I translated this video of japans most famous economist Takaaki Mitsuhashi for you:
You in the anglosphere may know this guy as "the politician who cosplayed gendou from evangelion". In Japan, he's the most famous economist and has ties to many right-wing organisations in Japan.
Also: TPP thread.
So you know Japanese?
Anyone seen the recent paper explaining that according to their research since the US made the extensive trade agreements with China in the 90's, American workers have actually lost more jobs than were gained from this trade. They adjusted for all the arguments about structural changes, dying industries, and the new jobs that were made by the trade.
Their eventual conclusion was that free trade is still generally good, but China was a special case because of their sheer economies of scale and lack of regard for the environment.
Source: US census bureau.
"Free" trade and globalization take money from the lower-middle class and give it to the rich. I wish it wasn't so.
How much money does Japan most famous Economist have?
Why should I give a fuck about what he says?
>We had 8 years of growth after 2000.
i looked at the graph again so never mind i thought,at first glance, the decline didnt start until later in 2000's.(so the recession excuse that people might make is invalid)
most poeple just dont even know what FRED is
NAFTA literally starved northern mexican farmers which triggered the massive influx into the usa to work on some of the very same corporations' farms that litigated them out of business
i agree with you TPP is bad news for the citizens of the countries involved
should we be against TTP, is being against TTP a socialist perspective?
TPP is globalist, so libertarian
the real question you should be asking is who is this good for? the common narrative is it's good for consumers because it makes goods/services cheaper but that doesn't matter if you lose your job.
Hmm correlation = causation? >>1081836
The causal mechanism is that globalization makes the value of labor lower.
Supposedly the cheaper consumer goods that come from it make up for that fact.
But as you can see, that hasn't been true in 20 years, which coincidentally happens to occur right after NAFTA took full effect.
There's ample evidence that China/US trade hurt America more than it helped.
Of course China benefited greatly though.
This is essentially a globalist versus populist problem.
another point i NEVER hear pro globalisation pundits talk about is the money multiplier effects-with international trade agreements it destroyes local economies so money spent on things that you purchuse would be spent in your country by the owner, but if the owner is some foreign national none of that money will ever be spent in your country again
there are so many negatives
In his recent book "Economics Rules," Harvard economist Dani Rodrik laments how economists often portray a public consensus while disagreeing strongly in private. In effect, economists behave like scientists behind closed doors, but as preachers when dealing with the public.
Nowhere is this evangelism clearer than on the issue of trade. Ask any economist what issue they agree on, and the first answer you’re likely to hear is “free trade is good.” The general public disagrees vehemently, but economists are almost unanimous on this point.
But look at actual economics research, and you will find a very different picture. The most recent example is a paper by celebrated labor economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, titled “The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade.” The study shows that increased trade with China caused severe and permanent harm to many American workers:
im not even talking bad about money and in no way am i advocating gold based currency
what im talking about is the money multiplier effect
how does a consumer benefit when the money they spend goes to a foreign national who has no incentive to spend that money back into the consumers economy?
the money multiplier effect is a very important aspect of a strong economy
when you spend money whoever receives it spends it turns around and spends it and on and on which creates more potential in your local economy but if the money never comes back then you are getting fucked, exactly like the agreements we had with china.
that is not worth it just so I can have 12 different flavors instead of 7
only the companies that have the money to play internationally will be able to compete anyone who cant afford to fight an international company in court will get the short end of the stick
Ghana isn't going to be able to win nearly as many lawsuits against Barclays as America will.
The TPP is designed by American lawyers. Therefore the law will be biased towards us.
It's the main reason we wanted the agreement even though Peterson Institute showed that the benefit to America would be marginal at best (it's much better for ASEAN).
If you write the rules, you know the rules, and you can rule.
Trade with China in no way boosted productivity of American workers. All it did was send American production to China in exchange for cheaper consumer goods.
Only problem is that the goods didn't get cheaper because China/BRICS started demanding them more when their economies grew. So Americans became poorer as shown here >>1081836
If I understand right it means that the big US companies can (and will) buy Japan companies?
I'm sure Disney will monopolize the Anime industry in Japan. Which could bring a lot of high quality Anime but I'm sure it will all just be westernized.
Here's a graph of American productivity growth.
The growth rate peaked in 2002 and has been pretty much downhill since. The last 6 years have had the slowest productivty growth rate since 1975-1979.
A better analogy is that we prematurely got rid of all the horse drawn carriages before we could buy enough cars.
I don't support Sanders, but I do not like the TPP since I'm lower middle class.
I mean once the results start representing the rhetoric, I'll change my mind. Until then I prefer my job over saving a cent on mcdonald's toys.
Do you not understand basic economics?
When you buy something you aren't "giving money away"
The reason people buy things is because the thing they bought is worth more to them than the money they just paid for it.
the prices arent going to be that much cheaper, and even that savings will be miniscule in comparison to all the money they is not going to be spent in your country again bc the person you handed your money to is a foreign entity that has no incentive to spend money in your country
>it's good for consumers because it makes goods/services cheaper but that doesn't matter if you lose your job.
>that doesn't matter if you lose your job
Exactly. You wouldn't think a 50% discount on consumer goods is too great if you can only claim it while unemployed. I mean it's better than nothing, but you wouldn't quit your job for the discount.
>you seem like a guy who would argue that cars brought ruin to american economy, as they put the majorty of horse carriages out of business
Putting horse carriages out of business was fine -ONLY- because we replaced them with auto industry jobs. If you put horse carriages out of business and just import cars then you're definitely going to be worse off jobs-wise. I don't know how anyone can't see this.