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?

The real aims of National’s “Education” policy.

Kia-ora


If the aims of National/ACT’s education policy were, genuinely, to to improve the learning, education and career choices for our children, including the ones that are failing at present, they would not be following policies which have signally failed to achieve any of these goals, anywhere else they have been tried.

When you realise the real results of the polices that National, and ACT, want to introduce in other countries, you begin to see the real aims.

A two tier education system.


One tier, of private schools, entrenching wealth and privilege.

http://www.toomuchonline.org/tmweekly.html
“jobs today — “particularly the most lucrative” — have become, they add, “available almost exclusively to young people from wealthy backgrounds. One example: In the UK, only 7 percent of children attend private schools. But two-thirds of the nation’s doctors have been privately educated”.


National are even more cheeky. They still want us to fund their spoilt brats privileged education, while they cut funding to our children..
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9601664/School-gets-aid-despite-assets-worth-millions


Tier two. “Education factories” designed to teach the minimum, while making profits for private owners.

A tier, of cheap, production line, “education” in conformity,  and the minimum required for working in dead end jobs. Unthinking cannon fodder for poor employers. The Teaching of critical and independent thought to be removed as far as possible. (So the accumulation of wealth by a few non working bludgers, and their spoilt offspring,  is unquestioned). Reading, writing and arithmetic. (National standards).

Of course, the destruction of Teachers collective voice, the unions, is needed, to remove opposition to dumbing down and “privatising” education..

The bribing of compliant “executive Teachers” that conform to National’s “vision” of education is, of course, designed to help the true aims.


Hostage Taking in The Classroom
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/education-hostage/17cceda6b3d44b20031f5583a3c40e5d0c630f30/
“The commercial application of this extortion scheme is straightforward. In shock-doctrine-like fashion, the corporate community that typically lobbies against higher taxes to fund schools makes a business opportunity out of schools’ subsequent budget crises”.
“Ultimately, the public is removed from its own public education system and faraway moguls turn education policy into their ideological plaything, consequences be damned. Worst of all, the hostages are left to suffer – and have no hope of ever being released”.


When you see that the goal is to commercialise public education, regardless of education quality, and entrench the privileged, wealthy “class”, the seeming ineptitude and incompetence in “improving” “education” from National and ACT, makes sense.


Also Published in The standard.

An Alternative Budget.

Kia-ora

An alternative Budget, From Matt McCarten.
  Matt has posed this as a "left wing" budget.

However many of the ideas would have been considered centrist economic thinking not long ago.
Just shows how much right wing extremists have dominated economic thinking.


"1. Abolish 15 per cent GST. Replace with 1 per cent financial transaction tax as recommended by the New Zealand Bankers Association. Same money."
An idea which is being looked at seriously all around the world. It does need adoption by many countries at once to prevent banks dodging it.
 
"2. Abolish PAYE on wages and salaries. Replace it with a wealth tax and a capital gains tax when shares, businesses, land and property are sold. People are taxed when they're cashing up, not when they are making it."
Actually an idea of that noted arch socialist, economic thinker, Adam Smith. "Tax the owners of capital and land, not labour and entrepreneurs, because they produce the wealth".
 
"3. 90 per cent Death Tax. You can't take it with you. Grown-up kids should earn their own money anyway."
True, but I think their should be a threshold, say, a million dollars. No reason why one family should be allowed to accumulate ever increasing wealth over generations., and many sound economic and social justice reasons why they shouldn't. However parents should be able to pass on some to their kids.
 
"4. Rent-to-buy homes underwritten by the state. Limiting homes to two a family and having a capital gains tax will keep prices affordable."
Exemptions for family homes or restrictions on the number of homes a family has may not work. How do you define family?  Better to again have a threshold. Maybe set at the current median price.
 
"5. State-created work schemes for all long-term jobless."
Not bad, but I think a Guaranteed income is better, bearing in mind that in a steady state sustainable economy we do not need all those working hours.
 
"6. A living wage set at $20 an hour minimum. It would be a stimulus package."
Contrary to often expressed opinions from the rabid right, minimum wages increase demand and increase jobs and business profits. A better form of stimulus than gifting money to the banks, who lost it in the first place.
 
"7. No tax on profits kept in a business."
An incentive to invest in business growth, entrepreneurship and employment, not speculation.
 
"8. Free public transport in major cities. That would get people out of their cars."
Likely to save on roading, energy, and other costs long term.
 
"9. Victims get 100 per cent state compensation for loss or injury. Offenders work it off if necessary.
I hope that is extended to those who knowingly sell harmful products and politicians who work against their constituents best interests.
 
"10. Make KiwiSaver a state-owned fund and buy all the Government's non-core commercial assets."
Still doesn't give the investment in sustainable productivity we need for the future, but better than putting it in the financial lottery that is overseas financial markets. The same ones that lost all the US pension funds.

All in all a much more progressive and sound budget than National's recent mean spirited and dysfunctional, joke. 

The magical world of New Zealand's, Neo-Liberal, right wing.

Kia-ora

 The magical world of New Zealand's,  Neo-Liberal right wing.

It has been obvious that some people live in a different world than the rest of us. 

One where Chicago school economics, work!
One where you save the village by blowing it up! 
One where global warming can be stopped, Canute like, by legislation. 
One where dropping wages and giving everything to bloated financiers, makes us better off!
One where removing money from an economy makes it work better.
One where every country is going to get rich by out exporting every other country.
One where enabling greater inequality than the dark ages, works!
 

 The one with the trickle down fairy. "Give us the money and we will p-- on you".

The market fairy. "Leave it to the market and we will cut your wages,impoverish your children, and tell you it is a brighter future".

The Austerity fairy. "We will become better off by becoming poorer".

The catching up with Australia fairy. "We will catch up with Australia by doing almost the opposite of everything they have done".

The Democracy fairy. "We will let you vote, to change the names in Government, or on a few social issues which do not affect our making money off you, but not to make any meaningful changes to the way the country is run".


The privatisation fairy. "We will ensure that the NZ current account is forever in deficit, by selling all the income earning assets"

The debt fairy. "We will cut debt by borrowing $300mill a week, to pay for unaffordable tax cuts, to pay for our Hawaii holidays".

The Job fairy. " We will increase the number of jobs by putting thousands out of work, and cutting the unemployment benefit".

The "We support business" fairy. While ensuring New Zealanders have no money to buy from local businesses, and increasing small businesses costs.

The better future fairy. "We will give you a better future by paying you less, charging you more and cutting services".

It is pretty obvious which side of the political spectrum is on another planet. Planet Key! 
(New Zealand's,  financial industry shill, Prime Minister).

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.

Why do "they" want our schools?

Kia-ora

Ever wondered why we have the push for charter schools when the evidence is so solidly in favour of State run unionised schools. The worlds top school systems are all State run and most are unionised.

Ever wondered why we are repeatedly told our State schools are failing, when they have been proven to be amongst the worlds best. PISA rankings at High school level.

Ever wondered why we are being pushed towards Charter/privatised schools when all the evidence shows they do not do as well as State schools.  Stanford University Study. Despite all the extra funding charter schools have obtained, and the often extra effort and pupil selection poured in to make them work, all but a few demonstration schools, have done worse in the USA than State schools.

Sweden and UK's schools are also falling in standards since charter schools were introduced.

Ever wondered why State schools are being starved of funding while extra money is put into private schools.

Ever wondered why we are funding tests to tell us what we already know.  Poor ,and hungry, kids do not do as well in school.

So they can claim the tests show State schools are failing.

Ever wondered why we are trying to imitate the USA, number 29 in school results, where poor kids are simply excluded from secondary education, and not Finland or even Korea, which are 1 and 2 respectively.

As always. Follow the money!


The finance industry has proven to be almost totally ineffectual in supporting entrepreneurial and productive business.
What they are good at is obtaining tax payer funding to add to their profits.
When tax payers are not bailing out their failures.

Education provides a certain source of tax and publicly funded wealth that, until recently, has been largely unavailable to the corporate pirates.

Education Profiteering Wall Streets Next Big Thing?page=0%2C0
 "Education privatization would not, per se, create a net new stimulus for the economy. But by diverting large existing flows of money from the public to the private sector it would create new profit-making ventures that could be capitalized and transformed into stocks, derivatives and leveraged securities."

"The Chief Finance Officer of JP Morgan reports that some 75% of the net increase in corporate profits between 2000 and 2007 -- before the financial crash -- was a result of cuts in workers' wages and benefits. Given that unions are the only serious vehicles for resistance to the corporate low-wage strategy, ................"

A challenge 

The attacks on State schools and their Teachers is entirely so that corporates can make money from the taxes we pay for education.

As usual the private sector are so poor at doing the thing they claim is their strength, starting viable businesses, that they want to steal "the socialists" successes. Ours!

Added. 17th. 
New Zealand's Charter schools are to be exempted from the official information Act, so the public will not even be able to assess how they are performing. Charter, sorry, "partnership" schools exempted from OIA.

"Printing Money". Banking. Part Two.

Kia-ora

The Greens talk about Necessary Changes to Monetary Policy.
"Time to stop fighting Yesterday's war."

Gareth Morgan.

And why I do not agree with him this time.

Borrowing money, "printed money" from foreign banks, and paying 14 billion extra a year for the privilege, is sensible?
http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2...
Do I detect a bit of self interest here?


In fact "printing money" worked very effectively for NZ in the 30's. So well it was copied by other countries.
All the howls about Zimbabwe and the Weimer
republic forget that their productive sectors were first destroyed,
before they started printing money, When there was nothing to buy with
it.

Not a lot different from Nationals present efforts!

A lot different from lending to ourselves to invest in paying our
under-utilised and capable construction industry to rebuild
Christchurch.
Vital infrastructure which will return the investment many times in future.

Also we did exactly the same thing from 1935 until the 60?s. Called the
Development finance corporation for a long time.
Worked well for us. Got us out of the depression before the US and UK for a start.
We are still using a lot of those assets. Apart from the ones our idiot
Governments sold, so someone else could profit from them.

National still seems to want to follow the USA, UK, Ireland and Greece down the tubes.

Banking.

Kia-ora

 The banking system has no cost of production. Adding Zero's to an account for a loan is effectively "free". Banks are then paid well for this 'service". The myth that banking is simply on-lending savings was exploded long ago.

Banks naturally favour "safe" investments for lending such as land and existing companies, tilting the playing field against new sustainable investment and artificially driving up the prices of "safe" investments against others.
The incentive is naturally to lend as much as possible, while using their financial clout to skew the economy and regulation to favour banks, getting an ever greater share of economic wealth.

Interest requires infinite economic growth. Not possible in a finite world.
The answer is public banking and the removal of interest.
Public Banking.

Beneficiary Bashing. New Zealand.

Kia-ora

Social welfare recipients are commonly demonized by right wing Governments.

Usually for the same reasons the Nazis used Jews.
To distract from the failure of Neo-liberal Government.

Most of the memes they use are demonstrably false.

Ten myths about welfare
"Looking across all forms of benefits, 61.4 % of recipients are benefit dependent for four years or less. Only 14.3 % are on benefits for more than ten years – and since those figures include people with chronic physical and mental disabilities, the ratio of those staying on benefits because it is a “lifetime, lifestyle choice’ is lower again."

Note that over 35 years ago in New Zealand when social welfare payments were proportionately a lot higher than they are now, but there was near full employment, there were so few unemployed the Prime Minister, famously, stated he knew them all by name.

The Canadian mincome, minimum income experiment. 
Mincome "She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. In addition, Forget finds that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 per cent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse^."

"We cannot afford social welfare"

Well. It seems we cannot afford social welfare for the rich and corporates.

Welfare fraud 0.1% of welfare payments. About 16 million.
Tax fraud 7 billion.
Tax avoidance by the rich. Half of the wealthiest people in NZ do not pay tax!
7 billion plus.
Profits and interest paid overseas 14 billion plus.

It is not social insurance that we cannot afford.

It is Neo-Liberal right wing Governments.

Kia-ora

Chang

A Challenge.

Kia-ora

 
A challenge
“And, out of interest, does anyone know of any research into privatization that shows it to be generally effective at improving a service, increasing efficiency and leaving its lowest level workers with a living wage? All I read currently is that the investors get richer, the management can pay itself what it likes, the customers pay more and more for worse service and the lowest level workers are told they need to find a second job just to survive because they are a valueless kind of replaceable resource.”


I have not found a single case where this can be answered in favour of privatisation. Can You?