TPPA: Kelsey vs Mapp debate

21 comments on “TPPA: Kelsey vs Mapp debate ”

• Comments are now closed

1. karol 1

   18 October 2013 at 6:53 pm

   Thanks, Lynn and Lyn for making this available, and putting it on the public record.

   As I recall, the main argument from Wayne is that Free Trade is very good for an “exporting nation” such as NZ. The TPPA is one all the countries are part of and New Zealand will lose if it is not part of it.

   From Kelsey: It’s so much more than a Trade Agreement. The lack of transparency means we don’t know what we are signing up to. And even after we sign, the US Congress can interpret it as suits themselves and not as it suits us. And, of course, major issues of sovereignty. And there are people and groups in many of the countries involved that are criticising the deal. We should be following Aussie’s lead in contesting some of the corporate demands. It’s basically a deal that suits the US government and multinational corporates.
   • Macro 1.1

     18 October 2013 at 9:42 pm

     “Free Trade is very good for an “exporting nation” ”

     Free trade is very good for international corporations and no one else.

     Take for example the clothing industry in the states – up until 20 years ago it employed over 650,000 people. Today they have cheap clothing – which falls apart as soon as it is washed – and over 500,000 jobs which were above minimum wage have been lost ( a trained machinist earned good money ). Similarly the clothing industry in NZ has been decimated, only the top end is manufactured here. Great we have cheap clothes – but the social cost is more unemployment and depressed wages. This is only one example of the costs of a “globalised economy” there are many, many, more. But Wayne does not consider these factors as important, because he has no connection with the average person in the street, he only listens to the uber rich.

     Not only is it stupid to export jobs to less developed countries; both from a social welfare perspective and from the purpose of developing of a strong internal economy, but it undermines the very strength of a country – its ability to maintain itself in times of international crisis. Uniforms for an army for instance – yes there is a history lesson there – and we neglect our history at our peril.
     • miravox 1.1.1

       18 October 2013 at 11:00 pm

       Advocates for free trade don’t look at it from a social welfare (in it’s broadest sense) perspective, though. In terms of a justification for free trade agreements based on national well-being, the advocates look at it from a consumerist perspective.
       • Sisko 1.1.1.1

         19 October 2013 at 10:56 am

         If you’re looking at social welfare in it’s broadest sense you should spare a thought for the 300-500 million Chinese who have been raise out of poverty since the 1980s by international trade. Look beyond your neighborhood.
         • miravox 1.1.1.1.1

           19 October 2013 at 11:48 pm

           True.. But I don’t assume free trade agreements that make the working class in developed countries destitute is necessarily the only way, or even the best way to lift working classes in developing countries out of poverty.
         • Foreign Waka 1.1.1.1.2

           20 October 2013 at 12:26 pm

           Then those 300-500 million Chinese have to start improving their country. In the same way as NZlanders and so many others do. The issue of individual freedom comes into play and with it more influence on the political scene. It is taken away when ones livelihood is affected. But I guess you know that already.
         • greywarbler 1.1.1.1.3

           22 October 2013 at 2:50 pm

           Sisko
           Look into your neighbourhood and your country’s economic system. Any fool can come out with a jusification like you have. What is your job and role in this scam I wonder?
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2

         19 October 2013 at 12:36 pm

         In terms of a justification for free trade agreements based on national well-being, the advocates look at it from a consumerist perspective.

         Nope. Although the language that is used would make you think that (more choice, cheaper products, etc) the perspective that they’re looking at it from is the perspective of profit. The more profit that can be gouged out of an economy the better as far as they’re concerned no matter how many people it harms. As the increasing poverty in NZ and around the world shows, it harms a great deal.
       • mikesh 1.1.1.3

         19 October 2013 at 6:39 pm

         If the selling price, in NZ, for a shirt manufactured in NZ is $50.00, and for a similar shirt manufactured in China is $25.00, why would the the Chinese not sell the shirt for $50.00 anyway, and raise their people out of poverty even more.
         • Wayne 1.1.1.3.1

           19 October 2013 at 7:52 pm

           Because you could also buy the same shirt from Indonesia, The Phillipines, Burma and India.

           The competitive pressure means that super profits are not possible. And as we know The Warehouse and similar stores have some pretty cheap items in wide range of goods.

           When I was young, people used to make clothes at home, but who does that now. It is simply not worth it.
     • Chooky 1.1.2

       19 October 2013 at 8:59 am

       Macro +100.

       …and thanks very much for the videos Lynn and Lyn….will watch them at my leisure … a great reference!

       ….have the greatest of admiration for the work and arguments of Jane Kelsey
2. Hennie van der Merwe 2

   18 October 2013 at 10:45 pm

   I would just like to know where we are going to find all these agricultural products from to sell to the US, Canada and Japan?
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     19 October 2013 at 12:45 pm

     That’s the big question isn’t it? There’s only so much land and resources available and the farmers are already having to import food to feed the cows (palm kernel) and yet they want to produce more. The simple fact of the matter is that, as far as farming goes, we’re already well beyond what can be supported in this country. I’d say that we’re at the point of having to decrease the amounts of farm land in NZ and not increasing it or going to greater intensification.

     Then there’s the social aspect of all that exporting as it means that a lot of NZers won’t be able to afford food which is something that we’re already seeing.

     No, these FTAs don’t do NZ any good.
3. muzza 3

   19 October 2013 at 8:54 am

   If it’s going to be so beneficial for NZ, then why it is being negotiated in secret, and why will it be kept that way until years after it is signed, which it can be reasonably assumed it will be!

   Nothing to hide, nothing to fear….
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     19 October 2013 at 12:46 pm

     It’s being negotiated in secret because it only benefits the rich and the rich don’t want the rest of us to have a say in our own governance.
4. tricldrown 4

   19 October 2013 at 11:46 pm

   The price we pay is no democracy for us we end up with less rights than citizens of the US.
5. fender 5

   20 October 2013 at 12:13 pm

   Watched these videos last night, very interesting and informative, thanks to all involved in making the debate happen and making it available here.
6. Foreign Waka 6

   20 October 2013 at 12:32 pm

   These agreements are aiming at a corporatist society and in the end abolishing democracy. Your vote is one for or against a corporates wish. If a nation is “stroppy” it will pay in the currency of poverty. Then it has to appease the “master” and get into the “good” books by allowing even more exploitation.
7. Plan B 7

   20 October 2013 at 12:35 pm

   American citizens have the right to remain silent, think about it.
8. Huginn 8

   20 October 2013 at 7:29 pm

   Thanks, especially to Lyn Collie, for making this available to us. It’s very much appreciated.

Links to post

1. Cam Slater: politely being called a lying arsehole - The Standard: posted on 22 October 2013 at 2:53 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS