The One You Haven't Heard About: The Trade In Services Agreement

[josephpalazzo]

It is a system that nobody would cheat at is it? la la land
and your second assertion lets just look at the wars that are going on now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
List of ongoing armed conflicts

Did you see the number of civil wars and internal conflicts there are? How many nation on nation conflicts are there? Even presuming the nation on nation conflicts are between nations that have no inter-dependence your assertion does not seem to have any substance does it?

I don't think you understand the issues being discussed in this thread. We're talking about countries that are part of free trade agreement, such as NAFTA, EU or the TPP in the OP, not just any country, which your list clearly indicates are at war, which is precisely my point.

[stromboli]

You people do love to argue and I love to watch. So much fun.

Elizabeth Warren has not a lot of clout and I have none. I'm not worried personally because I own everything I need and have the financial wherewithal to buy what I want. Ultimately the corporations will do what they want and they have input into government I don't have, so it will eventually go the way they want. Sad, but that is reality.

[jonb]

I don't think you understand the issues being discussed in this thread. We're talking about countries that are part of free trade agreement, such as NAFTA, EU or the TPP in the OP, not just any country, which your list clearly indicates are at war, which is precisely my point.

I do there are a good number of Brits who do not wish even to be part of the EU. Of the groups I speak to there is a great deal of reticence about how the international trade agreements are being administered now, let alone proposed agreements.
There is a presumption that bigger is better, this is far from true there is if anything a growing number of people that are interested in ideas around smaller states which are more responsive to the local populations.
Think about it this way, I pay a slightly higher price per unit of the gas and electricity I use, because I have chosen a payment plan which gives me better control both out of what I use and when I pay. This benefits me greatly. I do not want a standardized payment plan even if superficially it may seem cheaper. You seem not to be able to recognize that anybody might want other than the cheapest possible low quality goods. The most basic part of Adam Smith's capitalism is the right of choice.

On war
To reduce what you are talking about down to countries which are not at war and then saying it will prevent war is it seems silly to say the least, especially when talking about global. If you state a general principle to back your argument it has to have some substance to it, if you want any sort of persuasive argument.

[jonb]

You people do love to argue and I love to watch. So much fun.

Elizabeth Warren has not a lot of clout and I have none. I'm not worried personally because I own everything I need and have the financial wherewithal to buy what I want. Ultimately the corporations will do what they want and they have input into government I don't have, so it will eventually go the way they want. Sad, but that is reality.

The king of France owned all of France. Once the people of France realised they were working and paying taxes to support a system that did not benefit them the king fell as he had no support. Britain and America have had relatively few revolutions partly because even though those in control have rigorously pursued self interest at the point of fracture they often pull back enough to allow sufficient to the aggrieved so that they can retain power. One has to wonder if the corporations and banks have the sort of structure that would enable them to do this? How would a C.E.O. explain to the shareholders he has given all their money away this year?
Hopefully big business is intelligent enough to not push too much, but the truth is no system lasts if one party in it only takes. That is reality.

[Baruch]

Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences

I think I'll get this one.  Why?  Because the cost of Keen's books at Amazon are extraordinarily high (one book is a phenomenal $164), and I can buy a used copy of this one for eleven dollars.  But it's a place to start. 

I actually find economics a fascinating topic, although it reminds me a lot of philosophy and politics.  Basically, you either favor a certain brand, perhaps for some unexplainable reason or you don't for a similar reason.  Even less senseless than that, you may favor a brand because the party you affiliate with favors it.  Whether the brand accomplishes good or bad is secondary to how it titillates you.  It's like poor Republicans voting for Republicans when the end result is that they will only get poorer, or liberals voting for a Democrat who sides with corporate America.  And then as they watch the environment get trashed and the cost of prescription drugs soar into space, they satisfy their sense of loss by believing their vote at least went to a guy who had his heart in the right place.

Still, I like learning about economics.  I liked it in college, but I only took an introductory course.  Whether right or wrong, economics can be thought provoking, and it most certainly affects your life.

Don't bother listening to anyone whose model couldn't predict 2008 ... if it has no accurate prediction, it is bull shit.  There were less than 6 economists who predicted 2008, one of which is Dr Keene.  Aside from those, they are frauds, just like Adam Smith.

TPP may have already cut in.  They just cut the access to prescription pain meds again in my state, maybe in other states.  You can't get a multi month prescription as of 2013 ... so they went with single month prescription, but the doctor had to re-approve the script ... and that is OK.  Then that wasn't enough, they force us in 2014 to have to pick up the re-approval by hand, face to face in the doctor's office, the doctor's office can't call it into the pharmacy.  So now in 2015 they just changed it this week ... now that isn't enough, you have to actually see the doctor for an exam, before you can get the re-approval.  So that means my mother must to to the doctor every single month, to get the most essential meds renewed ... the doctor's most recent visit isn't enough.  Problem is, can you get a doctor's visit every month, for that prescription limited to month-to-month?

[josephpalazzo]

I do there are a good number of Brits who do not wish even to be part of the EU. Of the groups I speak to there is a great deal of reticence about how the international trade agreements are being administered now, let alone proposed agreements.
There is a presumption that bigger is better, this is far from true there is if anything a growing number of people that are interested in ideas around smaller states which are more responsive to the local populations.

Most countries have states/provinces, and these are further divided along counties/municipalities. So these smaller jurisdictions are amply equipped to look after local issues. So that is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Think about it this way, I pay a slightly higher price per unit of the gas and electricity I use, because I have chosen a payment plan which gives me better control both out of what I use and when I pay. This benefits me greatly. I do not want a standardized payment plan even if superficially it may seem cheaper. You seem not to be able to recognize that anybody might want other than the cheapest possible low quality goods. The most basic part of Adam Smith's capitalism is the right of choice.

The right of choice is meaningless if the product you're buying are subject to the tariff/quota imposed by your government are so stringent that very few companies can offer you the same product/service at a cheaper price.

On war
To reduce what you are talking about down to countries which are not at war and then saying it will prevent war is it seems silly to say the least, especially when talking about global. If you state a general principle to back your argument it has to have some substance to it, if you want any sort of persuasive argument.

Take NAFTA - which countries in that trade agreement will likely go to war against each other? Which countries in the EU will likely go to war against each other? Answer: none. I'm not saying that it is impossible they will go to war against each other, but very, very unlikely. That is one of the many benefit of these trade agreements. Are there downsides to these agreements? Sure, no agreement is perfect - they are fashioned by humans who are imperfect creatures.  But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, otherwise they would have collapsed a long time ago. Also, they are always subject to change/improvements as the countries participating are doing it willingly.

[Baruch]

The "countries" aren't making agreements.  The governments are making the agreements.  And unfortunately, the feral governments have lost their legitimacy with the people.  I see this all over the world, developed and developing.  Dictatorship and oppression is the ultimate form of society ... not Marx's government-less communism.  Without legitimacy, the government (as controlled by an elite) is no more stable or legitimate than a Mafia gang.  Without stability, trade agreements won't matter ... just where your gun ammo is.  When the elite become lawless ... their peasants follow suit.

[josephpalazzo]

The "countries" aren't making agreements.  The governments are making the agreements.  And unfortunately, the feral governments have lost their legitimacy with the people.  I see this all over the world, developed and developing.  Dictatorship and oppression is the ultimate form of society ... not Marx's government-less communism.  Without legitimacy, the government (as controlled by an elite) is no more stable or legitimate than a Mafia gang.  Without stability, trade agreements won't matter ... just where your gun ammo is.  When the elite become lawless ... their peasants follow suit.

Define a "legitimate" government.

[Baruch]

A legitimate government is one that manages to maintain the support of the people it is managing.  This failed in 1788 in France ... and at other times and other places.  That is a practical definition.  But since it is based on delusion and deceit ... the ultimate definition is that no government is legitimate.  But lets ignore that for now.  Human beings and their BS organizations are ... monkey shit.

[josephpalazzo]

A legitimate government is one that manages to maintain the support of the people it is managing.  This failed in 1788 in France ... and at other times and other places.  That is a practical definition.  But since it is based on delusion and deceit ... the ultimate definition is that no government is legitimate.  But lets ignore that for now.  Human beings and their BS organizations are ... monkey shit.

Would that mean that Khamenei in Iran, with support of 95% of the population, is legitimate; while Cameron in the UK with 36% is less legitimate? Can you clarify?

[Baruch]

You took the words right out of my mouth!  Yes, Cameron is ... less legitimate than Khameni ... assuming an honest pole.  Congress in the US is so unpopular ... we should be speaking French now.

[josephpalazzo]

You took the words right out of my mouth!  Yes, Cameron is ... less legitimate than Khameni ... assuming an honest pole.  Congress in the US is so unpopular ... we should be speaking French now.

Duh, in the first round, French President Hollande got less than 30% of the vote. From your POV, he is definitely not legitimate. You should learn Russian - Putin has an approval rate of 86%.

[jonb]

Most countries have states/provinces, and these are further divided along counties/municipalities. So these smaller jurisdictions are amply equipped to look after local issues. So that is irrelevant to the present discussion.

If the country is restricted by a trade agreement from implementing a policy that the population wants because a foreign company does not like it then that very much is relevant.

The right of choice is meaningless if the product you're buying are subject to the tariff/quota imposed by your government are so stringent that very few companies can offer you the same product/service at a cheaper price.

If I and my country people cannot have what we want, because an external company in another part of the world can extract monies from our country that tarif is a direct restriction on our choice.
 

Take NAFTA - which countries in that trade agreement will likely go to war against each other? Which countries in the EU will likely go to war against each other? Answer: none. I'm not saying that it is impossible they will go to war against each other, but very, very unlikely. That is one of the many benefit of these trade agreements. Are there downsides to these agreements? Sure, no agreement is perfect - they are fashioned by humans who are imperfect creatures.  But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, otherwise they would have collapsed a long time ago. Also, they are always subject to change/improvements as the countries participating are doing it willingly.

So countries which are not going to go to war, are not going to go to war because they implement a new trade agreement you say, or is it that countries which are not going to go to war don't go to war and the stuff you say that trade agreements affect on this is irrelevant.

I state once again there are significant numbers in the EU and this seems if anything to be on the rise that are rejecting it as a system of government. The Shah of Iran had a linage of kings that went back more than two thousand years. In 1978 you could use exactly the same justification for his rule as you are currently using for the EU etc, problem for the Shah was what happened in 1979.

[josephpalazzo]

If the country is restricted by a trade agreement from implementing a policy that the population wants because a foreign company does not like it then that very much is relevant.

It's an agreement - that means the participating countries willingly signed on. If you as an individual don't like it, tough luck.

So countries which are not going to go to war, are not going to go to war because they implement a new trade agreement you say, or is it that countries which are not going to go to war don't go to war and the stuff you say that trade agreements affect on this is irrelevant.

Historically tariff/quotas came about on the presumption of war - if our country goes to war, we don't want our country starving or lacking of such goods and services, so let's protect those with tariff/quotas. With free trade agreement, reducing and eventual eliminating those tariffs/quotas, it becomes very hard for a country to go to war. Since now it becomes dependent on those countries to supply needed goods/services. That is the meaning behind what I said earlier - "Countries under a free trade agreement become inter-dependent."

The Shah of Iran had a linage of kings that went back more than two thousand years. In 1978 you could use exactly the same justification for his rule as you are currently using for the EU etc, problem for the Shah was what happened in 1979.

Iran is one country, and it was NOT in any free trade agreement with any other country. OTOH, NAFTA includes 15 countries, the EU 28 countries, and the TPP will involve 12 countries and a population of 800 million people.

[jonb]

So as you have not been able to justify your assertions, you are now editing my comments so you can answer propositions which have not been made. . . . sad.