TPP, Corporate Coup or "Free trade"?

Kia-ora


"Free trade" or Corporate Magna Charta.
The overall benefits of "Free Trade agreements" to participants, especially smaller economies with less economic power, are often dubious, and frequently just a matter of how you rig the accounting. Leaving out externalities, like the increase in numbers on the dole, is common when counting "benefits". As the "parties of business" forget a ledger has two sides.
In fact no country has ever succeeded on exports alone, without a healthy internal economy. Export Share of GDP.
And no country has ever succeeded in benefiting from an export economy, without initial State support of the export sector. New Zealand's successful Dairy industry being a prime example of continued State support. Banned for future industries, if we sign the TPP.
"all major developed countries used interventionist economic policies in order to get rich and then tried to forbid other countries from doing similarly".
Kicking away the ladder. Ha-Joon Chang.
"Freer trade always results in benefits for both countries". Well no.
Even Ricardo never suggested that Britain give up making wine altogether, or Portugal textiles. As usual, simplistic slogans/magical thinking, seem to sway shallow intellects.
One where every country is going to get rich by out exporting every other country.
There are examples of "Free Trade" agreements, such as CER, which have been of net benefit to both countries. Notably where labour laws, the rule of law and democracy, and standards of living, are already, somewhat congruent. (Though it should be noted the Australian banks take more profit out of New Zealand, than the dairy sector earns).
The EU, has worked, as economic stimulus for Germany. It is debatable how well it has worked for Southern European countries. Clever of the Germans to get them to take on debt, from German banks,  to pay for German economic stimulus, though.
Then, there was our abandonment of our own businesses and workers, in the 80's and 90's, in pursuit of an ideological dream thinking that other countries would be mad enough to follow suit. Leaving us nothing to bargain with in future agreements. Only their purpose is mad.
That some have worked, is not, evidence that all such agreements will work. Or that adding services, law making and finance, is a good idea.
TPP
However. TPP ( The trans Pacific partnership) is NOT a "Free trade" agreement. It is an attempt to cement in corporate power, to override inconvenient  local Democracy, and collect rents from local communities in perpetuity.
Since when was giving large companies extra rights in law, and rights to extract even more economic rents, "Free trade"?

TPP gives corporations rights to overrule Democratic Governments.
The proponents of TPP claim that New Zealand has never been subject to an ISDS case. Of course not.
Our Governments in recent years, have been ideologically opposed to legislating against corporations for the common good. They are not bothered about giving foreign corporations rights above individuals and local business. Because they don't want to "interfere" with the "free market", and I suspect, with their own wealth..
We may want our future Governments, however, to legislate for the rights and welfare of New Zealanders and our environment. Not for Nestle', BP, Apple, Orivida,  Amazon and Exxon.
The future under TPP.
We can see the effect of TPP and ISDS in current "Free trade" agreements.
Local and State Governments looking at legislation in terms of "will we get sued" under "Free trade" or ISDS agreements.
Australia being sued by a tobacco company is just one example.
The EU has enough trouble trying to ban bee killing insect sprays in their own courts. Imagine if they had to answer also to "independent" ISDS tribunals.
Osceola A small town of 2 thousand fighting against water extraction.
Under NAFTA's ISDS provisions Canada is One of the most sued countries in the world.

The rest of the world is catching up to Canada. ISDS cases.
Corporate legal rights are already having a detrimental effect on progressive  legislation worldwide. Corporations do not need more rights that locals and individuals do not have.
For example. If Whangarei decides to take dog control, from the foreign corporation that currently has the contract. Having to pay for an ISDS case will give the council pause. A local firm does not have that recourse.   An overseas shipping company  pays extra, to get priority over other companies at NZ ports. A future Government may want to prevent such uncompetitive behavior, because it is disadvantaging coastal shipping.   We decide we want to re Nationalise banking. Because the country cannot afford to bleed so much money to the finance sector. Or close private prisons. Or restrict water extraction. Or cut CO2 emissions.
We don't really know what we may need to do in future to protect ourselves, local business and our environment, from corporations, who have been shown to have no other interests, apart from extracting as much money from local communities as they can.
Benefits?
The most optimistic benefit analysis is less, than the costs of ISDS and extra drug and copyright expense, we will have to pay overseas firms. Not to mention local job losses and even more offshoring of profits.
And giving drug companies, copyright holders and proprietors, rights way in excess of their original contribution.
Of course, our pursuit of pure "free trade" has worked so well? How much has our number of people in poverty increased by, again?

Can we have a future, with capitalism?

Kia-ora


I'll come clean. I am a capitalist. I've started two businesses, one not so successful, due to injuries and health issues at an inconvenient stage. Though we did OK in the end. Another which shows all the signs of a healthy infant. I don't expect we will make a fortune, but it will make, enough. Currently I work for a multinational.
It is one of life's irony's that someone like me, an advocate for the mixed economy, Democratic Socialist, model that has proven the most successful economic system, to date, is considered any way, radical.

No one has yet found a better system for allocation of day to day resources, within a community, than a market capitalist system.
You see potential customers for your market garden or building skills, you invest in training as a builder, buy a set of tools, or in a plot of land and seeds. If you do it well, you make a good living, but how much profit you can make is limited, by the fact there are many other small builders and market gardeners, and your potential customers can see who grows the best vegetables, or builds houses that stay up. At this level a "free market" works fine. The economy is pretty much in a steady state, as is the use of natural resources.

As soon as you grow the community larger, than one where everyone knows the skills and honesty of the other members, you need ways of ensuring those with market power do not accumulate too much of the communities wealth. Basically that real contributors to the community don't lose out to cheats, resulting in the breakdown of the system

No capitalist society has succeeded without a healthy dose of co-operation, common infrastructure, goods and services and regulation, "socialism". Countries that are, "successful" by all our normal measures, have an economy balanced between private and State. The most successful have high progressive taxation, and a State share of the economy, around 50 to 60%. Ours is down to 28%, and it shows.

Without the rule of law, healthy and educated  workers, public infrastructure and regulation of the "cheats" if you like, we cannot have a successful business, and wider economy.
Private provision of mass 'public' goods has proven to be incredibly inefficient, and wasteful. like our power companies.

It suits Bill Gates, and others, to attribute human advancement to capitalism, a self justification for having extorted extreme wealth.
Others attribute advances to human co-operation in developing infrastructure and services, laws, and sharing wealth and advancement, which capitalism can never deliver.

Both are correct.

The USA's post war advancement was due  to high taxes, socialist redistribution, a high quality public education system, State sponsored research and innovation, public infrastructure spending, anti trust laws, banking regulation and a large middle class.
All were needed to make capitalism work.
The concentration of wealth and power with late stage, insufficiently regulated, monopoly  capitalism, and the winding back of social infrastructure and redistribution, is causing the USA's decline.

In our example of small community capitalism above, people pretty much get out what they put in. The market limits how much they can take as profit. A "steady state economy, without growth, is possible.
You are buying yourself a job, if you like.

In a truly free market, an impossibility of course, where there is perfect information and competition, there cannot, of course, be any profit. "Free" marketeers/"free traders", don't want a "free market", they simply want one distorted in their favour.
Any business knows, that to make a profit you have to distort the market in some way. Convince people you are better than your competitors, get Government to legislate in your favour, or give you subsidies or public goods, or use monopoly or oligopoly power, to eliminate competition and keep wages low. Your profit is always someone else's loss.

Capitalism requires "growth" to function?
The motivation behind capitalists' is profit. Getting out more than you put in. Why start a business and take that risk, if you are going to make the same amount as you would as an employee.
However most people do make less than they put in, so that others can profit.
Many functioning businesses don't make a real profit. Including most of our essential small businesses. They make enough.  Small builders make a good living. But you could hardly say they take out more than they put in. The degree of competition precludes that. Building material suppliers, however, make huge profits in New Zealand, because they are a duopoly. Big box stores, and banks, are extremely effective, in removing wealth from communities.

In a finite world, the exponential growth required to make increasing  profits, and pay interest, is not possible.

Capitalism is cannibalising, the human and natural environment, it needs to survive.

The concentration of wealth and power insufficiently regulated capitalism, and excessive profit taking, has caused, now works against the survival of human civilisation. With the wealthy opposing any attempts to limit the damage.

The myth of "Retirement Savings"

Kia-ora


Advocates of Kiwisaver and other funded retirement savings schemes perpetuate the fundamental misunderstanding that "conventional" in New Zealand's case "neo-liberal" economists, speculators, finance companies, politicians and those with a lot of share holding wealth in non-productive enterprises like to perpetuate.

In other words all those who gain from wealth transfer from workers to non-productive wealthy parasites.

The myth is that, if we give our wealth to any of the above they will magically increase it due to the "miracle" of compounding interest from investment. Then give it back to us with extra when we retire.
US retirees are already finding out how that works.
The wealthy are keeping the retirement funds. Thanks very much!

"Saving" for retirement relies on three assumptions.

One. That an ever increasing amount of money equals a similar supply of real wealth and real capital.
Two. That an exponentially increasing wealth per person is possible in a finite world reaching resource limits.
Three. That putting money into increasing land prices and increasing derivative prices in the USA, a failing State, will somehow, "magically" mean more money (Healthcare, food, Housing etc) to support you or me in our retirement.

Retirement income, real income as opposed to monetary income, as does schooling healthcare, infrastructure supply and food, always comes from current production. If I do not eat my dinner today, it does not mean there is someone who can give me my dinner in my eighties.

If however, I ensure our young people have enough to eat, good health, training in skilled jobs, functioning and effective infrastructure and good jobs, or if these are not available, at least enough to live on, then New Zealand will be prosperous enough to support me in my old age.

The best investment for my old age then, is not giving my money away for financial wizards to lose, but to pay taxes to make sure that the next generation are happy, healthy, educated, employed and comfortable.

Also published in "The Standard".

New Zealand Joins the Roll of Shame.

New Zealand joins the roll of shame.

With recent legislation New Zealand's Government continues it's shameful attacks on human rights.

Bill allowing detention without trial, of refugees.

Joins the roll of shame, of countries which allow detention without trial.

We were already on the roll of countries that convict on secret evidence the accused is not allowed to see. Bill_Sutch  Achmed Zaoui

"First they came for"

Next it will be you and I!

This on top of a year of extensions in police powers, police assaults on legitimate demonstrators, Police forcibly arrest demonstrators despite them being within the law. legalising, formerly illegal spying and search and surveillance, Police and spy agencies broke the law so Government races to make their actions legal. and making recourse to the courts, against Government policy,  illegal  National stymies caregivers recourse to justice.. And continued attacks on workers rights. Jami Lee Ross' scab bill. The scab bill is probably too extreme even for National, but under its cover they are bringing in only slightly less repressive restrictions on workers rights.

New Zealand, the USA and UK were always democracies more in name than reality.
Now  with Governments almost daily restricting individual freedom, legitimate protest and democracy, they are becoming more and more like the totalitarian States we used to criticise, for their lack of consideration for human rights and the wishes, and best interests, of the Governed.

Then of course, we have the USA pursuing a man all around the world simply for telling their citizens how much their privacy was being breached, by their Government!

We are getting the type of repressive dictatorship, we used to fight against.

Our Governments seem determined to return, slowly so we don't fight back, the rule of,  the KGB, the Stasi or the Gestapo.

Democracy.

Kia-ora

It is notable that ordinary citizens, whatever their political views, do not trust politicians to act in the best interests of New Zealanders.

 

A distrust that is richly deserved!
 

And vote by overwhelming majority, for any measures which restrict politicians power and increase democracy.

It is no accident that Switzerland is the most stable, prosperous and peaceful state on earth.

Compare Switzerland to so called "representative democracies". An oxymoron equal to, "intelligence agencies".

Government should be run like a business? Privatisation.

Kia-ora

Many business people say that a country should be run like a business.

Maybe they are right. It should be run like a SUCCESSFUL business.

It is appropriate for Government to take lessons from business success, and the reverse.

But when it comes down to details, right wing Neo-Liberal business does not want Government and country they govern to become too successful, or democratic. They are doing too well by taking advantage of slack regulation (regulation which favours them over the rest of society) and politicians foolishness.

In business a manager who fails to plan for the future would be sacked.

Right wing Neo-Liberal business say that Government should keep out of strategic planning. 

Successful business constantly plan advertise and strategise to “beat the market”.

  Right wing Neo-Liberal business insist that Government should muddle along, leaving it to “the market”.

Successful businesses involve as many people in decision making as possible.

Successful businesses involve their staff in decision making,.

Right wing Neo-Liberal business want Government dictatorship, so long as they run the dictators, and oppose democratic moves like MMP and BCIR.

Even New Zealands, non binding, referenda, the only Democratic voice allowed in New Zealand, have such a freshold for a triggering petition that they are guaranteed to be very infrequent. 

Successful businesses ensure they have a competitive advantage. Monopoly is even better.

Right wing Neo-Liberal business insists that we give up any competitive advantage with so called “free trade agreements”  and open licence for foreign corporate to plunder and selling profitable assets.

Successful business gets Government to bend the rules in their favour.

Right wing Neo-Liberal business insists that we remove trade protections and rules which work in our favour.

Management silo’s that only look at small part are known to be dysfunctional.

Right wing Neo-Liberal business says that every part of a countries infrastructure should be stand alone, dependant on individual profit and loss without regard to social and economic costs to the country as a whole. Giving small business and consumers inflated prices for utilities, so utilities make a profit, for example.  North Americans will remember ENRON.

Successful businesses work for the future of the entire company.  They know that if any one part cannot take excessive capital, or resources . 

Right wing Neo-Liberal business oppose any attempt by Government to rein in unjustified excessive profit taking from the rest of the economy. There is a propaganda war in New Zealand from the right wing at the moment to prevent the extraction of  excessive power profits.

Successful companies train, nurture and look after their staff.

Right wing Neo-Liberal business insist on dropping wages, and starving those who cannot work “pour encourager les autres”   regardless of the costs in lost demand, (A cost to business also) welfare and crime.

Successful business has consistent and effective policies, procedures and rules.

 Right wing Neo-Liberal business wants Government to refrain from regulation, except that which protects them,  of course.  (For example  taking away workers rights and protecting  big corporate rights to take as much as they can)  Giving us leaky houses, worker deaths, finance company failures, wage cuts, full jails and  tax payer bailouts.

Lastly, successful business use all their resources as effectively as possible and use the co-operative efforts of many people to meet goals.

Right wing Neo-Liberal business would rather countries do not have goals and that we are all turned into competing worker units.

Right wing propagandists pay lip service to the idea of running a country like a successful business. In reality they oppose Government being too good, because it would limit their ability to steal from the rest of us.  They are happy to continue profiting from a Government that does what they tell them.

One famously wanted to “drown Government in a bathtub”, because it affected his profits. Several famous NZ business men openly gloated about how they profited from  stealing tax payer owned infrastructure companies, and asset stripping them.

Good Government, real democracy, improving decision making by Government,  and  good effective regulation and protection, for the majority of a countries citizens, would destroy their gravy train.

Hence the hysterical overreaction to a minor piece of addition to Government regulation of power companies in New Zealand. 

Because it, if it is allowed to happen,  is the beginning of the end for the idea of “the market” and the mean spirited Neo-liberal,  consensus which has delivered so much wealth and power to a greedy few.

Comparative Advantage?

Kia-ora

Even Ricardo never suggested that Britain give up making wine altogether, or Portugal textiles.

Comparative_advantage 

In fact no country has ever succeeded on exports alone, without a healthy internal economy.

And no country has ever succeeded in benefiting from an export economy without State support of the export sector.

Of course, our pursuit of pure free markets has worked so well? How much has our number of people in poverty increased by, again?

Ha-Joon on free trade.

""Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

Contrary to the popular myth, Britain had been an aggressive user, and in certain areas a pioneer, of activist policies intended to promote its industries. Such policies, although limited in scope, date back from the 14^th century (Edward III) and the 15^th century (Henry VII) in relation to woollen manufacturing, the leading industry of the time.  England then was an exporter of raw wool to the Low Countries, and Henry VII for example tried to change this by taxing raw wool exports and poaching skilled workers from the Low Countries.

Particularly between the trade policy reform of its first Prime Minister Robert Walpole in 1721 and its adoption of free trade around 1860, Britain used very dirigiste trade and industrial policies, involving measures very similar to what countries like Japan and Korea later used in order to develop their industries. During this period, it protected its industries a lot more heavily than did France, the supposed dirigiste counterpoint to its free-trade, free-market system. Given this history, argued Friedrich List, the leading German economist of the mid-19^th century, Britain preaching free trade to less advanced countries like Germany and the USA was like someone trying to “kick away the ladder” with which he had climbed to the top.""

Refuting false arguments against democracy.

Kia-ora

"I don't think referenda should be binding".

If a referenda is not binding. THEN WE DO NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY.
All the arguments against BCIR and real democracy are the same ones that were made by those in power at the time against citizens, women, non-aristocracy or non-landowners having a vote, at all.
There is absolutely no moral, or justifiable arguments against democracy.
Just self serving bullshit from those who want their turn in Dictatorship.
As NRT says. ” Even if they are wrong they are still our decisions to make”.
Why should 160 odd marginally competent, power hungry, ill educated twits in Parliament rule the rest of us.
We still let them do it despite constant reminders of how incapable politicians, of all stripes, really are.

"We should not allow mob rule".

In fact management studies tell us that good decision making happens when as many alternatives as possible are considered.

Decisions are made by those who have to implement them.

The more people involved in a decision the better it is likely to be.
Funny that the most successful economies have workers representatives on their boards.

The most successful economy, Switzerland has had BCIR and democratic control of Government for a century.
And the most successful corporations are co-ops. Fonterra!
And the NZ old boys club of self selected directors, overpaid managers and incompetent politicians are heading us for the third world.

Time we had democratic control of the self serving incompetents who are arrogant enough to think they should dictate to the rest of us. Changing our Government to a democracy, Swiss style, instead of a three yearly rotating dictatorship, would be a good start.

 

 

 

"Government by referendum will make decisions that are wrong".

As if Government by politicians doesn't. 

 

What these people are really saying is the majority may make decisions they do not agree with.

Well. If they genuinely think the majority are wrong then they are as free as anyone else to pursuade them otherwise.

Evidence shows that, where decisions are made by referenda, outcomes are better than when they are made by any minority, including those with political power. Those which turn out to be wrong are more likely to be reversed and there is much more consideration given to legislation when it may be overturned by a vote.