TPP and these other trade deals show the end result of capitalism...

[AZ Progressive]

Just like in the game of Monopoly, where the winner basically owns the game, the end result of capitalism is where a few basically own everything, everything down to our government, our society, and even us.

There are thus two choices:

1. Either capitalism has to be heavily restrained by the people, through social democracy or democratic socialist policies, much like what FDR and the mid 20th century Democrats did, which is basically caging the beast hoping that the beast won't find a way out, or...

2. Capitalism has to be replaced with something better and that aims to make a well functioning society, including the wellbeing of the people.

Of course this is all after the people do something to take the power away from the few who own everything...

[Cheese Sandwich]

1. I would go for option 2

[Hoyt]

2. I agree, but whatever replaces it will need to trade and the USA will "lose" as

wealth is transferred to those who have so much less than we do. I think most of those opposing TPP , want the wealth to be kept here, just spread around. We'll see what they say when trillions in "monopoly winning" go to the poorest countries, if we are really fair.

[SusanCalvin]

3. You are right, I think.

Still, I'm currently well able to do with less, so I'm open to suggestions and negotiations.

[eridani]

4. The only transfers that have taken place are those going to the 1%-ers in poor countries.

What the 99% needs to do all over the world is take the wealth back from the motherfuckers.

[Hoyt]

5. Most of the wealth will disappear when taken, since it is just paper. Then, Americans

with two bathrooms will need to give up at least one to billions who don't have even one, so to speak.

[SusanCalvin]

9. Bull.

We have enough here to share without taking excessively from the 99%, or at least some reasonable percent. Sounds like divisiveness to me. And, yes, I would pay a lot more, currently, as I can afford it, currently.

And we got along with smaller houses and one bathroom just fine for a long time. I'm just happy to have a house of my own.

[Hoyt]

19. From a world perspective, you are a 1%er.

[SusanCalvin]

25. I am fully aware of this. nt

[ronnie624]

15. "Wealth" is not "just paper".

It it exists in the form of resources and energy. What you are referring to is 'capital'.

The purpose of these agreements, is a greater concentration of material and intellectual resources in the possession of society's elite class, and the further entrenchment of the capitalist/consumerist economic system.

From what I've seen of your posts on this issue, you need to hush and start reading.

[SusanCalvin]

16. Exactly.

"Money" is just a way of keeping track of material and human resources.

[Hoyt]

18. The OP is about capitalism. Apparently, you have no interest in helping poor countries.

[ronnie624]

20. I think capitalism is intellectually and morally flawed.

The foundational premise -- that the earth's resources belong to a tiny fraction of the human population for the purpose of their enrichment -- is inherently unjust. I think it needs to be abandoned immediately, and replaced by a system that is designed to distributed resources, goods and services in an equitable manner. The speed with which we accomplish this, will determine whether or not our civilization survives, long-term.

I can't imagine how you construe my attitude as having "no interest in helping poor countries". Your comment seems rather disjointed, to me.

[eridani]

23. The purpose of an empire is to fuck over countries for the benefit of the 1% everywhere

We had tariffs in place for many years, which is how we managed to get the industrial capacity that our overlords have since pissed away. And that is how poor countries can help themselves, by protecting their own production. If they want to copy drugs and sell them to their own citizens cheap, fine. Fuck big pharma. All they do is monetize publicly supported research.

[Hoyt]

31. Yeah, poor countries will progress trading among themselves. I thinj they've tried that.

[eridani]

35. India has made cheap pharmaceutical knockoffs for years. Very successfully, too.

[pampango]

40. "We had tariffs in place for many years ..." And then along came FDR who

put the 1% in their place using the same policies that Germany, Sweden and other progressive countries do today - higher/progressive taxes, stronger unions, a better safety net and better regulation of corporations.

Before FDR, republicans had enacted high tariffs resulting in little trade and historically high income and wealth inequality. Trade is not inherently beneficial to the 1% or FDR would not have promoted it with RTAA, the ITO and GATT.

[eridani]

44. True, but reducing tariffs is just reducing tariffs. It has nothing to do with ISDS and other--

--crap of that nature in TPP.

[pampango]

46. FDR's ITO pioneered the concept of neutral arbitration of trade disputes, much more than just

reducing tariffs. His ITO also introduced employment, labor and development standards as part of a trade agreement.

Along with the World Bank and the IMF, the International Trade Organization (ITO) formed the centrepiece of new kind of international organization in the mid to late 1940s. At the time, what was particularly novel about the Havana Charter was that it was not simply or mainly a trade organization like the WTO, its latter day descendent. At its core, the countries of the world, rejected the idea that it was possible to maintain a firewall between trade, development, employment standards and domestic policy. Its most distinctive feature was the integration of an ambitious and successful program to reduce traditional trade barriers, with a wide-angled agreement that addressed investment, employment standards, development, business monopolies and the like. It pioneered the idea that trade disputes had to be settled by consultation and mediation rather than with legal clout. Further it established an institutional linkage between trade and labour standards that would effect a major advance in global governance. Finally it embedded the full employment obligation, along with "a commitment to free markets" as the cornerstone of multilateralism.

Despite these accomplishments, the US Congress refused to ratify the Havana Charter even though it had signed it. As a direct consequence, the ITO's collapse represented a significant closure of the full employment era internationally. In the end, it's demise made possible the rapid return of the free trade canon that increasingly, would impose its authority and ideology on all international organizations and on the practice of multilateralism. As this essay concludes, its history compelling because whatever its apparent shortcomings, governments, economists and ordinary people demanded that trade, employment goals and developmental needs should reinforce each other in the world trading system.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/csgr/research/workingpapers/2000/wp6200.pdf

The republican congress rejected the ITO proposed by FDR and negotiated by Truman, precisely for the national sovereignty concern about a multilateral organization making decisions that would affect the US.

The IMF and World Bank were approved by congress while it was still controlled by Democrats. The negotiation of the ITO did not end until republicans had taken control of congress. GATT was a supposed to be a temporary part of the ITO. Truman authorized it by executive order since he thought the republican congress would kill that too.

[eridani]

48. Give an example of a tribunal overruling a government in the FDR/Truman era n/t

[pampango]

52. I can't. The republican-controlled congress rejected FDR's ITO. FDR and Truman believed in

the concept of neutral tribunals to arbitrate trade disputes or it would not have been in the negotiated agreement signed by over 50 countries.

To be effective, any international agreement needs some kind of fair and effective enforcement mechanism. FDR and Truman believed that allowing each country to decide its own guilt or innocence in resolving trade disputes was a recipe for a failed agreement. They decided that arbitration was fairer.

The UN, the IMF and World Bank (also part of the many international organizations proposed by FDR) were negotiated more quickly and approved by Congress when it was still in Democratic hands. The negotiation of the ITO took longer, unfortunately, and it was not submitted to congress until republicans were in control. The ITO died as a result - except for the GATT part which Truman approved by executive order, knowing that congress would reject that, too.

[eridani]

53. OK, then how about an example of ISDS overruling any government before NAFTA n/t

[eridani]

21. This is about the one percent fucktards who impoverish everyone

Americans would be donating extra bathrooms to the rich shitstains who live behind high walls in poor countries. Typical bankster apologetics. Take your race to the bottom and stuff it.

[Skittles]

36. what a bunch of BS

no one is buying the "concern for poorer countries" excuse from people who DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE POOR IN AMERICA

[Hoyt]

37. I care about poor everywhere, and think TPP is one way to help all of them, including those here.

I'm fine with US corporations making money in poor foreign countries -- provided they help those countries progress -- as longs as we tax those earnings sufficiently here to use for welfare, education, healthcare, etc.

Further, an expanding world economy will help us. I think most people here have a pretty decent standard of living, so we can concentrate on the poor. But, I don't think the money necessary to do all that will come from trading among ourselves, internally. Long-term, a growing world economy will help everyone -- again, assuming the corporations are properly regulated and taxed accordingly.

[Skittles]

38. uh huh

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Hoyt]

39. What is your proposal to help the poor globally? Do nothing, stifle trade, what then?

[Skittles]

42. it's got NOTHING TO DO with HELPING THE POOR *ANYWHERE*

YOU DO NOT FOOL ME

*DONE HERE*

[Hoyt]

43. Good. You clearly don't care, and certainly have no idea how to do it.

[eridani]

47. Stop big pharma from jacking up prices for generics by stopping TPP, for one n/t

[Hoyt]

49. Don't think TPP does anything to generics. Well, maybe prevents a. Country from counterfeiting

,drugs. With that saisd, it's time for the government to regulate drug prices to make them affordable while incentivizing research/development.

[eridani]

50. Gvoernment regulation of drug prices is what TPP is designed to prevent.

TPP extends the patent of existing drugs so that generics become illegal.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

6. On the mark...

and concise. Well done!

[bhikkhu]

7. The end result of capitalism is the concentration of wealth in the top tier

...which is only mitigated and balanced by effective government. Its been that way more or less everywhere, for ages.

Not surprisingly, a large amount of big-moneyed interest goes toward getting people to mistrust and hate government.

[SusanCalvin]

10. Bingo. nt

[smirkymonkey]

33. +1000

[Hydra]

8. I favor option 2

But endgame capitalism players know these options are floating around. They will apply lethal force to keep what they stole "fair and square."

[SusanCalvin]

11. Bingo. nt

[Munificence]

12. Have you ever

considered the idea that capitalism is functioning perfectly fine? We've been trying to get out of capitalism for some time now. It is designed to fail when the manipulators get out of hand. It will never die though, there will just be a V2.0 at some point and then onto the nth degree.

I'm surely not convinced of my above assertion, however I do ponder it.

[SusanCalvin]

13. Well, it's functioning fine to reward the capitalists.

I actually like small-scale capitalism.

It's the ones taking over the functions of government that I object to.

[ronnie624]

17. 'Small-scale' might be okay, I guess,

but access to key resources, like energy, agriculture, water and housing, should be a human right. These things should belong to everyone, and should be utilized in a manner that serves the common good, in my opinion.

[SusanCalvin]

26. Absolutely. nt

[kelliekat44]

14. Well isn't that a good thing...the end of capitalism? Isn't that what DUers want?

Or are we now agreeing that Hillary's position was right...we keep capitalism but change it? Or are we for all out socialism...which can't happen until capitalism is ended?

Are we bi-polar here or schizophrenic?

Oh, I get it we are just anti-anything Obama and/or Hillary.

[eridani]

22. TPP is a race to the bottom to benefit the 1%

Where are the tumbrils when we really need them?

[PowerToThePeople]

54. The end of capitalism is what this DUer wants.

eom

[Recursion]

24. And yet the past 20 years have seen the largest *decrease* in global inequality in history

So that's kind of the opposite of one guy owning all of the money

http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-income-distribution-1988

[SusanCalvin]

27. Not opposite, just progress.

The 1% have still heisted way too much.

[Rex]

32. 80 people own most of the worlds wealth.

And bullshit trade deals that only benefit the 1% like the TPP are the reason why. The poster you replied to is clueless.

[pampango]

41. The 1% did even better before FDR when there were no trade agreements and little trade.

If trade just benefitted the 1%, I doubt that FDR would have sought to increase it and not restrict it further as Coolidge and Hoover had done.

[ronnie624]

28. From your link:

When we line up all individuals in the world, from the poorest to the richest (going from left to right on the horizontal axis in Figure 1), and display on the vertical axis the percentage increase in the real income of the equivalent group over the period 1988–2008, we generate a global growth incidence curve – the first of its kind ever, because such data at the global level were not available before. The curve has an unusual supine S shape, indicating that the largest gains were realised by the groups around the global median (50th percentile) and among the global top 1%. But after the global median, the gains rapidly decrease, becoming almost negligible around the 85th–90th global percentiles and then shooting up for the global top 1%. As a result, growth in the income of the top ventile (top 5%) accounted for 44% of the increase in global income between 1988 and 2008.

[center]******[/center]
Second, if we take a simplistic, but effective, view that democracy is correlated with a large and vibrant middle class, its continued hollowing-out in the rich world would, combined with growth of incomes at the top, imply a movement away from democracy and towards forms of plutocracy. Could then the developing countries, with their rising middle classes, become more democratic and the US, with its shrinking middle class, less?

Third, and probably the most difficult: What would such movements, if they continue for a couple of decades, imply for global stability? The formation of a global middle class, or the already perceptible ‘homogenisation’ of the global top 1%, regardless of their nationality, may be both deemed good for world stability and interdependency, and socially bad for individual countries as the rich get ‘delinked’ from their fellow citizens.

'Wealth disparity' is more about control of resources by elites, than "owning" money. That is where political power lies.

[GoneOffShore]

29. Here's a take on the TPP from across the Atlantic.

TPP: 'Scary' US-Pacific trade deal published – you're going to freak out when you read it

'Cos all those pitchforks you bought will go to waste

And for those who won't bother to because TL/DNR - Here's the conclusion:

In short, it's a trade deal. Overall, it's a good deal. Nothing in it will destroy the world or bring in a new era of peace and prosperity. But it will simplify things, and that is, in the end, a good thing.

From a purely US perspective, the best pitch for the deal comes from President Obama who summed it up thus: "The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century. When it comes to Asia, one of the world’s fastest-growing regions, the rulebook is up for grabs. And if we don’t pass this agreement – if America doesn’t write those rules – then countries like China will. And that would only threaten American jobs and workers and undermine American leadership around the world."

The big problem with the TPP is not really the TPP itself; it's the fact that it was the first big trade deal drawn up in the internet era. As such, the highly secretive process for creating it is out of keeping with the times.

There is some irony that a deal designed to bring the world into the 21st century was developed through a 20th century process. But as all the criticism over the next few weeks will make plain: change may be difficult and painful, but it has to happen. ®

[ronnie624]

30. The TPP scrupulously avoids the elephant in the living-room:

Global climate change and the general degradation of the biosphere.

The reason why, of course, is because everyone knows instinctively, that the energy/economic status quo, predicated on greed and individual enrichment, is absolutely incompatible with taking serious, effective action on this issue.

[Betty Karlson]

34. K&R. eom

[The2ndWheel]

45. Civilization is a resource concentration mechanism

Human beings don't like limits.

Think of every species as a corporation, and the planet as the government. Do we let the planet regulate us? No. We find ways around the rules. We now write some of the rules, to specifically benefit us.

[Warpy]

51. Restrained capitalism with a helping of socialism thrown in worked very well for a long time

but society is full of raging assholes who couldn't wait to take the restraints off and start starving everybody who wasn't already rich.

I'm not sure what we'd replace it with, it's been incredibly hard to stamp out in places that have tried. What might be tried next time is what evolving communist countries are trying, small scale free enterprise mixed with central planning and state ownership of large industrial facilities like stieel mills, electrical grids, and other heavy industry, the state putting up the capital and cutting out the big money boys completely.

Or maybe sea rise will happen more quickly than anticipated and everything will break down to the point we're living with sticks and stones again.