Trans-Pacific Partnership: 11 Things Harper Doesn't Want To Reveal

[Michael Hardner]

There are so many negatives...

So, your response to my saying you didn't point out any positives at all was to continue to point out negatives.

I don't think we can discuss this issue if you don't see any good in global trade at all. There are clearly some, unless the corporate world has massively brainwashed people.

[Michael Hardner]

Global competition is not about "morality and ethics".

It's not not about that either. They are separate but related. Do you know what a brand is and have you ever had to deal with it, or have you spent your past career entirely in the back office ?

[waldo]

It's not even that. There are situations where morality and ethical behavior enforce and enhance the public image of a brand, or an endeavor thereby leveraging a public morality for "good" and also increasing the possibilities for commerce. As cynical as people want to be about it, these things are important.

To dismiss them seems to me more of a desire to immerse oneself in cynicism, and stoke ones ego over the correctness of such a world view. My world view is optimistic, but when reality slaps it down (regularly) I don't deny that reality, I adjust.

as powerful as Marketing departments can be, 'protecting the brand' often defers to the profit motive. I couldn't agree more in that often the only interpretation I can make of a negative view against protecting workers, the workplace, the environment, etc., is an almost ingrained sheep-following mentality that holds to "greed is good"!

[waldo]

Global competition is not about "morality and ethics". Check such baggage at the airport.

"not about"... as I said, a view held by those who would choose to put corporate profit ahead of morality and ethics

[Michael Hardner]

as powerful as Marketing departments can be, 'protecting the brand' often defers to the profit motive.

I would say that the profit motive is the prime directive, and to assume otherwise is naive. People can convince themselves that the wrongs they do are necessary, so there need to be checks against behavior and hence 'reputation'.

I couldn't agree more in that often the only interpretation I can make of a negative view against protecting workers, the workplace, the environment, etc., is an almost ingrained sheep-following mentality that holds to "greed is good"!

The next line after that was "greed works" (Wall Street). The implication is that we're not talking about profit and greed for its own sake, but more like Smith's invisible hand. These concepts will act out in the marketplace as humanly uneven, but will generally work properly or at least well enough.

There's no reason for somebody to discount the idea that these NBTs are a good thing unless they only like the first line from that film without the second part.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not not about that either. They are separate but related. Do you know what a brand is and have you ever had to deal with it, or have you spent your past career entirely in the back office ?

I know exactly what branding and channels are.....one of my U.S. employers used deception to fool 'murica hating Canadians in Quebec into thinking they were buying "made in Canada" products. Most people have no idea how much "branding" is just a thin veneer hiding source and production realities....maybe that's a good thing as they wouldn't like the "truth".

[WIP]

So, your response to my saying you didn't point out any positives at all was to continue to point out negatives.

I don't think we can discuss this issue if you don't see any good in global trade at all. There are clearly some, unless the corporate world has massively brainwashed people.

No, I'm a hardline protectionist, because I don't believe the issue should focus around arguments on whether free trade vs. tariffs and duties provides the most optimal economic outcomes to begin with. An upside to globalization policies is about as ludicrous as looking for an upside to slavery and colonialization.....and the exploitation encouraged by globalization puts the open borders to trade and free flow of capital in the same ballpark. But it has to be pointed out that none of the developed world's economies reached their levels of wealth and productivity through the kinds of free trade regimes they are forcing on poorer nations of the world!

But, the most important issues are how globalization has dramatically increased carbon output and resource consumption (including drawing down renewables like water and topsoil). When nations are locked into these internationalist trading schemes, they lose effective control to make independent policies to protect their own environmental and resource interests. Everything in a poor undeveloped part of the world is up for exploitation by whoever pony's up the cash to buy land, water rights and underground resources.