US-EU Trade Agreement Gains Exaggerated, Say 41 Consumer Groups, Economist

Glyn Moody (946055) writes "The main claims about likely economic gains from concluding the US-EU trade agreement TAFTA/TTIP, billed as a 'once-in-a-generation prize,' are increasingly under attack. BEUC, representing 41 consumer organizations from 31 European countries, has written a letter to the EU Trade Commissioner responsible for the negotiations, Karel De Gucht, complaining about his 'exaggeration of the effects of the TTIP,' and 'use of unsubstantiated figures regarding the job creation potential.' In a blog post entitled 'Why Is It So Acceptable to Lie to Promote Trade Deals?,' Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, has even harsher words: 'Implying that a deal that raises GDP by 0.4 or 0.5 percent 13 years out means "job-creating opportunities for workers on both continents" is just dishonest. The increment to annual growth is on the order of 0.03 percentage points. Good luck finding that in the data.' If the best-case outcome is just 0.03% extra growth per year, is TAFTA/TTIP worth the massive upheavals it will require to both US and EU regulatory systems to achieve that?"

Not About Growth Anyway

[Apocryphos]

This is just classic use of government to support established corporations. It's been happening for a long time, and it's been lied about for a long time. It's not surprising that their sales pitch to the public isn't exactly accurate...

Re:Rule of thumb

[green1]

They need the agreements so that they can hash out how to allow trade for large multi-national corporations, while forbidding it to all private individuals, because allowing individuals to import things without barriers would lead to anarchy... or something like that.... For example, In Canada our auto manufacturers can produce their cars anywhere in the world and ship them in to the country, due to various free trade agreements they can often do this without any tariffs getting in their way. However as a consumer it is illegal for me to buy a car in a different country and import it myself. (with some small exceptions for cars from the USA, however even then the auto manufacturers write the list of which cars are allowed to be imported)
We have similar rules for many different industries, automotive is just one of the most obvious ones. Remember, "Free" trade is never the goal of any of these agreements, increased regulation for consumers, coupled with job movement to lower cost jurisdictions, combined with fewer trade barriers for multi-national corporations is what you can expect every single time.

Re:Not About Growth Anyway

[dave420]

No, it's a "Protected Designation of Origin", as Champagne is a place, not a specific product. It would help you not look quite so bombastic if you understood that against which you choose to rail.

Re:Not About Growth Anyway

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Oh I understand Appelation d'Origine Contrôlée perfectly thanks. It's not like I didn't live in France for 30 years or anything.
Champagne is one of the worst abusers of AOC. It attacks products with "champagne" in the name that no one on earth could possibly mistake for Champagne or even fizzy wine or come to that even a drink. At that point it's no longer about AOC and that's why I choose the term trademark.
Now look up Laguiole and see why there's one law for the rich and one for the poor when it comes to trademarks/AOC. Not only is the village denied exclusive use of the Laguiole name for the well-known knife design that originated there, it is not even allowed to use its own name for anything except that specific knife.
Meanwhile elsewhere in France dairies are merrily making Gruyère, Emmental, and Cheddar cheese.

I am not American. I hate a lot of IP nonsense that comes out of the USA. But they are not the only bad boys as someone in this thread would have it.