Being against TPP because of NAFTA is fighting the last battle again. There are no jobs to lose with

[CK_John]

TPP. We are 300million customers vs 1 billion+ in India, 1 billion+ in China and 2 billion+ in the rest of Asia trying to get a treaty that lets us play on their turf.

We import almost every thing we buy and make very little to send out and Gov of states are telling union firms they need not apply.

We are going through a very stupid period.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. More than $2 trillion a year in manufacturing and other US industries

That the Predator Class wants to offshore to microwage countries.

They are gutting our country.

We need to bring jobs back, not send more away.

Not to mention the usurpation of US laws.

Enough!

[CK_John]

2. Cyber-era can not produce enough jobs for at least 30% of the population and

no ranting about jobs going elsewhere is BS, "there are no jobs to go anywhere".

WhatApp sells for 19 Bil and has only 55 employees, wake up it's not going to get any better. and TPP has nothing to do with jobs.

[msanthrope]

8. The usurpation of US laws? That's usually a rightist argument employed against UN mandates

and the like.

Which, specific US laws are going to be usurped?

[MannyGoldstein]

11. A huge attack on IP laws

Here's a start:

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&q=Tpp

[msanthrope]

12. Manny--that's an Internet search. Tell me the actual US law you think is usurped?

I mean, you say "a huge attack on IP laws," but that's incredibly nebulous....

It's like saying "state's rights!" and when you ask the person "okay....WHICH rights?" they really don't know.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. How about increasing copyright duration to up to 120 years?

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Lots more... Jailbreak your phone? Then you go to jail. And so forth

[msanthrope]

24. I don't have a problem with extending copyright protections for individual authors by 20

years. And I don't have a problem extending corporate copyright, either.

Jailbreaking or unlocking? The former is stupid unless you know what you're doing, the latter already is illegal but it's not like you can't buy an unlocked phone. As to making jailbreaking illegal...nothing in your cite indicates that jailbreaking would become illegal, and in fact, I think you are incorrect in assuming that WIPO would be overrun by TPP.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. First off, you agree that 1. US law would need to be changed to abide by the TPP

2. that this change will lengthen copyright protection to as long as 120 years for corporations.
3. individuals will have less protection than corporations.

So we can agree that my "right wing talking point", as you characterized it, is correct. Where we disagree is that you believe that 1-3 above are fine. And you're a Democrat?

[msanthrope]

37. Manny...you are utterly incorrect in point 1. The fallacious point 1 makes points 2&3 moot.

To address your points:

1) CETA passed 16 years ago. Agreed with Justice Ginsburg when it was upheld.
2) see point 1. Been the law for 16 years now, the sky hasn't fallen.
3) see point 2.

Your "right wing talking point" of blaming President Obama for a piece of legislation written and sponsored by a Republican 16 years ago is noted.

For your reading pleasure...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-618

[MannyGoldstein]

38. So copyright extends to 120 years already?

And just for corporations?

Interesting! I never knew that! When you're right, you're right.

I learn something almost every day.

[msanthrope]

40. Indeed...so why are you blaming Obama for a piece of legislation by a Republican?

Granted, when it was passed, the Republicans were very busy trying to impeach a sitting Democratic President, so some right wing sites might be forgiven for completely forgetting that actual legislation got passed....

I was quite happy to get a 20 year extension on the copyright I hold.

Also...I note you've dropped the whole "jailbreaking" issue? Guess I was right on that, too.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. OK, what are your thoughts on this:

http://tppinfo.org/resources/tpp-vs-us-law/

[msanthrope]

41. I don't click on links without a summary. What is your specific question? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Have a good night.

Seems like you're interested in scoring points, not in finding the truth.

[msanthrope]

44. Well, pointing out that you are blaming Obama for a law passed 16 years ago is hardly scoring

a point so much as it is shooting fish in a barrel.

But, if you have any more specific questions, I shall be happy to answer them.

[cali]

13. do you even know how the investor state dispute

system works in NAFTA and other post-NAFTA FTAs? Do you know the history of corporate use of that system against countries for their laws that supposedly unfairly limit corporate profits. This is not exactly secret. Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever, anyone who has bothered to do basic research, knows this stuff.

You, on the other hand, do not

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4083

[msanthrope]

14. Cali, I am asking a very specific question---what US laws will be usurped? PIL is a complex

subject, and I think it's best to discuss it in terms of real-world impact.

For example, I am a patent and a copyright holder. Can you name a current US law that I am benefitting from that will be affected by the TPP?

Without being insulting...how about just a discussion of law? Also--I think you are conflating IP law and ISDS...could you be as clear as possible in your examples?

[cali]

15. you don't know until the corporation challenges specific laws

through the ISDP. That's the point.

[msanthrope]

16. Ok.....that's different from usurpation. I can challenge a law, without usurping it. nt

[ljm2002]

25. When a challenge is made...

...it is decided by a group set up by this law -- not by any legal body of the country being challenged. If the country has signed the TPP, they have agreed to be bound by the decision of that group. That group will be composed of corporate lawyers and the like. It will NOT contain any workers, union representatives, or environmental interests.

Challenges may include such complaints as: your country's environmental laws are stricter than what is spelled out in the TPP. Therefore, if you insist we follow that law and do not allow us to build some dirty factory in your country, then we will sue you for the lost profits we would have made. The overall effect will be to force standards DOWN, DOWN, DOWN.

The process is pretty much a textbook definition of usurpation of authority. It is a loosely connected bunch of rules that favor the multinational corporations who have participated in writing the TPP, that continue to foster businesses moving operations to places that pay low wages and have few environmental protections. For the places that still pay high wages and have strong environmental protections, it will provide just the wedge needed to try and force those DOWN along with us peons.

Here's hoping our legislators put the kibosh on this thing.

[msanthrope]

36. Actually, you cannot sue on the basis of lost profits. You can on sue on the basis that investment

protection standards have not been followed, thus resulting in lost profits, but the mere speculative loss of profits is not a case. The hypothetical you gave....is there an actual case you basing that on?

And I have no problem wifh being bound by UNCTAD. I think you are arguing for American exceptionalism.

[ljm2002]

45. Are you sure you've been following trade issues at all?

Companies are ALREADY suing countries for lost future profits, under the provisions of NAFTA. TPP is worse.

Links, we got 'em:

http://action.sumofus.org/a/eli-lilly/3/6/?sub=homepage

Last month, Eli Lilly, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in North America, filed a lawsuit against Canadian taxpayers for $500 million dollars. On what basis is an American corporation suing us for such an outrageous sum you ask? The $4.3 billion dollars Eli Lilly earned in profit in 2011 was not enough for the pharmaceutical giant.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a company can sue another NAFTA country if that nation’s laws affect its expected future profit. In this case, Eli Lilly is “losing profit” because Canadian regulators dared to act within Canadian laws and rightly denied patents on two of Eli Lilly’s expensive drugs.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/27-8

A US company is taking advantage of a corporate-friendly NAFTA provision in suing the Canadian government for over $250 million due to lost profits from Quebec's moratorium on fracking.

The company, Lone Pine Resources Inc., which is incorporated in the state of Delaware and headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, held mining permits in the Saint Lawrence Valley and has already spent "millions of dollars" to get the permits and approvals, according to the company, but the moratorium passed in 2011 by the province to study environmental risk revoked those permits.

http://justinvestment.org/2013/12/tobacco-giant-philip-morris-is-suing-australia-for-billions-of-dollars-in-lost-profits/

Tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing Australia for billions of dollars in lost profits because the government took action to reduce teenage smoking. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly is suing Canada for $500 million, just because Canada has laws to keep essential drugs affordable.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/another-reason-hate-tpp-it-gives-big-content-new-tools-undermine-sane-digital

Like the rest of the TPP, we only know what has been leaked. Based on that, it seems the negotiators are poised to give private corporations new tools to undermine national sovereignty and democratic processes. Specifically, TPP would give multinational companies the power to sue countries over laws that that might diminish the value of their company or cut into their expected future profits.

The provision that gives them this power is called “investor-state dispute settlement” (or ISDS for short). The policy was originally intended to ensure that investments in developing countries were not illegally expropriated by “rogue” governments, thereby encouraging foreign investment. But what began as a remedy to a specific problem has since been co-opted to serve very different purposes. Under investor-state, if a regulation gets in the way of a foreign investor’s ability to profit from its investment, the investor can sue a country for monetary damages based on both alleged lost profits and “expected future profits.” There are no monetary limits to the potential award.

Apparently a country’s own courts can’t be trusted to administer this kind of lawsuit, so investor-state also requires the creation of a new court. It would be comprised of three private-sector attorneys who take turns being judge and/or corporate advocate.

Now, given the above examples, will you admit that your claim that "the mere speculative loss of profits is not a case" is, quite simply, wrong?

As for your claim that my argument is based on American exceptionalism: wrong. I don't want Canada's environmental laws to be dragged down by this corporatist-led BS any more than I want America's environmental laws dragged down. I don't want Australia's government to be sued for trying to get fewer teenagers to start smoking, anymore than I want to see that in the US. The point is, deals like the TPP are DESIGNED to drag down wages and environmental standards and they are DESIGNED to give multinationals more power. But without governments to constrain their powers, they will become even more out of control than they already are.

We are watching the plutocrats take over on an international scale. Given their intransigence on global climate change, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory -- but that is cold comfort indeed for the rest of us.

[msanthrope]

46. Every case you posted proved my point...you cannot sue merely for.loss of profits...

you have sue to for an action that would violate a trade protection. One of the things you can then claim are loss of future profits. But just because you claimed them, doesn't mean you get them. Its like claiming punitive damages... just because you want them doesn't mean you're going to be able to prove to a court that you deserve them.

In every case you posted, there is a predicate action that leads to the claim of lost profits. So, no... I am correct.



We have claims for damages and lost profits in this country, too.... so I'm not understanding why this is a novel concept.

[ljm2002]

48. In this country...

...we have courts, and an appeal process.

With the TPP, there is a "court" comprised of 3 corporate lawyers who act as prosecution, defense and judge. They are not affiliated with any government. There is NO appeal process and whatever decision they come to is final. Therefore, the tendency of this process is to force standards down, since we already know how these provisions will be used by corporations to sue countries. We know this because they are already using NAFTA to sue, and on what basis they are suing.

As to your hair splitting argument that there must be a "predicate action", well, duh. Of course. But the basis upon which that action is actionable, includes such things as expected future profits.

I note that you do not address any of the concerns about these so-called trade agreements driving the global race to the bottom, while lining the pockets of the fat cats. Also there are heavy concerns about the process under which TPP has been negotiated, with 600 corporate hacks thrashing out the details while our own representatives and senators are not allowed to see anything of the agreement except under very controlled conditions -- and even then, they can't see all of it. Why do you think that process has been used? To me it reeks of skullduggery.

Anyway, we already know the effects of this sort of trade agreement, since we saw what happened with NAFTA. TPP is more of the same, and from what we have seen of leaked documents, it is even worse than NAFTA.

I hope Congress squashes it.

[msanthrope]

49. I'm really not seeing the problem with UNCTAD, and while you say this forces standards down,

you have not offered any evidence to that proposition.

Predicate action is not "hair splitting." It's the gravamen.

I did address your concern--and answered it. If you have another specific concern, let me know.

[ljm2002]

50. Good grief...

...the post I made with links about suits such as the tobacco company suing Australia because of Australia's anti-smoking campaign, the one where a suit is brought due to environmental laws that prohibit companies from running roughshod over the environment -- you don't count that as evidence of forcing standards down? Did you even read any of those articles, which also point out how expensive it is for a government to defend these cases -- therefore ensuring they will be cautious when making new environmental laws, or new campaigns to help their citizens live more healthy lives?

I do understand that in law, hair splitting is where it's at. That includes in the courtroom, and it also includes drafting laws. However, when the laws are drafted with a certain "slant", as in this case -- well then they do not deserve to be enacted into actual laws. I also note you most certainly did NOT address any concerns about process, apart from asserting that you have no problem with it. I am referring both to the process of drafting the TPP and its huge secrecy from both citizens and their elected representatives; as well as the processes encoded in the TPP for dispute resolution.

You are being obdurate and refusing to engage in honest discussion.

TTFN

[msanthrope]

51. I did read what you posted. And I agree that it is expensive for governments to defend these

lawsuits.

I agree that the TPP will affect law-making in this country...as every single treaty we have ever signed does. But, what I have not seen from you is why it will affect us negatively.

The TPP cannot force us to repeal laws.

What laws, in the future, do you think the TPP will stop us from enacting?

[Marr]

17. If you replace "foreign government" with "borderless corporation" and

"US laws" with something more specific, like "environmental and labor regulations".

In other words, the two positions are not very similar.

[msanthrope]

18. And these are still meaningless terms because no one is being specific. Look, Krugman

has indicated that he's not sure why everyone is making a big deal over the TPP...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/tpp/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I'm ready to make a big deal over the TPP, but I wish someone would tell me precisely why this agreement...as opposed to all others that have been signed already, is a big deal.

[Enthusiast]

21. +1 an entire shit load!

We must preserve the remaining manufacturing jobs!

[Savannahmann]

3. You are sadly mistaken

Many manufacturing jobs went overseas in a manner of speaking. After NAFTA, I was a truck driver, and within a year of it going live, I was picking up muffler parts from the Mexican Border near Laredo, the trailers were at max weight with the metal parts. I'd drive them to Oklahoma where they would be mated to an engine. Now, most of those engines are fully manufactured in Mexico. Serious loss of jobs right there.

Let's look at "Detroit" by which we mean American made cars. Here is General Motors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_factories

The much admired Chevrolet Cruze. 45% made in the USA. That means most of it is manufactured outside the US, and it's slapped together by some guys in Ohio. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/MadeInAmerica/page/made-america-car-american-made-13795239

How about the Ford Fusion, we heard that Detroit was making a comeback with the Fusion. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024265298 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_factories

Perhaps they're planning on renaming the town in Mexico where it's built Detroit, but otherwise not so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermosillo_Stamping_%26_Assembly

Twenty percent of that car is considered "Built in the USA".

By comparison, my Toyota Sienna van is 75% made in the USA.

So by claiming that there were no jobs lost to NAFTA, and none would be lost to TPP is at best, wildly inaccurate.

The expense of the tariffs would not make a significant difference in India or China. Let's take India. Let's talk about the Tata Nano. It' cost about $2,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano It's made in India, and sold in India. Do you think we can compete with that? I guess we could try and explain to the folks in India that a Ford Fusion for ten times the money would be a better choice. What do you think that will result in?

NAFTA was a huge failure. It didn't help our economy, it hurt it by further degrading our manufacturing base. Everything we used to build is now being built overseas. China, that country you mention as a place where we can sell our products, is already making our products. One company I was impressed with was Marlow Yachts. They came up with a design for rugged dependable yachts that I learned about following clicks late one night. The company offices are on Snead Island Florida. Go team USA. Now you can go there and order yourself a boat. They will email the order to their factory, and once its made, and assembled, it will be delivered by a ship from the plant in China.

You might want to look into some of your beliefs, see if the facts match the rhetoric. Because I can tell you on this one, you're not exactly right.

[CK_John]

5. You're re fighting NAFTA, it was, but it is not today. We are trying to get a treaty with Asia

countries that don't need us but... we need them.

It's that simple, it has nothing to do with jobs because technology is replaying workers with driverless cars and trucks.

They are testing 18 wheel convoy's in Spain with only 1 driver in the lead truck and 7 or 8 driveless trucks. That's what is coming, with or without TPP.

[Savannahmann]

7. Since you concede that NAFTA despite the promise was a job killer

I'll move on. What does India need us for? Technical expertise? They have a number of fine doctors who are leading in cutting edge applications of medicine. http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/18702

China's space program is growing while ours is dwindling. So I doubt China will need our help there. Perhaps we can sell China some F-35 fighters. That would boost the old economy. Of course, they would probably get upset at the quality of the plane and the tons of problems they're having, like nearly falling apart in the sky. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0LQ1L920140221

Perhaps they need us for computer design? How many people would that employ in the US? Perhaps a hundred?

The only thing we lead the world in is weapons manufacturing. So unless we hope to become the greatest exporter of death devices in history, we have no hope of meeting the needs of India or China. They need food of course, but we don't charge Tariff's on food stuff. So that won't help them, or us.

We export enough death, and I would hate to be known as the worlds arms manufacturer.

The TPP is bad all the way around, and should have been shelved and forgotten long before now.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Those countries need us very, very badly

Without our consumer economy they die.

[Enthusiast]

23. +1 an entire shit load!

[Motown_Johnny]

4. But those 4 billion "customers" have almost no buying power.

The problem with competing with people making $0.29 an hour isn't just that it forces American worker's wages down. It is that those people can't afford to buy anything made by people making ~$15.00 an hour.


It isn't like you are going to get 150 people in China pitching in to buy a flat screen TV or 1500 of them pooling their resources for an Escalade.


The very fact that the only way to defend these free trade agreements is to misrepresent the buying power of individuals in these countries is more proof that it is wrong. Stop pretending that billions of poor people are potential customers for American products, they aren't.

They are only potential customers for other producers who pay next to nothing. These trade agreements help create manufacturing bases in low wage countries so they can sell to other low wage countries as well as to the US.

They aren't buying from us. If they were we might still have a textile industry.




Edit to add:

Yes, we are going through a very stupid period, the period of Free Trade.

[CK_John]

6. India and China both have a thriving urban middle class, not all sectors are doing as well, but

far better than you state in your post.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. I am comparing earnings of people in manufacturing jobs

since that is what we are talking about with free trade. It is a simplification, and if you feel it is an oversimplification then we can get into this. My statement that the people in these countries do not have the buying power to make a trade deal fair is correct. Also, my statement that these people with lower buying power than Americans will tend to buy from other countries with lower labor costs is also correct.

I understand that not all these countries have the same buying power per capita and am not against some trade agreements with some of them. I do have a problem with the generalizations presented in your OP.

If you respond to this post please provide numbers which support your claim. Your previous post has nothing to substantiate it what so ever. Also please try to provide some rational argument for these lower income persons to buy products from America instead of from other low labor cost countries.



http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/indias-middle-class-growth-engine-or-loose-wheel/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


^snip^


Four out of five middle-class Indians are in the lowest bracket of spending power, meaning they can spend $2 to $4 a day. Many of these 224 million people are not well educated, employed in unstable jobs in the unorganized sector and lack sufficient social safety nets. They could slip back into poverty if they experience a financial shock.

That insecurity has bred a political and economic conundrum for India: until the middle class has stable incomes and spending power, the economic contribution of its members will be offset by their demand for unviable populist measures from the government, amplified through their access to the media megaphone.

The base of high-spending middle-class consumers is still small. The “middle middle” (spending $4 to $10 a day) and the “upper middle” (spending $10 to $20 a day) together make up just over 50 million people. This group is essentially part of India’s elite, when contrasted with the rest of the population, yet barely middle class by global standards.



http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/consumer_and_retail/mapping_chinas_middle_class

^snip^

The explosive growth of China’s emerging middle class has brought sweeping economic change and social transformation—and it’s not over yet. By 2022, our research suggests, more than 75 percent of China’s urban consumers will earn 60,000 to 229,000 renminbi ($9,000 to $34,000) a year.



http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/sunday/2013-05/19/content_16509704.htm

^snip^

The emergence of a very large Chinese middle class will change the entire world. The present total population of all countries defined by the World Bank as 'high income' is 16 percent of the world's population. The definition of a 'high income' economy is one with a GDP per capita of slightly over $12,000 per year. It will take China about 15 years to achieve that level.

[cali]

9. you appear to have absolutely no idea about the TPP at all. None.

Big Ag is a Fucking HUGE exporter, and it's not the only sector. And the the TPP is about much more than trade and tariffs. It's about whether corporations can supersede local environmental laws and other community standards. It about health issues. It's about copyright and the internet and on and on.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-us-farm-exports-usda-developing-201402012,0,2268369.story#axzz2uAeWg3H0

Why do you constantly post these kind of false assertions about issues you haven't bothered to research?

[X_Digger]

32. See my post below. He's been pimping TPP from one angle or another for 6 months+. n/t

[Brigid]

19. NAFTA is a colossal failure for American workers.

So as for TTP, you know the old saying: Fool me once . . .

[Democracyinkind]

26. TPP is not mainly about jobs.

The real danger lies in institutionalizing this perverse system of courts for corporations by corporations.

In short, it's about corporate sovereignity. That's a very dangerous road to go down.

[Maedhros]

28. This is indeed the core of the issue.

The actual trade provisions, as couched in secrecy as they are, may or may not end up totally stacked against the American worker. My money is on the American worker getting screwed again.

But the most alarming intel we've received on what these motherfuckers are planning to do is to exempt themselves from environmental and labor regulations. If the TPP is affirmed as the law of the land, the United States will cede its authority in these matters to a corporate entity.

Don't want that foreign microchip manufacturer to dump waste chemicals in your groundwater and streams? The TPP will make it so you have no recourse through American law.

[X_Digger]

29. Is that you, Bill? Go tell Hillary that you fell off the wagon again.

Oh and..

[font size=+4][font color=red]Fuck the TPP![/font][/font]

[CK_John]

30. Boring...

[X_Digger]

31. You endlessly regurgitating the same crap every thread? Yes, it is boring.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550665

We need to lower SocSec age to 50yrs, in order to give people respect and a safety net while they look for work and a way to fit into this new era.

Garbage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024515060

The 40+ jobless problem is they can not adapt to the new kids world instead of raising their kids to fit into their world.

Tripe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024513354

Is Cyber-era tension causing these 40 somethings to shot teenagers?????

Drivel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024450249

Whoever advocates to lower SocSec to 50 will win the nomination in 2016, but...

Offal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391329

Is Cyber-era productivity(less jobs) starting to effect China bigtime???

IMO, Their economic model is to bring millions of rural sweat labor into manufacturing centers in order to create an urban upscale middle class.

Dreck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024383905

So what ever we can get from the TPP is better than nothing.

Rubbish.


What, you don't think your bullshit isn't visible to anyone who is paying attention?

Transparent.

[CK_John]

33. So you don't believe we have a jobs problem, but why the nasty snark and

the big fuck you???

It's my belief and I am trying to offer a needed solution. SocSec at age 50 is needed.

[X_Digger]

34. I said..

[font size=+3 color=red]Fuck the TPP![/font]

Not you.

But if you have so much of yourself invested in it that you take any criticism of it personally, I'd recommend taking a break.

Our jobs problem isn't going to be solved by shitting out McJobs and flushing manufacturing jobs to third-world piss pots.

You feel free to practice saying, "You want fries with that?". Me? I'll be saying:

[font size=+3 color=red]Fuck the TPP![/font] - til the sun don't shine.

[CK_John]

35. It's my premise and my solution and I'm sticking with it. When you have a better solution

post it and I'll be civil.

[Motown_Johnny]

47. Who could argue with logic like that?

Hey, can you please respond to post #10? That or admit you were wrong and self delete the OP of this thread.

Thanks.

[Union Scribe]

43. Lie Down and Take It

What a stirring battle cry! An inspiration to one and all.