5 ms·

Are you Sir Humphrey Appleby by any chance?

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Heh. I don't endorse keeping the treaty secret like this. But I like to be accurate. So as a mostly-factual matter, - Free trade is massively unpopular as a concept. - Two parties (however defined) that implement a free trade agreement tend to see a rise in standard of living. - Larger trade zones tend to be doing better along all kinds of metrics than smaller ones. I think it's safe to say that free trade is in the public interest, and I think it's reasonable to consider public hatred for it as "a reason" to keep it secret. I can think all that without thinking that keeping it secret is a good idea.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I'll take that as a yes.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Fair enough. You got me ;)
- buo 13y ago
  I don't disagree, but don't completely agree either, that free trade is always a blessing. - Mexico is a party to NAFTA and other trade agreements with South American and Asian countries, but 37 million mexicans survive on less than US $5.00 a day. - Good macroeconomic metrics can obscure or mask what is actually happening on the ground. In this sense, trade agreements can bring massive grief to large sections of the population. Going back to Mexico, the lift of tariffs on articles like clothing and shoes have decimated the local industry, leaving thousands of bankrupt businesses and families. Probably the hatred for free trade has been caused by the way it's been implemented, favoring large corporate interests, and trying to maximize macroeconomic metrics to the detriment of microeconomics. This is probably the reason this new agreement is being negotiated in secret too: it will have negative impact on the lives of many people.
- rsync 13y ago
  "Two parties (however defined) that implement a free trade agreement tend to see a rise in standard of living." You're missing the part where party A has a standard of living of 9 and party B has a standard of living of 4 and after the treaty they go to 8 and 6, respectively. Yes, a rise in standard of living - but A lost and it would be completely rational for them to reject the FTA. It's even more stark when you consider that the 9 that becomes an 8 is made up, internally, primarily of sevens-that-become-fives and a small portion of 100s that become 200s. So yes, people railing against FTA/globalization often have no theoretical underpinning, have no clarity in their argument, and generally "don't know what they're talking about" - but they're getting fucked and they know it and that trumps the well-worded argument you're looking for.
  - Roboprog 13y ago
    But my standard of living index went to 200! I still don't see the problem! I just don't understand what you people are getting all worked up about. Look at the GDP! WELL SAID, sir.

Heh. I don't endorse keeping the treaty secret like this. But I like to be accurate. So as a mostly-factual matter, - Free trade is massively unpopular as a concept. - Two parties (however defined) that implement a free trade agreement tend to see a rise in standard of living. - Larger trade zones tend to be doing better along all kinds of metrics than smaller ones. I think it's safe to say that free trade is in the public interest, and I think it's reasonable to consider public hatred for it as "a reason" to keep it secret. I can think all that without thinking that keeping it secret is a good idea.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
I'll take that as a yes.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Fair enough. You got me ;)
buo 13y ago
I don't disagree, but don't completely agree either, that free trade is always a blessing. - Mexico is a party to NAFTA and other trade agreements with South American and Asian countries, but 37 million mexicans survive on less than US $5.00 a day. - Good macroeconomic metrics can obscure or mask what is actually happening on the ground. In this sense, trade agreements can bring massive grief to large sections of the population. Going back to Mexico, the lift of tariffs on articles like clothing and shoes have decimated the local industry, leaving thousands of bankrupt businesses and families. Probably the hatred for free trade has been caused by the way it's been implemented, favoring large corporate interests, and trying to maximize macroeconomic metrics to the detriment of microeconomics. This is probably the reason this new agreement is being negotiated in secret too: it will have negative impact on the lives of many people.
rsync 13y ago
"Two parties (however defined) that implement a free trade agreement tend to see a rise in standard of living." You're missing the part where party A has a standard of living of 9 and party B has a standard of living of 4 and after the treaty they go to 8 and 6, respectively. Yes, a rise in standard of living - but A lost and it would be completely rational for them to reject the FTA. It's even more stark when you consider that the 9 that becomes an 8 is made up, internally, primarily of sevens-that-become-fives and a small portion of 100s that become 200s. So yes, people railing against FTA/globalization often have no theoretical underpinning, have no clarity in their argument, and generally "don't know what they're talking about" - but they're getting fucked and they know it and that trumps the well-worded argument you're looking for.
- Roboprog 13y ago
  But my standard of living index went to 200! I still don't see the problem! I just don't understand what you people are getting all worked up about. Look at the GDP! WELL SAID, sir.