New World Order, Inc.

[peristaltor]

Just yesterday, I read that the belief "that we could have utopian prosperity if we got rid of private businesses and had the government run everything" should be marked down to "stubborn stupidity." Fair enough. As hyperbolic and Straw Manned-up as that statement is, thwarting all independent economic activity would be a bit delusional, given

Comments

[harry_beast]

actual states as they act to protect and improve the lives of their citizens
The political and social elites who form governments may have a "l'etat c'est moi" attitude, but their interests do not always coincide with the best interests of the majority of citizens. There are plenty of examples of governments polluting, persecuting, ripping off, killing and otherwise inconveniencing their own citizens.

[peristaltor]

The political and social elites who form governments may have a "l'etat c'est moi" attitude, but their interests do not always coincide with the best interests of the majority of citizens.

Exactly. In the podcast, KMO quotes Pres. Obama on the TPP, noting he says the TPP will allow "us" to "win" against "them" and "others." Given the actual bias the TPP seems to have toward corporations and against governmental redress, it's a fair question to ask who the President meant by those quoted words.

Are "us" the US citizens, or US corporations? Are "them" the workers in other countries, or in our own? And how much pain will all this winning inflict on the US and others?

[harry_beast]

Ideally, both and both.
US citizens would benefit to greater access to goods and services from other countries, and to greater competition for their spending. US corporations would have access to a wider range of suppliers and to foreign markets, resulting in greater investment, employment and tax revenues for the United States, ultimately benefiting citizens.
Better access by foreign suppliers to the American market means more jobs, investment and employment for foreign workers, with the resulting increases in wages, standard of living and quality of life. As a result, they can buy more quality goods and services from countries like the United States.
How much pain? There will be short term pain as adjustments are made, followed by long term gain. The same pattern was seen with other trade deals, such as NAFTA.

[peristaltor]

US corporations would have access to a wider range of suppliers and to foreign markets, resulting in greater investment, employment and tax revenues for the United States, ultimately benefiting citizens.

That and the rest of what you said is the established mythos, yes. In practice, the corps have access to a wider range of lower paid labor, which does indeed lower the cost of the goods they manufacture, but which also guts the economy which will buy those goods. Wal Mart for one is not doing well in this new economy, since their prime customer base has become so impoverished that they can no longer afford to shop even there. The race to the bottom has bitten them on their ample backsides.

[harry_beast]

What you call the wider range of lower paid labour is the burgeoning middle class of China, India and other places, people whose newfound purchasing power represents a huge market for American companies. But, only if American companies can access these markets. Thus, the trade deals.

[peristaltor]

Not anymore. The current TPP in the OP is specifically courting Vietnam, whose extremely low minimum wage is very attractive to those who are tired of getting screwed by Chinese workers and their exorbitant wage demands.

Will the lower wages make the final product less expensive here? Don't count on it.

[il_mio_gufo]

I'm sure someone, somewhere, has asked the President to clarify those exact terms. Maybe a bit of surfing will lead us to some clarity . . . . .

[peristaltor]

Go for it.