Slashdot Mirror
US-EU Trade Agreement Gains Exaggerated, Say 41 Consumer Groups, Economist
Glyn Moody (946055) writes "The main claims about likely economic gains from concluding the US-EU trade agreement TAFTA/TTIP, billed as a 'once-in-a-generation prize,' are increasingly under attack. BEUC, representing 41 consumer organizations from 31 European countries, has written a letter to the EU Trade Commissioner responsible for the negotiations, Karel De Gucht, complaining about his 'exaggeration of the effects of the TTIP,' and 'use of unsubstantiated figures regarding the job creation potential.' In a blog post entitled 'Why Is It So Acceptable to Lie to Promote Trade Deals?,' Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, has even harsher words: 'Implying that a deal that raises GDP by 0.4 or 0.5 percent 13 years out means "job-creating opportunities for workers on both continents" is just dishonest. The increment to annual growth is on the order of 0.03 percentage points. Good luck finding that in the data.' If the best-case outcome is just 0.03% extra growth per year, is TAFTA/TTIP worth the massive upheavals it will require to both US and EU regulatory systems to achieve that?"
'Why Is It So Acceptable to Lie to Promote Trade Deals?
For the same reasons that trade deals are negotiated in secret. The general population never benefits, only a few select special interests.
This is just classic use of government to support established corporations. It's been happening for a long time, and it's been lied about for a long time. It's not surprising that their sales pitch to the public isn't exactly accurate...
The U.S.A. and the European Commission are tired of democracy interfering with corporations. This "Free Trade" treaties will mean that governments are no longer allowed to interfere with multinational corporations: the corporations may conduct business as they have paid their politicians at home to do, and when a local government says "we have human rights and environmental protections over here", then the corporation can sue the government in a corporation-run quasi-court committee and get all the "losses" paid as "penalties".
Of course it's worth it to those money-grabbing interest groups to extend their power and bypass all democratic control and law.
It effectively outlaws nationalised companies by allowing private corporations to sue for profits lost through productive state labour. Since all essential utilities - water, electricity, gas, train, healthcare, telecoms - have got worse since part or total privatisation in the UK, TTIP can get fucked.
(Telecoms is arguable - it's easy to compare the technology of the early '80s with that of 2014 and say, "Things have improved under private ownership," but in terms of contemporary technical innovation, BT up to 1985 was a leader, whereas today it is an also-ran in bed with its regulator.)
Culturally, from what i can gather, its become acceptible in America to lie in order to sell damned near anything. Our breakfast cereals tout everything from brain vitamins to anti-cancer properties and our fruit juices insist theyre some kind of godlike elixer of everything from bone health to limitless endurance. Now technically we're supposed to have regulatory agencies to police this sort of action, but american regulatory agencies are double-booked with mandates to simultaneously promote and police their industry. Theyre as useful as wheels on a fish, and at best they affirm product recalls due to life-threatening contamination.
If youve never tried to buy a car in america, its largely the same. theres no concern for your budget or real money as it pertains to your specific earnings. The entire event is predicated with an understanding that you as a customer will finance your purchase, so there isnt much to stop a sale aside from gas prices. youll be sold on christlike reliability and power, and fuel economy where applicable. Big questions like maintenance costs and carbon footprint are avoided.
so when a trade deal comes down the pipe and it sounds too good to be true, take it from us (it is.) We were sold NAFTA and in turn we lost our manufacturing to south america. We were told goods and services would be cheaper to produce, and in a perverse sort of way they were. WalMart peddled sweatshop clothing and chinese plastic trinkets at rock-bottom prices to a middle class that now basically had no alternative but to concede to their purchase now that they had to take a job at a call center for a fraction of what they made at their old workplace. Countries like Viet Nam and Nicaragua which historically resisted our "free trade" came around to our idea of the marketplace once sponsored rebel groups like the Contra razed their hospitals and blew up their schools for daring to vote a candidate that didnt embrace capitalism.
what we call trade is pretty laughable. American cars are made in mexico and china, and we ardently prop the automotive industry with bailouts we quixotically insist will create or maintain jobs without realizing the goal of our trade policy is to extinguish the costliest element of our commerce, the american worker. when we say EU trade agreement we mean to target your poorest countries to assemble wiring harnesses for slave labor. We mean to flood your markets with corn and other commodities that will render your farmers bankrupt, just as we have in Mexico. We want you to use dangerous chemical processes because former east block countries with socialized medicine and laughable environmental standards amounts to very little concern for when we poison an entire city and leave So heed this warning:
we as a nation have left no stone unturned in our relentless quest to crush the world in poverty, desolation, and ruin under the sunny phrase 'free trade.' We wish to render you wholly dependent upon American goods, be they healthy or not, because it makes our next war that much easier to secure your consent to participate.
Good people go to bed earlier.
They need the agreements so that they can hash out how to allow trade for large multi-national corporations, while forbidding it to all private individuals, because allowing individuals to import things without barriers would lead to anarchy... or something like that.... For example, In Canada our auto manufacturers can produce their cars anywhere in the world and ship them in to the country, due to various free trade agreements they can often do this without any tariffs getting in their way. However as a consumer it is illegal for me to buy a car in a different country and import it myself. (with some small exceptions for cars from the USA, however even then the auto manufacturers write the list of which cars are allowed to be imported)
We have similar rules for many different industries, automotive is just one of the most obvious ones. Remember, "Free" trade is never the goal of any of these agreements, increased regulation for consumers, coupled with job movement to lower cost jurisdictions, combined with fewer trade barriers for multi-national corporations is what you can expect every single time.