There's only one principle behind TTIP, CETA and other 'free trade' agreements

[Ichingcarpenter]

There's only one principle behind TTIP, CETA and other 'free trade' agreements, writes Conor J. Lynch. And no, it's not 'free trade' but 'corporate profit' - at the expense of consumers, taxpayers, environment, workers and democracy itself


Free trade advocates preach free market values, but pro-corporate tools like the ISDS reveal a fundamental truth about global free trade today: it is less about ideology than it is profit.

Since globalization took off in the 1980‘s, free trade agreements have generally been promoted by advocates as natural components of the free market.

Mainstream economists, whether from more conservative branches like the Chicago school, or of progressive Keynesian disciplines, ultimately believe that the free market works to a degree, and that it should be promoted by governments around the world.

Of course there are major differences; progressives believe in strong regulatory apparatuses, while conservatives would have governments small enough to 'drown in a bathtub' if possible. But the underlying belief in the free market essentially guides both economists on the left and right of the mainstream. Naturally, with the free market, comes free trade.

Creating a friendly environment for big business

And with the rise of neoliberalism on both sides of the Atlantic (a trend set by Thatcher and Reagan), freeing up international trade has become an important part of government policies and a major contributor to globalization.

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2769624/ttip_hypocrisy_making_corporations_more_equal_than_people.html

[SamKnause]

1. Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine

polices for the entire globe.

The elites love causing chaos and destruction.

They will implement their plans at all costs.

[GeorgeGist]

2. That is the bottom line.

We are all slaves to it.
Even President Obama.

[obxhead]

8. Obama is not a slave to the free market or his donors.

He can't run again. He doesn't need campaign money.

His push for trade deals is his own greed and his alone. He'll own the destruction it brings because he has been the one fighting for it.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. He, like most politicians...

have to make sure they sew up extra money for retirement.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. There are a couple of other ideas that go hand in hand with 'free trade'.

The promotion of consumerism, materialism, and disposability. Rather than promote the idea of spending more to buy higher quality products that last, 'Free Trade' is all about producing the cheapest possible products in the cheapest, least environmentally friendly way possible, having 'consumers' buy ever larger amounts of junk products to replace those that they already bought that wore out quickly or became 'obsolete', and add to the ever larger piles of garbage around the world.

The higher the cost of products, the more likely they are to be profitable to produce domestically, even in countries with high labour costs. Free Trade pushes us towards the cheap and poorly made, towards plastic and the easily broken, easily thrown away world.

[Dont call me Shirley]

10. And then Waste Management ends up with piles and piles of resources.

[gregcrawford]

4. My hatred of corporatism burns hotter than the surface of the Sun

The enormity of its evil cannot be adequately expressed in this, or any other language. Isis, Boko Haram, and Al Qaeda combined have not inflicted the scale of devastation that has been wrought by the most malignant economic system ever devised by man. And they're just getting warmed up.

Prudence forbids me from suggesting the fate that I think every one of corporatism's proponents deserve.

[Enthusiast]

7. Your hatred in entirely justified. The U.S.A. has never faced such an insidious enemy.

Tell your friends and family, "Corporate rule is Fascism."

[Populist_Prole]

15. Me three

This has become/will be the litmus test issue I will vote on. Everything else is relative bullshit....Not because it doesn't matter, but because they're for naught if we all become impoverished.

[GoneFishin]

27. Exactly. The other stuff matters, but it becomes secondary if you don't have food and shelter.

[HereSince1628]

5. Free-market rhetoric largely exploits anti-communism and rejection

of the notion of 'command economies' directed by central governments of totalitarian states.

The rejection of such central authority was so strong compared to the perceived goodness of free markets that neoliberal capitalism came to be viewed as a form of national governance. The Reagan administration represents the overt enthronement of capitalism replacing democracy.

[Enthusiast]

6. Repeat after me. Corporate rule is Fascism.

Tell your family and friends.

We do not want Fascism.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. Tell Barack Obama -- he's pushing for this as hard as anyone.

[Enthusiast]

19. It's pretty clear,

he won't listen.

[FiveGoodMen]

31. Agreed.

It's pretty clear that his fans won't listen, either. (Or there'd be no BOG)

[HoosierCowboy]

9. Which brings up the point...

...that if we are going to be paid at the the same level as Chinese sweatshop workers, exactly who is going to buy all that shoddy overpriced crap?
Sorry I forgot, the 1% only consider what's in it for them.

[pampango]

11. European workers have prospered with their version of 'free trade', open borders and no tariffs.

As with any international agreements, the details matter.

[Hoyt]

12. +1. Trade agreements are not necessarily bad.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. false equivalency.

that's like describing trade between California and Michigan.

[pampango]

14. Prior to WWII each European country had tariffs and immigration restrictions against its neighbors.

Let's just say that prosperity, peace and income equality were not terms used to describe Europe in the first half of the 20th century.

that's like describing trade between California and Michigan.

If that is true, it resulted from a conscious and calculated decision by European liberals to create that condition which did not exist in pre-war Europe, just as they created the other liberal policies that created the widespread prosperity in the decades since.

[Populist_Prole]

16. You called THAT right: Took the words out of my mouth

That was a specious argument and the poster knows it.

Glibness writ large:

As with any international agreements, the details matter

The corporatist US is NEVER going to adopt an industrial policy or labor policy that mimics the ones of Germany or Scandanavia. NEVUH!!!

The best way to blunt the danger is not the foolish ( and incredibly naive ) notion of "fixing" bad agreements, but to stop them cold in the first place. It's the system in which we live in this feudal-fascist good ole' 'murka.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. The Steel industry and the auto industry were strong

and america had the highest standard of living by protecting its industry and workers until the early 70s so the argument is specious to say the least.

besides these new trade deals are written by corporations not nations now.

[pampango]

21. "That was a specious argument and the poster knows it." If the far-right gets its way,

your dream will come true and European countries will reimpose tariffs and border controls on their neighbors.

UKIP in the UK, the National Front in France and many other right-wing parties want to do just that.

Then my argument will no longer be 'specious'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Nonsense - the countries of the EU are separate sovereign nations.

Moreover, there are considerable differences between their economies.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. the agreements they have are between

their elected officials not corporations and banks that wrote this new crap

[Enthusiast]

20. Fuck the details. This nation has never been the same since NAFTA. TPP and TTIP will be worse.

We will be handing the corporations our national sovereignty. It is bad enough now.

We don't want it. We don't want it forced on us. The American people should have more say than any corporation.

[pampango]

23. News flash. Things were not great before NAFTA. Trade with Mexico is 3% of our economy.

Our trade deficit with Mexico is less than 1/10 of 1% of our economy.

Our problems are due to regressive taxes, weak unions, a terrible safety net and other conservative policies. The economy improved after NAFTA until you-know-who became president. If you want to blame the economic devastation under his 'leadership' to the delayed effects of NAFTA rather than his regressive tax and regulatory policies, be my guest. I'm sure he and his republican friends will be happy to shift the blame too.

[Ichingcarpenter]

24. So that's why republicans are pushing this deal too?

what a load of crap.

[pampango]

26. The republican base is not pushing it, in fact oppose it, while Democrats think it is a good idea.

Of course, the republican base opposes the UN, the WTO, the IMF and practically every other international organization and agreement all in the name of 'national sovereignty' and 'American exceptionalism' so the TPP is nothing special in that sense.

[GoneFishin]

28. Which Democrats? DINO corporatists? Those are Republicans in disguise.

[pampango]

29. You can call them all the names you want. Polls show that Democrats think it is a 'good idea' while

republicans do not. "Liberal Democrats" are the only partisan group that supports 'fast track' with Tea Party republicans the most opposed.

Of course, "Democrats" includes all kinds of Democrats and "republicans' includes all kinds of republicans.

[GoneFishin]

30. I don't believe you.

[Enthusiast]

36. Me too.

Democrats do not favor the TPP.

[nationalize the fed]

38. That poster has been made aware of the fact that the TPP is a part of the 2012 (R)epublcan platform

just like it was part of the 2012 (D)emocratic platform. He/she just ignores it.

The 2012 Republican And Democratic Party Platforms On International Trade
http://www.kslaw.com/library/newsletters/TradeManufacturingAlert/2012/October/article1.html

Furthermore, it has been pointed out that even the twit Rand Paul not only supports this new NAFTA on steroids, he supports giving Obama fast track. The other twit Boner is all for "buy partisanship" when it comes to this. It's a done deal, all they have to do is figure out how to make one side blame the other (switch sides as necessary).

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
3 NOV 2014
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19439-rand-paul-to-obama-prioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

John Boehner blasts Barack Obama on trade
House Speaker John Boehner jabbed at President Barack Obama on trade policy Thursday, accusing the president of doing too little to get his own party to clear the way for a pair of blockbuster deals that Republicans already support.

It's pointless to try to "discuss" anything with posters like that. They simply ignore that which disagrees with their already formed "beliefs". I just ignore them, because the time it takes to repeat facts can be used to try to get the message out to people that are willing to listen.

[Elwood P Dowd]

39. That poster has been pumping the corporate/republican trade propaganda on here for years

and using every little trick in his/her talking point book. The latest one being that NAFTA created the boom years under Clinton.

[Enthusiast]

35. The big transformation came with NAFTA. We all know it.

[liberal_at_heart]

32. so when we have strong unions and wages like Europe then

Last edited Thu Mar 19, 2015, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

get back to me on free trade agreements.

[Octafish]

37. Larry Summers and the End Game Memo

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/larry_summers_and_the_end-game_memo_20130825