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

[unnamed525]

Cyberpunk 2020 ... it isn't just a game. It's a prophecy.

[peristaltor]

I am less and less sure the world of Snow Crash isn't around the corner. Look forward to nut jobs with nuclear warhead side cars on their choppers to be declared sovereign nations.

[kylinrouge]

I don't see the problem, I'm perfectly secure in my Red Bull neighborhood, it's not my fault you opted for a Dr Pepper cul-de-sac.

[gunslnger]

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

Of course it was, since that was the point of the statement, as it was a parody of the hyperbolic and straw manned-up statement it was in response to.

Don't these folks know that given enough size, a corporation today has-via the power granted by over-reaching trade agreements-greater legal right than most countries?

Uh, via the power granted to them by governments, actually. So, where is the source of the problem there? That's right, governments. The concentration of power in government is what allows for the concentration of power in a megacorp. Without the first, you wouldn't have the second.

they act to protect and improve the lives of their citizens. Egypt, for example, fairly recently raised minimum wages for some category of employees. An example of them

[luvdovz]

Fight a strawman with a strawman? Awesome!

STRAWMEN, TO YOUR MARKS! FIGHT!

[peristaltor]

Uh, via the power granted to them by governments, actually. So, where is the source of the problem there?

An excellent point, one I will address by pointing out that the megacorp's power would not exist without mega profits. Without that enormous operating profit, there would be no money power to affect government decision making through bribery er, massive (read, "expensive") lobbying and the preferable treatment that comes from strategic campaign contributions.

We are looking at a chicken-egg "which came first" problem. The entirety of the blame or credit does not fall on any one actor.

One may counter that the massive war chests enabled by the profit may have its source in the government allowing such profits to be kept; but here, I think, is where we diverge. The societal allowance of massive individual wealth goes beyond mere government tolerance.

And then you give two examples that show exactly how the problem is government power being used. . . .Ah, here you are mistaken. The two examples reflect how one or two

[gunslnger]

The government power came first, which allowed for megacorps which allowed for mega profits. Note that the "mega profits" are not that high a percentage, they are only a high amount because of the scale of operations. That money wouldn't be spent on buying government favors if government had no favors to sell.

To assign the blame, we must once again delve into what forces caused any of the signatory governments into their signing, and again we reach non-governmental influences.

I disagree. The influences are very much governmental.

[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.

[geezer_also]

Actually, with you El Salvador example you have given a great example against signing international agreements, I mean what happened to the good old days of just nationalizing companies if things don't work out? After all (so far) these international mega corps don't have real armies. :D

[peristaltor]

I mean what happened to the good old days of just nationalizing companies if things don't work out?

Let's remember that nationalization was a response to some countries funding juntas against other countries in order to privatize nations. Banana republics, anyone? :-P

[il_mio_gufo]

Sounds to me like we could learn a thing or two from what has happened there in Egypt and El Salvador. Maybe the word should be spread to other countries . . . when allowing a corporation to do business in your country be sure to have them sign the statement detailing how they (the corporation) cannot sue the government and/or people in the case the business venture is not fruitful, doesn't yield as high a profit as anticipated, does not meet any projected productivity as predicted by internal/external analysts.

All business is a gamble. There is no way around it. If a corporation cannot comprehend this factoid, then that is problematic. Unrealistic goals will be set, and the tracks for greed lain.

[harry_beast]

Business risk is one thing, but arbitrary and malicious actions by a government are quite another.
What if governments change the rules after the investment has been made? Or, what if they apply one set of rules to foreign companies, and another to domestic companies? Or, what if the venture is profitable, and the government decides to sabotage the business so that investors are forced to sell the business at a loss, for example, to friends of the government?
Clauses that allow companies to seek redress if they feel that they have been treated unfairly are in important part of international agreements related to foreign trade and investment.

[peristaltor]

If by "arbitrary and malicious actions" you mean the ability for citizens to seek redress for injustices committed in the name of profit, then I'm afraid we do not agree on this statement of yours.

People died in El Salvador preventing the mine from opening simply because many of those people would be out of a livelihood if it did open. The mine would claim all the water people needed and pollute the remaining rivers, often with cyanide (used in gold mining). If the option is death, why not die trying to stop it?

I thought about including in the OP the What If scenario where the US is home to the foreign corporation and cannot stop the extraction/destruction because it signed the damned trade agreement. What if your well was poisoned, your children hired in sweatshops?

[harry_beast]

The company is playing by the rules established by El Salvador's own 1999 mining law. El Salvador's president in 2008 publicly stated that he was willing to pay $90 to cancel the project. The government of El Salvador, if it really didn't want the mine, could have turned down the project before accepting $77 million of the company's money. If someone took your money and then refused to give you what you paid for, or to return the money, you might seek redress too. Cheating foreigners may play well to the local crowd, but if you call it justice, I suppose we won't agree.

As for your hypothetical scenario, the United States has a long record of breaking trade deals. Its economic heft usually ensures that Americans can tilt the playing field in their favour. If there is a threat of poisoned wells and children in sweatshops, I would be more afraid of domestic companies and governments than of foreign ones.