What global trade deals are really about (hint: it's not trade) | Haley Edwards | TEDxMidAtlantic
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2017
- TPP, NAFTA, GAAT, WTO -- the concepts that govern our global economy and international trade are confusing to say the least, but affect us all. And why is there so much conflict around trade deals, which became a focal point during the 2016 US Presidential election? Haley Edwards breaks down the history of trade and explains how the idea of global trade has transformed in the past decades.
Haley Edwards is an author and correspondent at TIME. Her book, Shadow Courts: The Tribunals That Rule Global Trade came out in 2016. Previously, she was an editor at the Washington Monthly and a foreign correspondent in the Middle East and the former Soviety Union, where she reported for the Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, The New Republic, and other publications. She studied philosophy at Yale University and journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
Thank you. This really should get more attention.
This is excellent. She is applying intercultural concepts to the application of the WTO. It's on the scale of the nation-state which is very broad and general, but it is still a step in the right direction. Global equity is direction I would go into but I appreciate her application of the concepts.
I thought National State was more a requlatory thing. Imported products have to compete on the local market is more like branding? Just asking :)
thank you so much, inspired a lot!
0:00 - 11:00 Thank you so much for spending the time to create and share this content 🙏🏾❤️
In my humble food-body conscious opinion, any time any organization makes knowledge itself [especially of what we put into our bodies *(e.g. Origin of Food, Type of Food, Ingredients)] illegal , you know they're going too far.
Imagine if one day there's a scientific consensus on a particular strain of GMO food being bad - Your Dr. says did you eat any of that? And you say "Sorry, it was illegal for that knowledge to be written on a label. It's illegal to know fully what we eat, because it may effect someones profits." It's sickening and makes me want to throw up the GMO cereal I just ate (just joking, but I do eat it regularly). I don't distrust the possibilities of GMO entirely, but I think it would be beneficial if trade laws create natural "control groups" so all of humanity isn't exposed to what truly amounts to a grand experiment, whether people want to admit it or not. Personally, I think GMO should be limited even in countries where its allowed. It's a great emergency / reserve crop, but not necessarily smart to make it the #1 plant (or animal) grown anywhere in IMHO.
This is the negotiation tone that's needed, that's the tone of open mindedness and understanding, persuading WORLD PEACE thru fair global trade and promoting international freedom
World peace achieved through capitalism? Funny.
@@AlexandruthewolfIkr so naive 😂
This is amazing!
thanks for speach, i think we should think international trade is good for whom
Every time I listen to an economy podcast/ted talk etc. I notice that no one really talks about a longterm economical plan. It’s always about efficiency or how to make it faster, better, finding cheaper producing industries etc. but as a geography student I began to wonder why no one thinks about the longterm effect that a such plan creates. Yes economically thinking (only in a short term logic) it makes sense to fish in a non environmental friendly way but a way that pulls the biggest profit financially. But imagining doing this for decades - It destroys the complete ecosystem (and not only the marine ecosystem). Often times humans can’t think about what big impact such a foolish behaviour has… Just to throw a little comparison in here. Longterm economically speaking may be 10 to 20 years but geographically speaking longterm includes hundreds or even thousands of years!
Pursuing economic efficiency is like the best tactics. But a series of best tactics do not make the best strategy.
We should strive for best strategy, even if it means to sacrifice short-term economic efficiency. But the world has reached 8 billion people, plus complex systems of bilateral agreements, so it's hard to govern what humans do.
You strike up a really interesting conversation, it is always about "how can we make this more efficient?" The negative consequences I'm sure are considered but overlooked in the presence of profit. This same idea can be applied to fast fashion and sustainability, well more like the lack of it. Clothing companies like Shein have achieved a multi billion dollar networth and the negative effects are showing - dumping clothing offshore and exploiting workers. If this is done in long term the environmental effects will only get worse.
I would say because everyone realizes the harm caused by a consume/fear/obey paradigm. Everyone might want to just make enough money to live like in a fairy tale and move on without causing more harm than has to be done. Cuz like a Texas man would say "If you dont dig for (Texas)Tea here I WILL"
The reasoning is probably " I know this is a bad idea longterm but if we don't do it, someone else will. They'll make the profits and we won't". In the case of an individual, "If I don't perform as well as my contemporaries, I'll be out of a job". I saw a documentary a few years ago about the depletion of tuna populations in the Pacific. In the light of the decline, it would be reasonable to advocate a restriction in fishing to conserve the population. The opposite was the case. The companies increased their fishing in anticipation of restrictions so that in the foreseeable shortage, their stock of frozen tuna would increase in price!
Great talk, very illuminating.
Awesome talk, very understandable.
great summary.thank you
Wow. Consuming other countries food, and rejecting our 'standards' is NOT TRADE by any definition that i know.(EU our beef, usa rejecting tuna caught w no dolphin protection) No wonder it such a hotly contentious issue. It very well should be debated.
Its just colonialism via the pen rather than the bullet.
Just because it no longer became socially acceptable to outright invade and seize foreign countries and the resources of their people doesnt mean that greed went away.
Great talk
Thank you.
Now imagine a textbook named “Trade” then think of what this lecture may add to it.
The bigger question is who runs the World Trade Organization and whether their agenda is efficiency or simply profits for themselves.
Louise Cusack Fantasy Author WTO is a international body where all the members are represented.
Without WTO half of the stuff you can buy today wouldn’t be created without WTO
It took about 11 minutes but of course the D word was thrown out there. The poor Mexicans are being discriminated against. Typical, shut up.
@@michaelshanahan4965 thank you
It's the Illuminati lizards
Okay
"Free Trade" has twisted David Ricardo's classic theory of competitive advantage with the "new" competitive advantages: 1) Who has the lowest wages and worker health and safety laws, 2) Who has the worst environmental laws.
Very understandable concept about global trade.
She is awesome! Wow!
indeed, this sounds who rules the world. With world trade and globalization appears conflicts when international meets national issues. I think is mandatory to include environmental rules to protect the world and continue trade under those rules. looking forward to a more sustainable world in the broad sense.
Regarding GMO beef, consumers should be in charge. If consumers don't want it, then non-GMO beef producers get business, while GMO beef producers go out of business. Plain and simple. Government shouldn't be involved. Yet, even more than that, national sovereignty shouldn't be infringed upon here.See, that's why I say these are ideals. I would like to see total free trade and free market capitalism. But, that should not be forced on any nation, especially not by some international organization like the WHO.
Pardon me, but do you mean *WTO?
@@huyenle2k I think you mean "WHO."
That stands for World Health Organization.
WTO is also an acronym standing for World Trade Organization.
But consumers may not make the right decisions. GMO is a contentious issue for its health effects, which no regular citizen can pour research into. Whereas governemnt can bring in researchers to make a representative right decision in favour of its own citizen.
@@user-qi3rm2wr5m Why would I trust the government to make the right decisions for my life when they've proven to be so awful at this?
As an individual, I will make the best decisions for myself.
Regarding GMOs, I can simply stay away from them until those companies desiring my business prove that they are safe and even preferable to non-GMO foods.
That goes right back to a free market. If other people want them, great. That means consumer demand. And, if most people don't want them, then there's little consumer demand and they simply won't be produced.
In reality, people are thinking about self-interest while talking about global trade, and that is perfectly natural.
Natural yes but if someone elses self interest runs counter to that of others it is also natural for those others to say no.
Self interest of whom exactly?
If our self-interests include those of our progeny, are we not naturally inclined to also think about sustainable environmental and social conditions when talking about global trade?
Self-interest is natural to the cavemen who's sole concerns are their survival and fleshly desires.
Once we discover we are spiritual beings connected to everything in the universe and not individual lumps of flesh and bone trying to survive, what is natural to people will change.
Welche Abkommen und Organisationen werden im Video genannt?
Was sind nichttarifäre Handelshemmnisse? Geben Sie ein Beispiel an!
Welche gesellschaftlichen Werte können bei modernen Handelsabkommen in Konflikt geraten?
Worum geht es laut Haley Edwards bei aktuellen Handelsabkommen wirklich?
alter ernsthaft hahaha
can someone help me to answer this question.
why the speaker relate trade as rules??
Global interdependence and international corporations are hardly a new thing though. Look at the Dutch East India Company which was setup in 1602. On an economic level it was on par with nations and was worth close to $7 trillion in todays dollars or 7x the value of apple.
The abuse is nothing new either. The DEIC money was soaked in blood.
Colonialism now is done usually via the pen rather than the bullet but the principle hasnt changed one bit.
Thus product stabilization.and compensation..then the people in every country would have to have the same dollar in order global sustainable a donkey?....
It's foundational. You have to "get it".
If you define "keep exploiting working class while rich get richer and more people become poor" as "world peace", then yeah, world peace
Think out of the box. Countries don't want to part of global economic meltdowns anymore -- Their "We" is not the same as your "We."
the box?
To remain sustainable there need to be supranational rules and responsibility. We need to stop trading with nations that don't want to play by the same rules. If that means a loss of sovereignty, so be it. However, this supranational federation needs to be accountable to all members, not like this model that's dictated by the USA, which is only accountable to Americans.
@@Jay-jq6bl
Or heres a radical notion? How about we stop trying to force things on other groups of humans and leave them alone. Shouldnt the fact that all plans for "one system for the whole world" have resulted in bloodshed be enough to make people realize that toning down the greed, living by more than just material pursuits and leaving others that have not harmed you alone is a much better idea?
I would support a motto for all of earth though: "mind your business". I think we would be a lot more peaceful if we dropped all of these grand plans and lived like that.
@@user-xg8yy7yl1d I would agree on that too. Coming from a small island state
"Globalism" Is this globalism for the benefit and welfare of multinational corporations, or for the benefit and welfare of "we the people"? Two different priorities and outcomes. Which one is she talking about?
The latter.
Globalism is and has only ever been about the profits of multinational corporations.
The "free trade" agreements are not about free trade, but about imposing US patent protections to only countries who agree to accept US patent protections.
wow ,great
The definition of efficiency is problematic. If some countries can continuously exploit its people to keep them poor, they will have advantage to take jobs from those who fairly distribute social wealth.
Its efficient exploitation
We've identified a problem. What needs to be done to solve the problem?
create a new 1
What the f is "global prosperity" for "everyday Americans"?
Conscious Being that’s your Big Greedy companies that will see a decline in their overall profits.
Where does apple’s billions dollars profits go?
This video focuses on world regulations that give rise to trade, while policies and organizations that emerge such as a liberal economy that aims to achieve world peace that has been renewed and improved in order to improve the level of economic prosperity.
The capitalists dont offer world peace but world slavery. We've been so focused on our (rightful) hatred and fear of war that we've forgotten there are other things worth standing against.
She said it very delicately the reality is far more brutal.
There should be several alternatives to such global structures as WTO, so that they could compete for individual nations as their "clients" to the advantage of these individual nations. There was an alternative several decades ago - I'm talking about the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (aka COMECON). And see what Eastern European countries used to be and what they've become now. Hungarian, Polish industries, etc. have gone, and now these countries are more oriented towards agriculture, tourism, "services" and the like. The EU came and destroyed all that, while the USSR was letting those industries live and work for the common good. "I want to leave you guys with that idea" :-))
It died out because they were behind with technology and couldnt compete on the post soviet market.. But for some with futurr there was no money to modernise it and corrupt politicians sold it for laugh money to foreign investors.. who modernised it and now own these industries and make the money
❤
It's always about the money honey. Nothing is free....it's managed
very well done.
Hey! Thanks for explaining the global market in only 11 minutes. Who said Blondes aren't smart?
Economic interdependence.
World peace
she is bright as she manage to separate issues about dolphin and particular culture. same goes for whale in Japan.
Not so convincing now to hear from any Americans now...
This comment section is the basic embodiment of salt
how different are the peoples of the earth here and now ? any global challanges .....
come on ask what is in common tambien. asking.
Global interdependence i think should benefit the world as one economy, where liberation of trade along with free movement of labour would be efficient as per economic theories.
However under current pandemic situation where we are coming back to self reliant economy, how should we set example of globalisation, International trade and interdependence.
3:16 what is this glitch? Looks suspicious 🧐
Currently, the rules set against average people and for enriching shareholders of Corporations. Since you mentioned GMO, can you blame international trade partners for not wanting it? There is evidence that points out the harm that GMO is causing when it comes to human health and the environment. It is like we are living in the illusion of Utopia, just because we have an abundance on our shelves doesn't mean its good for us or the environment. Greed economy is not sustainable in the long run, there is a cognitive dissonance within the study of economics itself because it explains two contradicting concepts of scarce resources and growth. You can grow as long as you have enough resources, once you cross that line you start creating negative externalities and grow National Debt instead. Balance is the key, we have to realize that if we, in fact, care about "Peace" on earth, we have to have balanced trade with all countries, not just China, Canada and Japan. This type of trade has ignored basic needs of small countries that may not have technology, education and resources to compete equally on the International arena, besides the USA has proven to be a bully because it achieves its economic goals through military intervention.
Borg?
Can someone just give the summary lol
Did you get it done? :D
@@eriksoghoyan800 kinda yeah
Oversimplification of 'Europe' and 'US' (which she claimed is 'backed by WTO' and not the EU)...or, did she confuse the EU with Europe? Or is she assuming that the EU is a single 'domestic' body seeking some form of free movement that she is describing as 'efficiency'. Haley has an MA in International Politics, but not in economics.
I'm an economist, and I don't really follow her logic. Adam Smith and Ricardo were political philosophers, NOT ECONOMISTS. People always confuse these facts when talking about economics. Smith especially was never arguing for which kind of economic policy or legal system to have in place, rather, what motivated man, or more broadly, what kind of animal we were at our nature. When we get into economic governance of any substantial kind at a global level, we are in fact talking about sovereignty. This is where trade POLICY, not trade, interact. She gets the timeline more or less correct of the events in history that shaped our global financial and trading systems, but her thesis argument is misguided at best. FAIL.
Smith and Ricardo literally founded the field of modern economics, yet you claim they aren't economists? What school taught you that?
Andrew Chrismer just curious how would you fix income inequality?
Get rid of liberals.
Missing the point here. It all come back to "World Peace". Self actualization is the highest level of individual satiisfaction. And that is undoubtly possible with the comcept of interdependence of nations. Politics, and economy always needed each other.
Eficiencia global
wow i thought i knew how trade worked. this
Yeah but Germany was dependent on Russian oil but invaded Russia anyway with the intention of seizing oil in the caucuses. The Russians burned the oil fields before the Germans got there and Germany was left with their limited supply in Romania. This contributed to why they lost.
Didn't Germany invade Norway for oil (after invading France) so that they do not need to rely on others.
Awe c'mon. I wrote this essay thirty years ago explaining Nixon's visit to China was for the sole purpose of China and America to be dependent on each other and avoid a Chineses invasion. The professor thought differently and gave me a poor grade!
You should've done a cool, slow-paced TED-style talk about it.
@@Ebvardh lol.
I don't mean to critize you 30 years ago. But perhaps using 'sole purpose' is too strong for politics. An essay might also include economic benefit of trading with China (its a huge market and cheap labour).
You can keep your GMO meet. We are fine here in Europe.
See, as much as I'm 100% for total free trade and free market capitalism, we don't more organizations and treaties. A country's government can simply choose to not interfere in trade, and even economy as a whole. If one country does that, then they allow for both domestic and foreign providers of goods/services to compete on a level field for the consumers of that country. And, that country's consumers get the best quality and lowest prices available, regardless of whether that comes from domestic or foreign providers. That creates greater economic efficiency.Ideally, all countries would adopt that policy, but it doesn't need some WHO or trade agreement. Get rid of all of that and just let there be free trade as countries decide to have it.
What to do , when the foreign traders , don't use the facts and intelligence to create a new opportunity, for global peace?
9:36
I guess she meant mercantilistic nature of if before ww2.😊
If production and exchange were socially-owned and managed, these trade problems would fall away entirely. Fisheries and fishermen working together abroad with the abolition of national borders altogether, which only holds back more robust cooperation and shared prosperity, This is the kind of viewpoint we need adapt in order to overcome these issues.
1994 Europeans: You can't go to war with a country that controls your supply chain. 1:52
2024 Europeans: Oh no! We can't go to war with Russia because they control our supply chain!!
It never rose
I disagree with the concept that more laws and regulations will lead to prosperity. Actually, I think is the other way around. It has been proven over and over, that big government, big agencies, big regulations, go against prosperity. The Free market concept, has been proven to be the best system that has created more wealth and prosperity than any other economic ideology. The poverty concept in the US has not the same standards as poverty in Africa, but the free-market indeed has been able to improve both economies at different levels. I like the way she summarized the recent history on trading, but to direct the opinion towards more local and regional regulations is going backward, there are many other ways to overcome the problems originated in the not so impeccably perfect system of free markets.
Don't be so sure. The evidence I've seen does not back your assertions.
Global prosperity for everyday Americans? 🤔 shouldn't she have said people?
The breating in the mic is bothering me
They Speared their own guy Tony Barber to create motation against me. I'm not planning on going anywhere.
I didn't understand anything:(
Sanctions and embargoes have failed primarily because they are negative and are applied inconsistently. A policy of high import duties, with reduction incentives based on human rights would be significantly more effective, without the negative effects of protectionism.
There is a good reason why sanctions are usually only applied if they are approved by the UN security council. If countries start to apply them unilaterally then sooner or later they will be abused for protectionist and political purposes.
Like whay China do to Philippines
"REFLECTION ON THE USA ELECTIONS" BY PROFESSOR WALTER VEITH AND MARTIN SMITH YOU TUBE POWERFUL POWERFUL WATCH FROM SOUTH AFRICA ENJOY 🙏🏿💯❤️🙏🏿💯❤️
"THE MAN BEHIND THE MASK?" BY PROFESSOR WALTER VEITH POWERFUL POWERFUL WATCH YOU TUBE FROM SOUTH AFRICA ENJOY 🙏🏿💯❤️
Awe
This talk completely neglects the history of trade pre ww1 and ww2 that started during the colonialism for over 400 years.
I think she was under time constraints and could not go into it THAT deep.
What was the concept that rule the pre ww1?
So, with bitcoin hitting the $56,000 mark, the question on everyone’s mind is: What’s next? What does the future hold in terms of price, regulation and adoption of this “digital gold?” I actually wasn’t left out I started investing with Luís when it was $30,000 and today I I’m benefiting from it. Sir luiz platform actually make you earn 10x the amount you invest in crypto...
Thanks Luiz .+1.8.0.3.5.6.6.0.6.9.7..
NWO! So true great talk
...
EXTRA EXTRA GET YOUR INDOCTRINATION HEEYA!! TED TALK, #1 FOR YOUR PROGRAMMING, EXTRA EXTRA!!
🤫
What a disastrous talk!
She failed to discuss monopoly capitalism. Free trade is really about neo-colonialism.
'Export-dependent monopoly-capitalism.'
Despite the economic crisis, this is a still a good time to invest in Crypto💯
Good information but let's not pretend that she isn't freakin' Hot!!
Wtf
Sorry not an enlightening speech, all trades have rules, they always did. Yes you are talking about trade whenever you are doing trade deals. So I don’t understand what she really means?
The way I see it is that what started as an economic issue has become a nation's sovereignty issue: who sets the rules about trade? Is it the country itself or WTO? Is whaling acceptable? Are GMO beef bad? By whose standard? Etc.
I personally and humbly think that it is just against human nature to wilfully submit to big governmental ruling, because human beings are different, and they are only willing to relinquish rights only so far as they see fair. WTO was not setup with fairness in mind, only efficiency... this is why, for better or worse, nationalism starts to revive around the world, especially US.
What a nothing-burger. Free trade and market efficiency impact national sovereignty and lives of workers participating in the global market, no kidding. Maybe if standup and explain basic concepts with a bit of compassion in my voice, TEDx will invite me to speak too.
US GMO BEEF? Where does this lady live? That doesn’t exist. This talk is all about hear say, really poor information and a huge lack of economic vision of the very rules and word she talks about. What a waste of time and a useless talk
@@anima_015 hmmm
@@Deontaine wait a second i forgot about this comment I was probably 5 when i wrote it haha
imma just delete it act like you never saw anything shhh
@@anima_015 im just vibin
@@Deontaine yes good
I hate ted talks
This was really boring