Robert Reich on the TTP. Good for corporations. Bad for the rest of us.

[JDPriestly]

Suppose that by enacting a particular law we’d increase the U.S.Gross Domestic Product. But almost all that growth would go to the richest 1percent. 


The rest of us could buy some products cheaper than before. But those gains would be offset by losses of jobs and wages.

. . . .

Suppose that by enacting a particular law we’d increase the U.S.Gross Domestic Product. But almost all that growth would go to the richest 1percent. 


The rest of us could buy some products cheaper than before. But those gains would be offset by losses of jobs and wages.

More. These excerpts don't begin to do Reich's article justice. Please read the rest at

http://robertreich.org/post/111210323485

If you want to be able to explain why the TPP is a lousy idea, read and memorize Reich's explanation. I would add it is also bad because of the international trade courts that can render decisions that supersede our laws and make our democracy pretty superfluous.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. ,

,

[Hoyt]

2. The tribunals will not supersede our laws or those of the other dozen or so countries

that will supposedly be party to any agreement that might be finalized.

Reich has said the main problem with NAFTA is it didn't go far enough with worker rights and environmental laws. Obama says his goal is to begin leveling the playing field in those. I think Reich is afraid Obama might show him and Clinton up.

In any event, I don't think Obama will endorse a bad agreement. Nor do I think the governments in all the other countries will either.

[sabrina 1]

4. He HAS endorsed a bad agreement, he is trying to fast track a horrible agreement. Thankfully so far

it has been slowed down. Elizabeth Warren AND Bernie Sanders, also Ron Wyden among others AGREE with Reich.

'Why is this agreement so secret' members of Congress were asked. And Warren said, 'if the people saw what was in it, they would reject it'.

This total trust by one side or the other in their favorite politicians is what got us the Iraq War and all the other bad policies we have had over the years.

If people would simply stand up for themselves, regardless how much they love a politician, this country would not be in the mess it is in today.

[MFrohike]

6. True

They can't supersede, they can just allow companies to recover against the Treasury for the type of decisions a sovereign country might make. For instance:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/keystone-pipeline-nafta-115511.html?hp=lc2_4

[JDPriestly]

8. Which means that they will supersede our law.

If a country has to pay damages for having passed a law that causes speculative damages to some corporation, that country's law has been superseded. That is because the country that has to pay the damages is paying the damages for having passed and enforced its own laws. Damages are paid for injuries done to a suing party. The assumption is that if a country has to pay damages, it has done something wrong, either intentionally or negligently.

A law that is passed under our Constitution by our elected representatives is not wrongful and, unless it violates our Constitution or causes some harm recognized by our law, does not subject our government to damages.

Let's say that California limits the advertising or sales that tobacco companies can do in our state. A tobacco company could sue California or the US alleging that it has lost potential (speculative in my view) income due to that law limiting its advertising or its sales. If the tobacco company receives and award of damages, it can force California to settle and promise to change its laws.

That is just one example of the way in which a trade court can supersede the laws of a country.

Another example is laws that protect the environment and involve limiting trade, say in timber. Check the NAFTA cases. The list is available on line. Many of the cases brought thus far have been rejected on procedural grounds. The NAFTA lawyers will get good at bringing cases that do not fail based on procedural errors. When that happens, we will have a problem especially in environmentally sensitive areas like California in which voters are conscious of their obligation to maintain a healthy environment.

In any event, defending these cases, even those that fail on procedural grounds, is very expensive and a waste of money for taxpayers.

[MFrohike]

11. Not exactly, no

Being able to recover a money judgment and actually supplanting the law are two different things.

The point I was making by linking that article is that it's stupid to defend the ISDS unless one wants to defend TransCanada's right to recover money from the US Treasury as a result of the Keystone XL veto. I don't see why normal lawmaking should be a piggybank for foreign investors. Part of the risk of any project is that the government in question might say no. No private party should be subsidized for falling on the wrong side of that risk because that is exactly how our economic system is supposed to work. Especially not when it's an industry like fossil fuels, which has notoriously sucked off the government teat for over a century and has bribed our government, at all levels, in historic fashion.

[JDPriestly]

12. I agree with this:

No private party should be subsidized for falling on the wrong side of that risk because that is exactly how our economic system is supposed to work. Especially not when it's an industry like fossil fuels, which has notoriously sucked off the government teat for over a century and has bribed our government, at all levels, in historic fashion.

BUT the money judgment that the international trade court rewards is intended as and serves as an incentive for the government assessed the judgment to change its laws or not pass it in the first place.

If a company produces a product that causes an injury to a consumer, the consumer may sue and receive a judgment. One of the goals in getting the judgment is to encourage or even require (by making the production of the product too expensive) the corporation to stop producing the product.

Check out some of the cases that have been brought before the NAFTA court. Most of them fail on procedural grounds. But each of them is intended to attack our law and our democracy. I could tell you precisely which cases bother me the most, but unfortunately, I can't so you will have to look at the list and figure it out. Some of them target environmental laws in the defendant country.

The goal of a corporation in filing a lawsuit in the international trade courts is very often to influence and attack legislation and encourage or intimidate the defendant country into changing its democratically instituted laws.

The courts are a danger to democracy.

[JDPriestly]

7. Why do you say the tribunals will not supersede our laws?

Have you followed the cases and rulings of the NAFTA court? The TPP court will be similar.

[Hoyt]

9. Yes, and they do not supercede our laws. The few cases interpret the laws when

we try to screw other nations, and they do the same. The laws involved are trade disputes. They aren't going to suprecede abortion laws, internal tax laws, gun laws, divorce laws, and darn near everything else.

You are an attorney. If you thought Mexico were screwing us under a trade agreement, would you want to depend on their court system to treat us fairly.

[Populist_Prole]

3. Yes it bloody is

The corporations wrote the damned thing!

"Negotiations" on agreements to assuage the damage via redistribution is surrendering before the battle and amounts to begging the plutocrats for mercy, instead of telling them to fuck off in the first place.

[Hoyt]

10. Who told you corporations wrote the incomplete agreement? The US Trade Representative Office is not

a corporation, nor are the trade reps from the other dozen or so countries who will have to approve this thing, assuming it is ever finalized.

[ND-Dem]

5. kr