Japans most famous Economist debunks TPP

>>1081820
>that introduction
Damn. He must bring in loads of honor to his family

>>1081820
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.

File: image.jpg (79KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1136x640px

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.

>>1081820
This guy must realize he's talking completely over their heads. They're just politely nodding and cooing over shit that they do not know and do not care about. It's pretty sad.

>>1081837
That's how 98% of conferences are.

The few that understand simply sit quietly.

>>1081841
It's not a matter of being knowledgable about the subject, it's more about awareness.

You're really giving the general public too much credit.

>>1081844
I agree. Few understand the terms, let alone the dynamics of international trade.

/biz/ is only marginay better than average.

>>1081820
I've never seen many Japanese media productions, but that was pretty odd

I guess that's supposed to be like a "fun news" show type thing?

>>1081836
couldnt that pic be said to be in support of nafta/tpp? they can say "its just a recession"

>>1081866
Japanese are odd.

They aren't all that Americanized.

>>1081876
How?

We had 8 years of growth after 2000.

File: 1372914578329.png (2KB, 142x138px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 142x138px

How much money does Japan most famous Economist have?

Why should I give a fuck about what he says?

>>1081880
>We had 8 years of growth after 2000.
GDP growth?

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
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/

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

File: 777.gif (674KB, 443x443px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 443x443px

should we be against TTP, is being against TTP a socialist perspective?

>>1081885
He probably is in the millions. He appears on hundreds of shows and is a member of parliament.

Let's just say that he has a more populist view of free trade (as do I).

>>1081894
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.

>>1081894
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.

>>1081896
I'm a libertarian though, I havent paid any attention to this stuff whatsoever.

>>1081896
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-28/china-trade-shock-for-u-s-workers-was-avoidable
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-26/free-trade-with-china-wasn-t-such-a-great-idea

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.

>>1081902
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

>>1081908
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:

>>1081820
Torrent and anime might be dead, right?

>>1081820
Thank you anon.

He cosplayed Gendo?
Pics?

>>1081915
>harm to many american workers
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

>>1081977
see>>1081913
its basically extracting a huge sum of money out of your countries economy

>>1081986
>i look at a trade situation by only examining imports into my country, and I also do not understand anything about currency exchanges and how they would behave if i was correct.

>>1081992
>>1081986
and forgot
>i still fall for pre-smithian mercantile philosophy that the amount of shiny metal or pieces of paper tell me how rich i am

>>1081992
>>1081997
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

>>1081820
Idiot here, so pretty much what he's saying is America is about to make Japan it's bitch but only for wealthy Americans and lawyers?

Why is America such a law suit heavy country?

>>1082014
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

>>1081977
That an excerpt from the peer-reviewed research paper these economists developed over the last three years.

Also, what a horrible horrible analogy.

>>1082018
This.

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.

>>1081977
What?

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

>>1081820
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.

>>1082018
Lord have mercy .

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>1082048
Cont:
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.

File: image.jpg (91KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1136x640px

>>1082060
Here it is.

>>1082050
That already can happen, although this makes it much easier.
TPP is interesting because it has to do with services as well.
It also enables companies to sue the state over "trade violations."

>>1082069
And these are why I support sanders.
Fuck the tpp

>>1082091
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.

>>1082012
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.

>>1082105
I can respect that.

>>1082343
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

>>1081896
>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.

>>1081977
>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.