4 ms·

Two random comments: First, the NYT is engaging in the standard Brooksian/Friedmanist technique of supporting something with apparent qualifications, but actua

Two random comments: First, the NYT is engaging in the standard Brooksian/Friedmanist technique of supporting something with apparent qualifications, but actually engaging in unconditional support. That is, using the Iraq War as an example: - I support the Iraq War, if it is done this way (describe reservations) - The Iraq War is not done that way in the slightest - Given the above, I support the Iraq War The NYT supports TPP with qualifications; the TPP will not have those attributes; given the above, the NYT will absolutely support the TPP. It's a way to deflect criticism - if anyone criticizes your support, you just point to your expressed reservations. Second, free trade has proven to be not good for the bulk of the public. Most HN commenters, having been immersed in right-wing economics, have the belief that it is somehow scientifically proven that free trade is beneficial for all, but that's not actually what the science says. The results of decades of "free trade" agreements have been to overrule local decision-making; they are profoundly anti-democratic. They've resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the bulk of the population to a very few, very wealthy individuals. Free trade agreements are a substantial cause for the fact that most workers in the United States are making less money now than they were 30 years ago, even though their productivity has gone up massively in the meantime. If an action X takes away $1 from each of nine people, and gives $15 to the tenth person, the total benefit for society in dollars is theoretically positive (-$9, +$15) but nine out of ten people have been harmed by it, and it's not clear that the real benefit is positive at all, because of the declining marginal utility of money. That's pretty much what "free trade" represents. Add in the anti-democratic aspects and it's clear to me that modern "free trade" agreements, negotiated in secret between the Aspen corporate elite, are something that should be roundly opposed.

iwwr 13y ago
Free trade agreements aren't. Really. If they were free-trade, they wouldn't need thousands of pages of legalese. What it is is "managed trade", an agreement essentially made to benefit certain large corporations (as you pointed out), but also to restrict and to make many exceptions. It ends up being complex enough that only a large entity with a legal department can take advantage of it, rather than small and medium-sized entreprises.
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  If they were free-trade, they wouldn't need thousands of pages of legalese. What it is is "managed trade", an agreement essentially made to benefit certain large corporations (as you pointed out), but also to restrict and to make many exceptions. Indeed. These kinds of agreements are like DRM for economics.
naterator 13y ago
free trade has proven to be not good for the bulk of the public. Most HN commenters, having been immersed in right-wing economics, have the belief that it is somehow scientifically proven that free trade is beneficial for all, but that's not actually what the science says. The results of decades of "free trade" agreements have been to overrule local decision-making; they are profoundly anti-democratic. They've resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the bulk of the population to a very few, very wealthy individuals. Free trade agreements are a substantial cause for the fact that most workers in the United States are making less money now than they were 30 years ago, even though their productivity has gone up massively in the meantime. I am not taking a position, but I think the not-altogether-ridiculous evidence they have for is the fact that global poverty has been declining steadily[1]. This is tied to the idea that efficiency increases provided by globalization are always a plus. Inequality may have deepened, but the argument is that that is irrelevant if the lowest standard of living rises. Not my argument, just saying. Of course, I suppose one could argue that poverty would have reduced even more had globalization not happened, but I wouldn't know where to begin to do that. I would welcome someone who can. [1] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global-poverty-but-major-challenges-remain http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/re... Edit: Now that I am reading how they define "poverty" (<$1.25/day), and considering the fact more can be lost or gained than just money, I am getting suspicious...
- kbenson 13y ago
  > This is tied to the idea that efficiency increases provided by globalization are always a plus. Inequality may have deepened, but the argument is that that is irrelevant if the lowest standard of living rises. I have to wonder that even if this is true, whether that means it's true for all conditions. That is, the cost of inequality may at some point equal, then surpass the cost of poverty, either from poverty decreasing or inequality increasing. That could either be a gradual change, or a fairly abrupt one, as people that have amassed massive wealth and power make use of it to change the system to their benefit (and would most people recognize this until it was long done?).

iwwr 13y ago

Free trade agreements aren't. Really. If they were free-trade, they wouldn't need thousands of pages of legalese. What it is is "managed trade", an agreement essentially made to benefit certain large corporations (as you pointed out), but also to restrict and to make many exceptions. It ends up being complex enough that only a large entity with a legal department can take advantage of it, rather than small and medium-sized entreprises.

jamesbritt 13y ago
If they were free-trade, they wouldn't need thousands of pages of legalese. What it is is "managed trade", an agreement essentially made to benefit certain large corporations (as you pointed out), but also to restrict and to make many exceptions. Indeed. These kinds of agreements are like DRM for economics.

naterator 13y ago

free trade has proven to be not good for the bulk of the public. Most HN commenters, having been immersed in right-wing economics, have the belief that it is somehow scientifically proven that free trade is beneficial for all, but that's not actually what the science says. The results of decades of "free trade" agreements have been to overrule local decision-making; they are profoundly anti-democratic. They've resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the bulk of the population to a very few, very wealthy individuals. Free trade agreements are a substantial cause for the fact that most workers in the United States are making less money now than they were 30 years ago, even though their productivity has gone up massively in the meantime. I am not taking a position, but I think the not-altogether-ridiculous evidence they have for is the fact that global poverty has been declining steadily[1]. This is tied to the idea that efficiency increases provided by globalization are always a plus. Inequality may have deepened, but the argument is that that is irrelevant if the lowest standard of living rises. Not my argument, just saying. Of course, I suppose one could argue that poverty would have reduced even more had globalization not happened, but I wouldn't know where to begin to do that. I would welcome someone who can. [1] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global-poverty-but-major-challenges-remain http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/re... Edit: Now that I am reading how they define "poverty" (<$1.25/day), and considering the fact more can be lost or gained than just money, I am getting suspicious...

kbenson 13y ago
> This is tied to the idea that efficiency increases provided by globalization are always a plus. Inequality may have deepened, but the argument is that that is irrelevant if the lowest standard of living rises. I have to wonder that even if this is true, whether that means it's true for all conditions. That is, the cost of inequality may at some point equal, then surpass the cost of poverty, either from poverty decreasing or inequality increasing. That could either be a gradual change, or a fairly abrupt one, as people that have amassed massive wealth and power make use of it to change the system to their benefit (and would most people recognize this until it was long done?).