"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 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?
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?
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.