
Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers - josho
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/nobel+laureate+warns+trans+pacific+partnership+dangers/11405825/story.html
======
mc32
>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
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
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
_> 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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif)

(2):
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_p...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_per_capita.PNG)

~~~
mc32
Gdp grew, but so did immigration, mostly low skilled, which put price pressure
on wages. Mass immigration of low skulled labor will put pressure on native
low skills workers. You'd see the same in professions services, if we allowed
mass high skills workers immigration.

------
walterbell
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)

------
nickpsecurity
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.

------
forrestthewoods
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?

~~~
36erhefg
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
Tobacco has been excluded from Investors State Disputes Settlement provisions

[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11524706)

~~~
manicdee
Australia's PBS will be the first victim. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
ensures that essentials medicines are available at reasonable prices, and that
generics are also available.

This compromises future profits for companies that want to increase the price
of certain drugs, for such purposes as making generics too expensive or simply
ensuring maximum profit per dose manufactured.

Other examples could be environmental regulations which cause expenses that
manufacturers and miners are unwilling to meet. Little things like pollution
controls, national parks, marine sanctuaries and so forth.

The TPP also opens the path for US IP law to be imposed on Australia.

The ISDS does not specifically rule these out of contention. So they will be
contended (cf: everything that is not illegal is mandatory).

Once the actual text is out, people might say, "the ISDS is such a small and
insignificant part" but it is there for a reason. It will be abused, just as
cigarette companies abused other FTA with Australia.

Why are you so dismissive of "the Chinese workers on the Chinese government
projects took our jobs on Australian soil"?

