5 ms·

Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers

46 points by josho 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Exactly. It won't be good for us. The I.P. effects and ability to sue over lost profit have already been devastating in the precedent situations. Same types of elites involved in this legislation. I have less faith in American voters than he does. Hope the situation in Canada makes them break from it and maybe delay/end the whole thing.
mc32 11y ago
>has been one of the most vocal critics of globalization and global inequality. How can he simultaneously be a critic of globalization AND a critic of global inequality? The one thing "globalization" brings with it is low skilled jobs but relatively better jobs to underdeveloped nations en-masse, if those nations don't squander things, they can parley that into higher economic rungs (as has the US, Japan, China, throughout history. Yes, wages stagnate in the rich countries but they increase in developing nations. Sometimes you sell goods to emerging markets but typically their PP is too small to matter and healthy local firms can take advantage of the increased local purchasing power to push into neighboring countries.
- rightWelll 11y ago
  Because you can globalize inequality, such that a transnational set of very powerful oppressors can use cross-border agreements to make the lives of those disenfranchised on both sides of the border equally miserable, skimming the cream of their surplus and absconding with said fruits of labor to parts beyond the reach or purview of those stolen from, while using against them international laws that are difficult to understand and are powerless to fight?
  - mc32 11y ago
    I think the unnecessary use of word "oppressors" makes me less likely to think you're unbiased in your assessment. I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because globalization brought with it capital inflows, job demand, skills improvement, and with that better education and strengthening of the local economy. I think it's no accident that most developing countries clamor for foreign investment (aka globalization). Many women in those countries are now independent and don't depend on arranged marriages for their future --they can earn their own living. Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. And workers in developed economies will not have viable careers with all but a high school diploma --those days are over. You now have global competition for jobs and millions of erstwhile poor are grateful.
    - bildung 11y ago
      > Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. The stagnating income in the West is a result of policy, not a direct consequence of globalization. Real wages in the US are stagnating for over 40 years now (1), but GDP grew enormously in that timeframe (2). The profits are still created in the West, they just aren't distributed down to the employees. The world economy is not a zero sum game. Its perfectly possible for western wages to rise simultaneously with Chinese and Indian ones. (1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_... (2): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_per_capita.PNG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_p...
      - mc32 11y ago
forrestthewoods 11y ago
I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!". So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the internet? What's the strongest case as to why it's bad and why I should lobby my congressman to push against it?
- sremani 11y ago
  The devil is in detail, a good case for or against can be only presented after we have draft. People are going by assumptions, which may be likely part of the agreement, but assumptions none the less. note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    The Asian equivalent to TPP is RCEP, it includes China and India, and has more draconian IP terms than TPP, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-no-trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-...
- 36erhefg 11y ago
  Skipping the court system in case of disputes in favor of an arbitrage. Let's say a country established a law that prohibits smoking. A company conducting business there (selling cigarettes), can complain based on the loss of future income. According to the bilateral agreement, they demand an arbitrage that is performed in secret by a third-party and is binding and final.
  - dbcooper 11y ago
    Tobacco has been excluded from Investors State Disputes Settlement provisions http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11524706 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...
walterbell 11y ago
In the tradition of the Daily Show, a six-minute video on the rules of ISDS courts where (non-tobacco) corporations would be able to sue TPP governments, https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU

46 points by josho 11y ago

Exactly. It won't be good for us. The I.P. effects and ability to sue over lost profit have already been devastating in the precedent situations. Same types of elites involved in this legislation. I have less faith in American voters than he does. Hope the situation in Canada makes them break from it and maybe delay/end the whole thing.

mc32 11y ago

>has been one of the most vocal critics of globalization and global inequality. How can he simultaneously be a critic of globalization AND a critic of global inequality? The one thing "globalization" brings with it is low skilled jobs but relatively better jobs to underdeveloped nations en-masse, if those nations don't squander things, they can parley that into higher economic rungs (as has the US, Japan, China, throughout history. Yes, wages stagnate in the rich countries but they increase in developing nations. Sometimes you sell goods to emerging markets but typically their PP is too small to matter and healthy local firms can take advantage of the increased local purchasing power to push into neighboring countries.

rightWelll 11y ago
Because you can globalize inequality, such that a transnational set of very powerful oppressors can use cross-border agreements to make the lives of those disenfranchised on both sides of the border equally miserable, skimming the cream of their surplus and absconding with said fruits of labor to parts beyond the reach or purview of those stolen from, while using against them international laws that are difficult to understand and are powerless to fight?
- mc32 11y ago
  I think the unnecessary use of word "oppressors" makes me less likely to think you're unbiased in your assessment. I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because globalization brought with it capital inflows, job demand, skills improvement, and with that better education and strengthening of the local economy. I think it's no accident that most developing countries clamor for foreign investment (aka globalization). Many women in those countries are now independent and don't depend on arranged marriages for their future --they can earn their own living. Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. And workers in developed economies will not have viable careers with all but a high school diploma --those days are over. You now have global competition for jobs and millions of erstwhile poor are grateful.
  - bildung 11y ago
    > Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. The stagnating income in the West is a result of policy, not a direct consequence of globalization. Real wages in the US are stagnating for over 40 years now (1), but GDP grew enormously in that timeframe (2). The profits are still created in the West, they just aren't distributed down to the employees. The world economy is not a zero sum game. Its perfectly possible for western wages to rise simultaneously with Chinese and Indian ones. (1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_... (2): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_per_capita.PNG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_p...
    - mc32 11y ago

forrestthewoods 11y ago

I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!". So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the internet? What's the strongest case as to why it's bad and why I should lobby my congressman to push against it?

sremani 11y ago
The devil is in detail, a good case for or against can be only presented after we have draft. People are going by assumptions, which may be likely part of the agreement, but assumptions none the less. note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.
- walterbell 11y ago
  The Asian equivalent to TPP is RCEP, it includes China and India, and has more draconian IP terms than TPP, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-no-trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-...
36erhefg 11y ago
Skipping the court system in case of disputes in favor of an arbitrage. Let's say a country established a law that prohibits smoking. A company conducting business there (selling cigarettes), can complain based on the loss of future income. According to the bilateral agreement, they demand an arbitrage that is performed in secret by a third-party and is binding and final.
- dbcooper 11y ago
  Tobacco has been excluded from Investors State Disputes Settlement provisions http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11524706 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...

walterbell 11y ago

In the tradition of the Daily Show, a six-minute video on the rules of ISDS courts where (non-tobacco) corporations would be able to sue TPP governments, https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU