Potential EU trade agreement

[gjm 3258]

If this goes ahead - and it would be an excellent idea - it'll be good news for us.

It should mean a reduction in taxation and possibly price on ex-EU car parts, for instance.
And foodstuffs. So the 'real' Marmite welike would be more readily available. (Up yours with you pale imitation, Sanitarium!  )

[zero 1162]

Yes, this will be good news, and I'm sure will go ahead eventually?.

 

There are other trade agreements in the works also.

[gjm 3258]

43 minutes ago, zero said:

There are other trade agreements in the works also.

Yes.
Unfortunately (in my opinion) one of them is the TPP, which appears to be more about profit for the businesses and legal issues involved, and less about the trade and benefit for the participating countries.

[zero 1162]

3 hours ago, gjm said:

Yes.
Unfortunately (in my opinion) one of them is the TPP, which appears to be more about profit for the businesses and legal issues involved, and less about the trade and benefit for the participating countries.

There is a huge amount of misinformation and scaremongering about the TPP.

 

Its actually very, very good for all parties involved.

[gjm 3258]

14 minutes ago, zero said:

There is a huge amount of misinformation and scaremongering about the TPP.

 

Its actually very, very good for all parties involved.

I entirely agree with the first sentence.

Not sure about the second one! But will be very happy to be proven wrong.

[zero 1162]

6 hours ago, gjm said:

I entirely agree with the first sentence.

Not sure about the second one! But will be very happy to be proven wrong.

More exports, better worker conditions,more jobs, higher wages, more money for the country, cheaper products - whats not to like?

[gjm 3258]

NZ is dependent on exports now, in order to meet the bills to pay for the imports that we have as a result of not doing things in country. Do more here, less import required, less export needed... A bit simplistic, but we've gone through - are going through? - a period of ever-increasing dependency on other countries. I don't feel that's a good thing; I don't want to be insular, separatist or even particularly revolutionary, but self-sufficiency isn't a bad thing. With that comes the ability to deal on your own terms, and that is beneficial.

Higher wages are a result of companies making more money and paying more to employees - I'm not sure if this is the definition of trickle-down economics, but that's something that has been resoundingly proven to not work. The US changed it's taxation model, benefiting larger organisations in particular (effectively increasing their income) and all the extra money went to senior staff, or overseas investment in cheaper production to further increase profit. Employees aren't seeing the benefits in the way that was anticipated - in fact, the overseas investment is seeing reductions in workforce. Companies win; people tend not to.
One US company made a lot of noise about how they were giving what appeared to be a huge amount of money to their employees. Digging into that, it was found that each of 40000 employees received around 3c per hour increase, representing 40% of the money being shared. 60%+ of the money went to the top couple of dozen senior staff. And the total amount distributed in terms of salaries was around 20% of the total 'extra' money available: the balance went on overseas investment, and in bonuses to.... the senior staff. Not the workers.

Then there's a tremendous amount of legal stuff in the TPP, some of which appears to have the potential for detriment to the country, or companies within the country. This is fair enough as an agreement needs to work both ways, but the nature of some of the legal action which could be taken is way outside of a balanced agreement. Take Bayer/Monsanto - if NZ decided to ban neonicotinoid pesticides (proven to kill bees and similar beneficial insects), B/M can (and would!) sue NZ as a country for not providing a marketplace for their products.

Some tobacco companies are also running expensive test cases of this nature - Philip West is suing Australia for displaying messages on cigarette packets designed to advise smokers of the dangers of smoking. The TPP may not relate to those cases in particular, but it does apply to pharmaceuticals. There is a very real possibility that 'white label' pharmaceuticals could be banned under the TPP, meaning (for example) that asthma sufferers would be forced to use 'Ventolin' and not a generic salbutamol product. That's a minor example where the price only trebles (although is currently sucked up by the country) but there are other meds costing $000s that could be no longer supported and subsidised by the country. (That raises the question of health insurance, premiums, exclusions...)

The TPP has the potential to be incredible. A very good thing. Sadly there's too much money involved, and lots of it being spent by international conglomerates lobbying for a better - more beneficial to them corporately -  position. Get businesses out of the discussions and the playing field may be more level.

[kwhelan 241]

same thing happened with brexit too, once you read into what Britain had changed and done to comply when other countries just ignored the rules, it was laughable. good on them for leaving they were being taken for a ride bigtime

people all just assume  a global economy is a good thing, do you really believe they are doing it for your benefit, wake up

A bit like china investing heavily in Africa and the pacific islands, it ain't because they're feeling altruistic

[gjm 3258]

2 hours ago, kwhelan said:

same thing happened with brexit too, once you read into what Britain had changed and done to comply when other countries just ignored the rules, it was laughable. good on them for leaving they were being taken for a ride bigtime

people all just assume  a global economy is a good thing, do you really believe they are doing it for your benefit, wake up

A bit like china investing heavily in Africa and the pacific islands, it ain't because they're feeling altruistic

This is largely true.
Britain tried to abide by the rules of the EU Common Market, as did Germany, Scandinavia and some other countries. France did pretty much whatever it liked, Spain moaned a lot...
And then they didn't, essentially insisting on having things their own way, and throwing a tantrum any time they didn't 'win'.

The UK saying that Europe will be lost without them is unlikely to be true. Germany has been the backbone of the EU for years, especially since the Euro was adopted. The UK, of course, bickered, whined, moaned and complained about the Euro, spent millions upon millions fighting it, and then dug their heels in like a sullen child. Was that right? Maybe... Would the Euro have been (even more) successful had Britain joined? Probably. Of course, leaving the EU would be much more difficult if the Euro was the currency in the UK.

Most of the Brexit campaign, on both sides, was an exercise in diversion, lying, falsehood, and misdirection.

And now the UK Brexiters are insisting that Europe owes them a living. I suspect they are in for a huge shock.

[kwhelan 241]

Britain is screwed but not from the EU

[Olaf 3318]

20 hours ago, gjm said:

The UK saying that Europe will be lost without them is the biggest joke since that Monty Python sketch about the Joke Secret Weapon that would kill ze germans!

there, fixed that for ya.  "unlikely to be true".  Ha ha.  

[Olaf 3318]

On 5/24/2018 at 11:25 AM, gjm said:

NZ is dependent on exports now, in order to meet the bills to pay for the imports that we have as a result of not doing things in country. Do more here, less import required, less export needed... A bit simplistic, but we've gone through - are going through? - a period of ever-increasing dependency on other countries. I don't feel that's a good thing; I don't want to be insular, separatist or even particularly revolutionary, but self-sufficiency isn't a bad thing. With that comes the ability to deal on your own terms, and that is beneficial.

Higher wages are a result of companies making more money and paying more to employees - I'm not sure if this is the definition of trickle-down economics, but that's something that has been resoundingly proven to not work. The US changed it's taxation model, benefiting larger organisations in particular (effectively increasing their income) and all the extra money went to senior staff, or overseas investment in cheaper production to further increase profit. Employees aren't seeing the benefits in the way that was anticipated - in fact, the overseas investment is seeing reductions in workforce. Companies win; people tend not to.
One US company made a lot of noise about how they were giving what appeared to be a huge amount of money to their employees. Digging into that, it was found that each of 40000 employees received around 3c per hour increase, representing 40% of the money being shared. 60%+ of the money went to the top couple of dozen senior staff. And the total amount distributed in terms of salaries was around 20% of the total 'extra' money available: the balance went on overseas investment, and in bonuses to.... the senior staff. Not the workers.

Then there's a tremendous amount of legal stuff in the TPP, some of which appears to have the potential for detriment to the country, or companies within the country. This is fair enough as an agreement needs to work both ways, but the nature of some of the legal action which could be taken is way outside of a balanced agreement. Take Bayer/Monsanto - if NZ decided to ban neonicotinoid pesticides (proven to kill bees and similar beneficial insects), B/M can (and would!) sue NZ as a country for not providing a marketplace for their products.

Some tobacco companies are also running expensive test cases of this nature - Philip West is suing Australia for displaying messages on cigarette packets designed to advise smokers of the dangers of smoking. The TPP may not relate to those cases in particular, but it does apply to pharmaceuticals. There is a very real possibility that 'white label' pharmaceuticals could be banned under the TPP, meaning (for example) that asthma sufferers would be forced to use 'Ventolin' and not a generic salbutamol product. That's a minor example where the price only trebles (although is currently sucked up by the country) but there are other meds costing $000s that could be no longer supported and subsidised by the country. (That raises the question of health insurance, premiums, exclusions...)

The TPP has the potential to be incredible. A very good thing. Sadly there's too much money involved, and lots of it being spent by international conglomerates lobbying for a better - more beneficial to them corporately -  position. Get businesses out of the discussions and the playing field may be more level.

I think your perspective is a little skew-whiff, Graham.  NZ has always relied on Exports to make some kind of Balance of Payments.  We're a little island nation that imports pretty much everything except for food and timber.  That's what stung so very much when Britain joined the EU, and NZ lost it's favoured nation status and had to figure out how to attract, agree, and leverage trade deals with other economies outside the EU.  Which it has done pretty well at over the past four-plus decades!  

UK leaving the EU opens tremendous opportunity for NZ; though not particularly with UK!  As long as we can sort out our beef production issues, at least.

Where NZ has continued to fail is expanding its export backbone beyond primary industry.  We've done a lot in the knowlege economy direction, but not to the point of it bringing home the bacon as a new consistent and reliable earner of foreign dollars to rival agriculture. 

As for getting businesses out of discussions on the TPP; who do you think will benefit from these agreements?!  We're not a socialist or communist economy.  The end users (taxpayers) ultimately benefit where the govt has a greater tax take, to spend on essential services as a result of the TPP.  The suggestion of excluding businesses - when it's all about access for businesses - is somewhat unusual.

[kwhelan 241]

59 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

The real issue with the UK is the job market , available jobs are

• Politicians ( shared only by them with their mates,
• Banking / investment
• Insurance
• I.T for  banking and Insurance

Doesn't leave a lot for honest hardworking people Muslim or otherwise

Don't forget Publicans they still enjoy a pint and someone has to pour them and put out the crisps

[Olaf 3318]

3 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Funny rose coulured glasses there Olaf, the UK took what it wanted out of the relationship with the colonies and just dumped them when they thought they could get a better root somewhere else they were and still are just opportunistic sluts,  now the same sluts want  us to come back into the commonwealth fold, go gaga over their royal family and prop up the sh*t economy and toxic culture. Our enemies have treated us better. Vote for a republic tomorrow and tell BOJO to F-O 

rose-tinted glasses?  are you on crack?  we've just argued the same side of the coin.