You honestly think that trade hasn’t lifted a billion out of poverty? That widespread immigration (and the money that is sent back) hasn’t been instrumental in alleviating poverty? That’s kind of like saying vaccines have no effect on disease prevention. Just look at the link between trade deals and median earnings.
Or are you saying that there might be other ways of alleviating poverty? In which case, I’ll agree the possibility exists. However, centuries have passed, and the best we’ve managed is to help a few million.
Again, I have no problem if you believe that it’s not your responsibility, but if you are truly interested in helping huge numbers of the worst hit by poverty, I can think of few things crueler than telling billions that their better life is entirely fictional, and they should go back to be subsistence farmers until we can come up with a real way of alleviating poverty that doesn’t involve trade or immigration.
(Or they can spend the next 50-100 years developing slowly as we did, except without the natural resource bounty that helped North America or the Imperialism that helped Europe, so maybe its 100-200 years.)
World GDP/person is about $15K, meaning earnings are (massive generalization) about half of that, but let’s say $10K.
Given the poverty line is ~$20K, I’d say pauperize (by North American standards) is about the right term. Globally, however, $10K is considered middle class - gets you housing, a motorcycle, decent food, schooling, etc.
Now that’s a very fair point. TPP is not wonderful, although most of the deal is about lowering trade barriers. The extra IP protection is painful. And absolutely this treaty won’t do anything for the most impoverished nations in Asia and Africa. However, I’m going to assume that TPP is acting as a proxy for both of our general opinions on trade deals (which are inevitably a mix of good and bad provisions), so hence my generalization.
But let me point out that “American-style wealth inequality” on a world stage would be an unimaginable improvement for most of the world. Do you think most Chinese would trade going back to subsistence farming in return for reducing the huge levels in inequality they see now? I lean pretty left, especially nationally, but I have to believe the evidence, even on the odd occasion when it has a right-ward slant. Trade and immigration have been more effective in relieving poverty than everything else we’ve tried over the history of mankind.
And if I have to choose between my left-wing preferences and supporting trade and immigration policies that have actually shown to reduce poverty, even as they increase inequality, well, then at the very least, I have to recognize that I’m making a choice.
I’ll leave the “I don’t like the means, so by definition, the outcome can’t be positive” attitude to the Republicans.
