So, what did happen in 2016?

[Razgovory]

I never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.

It isn't. It's about gaining access to foreign markets (increase profits), cheap foreign labour (decrease costs), and lowering the transactional costs of international trade. The impact on individual states is a secondary effect, even if it occasionally makes a propaganda point.

Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?

Well, yes.  At least partly.  These treaties were signed by poor countries for their own economic benefit.

[Razgovory]

I keep  getting told by conservatives that the hacking didn't actually happen.  It's just a liberal lie.

It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean, the Russians didn't write those emails. The fact that they were inflammatory is John Podesta's fault.

  I hear this one as well. 

[Valmy]

It isn't. It's about gaining access to foreign markets (increase profits), cheap foreign labour (decrease costs), and lowering the transactional costs of international trade. The impact on individual states is a secondary effect, even if it occasionally makes a propaganda point.

But it has that effect. That is just a fact, not propaganda.

Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?

It is why I support them. I believe in the long run reducing poverty worldwide and tying our economies to each other will make the world more stable and peaceful. And I think it indeed has done so over the past twenty years.

I am glad that evil corporate greed can be put to such an awesome purpose. It just seems stupid to be opposed to it because corporations want to make money. They are going to do that regardless. The whole point of policy to make sure them trying to do this has as many positive impacts as possible. Right? I mean unless you intend to nationalize everything in a communist utopia but I did not think you were that sort of leftist.

[frunk]

It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean, the Russians didn't write those emails. The fact that they were inflammatory is John Podesta's fault.

It matters that foreign powers are meddling in US elections.  I'm sure there won't be an outcry when the Chinese hack the RNC's emails in 2018.

As for the emails, for exposed private communication there wasn't that much juicy there.  I'd expect much worse if the DNC was seriously corrupt, it was all pretty mild stuff.

[Admiral Yi]

It isn't. It's about gaining access to foreign markets (increase profits), cheap foreign labour (decrease costs), and lowering the transactional costs of international trade. The impact on individual states is a secondary effect, even if it occasionally makes a propaganda point.

Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?

It's about access to cheap foreign labor, who are then lifted out of poverty. 

Could you really not see this contradiction in your position?

[Berkut]

Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?

Do you really believe that they are NOT about attempting to alleviate poverty, and other desirable social and economic outcomes outside of the desire of corporations to make profits?

That is a rather cynical viewpoint, that I suspect you don't really hold. If one really did believe that ALL of these kinds of agreements are *always* completely about nothing more than profit motive, and any nod towards other motives is illusory, then you pretty much have to just give up on any attempt to improve human societies at all, since all such attempts are doomed to being perverted as a matter of definition.

NAFTA, the EU, TPP - these are all various agreements made between governments, not between companies. Ideally, we hope that our governments make such agreements considering a variety of competing interests. Each particular agreements will, of course, vary greatly in how much they value some particular interests over others. Some may be grossly pro-business at the expense of humane interests, and others might achieve a more laudable balance. Of course, the idea balance is in and of itself a matter of some contention, much less actually achieving it....

[Valmy]

I also got into these arguments with Mihali and I suspect if Josie were still here she would be denouncing this sort of thing as well. I just don't get it. What is the proper leftist plan for reducing wealth inequality between states if it is not trading and doing business with each other?

At least nationalist populist right wingers have a consistent 'FUCK THE CHINESE AND MEXICANS' thing going

[Jacob]

I am strongly under the impression that nations signing on to free trade agreements are doing so because they think it's in their financial best interest, and that they primarily measure such financial best interest by the success of relevant corporations.

This, generally, has the benefit of of improving the standard of living of various populations as mor money flows into companies in various countries (with the caveat that much depends on how that money is distributed).

Where nations do give concessions it is not done out of some sort of altruism, but as part of concessions to get other benefits - generally commensurate with the amount of political power they bring to the negotiations.

The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.

I man, I understand that Trumpists are convinced that free trade is just another example of the US giving stuff away to undeserving foreigners but I never thought the idea had purchase outside those circles.

[The Minsky Moment]

Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market,

Those are 3 very different agreements.
Only thing connecting them is that all relate to international trade in some way, and the US is a party to 2 out of 3.

[garbon]

I am strongly under the impression that nations signing on to free trade agreements are doing so because they think it's in their financial best interest, and that they primarily measure such financial best interest by the success of relevant corporations.

This, generally, has the benefit of of improving the standard of living of various populations as mor money flows into companies in various countries (with the caveat that much depends on how that money is distributed).

Where nations do give concessions it is not done out of some sort of altruism, but as part of concessions to get other benefits - generally commensurate with the amount of political power they bring to the negotiations.

The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.

I man, I understand that Trumpists are convinced that free trade is just another example of the US giving stuff away to undeserving foreigners but I never thought the idea had purchase outside those circles.

But the US gives lots of free stuff to foreigners...we've a pretty large foreign aid dispersal. Seems weird if the policy makers didn't think at all about how free trade might impact outside nations.

[The Minsky Moment]

The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.

Virtually all bi-lateral or regional trade agreements are primarily geo-political in nature.  Historically in the postwar era the key driver for trade liberalization were the multi-lateral GATT rounds.  Bilateral or regional agreements have always been viewed with suspicion by free traders because the perception is that they undermine multilateralism, and can give rise to distortions in the world trading system. 

For NAFTA specifically, a key driver was that the US sought to reinforce what it perceived as positive political and economic developments in Mexico, that would be beneficial to the US-led world system.

[Valmy]

I am strongly under the impression that nations signing on to free trade agreements are doing so because they think it's in their financial best interest, and that they primarily measure such financial best interest by the success of relevant corporations.

There are political reasons for doing so as well. In any case why a nation may sign up for such a thing and why I think they are a good idea might not necessarily be the same thing, sure.

This, generally, has the benefit of of improving the standard of living of various populations as mor money flows into companies in various countries (with the caveat that much depends on how that money is distributed).

Where nations do give concessions it is not done out of some sort of altruism, but as part of concessions to get other benefits - generally commensurate with the amount of political power they bring to the negotiations.

I mean generally when other countries do better, we do better. I mean the Marshall Plan was not done because the US was visited by three spirits and suddenly embraced the true meaning of Christmas. But I still think it was a good thing and I think more than paid for itself.

The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.

I don't think anybody has said this. I think free trade agreements are good because they help other nations. I believe helping other nations is also in our political and economic interest. The "sacrifice" is short term.

I man, I understand that Trumpists are convinced that free trade is just another example of the US giving stuff away to undeserving foreigners but I never thought the idea had purchase outside those circles.

Well you couldn't be more wrong about that. This was one of Ross Perot's key causes and it has widespread support both left and right. Trump adopted it because it played well.

Oh does it ever.

[Jacob]

Virtually all bi-lateral or regional trade agreements are primarily geo-political in nature.  Historically in the postwar era the key driver for trade liberalization were the multi-lateral GATT rounds.  Bilateral or regional agreements have always been viewed with suspicion by free traders because the perception is that they undermine multilateralism, and can give rise to distortions in the world trading system.

Interesting. I was under the impression that the regional trade agreements were thought of as less than perfect steps towards freer trade.

For NAFTA specifically, a key driver was that the US sought to reinforce what it perceived as positive political and economic developments in Mexico, that would be beneficial to the US-led world system.

Heh. I suppose that's the disadvantage of having followed the NAFTA discussions primarily from a Canadian perspective. That it was primarily about the US helping Mexico for geopolitical reasons did not get that much coverage up here, as I recall it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Heh. I suppose that's the disadvantage of having followed the NAFTA discussions primarily from a Canadian perspective. That it was primarily about the US helping Mexico for geopolitical reasons did not get that much coverage up here, as I recall it.

From the US perspective, Canada didn't figure that much into it.  There was already a pretty robust US-Canada bilateral trade agreement.  I understand that was controversial in Canada but not so much here.  From the US side NAFTA basically maintained the status quo with respect to Canada; its significance was including Mexico and transforming the bilateral FTA into a regional arrangement.

[Jacob]

But it has that effect. That is just a fact, not propaganda.

Sure. Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations, free trade is mutually beneficial et. al. I thought that was one of the cornerstones of right wing parties in the West. Since Tony Blair's third way, the left wing has adopted that as well, of course.

That it is also beneficial to big capital is a fact too, and not propaganda, I'd think?

It is why I support them. I believe in the long run reducing poverty worldwide and tying our economies to each other will make the world more stable and peaceful. And I think it indeed has done so over the past twenty years.

That this is a mainstream view in the US is honestly news to me.

I am glad that evil corporate greed can be put to such an awesome purpose. It just seems stupid to be opposed to it because corporations want to make money. They are going to do that regardless. The whole point of policy to make sure them trying to do this has as many positive impacts as possible. Right? I mean unless you intend to nationalize everything in a communist utopia but I did not think you were that sort of leftist.

I'm not opposing it because corporations make money 

My perspective is that freer trade (both for international trade and in terms of privatizing public companies and moving towards deregulating business environments) is a right of centre idea that has been adopted by the left of centre as well (roughly since Tony Blair's "third way" of the Labour Party, though I'm not claiming he's the originator). This has been to the benefit to capital and has had broad economic benefits for nations and people as well (which is the reason the left has abandoned more socialist notions to embrace it, since the benefits are hard to deny).

However, there are negative effects as well - especially combined with recent technological advancement that renders numerous jobs redundant. On the right we are seeing a populist response drawing on nationalism and scapegoating others combined with championing reactionary social policies. And it's working pretty well. In Europe, we've seen a left populist responses take shape in the form of Podemos and Syriza, but I have a hard time placing the substance of their proposed remedy.

In terms of a left response it seems there's a fair bit of academic response to the current situation - calling attention to the negative effects of income disparity (correctly I think), and I think the notions of a guaranteed basic income and similar are left of centre. But I haven't seen any of that translated into populist movements with easily understood prescriptions on how to fix the problem.

MIM's contention that the currently disintegrating status quo is a leftist state doesn't ring true to me at all (though it makes sense from the perspective of right leaning radicals wanting to dismantle it). However, even if it is true I'd still expect a challenge to the status quo further from the left as the disintegration takes place.