Sometimes, you just got to connect the dots--even when the stuff is so obvious and screams out with the truth. In this case, some evidence on why these so-called "free trade" agreements are so destructive, though, I have to say I chuckled when I read that the very forum consisting of the planet's wealthy countries has discovered, shockingly, that global inequality is at record levels.
This revelation comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which represents 34 countries, including some "emerging" economies but mostly it's a forum for the rich countries. And what's a bit hilarious is that you won't find a single word in the report that underscores why we're in this mess: the reliance on a bankrupt system called the "free market".
That it said, the Oracle at the OECD is ringing its hands, probably smelling the pitchforks in the streets, as it recounts some really bad facts in "In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All":
Over the past three decades, income inequality has risen in most OECD countries, reaching in some cases historical highs. Today, the Gini coefficient – a common measure of income inequality that scores 0 when everybody has identical incomes and 1 when all the income goes to only one person – stands at an average of 0.315 in OECD countries, exceeding 0.4 in the United States and Turkey and approaching 0.5 in Chile and Mexico. In the main emerging economies, income inequality is higher than in the OECD area (Figure 1.1); in some it has increased over the past decade but there are encouraging signs of stabilisation (e.g. China) or even declines in some of them (e.g. Brazil). [emphasis added]
And:
But while the flashy lifestyles and incomes of the top 1% are certainly eye-catching, focusing on them exclusively risks obscuring another area of growing concern in inequality – namely the declining situation of low-income households. This is not a small group. In recent decades, as much as 40% of the population at the lower end of the distribution has benefited little from economic growth in many countries. In some cases, low earners have even seen their incomes fall in real terms (Figure 1.2). Just as with the rise of the 1%, the decline of the 40% raises social and political questions. When such a large group in the population gains so little from economic growth, the social fabric frays and trust in institutions is weakened.
How did this happen? Partly lowers taxes and an obsession about deficits at a time when governments should have been spending more money:
In the initial years of the crisis, income inequality before taxes and benefits increased strongly but out-of-work benefits and other redistribution measures managed to cushion at least partially the rise (Figure 1.4). In the most recent years of weak economic recovery, unemployment persisted and yet governments chose to shift focus to fiscal consolidation, including curtailing unemployment benefits, education and investment. While income inequality before taxes and benefits continued to rise, the cushioning effect of taxes and benefits has become weaker, accelerating the overall upwards trend in
disposable income inequality.[emphasis added]
Guess what, these geniuses discovered the obvious:
But new research at the OECD, presented in Chapter 2, finds consistent evidence that the long-term rise in inequality of disposable incomes observed in most OECD countries has indeed put a significant brake on long-term growth. Further, it shows that efforts to reduce inequality through redistribution –typically, certain forms of taxes and benefits – do not lead to slower growth (confirming similar results in Ostry et al., 2014). This suggests that redistribution can be part of the solution, but requires a serious discussion on how to promote effective and well-targeted measures that promote a better sharing of the growth outcomes not only for social but also for economic considerations.[emphasis added]
There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo about insecure work, labour market segmentation and skills training--and the reason I refer to it as mumbo-jumbo is that not a word is mentioned about so-called "free trade" and the mess the entire regime has made of peoples' livelihoods and futures.
You can't throw peoples' jobs into wage competition around the globe without this happening. It's obvious. A no-brainer.
No one should be shocked when you pimp for so-called "free trade" like deals such as TPP and, then discover, presto, there's inequality to be found.