Posts
--> TPPA: Doomsday scenarios, Critics, and flights of fancy
6
December 2012
.
.
The
debate of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is hotting
up.
Recent
pieces in the NZ Herald by Professor Jane Kelsey and right wing
columnist, Fran O’Sullivan, gave opposing views on the
current secret negotiations.
As
usual, Professor’s Kelsey’s column was a reasoned, critical
analysis of the potential consequences of a TPPA on our
society, and economy. Kelsey deals in facts and her writing did not
disappoint. (See: Jane
Kelsey: Pacific deal masks bigger plan)
By
contrast, O’Sullivan’s pro-TPPA piece was a bizarre rant and
whinge as to why Auckland University was not promoting pro-TPPA
arguments. As if it was compulsory for
Universities to promote and advance right-wing, “free” market
ideology and agendas? (See: Anti-trade
camp running debate)
Another
piece in the Herald,
by lawyer Daniel Kalderimis, assured us that disputes between
investors and states were real, but could be addressed.
“No one would sanely deny that there aren’t risks. But the key question is are those risks a deal breaker or can they be mitigated? I think they can be mitigated.”
Well,
he would say
that, wouldn’t he? Kaldermis is a trade
lawyer who makes his living from “mitigating”
international investor-nation disputes.
(The
vultures are circling already…)
Another
somewhat equally ludicrous pro-TPPA piece came from Stephen Jacobi,
executive director of the NZ US Council and the NZ International
Business Forum, on 18 Ocober,
.
.
Jacobi’s
statements demand a critical de-construction…
” A recent survey of 1018 New Zealanders found that over 60.5 per cent believed New Zealand needed to do more to connect with global markets. While 85.7 per cent could not name the deal under negotiation with the United States and other Asia Pacific economies, when prompted 51.6 per cent said they had heard of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). 56.3 per cent said they supported TPP and only 13.4 per cent said they opposed it. 30.4 per cent said they had no view or didn’t care. “
It’s
hardly surprising that the issue of the TPPA does not rate more
highly in New Zealander’s consciousness.
With
few exceptions, our media has been woefully lacking in promoting
informative debate on complex issues faces this country.
Fairfax
media has been gutted, as sub-editors and other reporting staff
numbers have been seriously cut back.
Even
television current affairs programmes ( The
Nation, Q+A,
and Think
Tank)
are relegated to early morning time slots on the weekends.
The
only in-depth, serious coverage on radio is by Radio New
Zealand.
This
blogger recently had an opportunity to listen to what passes for
“News” on ‘The
Rock‘
– a Wellington radio station. It’s two-minute long hourly “news”
programme consisted predominantly of crime stories. Items of a
political nature or social issues are rarely, if ever,
canvassed.
Talkback
radio? Idiot voices screaming at other idiot voices on issues that
idiots know little about.
No
wonder that the most critical trade agreement in our history is about
to be passed, and “30.4%
said they had no view or didn’t care“.
If
New Zealanders realised that our medicines might increase by 50%,
75%, 100%, or X% – then perhaps more New Zealanders might care.
I
know! Let’s put it into terms that even the most dimmest
low-information voter can compehend,
.
.
Amokura Kawharu said her conclusions were based on the leaked text of the investment chapter.
“If that is the final form for the TPP then there will be an extensive provision in there prohibiting what are called ‘performance requirements’.”
It prohibited incentives for supporting local industry.
See: IBID
So
there we have it; no government subsidies = no movies = we can kiss
bye-bye to our little hairy-footed mates if the TPPA goes through.
.
.
That
should grab our collective attention by our short’n'curlies.
Returning
to Mr Jacobi’s written piece in the Herald,
“The Government will need to decide what best meets New Zealand’s interests in this area but it is more likely to do so in the context of domestic policy processes rather than a trade negotiation.”
That
is either highly disingenuous – or Mr Jacobi has an almost
quasi-religious faith in our government. Which is strange, as
neo-libs generally have very little faith in the State and are
constantly railing that private enterprise “does it better” than
governments.
At
any rate, the last 30 years of de-regulation, resulting in thousands
of jobs being lost to overseas nations with cheaper labour costs,
prove the lie to that claim. If governments’ policies were truly
determined by “ what best
meets New Zealand’s interests …in the context of domestic
policy “,
neo-liberal de-regulation would never have been implemented on such a
wide-ranging, destructive scale in this country.
Successive
governments since 1984 have been hand-cuffed to de-regulated
marketplace and fiscal policies.
” That’s also why this process needs to take place behind closed doors, at least until consensus is forged.
This is not the same as secrecy – it’s no secret TPP talks are taking place in Auckland in December. “
Wha-???
A
process taking place behind closed doors is not the same
as secrecy?!?!
Since
when was the definition of secrecy re-written without anyone’s
knowledge?
What
other definitions has Ms Jacobi re-written, on the sly?
.
.
.
.
.
.
So
let’s not forget; for TPPA supporters, something taking
place behind closed doors is not the same as secrecy.
“ At that time any public stakeholders who register their interest will be able to meet with negotiators as they have done in every other negotiating round. “
Meaning
what, precisely? Will that allow journalists; members of Parliament;
and other interested parties the right to full disclosure of
information regarding the TPPA?
If
not, then Mr Jacobi’s comments are meaningless drivel.
“ Those on all sides of the TPP debate will do so and they should, to ensure negotiators are aware of their concerns. New Zealand negotiators are extremely open to this and meet regularly with those for and against TPP. “
Ok,
now Jacobi is of into La La Land, on a Jet
Star flight
of fancy…
I
wonder who, precisely, New Zealand negotiators are meeting
regularly, who are “against
the TPP“?
” Once their job is complete the fruits of their labours will need to be presented to Parliament for ratification and all New Zealanders can participate in the select committee process. That’s how we make treaties and change laws in this country. “
Yes,
Mr Jacobi, that is precisely “ how
we make treaties and change laws in this country”
– on Planet Key.
Unfortunately,
things are not quite so rosy and wonderfully democractic in New
Zealand, Planet Earth.
For
example; public submissions on the issue of partial privatisation of
our state assets numbered1,400.
Less than 1% were in favour of privatisation.
National
has ignored the remaining 99% of submitters and is proceeding with
asset sales. (See: Asset
sales protest gears up)
Where
is the “participation
in the select committee process”
that Mr Jacobi speaks of?
“The bigger picture behind all this is why New Zealand needs to participate in trade negotiations at all. The answer can be found in the difficult economic environment in which we find ourselves today. All around the world governments and citizens are asking what can be done to boost economic growth, create jobs and meet the expanding social needs of our communities.”
Mr
Jacobi is being hopelessly naive if he believes that free trade
agreements “create jobs”.
Well,
they do, actually. They take jobs from countries such as New Zealand
– and create them in low-wage countries such as India, Pakistan,
Fiji, China, etc.
In
fact, the United States seems to have not done very well out of a
previous free trade agreement called NAFTA (North American Free Trade
Agreement),
NAFTA’s opponents attribute much of the displacement caused in the US labor market to the United States’ growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. According to theEconomic Policy Institute, rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted led to the net displacement of 682,900 U.S. jobs by 2010. Critics see the argument of the proponents of NAFTA as being one-sided because they only take into consideration export-oriented job impact instead of looking at the trade balance, also known as net exports. They argue that increases in imports ultimately displaced the production of goods that would have been made domestically by workers within the United States.
The export-oriented argument is also critiqued because of the discrepancy between domestically produced exports and exports produced in foreign countries. For example, many US exports are simply being shipped to Mexican maquiladores where they are assembled, and then shipped back to the U.S. as final products. These are not products destined for consumption by Mexicans, yet they made up 61% of exports in 2002. However, only domestically produced exports are the ones that support U.S. labor. Therefore, the measure of net impact of trade should be calculated using only domestically produced exports as an indicator of job creation.
According to the Economic Policy Institute’s study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs. Certain states with heavy emphasis on manufacturing industries like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California were significantly affected by these job losses. For example, in Ohio, Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-TAA identified 14,653 jobs directly lost due to NAFTA-related reasons like relocation of U.S. firms to Mexico. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center attributed 150,000 job losses in the state to the rising U.S. trade deficit. Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada. Although many of these workers laid off due to NAFTA were reallocated to other sectors, the majority of workers were relocated to the service industry, where average wages are 4/5 to that of the manufacturing sector.
An increase in domestic manufacturing output and a proportionally greater domestic investment in manufacturing does not necessarily mean an increase in domestic manufacturing jobs; this increase may simply reflect greater automation and higher productivity. Although the U.S. total civilian employment may have grown by almost 15 million in between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing jobs only increased by 476,000 in the same time period. Furthermore from 1994 to 2007, net manufacturing employment has declined by 3,654,000, and during this period several other free trade agreements have been concluded or expanded
And
our free trade agreement with China is resulting in similar loss of
jobs,
An announcement today 430 jobs are set to go at Fisher & Paykel Appliances’ Dunedin factory, virtually spells the end of the line for whiteware production in New Zealand.
F&P is following the lead of New Zealand garment manufacturer Icebreaker which does design and research in New Zealand but manufactures in low-cost China.
How
many jobs were “created” in Dunedin’s Hillside railway yards,
when contracts to build locomotives were awarded to Chinese
manufacturers? See: Dozens
of railway workshop jobs to go
How
many jobs were “created” by Rakon Industries, as they shifted
their production to China? See:Rakon
blames job cuts on high dollar
How
many jobs did Dynamic Controls “create” when they shifted
manufacturing to China in 2007? See: Jobs
to go in closure of Dynamic Controls wing
And
the list goes on… 40,000 manufacturing jobs lost, since 2008.
(See: National’s
Hands-Off Approach Failing New Zealand)
Many of those jobs have been ‘exported’ to China, since the FTA
was signed between that nation and New Zealand on 7 April 2008 and
came into effect on 1 October of the same year. (See: New
Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement )
So
is Mr Jacobi lying or woefully ignorant of the facts? Let the reader
decide.
Next,
from Mr Jacobi,
“A conservative estimate is that TPP could add $2.1 billion to the New Zealand economy by 2025 or just under 1 per cent of GDP.”
Really?
Who
gets that $2.1 billion, Mr Jacobi? Is it workers? Local businesses
here in New Zealand? Or corporate shareholders somewhere else?
And
how many more unemployed, Mr Jacobi?
Who
pays for thousands more unemployed? The taxpayer no doubt.
But
the strangest, most laughable comment from Mr Jacobi comes when he
admonishes TPPA critics with,
“Rather than giving in to doomsday scenarios we should listen to New Zealanders who instinctively know that trade works and this country’s economic livelihood is to be found in global markets.”
Yeah,
we can’t have “doomsday scenarios”, eh, Mr Jacobi. Like
the muppet who
made this moronic comment,
“No one wants to see prices go up or the internet collapse.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.