Trans-Pacific Partnership will barely benefit Australia, says World Bank report   :(

Date
    January 11, 2016
    Canberra Times

Australia stands to gain almost nothing from the mega trade deal sealed with 11 other nations including United States, Japan, and Singapore, the first comprehensive economic analysis finds.   :(

Prepared by staff from the World Bank, the study says the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership would boost Australia's economy by just 0.7 per cent by the year 2030.

The annual boost to growth would be less than one half of one 10th of 1 per cent.


Other members of the TPP stand to benefit much more, according to the analysis. Vietnam's economy would be 10 per cent bigger by 2030, Malaysia's 8 per cent bigger, New Zealand's 3 per cent bigger, and Singapore's 3 per cent bigger.

The study explains that highly developed nations such as Australia are either relatively reliant on things other than trade for economic growth or are already fairly free of trade restrictions.

Australia and the United States benefit the least from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The study says it would boost the US economy by only 0.4 per cent by 2030.


Signatories to the TPP include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam.

Non-members would suffer as members directed trade to other members. The biggest loser would be Thailand, whose exports are set to fall 2 per cent while Vietnam's grow 30 per cent.

Since sealing the deal in October the Australian government has been reluctant to commission an economic analysis of its effects, turning down an offer from the Productivity Commission.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the deal as a "gigantic foundation stone", saying it would deliver "more jobs, absolutely".

It opens up trade between members but makes trade more difficult with non-members through a process known as "cumulative rules of origin" where members lose privileges if they source inputs from countries outside the TPP.

The Productivity Commission has been strongly critical of the provisions saying that they turn so-called free trade agreements into "preferential" agreements.

The Partnership also requires members to sign up to tough intellectual property provisions and to submit to investor-state dispute settlement procedures administered by outside tribunals.

World Trade Online says the negotiating parties are planning to sign the agreement in New Zealand on February 4. It says Chile has confirmed the date and some trade ministers have already made arrangements to travel to Auckland, but it says New Zealand has yet to issue formal invitations.

The deal will not come into place until it has been ratified by at least 6 of the 12 signatories representing 85 per cent of their combined gross domestic product. Before ratifying the deal Australia has to table it in Parliament for 20 joint sitting days and consider a report from the joint standing committee on treaties.

Labor has yet to announce its position on the partnership. It has said previously that it opposes investor-state dispute settlement procedures but agreed to them in the Korea and China free trade agreements.

A spokeswoman for Trade Minister Andrew Robb said the agreement would deliver enormous benefits by driving integration in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific, and establishing one set of trading rules across 12 countries.

"The World Bank report demonstrates that all 12 member countries – representing around 40 per cent of global GDP – will experience economic growth and increased exports," she said.

Are we giving Mexico the leg up?

Great, on the border of the... wait: this doesn't even make sense to me....  :o :o :o :o :o

Like the FTA it will benefit , a few people.

wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:44pm:

The annual boost to growth would be less than one half of one 10th of 1 per cent.

Ah.  You mean less than 0.05%. 

I expect the lib supporters will just attack the credentials of the report or fairfax. 
I doubt  there will be an actual rational rebuttal to the report.
If one is unlucky, they will attack the posters of the forum.

stunspore wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:35pm:

I expect the lib supporters will just attack the credentials of the report or fairfax.  I doubt  there will be an actual rational rebuttal to the report. If one is unlucky, they will attack the posters of the forum.

I dunno   :-/

I didn't think anyone supported the TPP...Well, nobody with red blood anyway. 

But Turdball will support it.

At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D

You didn't really expect it to, did you?  How are we here in Oz to benefit from free trade with countries that produce shoddy product at low prices when we produce nothing in return but market share for them?

Is everyone so blind?

We'll need LongMania to sort this out mathematically for us....

Swagman wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:54pm:

At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D

How will we ever know since the Emissions Trading Scheme never got off the ground?

Swagman wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:54pm:

At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D

Carbon tax encouraged investment in green technologies though.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:54pm: At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D How will we ever know since the Emissions Trading Scheme never got off the ground?

It was in operation for quite some time before it was finally dismantled,  thankfully.

stunspore wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:54pm: At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D Carbon tax encouraged investment in green technologies though.

No it didn't,  not even close.

'At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook'

How?

'and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was'

Your thoughts on direct action?

macman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 7:21am:

'At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook' How?

Read the opening post.  A 'bare' benefit is still a benefit.  :-?


macman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 7:21am:

'and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was' Your thoughts on direct action?

If you think the sky is falling, reduce your own carbon footprint.  Spend your own money on reducing it.  Donate part of your income (voluntary tax yourself) to renewable energy projects.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 6:07am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:54pm: At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D How will we ever know since the Emissions Trading Scheme never got off the ground? It was in operation for quite some time before it was finally dismantled,  thankfully.

wow ... how deluded are you? When did the ETS start?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 6:08am:

stunspore wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:54pm: At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D Carbon tax encouraged investment in green technologies though. No it didn't,  not even close.

No there wasnt 4.5billion dollars worth of new projects in the pipeline attribited to carbon pricings inception , not at all.

Remind is all how many mining projects the Libs have underway under their tenure , i will tell you how many , zero squat zip nada nenti.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 6:08am:

stunspore wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:54pm: At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook, and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was.... ;D Carbon tax encouraged investment in green technologies though. No it didn't,  not even close.

what are you stupid? Investment in renewables was at all time highs ... until Abbott came and ran them all out of the country

wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:44pm:

Trans-Pacific Partnership will barely benefit Australia, says World Bank report

Abbott didn't care about benefits to Australia, he'd gladly sell us out for a front page headline

Swagman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 7:31am:

macman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 7:21am: 'At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook' How? Read the opening post.  A 'bare' benefit is still a benefit.  :-? macman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 7:21am: 'and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was' Your thoughts on direct action? If you think the sky is falling, reduce your own carbon footprint.  Spend your own money on reducing it.  Donate part of your income (voluntary tax yourself) to renewable energy projects.

Once again Swag, your thoughts on direct action and why it is better than an ETS?

macman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 8:52am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 7:31am: macman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 7:21am: 'At least it's a benefit to the economy Crook' How? Read the opening post.  A 'bare' benefit is still a benefit.  :-? macman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 7:21am: 'and not the boil on its arse that the carbon tax was' Your thoughts on direct action? If you think the sky is falling, reduce your own carbon footprint.  Spend your own money on reducing it.  Donate part of your income (voluntary tax yourself) to renewable energy projects. Once again Swag, your thoughts on direct action and why it is better than an ETS?

The "adults" implemented a policy to pay big polluters ..... to pollute so it must be good policy .

macman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 8:52am:

Once again Swag, your thoughts on direct action and why it is better than an ETS?

Quote:

the cost to the broader economy of any tax, including a carbon price. Taxes of all kinds – even those intended to address a negative externality like carbon emissions – deter economic activity, reducing the value of goods and services we produce and the purchasing power of the wages we enjoy. Unfortunately, these broader costs are much bigger than the costs of actually securing emission reductions, and much more difficult to measure, as they represent the economic activity that is silently forgone. Indeed, in the course of the parliamentary debate on the now abolished carbon pricing scheme, Labor and the Treasury argued that there was no problem because the economy would still continue to grow in spite of the tax. However, what was not revealed was that the economy would be about $120 billion smaller over a 20-year period than it would have otherwise been. We identified this cost as part of some work we undertook and published for Malcolm Turnbull and Nick Xenophon a few years ago, on a modified version of Rudd’s CPRS. We also found that these broader economic costs of carbon pricing are about three times the actual direct costs of the investment in lower-emission technologies required to meet our abatement targets. This was the case even after taking into account the positive effects of an increase in cleaner technologies and the consumer and industry compensation arrangements. Similar analyses by US economists indicate that the cost of an ETS rises by about four times when these broader “excess burden" costs are included. DIRECT ACTION COSTS ARE SMALLER In our analysis for Turnbull and Xenophon we showed that under an ETS for the electricity sector, the government taxes the economy about $5 for each $1 of investment required. Under Direct Action, the government taxes the economy $1 for every $1 of abatement required. This means that under Direct Action, the broader economic costs – the much bigger costs associated with an ETS – will be much smaller than an ETS. So even if the Direct Action tender process is somewhat more costly in securing emissions abatement, which need not be the case, it will be much cheaper for the economy overall than an ETS. This means that a scheme such as Direct Action is more economically suited to being scaled up to meet a tougher target than an ETS.

Source:

Thank you Swag for the source of Direct action vs. ETS.

Since no one on these forums are probably as credited with economic analysis credentials the best we can do is provide sources that counter each other's claims and up to one's religion/ideology/independent critical analysis to judge which argument wins out.

According to the same person "Danny Price" who appears to have good qualifications, Direct action is at best a temporary measure.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/our-plan-a-stopgap-coalition-modeller/story-e6frg6nf-1225826901651 .
He did say it was better than ETS in the short term.

Here's an article on DA vs ETS: http://pckeane4000.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/the-argument-direct-action-vs-price-on.html.

Now if DA was a temp measure, what is the long term plan?  Something that the rest of the world is moving to?
Anyway, not the aim of this topic thread.

Trade deal that lets companies sue the government for protecting its citizens and environment (i.e. ISD) is stupid. I can do without that type of investment that doesn't care about Australia's sovereign rights.