Trans Pacific Partnership - continuing the conservative assault on working people

[Aegon Spengler]

It's the product of negotiations. Probably hundreds of people have had at least some hand in it.



Can't comment about NAFTA because I don't know all the details. But labor unions with a stake in the deal were allowed to view drafts of the TPP and give feedback (just as corporations were). That doesn't mean that everyone is getting all of what they want or enough to make it a good deal from their perspective--just clearing the record there.



Again, with the TPP, that has happened.



It's the exact opposite of protectionism for corporations. I think that the aspect that allows for potential undemocratic influence over policy is troubling, and the benefits are not significant, so it might be that it's not a good deal (and certainly not without the TAA--though Obama has indicated that he will not sign the TPA without the TAA).

Every trade union I've heard about has called this deal "secretive" and they are complaining that it protects corporations too much.

Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are on record talking about the protectionist measures that were released via wikileaks, giving corporations the power to sue national governments to change their environmental laws etc.

What is it you're reading? Link me to it.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Every trade union I've heard a word about has called this deal "secretive" and they are complaining that it protects corporations too much.

Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are on record talking about the projectionist measures that were released via wikileaks, giving corporations the power to sue national governments to change their environmental laws etc.

What is it you're reading? Link me to it.

You realize one the countries we're dealing with is Vietnam that doesn't have property rights....

There's going to be some shit that Westerners look at and think "why would we do that?"

How about we let the President negotiate the treaty and then pass judgment on the deal.

Or we can all pretend like we know what's going to come out of this.

Any politician against fast track authority should be embarrassed imo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Every trade union I've heard about has called this deal "secretive" and they are complaining that it protects corporations too much.

Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are on record talking about the protectionist measures that were released via wikileaks, giving corporations the power to sue national governments to change their environmental laws etc.

What is it you're reading? Link me to it.

"Protectionism" refers to taxing or restricting imports.

I've provided links before, but I guess I'll do it again. My favorite, in part because I highly respect the source and in part because it links to a lot of other people (with pro and con views) that I respect is this:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...de-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with

And to source a couple of factual claims I made, here:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-tpa-taa-veto-threat-trade-promotion-authority/?dcz=

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...n-opposes-obamas-nominee-trade-representative

From the above, Warren:

Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made [available] to the trade office's outside advisors. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some labor and NGO representatives too. But there is no transparency around who gets what information and whether they all see the same things, and I think that's a real problem.

A quote that was summarized by one unscrupulous poster as "600 international corporations wrote the bill"!

 

[IDL]

Corporate leaders I am sure had input, but I was more curious as to what groups were involved.

I understand that the Trilateral Commission played a big part in NAFTA and further North American integration and they seem to be the sort of organization that would be working on these TPP type deals as well

 

[Lee978]

Every trade union I've heard about has called this deal "secretive" and they are complaining that it protects corporations too much.

Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are on record talking about the protectionist measures that were released via wikileaks, giving corporations the power to sue national governments to change their environmental laws etc.

What is it you're reading? Link me to it.

Jack has sufficiently addressed the "protectionist" argument but I'd just like to ask why you seem so impressed that trade unions and anybody else potentially negatively affected by TPP is critical of the deal. Your posts come off as if them boycotting the agreement is some how groundbreaking.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Corporate leaders I am sure had input, but I was more curious as to what groups were involved.

I understand that the Trilateral Commission played a big part in NAFTA and further North American integration and they seem to be the sort of organization that would be working on these TPP type deals as well

Oh, sorry, I thought it was a serious question. OK, yeah, I think the Trilateral Commission, in association with representatives from international Jewry, the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, and the reverse vampires wrote the pact. The main thing the TPP does is give control to those groups and undermine Western society by giving gays equal rights. You have to read between the lines for that stuff, but really, it's all about manipulation and control.

 

[IDL]

Oh, sorry, I thought it was a serious question. OK, yeah, I think the Trilateral Commission, in association with representatives from international Jewry, the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, and the reverse vampires wrote the pact. The main thing the TPP does is give control to those groups and undermine Western society by giving gays equal rights. You have to read between the lines for that stuff, but really, it's all about manipulation and control.

I see.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Jack has sufficiently addressed the "protectionist" argument but I'd just like to ask why you seem so impressed that trade unions and anybody else potentially negatively affected by TPP is critical of the deal. Your posts come off as if them boycotting the agreement is some how groundbreaking.

I trust them and I trust Chomsky and Bernie Sanders. I wanted to see if their credibility as sources of information would come under attack and what those attacks would look like.

I was reversing the term protectionist on purpose, calling it "corporate protectionism", mainly because it sounds like an accurate description.

I've read the links Jack provided but they don't address the wikileaks piece about corporations being able to sue national governments to change their environmental or labour laws. Those two points are the points Chomsky and Sanders harp on the most.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I was reversing the term protectionist on purpose, calling it "corporate protectionism", mainly because it sounds like an accurate description.

I don't see how. It's the exact opposite of corporate protectionism.

I've read the links Jack provided but they don't address the wikileaks piece about corporations being able to sue national governments to change their environmental or labour laws. Those two points are the points Chomsky and Sanders harp on the most.

I think he meant that I addressed the protectionist argument by clarifying what looked like a misunderstanding about what protectionism is. My position on the issue you're commenting on is that it is a legitimate criticism. I don't think it's the only thing that matters (I'm on the fence about whether this is overall good or bad), but it is troubling.

Here's a good, balanced piece on the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/b...een-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html

Since you almost never hear anyone defending it, I'll quote that bit, along with the writer's response (and then it leads into a quote on that that you can see if you read the whole piece):

The United States Trade Representative

 

[Aegon Spengler]

"Protectionism" refers to taxing or restricting imports.

I've provided links before, but I guess I'll do it again. My favorite, in part because I highly respect the source and in part because it links to a lot of other people (with pro and con views) that I respect is this:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...de-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with

And to source a couple of factual claims I made, here:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-tpa-taa-veto-threat-trade-promotion-authority/?dcz=

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...n-opposes-obamas-nominee-trade-representative

From the above, Warren:



A quote that was summarized by one unscrupulous poster as "600 international corporations wrote the bill"!

After reading the links you provided, I came away with a few thoughts:

The bloomberg article paints an interesting picture of expanding American influence, I suppose countering Chinese influence in the pacific, but it doesn't address why this specific deal will be good for workers over corporations. It does say some manufacturing jobs will be coming to the USA because patent laws will change, so what exactly does that mean?

Mass unemployment in several of the signatory countries to the benefit of the USA? Why would they sign this then? The deal is "so good for the USA" - so how is this coming about? Will there be some kind of recovery plan for the nations that are negatively affected? The article says the tariff issue isn't a major one like Sanders and Chomsky have said, so what's the benefit to these Asian countries signing on? "Better access to American markets?" - better access for who? Who specifically benefits the most? The people of Vietnam? You average American?


Besides all that, how exactly will America get large numbers of jobs back if Asian workers are still going to be willing to accept such low wages? The article doesn't address that. The wage law issue could even bounce around the other way under TPP, couldn't it? You could have an international corporation suing an Asian country or an American state over their minimum wage laws under the TPP, so even if this does increase trade, what will be the impact on labour?

The article addressing transparency made a good point, that we don't know how much the "observers" and "advisors" are getting to see - all we know about how labour feels about this, we get from their websites etc, and they seem to be against it. We don't know what they're seeing but we know their unhappy. That's a point worth making.

As to my mis-use of the term "corporate protectionism", fine, sorry I misused it. I think it's an honest mistake. I was trying to say that this trade agreement will protect corporations from workers. What is the term for that?

 

[Aegon Spengler]

I don't see how. It's the exact opposite of corporate protectionism.



I think he meant that I addressed the protectionist argument by clarifying what looked like a misunderstanding about what protectionism is. My position on the issue you're commenting on is that it is a legitimate criticism. I don't think it's the only thing that matters (I'm on the fence about whether this is overall good or bad), but it is troubling.

Here's a good, balanced piece on the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/b...een-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html

Since you almost never hear anyone defending it, I'll quote that bit, along with the writer's response (and then it leads into a quote on that that you can see if you read the whole piece):

I find the part you quoted to be wholly unconvincing and alarming. Maybe the USA actually should lose some of those cases? I know Canada had a case against the US timber industry and lost, even though we were completely in the right and won every court case, out government still paid the USA for the court costs and dropped everything at the end of it. It was fucked up and people were mad.

The NY times piece is balanced enough I suppose but I still don't like the slant they put on it, like as long as Americans are safe from these ruinous corporate lawsuits they're fine and the people of other nations will just have to deal with being legally exploited, like it's nbd.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The bloomberg article paints an interesting picture of expanding American influence, I suppose countering Chinese influence in the pacific, but it doesn't address why this specific deal will be good for workers over corporations.

I don't think it would have a noticeable impact along that axis. The economic aspect of this (pro or con) seems like much ado about nothing.

It does say some manufacturing jobs will be coming to the USA because patent laws will change, so what exactly does that mean?

I don't quite understand the question, but I would not base support for the TPP on an expectation of noticeable changes in manufacturing employment. The long-term trend there is down (as productivity gains have far outstripped demand gains), and something like this would not be what causes it to turn around, if it ever does.

Mass unemployment in several of the signatory countries to the benefit of the USA? Why would they sign this then? The deal is "so good for the USA" - so how is this coming about? Will there be some kind of recovery plan for the nations that are negatively affected? The article says the tariff issue isn't a major one like Sanders and Chomsky have said, so what's the benefit to these Asian countries signing on? "Better access to American markets?" - better access for who? Who specifically benefits the most? The people of Vietnam? You average American?

This is too much, man. No offense. Narrow your focus, and I can respond.

Besides all that, how exactly will America get large numbers of jobs back if Asian workers are still going to be willing to accept such low wages? The article doesn't address that.

Again, if you're expecting any large economic impact from this (or any trade deal), you're going to be disappointed (or pleasantly surprised, I guess--depends what your expectation is). But I don't agree with the thinking of "jobs leaving/coming back." The economy changes over time. We're not going to ever get back farming jobs that we lost. On a large scale, the questions that matter to employment are "How much stuff and services are we willing to pay for?," "How much can we make/provide?," and, "How many workers does it take to provide that stuff/those services?" If we're worried--as I am--about additional issues, such as the share of national income that goes to labor rather than capital, and the distribution along the income/wealth scale, that's a matter best handled by domestic policy. I think that addresses some of your other comments.

As to my mis-use of the term "corporate protectionism", fine, sorry I misused it. I think it's an honest mistake. I was trying to say that this trade agreement will protect corporations from workers. What is the term for that?

I believe it's an honest mistake, and I was trying to be helpful by correcting it. So, yeah, protectionism is about protecting domestic businesses from foreign competition. Protecting corporations from workers is called "conservatism" in America.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I find the part you quoted to be wholly unconvincing and alarming. Maybe the USA actually should lose some of those cases?

Maybe it should, but that's a contradictory fear from the one expressed previously. If that's your angle, maybe you like that aspect of the deal.

The NY times piece is balanced enough I suppose but I still don't like the slant they put on it, like as long as Americans are safe from these ruinous corporate lawsuits they're fine and the people of other nations will just have to deal with being legally exploited, like it's nbd.

Well, it is an American paper. But fair enough.

 

[Titus002]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDLyKSYRqXM

 

[Mike]

he never was. it was all a lie from the beginning.

the democrat party(as well as most "left wing" parties in western 2 party systems) are the same corporate ass kissing puppets as their more right wing counterpart. their progressive stance in social issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc is just a smokescreen to make them look different from the other big party in the system. both parties are puppets of the same master, slightly different to make the masses believe their opinion counts.

thanks mostly to the disastrous administration by both big parties, the 2 party system seems to be declining over here:

hopefully the trend continues. more options means less bullshit is tolerated from parties.

Well this as well as my posts in the cost of medical care thread sum up my thoughts on it. Corruption from top to bottom. We are already living in a dystopia.

 

[Throttlehead]

How many people do you know that carry Hindu gods in their pocket? And one of which is supposed to give you beautiful speech?

You sure fuckup a lot of threads with your nonsense.

Not sure why you don't get carded. This is a political forum not a religious forum.

 

[ripskater]

You sure fuckup a lot of threads with your nonsense.

Not sure why you don't get carded. This is a political forum not a religious forum.

Put me on ignore, that will do you some good.

 

[emefer]

All hail Globochem.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Every trade union I've heard about has called this deal "secretive" and they are complaining that it protects corporations too much.

Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are on record talking about the protectionist measures that were released via wikileaks, giving corporations the power to sue national governments to change their environmental laws etc.

What is it you're reading? Link me to it.

"Protectionism" refers to taxing or restricting imports.

I've provided links before, but I guess I'll do it again. My favorite, in part because I highly respect the source and in part because it links to a lot of other people (with pro and con views) that I respect is this:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...de-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with

And to source a couple of factual claims I made, here:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-tpa-taa-veto-threat-trade-promotion-authority/?dcz=

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...n-opposes-obamas-nominee-trade-representative

From the above, Warren:

Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made [available] to the trade office's outside advisors. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some labor and NGO representatives too. But there is no transparency around who gets what information and whether they all see the same things, and I think that's a real problem.

A quote that was summarized by one unscrupulous poster as "600 international corporations wrote the bill"!

First 28 seconds:
[YT]/yf1H2BSOxqs[/YT]
You can watch the rest if you want your other comments debunked as well.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

After reading the links you provided, I came away with a few thoughts:

The bloomberg article paints an interesting picture of expanding American influence, I suppose countering Chinese influence in the pacific, but it doesn't address why this specific deal will be good for workers over corporations. It does say some manufacturing jobs will be coming to the USA because patent laws will change, so what exactly does that mean?

Mass unemployment in several of the signatory countries to the benefit of the USA? Why would they sign this then? The deal is "so good for the USA" - so how is this coming about? Will there be some kind of recovery plan for the nations that are negatively affected? The article says the tariff issue isn't a major one like Sanders and Chomsky have said, so what's the benefit to these Asian countries signing on? "Better access to American markets?" - better access for who? Who specifically benefits the most? The people of Vietnam? You average American?


Besides all that, how exactly will America get large numbers of jobs back if Asian workers are still going to be willing to accept such low wages? The article doesn't address that. The wage law issue could even bounce around the other way under TPP, couldn't it? You could have an international corporation suing an Asian country or an American state over their minimum wage laws under the TPP, so even if this does increase trade, what will be the impact on labour?

The article addressing transparency made a good point, that we don't know how much the "observers" and "advisors" are getting to see - all we know about how labour feels about this, we get from their websites etc, and they seem to be against it. We don't know what they're seeing but we know their unhappy. That's a point worth making.

As to my mis-use of the term "corporate protectionism", fine, sorry I misused it. I think it's an honest mistake. I was trying to say that this trade agreement will protect corporations from workers. What is the term for that?

The spreading influence in the Pacific aspect is a deliberately misleading angle the pro-TPP folks are spreading.

The US already has very liberal trade agreements with these countries and nothing in the treaty prevents these countries from signing separate treaties with China --- although that probably isn't necessary as China also has liberal trade policies with these countries.


And you're not misusing "protectionism".
TPP: A Trade Agreement for Protectionists
The problem of protectionism in the TPP

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is often referred to in the media as a "free-trade" agreement. This is not true. Most of the pact is about putting in place a business-friendly regulatory structure, not reducing trade barriers. Perhaps more importantly, the deal will explicitly increase protectionist barriers in the form of stronger and longer copyright and patent-related protections.