What global trade deals are really about (hint: it's not trade) | Haley Edwards | TEDxMidAtlantic

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.

[DAYbreaking_Ideas]

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.

[justiceheartliberty]

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

[TheReactor]

Thank you. This really should get more attention.

[davidhimself]

"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.

[whatbringsmepeace]

The bigger question is who runs the World Trade Organization and whether their agenda is efficiency or simply profits for themselves.

[DavidRaderII]

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.

<Rant>
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.
</Rant>

[itztimefun]

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!

[zacharydavis]

0:00 - 11:00 Thank you so much for spending the time to create and share this content 🙏🏾❤️

[daca]

If you define "keep exploiting working class while rich get richer and more people become poor" as "world peace", then yeah, world peace

[livenoob]

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!!

[nicksam]

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.

[johnc]

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.

[grizzlyvoodoo]

She said it very delicately the reality is far more brutal.

[audreyandlinCompany]

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."

[luffirton]

This was eye opening, the WTO, Politicians and other leaders talk about trade but obscure it as something they don’t control that it’s market forces in play, but it’s really all governing rules created together to set a standard for how fair trade should be, but the rules have been focused on efficiency and not unilateral prosperity, environmental impact & protection and economic sustainability and that is where the new rules from WTO need to be directly impacting behavior of the international community not efficiency we can live with less efficiency but we can’t live with a planet in ruins or long term unsustainable economic policy

[MahmoudSuhail]

Now imagine a textbook named “Trade” then think of what this lecture may add to it.

[hardlyconfused]

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.

[leamercatwild]

"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?

[davidhimself]

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.

[huyhong]

Very understandable concept about global trade.