6 ms·

I hesitantly applaud such trade deals. I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism of politically favored domestic industries

by bko 11y ago

I hesitantly applaud such trade deals. I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism of politically favored domestic industries but it is better than the alternative. Interdependence and trade have led to a much safer world and a rising global standard of living for all.

rangibaby 11y ago
That was a popular opinion at the beginning of the 20th century too.
- tptacek 11y ago
  And the world is much, much safer, more stable, and across the entire socioeconomic spectrum wealthier than it was at the beginning of the 20th century, so the snark here is missing its mark.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    Well if the proposition here is that we have another two world wars before then going on to enjoy still greater prosperity I think maybe I'll pass.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      The world wars had nothing to do with trade. In fact, this long stability in Europe traces its roots to a free trade agreement the Schuman Declaration, leading to the European Coal and Steel Community, which later becomes the European Union.
      - emodendroket 11y ago
        I think you may have missed the point!
      - isoos 11y ago
        > The world wars had nothing to do with trade. Future peace may be. An interesting quote from Lee Kuan Yew (From Third World to First, p. 534): "October, 1985. […] During my official visit, I was given the honour of addressing a joint session of the US Congress. […] I spoke on an issue then at the top of the American agenda - protectionism to safeguard jobs and check growing US trade deficits with newly emerging economies of East Asia. In 20 minutes, I described how the issue of free trade was really the question of war or peace for the world. Nations wax and wane. I argued that if a nation on the rise, with an excess of energy, was not allowed to export its goods and services, its only alternative would be to expand and capture territory, incorporate the population and integrate it to make for a bigger economic unit. That was why nations had empire which they controlled as one trading bloc. It was a time-honoured way for growth. The world had moved away from that after the end of World War II in 1945. GATT, the IMF, the World Bank and new rules made possible a prosperous and dynamic Germany in spite of large numbers of Germans returning from the East into a shrunken land area So also with the Japanese, who had to leave Korea, China, Taiwan and Southeast Asia and be packed into a few Japanese islands. The Germans and the Japanese were able to stay within their boundaries and grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars. But if trade in goods and services was blocked, then China would revert to its historical solution of small warring states conquering one another to gain control of more territory and people until they become one colossal continental empire. This tight, logical exposition may have convinced the legislators intellectually, but many found it emotionally difficult to accept."
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      World Wars were about ... Darwinism! Really. The German aristocrats thought that they should rule, because they were more fit. They all had a copy of Origin of the Species, read it and discussed its implications to nationalism at length. Their speeches were all about it. Think of it - a lonely academic invents/discovers something, and 50 million people die over it. No, not talking about nuclear fission.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        For the record, "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with Darwinism. It was an expression coined by Herbert Spencer, contrast to the more neutral "descent with modification". The Nazi approach was markedly different. They borrowed a lot from Lamarckism, Malthusianism and pan-Germanic mysticism, not necessarily just flawed, naturalistically fallacious interpretations of Darwinism. Eugenics, particularly, was largely started by Francis Galton.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Yet Darwin himself coined 'natural selection'. It was the leap from 'natural' to the human realm that German Aristocracy made, and fed nationalism to the point WWI was inevitable.
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Which is funny because eugenics is fundamentally a form of artificial selection, much like the one practiced agriculturally for millennia. You're trying so hard to indict Darwin on this, when virtually all of Social Darwinism is unrelated to him.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        I'm just being descriptive. Certainly social movements were related to him; his was just the spark with world-spanning consequences.
- bko 11y ago
  Well, global poverty did halve in the last twenty years, so there's that http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/ec... edit: have -> halve
littletimmy 11y ago
Actually has led to a stagnant standard of living for the American lower class, but by all means stick with your delusions.
- logicchains 11y ago
  Even if this is the case, it's also led to a rising standard of living for the Asian lower and middle class, who vastly outnumber the American lower class. So if one assumes all peoples' living standards are equally valuable, then it's a net win.
  - lumberjack 11y ago
    >So if one assumes all peoples' living standards are equally valuable, then it's a net win. But as a citizen of only one of those countries should you not be biased towards the well being of your fellow citizens over others? And don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about patriotism or whatnot. It is just that you share duties and responsibilities with only one of those groups of people.
    - bko 11y ago
      > But as a citizen of only one of those countries should you not be biased towards the well being of your fellow citizens over others? Nationalism: the strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance
- tptacek 11y ago
  Please remain civil.
- calebm 11y ago
  I bet that the stagnation of the American lower class standard of living has come at the expense of the rising standard of living in 3rd world countries with which we deal.
  - 11y ago
ckozlowski 11y ago
>I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism Actually, the goal was to eliminate a lot of that. In trade, countries usually have two general aims: 1. Negotiate reduction or elimination of tariffs in foreign markets so that domestic producers can expand abroad. 2. Protect their own domestic producers from foreign competition by retaining the import tariffs that keep them competitive. So, Japan subsidizes its domestic rice farms and tarrifs rice imports, but wants to sell its cars unfettered. Brazil wants to export its oranges and other produce more, the US wishes to export more of it's beef and cattle market. (These are the ones I'm thinking of off hand.) The thinking goes however, that nations will gain more if they can all agree to open their tariffs, and allow goods to "trade freely". This means that while there will be short term disruption and decline in some markets, that their economies will have net growth on the whole, because economics is not a zero-sum game. For the TPP, the math is somewhat easy: One or more domestic industries will face internal competition, while their export markets will now be open to a dozen new countries. If they all do this, it's a net gain. (So the thinking goes.) The portions that people seem to take issue with mostly in our line of interest have to do with the intellectual property provisions. This is to shore up the mismatch in legal protections that exist in countries with weaker IP laws. You can more or less sum this up with pointing out that pirated software and media is sold openly in countries like China and Vietnam. The provisions pertaining to those are other countries saying "Look, we'll trade, but only if you respect our IP." Whether or not you agree with those provisions is of course, the million dollar question, and on things like that, the fate of the TPP depends. But that's the rationale. And yes, you're exactly right, a rising global standard of living is /exactly/ what everyone wants. It's not some evil conspiracy, it really is that. And so long as no one can game the system (too badly), that's exactly what will happen. (More reading on that last point. Can't recommend it enough: In Defense of Globalization - Jagdish Bhagwati http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Globalization-With-Afterword/dp/0195330935 http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Globalization-With-Afterwor... )
- emodendroket 11y ago
  > And yes, you're exactly right, a rising global standard of living is /exactly/ what everyone wants. It's not some evil conspiracy, it really is that. And so long as no one can game the system (too badly), that's exactly what will happen. We can argue about whether or not that will really be the end result but I'd imagine quite a few of the participants are more concerned with their own gain than a rising global standard of living.
nerdcity 11y ago
>I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism of politically favored domestic industries but it is better than the alternative. The alternative of actual free trade, free from meddling governmental interference, without corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism?
- bko 11y ago
  That's not yet a political reality. Don't like perfect become the enemy of the good. With each incremental step and treaty, we help advance this ideal.
- pilsetnieks 11y ago
  The alternative at this point in the real world is customs, restrictions, and convoluted import and export procedures, i.e., what we have now.
repsilat 11y ago
> they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism At least in spirit, this agreement largely exists to remove subsidies, tariffs and import restrictions. I suppose you're referring to the (expected) "harmonisation" of intellectual property law in the agreement, though? In that case I'd tend to agree with a characterisation of it as a protectionist measure, though I doubt that's a popular way to put things in official channels.
wyldfire 11y ago
> Interdependence and trade have led to a much safer world and a rising global standard of living for all. Sure, but can't we have global trade in the absence of such a treaty?

by bko 11y ago

rangibaby 11y ago

That was a popular opinion at the beginning of the 20th century too.

tptacek 11y ago
And the world is much, much safer, more stable, and across the entire socioeconomic spectrum wealthier than it was at the beginning of the 20th century, so the snark here is missing its mark.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Well if the proposition here is that we have another two world wars before then going on to enjoy still greater prosperity I think maybe I'll pass.
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    The world wars had nothing to do with trade. In fact, this long stability in Europe traces its roots to a free trade agreement the Schuman Declaration, leading to the European Coal and Steel Community, which later becomes the European Union.
    - emodendroket 11y ago
      I think you may have missed the point!
    - isoos 11y ago
      > The world wars had nothing to do with trade. Future peace may be. An interesting quote from Lee Kuan Yew (From Third World to First, p. 534): "October, 1985. […] During my official visit, I was given the honour of addressing a joint session of the US Congress. […] I spoke on an issue then at the top of the American agenda - protectionism to safeguard jobs and check growing US trade deficits with newly emerging economies of East Asia. In 20 minutes, I described how the issue of free trade was really the question of war or peace for the world. Nations wax and wane. I argued that if a nation on the rise, with an excess of energy, was not allowed to export its goods and services, its only alternative would be to expand and capture territory, incorporate the population and integrate it to make for a bigger economic unit. That was why nations had empire which they controlled as one trading bloc. It was a time-honoured way for growth. The world had moved away from that after the end of World War II in 1945. GATT, the IMF, the World Bank and new rules made possible a prosperous and dynamic Germany in spite of large numbers of Germans returning from the East into a shrunken land area So also with the Japanese, who had to leave Korea, China, Taiwan and Southeast Asia and be packed into a few Japanese islands. The Germans and the Japanese were able to stay within their boundaries and grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars. But if trade in goods and services was blocked, then China would revert to its historical solution of small warring states conquering one another to gain control of more territory and people until they become one colossal continental empire. This tight, logical exposition may have convinced the legislators intellectually, but many found it emotionally difficult to accept."
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    World Wars were about ... Darwinism! Really. The German aristocrats thought that they should rule, because they were more fit. They all had a copy of Origin of the Species, read it and discussed its implications to nationalism at length. Their speeches were all about it. Think of it - a lonely academic invents/discovers something, and 50 million people die over it. No, not talking about nuclear fission.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      For the record, "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with Darwinism. It was an expression coined by Herbert Spencer, contrast to the more neutral "descent with modification". The Nazi approach was markedly different. They borrowed a lot from Lamarckism, Malthusianism and pan-Germanic mysticism, not necessarily just flawed, naturalistically fallacious interpretations of Darwinism. Eugenics, particularly, was largely started by Francis Galton.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Yet Darwin himself coined 'natural selection'. It was the leap from 'natural' to the human realm that German Aristocracy made, and fed nationalism to the point WWI was inevitable.
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Which is funny because eugenics is fundamentally a form of artificial selection, much like the one practiced agriculturally for millennia. You're trying so hard to indict Darwin on this, when virtually all of Social Darwinism is unrelated to him.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        I'm just being descriptive. Certainly social movements were related to him; his was just the spark with world-spanning consequences.
bko 11y ago
Well, global poverty did halve in the last twenty years, so there's that http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/ec... edit: have -> halve

littletimmy 11y ago

Actually has led to a stagnant standard of living for the American lower class, but by all means stick with your delusions.

logicchains 11y ago
Even if this is the case, it's also led to a rising standard of living for the Asian lower and middle class, who vastly outnumber the American lower class. So if one assumes all peoples' living standards are equally valuable, then it's a net win.
- lumberjack 11y ago
  >So if one assumes all peoples' living standards are equally valuable, then it's a net win. But as a citizen of only one of those countries should you not be biased towards the well being of your fellow citizens over others? And don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about patriotism or whatnot. It is just that you share duties and responsibilities with only one of those groups of people.
  - bko 11y ago
    > But as a citizen of only one of those countries should you not be biased towards the well being of your fellow citizens over others? Nationalism: the strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance
tptacek 11y ago
Please remain civil.
calebm 11y ago
I bet that the stagnation of the American lower class standard of living has come at the expense of the rising standard of living in 3rd world countries with which we deal.
- 11y ago

ckozlowski 11y ago

>I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism Actually, the goal was to eliminate a lot of that. In trade, countries usually have two general aims: 1. Negotiate reduction or elimination of tariffs in foreign markets so that domestic producers can expand abroad. 2. Protect their own domestic producers from foreign competition by retaining the import tariffs that keep them competitive. So, Japan subsidizes its domestic rice farms and tarrifs rice imports, but wants to sell its cars unfettered. Brazil wants to export its oranges and other produce more, the US wishes to export more of it's beef and cattle market. (These are the ones I'm thinking of off hand.) The thinking goes however, that nations will gain more if they can all agree to open their tariffs, and allow goods to "trade freely". This means that while there will be short term disruption and decline in some markets, that their economies will have net growth on the whole, because economics is not a zero-sum game. For the TPP, the math is somewhat easy: One or more domestic industries will face internal competition, while their export markets will now be open to a dozen new countries. If they all do this, it's a net gain. (So the thinking goes.) The portions that people seem to take issue with mostly in our line of interest have to do with the intellectual property provisions. This is to shore up the mismatch in legal protections that exist in countries with weaker IP laws. You can more or less sum this up with pointing out that pirated software and media is sold openly in countries like China and Vietnam. The provisions pertaining to those are other countries saying "Look, we'll trade, but only if you respect our IP." Whether or not you agree with those provisions is of course, the million dollar question, and on things like that, the fate of the TPP depends. But that's the rationale. And yes, you're exactly right, a rising global standard of living is /exactly/ what everyone wants. It's not some evil conspiracy, it really is that. And so long as no one can game the system (too badly), that's exactly what will happen. (More reading on that last point. Can't recommend it enough: In Defense of Globalization - Jagdish Bhagwati http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Globalization-With-Afterword/dp/0195330935 http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Globalization-With-Afterwor... )

emodendroket 11y ago
> And yes, you're exactly right, a rising global standard of living is /exactly/ what everyone wants. It's not some evil conspiracy, it really is that. And so long as no one can game the system (too badly), that's exactly what will happen. We can argue about whether or not that will really be the end result but I'd imagine quite a few of the participants are more concerned with their own gain than a rising global standard of living.

nerdcity 11y ago

>I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism of politically favored domestic industries but it is better than the alternative. The alternative of actual free trade, free from meddling governmental interference, without corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism?

bko 11y ago
That's not yet a political reality. Don't like perfect become the enemy of the good. With each incremental step and treaty, we help advance this ideal.
pilsetnieks 11y ago
The alternative at this point in the real world is customs, restrictions, and convoluted import and export procedures, i.e., what we have now.

repsilat 11y ago

> they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism At least in spirit, this agreement largely exists to remove subsidies, tariffs and import restrictions. I suppose you're referring to the (expected) "harmonisation" of intellectual property law in the agreement, though? In that case I'd tend to agree with a characterisation of it as a protectionist measure, though I doubt that's a popular way to put things in official channels.

wyldfire 11y ago

> Interdependence and trade have led to a much safer world and a rising global standard of living for all. Sure, but can't we have global trade in the absence of such a treaty?