Remember that today there are parallel imports, as I can just buy directly from the USA. If we continue to try to hold NZ prices higher than the USA, then Amazon gets all the business. Under my suggestion, the NZ importer at least has a chance.

The beauty of Capitalism (peaceful free trade) is true Consumer sovereignty. You can buy from whoever you wish, and can equally decline to trade with anyone for any reason.

Import tariffs and restrictions impinge on this freedom: you are left having to deal with thugs who have organised themselves politically, so you have to buy a worse product at a higher price from them. It’s no different to how the New York mafia controls garbage collection.

You can’t be serious. Simply saying the US needs us more than we need them is not a viable strategy. We are going to have to give something if TPP is to happen, and that will be IP. All negotiations have tradeoffs. The agriculture opportunity is big enough for us to give something in return.

The fact that John is going into bat with Obama, should show he has worked out what we have to give.

[DPF: If it was a bilateral negotiation, we would be in a very bad negotiating position. But this is multi-lateral and pretty much every other country is also against the US IP chapter. I see no need for us to compromise.

The concessions we should give the US is tariff free access to every single NZ market.

If there are compromises on the IP chapter, then the agricultural and dairy access should be spectacular. If it is no more than what Australia got, then not worth it]

It appears you’re both OK with a scenario such as this:

A company has owned the rights to market a product in NZ for decades / they have spent large on an ongoing marketing campaign / they have created and generated brand awareness etc. Then someone comes along / parallel imports the same brand and then sells it here – by backing into the local importer’s marketing campaign.

Because, if you are saying this is OK in principle, it means that no importer would ever pay the International owner of a brand a single cent for the ‘rights’ to import and sell their brand in NZ again.

all gud.. you certainly had my eyes like saucers

In doing that, they are raising prices for consumers (i.e. you and me), and are splitting that excess profit between themselves and the importer. The result of that is that goods in NZ cost much more than, say, USA, where there are no barriers on trade between the US states.

If the answer is that it’s all about local presence, why is a wholesaler in New York allowed to sell to people in Alabama? Same argument surely, what’s the incentive to promote in Alabama, and have a spare parts network?

I really just don’t buy it as an argument, it smacks of the kind of argument that a protectionist would make, and it doesn’t really make logical sense to me.

If your argument is correct, then in the new world that includes parallel importing, then the importer will get paid much less, and will no longer be accountable for marketing. The company that makes the product will do all the global marketing to the extent that they deem desirable. That may mean some brands are less known in NZ than they might be overseas, but surely the internet is a mechanism that resolves that?

Sorry, I misread you. I thought you said “a” goverment.

We could end up looking bloody sad indeed over this trade agreement.

Yes, you did. Your exact words:

If the govt is powerless against McDonald’s you can bet your house they are far more powerless against a huge monopoly like Monsanto and can’t even think of engaging them.

I didn’t compare McDonald’s to Monsanto . Don’t sound like a leftist who goes out of context. Please

Friday I think – might have been thursday.

Your problem is that you are so deep in the “multinationals are evil” mindset that you don’t even bother to do simple checks when you make claims. Like checking the size of McDonalds vs Monsanto.

When was the last time you heard of the govt speaking out against oil companies. Jim Anderton tried once…way back in the 90′s and then never again.

Look at how Kiwibank pulled their ad against Australian banks when they complained. Where’s the sovereignty there?

Its not about parts and service and all that. Its about intellectual property.

If a company is going to develop and manufacture a product – at some cost – it will be expecting to be able to set up a programme to promote the product around the world – or in some countries at least – if they dont want the world.

Now in those countries they appoint an agent or distributor to promote the product AND THE BRAND. But if anyone can import the product then whats the incentive for the local agent to spend money on promoting the product AND THE BRAND.
And if there is no incentive to promote – then whats the incentive to develop new products – and thus new sales.

US and Japanese and Korean companies especially (these being possibly part of the TPP) have a big interest in promoting brands, thus they have a big interest in having profitable local agents.
They dont like parallel importing because it ruins the value of a local distributor.

And anyway, if the TPP goes ahead and I P laws are sort of bought into line, then the rules that apply to patents and copyright will apply – and they impose commissions on anyone who wants to use the IP of the originating company – such as parallel importers

If your point is that the courts take a long time, no one argues with that. If your point is that goverments can’t win against large multinationals, you’re as full of it as when you implied that Monsanto was far larger than a company which is over a third bigger.

The big thing I see here is that NZ as a market has much higher costs than overseas markets such as USA. To the extent that you can buy products retail off Amazon cheaper than you can buy them wholesale in NZ. Much of that difference goes to middlemen. They all have great reasons why it’s good value for money – spare parts and service being one of them.

But why shouldn’t I have that choice? I can have an expensive one with spare parts and service and a local warranty, or a cheap one without those things.

Further than that, why can’t retailers in NZ have that choice. If they can buy from Amazon and then on-sell in NZ cheaper than if they buy from the wholesaler, why shouldn’t they be allowed to, so long as they label as parallel import?

Bottom line to me is that much of the NZ retail sector is going to go out of business, they aren’t competitive with online sales from the USA. It’s going to have to change. I’d rather we allow our retail sector to adapt and stay in business, rather than legislatively forcing a business model that results in them going broke.

Just watch the monopolies amalgamate more. When was the last time you saw the courts intervene against monopolies such as Microsoft. How far back was that ?