Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35086-congress-must-kill-the-trans-pacific-partnership

Free trade defines an agreement that has as a first (and sometimes only) priority, the best interests of corporations; namely, their profits. At what expense those profits are taken is apparently of little concern to the trade negotiators and in particular the corporate representatives that are active participants in the otherwise secretive TPP negotiations, or the other trade deals Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).

Fair trade, on the other hand, would put the interests of people and the environment ahead of corporate profit. Fair trade would protect jobs rather than off-shoring them as has historically happened after passage of all free trade agreements.

Free trade has no consideration for cultural preferences because it has no consideration for people. Japanese farmers and consumers prefer to grow and eat their traditional varieties of rice, not imported rice — that should be their right, not so under the TPP.

Food safety standards under free trade would, by design, fall to the lowest common denominator. Lower safety standards on food imports, like lower labor safety standards, reduce operating costs and thus increase corporate profit.

Pharmaceutical companies would be granted extended monopoly patents, thus increasing health care costs and access to generic medications.

Banking interests insist on and will get, Financial Service Agreements that would severely limit the ability of governments to restrict the trade of risky financial products or in general their ability to regulate “too big to fail” banks.

Perhaps most distressing to the U.S. economy, free trade agreements have always forced workers into a downward wage spiral.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Who were the first people to yell us about it ? Who was first to Tout it ? If you don't know

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alan Grayson called it toxic in nature, Hillary was All for it until only recently when the verdict was in, always " Reevaluating " after the fact on War, Bailouts, definitions of marriage,,etc. etc .

[Hoyt]

2. As usual, only looking at it from the standpoint of the world's 1 %ers. The other 6.7 billion

people in the world deserve a chance to share some of wealth we took from world. That will help us too.

What people fail to get about the supposed "environmental" aspects they feel are inadequately addressed in the TPP is that Obama was working on the Paris Accord at the same times.

As bad as some people think the ISDS is, governments around the world -- even Sanders favorite Scandinavian countries -- keep agreeing to the United Nations arbitration rules because it attracts investment, jobs and tax revenue to use for social purposes.

Food -- no matter where food comes from, it is still subject to FDA regulation.

More later.

[eridani]

3. These bills fuck over the 99% in all countries to benefit the 1% in all countries.

NAFTA was supposed to help poor people in Mexico. They got fucked over instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

[Hoyt]

10. Ask a Mexican who has a job at Audi for $8/hour vs. 50 cents a day for picking fruit

how they feel about it. . . . . .Or a Vietnamese who doesn't have to worry about getting their leg blown off wading around in a rice field from one of our mines.

[Mnpaul]

11. I asked a Mexican

They had a family farm until NAFTA. Now they are working for someone else here. Their hometown was devastated.

[Hoyt]

12. Family farms are kind of like buggy whip makers. They were going down, with or without NAFTA.

At least there are new, and likely better, jobs from investment in Mexico. And, they are part of America.

[Mnpaul]

13. likely better jobs?

Why did they come here? You seem divorced from reality. We hear these claims every time a trade deal is proposed. They are never true.

[Hoyt]

14. $8 an hour vs. 50 cents a day. Which do you think will have the more applicants.

[Mnpaul]

16. $8 hr vs owning their own farm

and why did they come here? Why can't you answer that question? Maybe you should get out in the real world and ask them. I have spoken to many and none speak kindly of NAFTA.

[Hoyt]

17. Sharecropper more likely on a farm worth little. I get for some the lifestyle might be better, but

there are other crops to grow and $8/hour in Mexico is a big improvement in standard of living and the whole country will grow with that kind of investment.

[Mnpaul]

18. No, they owned their own farm

quit peddling this crap. It has no basis in reality. The standard of living in Mexico has not increased. That is why they come here. The standard of living has become so low that it can no longer support a family.

[Hortensis]

46. It really does, Mnpaul. Maybe research it a little.

Family farms are basically obsolete in modern economies because they are incredibly inefficient compared to other models, and yes, large numbers don't and didn't own their own land. Even when farm life was common in this country, most farm families lived at or not much above subsistence level and died young after lives of unrelenting labor. This is why millions fled and are fleeing to cities looking for sustainable employment. Let's not glamorize.

And if you're inclined to glamorize anyway, by all means do it by becoming a farmer yourself. Live your utopian dream! There're a lot of abandoned farms available for very little. Pick your region, ideally with a town nearby where you can work to pick up extra money as needed. Just make sure before buying that farms aren't being abandoned in that area because of global warming and disappearing fresh water supplies. I'm assuming starving to death is not an option in utopia.

[eridani]

19. Mexicans living standards have plunged since NAFTA

Income is down, and gang violence way up.

[pampango]

4. The world's bottom 75% (and top 1%) have tremendous income gains in the last 30 years.

Trade is not the only reason for that but it has played a role. There has to be a way by which we can control the gains of the 1% (like "Sander's favorite Scandinavian countries" do) and trade with other countries as much as Sander's favorite Scandinavian countries do without jeopardizing the gains of the world's poorest 75%.

The idea of arbitration panels to resolve trade disputes came from FDR. He wanted to get away from the history of each country resolving trade disputes in its own favor, thus leading to retaliation and the collapse of trade as happened under Coolidge and Hoover before him. Obviously, the specifics of the panels is critical - who is on them and what rules are they guided by. The panels are not going to disappear (unless someone like Trump is elected and starts throwing around unilateral tariffs which require the US to withdraw from the WTO, NAFTA and other international agreements). Are the proposed arbitration panels in TPP better, worse or the same as those in the WTO, NAFTA and other existing agreements?

[raouldukelives]

5. Free trade is good for shareholders. Fair trade is good for people.

Well, the people who aren't shareholders.

[bighart]

6. Good observation

I think you put that very well.

[B Calm]

9. Free trade is good for outsourcers!

[Hoyt]

15. How about someone in rural South Carolina or Alabama working for Toyota, Honda, etc.

Or someone in Vietnam getting a little better job than they got the last time we were there dropping bombs.

[eridani]

20. You're right! Workers in SC or AL will love having their jobs shipped to--

--SE Asia!

[Hoyt]

21. Won't happen. What have you got against SE Asians?

[eridani]

22. Outsourcing happens. And it's the race to the bottom I despise

Only the 1% ever wins that, which you presumably know. If you aren't one of them, why so committed to fucking over the rest of us?

[Hoyt]

23. Compared to the rest of the world, most Americans are the 1%ers.

[eridani]

24. Get back to me when they all are paying $1000/month in rent n/t

[Hoyt]

25. Do you think we were paying exorbitant amounts when we were a developing country and

essentially stealing the world's wealth, using more than our share of resources, bombing poor people, and worse?

We and the world will be better off with expanded trade and investment. You won't achieve whatever your goals are trading among ourselves.

[eridani]

26. The notion that we need corporate-centric rules in order to trade--

--is pure unadulterated horseshit.

[Hoyt]

27. Yeah, you think mom-and-pops pay high wages and can compete with other country's corporations?

[eridani]

28. What does that have to do with anything? hving rules that are not--

--pro-corporate does not mean that corporations cease to exist.

[Hoyt]

32. I have no problem with being pro-corporate as long as we tax them accordingly. If they pollute, tax

and fine the heck out of them. If they violate employee rights, tax and fine the heck out of them. Etc.

Fact is most people work for a corporation.

I'm a pretty much a believer in the one world concept, which is obviously not your thing. When I say one world, I don't mean one central government. I do mean a lot of cooperation attempting to help everyone on the planet, not just those who think they deserve more because they were born in a certain place. The America First BS bothers the heck out of me.

[eridani]

34. TPP is going to make it much harder to do all these things

Those "tribunals" exist only to fuck over the 99%. The TPP is about the 1% first, last and always.

[Hoyt]

38. The tribunals have been there since 1959. It's nothing new and tribunals are

under UN rules.

[eridani]

42. Tribunals overriding elected governments are new

When a French company sues Egypt for raising its minimum wage, WTF does that have to do with trade? Give just one equivalent example from 1959

[Hoyt]

44. You could not be more misinformed. If you are not going to do the research,

say that you are just posting junk you read or heard but didn't check on the facts. Is Warren still saying we won't see the agreement until 4 years After it is enacted, and do you still believe that crud?

"Contrary to predictions that these processes are stacked in favor of multinationals, the United Nations reports that governments won 37 percent of cases and business only 25 percent; 28 percent were settled before the arbitrators ruled. In the history of ISDS, 356 cases have been litigated all the way to conclusion. Only 17 complaints were lodged against the United States. The number of such cases has increased in recent years but mainly because foreign investment itself has increased.

Critics trumpet ISDS horror stories, but upon closer inspection they generally turn out not to be so horrible. Take the oft-made accusation, repeated by Ms. Warren and others, that a French firm used the provision to sue Egypt “because Egypt raised its minimum wage.” Actually, Veolia of France, a waste management company, invoked ISDS to enforce a contract with the government of Alexandria, Egypt, that it says required compensation if costs increased; the company maintains that the wage increases triggered this provision. Incidentally, Veolia was working with Alexandria on a World Bank-supported project to reduce greenhouse gases, not some corporate plot to exploit the people. The case — which would result, at most, in a monetary award to Veolia, not the overthrow of the minimum wage — remains in litigation."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-buy-the-trade-deal-alarmism/2015/03/11/41575fee-c1d5-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html

[eridani]

47. Right--governments of poor countries have nothing better to do than to

--fight back against corporate attacks. Even if they win, it's still expensive. Why sho8uld any private entity have this kind of power over elected governments?

The corporation formerly known as Philip Morris is currently prosecuting such cases against Australia and Uruguay (not a TPP partner) for requiring cigarettes to carry warning labels. Canada, under threat of a similar suit, backed down from introducing a similarly effective warning label a few years back.


TransCanada Announces It Will Sue U.S. Over Keystone XL Denial

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/06/3736750/transcanada-sues-using-nafta/

TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, announced Wednesday it is filing a claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), saying that the project’s permit denial was “arbitrary and unjustified.” TransCanada is seeking $15 billion in costs and damages due to the denial, and has also filed a separate lawsuit against the U.S. in federal court.

[Hoyt]

49. Government in poor countries want the investment, jobs and tax revenue. Thus they sign agreements.

The Philip Morris case had been going on for years. They won't win and the laws are still in place.

TransCanada won't win either. Even if it did win - which it won't - compensation, it wouldn't change the ruling. They are out of luck.

[eridani]

50. Why should governments making laws for the public good even have to

--defend themselves against attacks like this? Sure, governments want TPP. It's just the rest of us poor saps who don't. There have been massive protests in every proposed signatory country.

BTW--if it passes with Dem help, we can just kiss 2016 goodbye. Labor and environmental activists won't be doing much canvassing.

[Hoyt]

51. Because governments know companies won't come if the country can treat them unfairly.

Signing a contract with a company working on environmental issues that pays them their reasonable cost, and then refusing to pay an increased minimum wage is not reasonable or fair. Companies won't come if the government can screw them like that. Countries know that and agree to the arbitration rules of the United Nations.

[eridani]

54. What a bunch of horsehit. China has lots of investment, and plays by no rules--

--but its own.

[brooklynite]

7. "cultural preferences"...really?

If the Japanese prefer their own rice, then all the free trade in the world won't make them buy an imported brand. This is about as week an argument as I can think of.

[Populist_Prole]

8. Surprise surprise.

A lame duck president beholden to corporate interests has the political cover to ram through a very unpopular deal. Then he sees what he thought would be the presumptive successor being eclipsed by someone who won't play-ball with the establishment may get the feeling it's now or never.

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. +1000000.

[djean111]

29. The objective of the "trade" agreements is to globalize lower wages, and to

neutralize individual countries' regulations.

Even the people who so assiduously defend it are saying - sometimes in the same fucking post - no, the jobs won't go to Mexico or Vietnam! Why do you hate Mexicans and the Vietnamese?.

Here's the thing - either the fix is in, or it is not quite in. I don't believe Obama gives a shit or a damn what we think of him or the trade agreements, really. He is just coasting out. All I can do, personally, is never support or vote for anyone who votes for the trade agreements (TPIP is just as bad), voted for Fast Track, or SHILLED for the trade agreements. When it counted. Conveniently changed campaign blather of today does not count. I will be including the membership of the Third Way-advised New Democrat Coalition on my list of no more votes, and I do influence friends and family on this stuff.

Pelosi will be whipping votes, and she will be calculating who can vote no, in order to appease noisy constituents who might affect an upcoming vote, and still pass this thing.

Other countries are demonstrating against the "trade" agreements too, you know. It is not just us Americans who see what will happen.

Really is NAFTA on steroids. Wonder what will happen when wages are so lowered that people cannot afford to buy stuff, and then the MIC and the "health care" industry have to squabble over what is left. My guess - more war and less health care. Unless we can somehow clean out corporate-run government.

[pampango]

30. "Trade" agreements in Germany, Sweden, Canada and other liberal countries have not lowered wages.

Nor have their 'trade' agreements "neutralized their regulations" or harmed their unions or middle/working classes or safety nets. Why do these agreements have that effect in the US but not in liberal countries?

American trade with and investment in Mexico and Vietnam and others will continue without the TPP, using the rules of NAFTA and the WTO respectively. While the labor standards in the TPP are not high enough and not enforceable enough, there are no effective labor standards in NAFTA and the WTO. Rejecting the TPP leaves NAFTA and the WTO to govern trade with those countries.

[djean111]

31. I think the TPIP is coming for Europe. n/t

[Hoyt]

33. And every European country is standing in line to join. I guess they all are just corporate tools.

[eridani]

35. Their 1% is clamoring to join. The 99% wants them to fuck off n/t

[pampango]

36. Support for TTIP was 50% or higher in every European country except Germany, Austria and

Luxembourg as of January 2015. That may have changed in the past year.



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/is-europe-on-board-for-a-new-trade-deal-with-the-u-s/

[eridani]

41. Must be why there are so many demonstrations against it and none for n/t

[pampango]

45. The opposition to it, from the left and the right, is certainly more motivated than

are the supporters. Polls usually only show preferences (perhaps strong, perhaps weak) for candidates or policies rather than the depth of support or opposition. Strong support or opposition, either from the left or the right, can often overcome what appears to be popular in polls.

[eridani]

48. Great--why not have Clinton and Sanders both quit and let the Repukes have the presidency?

If TPP passes with help from Dems, there will be no union or environmental canvassers this fall.

[pampango]

52. Both Trump and Cruz (and the republican base) oppose TPP ("Obamatrade" to their base).

They will surely oppose TTIP if and when it ever happens, since it is an agreement with 'socialist' Europe.

Trump and Cruz are hoping to appeal to 'labor canvassers' and win some support from union members - "Trump Democrats" replacing "Reagan Democrats" - with their opposition to TPP, NAFTA and the WTO. With his proposed unilateral tariffs on Mexico and China, Trump promises to end NAFTA (except the part with Canada perhaps) and the WTO which limits countries' ability to enact tariffs.

If TPP passes with help from Dems, there will be no union or environmental canvassers this fall.

Fortunately a vote before the election seems highly unlikely since McConnell, Ryan and the rest of the republican leadership in congress is unhappy with TPP (particularly its tobacco and pharmaceutical provisions) and are refusing to hold a vote until at least the elections are past. (I suspect they hope that neither Trump nor Cruz are their nominee.) Thankfully, the republican leadership does not see the danger to Clinton and Sanders of an early TPP vote in which Democrats might shoot themselves in the foot and demoralize their canvassers. At least publicly, Obama has been continuing to push for an early vote.

[eridani]

55. Of course. The Dem base and the Repub base both oppose it.

The representatives of the 1% in both parties are for it.

[Denzil_DC]

37. There's been very little public information or debate about it,

in the UK at least, until relatively recently.

Here's an early stage of what debate there's been (2014): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30493297

Here's the Daily Mail doing its thing (March 2015): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983108/New-trade-deal-U-S-open-door-inferior-food-pumped-growth-hormones-pesticides-warns-Jamie-Oliver.html

Here's an inexplicably snarky and offputting attempt by the Guardian's Stuart Jeffries to examine it (August 2015): http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/03/ttip-what-why-angry-transatlantic-trade-investment-partnership-guide

Here's distinctly negative interpretation by Lee Williams in the Independent (October 2015): http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

Here's a more serious take by Phillip Inman in the Guardian's sister paper the Observer (January 2016): http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/02/ttip-terms-growth-markets-worker-protection

Here's an article from the Register highlighting the secrecy that still surrounds it (February 2016): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/10/surreal_world_of_the_ttip/

As you'll see, the public "debate", such as it is, is at a stage where the media are still having to come up with basic explainers.

The idea that our governments could be sued under investor-state dispute settlement if they don't open up areas like healthcare to private interests, for instance, hasn't been going down well, but it's overshadowed by the Tories' own assaults in such areas and a focus on the upcoming European referendum.

[Populist_Prole]

40. Your post is dead-on accurate

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 02:01 PM - Edit history (2)

"The objective of the "trade" agreements is to globalize lower wages"

Does anybody really believe the oligarchy that's been pushing them actually do so for benign reasons? That the gigantic bonanza of profits reaped from rent-seeking were just a secondary or tertiary windfall benefit? Some will at least try to say the primary reason is to secure geopolitical stability but the main reason is always #1. If they haven't gained anything from their labor arbitrage they would be so done with trying.

"Even the people who so assiduously defend it are saying - sometimes in the same fucking post - no, the jobs won't go to Mexico or Vietnam! Why do you hate Mexicans and the Vietnamese?"

Ah yes, the faux do-gooder contingent. Limousine liberals of the vilest sort. Comfortable in their sterile bubbles and quite content to use your skin in the game to advance their aspirations. They already believe we have it too good and it's time to share our "wealth".

Like you, I've come to the point that I feel Third-Way neoliberals are to be opposed every bit as much as conservative republicans.

[Betty Karlson]

43. Indeed, it must do so.

[davidpdx]

53. K & R