Editor's note: This piece ran in the Wanganui Chronicle as an opinion piece last week.
As a general rule, I’m not fond of the word expert. I feel
it’s used too often, especially among self-proclaimed experts. At very least
the designation should only be bestowed by a third party. In modern, Western
culture, universities have taken on that role: A Masters Degree implies one has
achieved a certain level of “mastery” of a subject, while a PhD implies the
highest level of mastery, ie expertise.
When I was in the initial stages of my doctoral research, my
supervisor said something to the extent: “When you’re finished you will be the
world expert on your topic.” At the time I
was more intimidated than inspired. Now I’m more-or-less indifferent. What good
is being an expert in a field in which few people appear interested?
Recently I have ventured from my field of study and into a
realm in which I am most assuredly not an expert. That realm is democracy, and
if you have read previous opinion pieces, you’ll know I have tried to carefully
construct logical, sequential arguments based on observable phenomenon, simple
data, and the work of real experts on
any given topic. That I am allowed back on the Opinion page appears to indicate
that at least a few readers appreciate this approach to promoting democracy in
Whanganui.
This time, however, we leave the River City to discuss
topics more central to discussions happening in Wellington, Washington D.C.,
and the netherworld of corporate secret negotiations. The topic of this column
is the ethereal Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), but first a word on
the timely topic of asset sales. (Remember to vote!)
While not an expert on asset sales, I do rank myself highly
on the common sense scale. Considering this, I subscribe to the following
simple argument I have heard in a number of places: If an asset performs well
(returning an acceptable or better rate), it would appear too valuable to sell.
On the other hand, if an asset is underperforming, the selling price would be
so low that the state would hardly make
anything from the sale.
Put another way, if private money considers public assets so
potentially profitable as to purchase them, wouldn’t that expert financial
insight be a signal to government that any
given asset is too valuable to sell? Right-leaning politicians are always on
about “trusting the wisdom of markets.” So why not trust that wisdom and hold
on to those profitable assets for the people?
Globally, asset sales have been used as a technique to
transfer public wealth into private hands. From what little the public has been
able to glimpse of the TPPA, it appears to do the same but in different ways.
From what I have been able to gather, the TPPA is a trade
agreement between nations in the general vicinity of the Pacific Ocean that is
being negotiated in secret. As such, who could possibly be an expert on the
topic except those insiders already sworn to secrecy?
Fortunately for democracy, some material from the TPPA has
been leaked, including a 95-page excerpt published by WikiLeaks in
Mid-November. Following that leak, the Herald (14 November, NZ WikiLeaks Scoop) reported that information in the
excerpt includes disputes between New Zealand and US negotiators on issues of
internet freedom, industrial innovation, ownership of endemic plants and
animals, and, near and dear to my heart, access to affordable medicines.
(Before I go on, I would love to see a Maori perspective on
“ownership of plants and animals” as related to the TPPA on this Opinion page.)
From the Herald, “A
large section reveals the battle between the US pharmaceutical lobby and
countries such as New Zealand that want to continue to buy cheaper generic
medicines.”
In order to dissect this sentence we need to know a couple
of facts: 1) the utmost duty of a corporation is to return profits to its
shareholders; 2) the US – where corporations have used lobbyists to sculpt
health care policy – has the most expensive health care system in the world
while ranking close to 40th in performance by the World Health
Organization; 3) New Zealand health care remains reasonably priced in part due
to the ability to bulk buy generic medicines.
Using the numbers above in a mathematical equation: 1 - 3 =
2. In other words, if pharmaceutical corporations have their way through the
TPPA, NZ health care will more closely resemble that of the US.
What this means for Whanganui is that our already strapped
health services would become even more so. For example, the funds now available
to pay a doctor may have to be shuffled to cover the increased costs of medicines.
Along with the dollars vacuumed away, we would lose a valuable human being who
lives in our city, owns a home, pays rates, and buys local products. Every
dollar associated with that doctor’s salary would be wisked away to New York,
San Francisco, or Hartford. We lose, they win.
I reckon it is our democratic duty to do our best to resist
corporate influence globally and locally, but we need to do so proactively.
Once the deal has been done, it won’t easily be undone.
Nelson Lebo, is a consultant, educator, and advocate for
affordable health care.
No comments:
Post a Comment