of your question on why politicians are seeming to want to push this bill thru. I have been able to able find the answer you were looking to find.
Politicians love playing golf, and TPP is attached to a must pass and get ratified bill requiring all politicians get 4 hours per day of free golf. It would be political suicide if they voted against the golf bill
I sincerely hope this helps you out Mr Moody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The reason for your key question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't a 'Democrat' thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orrin Hatch's response to my request that he vote against TPP. Post yours.
In Utah, the TPP means more exports and more jobs which, given the state of America's economy, is essential to a sustained recovery and more individual opportunity. In 2010, $5.8 billion, or 39 percent, of Utah’s total exports went to markets in the Asia-Pacific region. The TPP agreement offers an opportunity to build on the highest standards and most ambitious market opening commitments in our current trade agreements. The TPP will address new areas which include: ensuring the free flow of data across borders, robust protection for trade secrets, and discipline for state-owned enterprises.
The TPP agreement will provide dispute resolution procedures, such as investor-state dispute resolution, to protect US companies exporting to the Pacific region, ensuring the market access gained in the TPP agreement is not diminished by non-tariff barriers. While the final agreement has not been reached, the Administration has supported provisions extending these dispute procedures to all chapters of the agreement. However, I have worked to ensure those procedures are not extended beyond the framework of our recent trade agreements for chapters in the TPP on labor and the environment. I will not support any legislation, agreement or treaty that encroaches upon American legal sovereignty. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, I will continue to hold the administration accountable to ensure that the negotiating objectives in the TPP are grounded in U.S. law. Viewpoints such as yours are important in informing this discussion, and I thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Thank you, again, for contacting me with your comments. If you would like to have regular updates on my work in the U.S. Senate, I encourage you to subscribe to my E-newsletter , visit my Facebook page, and follow me on Twitter .
Your Senator,
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Orrin Hatch's response to my request that he vote against TPP. Post yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Orrin Hatch's response to my request that he vote against TPP. Post yours.
The TPP agreement will provide dispute resolution procedures, such as investor-state dispute resolution, to protect US companies exporting to the Pacific region, ensuring the market access gained in the TPP agreement is not diminished by non-tariff barriers.
On the other hand...
I will not support any legislation, agreement or treaty that encroaches upon American legal sovereignty.
Either he's ignorant of just what corporate sovereignty provisions are typically used for, arrogant enough to think that they'd never be used against the US, or confident enough that those who contact him will be stupid enough to buy the PR.
As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, I will continue to hold the administration accountable to ensure that the negotiating objectives in the TPP are grounded in U.S. law.
Given that claim, I certainly hope he voted against fast track authority, given it basically forces him to vote 'yes' or 'no' on any 'trade' agreement up for vote.
Oh, right...
The Senate voted 62-37 to give this president and the next so-called trade promotion authority, ensuring that Congress could not amend or filibuster any trade accord negotiated over the next three-to-six years, though lawmakers could reject it.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and usually a foe of Mr. Obama’s, called it “likely the most important bill we’ll pass this year,” adding, “it shows that when the president is right we will support him.”
Claims to be firmly committed to making sure that any trade negotiations are 'grounded in US law', supports a process that bars him from doing anything but voting yes or no on TPP or any other 'trade' agreement, before he could possibly know what was in it.
Yeah, intentionally ignorant or a liar, one of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Orrin Hatch's response to my request that he vote against TPP. Post yours.
3 seems very likely but doesn't exclude either or both of the others from being true at the same time.
Yeah, intentionally ignorant or a liar, one of the two.
Again, not mutually exclusive. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with any trade deal is that there will be losses and there will be gains. The discussions at this point are near meaningless arguments between tenured professors, think tank wonks, economic theorists. It's not at all that they "seem to confirm the more gloomy predictions for TPP.", mostly it's an argument about "my calculations are better than your calculations". The true impact will be known if and when it happens, and not on some theoretical model basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we should just go ahead and do it in case it will turn out great?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And in every study so far that I've seen the gains are minuscule at best, assuming best case scenarios over decades, while the losses tend to be much more visible and immediate, ranging from copyright lock-in and expansion, criminal trade secret protections, and my favorite, allowing companies to sue governments if the government does something that impacts their profits or even their expected profits.
I'm seeing plenty of downsides, but very little upsides here.
The discussions at this point are near meaningless arguments between tenured professors, think tank wonks, economic theorists.
For the sake of balance I certainly hope you're as dismissive of any pro-TPP studies as 'near meaningless' and therefore not worth the paper their printed on.
The true impact will be known if and when it happens, and not on some theoretical model basis.
Yeah, no, that is an absolutely terrible idea. You do not pass something this huge, that will have significant impact on multiple countries, and get away with 'Well it's too early to say really, we'll just have to wait and see what it does'. If multiple studies are showing that the gains are barely there at best, while the downsides are immediate, you shut it down, not pass it and hope for the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"And in every study so far that I've seen the gains are minuscule at best"
That is in no small part because the anti-TPP types are spinning hard trying to get some SOPA like support, and finding very little true support. Of course, you don't have to go any further than the Brookings Institute to find cheerleaders for TTP.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/future-development/posts/2015/05/05-tpp-trade-meltzer
I tend to find his writings a little too positive, but there ya go. The positive exists, and from someone with a decent position in a reputable institution.
"Yeah, no, that is an absolutely terrible idea. You do not pass something this huge,"
The thing is, you can end up in a situation where if you allow the negative opinions to rule the day, that you will never do anything. The studies land the numbers all over the place, and it's hard to tell the true outcome - but that the true outcome is likely not a whole lot worse than our current conditions. If it's truly horrible, countries will find ways to back out of the deal, nobody has a gun to their heads.
As always, the US, Europe, and certain other counties have more to lose because they are richer and better off. Trade deals with partners with weaker economies and lower wages generally means that yes, some of your lower paying manufacturing jobs will be driven offshore. However, like we have seen with China, that does tend to drive the development of a middle class and rising expectations in the previously poor population. China is now one of the major consumers of higher end luxury brands and products. You cannot say that trade with China is all bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The World Bank is an anti-TPP type? And the US Dept. of Agriculture, they're anti-TPP types as well I take it?
The studies land the numbers all over the place, and it's hard to tell the true outcome
Not really. Even the pro-TPP studies I've seen mentioned, once you actually dig into the numbers show that the potential gains are tiny, and based upon best case scenarios over long periods of time, something other studies seem to back up pretty consistently, showing that while there may be some growth, it's likely to be very small.
With the economic gains negligible at best, you then move on to the other factors that I listed above, which are guaranteed to come into play, immediately. Copyright expansion and lock-in, corporate sovereignty giving companies the ability to sue governments in a completely one-sided 'court' for losses of current of expected profits, criminalizing trade secret violations, extended patents leading to increased healthcare costs...
When the gains are theoretical and insignificant, and the losses are immediate and notable, the proper response is not 'let's wait and see', it's 'kill it off and start from scratch'.
If it's truly horrible, countries will find ways to back out of the deal, nobody has a gun to their heads.
And what better time to do that than before it's ever signed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, yeah, there are a lot of those. Probably a large majority. That's why we have representative democracy: so that the decisions are not made by populous majorities only beholden to their own interests to the detriment of monetary majorities only beholden to their own interest.
If money would not buy you politics, there would be no real incentive to become a billionaire. There's only so much food you can eat. Even in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny, I seem to remember you harping on not criticizing arguments because of the people making them. What is it with you consistently doing the things you denigrate others for?
"I am equally dismissive of studies written by the other side that claim gumballs and lollipops for everyone as we stroll down the golden roads of trade"
Dude, seriously. Anyone can read your post history and see that you've never criticized TPP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who know what it will cost if 1000,s of european countrys
companys were to turn around and sue american states for isds loss of profit ,or vice versa american companys
sue eu governments
even american companys are now relocating to the eu
to save tax.
Think the billions spent on patent lawsuits and multiply that by 100 .
Food and drug rules and patent laws are much more consumer friendly in the eu .
See the lawsuit of the canadian pipeline ,
one company wants 15billion,
multiply thAT BY 100 OR 1000 IF TTP gets through .
TTP is a gift to large corporations and corporate lawyers .
its an attack on consumer rights and the power of
small countrys to make laws to protect consumer rights .
American corporations have already decimated usa union rights now its the turn of consumers
and citizens of other countrys to brought under their control .
American citizens rights have been sold down the river for
a paltry 0.1 per cent increase in gdp .
Its the worst international deal since sopa .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My senator speaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My senator speaks
It's a good thing she voted for FTA then, why can you imagine the alternative, with no-one in the government authorized to finalize trade agreements? Thing would just be sitting there, with absolutely no-one capable of voting for it's passage or rejection, completely wasting all the time and effort put into them.
Oh, right, that was her job before she handed it over to the current and next president, she's just too freakin' lazy and irresponsible to do it right.
At this time, my staff and I are carefully reviewing every aspect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I believe that expanding trade with our neighbors while balancing our domestic priorities is in our national interest.
No, as a matter of fact, she is not. How do I know this? Because the TPP is over six thousand pages long, and she has a few months(2-3 I think) at most to look over it before it comes to a vote. While doing her other duties. With that amount of text to wade through, in that amount of time, a cursory examination is the best she can manage.
However, if I come to the conclusion that the agreement would negatively affect California, I will not hesitate to oppose it.
And again, bull. Thanks to TPA, which she voted for, she is stuck with a blanket 'Yes' or 'No' vote for the entire thing, no matter how bad some sections are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money.
... seems to have few quantifiable benefits ..." for you and me. For Big Pharma, the MafiAA, Imaginary Property (IP) holders, copyright fascisti, and (IP related) lawyers on the other hand not to mention greedy politicians who desperately want campaign donations or lucrative industry jobs they can slide into, there are astronomically lucrative benefits on the table. Cf. Kim Dotcom for instance, or Eli Lilly.
TPP is our elected governments co-opted into the service of a small clique of politically connected (read "campaign donations") corporate special interests. It's essentially a coup; a small "c" coup, but pretty much the same thing. They've hijacked our democratically elected governments in order to serve them in certain small, but lucrative, ways.
If it wasn't so smarmy, it'd almost be admirable they managed to pull off such a bizarre scheme. So far, they're getting away with it. It's pretty much the definition of chutzpah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wireless Telecom Jobs May Benefit From TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]