Trans Pacific Partnership - continuing the conservative assault on working people

[VivaRevolution]

Do you reject automation too?

Nonetheless i did address your point. Why isnt labor which cant be outsourced also losing this batte?

You said you dont know. But thats not really an answer. Most jobs out there cant be outsourced.

If Delphi, who is the major parts supplier for the big 3, can be outsourced, just about anything can.

Worse, because "job creators" can pick up and leave, this also gives enormous leverage over governments. Not only are these corporations picking up and moving, they are getting the tax payer to fund the new factory, the education infrastructure required for a workforce, etc.

Basically corporations have rigged the game so that they have massive amounts of leverage over labor, and governments, and your solution is progressive taxation. I find that solution to be wanting.

 

[IGIT]

Neither you or @IGIT, have addressed the fundamental problem in labor created by these trade deals.

The leverage of the worker was built on withholding labor.

What good does that do, when a free trade deal increases the labor supply by orders of magnitude?

What good is full employment in the US, when that doesn't create leverage for workers?

You point to progressive taxation as the band aid to address the destruction of labor's leverage, but you offer no rational for why these trade deals can t be written in a way that doesn't destroy labor's leverage.

It seems to me to be a false dichotomy. That my choice is no access to other markets, or the destruction of labor's leverage compensated by progressive taxation.

I reject this. I say we can have free trade that rewards higher wages, and better regulatory practices.

hiya VivaRevolution!

the leverage, Viva, has always been one pull of the lever away.

they can vote their own interests. that's what we need to see happen. isn't that what you'd like to see happen? 12.5 million Americans work in manufacturing, and in a global market, they want to see their products thrive. they want to see their companies prosper.

they just would like to share in the good fortune.

all we need, then, is a way to narrow the income gap...the wealth gap.

the route to that is through tax policy. the leverage is in their electoral strength. either they're going to wield it, or they won't. if they don't, it doesn't matter whether you've got the TPP or not.

you can stay out of the TPP, we'll still be left with this;

- IGIT

 

[VivaRevolution]

hiya VivaRevolution!

the leverage, Viva, has always been one pull of the lever away.

they can vote their own interests. that's what we need to see happen. isn't that what you'd like to see happen? 12.5 million Americans work in manufacturing, and in a global market, they want to see their products thrive. they want to see their companies prosper.

they just would like to share in the good fortune.

all we need, then, is a way to narrow the income gap...the wealth gap.

the route to that is through tax policy. the leverage is in their electoral strength. either they're going to wield it, or they won't. if they don't, it doesn't matter whether you've got the TPP or not.

you can stay out of the TPP, we'll still be left with this;

- IGIT

This puts all our eggs in the government basket.

Again, I don't see the need for that.

I need someone to convince me that free trade that punishes bad behavior, isn't possible.

 

[IGIT]

your solution is progressive taxation. I find that solution to be wanting.

hi Viva once more,

the only solution that matters is mo' money, my friend.

that's what leverage buys. they don't want a pat on the back and a letter of commendation. its about money.

without the money, all solutions suck, you know? like, no one is interested. thats the real world.

so, pursue changes in the tax code. all roads lead there.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

This puts all our eggs in the government basket.

Again, I don't see the need for that.

ahoy Viva,

i do - and i can assure you that the super wealthy who helped push this ridiculous tax plan through do too. that's how wealth is handed out in this country, so you have to go to the source.

handicapping US corporations in their endeavors has nothing to do with addressing the wealth and income gap. it only makes it more difficult to do so.

you spoke of leverage, remember? it exists - but not if folks don't use it...you know? they have to vote...and maybe get just a tiny bit of perspective on what they're voting on.

- IGIT

 

[VivaRevolution]

hi Viva once more,

the only solution that matters is mo' money, my friend.

that's what leverage buys. they don't want a pat on the back and a letter of commendation. its about money.

without the money, all solutions suck, you know? like, no one is interested. thats the real world.

so, pursue changes in the tax code. all roads lead there.

- IGIT

More money for who?

Not me my friend, which is why I say that if my choice is protectionism, or rigged free trade, bring on the protectionism.

I have no skin in the game for increasing corporate profits.

Rule by terror tactics, and don't be surprised when the populace realizes that is a good playbook.

 

[VivaRevolution]

ahoy Viva,

i do - and i can assure you that the super wealthy who helped push this ridiculous tax plan through do too. that's how wealth is handed out in this country, so you have to go to the source.

handicapping US corporations in their endeavors has nothing to do with addressing the wealth and income gap. it only makes more difficult to do so.

you spoke of leverage, remember? it exists - but not if folks don't use it...you know? they have to vote...and maybe get just a tiny bit of perspective on what they're voting on.

- IGIT

What is putting corporate America at a disadvantage is our labor costs and regulatory practices.

I don't agree that the solution to that is reducing labor costs, and regulatory practices.

That will be the result, if we don't fix the structure of these trade agreements.

You say vote. I say, I do. I vote against free trade as it exists today.

 

[IGIT]

More money for who?

Not me my friend, which is why I say that if my choice is protectionism, or rigged free trade, bring on the protectionism.

I have no skin in the game for increasing corporate profits.

Rule by terror tactics, and don't be surprised when the populace realizes that is a good playbook.

ahoy VivaRevolution,

the populace just wants a slice of the pie, my friend.

a little less financial anxiety, a little more options in life (which is what money buys). this is what motivates most normal people as they enter the work force, lol.

so if the TPP helps US corporations thrive a little, so be it. great.

but not-so-great if thats coupled with "cut taxes for the wealthy, raise taxes on the middle class (ten years down the road) and cut government services"

its my last word on the topic for now, imma sleepy. most of us are fine and dandy with US corporations getting wealthy via free trade - we just want to make sure that when the winnings come in they don't get exclusively funneled to the uber rich.

its all about tax policy, my friend.

'nite.

- IGIT

 

[VivaRevolution]

ahoy VivaRevolution,

the populace just wants a slice of the pie, my friend.

a little less financial anxiety, a little more options in life (which is what money buys). this is what motivates most normal people as they enter the work force, lol.

so if the TPP helps US corporations thrive a little, so be it. great.

but not-so-great if thats coupled with "cut taxes for the wealthy, raise taxes on the middle class (ten years down the road) and cut government services"

its my last word on the topic for now, imma sleepy. most of us are fine and dandy with US corporations getting wealthy via free trade - we just want to make sure that when the winnings come in they don't get exclusively funneled to the uber rich.

its all about tax policy, my friend.

'nite.

- IGIT

Something for you to ponder on. How does a government raise taxes on the very entities(corporations and their major stock holders) that they rely on for tax revenue both from the rich, but also the employed, when said corporation can just pick up and leave.

Even worse, as I pointed out earlier, we are now funding those moves with tax dollars competing for those jobs, and their tax revenue.

Free trade, as it exists today, creates leverage for the "job creators" to stop taxes from being raised. We hear it all the time. If you raise taxes, corporations will just leave.

 

[Trotsky]

If Delphi, who is the major parts supplier for the big 3, can be outsourced, just about anything can.

Worse, because "job creators" can pick up and leave, this also gives enormous leverage over governments. Not only are these corporations picking up and moving, they are getting the tax payer to fund the new factory, the education infrastructure required for a workforce, etc.

Basically corporations have rigged the game so that they have massive amounts of leverage over labor, and governments, and your solution is progressive taxation. I find that solution to be wanting.

The legal creation of the Western corporate form in the late 19th century and its legal refinement in 20th century America can imo be properly (and very dramatically) analogized to the creation of the White Walkers in Game of Thrones: an incredibly powerful and useful virus-type organism that quickly became a greater problem than that which it addressed.

Developed through centuries of capitalist development and refined by American fiduciary jurisprudence, it trail-blazed creation of capital by basically insulating business decision making from any impulses meandering from pure profit creation. If kept within a single legal and economic marketplace, those machines could be properly curbed and maintained. However, in a growingly international marketplace in which different markets yield wildly different costs and regulations and in which corporations -- still only legal entities mind you -- can leverage policy making of host countries, the corporate form is absolutely wreaking havoc and undermining democratic governance.

Having cut my teeth in corporate law for two years, I'm fairly convinced that retarding the global corporate coup through the stick of American consumer power (especially given the burgeoning of the Chinese middle class) instead of continuing to feed it through "business friendly" international undercuting, is number one in policy goals.


Regarding TPP specifically, it bends my imagination to understand how so many intelligent persons would have wished to have overlooked its insidious ADR provision, rights to private action against governments, inflexible patent protections, lost-profits clauses, and other despicable aspects, just to corner the international marketplace in a race to the bottom.

And, if you couldn't tell from my GOT analogy, yeah I've been drinking big whoop you wanna fight about it?

 

[VivaRevolution]

The legal creation of the Western corporate form in the late 19th century and its legal refinement in 20th century America can imo be properly (and very dramatically) analogized to the creation of the White Walkers in Game of Thrones: an incredibly powerful and useful virus-type organism that quickly became a greater problem than that which it addressed.

Developed through centuries of capitalist development and refined by American fiduciary jurisprudence, it trail-blazed creation of capital by basically insulating business decision making from any impulses meandering from pure profit creation. If kept within a single legal and economic marketplace, those machines could be properly curbed and maintained. However, in a growingly international marketplace in which different markets yield wildly different costs and regulations and in which corporations -- still only legal entities mind you -- can leverage policy making of host countries, the corporate form is absolutely wreaking havoc and undermining democratic governance.

Having cut my teeth in corporate law for two years, I'm fairly convinced that retarding the global corporate coup through the stick of American consumer power (especially given the burgeoning of the Chinese middle class) instead of continuing to feed it through "business friendly" international undercuting, is number one in policy goals.


Regarding TPP specifically, it bends my imagination to understand how so many intelligent persons would have wished to have overlooked its insidious ADR provision, rights to private action against governments, inflexible patent protections, lost-profits clauses, and other despicable aspects, just to corner the international marketplace in a race to the bottom.

And, if you couldn't tell from my GOT analogy, yeah I've been drinking big whoop you wanna fight about it?

I think I like intoxicated Trotsky more.

Seize.....the........means........of......dragon glass production.

 

[Rod1]

If Delphi, who is the major parts supplier for the big 3, can be outsourced, just about anything can.

Worse, because "job creators" can pick up and leave, this also gives enormous leverage over governments. Not only are these corporations picking up and moving, they are getting the tax payer to fund the new factory, the education infrastructure required for a workforce, etc.

Basically corporations have rigged the game so that they have massive amounts of leverage over labor, and governments, and your solution is progressive taxation. I find that solution to be wanting.

1.- How do you outsource construction? office workers? transportation? 80% of jobs out there are in the service industry.

2.- Indeed, and that its not going to change with protectionism, say deparment store workers created an union and demanded better wages, Amazon would be unaffected and undercut brick and mortar stores.

Are you going to ban the internet too? and what about things that can be outsourced like programming? are you going to put "tariffs" on the internet?

3.- In the end its all about money isnt? i think a worker who isnt buried in student's debt and whose family is going to be taken care off independently if he pays thousands in insurance or not has more leverage over his job than a worker that has to work or starve.

4.- The race to the bottom thing is really not really a thing, unless you claim the US has far better worker and enviromental regulation than Canada, EU and Japan and if you ignore rich countries that have trade surpluses with poor ones.

 

[Rod1]

The legal creation of the Western corporate form in the late 19th century and its legal refinement in 20th century America can imo be properly (and very dramatically) analogized to the creation of the White Walkers in Game of Thrones: an incredibly powerful and useful virus-type organism that quickly became a greater problem than that which it addressed.

Developed through centuries of capitalist development and refined by American fiduciary jurisprudence, it trail-blazed creation of capital by basically insulating business decision making from any impulses meandering from pure profit creation. If kept within a single legal and economic marketplace, those machines could be properly curbed and maintained. However, in a growingly international marketplace in which different markets yield wildly different costs and regulations and in which corporations -- still only legal entities mind you -- can leverage policy making of host countries, the corporate form is absolutely wreaking havoc and undermining democratic governance.

Having cut my teeth in corporate law for two years, I'm fairly convinced that retarding the global corporate coup through the stick of American consumer power (especially given the burgeoning of the Chinese middle class) instead of continuing to feed it through "business friendly" international undercuting, is number one in policy goals.


Regarding TPP specifically, it bends my imagination to understand how so many intelligent persons would have wished to have overlooked its insidious ADR provision, rights to private action against governments, inflexible patent protections, lost-profits clauses, and other despicable aspects, just to corner the international marketplace in a race to the bottom.

And, if you couldn't tell from my GOT analogy, yeah I've been drinking big whoop you wanna fight about it?

Everyone is a communist when earning a salary but a capitalist when spending said salary.

I dont like protectionism because

a) it doesnt curbs corporate predation in any way.

b) it favors a particular type of employment in detriment of other types of employment.

Sure a steel worker may benefit but someone down the production line will not, there are jobs that cant be stopped from being outsourced either and it disproportionally favors industries that cut down on labor and other costs.

 

[Trotsky]

Everyone is a communist when earning a salary but a capitalist when spending said salary.

Well that's not true. I'm firmly the opposite. I earn my wages through capitalist modes, but my spending is pretty goddamn communist.

I dont like protectionism because

a) it doesnt curbs corporate predation in any way.

b) it favors a particular type of employment in detriment of other types of employment.

Sure a steel worker may benefit but someone down the production line will not, there are jobs that cant be stopped from being outsourced either and it disproportionally favors industries that cut down on labor and other costs.

I don't know if this was directed toward me, but what Viva and I were talking about was not protectionism.

 

[Rod1]

Well that's not true. I'm firmly the opposite. I earn my wages through capitalist modes, but my spending is pretty goddamn communist.



I don't know if this was directed toward me, but what Viva and I were talking about was not protectionism.

I thought you were talking of using American consumer market as brake to corporatism through the use of tariffs and legal frameworks.

I dont see it that way, to me corporations are still made up of people and people in the end still have one vote.

 

[Jack V Savage]

alot of folks are angry that the TPP will probably end up enriching a select few oligarchs in this country. you probably know in your heart of hearts that, yes, this will be beneficial to US corporate interests - you're just ticked off that every time any cream rises, the wealthy swoop in and scoop it all up.

the problem isn't free trade. the problem isn't globalism. the problem is the fruits from free trade and globalism are coalescing at the top - so the issue is tax policy.

the issue is income inequality - a real problem in this country. i mean, where does that 57 billion i referenced early go, exactly? who gets it?

the issue is wealth inequality - which has gotten insane in the United States. our wealth gap (net worth as opposed to income) is worse than Russia. its worse than Iran. that is seriously fucked up.

taking away globalism and the TPP isn't going to address these issues - it just pointlessly kneecaps US corporations a bit and that's not going to help workers at those US based interests at all.

the TPP isn't a problem.

its tax policy.

what do you care if a US corporation is able to strike favorable trade deals that enriches it - so long as that largesse doesn't all end up in some zillionaire's pocket?
what if that money was used to help fund a single payor program? what if that money is funneled towards PEW scholarships?
what if that money is used to help buttress our senior entitlement programs (since these programs are about to eviscerate the US budget)?

you're fighting the wrong fight.

I'm more inclined to agree with you on this, but that's not an adequate solution. It would be better if you said "fiscal policy" (not just taxes but spending). Though I'd still have some concerns. Inequality growth and wage stagnation (related issues) in America are mostly about capital getting a bigger piece of the pie. So in theory we could cut taxes on labor and raise them on capital (and I would support that shift now--especially given that we just made a move in the opposite direction--and I'd especially favor a Georgist tax), but there is a point where that shift starts to do more harm than good. I think the solution will ultimately be for the public to own a bigger share of capital (like a SWF).

Regarding TPP specifically, it bends my imagination to understand how so many intelligent persons would have wished to have overlooked its insidious ADR provision, rights to private action against governments, inflexible patent protections, lost-profits clauses, and other despicable aspects, just to corner the international marketplace in a race to the bottom.

I think it was much ado about nothing. The "pro" argument essentially boiled down to "a multilateral agreement involving these countries is going to pass with or without us, so let's do what we can to maintain leadership and to steer things as much as we can in a good direction." The *reasonable* opposition argument was based on the politics of it (do we want to spend domestic political capital on such an insignificant issue? Do we want to be seen as giving our blessing to policies that aren't first-best?).

 

[Rod1]

I think the solution will ultimately be for the public to own a bigger share of capital (like a SWF).

Isnt that what SS trust fund is?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Isnt that what SS trust fund is?

Sort of. But I'm thinking stocks and private equity rather than bonds.

 

[Rod1]

Sort of. But I'm thinking stocks and private equity rather than bonds.

Aah, read about it and realized that excess is not invested in the private market.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

ahoy Anuung, avast ye!



the projections have US exports moving up a full percent. real income would go up 57 billion (more on this later). like i said, incremental improvement for US based business interests.



if you're objecting to the grand language used in promoting the TPP, i don't know what to say. anyone even mildly curious about the trade deal could just read about it. if an economic illiterate like me can make sense of it, anyone can.

i was expecting it to be a net postive. it is just that. i am happy.

its not that complicated.



"business alliance" and "geopoitical interests" are not mutually exclusive terms, Anuung. the TPP serves both.
i'm unclear on where you're even going with this, to be honest. are you saying you would like the TPP to have been more explicit in its thrust to disable China economically?



Anuung my friend, everything is negotiated "in secret". even legislation that you like. its all done that way - particularly multilateral trade deals, where each nation is of course trying to maximize their side of the pie. its natural and normal.



i wasn't speaking literally. China, for obvious reasons, is glad the US pulled out of the TPP.



that kind of sweeping assertion is not a point i'm willing to concede to you, just because you say its so.



when a restaurant discovers a statin drug that lowers cholesterol and lengthens the life of mankind, you make sure to get back to me on that one.

i like to eat out as much as anyone, but your comparison seems kind of silly to me.



i'm glad you raised that point, Anuung.

this is the core of our disagreement - and i think it holds true for most of the people who actually have policy problems with the TPP.

alot of folks are angry that the TPP will probably end up enriching a select few oligarchs in this country. you probably know in your heart of hearts that, yes, this will be beneficial to US corporate interests - you're just ticked off that every time any cream rises, the wealthy swoop in and scoop it all up.

the problem isn't free trade. the problem isn't globalism. the problem is the fruits from free trade and globalism are coalescing at the top - so the issue is tax policy.

the issue is income inequality - a real problem in this country. i mean, where does that 57 billion i referenced early go, exactly? who gets it?

the issue is wealth inequality - which has gotten insane in the United States. our wealth gap (net worth as opposed to income) is worse than Russia. its worse than Iran. that is seriously fucked up.

taking away globalism and the TPP isn't going to address these issues - it just pointlessly kneecaps US corporations a bit and that's not going to help workers at those US based interests at all.

the TPP isn't a problem.

its tax policy.

what do you care if a US corporation is able to strike favorable trade deals that enriches it - so long as that largesse doesn't all end up in some zillionaire's pocket?
what if that money was used to help fund a single payor program? what if that money is funneled towards PEW scholarships?
what if that money is used to help buttress our senior entitlement programs (since these programs are about to eviscerate the US budget)?

you're fighting the wrong fight.

- IGIT

I’m on mobile so I won’t be able to break up the post.

1. Those are the projections for 30yeara out. 1%. Guess what, they’re just projections, not guarantees. It could just as well wind up being -2%.

2. I’m saying that keeping pharmaceutical prices high isn’t a geopolitical strategy. The tpp is pure protectionism that does nothing for the American people.

And no, I’m not looking for more explicit language that we’re trying to torpedo China. I’m simply saying that the tpp does nothing to China, in spite of claims to the contrary. Why lie or distort/exaggerate the truth if the deal is so amazing? Why keep it secret and not explain in bit by bit to the American people?

3. The restaurant analogy works even better when you use statins as your benchmark. The industry already made billions in prophets off statins. And Merck did all the work on that, the rest just tweaked the molecule to get market share. Now these meds have been inexpensive for awhile now, but all of a sudden they’re skyrocketing in price (all meds, not just statins). Everybody is following the Shkreli/ Valeant model. Is that acceptable to you, to take long time inexpensive medications, even orphan drugs, and increase their price by 5000% because they can? Because that’s what TPP helps pharmaceutical companies do. Yo wouldn’t be happy if restaurants or grocery stores had the power to raise their prices by that margin.