4 ms·
In a blog post entitled "Why Is It So Acceptable to Lie to Promote Trade Deals?," the economist Dean Baker wrote: "Implying that a deal that raises GDP by 0.4 o
by mercurial 11y ago
In a blog post entitled "Why Is It So Acceptable to Lie to Promote Trade Deals?," the economist Dean Baker wrote: "Implying that a deal that raises GDP by 0.4 or 0.5 percent 13 years out [in 2027] means "job-creating opportunities for workers on both continents" is just dishonest. The increment to annual growth is on the order of 0.03 percentage points. Good luck finding that in the data."
And that's the best case scenario. With studies which appear to ignore any downside of the trade agreement.
Another choice morsel:
According to CEO's analysis of the leaked document: "as soon as a new regulation is in the pipeline, businesses should be informed through an annual report, and be involved". Specifically, governments wishing to bring in new regulations have to offer companies that may be affected by legislation or regulation an opportunity to provide input, with the rider that this input “shall be taken into account” when finalising the proposal."
Consumers, on the other hand, can just get stuffed, no privileged access for NGOs.
Not to mention the ISDS mechanism, which is pure madness. What democratic government would want to be subject to secret tribunals, especially considering the litigation-happy nature of US business culture? A system which, apparently, is already used to strong-arm Canada into watering down legislation which would endanger US corporate profits...
- Dylan16807 11y ago.4% divided by 13 is .03% What am I missing? That's not hard to find, that's a rewording of the same number.
- grub5000 11y agoHe means, it would be impossible to see a 0.03% increase in GDP or attribute it to the deal.
- learnstats2 11y agoYes, and GDP increase per year would be the commonly-accepted standard: they should have said 0.03% (which anyone would recognise as a rounding error). They've quoted 0.4% to make it sound better than it is. This is a standard psychological trick. Strictly speaking the calculation is the 13th root of 1.04
- mikeash 11y agoI will give you a million dollars! (In an amount of $1 per year over a million years.) How you frame a number can count for a lot.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago>Consumers, on the other hand // How about just people, the demos, the supposed central element of a democracy.
- vosper 11y agoThank you! I'm not anti-capitalist, but I find utterly insidious the way that "consumer" has become the standard term used to refer to people.
- jiayo 11y agoIn Canada, certain demagogues have started to use the word "taxpayers" instead of "citizens".
- jpollock 11y agoThere is a difference between a taxpayer and a citizen. Taxpayers includes people who are non-citizens, and even non-resident.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoAnd some citizens are not taxpayers... Neither term is sufficient with respect to the other.
- 6t6t6 11y agoActually, in most of the countries of the World, less than 50% of the population are taxpayers.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoIsn't that what I was saying? Just because someone does not (currently) they should not lose their rights as citizens.
- 11y ago