What's all the fuss about the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

What is the TPP? Some see it as a creeping plan to"privatise government" and (among other things) stifle the free exchange of information on the internet. There are protests against the secrecy surrounding the talks, and suspicions regarding the effect on small farming and food safety.

The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) began with four small nations in 2005. It was a sort of mini-free trade agreement.

But in July 2008, the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation stalled after a few days' talks in Geneva. This round had been going for almost seven years, without agreement. The blocking issue was how smaller nations could protect their agricultural base against massive foreign imports and aggressive price-undercutting by competitors. They wanted a "Special Safeguard Mechanism" (SSM)that would allow them to impose import tariffs.

The United States had already started talking to the TPP back in February 2008, ostensibly on the issue of financial services; now (September 2008) she declared her intention to apply for TPP membership. This was like an elephant joining four kids in their inflatable backyard pool:

Perhaps the clue to the USA's interest is in her dominant position in agricultural exports (see Table 852 here):

And if all applicants are accepted, then together they will have almost sealed-off the Eastern Pacific to non-members:

As America turns her face towards the East in the 21st century, this may become significant. Brooking Institution fellow Joshua Meltzer told a Congressional Committee in May, "The TPP has the potential to be the building block for a wider Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific Region (FTAAP)".

There are powerful players at work, and much smoke being created. Worldwide, but particularly in Africa, there is a rush to grab agricultural land. Protestors are arguing against the dispossession of small farmers; the World Bank counters the interests of producers, expressing its concern instead for poor urban consumers in this 2010 report:

 

"... we note that many of the main arguments in favor of the SSM focus on the well-being of vulnerable agricultural producers. Yet many rural residents in poor countries are net purchasers of food, and in many countries, urban poverty is growing ever more significant. In this context, the potential for policies based on the SSM rules to lessen poverty vulnerability seems very questionable. Future work should take into account the poverty dimension of the Special Safeguard Mechanism."

 

The food prices about which the World Bank is so concerned might be considerably lower if we did not have the harebrained scheme to use corn as a fuel substitute, and if we could keep speculators out of this market - one that could kill millions if trading gets out of hand. Professor Yaneer Bar-Yam recently did a study in Mexico concluding that those two factors have tripled the price of corn.

 

It is possible to see the TPP as a backdoor way in for Big Farmer and Big Pharma. The potential profits - and the power implicit in gaining control over food supplies- are irresistible. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect that dirty deals are being done in the shadows.

 

A longer-term concern is what may ultimately happen when the world converts to mechanized and chemicalized methods of food production. There is a tradeoff between efficiency and sustainability. Initially, modern farming techniques (applied for example to the Guinea Savannah Belt that the UN's FAO is now eyeing) could create a period of abundance that may in turn encourage further population expansion. We shall then be dependent on this approach. What happens when this system is hit by fuel price hikes and supply hiccups, and soil quality deteriorates across the globe because of the vastly expanded (and profitable) use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides in conjunction with crops genetically engineered to tolerate them? Is humanity set for a great leap and then - after some decades, or a century or two - a monstrous crash?

 

What's all the fuss about the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

What is the TPP? Some see it as a creeping plan to"privatise government" and (among other things) stifle the free exchange of information on the internet. There are protests against the secrecy surrounding the talks, and suspicions regarding the effect on small farming and food safety.

The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) began with four small nations in 2005. It was a sort of mini-free trade agreement.

But in July 2008, the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation stalled after a few days' talks in Geneva. This round had been going for almost seven years, without agreement. The blocking issue was how smaller nations could protect their agricultural base against massive foreign imports and aggressive price-undercutting by competitors. They wanted a "Special Safeguard Mechanism" (SSM)that would allow them to impose import tariffs.

The United States had already started talking to the TPP back in February 2008, ostensibly on the issue of financial services; now (September 2008) she declared her intention to apply for TPP membership. This was like an elephant joining four kids in their inflatable backyard pool:

Perhaps the clue to the USA's interest is in her dominant position in agricultural exports (see Table 852 here):

And if all applicants are accepted, then together they will have almost sealed-off the Eastern Pacific to non-members:

As America turns her face towards the East in the 21st century, this may become significant. Brooking Institution fellow Joshua Meltzer told a Congressional Committee in May, "The TPP has the potential to be the building block for a wider Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific Region (FTAAP)".

There are powerful players at work, and much smoke being created. Worldwide, but particularly in Africa, there is a rush to grab agricultural land. Protestors are arguing against the dispossession of small farmers; the World Bank counters the interests of producers, expressing its concern instead for poor urban consumers in this 2010 report:

 

"... we note that many of the main arguments in favor of the SSM focus on the well-being of vulnerable agricultural producers. Yet many rural residents in poor countries are net purchasers of food, and in many countries, urban poverty is growing ever more significant. In this context, the potential for policies based on the SSM rules to lessen poverty vulnerability seems very questionable. Future work should take into account the poverty dimension of the Special Safeguard Mechanism."

 

The food prices about which the World Bank is so concerned might be considerably lower if we did not have the harebrained scheme to use corn as a fuel substitute, and if we could keep speculators out of this market - one that could kill millions if trading gets out of hand. Professor Yaneer Bar-Yam recently did a study in Mexico concluding that those two factors have tripled the price of corn.

 

It is possible to see the TPP as a backdoor way in for Big Farmer and Big Pharma. The potential profits - and the power implicit in gaining control over food supplies- are irresistible. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect that dirty deals are being done in the shadows.

 

A longer-term concern is what may ultimately happen when the world converts to mechanized and chemicalized methods of food production. There is a tradeoff between efficiency and sustainability. Initially, modern farming techniques (applied for example to the Guinea Savannah Belt that the UN's FAO is now eyeing) could create a period of abundance that may in turn encourage further population expansion. We shall then be dependent on this approach. What happens when this system is hit by fuel price hikes and supply hiccups, and soil quality deteriorates across the globe because of the vastly expanded (and profitable) use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides in conjunction with crops genetically engineered to tolerate them? Is humanity set for a great leap and then - after some decades, or a century or two - a monstrous crash?

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Cameron apologises for (Iraq) Hillsborough disaster

Bearwatch apologises for errors in transcription in the following story, a shortened version of the original which ran on the BBC here. The faulty version below is left online so that readers may compare the two in detail.
______________________________________________________________

Iraq papers: Cameron apology over 'double injustice'

David Cameron has said he is profoundly sorry for the "double injustice" of the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Speaking after an independent report into previously unseen documents about the tragedy, the prime minister said civil servants, political and legal advisers, MPs and the Press had failed to do enough and had also tried to blame Saddam Hussein and the British intelligence services.

109,032 Iraqis died as a result of the Coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003. [...]

The prime minister's statement vindicates what protestors have always claimed: that there was a deliberate Cabinet conspiracy to hide their own culpability and a campaign to divert the blame onto others.

Amid gasps in the Commons, Mr Cameron revealed that intelligence reports were significantly altered and that personal information was leaked to the Press to "impugn the reputation of Dr David Kelly".

But the most significant development is whether the Chilcot Inquiry should be reopened. [...]

Mr Cameron said there were three main areas highlighted in the report - failures by the authorities to protect British interests and tell the truth to their voters, misleading revisions to intelligence service reports and doubt cast on information supplied to journalists by Dr David Kelly. [...]

Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail newspaper when it ran a story claiming that British bases were “just 45 minutes from attack” by Iraqi missiles, offered his "profuse apologies".

He published the story with that headline in the days leading up to the invasion, which alleged that the Iraqi government was close to acquiring nuclear weapons.

In a statement he said: "I published in good faith and I am sorry that it was so wrong." [...]

Cabinet papers are not usually published in the UK until 30 years after they have been written but MPs agreed to their full, uncensored disclosure last year.

QE and inequality

"Pension Pulse" blog author and corporate pensions expert Michael Kolivakis includes in his latest post this Bloomberg interview with Marc Faber, the no-nonsense guru of the bears:



Guru-ji remains firmly convinced that the longstanding policy of monetary inflation will ultimately end in systemic collapse.

Faber lives in northern Thailand, which appears to be socially stable and with a good agricultural base and arable land-to-population ratio, so even if this catastrophe arrives during his lifetime he and his family may stand a chance. Besides, he is also close to several international borders and I wonder whether that was also a factor in his choice of domicile.

Unfortunately, I live in Britain, a hugely overcrowded country whose rulers have allowed scarcely-restricted immigration, unrealistic levels of social benefits and the rapid concreting-over of some of the world's finest farmland. Most survivalist strategies here (other than a bit of hoarding to cover short-term disruption) are simply fantasies.

But what Faber says here about the interim social effects of "money-printing" is put very clearly and starkly. The cash wave reaches institutions first and then the pockets of the well-to-do. Instead of using it to set up businesses and create employment, they look around for existing businesses to grab and merge, thus creating more job losses and depressing workers' wages. Similarly, the property bubble burst and led to the dispossession of the poorer sort, who now do not have access to credit and cannot buy back into the housing market at today's lower prices; so the better-off snap up the houses and rent them out to people who were evicted - and rents are going up.

According to minority economists like Steve Keen, classical economic theorists simply don't understand debt and monetary inflation. Their models assume that if more money comes into an economy, prices go up but so do wages, so no big deal. If they were geographers, they would look at the ocean as if it were a lake on a windless summer's day, and have no knowledge of tides, freak waves and tsunamis.

Traders know different, and if ever we can prove bankers do too, then maybe we will finally get the criminal trials needed to clean up the system. Because this system has become a machine for oppressing the poor and pushing down the middle earners. I tried to show the effects of so-called "free trade" in a graphic a while ago, and before I get trollfarts about socialism I'd like to point out that real free-marketers like Max Keiser attack it from the opposite angle.

Easy Riders

Why have these two never been seen together?

As the LA Times says of one of them, he "... is both a charmer and a cliche. Passionate about truth [...] and a mendacious hypocrite in real life."

The other is a world-class performer.

Europe is paralyzed by personal debt

Inspect data here.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Europe is paralyzed by personal debt

Inspect data here.