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
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
https://hbr.org/2016/01/income-inequality-makes-whole-countries-less-happy
Most talk of income inequality focuses on the problems of the very poor or the broader socioeconomic implications of rising inequality. What is less well-known is that income inequality makes us all less happy with our lives, even if we’re relatively well-off...We examined data from the Gallup World Poll and the World Top Incomes Database and found that the more income is concentrated in the hands of a few, the more likely individuals are to report lower levels of life satisfaction and more negative daily emotional experiences. That is, the higher the share of national income that is held by the top 1%, the lower the overall well-being of the general population. Specifically, we found that a 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.
Here’s why we think this effect occurs: As the very rich get richer, they extend the range of the income distribution. In a practical sense, that means even if you are a member of the relatively well-to-do middle class, some things start getting priced beyond your reach, such as private schools and houses in the best neighborhoods. There might also be a psychological reason for the effect: an increase in the share of income held by the richest 1% can make you feel as if your chance of moving up the ladder and becoming very rich yourself is growing increasingly beyond your reach. This research builds on some earlier, seminal research on how much money we need to make us happy. A 2010 paper by psychologist Daniel Kahneman and economist Angus Deaton, both Nobel laureates, calculated that day-to-day happiness peaks at an income of $75,000 a year, after which it plateaus. (At the time the data was collected in 2009, the median household income in the U.S. was $49,777, and the mean was $67,976.) This study also emphasized an important distinction between life satisfaction (how we generally evaluate our lives) and day-to-day emotions (how we experience our lives in the moment). It found that measures of life satisfaction were sensitive to socioeconomic factors such as a person’s income level and employment status, whereas measures of emotional well-being were more sensitive to how people spend their time, such as commuting or caring for others.
We followed the same distinctions in our study of income inequality and found an interesting wrinkle. While life satisfaction was negatively related to increased income inequality, we did not find a relationship between positive emotional well-being and inequality at the very top of the income distribution. This is probably because the things that make up positive emotional experiences have little to do with income and rank.
But the flip side of daily positive emotional experiences are negative emotional experiences — and we did find that these rise along with the incomes of the top 1%. In societies where the richest hold most of the country’s income, people were more likely to report feeling feeling “stressed,” “worried,” or “angry” on the day before the survey.
So, on aggregate, as the incomes of the 1% pull away from those of the rest, people’s overall life satisfaction is lower and their day-to-day negative emotional experiences are greater in number. The effects at work alone are numerous: other research has shown that unhappy workers tend to be less productive; studies have also found that unhappy workers are more likely to take longer sick leaves, as well as to quit their jobs.
Since our evidence is at the country level, there are obvious implications here for economists and policy makers. But corporate leaders also would do well to consider the possible implications for pay and compensation policies in the microcosms of their organizations, where executive salaries are now as much as 200 times what median workers earn.
Jan-Emmanuel De Neve is Associate Professor in Economics and Strategy at Saïd Business School and a Fellow of Harris Manchester College at the University of Oxford.
Nattavudh (Nick) Powdthavee holds a joint position as a Professorial Research Fellow at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, University of Melbourne, and a Principal Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.
Most talk of income inequality focuses on the problems of the very poor or the broader socioeconomic implications of rising inequality. What is less well-known is that income inequality makes us all less happy with our lives, even if we’re relatively well-off...We examined data from the Gallup World Poll and the World Top Incomes Database and found that the more income is concentrated in the hands of a few, the more likely individuals are to report lower levels of life satisfaction and more negative daily emotional experiences. That is, the higher the share of national income that is held by the top 1%, the lower the overall well-being of the general population. Specifically, we found that a 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.
Here’s why we think this effect occurs: As the very rich get richer, they extend the range of the income distribution. In a practical sense, that means even if you are a member of the relatively well-to-do middle class, some things start getting priced beyond your reach, such as private schools and houses in the best neighborhoods. There might also be a psychological reason for the effect: an increase in the share of income held by the richest 1% can make you feel as if your chance of moving up the ladder and becoming very rich yourself is growing increasingly beyond your reach. This research builds on some earlier, seminal research on how much money we need to make us happy. A 2010 paper by psychologist Daniel Kahneman and economist Angus Deaton, both Nobel laureates, calculated that day-to-day happiness peaks at an income of $75,000 a year, after which it plateaus. (At the time the data was collected in 2009, the median household income in the U.S. was $49,777, and the mean was $67,976.) This study also emphasized an important distinction between life satisfaction (how we generally evaluate our lives) and day-to-day emotions (how we experience our lives in the moment). It found that measures of life satisfaction were sensitive to socioeconomic factors such as a person’s income level and employment status, whereas measures of emotional well-being were more sensitive to how people spend their time, such as commuting or caring for others.
We followed the same distinctions in our study of income inequality and found an interesting wrinkle. While life satisfaction was negatively related to increased income inequality, we did not find a relationship between positive emotional well-being and inequality at the very top of the income distribution. This is probably because the things that make up positive emotional experiences have little to do with income and rank.
But the flip side of daily positive emotional experiences are negative emotional experiences — and we did find that these rise along with the incomes of the top 1%. In societies where the richest hold most of the country’s income, people were more likely to report feeling feeling “stressed,” “worried,” or “angry” on the day before the survey.
So, on aggregate, as the incomes of the 1% pull away from those of the rest, people’s overall life satisfaction is lower and their day-to-day negative emotional experiences are greater in number. The effects at work alone are numerous: other research has shown that unhappy workers tend to be less productive; studies have also found that unhappy workers are more likely to take longer sick leaves, as well as to quit their jobs.
Since our evidence is at the country level, there are obvious implications here for economists and policy makers. But corporate leaders also would do well to consider the possible implications for pay and compensation policies in the microcosms of their organizations, where executive salaries are now as much as 200 times what median workers earn.
Jan-Emmanuel De Neve is Associate Professor in Economics and Strategy at Saïd Business School and a Fellow of Harris Manchester College at the University of Oxford.
Nattavudh (Nick) Powdthavee holds a joint position as a Professorial Research Fellow at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, University of Melbourne, and a Principal Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.
http://www.firstrebuttal.com/a-new-fed-mandate-the-labour-the-demand-and-the-holy-profits/
Well it’s official markets have moved into a frenzy of absolute insanity with 6% swings in expected future cash flows every couple days. It means the models have broken down. But price insensitive ‘investors’ managed to prevent a reconciliation between economic and market performance last year despite revenues and earnings now also having broken down. It’s impressive and depicts the ability of the Fed to impact MARKETS if not the economy...But it also highlights the incredible lengths CEO’s have (perhaps understandably) gone to defend market cap. Now that the Fed has boxed themselves out of the equation, neither able to raise again or cut rates without either action punishing the market, it is back to the underlying fundamentals. And that means it is time to understand how the Fed’s policies and the market’s delusional expectation of perpetual earnings growth have led CEO’s to misallocate hundreds of billions in capital, actually destroying the mechanism for economic growth itself, namely, demand... I’ve discussed the idea that there is a mathematical critical point of narrowing income distribution below which an economy simply cannot grow no matter how much money is injected. I’ve also discussed the idea that profits can only grow in the face of declining demand by cutting costs and contracting operations. That is, cut labour and capex to reallocate those funds into income, share buybacks and dividends. This is exactly what CEO’s have been doing for the past 6 years while they wait for consumer demand to improve. However, I have also suggested there is a limit to the financially engineered earnings growth. When the cash dries up so too does the engineering. The hope in such a strategy is that demand returns before the cash runs out.
In early August I offered a chart and predicted an imminent major market selloff. The basis was that earnings had finally rolled over despite the financial engineering. The reason is that cashflow can only be supported by costless borrowing and operational contraction until the lending slows and all the fat is trimmed, at which point the well runs dry and the financial engineering becomes impossible.
The problem is that financially engineering earnings to defend market cap is a very short term solution to a longer term fundamental problem. Demand, or more rightly, lack of demand is what leads CEO’s into such extreme market cap defending strategies given the market’s belief that profits must always grow for a firm’s valuation to even remain stable. However, financially engineering earnings growth actually further deteriorates the very demand that is to alleviate the need to financially engineer earnings growth. You can see the conundrum. Sort of like a man stuck deep in the forest with two broken legs. He begins to starve and decides well his legs are broken anyway so he’ll just eat his legs to obtain the calories necessary for survival not recognizing those are the legs needed to carry him out of the forest.
We all understand that demand is the key to sustainable earnings growth, that’s easy. But the next step in the syllogism is where things go terribly wrong. The Fed believes demand is a function of interest rates and a very distorted definition of full employment. However, if you’ve been following my articles for the past 2 years you’ll know my theory is that demand is a function of income distribution or labour. Now when I discuss income distribution a lot of people say to me “blah blah blah…. income inequality… blah blah”. The suggestion is that I’m a bleeding heart. My response is that income ‘disparity’ is not a moral issue but a mathematical one. People then like to remind me that total income is at a record high. But what they fail to understand is total income has very little to do with demand (this is due to diminishing marginal propensity to consume). Income distribution or labour income is demand’s real master. This is why economic policy must target sustainable demand, which is a function of sustainable income distribution or labour income for which we will use ‘salaries and wages’ as a proxy...
more
Well it’s official markets have moved into a frenzy of absolute insanity with 6% swings in expected future cash flows every couple days. It means the models have broken down. But price insensitive ‘investors’ managed to prevent a reconciliation between economic and market performance last year despite revenues and earnings now also having broken down. It’s impressive and depicts the ability of the Fed to impact MARKETS if not the economy...But it also highlights the incredible lengths CEO’s have (perhaps understandably) gone to defend market cap. Now that the Fed has boxed themselves out of the equation, neither able to raise again or cut rates without either action punishing the market, it is back to the underlying fundamentals. And that means it is time to understand how the Fed’s policies and the market’s delusional expectation of perpetual earnings growth have led CEO’s to misallocate hundreds of billions in capital, actually destroying the mechanism for economic growth itself, namely, demand... I’ve discussed the idea that there is a mathematical critical point of narrowing income distribution below which an economy simply cannot grow no matter how much money is injected. I’ve also discussed the idea that profits can only grow in the face of declining demand by cutting costs and contracting operations. That is, cut labour and capex to reallocate those funds into income, share buybacks and dividends. This is exactly what CEO’s have been doing for the past 6 years while they wait for consumer demand to improve. However, I have also suggested there is a limit to the financially engineered earnings growth. When the cash dries up so too does the engineering. The hope in such a strategy is that demand returns before the cash runs out.
In early August I offered a chart and predicted an imminent major market selloff. The basis was that earnings had finally rolled over despite the financial engineering. The reason is that cashflow can only be supported by costless borrowing and operational contraction until the lending slows and all the fat is trimmed, at which point the well runs dry and the financial engineering becomes impossible.
The problem is that financially engineering earnings to defend market cap is a very short term solution to a longer term fundamental problem. Demand, or more rightly, lack of demand is what leads CEO’s into such extreme market cap defending strategies given the market’s belief that profits must always grow for a firm’s valuation to even remain stable. However, financially engineering earnings growth actually further deteriorates the very demand that is to alleviate the need to financially engineer earnings growth. You can see the conundrum. Sort of like a man stuck deep in the forest with two broken legs. He begins to starve and decides well his legs are broken anyway so he’ll just eat his legs to obtain the calories necessary for survival not recognizing those are the legs needed to carry him out of the forest.
We all understand that demand is the key to sustainable earnings growth, that’s easy. But the next step in the syllogism is where things go terribly wrong. The Fed believes demand is a function of interest rates and a very distorted definition of full employment. However, if you’ve been following my articles for the past 2 years you’ll know my theory is that demand is a function of income distribution or labour. Now when I discuss income distribution a lot of people say to me “blah blah blah…. income inequality… blah blah”. The suggestion is that I’m a bleeding heart. My response is that income ‘disparity’ is not a moral issue but a mathematical one. People then like to remind me that total income is at a record high. But what they fail to understand is total income has very little to do with demand (this is due to diminishing marginal propensity to consume). Income distribution or labour income is demand’s real master. This is why economic policy must target sustainable demand, which is a function of sustainable income distribution or labour income for which we will use ‘salaries and wages’ as a proxy...
more
http://www.flushthetpp.org/the-facts-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-compared-to-the-obama-administrations-claims/
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers
...Just yesterday the World Bank published a comprehensive analysis of the TPP and concluded that by 2030 the TPP will have a miniscule 0.4% impact on US trade. See “Potential Macroeconomic Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” The World Bank, January 2016. The economic impact for the United States is minimal but the impact on workers, the environment, food safety, traditional energy and the overall balance between corporate power and government is dramatic.
The president’s claims about the TPP should be examined closely and measured against the facts of what the TPP will actually do and the impact similar trade agreements have had. We know from past comments by the president and the US Trade Representative that their sales pitch for the TPP is not always consistent with the facts. Below we provide fact-based sources of information on the key issues surrounding the TPP.
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers
...Just yesterday the World Bank published a comprehensive analysis of the TPP and concluded that by 2030 the TPP will have a miniscule 0.4% impact on US trade. See “Potential Macroeconomic Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” The World Bank, January 2016. The economic impact for the United States is minimal but the impact on workers, the environment, food safety, traditional energy and the overall balance between corporate power and government is dramatic.
The president’s claims about the TPP should be examined closely and measured against the facts of what the TPP will actually do and the impact similar trade agreements have had. We know from past comments by the president and the US Trade Representative that their sales pitch for the TPP is not always consistent with the facts. Below we provide fact-based sources of information on the key issues surrounding the TPP.
- US Laws and Regulations
The president claims that “No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.”
In fact, trade agreements, including the TPP, can force governments from local to national to change their laws through legal challenges and regulatory coherence requirements. There are numerous legal challenges against the US already occurring under NAFTA. The ISDS chapters in the TPP give greater legal standing to transnational corporations and give it to sectors that were not included before like the financial services sector. The TPP will immediately add 9,000 foreign corporations that can sue the United States under its current membership. Recent cases that change US law or policy include:
TransCanada announced it is suing the United States for $15 billion in damages for refusing to allow the northern portion of the Keystone Pipeline.
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Act which required meat to be labeled so consumers knew where it came from was repealed because of trade tribunal decision.
Dolphin-Safe Tuna labeling repealed because of a trade tribunal decision.
The TPP will force existing laws to be consistent with what is in the agreement.
Implementing legislation for the TPP that will be sent to Congress for fast track approval will require US laws to be changed to be consistent with provisions in the TPP, e.g. Buy American procurement laws will be dramatically altered. An agency will be tasked with making sure that all new laws are consistent with the TPP provisions and the TPP privileges corporations to have influence on regulations. See: http://itsourfuture.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/JK-Memo-on-Reg-Coh.pdf Under Article 27 of the TPP, International trade commissions that operate outside of Congress’s reach can change the provisions within the TPP, thereby changing US laws in a completely undemocratic way. No congressional approval is required for these new trade laws. Even national security can be reversed by the TPP, e.g. if Congress determines that foreign purchase of a US corporation risks our national security, the TPP overrules that congressional determination. - Made in America
According to the USTR website, the “TPP will make it easier for American entrepreneurs, farmers, and small business owners to sell Made-In-America products abroad by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes & other trade barriers on American products across the 11 other countries in the TPP—barriers that put American products at an unfair disadvantage today.”
In fact, the Labor Advisory Council created by the US Congress wrote President Obama to say that it reached the opposite conclusion: “While the TPP may create some limited opportunities for increased exports, there is an even larger risk that it will increase our trade deficit, which has been a substantial drag on job growth for more than twenty years. Especially at risk are jobs and wages in the auto, aerospace, aluminum and steel, apparel and textile, call center, and electronic and electrical machinery industries. The failure to address currency misalignment, weak rules of origin and inadequate state-owned enterprise provisions, extraordinary rights provided to foreign investors and pharmaceutical companies, the undermining of Buy American, and the inclusion of a labor framework that has proved itself ineffective are key among the TPP’s mistakes that contribute to our conclusion that the certain risks outweigh the TPP’s speculative and limited benefits” - Banking regulation
The White House claims the TPP “makes sure that the United States and other TPP members have the ability to fully regulate financial markets so as to ensure financial stability . . .”
In fact, the TPP gives banks and other financial services more power than any other previous trade agreement and minimizes the power of governments to regulate financial services. Under the TPP, financial firms can sue in trade tribunals to challenge financial stability measures that do not conform to their “expectations.” It requires countries to allow new financial products (like complex derivatives) and services to enter their economies if permitted in other TPP countries. The use of capital controls and other financial policies that regulate capital flows to promote financial stability are forbidden and subject to compensation demands by foreign corporations. - Workers’ rights and jobs.
According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama said the TPP is “an agreement that puts American workers first and will help middle-class families get ahead.”
In fact, the Labor Advisory Council created by the US Congress wrote President Obama and said the TPP “should not be submitted to Congress or, if it is, it should be quickly rejected. The interests of U.S. manufacturers, businesses, workers and consumers would be severely undermined by the entry into force of the TPP.” Their 121 page analysis concluded that the was a “threat to future economic gains here in the U.S. and the standard of living of our people will be put in jeopardy by the Agreement.” In short “The TPP is likely to harm the U.S. economy, cost jobs, and lower wages.” The TPP does not meet the negotiating objectives set by Congress when they granted the president trade promotion authority (fast track) five years after negotiations had begun. The Coalition for a Prosperous America finds that the best case scenario for the TPP is a 0.4% increase in GDP over ten years. And the Center for Economic and Policy Research finds that the vast majority of workers will find a decrease in wages because of the TPP.
The TPP opens up the floodgates of legal immigration of workers into the US. Under Chapter 10 of the TPP, not only foreign companies will be coming to the United States to compete with US companies, but those foreign companies can send in their foreign employees – they don’t have to hire US workers even if there are people in the United States who can do the job. Under Section 10.5 the US cannot limit the number of foreign service companies or the number of workers. Chapter 12 requires the US to grant visas to all professionals and their families seeking to enter the country for business purposes along with their families to work for a foreign corporation. Insourcing may have a greater impact on employment than outsourcing. - Globalization
According to the USTR website,“The rules of the road are up for grabs in Asia. If we don’t pass this agreement and write those rules, competitors will set weak rules of the road, threatening American jobs and workers while undermining U.S. leadership in Asia.”
In fact, the United States already has bilateral trade agreements with 6 of the 11 TPP countries and for the large economies that we don’t have trade agreements with, Japan and New Zealand, the tariffs are already extremely low. This goes hand-in-hand with Obama’s statement that “Almost 95% of the world’s consumers are outside America’s borders.“ While the statement is true, the TPP will not have a significant impact on increased trade as the World Bank found only a 0.4% increase by 2030. See more on why Obama’s 95% claim is irrelevant here. - NAFTA
According to the USTR website, “Because TPP includes Canada and Mexico and improves substantially on NAFTA’s shortcomings, it delivers on that promise. TPP learns from past trade agreements, including NAFTA, by upgrading existing standards and setting new high standards that reflect today’s economic realities.”
President Obama campaigned on a platform of renegotiating NAFTA to improve environmental and labor standards, but in actuality the TPP weakens those standards. As described in other sections, the environmental protections are weaker than previous agreements and do not include enforceable standards. Labor protections are likewise absent. While corporations can sue if laws that protect workers or the environment interfere with their profit margins, unions, environmental advocates and the public do not have the right to sue corporations under the TPP if corporations are causing harm to them. Under ‘economic realities’, the Obama administration is clearly using the TPP to push greater privatization of goods and services and to undermine public provision of goods and services. The TPP goes beyond NAFTA to take away the ability of governments to support entities, called state-owned enterprises (SOEs), that provide for the common good such as in health care, education, housing, transportation, energy, water, etc. Instead, these areas are opened for private corporations to take over through what the administration calls a ‘leveled playing field’ but which in reality is an effort to give more subsidies to corporations. Ending SOEs hurts workers in the US by opening these jobs to foreign corporations who can bring in foreign workers to displace US workers. - China
The White House claims that if the US does not write the rules then “competitors who don’t share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void.”
In fact, “China is already deeply integrated into trade and supply chains with all TPP countries—far more deeply than the U.S. is in many cases. A number of forces are responsible for drawing China closer together with other Pacific economies—including geography and several hundred billion dollars in Chinese foreign investment and development funding. It is difficult to believe that these deep relationships will be weakened simply through the conclusion of the TPP, particularly based on the TPP’s porous rules.” In addition, “The TPP will allow China to benefit without even joining. Its weak rules of origin, lack of rules on currency manipulation, and benefits that would apply to Chinese companies operating in any of the TPP countries mean that China has very little incentive to change its mercantilist model that has been undercutting U.S. manufacturers and displacing millions of U.S. jobs for more than a decade.
Fear of China has been used before to pass trade agreements that ended up hurting the US economy. We were warned that unless NAFTA and free trade deals with eight Latin American nations were enacted, China would write the rules and grab our trade in the hemisphere. NAFTA went into effect and in its first 20 years, the US share of goods imported to Mexico dropped from 70 percent to under 50 percent while China’s share rose more than 2,600 percent. - The Environment
The White House claims the “TPP’s Environment chapter is the most far-reaching ever achieved in a trade agreement.”
Friends of the Earth describes the TPP as a step backward from trade agreements negotiated by President George W. Bush writing: “The environment chapter, which actually only deals with a narrow range of conservation measures, is largely unenforceable and is substantially weaker than trade deal conservation provisions negotiated by President George W. Bush.” According to the Sierra Club’s analysis of the TPP “The final TPP environment chapter fails to provide adequate protection in five of six environmentally critical areas, while doing nothing to strengthen an enforcement mechanism that has consistently failed to curb environmental violations on the ground.” In fact, while the language and enforcement provisions are a step backward, polluting firms actually gain more power to stop laws designed to protect the environment and deal with climate change: “The TPP investment chapter would allow firms to sue governments for billions in money damages if climate, environmental or public health regulations interfere with expected future profits. - Human Rights
The USTR claims “Through the commitments in TPP, we can press to ensure that people everywhere are treated with dignity and respect.”
The Obama showed its ‘commitment’ to human rights through its treatment of Malaysia. Malaysia was initially not eligible to be a member of the TPP because if its record of human rights abuses, including human trafficking i.e., slavery. Many US electronics corporations have outsourced their labor to Malaysia. Instead of demanding higher human rights standards for Malaysia before granting it membership, the US State Department arbitrarily altered its human rights status to make Malaysia eligible. See U.S. Officially Ignores Grave Human Right’s Violations in Malaysia to Advance TPP. (LINK AT OP) - Food Safety
According to the USTR website, the “TPP is an opportunity to set better standards for food safety. TPP promotes the use of transparent and science-based rules, and allows the United States to help TPP countries improve their food safety systems. At the same time, TPP does not require any changes to U.S. food safety laws or regulations.”
We have already described how trade tribunals can force the repeal of US laws that require labeling of food for country of origin or dolphin-safe tuna, but that is just the beginning; “The TPP is a giveaway to big agribusiness and food companies that want to use trade deals to attack sensible food safety rules, weaken the inspection of imported food and block efforts to strengthen U.S. food safety standards. The food and agribusiness industries inserted language into the text of the TPP that will undermine U.S. food safety oversight and expose consumers to risky imported foods.” At the border, food inspections are hobbled because the TPP’s “Rapid Response Mechanism allows companies to challenge border inspection procedures that companies claim cause unnecessary delay—like holding suspect shipments while awaiting laboratory test results.” As to controversial Genetically Modified foods, the TPP is the first agreement that provides protections for GMO’s as “Agribusiness and biotech seed companies can now more easily use trade rules to challenge countries that ban GMO imports, test for GMO contamination, do not promptly approve new GMO crops or even require GMO labeling.” - Trade Deficit
An oft repeated mantra of the president is that the TPP will reduce 18,000 tariffs (which he likes to call taxes for rhetorical reasons) and that this will lead to a reduced international trade deficit.
Last year, the U.S. only exported any goods in less than half of the 18,000 touted tariff categories. For the nearly 7,500 categories of goods out of the claimed 18,000 for which we did sell something, almost 50 percent had sales under $500,000, e.g. a 34 percent “tax” cut by Vietnam on Alaskan caviar. In 2014, Vietnam’s per capita GDP was about $2,000 and about $150,000 worth of caviar was imported by Vietnam from anywhere.. Almost 2,000 of the tariff reductions in the products we do sell won’t be realized for over a decade or more, including beef and pork to Japan. The Department of Agriculture issued the administration’s only major study on TPP’s economic impact and found it would result in 0.00% increased US growth if all tariffs on all products were eliminated, which did not occur. The United States already has free trade deals in place with Canada, Mexico, Peru, Australia, Chile, and Singapore, which collectively represent over 80 percent of the trade counted in the oft-touted line about the TPP covering 40 percent of world trade.
So-called Free Trade Agreements continue to produce massive deficits currently at more than $40 billion per month as exports continue to decline. Global Trade Watch reports that the massive increase in international trade deficits — which should be seen as the hollowing out of the US economy — has coincided with post-NAFTA trade agreements, “since establishment of NAFTA and the WTO in the mid-1990s, the U.S. trade deficit jumped exponentially from under $100 billion to over $700 billion — over 5 percent of national income.” There is nothing in the TPP that will change this trend. - Internet Freedom
According to the USTR website, they describe the TPP as “Ensuring a Free and Open Internet, the “TPP puts in place strong rules that make sure the best communications tools and platforms are not unduly limited by trade barriers and laws that restrict the flow of data and information.”
In fact, the TPP is “biggest global threat to the internet” and will bring new restrictions to the Internet. The TPP forces other countries to adopt very restrictive and punitive laws regarding copyright and internet use. which would impact users’ freedom of expression, privacy, right to due process and ability to innovate. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) summarizes the impact, “The TPP is likely to export some of the worst features of U.S. copyright law to Pacific Rim countries: a broad ban on breaking digital locks on devices and creative works (even for legal purposes), a minimum copyright term of the lifetime of the creator plus seventy years (the current international norm is the lifetime plus fifty years), privatization of enforcement for copyright infringement, ruinous statutory damages with no proof of actual harm, and government seizures of computers and equipment involved in alleged infringement,” One little talked about provision would “make it a crime to reveal corporate wrongdoing ‘through a computer system.’ Experts have pointed out that the wording is very vague, and could lead to whistleblowers being penalised for sharing important information, and lead to journalists stopping reporting on them.” See more from EFF in this statement.(LINK AT OP)
http://wolfstreet.com/2016/01/18/dollar-based-investors-big-losses-in-global-stock-markets/
...Dollar-based investors, when they buy foreign stocks, make two bets: that those stocks rise; and that the currency of those stocks at least remains stable against the dollar. When they catch it right, with both stocks and currency going up, the returns can be breath-taking. But the opposite happens when both go down, as they’ve been doing recently. And dollar-based investors are getting totally crushed.
There has been a lot of moaning and groaning about the decline in US stocks, with the S&P 500 down 12% from its all-time high in May last year, the Dow down 13%, and the Nasdaq down 14%. After seven years of bull market, those declines have a bone-chilling effect. No one is used to losing money in stocks anymore. A whole new generation of traders and investors never experienced a big loss.
But those declines are still puny compared to what happened in past downdrafts in the US markets, and they’re puny compared what is already happening among the major indexes around the world. In fact, the beaten-down US indexes are the world’s best performers!
This chart shows the plunges or crashes of the major indexes since their respective recent highs in 2014 or 2015. The one exception is the dollar-calculated index of Russian stocks, the RTSI$, which has been a dreary affair all the way back to 2011; hence the decline calculated since that date...Note the ever longer list of markets that have now dropped 20% or more from their recent highs (below the blue line) and are in what a lot of people call a bear market. India’s Sensex and the Nikkei are a hair away from sinking below the blue line (US as of Friday close, Toronto as of Monday morning, Asia as of Monday close, Europe as of Monday afternoon):
more
...Dollar-based investors, when they buy foreign stocks, make two bets: that those stocks rise; and that the currency of those stocks at least remains stable against the dollar. When they catch it right, with both stocks and currency going up, the returns can be breath-taking. But the opposite happens when both go down, as they’ve been doing recently. And dollar-based investors are getting totally crushed.
There has been a lot of moaning and groaning about the decline in US stocks, with the S&P 500 down 12% from its all-time high in May last year, the Dow down 13%, and the Nasdaq down 14%. After seven years of bull market, those declines have a bone-chilling effect. No one is used to losing money in stocks anymore. A whole new generation of traders and investors never experienced a big loss.
But those declines are still puny compared to what happened in past downdrafts in the US markets, and they’re puny compared what is already happening among the major indexes around the world. In fact, the beaten-down US indexes are the world’s best performers!
This chart shows the plunges or crashes of the major indexes since their respective recent highs in 2014 or 2015. The one exception is the dollar-calculated index of Russian stocks, the RTSI$, which has been a dreary affair all the way back to 2011; hence the decline calculated since that date...Note the ever longer list of markets that have now dropped 20% or more from their recent highs (below the blue line) and are in what a lot of people call a bear market. India’s Sensex and the Nikkei are a hair away from sinking below the blue line (US as of Friday close, Toronto as of Monday morning, Asia as of Monday close, Europe as of Monday afternoon):
more
