Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
wow...now even Krugman is "suspicious" about the TPP
Why?
Because "trade" is the #1 priority of the US Chamber of Commerce.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/suspicious-nonsense-on-trade-agreements/
Tom Donohue, head of the US Chamber of Commerce, warns against economic populism, which he says is really a push to create a “state-run economy.” Yep — so much as mention rising inequality, and you’re Joseph Stalin (unless you’re Mitt Romney.) But what really gets me is the Chamber’s supposed agenda for growth. Topping the list — the number one priority — is completing those trade agreements.
This is absurd, and disturbing.
Think about it. The immediate problem facing much of the world is inadequate demand and the threat of deflation. Would trade liberalization help on that front? No, not at all. True, to the extent that trade becomes easier, world exports would rise, which is a net plus for demand. But world imports would rise by exactly the same amount, which is a net minus. Or to put it a bit differently, trade liberalization would change the composition of world expenditure, with each country spending more on foreign goods and less on its own, but there’s no reason to think it would raise total spending; so this is not a short-term economic boost.
..
Maybe you still think we should do this. But trade agreements as your top economic priority? Really? That’s so bizarre that it should make you wonder why, exactly, the likes of Tom Donohue want these deals. And you have to suspect that the reason is that some of his important clients think that the non-trade aspects of the deals — stuff like intellectual property protection — will yield them a lot of monopoly rents.
There are reasons to support these deals and reasons to oppose them. But my immediate take is that when the US Chamber of Commerce makes a huge priority out of complicated deals, and offers an obviously false rationale, you should strongly suspect that there’s bad stuff hidden in the fine print.
This is absurd, and disturbing.
Think about it. The immediate problem facing much of the world is inadequate demand and the threat of deflation. Would trade liberalization help on that front? No, not at all. True, to the extent that trade becomes easier, world exports would rise, which is a net plus for demand. But world imports would rise by exactly the same amount, which is a net minus. Or to put it a bit differently, trade liberalization would change the composition of world expenditure, with each country spending more on foreign goods and less on its own, but there’s no reason to think it would raise total spending; so this is not a short-term economic boost.
..
Maybe you still think we should do this. But trade agreements as your top economic priority? Really? That’s so bizarre that it should make you wonder why, exactly, the likes of Tom Donohue want these deals. And you have to suspect that the reason is that some of his important clients think that the non-trade aspects of the deals — stuff like intellectual property protection — will yield them a lot of monopoly rents.
There are reasons to support these deals and reasons to oppose them. But my immediate take is that when the US Chamber of Commerce makes a huge priority out of complicated deals, and offers an obviously false rationale, you should strongly suspect that there’s bad stuff hidden in the fine print.
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
As a Union member and a Co-op worker, they've always worked against my interests. Even as a community member. All the candidates, policies, initiatives they've supported, etc. I can't think of a single thing my county CoC has done that has ever benefited my community or the people who live there. It seems like their goal is to make more money for people who already have money.
sorry, but i love the shrug
Krugman has long maintained that there is very little in the way of actual trade barriers left to eliminate, and that the non-trade aspects that are being negotiated are the major aspects of the TPP.
While lowering tariffs and duties increase competition, the information that has been leaked about the TPP reports massive increase in intellectual property law which would have the effect of supporting corporate monopolies, drastically raising the already skyrocketing prices of drugs as one consequence, and further entrenching corporate interests by use of sovereign investor-state tribunals (exempt from appeal in the normal judicial system) in which corporations can defeat environmental, labor, safety and labeling laws which they feel limit their profits.
If the TPP were stripped of its provisions to further entrench corporate monopoly power through enhanced intellectual property law and its corporate coup "investor-state tribunals", there wouldn't be much left.
And that's why Krugman's position, even back in early 2014, has been:
"I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away."
When even free traders smell a rat in a so-called "free trade agreement", it is telling.
