Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Of bats and capitalism

‘Free Trade’ and the death of democracy

 
 

A new free trade deal might expose governments to the will of corporations.

Dr Jason Hickel posted on Al Jazeera this Dec. 19,  2013
 

“Free trade”. The term itself is a trap – a brilliant framing device that neatly neutralizes opposition.

If you take a stand against free trade you appear to be taking a stand against freedom itself, which is clearly not a tenable position.

In fact, in recent decades the term “free trade” has become very closely associated with “democracy”, owing in no small part to the efforts of right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Business Roundtable, and the Cato Institute, which have built up a powerful PR campaign to establish this spurious connection in the minds of the public.

What does freedom really mean in this context?

It turns out that it has very little to do with meaningful human freedom, and rather a lot to do with corporate freedom – the freedom of corporations to extract and exploit without hindrance.

“Free trade” is an obvious propaganda term, a form of Orwellian doublethink that means exactly the opposite of what it claims.

If we take a look at existing free trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), we see that they focus primarily on battering down import barriers, curbing labour unions, reducing restrictions on pollution, legalizing capital flight, cutting corporate taxes, eliminating state subsidies for local industries, privatising public assets, and extending foreign patent protections.

None of these measures have to do with enhancing human freedom. Rather, they are designed in the interests of multinational corporations, who through them gain access to new export markets and investment opportunities, and cheaper labour and raw materials.

The disturbing thing about the rhetorical strategy of “free trade” is that the very things that do promote real human freedoms – such as the right of workers to organise, equal access to decent public services, and safeguards for a healthy environment – are cast as somehow anti-democratic, or even totalitarian.

These freedoms are reframed as “red tape”, as “market interventions”, or as “barriers to investment”, even when, as is almost always the case, they have been won by popular grassroots movements exercising democratic franchise.

A new global order

In this paradigm, democracy itself begins to appear as anti-democratic, inasmuch as it grants voters control over the economic policies that affect their lives. As this absurd logic moves steadily toward its ultimate conclusion, democracy becomes an obstacle that needs to be circumvented in the interests of “free” trade and investment.

If these deals come into effect, multinational corporations will be empowered to regulate democratic states, rather than the other way around.

This may sound extreme, but it is exactly what is happening today.

We can see it very clearly in two new “free trade” deals that are about to come into effect: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which will govern trade between the US and the European Union, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will govern trade between the US and a number of Pacific nations.

We hear very little about these deals because they are shrouded in secrecy, and because six of the corporations leading the negotiations happen to control 90 percent of our media. Yet, we need to pay attention, because these deals are set to form the blueprint for a new global order.

The TTIP and the TPP go far beyond earlier trade deals like NAFTA, which seem almost quaint by comparison.

In addition to battering down import tariffs and privatising public services, they grant corporations the power to strike down the laws of sovereign nations. You read that right.

If these deals come into effect, multinational corporations will be empowered to regulate democratic states, rather than the other way around. This is the most far-reaching assault on the ideas of sovereignty and democracy that has ever been attempted in history. And it is being conducted under the banner of “freedom”.

We only know about this because of a few intrepid whistleblowers who have leaked draft chapters of the TPP to the public.

The leaked chapters show that corporations will seize the power to sue governments for implementing policies that threaten to reduce their potential profits. The mechanism that facilitates this is known as “investor-state dispute settlement“, which sets up private tribunals to adjudicate between corporations and states. The hearings of these tribunals will be held in secret, the judges will be corporate lawyers, and there will be no right of appeal.

An assault on democracy

In other words, elected politicians around the world will find themselves stripped of power to defend the interests of their people and the planet against disasters such as economic crisis and climate change.

Let’s imagine that Malaysian voters elect politicians who promise to roll out new worker safety standards for garment sweatshops, or new limits on the toxic chemical dyes that sweatshops dump into local rivers.

Let’s imagine that these new rules are ratified by the national parliament with unanimous support. If the multinational corporations that run those sweatshops – say, Nike or Primark – believe that their profits will be negatively affected, they will have the power to sue the government to stop the implementation of the new rules, subverting the will of the people and overriding the power of their elected representatives.

Investor-state dispute settlement tribunals are already in use, so we know how they work.

In El Salvador, citizens recently voted to ban a gold mine planned by Pacific Rim, a Canadian corporation, because it threatened to destroy part of the national river system. Pacific Rim is now suing El Salvador for $315m worth of lost potential profits.

In Canada, Dow Agrosciences, a US corporation, is suing the government for banning the use of its pesticides on the basis that they may cause cancer in humans.

In Britain, presuming the TTIP goes ahead, US healthcare corporations are set to sue the government if it tries to prevent them from buying up the NHS, something British voters are overwhelmingly against.

In addition to allowing corporations to sue states, these new trade deals will pre-emptively prevent states from making certain laws.

For example, they will make it illegal for governments to stop commercial banks from engaging in securities trading, which was one of the main causes of the global financial crisis.

The deals will also prevent governments from limiting the size of too-big-to-fail banks, and will prohibit the proposed Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions. And, perhaps most worryingly of all, they will restrict governments from limiting the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

In other words, elected politicians around the world will find themselves stripped of power to defend the interests of their people and the planet against disasters such as economic crisis and climate change.

This unprecedented corporate power-grab amounts to something like an international coup d’etat.

It dispenses with the idea of national sovereignty, and pours scorn on the notion of elected government. The ideology of “free trade” has now overplayed its hand; it has exposed itself as a farce.

With democracy about to be sacrificed on the altar of free trade, it has become abundantly clear that free trade was never meant to be about freedom in the first place.

Note 1: Dr Jason Hickel lectures at the London School of Economics and serves as an adviser to /The Rules. He has contributed political critique and analysis to various magazines. He is currently working on a new book titled The Development Delusion: Why Aid Misses the Point about Poverty. 

Note 2:  Of bats and capitalism https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/any-equivalence-between-wealth-and-value-of-bats-and-capitalism-part-1/

1295

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Is there any equivalence between Wealth and Value?

Any difference between products (services) in Usage Values versus products for Exchanged?

You read “This person is worth a million

If this person own shares worth one million, or have that wealth in cash, or in real properties, or accumulated through an enterprise, or inherited… would you consider these forms of wealth as equivalent?

If the shares go bust and you find yourself penniless, or the cash has been devalued through currency changes, or properties have been confiscated or not amounting to much after a calamity, or the enterprise was selling illusion of wealth, or the inheritance was divided up early on while alive and has been wasted… what could be the common denominator among all these forms of wealth?

That once upon a time you were wealthy?

That you knew how to accumulate wealth but unable to hold on to?

That feeling poor in old age is overshadowed by a social recognition that you were once rich?

You read that the economists have lately estimated that Nature can extend worth of 54,000 billion per year on services rendered . What that means?

That concept of valuing the various services that nature are saving the corporations was first contemplated in 1997 by Robert Costanza, and the studies multiplied since then. For example:

Bats save $23 bn per year in the US on pesticides

Bees and pollinating insects save $190 bn per year.

And how about the photosynthesis of forests? How much this process saves on accumulated CO2? And valued per ton of CO2 eliminated on the market… A purely political price consensus by the G20

Anything that can be transformed into money is computed by the neoliberal capitalists who have this faculty of absolute recuperation in their mental system.

William Petty once said: “Work is not the unique source for practical values that it produces in material wealth. Work is the father, and land is the mother…”

The new trend among economists is to include all kinds of factors that can be capitalized in their linear models: Sort of analogue addition of variables that include human capital, social capital, knowledge capital, natural capital, communication capital, cognitive capital…

The motto is: “Economical Factors that can be monetarily evaluated should be considered as Capital

One of the problems in these models is ignoring the interactions among the variables, such as the metabolism within the natural eco-systems. All these interconnections that constitute the vast networks for a living condition and the preservation of the productive conditions.

There are new concepts and terms created by international organizations such as the World Bank, the UN Environmental Programs (PNUE) and the Organization of Cooperation and Economic development ( OCDE), and the European Union…. Terms such as “Valuing the living“, “Intrinsic economic value of nature“, and “service value generated by nature”…

Questions:

1.  Can Nature have  Intrinsic economic value since it is not within the social category?

2. Should the wealth of nature be  reduced to political price decision that are reached by consensus of the largest exporting nations?

Since it is human work and efforts exercised on nature that produce values, should the economists and politicians exclude the social context in navigating within a network of interconnected anthropological living organism?

You read that daily transactions amount to over what all nations produced in GNP for an entire year. What that means?

The neoliberal capitalists have been trying hard to eliminate the notion of “value of work” and replace this term with “circulation of capital” as the main wealth producing factor, sort of connecting work with exchange value and disconnecting usage work as a value in generating wealth.

Neo-capitalists want to equate value with everything that can be transformed into capital, including knowledge, talents, health care, education, potable water, breathable air… Everything that maintain life and the survival of mankind has to be taxed and “capitalized”…

Neo-capitalism has created two contradictions that is handicapping any progress in sustainability of nature and mankind. To be explained in the second part.

Note: Post inspired by the article of Jean-Marie Harribey in Le Monde Diplomatic #717 under “Of bats and capitalism


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,427,871 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 775 other followers

%d bloggers like this: