Transpacific Partnership 11

These countries will sign one of the biggest free trade agreements in a few weeks

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

goonsaloon.pro/intj/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It will help Canada and Mexico because it will allow them to act as a tariff free gateway into the American market for the other countries.
However in the case of Canada it will hurt their economy in the long run.
We should end NAFTA and let the rest of the world equalize their wealth into shithole status with free trade agreements.

Are you against free market?

Fucking commie

>japan, Vietnam (china 2.0), Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei get Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile as a dumping ground for their exports.
It's a shame for the former group that only three of the nations are decent to dump exports in. No doubt that's an area of disappointment.

>implying that Trump is a commie
i agree with free trade but it isn't commie trick.

>>implying that Trump is a commie

He's not a commie but he's conservative and protective as fuck

its bullshit. trump was smart to pull out. nz is more fucked than ever, but when was NZ not fucked

>We should end NAFTA and let the rest of the world equalize their wealth into shithole status with free trade agreements
For sure. I, for one, welcome the avalanche of salt if the US enacted Import Certificates.

i dont want any part of niggers, chinks or islamic pig-dogs. the civilized world needs to sterilize all the chinks, niggers and islamic pig-dogs straight away. a nigger chink muslim free trade union would be a golden age.

Japan is the only one that makes cool shit.

>Are you against free market?
I'm against free trade. I want fair trade or no trade at all. Free trade cannot ever be fair between economically unequal nations. The less developed nations always siphon off wealth and thus stun further development in the more developed nation due to their lower wages and lack of regulation. Due to the huge population disparity between the developed and undeveloped world there will never be enough wealth to drag them up to our level, instead our living standards will only drop.
>Fucking commie
Don't bait me to bump your thread. We can have a discussion on economics like Sup Forums used to have.

>Free trade cannot ever be fair between economically unequal nations.

By that logic, there shouldn't be almost any free trade around the world.

a new pinochet will rise from the ashes to put chile back on top. and that fucking cunt Michelle Bachelet is out in march. she should be thrown from a helicopter.

japan contains the only non-white people i respect. they are some of the most non-animal people around. fearsome warriors. i hope one day to see hard core japanese nationalism rise again

>es un adolescente facho posteando en Sup Forums
kek lad, grow up

>By that logic, there shouldn't be almost any free trade around the world.
The Western world is roughly equal economically speaking. Free trade within that block wouldn't hurt as long as each country could agree on a regulatory framework that doesn't disadvantage any one nation. Unfortunately that means things like employment standards and regulations would have to have a certain uniformity which is an infringement on sovereignty but economically it would be stable and spur further development of the advanced world by opening up investment.

We should always be on guard against the perfidy of the eternal leaf.
Bilateral free trade is fine but if they decide to act as a trade hub and abuse that we should cut them off at the knees.

>things like employment standards and regulations would have to have a certain uniformity which is an infringement on sovereignty but economically it would be stable and spur further development of the advanced world by opening up investment
You're basically advocating the EU and it wouldn't ever work out like that.

>You're basically advocating the EU
Not really, I'm only spitballing the only scenario in which free trade might be economically viable which is why I made the caveat about sovereignty.
Free trade as it's practiced currently is unworkable in the long term due to its predatory relationship with Western laborers that it seeks to replace with people who will work for wages that are so low they're barely a step above indentured servants. I'd never want to be in a free market with the EU because Europeans are too inclined to authoritarian despotism of any and all varieties. Tying ourselves to them in a regulatory environment would only make us less competitive because change would be inhibited by the bureaucracy in the form of set in stone market regulations that would take an act of God to change. American pragmatism is far more dynamic and effective as shown by our greater economic output with a lower population.
That being said, the ability to invest anywhere from Seattle to Warsaw without worries would spur on technical development just by having ready access to more talent and finances across the board. Probably not worth the drawbacks although I wouldn't be opposed to fast and loose agreements that opened up certain sectors to investment from abroad.

Great even more cheap shitty Chink goods and no jobs for Australians

But Australia will be a Chinese colony within 20 years so fuck it

>Free trade as it's practiced currently is unworkable
The thing is, there is no practice of free trade that won't inherently produce systemic imbalances. Free trade is more-or-less the practice of indifference to those imbalances and pretending there's nothing unsustainable about it.

>the ability to invest anywhere from Seattle to Warsaw without worries
There's no evidence to show that open and free capital flows lead to economic growth. In fact, free capital flows tend to lead to much greater speculative activity and less meaningful, productive investment.

As demonstrated by Bretton Woods, fixed exchange rates and capital controls to sustain in work tremendously to encourage long-term, productive investment in the real economy.

>The thing is, there is no practice of free trade that won't inherently produce systemic imbalances.
The entire goal of trade, "free" or otherwise is the creation of imbalances so someone can come out on top. Either a nation or a wealthy group of people exerting an inordinate amount of control of trade policies. That's why the notion of free trade that shafts American workers while enriching the investment class is such a farce.
>There's no evidence to show that open and free capital flows lead to economic growth.
If it's a good investment it will lead to growth for someone. I'd rather employ a good team of programmers from Wroclaw instead of soyboys and affirmative action hires from Frisco.
>As demonstrated by Bretton Woods
You just opened a whole new can of worms. I'm bumping this.

No, fachito de mierda. El gobierno de Piñera va a ser otro desastre y el 2022 va a salir Beatriz Sanchez sí o sí. Todos los estudiantes y la elite intelectual del país estamos con ella.

>The entire goal of trade, "free" or otherwise is the creation of imbalances so someone can come out on top
That's the goal of trade policy, but not of trade in and of itself. Trade as a concept is entirely necessary and beneficial for there to be a division of labor.

>If it's a good investment it will lead to growth for someone
I think you missed my point. Unfettered capital flows tend to lead to speculation, not meaningful investment in the real economy and meaningful investment in the real economy doesn't require unfettered capital flows. On the other hand, fixed exchange rates--which more-or-less require capital controls--are extremely conducive to long-term productive investment in the real economy.

>You just opened a whole new can of worms
I'm not sure what you mean.

what does peru export

coca - cocaiyeena

>a new pinochet will rise from the ashes
no thanks, I want my national socialist goverment aldready

>commie
i bet you also aprove the gay marriage

Just like Piñera.

i wanted kast to win goddamit
it was piñera or a commie anyways...
Goddamit

>not of trade in and of itself.
I'd argue that it is. Anyone engaging in trade of any kind is looking for a benefit to themselves. If trade on an international scale is inherently imbalanced then that is a natural outgrowth of imbalance of trade as engaged in by individuals. Human nature and competitiveness gives rise to trade practices that seek to maximize benefit to oneself even at the expense of the other party engaged in trade, especially at the expense of the other party in fact. The only thing that prevents it from being zero sum is the competitiveness of the other side.
>Unfettered capital flows tend to lead to speculation, not meaningful investment in the real economy and meaningful investment in the real economy doesn't require unfettered capital flows.
This is a side effect of having jews so heavily represented in the investment class. Removing them would alleviate this but it wouldn't be enough in our debt based system. Besides the shell games with money we really do promote the creation of tangible goods if for no other reason than the need to harvest something real when the bust cycle comes since fiat currency has no real value but homes and software most certainly does.
>On the other hand, fixed exchange rates--which more-or-less require capital controls--are extremely conducive to long-term productive investment in the real economy.
The cattle go about producing either way. Until we have a system free of jewish speculation we won't really know how productive a society free of fifth columnists can be under any given regulatory scheme.
>I'm not sure what you mean.
Tell me why you think Bretton Woods is so good then?

Dirty jap range banned you from Sup Forums? Come to goonsaloon.pro where we don't ban anyone. Yor/OXo4

>If trade on an international scale is inherently imbalanced then that is a natural outgrowth of imbalance of trade as engaged in by individuals
That's a gross oversimplification. International imbalances stem from inherent differences in market conditions and strategic usurpation of competition. Eventually, you end up with unsustainable, imbalanced current accounts.

>This is a side effect of having jews
>The cattle go about
I'm not even going to read these.

>Tell me why you think Bretton Woods is so good then?
I'm more curious as to why you think it was bad. Average annual growth was better, real wages increased with productivity, the number of financial and economic crises were lower than ever, current accounts were largely balanced, household and national debt were relatively modest, etc.

>That's a gross oversimplification.
Are you saying it's wrong? I challenged your underlying assumption and started right at the foundation of economic activity which is the individual.
>inherent differences in market conditions
What makes those differences inherent?
>strategic usurpation of competition.
What is the driving factor behind strategic changes?
>Eventually, you end up with unsustainable, imbalanced current accounts.
You always will because it's human nature to dominate and compete. This gives rise to winners who shape a hierarchy that subjugates the losers. Every system can be extrapolated out from the primary tendencies of individuals. Our system currently elevates the individual and his well being above the nation and it's well being. Since patriotism fell out of favor in the late 60's we've been on a downward spiral directed by the unrestrained selfishness of individuals. There are many events that dovetail nicely with your chart, I'd recommend you take a holistic approach here to rightly divide the cause of the economic disparity you're watching.
>I'm not even going to read these.
Oh my, have I offended you?
Welcome to Sup Forums.
>I'm more curious as to why you think it was bad.
It was worse than what came before it. 1913 was the beginning of the end for America, even earlier for much of Europe, so you may want to extend your timeline.

All pointless countries who care.

how about continuing the status quo, you know just letting all those less fortunate countries continue to suffer, theyre idiots we dont need them to have a population explosion

Dirty jap range banned you from Sup Forums? Come to goonsaloon.pro/intj/ where we don't ban anyone. +UDeW51S

give more economic wisdom
this debate is great
much to learn

Esa wna no sabe ni sumar y la quieren hacer presidente, ademas va a imponer su mierda feminista. Solo los aweonaos la apoyan.
Espero que disfrutes un pais lleno de negros con iq de mierda, bajos sueldos por la inmigracion, un estado endeudado, y politicas de genero aweonas que destruyen la familia y la relacion entre hombre y mujer. Ademas de propaganda gay y transexual en los colegios. Gracias por cagarla para todos.

the free market aint free

Beatriz Sanchez should be eliminated. A dirty communist.

>Are you saying it's wrong?
Yes, because it's too reductive. The economy isn't just the sum of choices made by individual consumers or producers.

>What makes those differences inherent?
I'm not sure I understand the question. It doesn't matter which market we're speaking of, tastes; attitudes; ambitions; work ethic; and so on will differ and it will also tend to reflect in differences in labor; regulatory; and tax conditions.

>What is the driving factor behind strategic changes?
Depends on the situation? It can be anything from developing the national interest, to strategic market consolidations, to personal ambition, etc.

>You always will
Unless you explicitly take measures against unsustainable imbalances.

>Oh my, have I offended you?
No, I don't have an interest in unintelligent, half-baked conspiracies.

>It was worse than what came before it.
Empirically wrong.

>1913 was the beginning of the end for America
>muh income tax!!!!!!!!111111
Lol, we're done.

>Todos los estudiantes y la elite intelectual del país estamos con ella.
*estudiantes de carreras de mierda como teatro o psicología. Los estudiantes que realmente debemos estudiar para pasar nuestros ramos y no podemos darnos el lujo de fumar marihuana todos los dias sabemos que un eventual gobierno de ella sería un desastre, aún peor que el de Verónica Bachelet.

you stupid motherfucker label your axes

te salio buena culiao

reminder that the range ban is a goon plot
>buy botnet access
>spam Sup Forums with cuck porn
>use range bans to advertise

>filename

>Yes, because it's too reductive.
That's basically a way of saying it's wrong because you don't like it. Hand waving isn't good enough to be a stand in for a substantive rebuttal.
>The economy isn't just the sum of choices made by individual consumers or producers.
That's exactly what it is. The economy as a whole is merely the sum of all economic activity which is comprised of the choices of individuals. The economy of The United States is comprised of the individuals who conduct economic activities there. Without them there is no economy.
>I'm not sure I understand the question.
I can tell. If you don't understand what makes something appear to be inherent then not only are you unqualified to call it inherent you're also unable to discuss the nuances of the system you're trying to describe. Qualify exactly how it is inherent or retract your statement that it is.
All I'm doing is showing how shallow your knowledge is.
>It can be anything from developing the national interest, to strategic market consolidations, to personal ambition, etc.
Distill that down to the basic motivational factors and you'll start getting somewhere. When you start at the top and work your way backwards you get lost in the fog and can't see the forest for the trees.
>Unless you explicitly take measures against unsustainable imbalances.
Then you don't have a free market and free trade can't ever truly exist since it has to reside in a regulatory bubble. At least we can agree that free trade is a farce.
>No, I don't have an interest in unintelligent, half-baked conspiracies.
Ignorance is bliss as they say.
>Empirically wrong.
Show your work.
>Lol, we're done.
You actually thought I was talking about income tax? How new are you to this?
You can tap out if you want.

God I hate boomers so much.

Surprise surprise, once the Americans fuck off all the shitty copyright parts of the agreement suddenly go away...

You can pile shit to the ceiling, but it'll still be just a big pile of shit.

Look, I appreciate your enthusiasm but you're not up to my caliber on economics. I can tell this isn't going to go anywhere when I've already explained every 'point' you're trying to make here and it's clearly bounced off your unknowledgeable head. You're really just not worth the effort.

Hmmm...I wonder why we wouldn't want to be apart of this free trade deal

>Look, I appreciate your enthusiasm but you're not up to my caliber on economics.
This is just empty posturing. Saying you have a senior position in a discussion doesn't actually mean you do. Resorting to posturing like this just makes you look bad. Everyone outside tripfags are anonymous here. Our ideas have to stand and fall on their own merits. Thinly veiled appeals to authority just don't carry weight.
>I've already explained every 'point' you're trying to make here and it's clearly bounced off your unknowledgeable head.
It's your failure to elaborate on your own statements when they're called into question that is the sticking point.
>You're really just not worth the effort.
That's an example of an economic decision there, you just managed your most valuable asset. Your time.

That copyright shit would have fucked us. That's why it was in there in the first place.

>explain yourself in circles!
No. You're more than free to reread what I already wrote. If you can't comprehend it because you lack the prerequisite knowledge, that's your problem.

Oh man I remember when it was the 2016 election and Russians were spamming TPP shit all over the internet to discredit the democrats and redditards were pretending like they gave a fuck because they didn't want to sound stupid...

All you're doing is coming off as butthurt

Feel free to make an argument any time now.
>International imbalances stem from inherent differences in market conditions
Once again, what are those differences and what makes them inherent?
This was your answer:
>I'm not sure I understand the question.
The reason you answered that way is because you don't even understand what you're saying. Here is your opportunity to prove me wrong.
If you're going to contend that differences in "tastes; attitudes; ambitions;" work ethic are all inherent you will need to explain why.
Certainly this is a simple task for a rational non conspiracy theorist such as yourself. I'm rooting for you.

Somehow, I think I'll live. I'd rather "come off as butthurt" than explain the same points ad infinium to someone who is no more likely to understand it each time I explain.

There's no winning an argument with an idiot, as they say.

>The reason you answered that way is because you don't even understand what you're saying
Wrong. How is, "what are those [differences in market conditions] differences and what makes them inherent?" even a fucking question? How would there *not* be inherent differences in markets considering each market consists of intrinsically different constituents in intrinsically different cultures with intrinsically different market conditions (labor, regulations, and taxes)? Are you an idiot? You're mistaking my politeness for confusion.

>If you're going to contend that differences in "tastes; attitudes; ambitions;" work ethic are all inherent
*inherently different, you imbecile.

You miss such obvious things which are self-evident to most and yet I'm supposed to explain myself in circles to you?

>even a fucking question?
>Are you an idiot?
>you imbecile.
>You're mistaking my politeness
You are a paragon of self restraint and social decorum my friend. Thanks for pointing that out to a lowly conspiracy theorist like me.
So let me take you by your hand and walk you through this. We'll start with definitions so you can raise your vocabulary up enough to discuss this with me.

in·her·ent
inˈhirənt,inˈherənt/
adjective
adjective: inherent

existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

Are you still following me or should I rephrase the question? I better do that.
Once again, what are those differences and what makes them a permanent, essential, or a characteristic attribute?
>even a fucking question?
Well friendo it's a question because you said there are permanent or essential differences that cause market imbalances. Since you know those differences you should easily be able to point to them and describe what causes them. Instead you've just postured and raged.
>International imbalances stem from inherent differences in market conditions
Certainly it isn't possible that you were making an empty and vague statement bereft of any actual knowledge or evidence, that's the purview of conspiracy theorists.

Fucking mercantilist

>free trade is not fair trade

Mark my words, Trump will join CPTPP 2 years later.

>it all flies above your head again
This is my fault, I should have expected you to be incapable of comprehending my responses.

>how is an apple different from an orange!
>how are lower wages vs higher wages different, explain!
>how are stringent regulations on an industry in one country different than low regulations in another, explain!!
>How is France's frequent consumption of bread different from Japan's rejection and distaste of bread products in favor of noodles, explain!
>all people, places, things, actions, attitudes are identical--they're not identical!!!! Explain how not!!!

You're an intellectual inferior. Welcome to the filter.

>Fucking mercantilist
You're not that far off.
I'd certainly prefer it to what we have now.
>Trump will join CPTPP 2 years later.
It really wouldn't surprise me but I wouldn't expect him to betray his base to that degree until after he wins reelection.
I can't think of many prominent politicians that wouldn't sign it outright, at least Trump may never do something like that so by contrast he look much better.
>typing all that
>not a single substantive response
You shouldn't get emotionally engaged.

fpbp.

Down with NAFTA, the Korean Free Trade agreement, and the WTO. Tariff the shit out of China too.

MAGA

Canada will be fine because most of Canada's economy is still selling natural resources. Free trade deals make us wealthier as a country usually (although not necessarily individually).

I'm actually a fan of fair trade though.

They export peruvians and import pigeons

china is enemy #1 at this point. usa needs to sieze all chink property, both residential and commercial, and get these fuckers out now.

>. nz is more fucked than ever,
why

Good fucking riddance - we don't need any of this shit

>Free trade deals make us wealthier as a country usually
You say that, but you're losing $tens of billions a year because of it.

Also, the 00's were a boom in commodity prices just FYI.

you need a helicopter ride faggot

Translation: No, you fucking fachito (derogaty word for right wing conservative). Piñera's government will be another disaster and 2022 Beatriz Sanchez (Progressive, feminist candidate) will surely be elected. All the students and intellectual elite of the country support her.

La elite intelectual son puros giles a los que no les alcanzó para nada mejor que ciencias políticas. Los verdaderos intelectuales están en las ciencias duras y haciendo investigación; no activismo político de cuarta, completamente sesgado al progrerío.

Jews would help our country. Their race is superior, embrace it. I don't like their progressive politics though.

good one nest

Do you have any source? The main problem with this treaty was the spying atributions that our government would've got if they allowed copyright infringment persecution. I wouldn't be able to download my vidya anymore, and that makes me sad.

>Canada will be fine because most of Canada's economy is still selling natural resources.
The second half of your statement undermines your first. A trade agreement that locks you into raw resource exports would also slow any economic diversification towards finished goods. Note that I'm not saying the agreement will help your exports even in the form of raw materials, you are. It remains to be seen how much of a market the other nations will be for what you have to sell.
>Free trade deals make us wealthier as a country
It certainly lines the pockets of the investment class. However this isn't due to the creation of new wealth. They simply take the difference in operating costs between two nations and pocket the difference via offshoring.
>I'm actually a fan of fair trade though.
It would certainly be better than what we have.

Yes, yes he does.

>feminist
feminist suck fucking ass, they destroy everything in their path including the basic family unit.

fuck your intellectuals, and fuck your students, the stupidest of the given population.

>Jews would help our country
this is never the case. and you love progressivism because you are lapping from beatriz's dirty sanchez cunt

that video has a glowing shitstain in it