Friday 1 May 2015

Eagle Or Dragon? In the Coming Pacific Century, Which Side Are We On?

Eagle Or Dragon? New Zealand’s determination to preserve this close relationship with the US explains the consistent refusal of its political, diplomatic and trade representatives to acknowledge the near-insuperable contradictions at the heart of the TPPA policy. No one is willing to answer the question: “How can New Zealand expect to go on enjoying the benefits of free-trade with China, after joining a US-brokered agreement intended to limit China’s freedom of action?”
EAGLE OR DRAGON? As the United States prepares to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) that’s the choice New Zealand may soon have to make. The TPPA entered this world as a New Zealand initiative: this country’s bold attempt to edge its economy around the stalled Doha Round of trade talks; but that’s not what it is now. In its current guise, the TPPA is both a diplomatic and economic containment measure, configured in the United States and aimed directly at the Peoples Republic of China.
President Obama has quite openly declared that only the TPPA can prevent the Pacific basin from becoming an arena in which “China sets the rules”. Just how determined he is to prevent that from happening may be judged by his willingness to let the TPPA rip apart the unity of his own Democratic Party and wrong-foot the campaign of his putative successor, Hillary Clinton. When it comes to the geo-political objectives of the TPPA, President Obama is taking no prisoners.
Which leaves New Zealand in an extremely invidious position, diplomatically-speaking. Our increasing dependence on the Chinese economy leaves us acutely vulnerable to Beijing’s displeasure. Were the TPPA to become a reality, and if China was looking for a trading partner upon which to visit her extreme displeasure – pour encourager les autres – then New Zealand offers the perfect target. We are small; we are weak; we are non-Asian; and we have made a diplomatic fetish out of being “very, very, very good friends” of the United States.
New Zealand’s determination to preserve this close relationship with the US explains the consistent refusal of its political, diplomatic and trade representatives to acknowledge the near-insuperable contradictions at the heart of the TPPA policy. No one is willing to answer the question: “How can New Zealand expect to go on enjoying the benefits of free-trade with China, after joining a US-brokered agreement intended to limit China’s freedom of action?”
New Zealand’s political leaders are constantly reassuring their people that there is nothing to prevent them from having their cake and eating it too. No reason why their country can’t go on selling its milk-powder to China as well as doing everything possible to reassure the United States of New Zealand’s unswerving loyalty to the US-led security alliance, epitomised by the so-called “Five Eyes” agreement. Indeed, so confident were these politicians that the trading relationship with China was indestructible that they contemplated hacking into the communications of its Auckland Consulate and passing on the information directly to the US National Security Agency!
New Zealand’s blind loyalty to the United States (to the point of alienating its major trading partner) raises the question of whether or not the TPPA should be broad enough in scope to replace, if necessary, the increasingly vulnerable NZ-China Free Trade Agreement. Were the United States to open its borders to all the dairy products New Zealand could send – as China has done – then the economic and diplomatic interests of this most loyal of America’s allies could be brought into alignment.
It’s a outcome that would, almost certainly, make New Zealanders feel more comfortable than they do currently. The many cultural and political differences between the authoritarian, state-capitalist Asian superpower and tiny, liberal-democratic New Zealand argue strongly against the two countries ever being able to develop the sort of ties that bind Kiwis to Americans.
By all accounts, however, the TPPA will not open the American (or the equally lucrative Japanese) market to New Zealand’s dairy exporters. Like all superpowers down the ages, the United States takes for granted the loyalty of its allies and feels no obligation to reward their steadfastness with anything more than sentimental rhetoric. That making the Pacific safe for another American century might entail some small sacrifices on America’s part simply does not occur to US negotiators. It is the interests of their agribusiness giants, not ours, that will prevail – along with those of all the other transnational corporations whose profits are underwritten by American power.
It is entirely possible, therefore, that New Zealand could end up with the worst of both worlds. Bound diplomatically and militarily to the American Eagle, with very little in the way of reciprocal economic benefit, while regarded with mounting suspicion, even hostility, by the Chinese Dragon – upon whose good-will New Zealand’s economic prosperity increasingly depends.
This essay was originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 1 May 2015.


Anonymous said...

What do you propose?
Become satraps of the Chinese?

Anonymous said...

How about a thirf posibility? TURKEY? We are ready for plucking, stuffing and finally cooking

Guerilla Surgeon said...

I think you should look up the word satrap.

Charles E said...

We are irrelevant to most countries not just these two. We picking sides will make no difference to them, only to us.
So trade deals are way more important to us than the other party, in all cases, and every one of them benefits us overall. The more the merrier.

I think we are deluded about China in general here. I have two good friends who have quite large businesses, one which manufactures in China and one which exports and retails in China.
Both tell me pretty much the same hard & cynical realities which I found pretty surprising at first:
1. The Chinese are very short term focused: it is only money now they care about. No vision for the future exists because they have no confidence the current situation will last internally and do not trust anyone in authority in China, nor think they know or care what they are doing. Everything is about money & power now;
2. They are not as competent or organised as people here think. They are just interested in doing deals now, and any deal is better than nothing. Middle managers are rewarded for the number of deals they can do not the quality of them;
3. They often seem to have more money than sense and will buy assets for silly prices: e.g. dairy farms & forests. They paid about double what the Crafar farms were worth and recently they bought a forest valued at $12m for $19m, in competition with other Chinese. Great for us, as the cannot take it home.
4. The debt levels local and central govt have created are as bad as any in the West and there is huge waste of it in redundant buildings and infrastructure. Vast amounts will have to be written off;
5. The consumers do not trust any Chinese business or their products so will pay a premium for ours or other Western products every time. Tariff or no tariff.

Both these friends think China's economy could tank and go very sour any time and the internal chaos that would create could be phenomenal. But who knows if or when?

In my opinion China has already peaked and will never become a dominant power although economically it obviously is and will remain significant. Like Japan and Korea & Singapore, they will get wealthier through capitalism but their influence will not parallel that as much. Their culture is not attractive to the rest of the world, let alone their neighbours so that puts a cap on their global influence.
The US may well have peaked in influence too but they will remain on top for a few more generations I believe as they have so many advantages and in general their culture, with its many faults and apparent boorish qualities remains universally attractive, very much including to the Chinese.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

It would actually be nice to have an ethical foreign policy. At least more ethical than we have at the moment. But I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to play one off against the other? It's the "when elephants fight...." thing all over again.

pat said...

ask the Australians how they fared in their "free trade " deal with the US

Anonymous said...

When the "Dragon" produces a Robert Johnson a Muddy Waters a BB King an Elvis a Woody Guthrie a Bob Dylan a Neil Young a Janis Joplin a Jimi Hendrix a Paul Simon a Joni Mitchell a Joan Baez a Dave Crosby a Stephen Stills a Robbie Robertson a Garth Hudson a Gerry Garcia........


peterlepaysan said...

Well, I heard a comment on radio tabout nz flag referendum that a new flag should simply state " FOR SALE".

I am sure Keyy and the nats would approve.

Davo Stevens said...

Which side should we be on? How about no sides?

peteswriteplace said...

We have been stuffed like a turkey for years,and I won't be caring because I'm too old to worry!

thesorrow&thepity said...

You failed to mention anything about New Zealand joining the AIIB Chris, so sadly what could have been a far more informative & in-depth article loses all relevance to what's happening in Asia, especially as there'll be a new US administration by the end of next year.
The TPPA might still not make it to the steps of congress before the start of the presidential run ups, but the real story is the AIIB & the challenge it poses to US dominated organizations such as the IMF.

Wayne Mapp said...


I appreciate you are probably instinctively opposed to TPP (just about all the Left are) but are you seriously suggesting that we would be the only one of 12 negotiating parties that does not actually join.

Virtually every other TPP negotiating party including the US is essentially in the same situation as we are, all heavily tied into trade with China.

It seems to me your suggestion would have the effect of the first comment. Give us no choices other than China. We effectively would be turning our backs on Australia, Japan, and the US. Most of ASEAN would think we were nuts.

It makes sense to have a balanced approach, hence we are also negotiating parties with RCEP, which has China as the principal party.

Your approach is virtually tantamount to surrender. Not so much an independent foreign policy, but a nutty foreign policy.

Chris Trotter said...

To: The Sorrow and the Pity.

Yes, that omission was an unfortunate necessity. Columnists only have a set number of words per opinion piece (720 in this case) and so they need to be pretty ruthless about limiting the area for debate.

But you're absolutely right, China's response to the USA's TPPA initiative (as well as to the US-dominated IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank) is, indeed, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to which both Australia and NZ were quick to sign up as Prospective Founding Members - much to the US's irritation.

The Americans aren't having it all their own way.

Chris Trotter said...

To: Wayne Mapp

I wasn't aware I was proposing any particular foreign policy, Wayne, merely pointing out that those who attempt to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds often come to grief.

It is New Zealand that is limiting its economic choices by continuing to rely upon the export of milk powder and other agricultural commodities and thus becoming captive to our largest single export market - China.

NZ's whole history is a cautionary tale about what happens when a country allows itself to become dependent on just one export destination.

To hold onto the British market we were willing to sacrifice 18,000 of our sons in WW1 and another 12,000 in WW2.

That's much more than a "nutty" foreign policy, that's a criminal foreign policy!

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"When the "Dragon" produces a Robert Johnson a Muddy Waters a BB King an Elvis a Woody Guthrie a Bob Dylan a Neil Young a Janis Joplin a Jimi Hendrix a Paul Simon a Joni Mitchell a Joan Baez a Dave Crosby a Stephen Stills a Robbie Robertson a Garth Hudson a Gerry Garcia........"

Not a fan of Cantopop then are we? When America produces and Aaron Siu or a Bobo Chan............. :-).
Or even a John Lennon :-). Stupid idea sorry.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Wayne, if indeed you be Wayne..... Where is our diverse added value economy? Why are we still relying on a few relatively unprocessed products? Why can't you, if indeed it be you, politician/arseholes just keep your promises.

Anonymous said...

That's not really historically accurate, Chris.
In those days it wasn't so much 'joining the British' as 'Being British'.
It's fashionable to be Not British (esp among the Left) now, but that wasn't the case then.
In any case, what were the realistic alternatives?
Didn't count for too much when Britain decided to join (what is now the) EU...

Anonymous said...

Great read Chris.

Beside your main point but useful nonetheless - from what has been leaked etc many don't interpret TPPA as a trade agreement per se, or certainly not being about "free trade" - it's about extending intellectual property and supra national legal rights for multinationals. From that point of view, one would not expect any significant reduction in tariff and quota barriers for NZ exports to the US (my comments in addition to yours rather than in correction of). It's going to be really interesting how Govt and its greek chorus sell this to NZers without something simple we can get our heads around as a win (like "unlimited access for our milk powder and cheese") against the concessions ...

Wayne Mapp said...

Hi Chris,

The key point of your response is that those who run with the hares and hunt with the hounds often come to grief.

But as I noted virtually all of the TTP nations are in the same boat. For many of them, China is their main trade partner, none more so than Australia. I would think one of the outcomes of TPP will be somewhat more diverse trade flows. But I suspect not that much a change from the present.

Fundamentally the whole of the Asia Pacific is one great trade region. The greatest trade flows are between China, Japan and the US. The ships with 20,000 containers are focussed on the Shanghai and Los Angeles trade route.

So while I support TPP, it seems the ultimate objective is that the whole of the Asia Pacific should have one trade agreement. In my view the single trade agreement will be an expanded TPP. It is a far more comprehensive and sophisticated agreement than RCEP. I suspect that RCEP will wither on the vine and the non TPP nations in the region will seek to join TPP, including China. Ultimately China will not be able to sit apart from TPP when most other nations are in. It was the same with the WTO. China had to join WTO in its own interest.

In that sense TPP serves US interests in that it keeps the US deeply enmeshed in the Asia/Pacific as a dominant player on its own terms rather than those of China. Of course the US would always be hugely important in the Asia/Pacific, even without TPP. It borders the Pacific and has sovereign territory right across the Pacific from Guam, Samoa to Hawaii plus many other smaller islands. And they ain't giving them up. But TPP will enhance the US position.

For the other TPP nations it gives them greater access to the US market (and to Japan), so they have more options than at present. That is the New Zealand interest as well.

On Friday I was presenting at a Masters seminar (International relations degree) at VUW. The lecturer of the course (David Capie) had posed the question, "Is New Zealand too dependent on China?". My answer is "no", but having more options is no bad thing. It makes us less vulnerable to the swings in the Chinese economy, witness the trend in dairy prices.

The preservation of US influence in the Asia/Pacific is the whole point of Presidents Obama's Pacific Pivot. The recent visit to Washington by PM Abe, including the address to Congress would indicate the key TPP issues have been resolved. If Obama pulls off TPP, it will be his major foreign policy legacy. It will also put pressure on the Europeans to finalize their deal with the US, or else they will see Atlantic trade drift to the Pacific.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Actually, we have to be instinctively opposed to the TPP, because it's difficult to be rationally opposed to it, because we don't know what's in it. Because you keep it secret. You want us to be rationally opposed to it or even support it let's know what's in it :-).

Anonymous said...

"For the other TPP nations it gives them greater access to the US market (and to Japan), so they have more options than at present. That is the New Zealand interest as well."
And therein lies the problem - it doesn't. The leaked reports make that quite plain, even though we cannot read the full draft. We hear of promises, that it may happen in the future, but it is very clear and plain that we have to give up nigh everything immediately to be able to perhaps hope that Japan and the US can persuade their agricultural lobbies to allow us access in the future.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

I've just reread Charles E's post. And it says the Chinese are short-term thinkers. Are you KIDDING? They have about the only politicians in the world that think more than four or five years ahead. Partly due to the fact that they don't have to worry too much about elections mind, but even so they are definitely not short term thinkers. Money and power itself is to some extent long-term thinking. With the reduction in state help, acquiring money is the only way to secure their family's welfare long-term.
And their purchase of farms shows government encouragement of long-term thinking about food security. They're doing that everywhere. Christ, how can anyone not see this?

pat said...


Monthly value of Australian merchandise exports to the United States (A$ millions) since 1988

Monthly value of US merchandise exports to Australia (A$ millions) since 1988
In the year following the agreement, Australian exports to the U.S. declined,[dubious – discuss] while U.S. exports to Australia increased. This followed the International Monetary Fund's prediction that the Australia-United States FTA would shrink the Australian economy marginally because of the loss of trade with other countries. The IMF estimated $US5.25 billion of extra U.S. imports entering into Australia per year under the FTA, but only $US2.97 billion of extra Australian exports to the U.S. per year.[15] However, it remains unclear whether or not Australia's worsening trade deficit with the United States can be solely attributed to the FTA. It may have been a lagged effect of an appreciation of the Australian dollar against the US dollar between 2000 and 2003.

For the U.S., the FTA improved the overall trade deficit situation, creating a trade surplus with Australia which rose 31.7% in the first quarter of 2005, compared to the same timeframe in 2004. U.S. exports to Australia increased 11.7% in the first quarter of 2005 to nearly $3.7 billion for the quarter. Agriculture exports to Australia increased 20%.[citation needed]

According to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures the imbalance in trade between the U.S. and Australia increased substantially during 2007. The United States became Australia's largest import source, with goods and services imported to a value of over A$31 billion. Australia's exports to the U.S., however, amounted to only $15.8 billion AU.[16] It remains unclear what, if any, real benefits the agreement has produced.

In U.S. Fiscal Year 2006 (October 2005 through September 2006), which was the first full year during which E-3 regulations were in effect, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recorded 2,123 admissions of Australian citizens as E-3 status foreign workers under the treaty.[17] 9,294 admissions were recorded in U.S. Fiscal Year 2007 (October 2006 through September 2007).[18]

pat said...

pat said...

...theres a million more where those came from....the US by its very nature will not enter into trade deals that do not net benefit their lobby groups,such is their wonderfully free and democratic political system which we appear to rushing headlong to emulate...god help us all

Victor said...

I am opposed to the TPPA as it's probably a bad deal for New Zealanders.

But the sole (and insufficient) argument I can find in favour of the agreement is that it might help modify our dependence on China.

I agree that we should be wary of both running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

But equally we need to avoid being eaten by the hounds or sat on by a very large and not particularly friendly hare.

The best I can suggest is that we run intelligently and sparingly with the hares and hunt in a similar intelligent and sparing way with the hounds.

I have difficulty, though, envisaging either Murray McCully or Tim Grosser performing this role with the required finesse.

Perhaps our pal Wayne Mapp (assuming he IS the real Wayne Mapp) might have done a better job had the National Party's arcane patronage processes not removed him from contention for the External Affairs portfolio. There again, perhaps not.

Meanwhile, pardon my European perspective, but I also have some difficulty in conceiving of New Zealand's involvement in the war against Hitler as immoral, whatever the motivations of our then government.

thesorrow&thepity said...

I hope you do a related piece on US China relations, that'd be interesting. The creation of the AIIB owes to a stagnant US congress which refused to pass measures to reform the IMF's structure (which would have given countries such as China more say). The Financial Times wrote a brilliant article when Britain joined the AIIB, criticizing the IMF for being too slow to put money into infrastructural investments in developing countries.
We'll see which direction the next US president takes US China relations, but on the whole the Americans need to do more to share the reins of international organizations with China. Sadly the US congress has become extremely hawkish (evidenced by the Netanyahu address hostility to the negotiations with Iran).
If Labour & the Nats could sit down & hammer out a long term agreement in regards of major AIIB financed infrastructure investments in NZ (such as perhaps relocating the ports of Auckland) NZ could begin to have a far more robust & diverse economy, not one merely centered on dairy & financing housing mortgages.

Charles E said...

My point is that the hares will be happy to have someone who hunts with the hounds do biz with them, as long as they make money to keep their poor & their middle class happy, because that is their priority.
Communist China is very insecure and so their priorities are very short term: to keep the party in power for another five years is about it. For the people it is just to get ahead asap in desperate competition with everyone else. So money is the key for both the party and the people. Keep it flowing and it keeps the lid on dissent.
The second key motivator in China is an angry pride. They are proud of their achievements, size, long history, culture etc, but feel with good reason)the West has ignored them and looked down on them for long enough. Western domination of the world and China included irks them greatly as they see themselves as a superior culture, yet to be appreciated.
So if we in turn keep a lid on our true feelings about them and pretend to treat them like anybody else who really deserves respect, that will work fine for NZ. Just don't tell them what we really think of them, as we can and do do with the US.

Nick J said...

Reading the commentary above one thing strikes me as obvious: the assumptions made by all regarding US and Chinese military and economic power are becoming redundant.

Given the opposite trajectories both nations economies have tracked during the past 30 years you might assume "imperial cross over" as China outpaces the American ability to impose "Pax Americanus", and resultant conflict. I no longer assume this will continue, which in a way is far more fraught with danger.

The world view expressed by Wayne would probably makes plenty of sense in an expanding world where both China and the USA wereable to grow and compete. The new facts dont support that however. For example China has stopped buying vast quantities of Australian ores, they have vacant cities built and unoccupied, their export capacity far outweighs current demand. The USA by comparison has stripped its productive capacity and only "grows" financial derivatives. It imports goods at the expense of the local economy whilst its corporations treat the rest of the planet as slave plantations. One is in reality broke, the other holds the debt and cant collect.

This conundrum could continue indefinitely if we were as a planetary economy able to grow: we cannot, we are faced with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and their bastard brothers, "peak" bloody everything. Thanks to our inability to perceive them we carry on blithely toward TPPAs etc whilst the horsemen attack unbidden from behind. Waynes World offers a really good example of our failure of leadership. We are lead towards a destination...wait, the destination has changed...why are we still heading to the (now) wrong destination?

pat said...

nice summary Nick J

Guerilla Surgeon said...

We understand your point Charles, but you haven't provided any evidence for it. Whereas:
"“The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst."
"The Outline of China's National Plan for Medium and Long-term Educational Reform and Development (2010-2020) says: "We will advocate teaching to be heuristic, exploratory, discussion-based, and participatory, and help students learn how to study. We will stimulate students' curiosity, develop their interest and hobbies, and foster a fine environment for independent thinking, exploration and innovation."
"As a result of long-term thinking and planning in China innovation rates are approaching US levels."

There is plenty of information out there Charles if you care to look at it. There are even books about China's long-term thinking. Unfortunately in our country, long-term thinking is something that Mandarin is sometimes do, but governments never.

Nick J said...

One interesting point ignored in the discussion re US versus Chinese interests is the "Bear" in the corner of the room. The TPPA to some extent as the commercial arm of the US Asia Pivot military strategy is in competition to the BRICS agreements and the SCO deals (Shanghai Co-operation Organisation).

A central pillar of these deals is Russia, which the US is as this article points out at war with for the same reasons that it wants to contain China.

The failure of our NZ leadership I mentioned and laid at the feet of the current orthodoxy as exemplified by Wayne Mapp is here shown in full light of day. New Zealand is navigating a turbulent sea without a compass and a map of where the real land masses are.

Anonymous said...

Hello. I was introduced to you by a couple of chaps in Grey Power, an organisation which I have recently joined and into which I HOPE to inject at least a little enthusiasm for doing something about the pathetic and apathetic state of New Zealand. The chaps to whom I refer are the ones who are at least trying to expose the TPPA, for what it is, nothing more than a sell out to corporatism and abdication of New Zealand sovereignty.
I came to the first Wayne Mapp comment and the name rang a bell. I decided to Google “Wayne Mapp,” and, of course, up he came, former National party mp. I found his first sentence “I appreciate you are probably instinctively opposed to TPP (just about all the Left are)” interesting, and probably typical/to be expected, in view of WHO and WHAT he is/was. I suppose his last sentence was also to be expected. Start and finish with negative personal comments.
I get sooooooooooooo sick and tired of references to “left” and “right” in politics. There IS no left or right, they are all in the same club. They slag each other off in public and then, doubtless go out drinking together in private. Pollies are no different than professional wrestlers, they “ostensibly” beat each other to a pulp on Monday night and then go and do the same again in another city on Tuesday night in front of a different hoard of screaming, brainwashed sheeple. All very reminiscent of elections and political rallies.
Guerilla Surgeon said, among other things, “Why can't you, if indeed it be you, politician/arseholes just keep your promises.” The answer to that question is very simple, it is the debt money system. Pollies do not govern, it is the banksters who govern. All the pollies are in bed with the banksters. I am still trying to figure out who is on top, but I am pretty sure it’s the banksters. It doesn’t matter which party/parties “supposedly” govern, it is still the banksters who run things. Remember the famous Rothschild quote, “I don’t care who makes a country’s laws, as long as I control the money.”
I have got away from the topic of “TPPA,” but I believe that it is just real problem DEBT in all its forms, not least of which is National debt and the lies told by pollies about it.
I mentioned “Grey Power” at the beginning. I received my first copy of Grey Power magazine in June 2014 and it contained pre election propaganda from some of the party misleaders. The item that annoyed almost beyond words was Mr. Keys “claim,” and what follows is verbatim from the magazine ““After six years of hard work, Budget 2014 gets the Government’s books back in surplus (half truth) so we won’t leave a growing burden of debt for future generations.” I wrote a letter to the magazine in Sept 2014at which time the debt was almost NZ$83,776,000,000.00 and rising by about NZ$130.00 PER SECOND. I am writing this at 2 pm on 5 May 2015 and the debt figure is $86,170,000,000.00 plus which equates to $19,013.00 for every man, woman and child in New Zealand. Go to and see it for yourself as it still rises by about $130.00 per second. The debt has risen by almost $2.5 BILLION in 7 months. It’s not just Key and National, it’s all of them who are in the same boat (bed) with the banksters.

Robert M said...

The assumption of the likes of Tim Grosser that China's economic rise will continue unchecked and with world population growth, their will be ever larger markets for produce produced by our barely environmentally sustained farms. The assumption of the ANU Canberra defence theorists is that China's rise can not be militarily checked and therefore we must accomodate them and buy harmless Swedish submarines that barely work rather than Japanese or German ones that might really be able to sink Asian warships. All rather doubtful assumptions, that reject such point that in an ever progressing world, a lot of rural or less educated men have no place or attraction to woman and ISIS like reaction develops.
In terms of the USA, it seems to me that great hobbyhorse Big Pharma has been a good thing, because despite the objections of a lot of fashionable psychiatrsits and socialist doctors, many of the new drugs are actually immensely helpful and liberating, where the likes of psychiatrists and doctor dissidents believe many physical and mental patients are in permament degenerating decline and anything that helps them is a mistake and that really old fashioned country and working class people are those that should be helped rather than people with the money and middle class.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Research shows Big Pharma is equally despised by both left and right wing idiots thank you very much. As is vaccination. Actually there is a slight preponderance of right wing idiots but I'd of thought within the bounds of the margin of error.