Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TheBlackAdder

(29,593 posts)
43. That's why the TPP really sucks. Free trade is not what you think it is.
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 04:13 AM
Dec 2016

.


I took a global emerging economies course over the summer.

China is kicking US and EU ass right now because we are pushing for Millennial Development Goals to prop up global income.


The EU and US goes to a country and lays down all kinds of trade requirements. Sales are company-based, for the most part and the company can cancel contracts whenever they want. China says, "Hey, Brazil! Fuck dealing with the US, if you deal with us, we'll give you a 25 year guaranteed contract, with built in price increases -AND- we won't hold you to any labor, environmental, banking, etc. requirements that the other countries are pushing." In another 2 years, China will be the major trading partner with 1/2 of Central and South American countries--forsaking the US.

China acts as a mercantile nation, they don't deal on an individual business level, they deal on an entire country need level. They are positioning themselves for the next 3 decades ahead. They have over a million square miles of African croplands... (who knew there was that much?) and almost as much in other nations combined.


If TPP were to pass, China is the only country not signing onto it. Why not?

Because when all of the Pacific Rim countries are locked in with specialized trade agreements that force social needs and demands to audits, inspections, regulations, etc... China will do what they did in the Americas, and say "Hey, Indonesia! Fuck the U.S., trade with us and we'll lock you in for 25 years and we won't hold you to any other demands!" They will have cornered the market.



Now, how China is like Wal*Mart (besides all the Chinese stuff Wal*Mart sells):

Wal*Mart pays low wages so labor is forced to subsidie their income by going on public assistance. This is something that most businesses can not get away with. When a new Wal*Mart moves into an area, they sell goods below the area or even below costs, as the other store pick up that loss. Local companies go out of business because people flock to the cheap stuff. As more and more people lose wages, as the local economy depresses, more people are force to shop at Wal*Mart--further accellerating the economic decline and bolstering Wal*Mart's profits.

China is that as a mercantile nation, they buy raw goods from a country, say Ecuador. Ship it over to China and return with a finished product that sells for less than what the US or EU provides. Since the pay is lower, and as more and more people are forced to buy cheaper Chinese goods, that gives China employment while putting Ecuadorians out of work--further driving demand for cheap Chinese goods.



Now, I'm leaving out a whole pile, such as how US Aid and World Bank are agents to make countries dependent on the US.

But, your plan sounds good in theory, but lacks in the implementation phase, because as the delays in ramping up industry occurs, more jobs are lost. The billionaires are offshoring their money in Luxembourg to dodge US taxes, as the US is now seen as a declining economy. They are positioning themselves for the next markets that are starting to emerge--which is NOT the US.



And, with many corporations, if there is a publicly traded stock, the board members can be sued if they do not look out for the shareholders. This means, if there is an option to offshore, they are legally bound to assess those options.

Nothing will change unless that exposure is removed from corporate board decisions. And, we all know that the major shareholders want to see returns over the commodified costs of labor.

.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

well guess I won't run again then :-) msongs Dec 2016 #1
If this is the first we'd heard of your 2016 candidacy, that's probably just as well. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #8
Martin O'Malley didn't seem too bad. putitinD Dec 2016 #2
That's why I voted Not Sure. TransitJohn Dec 2016 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author Duckhunter935 Dec 2016 #3
Agreed Travis_0004 Dec 2016 #4
I agree bravenak Dec 2016 #47
O'Malley probably could. temporary311 Dec 2016 #5
whoever wants to run should do it. JI7 Dec 2016 #6
I think O'Malley should run again. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #9
I think Clinton and Sanders should not run. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author Duckhunter935 Dec 2016 #13
Agree with above Kathy M Dec 2016 #17
If there's one thing this election proved, Bernie is a viable candidate ... Onlooker Dec 2016 #11
People won't want what Bernie is selling next time NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #15
Your example is ludicrous ms liberty Dec 2016 #18
VCRs first came to the US in 1977, not 1981 NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #23
Had one kinda like that. kerouac2 Dec 2016 #19
I remember the corded remotes, lol NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #24
Yep, everybody wants that $5 toaster. That's why Amazon & Wal*Mart are destroying business. TheBlackAdder Dec 2016 #41
That's exactly the case, and why everyone will hate the results of limiting trade NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #42
That's why the TPP really sucks. Free trade is not what you think it is. TheBlackAdder Dec 2016 #43
Trade is a very complicated issue that most people really don't understand fully NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #59
this. Joe941 Dec 2016 #49
Well, thankfully, almost NO ONE besides HRC sought the nomination. Gee, I wonder why that was? Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author Duckhunter935 Dec 2016 #14
Chafee and Webb ran. Biden might have had his son not died. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #20
You are kidding yourself if you think there wasnt a concerted deck-clearing by the party Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #22
I suspect Warren prefers being a Senator. 14 candidates is not something to aspire to. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #28
And all that would have been a convincing argument, had she actually won the electoral college. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #29
So, you'd prefer the clusterfuck that was the GOP nominating process? TwilightZone Dec 2016 #33
You're kidding yourself if you believe there was field clearing metroins Dec 2016 #51
sure. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #60
She was the heavy favorite in 2008, very popular in the party and served the sitting president. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #35
I understand, but there have been good arguments made that the "they waited their turn" approach Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #36
Thankfully, the party won't be doing that in 2020 for the folks that ran in 2016. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #37
True, and I said many times this past year that no matter what happens, we need to expand our bench Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #40
Nah. You should have to lose twice before you should be encouraged to sit down. FBaggins Dec 2016 #16
Why shouldn't Martin O'Malley run again? n/t tammywammy Dec 2016 #21
because he's kind of the candidate equivalent of the Dave Matthews Band? Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #30
None of the 3 candidates who ran in 2016 should think about seeking the 2020 nomination mtnsnake Dec 2016 #25
Dem nominee for 2020... True Dough Dec 2016 #26
You do know ol'Dwayne's a registered Rethug, right? Ken Burch Dec 2016 #32
He is! True Dough Dec 2016 #44
we need to make sure it's Democratic party Members only. stonecutter357 Dec 2016 #27
Nothing good would have come from barring Bernie. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #31
After spending decades bashing the Dem party, including during the primaries. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #34
3rd party run better to you? nt JCanete Dec 2016 #45
HA there it is. You totally denied pushing Sanders and yet..... bettyellen Dec 2016 #53
Not pushing him...just not accepting the idea that he should never have run. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #58
if they dont have the jacket, they can forget it NRQ891 Dec 2016 #38
Disagree... SidDithers Dec 2016 #39
wish I liked O'malley better. He came across as inauthentic to me, but that was the JCanete Dec 2016 #46
I'm good with O'Malley seeking it again BainsBane Dec 2016 #48
Disagree LP2K12 Dec 2016 #50
Too soon to tell... Mike Nelson Dec 2016 #52
Unsure: Depends on which candidate we're talking about CajunBlazer Dec 2016 #54
Not for POTUS jack69 Dec 2016 #55
dynamic new Dems jack69 Dec 2016 #57
I would support Hillary Clinton again Gothmog Dec 2016 #56
Martin o'malley should be able to seek it again. nt La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #61
I don't think O'Malley did anything worthy of being ostracized Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2016 #62
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Agree or disagree with th...»Reply #43