HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The TPP, if Passed, Spell...

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:45 PM

The TPP, if Passed, Spells the End of Popular Sovereignty for The United States

From Naked Capitalism:

The principle of popular sovereignty is the idea that a government’s power derives only from the consent of the people being governed. The Constitution’s first three words—”We the People…”—establish from the very start that the United States government draws its authority and legitimacy directly from the people. The concept of popular sovereignty differs from the old monarchical belief in the divine right of kings (in which the monarch was said to draw his right to rule directly from God) and also from the British principle of parliamentary sovereignty (in which ultimate authority rested with Parliament rather than with the people directly).


Making it all the more remarkable, or not, that our political class — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, a bipartisan caucus, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Editorial Board of The New York Times, to name a few of the usual suspects — would pursue an agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that sells out popular sovereignty to transnational investors, and allows them to rule us. I know your friends think this sounds like nutty black helicopter stuff, but it’s true! It’s true! (Tell them to watch Yves on Bill Moyers, in a really sharp transcript.) So bear with me, please, as I work through the thesis. First, I’ll look at how TPP replaces popular sovereignty with transnational investor rule, in two ways. Next, I’ll take a very quick look at the state of play. Finally, I’ll suggest that all is not lost, and in fact the TPP can be defeated.

<SNIP>

Yet in a manner that would enrage right and left alike, the private “investor-state” enforcement system included in the leaked TPP text would empower foreign investors and corporations to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments in foreign tribunals. There, they can demand cash compensation from domestic treasuries over domestic policies that they claim undermine their new investor rights and expected future profits. This establishes an alarming two-track system of justice that privileges foreign corporations in myriad ways relative to governments or domestic businesses. It also exposes signatory countries to vast liabilities, as foreign firms use foreign tribunals to raid public treasuries.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/the-tpp-if-passed-spells-the-end-of-popular-sovereignty-for-the-united-states.html


The eye-opening Bill Moyers segment with Yves Smith and Dean Baker mentioned above is here. DU thread on it here.

Something not mentioned in the NC post: this international court will be presided over by a judge chosen on a rotating basis from the corporate lawyers that plea cases in front of it. Its decisions cannot be appealed.

Corporate coup d'etat in motion. I hope you all are ready to get vocal to oppose fast-tracking of this secret NAFTA on steroids. I'll do my part on the corresponding and equally awful TTIP.

79 replies, 12424 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply The TPP, if Passed, Spells the End of Popular Sovereignty for The United States (Original post)
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 OP
NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #1
DJ13 Nov 2013 #3
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #4
antigop Nov 2013 #14
solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #7
NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #8
antigop Nov 2013 #13
KoKo Nov 2013 #20
grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #39
antigop Nov 2013 #41
Mojorabbit Nov 2013 #2
liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #5
blkmusclmachine Nov 2013 #6
Whisp Nov 2013 #9
solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #10
socialist_n_TN Nov 2013 #12
drynberg Nov 2013 #21
WinkyDink Nov 2013 #29
Whisp Nov 2013 #31
AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #56
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #58
solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #59
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #61
solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #67
AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #63
George II Nov 2013 #75
socialist_n_TN Nov 2013 #11
840high Nov 2013 #15
Stonepounder Nov 2013 #16
KoKo Nov 2013 #22
antigop Nov 2013 #17
stupidicus Nov 2013 #18
AverageJoe90 Nov 2013 #19
drynberg Nov 2013 #24
WinkyDink Nov 2013 #28
Springslips Nov 2013 #44
Quantess Nov 2013 #33
AverageJoe90 Nov 2013 #34
Springslips Nov 2013 #45
bhikkhu Nov 2013 #23
AverageJoe90 Nov 2013 #35
davidpdx Nov 2013 #37
George II Nov 2013 #25
WinkyDink Nov 2013 #27
jeff47 Nov 2013 #51
TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #65
George II Nov 2013 #69
TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #72
WinkyDink Nov 2013 #26
solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #30
grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #40
WinkyDink Nov 2013 #64
quaker bill Nov 2013 #32
Fumesucker Nov 2013 #36
quaker bill Nov 2013 #38
adavid Nov 2013 #42
Ichingcarpenter Nov 2013 #43
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #47
Ichingcarpenter Nov 2013 #71
Romulox Nov 2013 #46
colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #48
jazzimov Nov 2013 #49
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #50
wysi Nov 2013 #52
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #53
wysi Nov 2013 #79
silvershadow Nov 2013 #54
solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #60
Enthusiast Nov 2013 #55
octoberlib Nov 2013 #57
senseandsensibility Nov 2013 #66
Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #62
WillyT Nov 2013 #68
treestar Nov 2013 #70
LineNew Reply k
Berlum Nov 2013 #73
Oilwellian Nov 2013 #74
RainDog Nov 2013 #76
Nay Nov 2013 #78
antigop Nov 2013 #77

Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:53 PM

1. How does the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton feel about TPP?

 

I'm a wonderin'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:59 PM

3. Didnt she broker some of the existing provisions as SoS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:00 PM

4. That's funny. I ixquicked "Hillary Clinton and the TPP"

and the number one result was http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.


I also note nobody came on that thread to counter Clinton's leading role. No small detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:25 PM

14. exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:57 PM

7. She's happy to tell you

but not very often





As long as the media ignores it and the "leaders" keep their lips zipped this thing is a done deal.

Fast track and "It's the Law" with a stroke of the pen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:02 PM

8. OMG. "Let's have a conversation".

 

I feel an OP coming on....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:23 PM

13. from the US Dept. of State website

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:11 PM

20. Here's the QUOTE from the Article:



When I visit with the American Chamber of Commerce and a number of both Vietnamese and American business leaders, we will look for ways to expand trade and investment. As the Minister and I were discussing, it has increased from practically nothing in 1995 to more than $22 billion today. In fact, in just the two years that – between now and 2010, it's grown more than 40 percent.

So we're working on expanding it through a far-reaching, new regional trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would lower trade barriers while raising standards on everything from labor conditions to environmental protection to intellectual property. Both of our countries will benefit. And in fact, economists expect that Vietnam would be among the countries under the Trans-Pacific Partnership to benefit the most. And we hope to finalize this agreement by the end of the year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 09:43 AM

39. Thanks for the core data!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:13 AM

41. and how many labor/environmental groups have been included in the negotiations? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:58 PM

2. K and R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:22 PM

5. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:44 PM

6. K&R. I don't trust Obama/DC DEMS on this, not one single bit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:04 PM

9. Well I do. He would absolutely not be part of what is described in the OP.

 

Hillary? Sure. Absolutely she would go for how this is described in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:12 PM

10. President Obama Speaks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership



Fascinating. Does anyone do any research anymore before making statements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:19 PM

12. Has anybody leaked the so-called "protections"..........

for labor, the environment, etc. that he talked about? Because what HAS been leaked seems to undermine ALL of those things. They're all a hindrance to profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:13 PM

21. PREZ OBAMA HAS OUT ORWELLED GEORGE, THIS IS LYIN' DOUBLESPEAK

That will remove our sovereignty, our democracy, our freedom, our very way of life. This is NAFTA on super-stiulents and these "leaders" are pushing for fast tracking without a word of debate and zero public citizen knowledge, let alone input. This is worse than KXL and GMOs combined, cause the heads behind these public heads are CEOs of Big Business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:53 PM

29. You're jesting, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:07 PM

31. This smells too much like Cat Food Commission.

 

or Wall Street Stooge or Enabler and Caver Extraordinaire.
I don't believe the President wants to hurt old people or have all the negative that the OP implies he is hoping for.

That would be very outside his character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:44 PM

56. Not to be an ass but

The objections here to the TPP seem ephemeral, like right-wing objections to 'Agenda 21' or the small arms UN treaty.

Basically, I mean they are mostly based on empty nothingness, as far as I can tell, and rely upon the individual not going to the source documentation and actually seeing what it says.

I have yet to see how the TPP is worse than what we have now. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the same vibe here that I get on those other issues I mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:52 PM

58. Do me a favor and go read the text of the investment chapter

here, and maybe re-evaluate your use of ephemeral. But maybe you already read it, given that you say you're a fan of going to the source documentation.

Of course, one could argue that similar chapters are already present in NAFTA. Indeed, there are, and several significant lawsuits have been brought under them, challenging the right to generic medicines, tobacco laws and similar. This is more of the same on a broader scale. Also note that the TPP is set up to be an open-ended treaty, allowing for others join later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:56 PM

59. could you provide a link to the TPP source documentation please

I thought it was "secret" (except for corporations)
Many people would like to read the text.

and Agenda 21 has plenty of objections from the "left wing"

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY...BUT IT ISN'T.

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.----Rosa Koire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 07:08 PM

61. Here's what Public Citizen (best source I've seen) has online

We don't have the entire text, it's secret (and will be kept secret until 4 years after passage, if I have to believe what I read).

But some things have leaked. Public Citizen has an overview here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #61)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 08:21 PM

67. Thanks very much! Got some reading to do...

and thanks for the thread. The importance of the TPP cannot be overstated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 07:18 PM

63. Her site has the same attacks on Common Core education as the far-right sites do.

The overlap is... uncanny.

As for TPP, I know only what has been reported in the mainstream media. The analogy to A21 is around food requirements for commercial agriculture. Usually, how the 'concern' is fomented, is that the A21 rules would be implemented here, but rather, we ACCEPT the A21 rules for agriculture as a safe source of food, so the foreign farmers can meet the A21 standards, and import to the US, without ALSO having to conform to US FDA regulations. It removes duplicate documentation/testing efforts.

Much 'mo simpler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #56)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 01:10 PM

75. Bravo...I agree entirely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:14 PM

11. Well, isn't that special!.......

And this is just what has been leaked. God knows, what hasn't. This needs to be stopped in it's tracks. NOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:28 PM

15. k/r

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:31 PM

16. Well, it seems like it will have a hard time passing because...

1) The Republicans in the House won't pass anything that Obama wants, let alone the TPP.

2) Once it gets to Congress, somebody is going to leak the draft in full and a whole lot of people will start analyzing exactly what is in it and all hell will break lose.

At least I can hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:14 PM

22. He wants the US Senate to give him "Fast Track Authority" so...

if they do that we won't know what's in the Language of the TPP until it's rammed through.

FAST TRACK means the TeaBagger House Repugs can't vote to stop it and neither can the Dems in the House.

Senate gives him "FAST TRACK" and he can just sign it and it's done with. No hands get dirty with voting on TPP itself because they gave him the Authority with "Fast Track."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:44 PM

17. kick nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:52 PM

18. welcome to the brave and new fascist world

 

not really. It's been decades in the making, and they now apparently feel as if the people have been sufficiently cowed, and they have all the phone numbers of the opposition should some crushing be necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:57 PM

19. Quite a bit of hyperbole here to be sure.....but nothing to sneeze at, either.

 

I myself remain opposed to the TPP. It'll do nothing for American workers and all it will do will just sustain this increasingly outdated model of old school, if you will, globalization for just a bit longer; it sure as hell won't stop the next major recession, whenever that comes, nor will it stop outsourcing either, amongst other things.

I'd be careful about this, as a lot of the stuff talking about the TPP does indeed seem to be coming from the Black Chopper crowd, but there's plenty of actual verified info out there as well....., so play it safe while keeping the actual facts in mind, and don't be afraid to be seen as "too optimistic" by certain people. That's how we'll be able to fight this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:22 PM

24. HYPERBOLE MY ASS, FIND OUT JUST HOW TERRIBLE THIS TPP IS, WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S IN

Secret? They're pushing for "fast tracking it", and not even sharing it with the US Senate/House, but the CEOs of Big Business are right there. This is outrageous. It doesn't help when AverageJoe90 points to "Black Chopper crowd" when dealing with critical thinkers that are seriously looking at this horrific Orwellian "treaty". This is real and really scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:52 PM

28. Examples of "hyperbole"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:44 AM

44. It is a test.

If you can see it than you are part of the coalition of reason; if you can't than you are a member of the growing numbers of wackos that are on the rise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:27 AM

33. Oh no not at all. I'm sure it will all turn out splendidly.

What could possibly go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:15 AM

34. Didn't you see the "but nothing to sneeze at" clause?

 

That is, this isn't something we should ignore, either. We already have enough trouble with corporate power and we don't need more of that! All I'm saying is, we need to be careful about how we go about this. You don't need to believe that it's the end of American soverignty to realize that this is a colossally flawed idea that's going to have a lot more drawbacks than benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:48 AM

45. Plus 1

When we jump from reason into hype and overstatement we turn ears off. Better sit the calling of wolves aside, and discuss the individual harm the treaty will do; that way we don't get ignored as another loud mouth, bunker, conspiracy type.

The way they say makes if sound like the nation will end as soon as they sign on the dotted line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:21 PM

23. Its not the end, any more than the WTO was the end

but it is a concern nevertheless. I have to admit to being in favor of economic growth, and of trade agreements designed to promote economic growth in general. Even where we haven't been the direct beneficiaries, a great deal of world inequality has been reduced, and the global level of extreme poverty has dropped precipitously as a result.

But I can't say I like the idea that local regulations may be more easily challenged. Any country or region should be able to set local standards, however much that might complicate trade. If they wanted to go further and actually include basic rights to a living wage, and rules toward sustainable environmental polices, that would make it a more palatable treaty, and be something worth talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:17 AM

35. Agreed.

 

Frankly, I agree; if this proposal were to include protections for local standards & businesses as well as supporting a basic living wage and better environmental policies, I too, think it might be worth considering.

Sadly, though, that's not likely to happen without a fervent & impassioned fight.....and one that may come with major setbacks at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:02 AM

37. I agree with you on local regulations, environmental policies, living wages, etc

Need to be included in any agreement. Countries like China, Vietnam, India, etc. need to help fight global warming, make sure workers are paid a fair wage, and that local regulations are followed.

On global warming it is the poorest countries that are going to be hit the hardest. Look at what happened in The Philippines. Areas were completely wiped out because 1) they were low lying areas; and 2) the structures were not stable. More and more of the land is going to get eaten up by the ocean inch by inch.

Global trade is not going to stop despite what anyone else thinks. We can and should put in safety measures to protect people though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:46 PM

25. A bit over the top, wouldn't you say?

Chicken Little:

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:52 PM

27. Ask the UK about being ruled by the EU.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:44 PM

51. Um......

Your example might work better if they were actually, you know, ruled by the EU.

For example, they still have their own currency and an independent central bank. The EU would prefer that to not be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 07:45 PM

65. I think it is plenty fair to say it impacts our sovereignty. We are debating degrees and areas.

I say it is closer to true than false considering the sling we would be with the corporations able to override or get a binding judgment as compensation for potential loses of profits from laws we pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #65)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 09:58 PM

69. "The end of popular sovereignty for the United States"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #69)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 09:52 AM

72. What purpose is it if corporation X can now either reverse the will of the people or extract huge

sums from the people as punishment for potentially adversely impacting their profits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:51 PM

26. The support of this by Obama boggles, indeed, stupefies---unless one accepts that he is VERY be-

 

holden to the "Investor Class".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:58 PM

30. the bailout of the bankers (.01%) might have been a clue?

Printing ~$80 billion (billion with a b) dollars a month to buy their dirty paper maybe another clue?

Would FDR have bailed out the 1% on the backs of the 99%?

Many people seem unable to put clues in a line and draw a conclusion. SO here we are! About to be TPPeed on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 09:48 AM

40. That was 16+ trillion, total.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 07:19 PM

64. And Obama seems not a fan of FDR.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:10 PM

32. It is amazing

that we know so much about something being negotiated "in secret".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quaker bill (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:20 AM

36. Bear in mind that Winston was reading Adolph's top secret messages before he did sometimes n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 07:05 AM

38. Bear in mind

that we are not the NSA. Also note that every trade deal so far, and in particular the WTO, was supposed to be the end of popular sovereignty in the US. How many times can this end?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:20 AM

42. I have looked online and...

 

only Democratic, Liberal, leftist, and Progressive sites have warned/reported on it. This is one of the most populist/nationalist positions EVER. The Dems need to make this their issue (Economic Patriotism) by being against it and would win many elections because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:35 AM

43. Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli explained how to undertake a revolution from above without most people even noticing. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote that one "must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones."

That is, keep the old government structures, even while you make profound changes to the actual system, because the appearances are all that most people will notice.

So today, instead of seeing the corpse of a republic in which we live, we see merely the dead man’s clothing. Those clothes look the same as ever, albeit increasingly worn. We have had a quiet revolution



This is, after all, post-9/11 America, in which we are collectively driving our vehicle down a dangerous mountain path, only to discover suddenly that we’re not doing the driving.

We no longer govern ourselves. There is no "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," in any meaningful sense – in any sense beyond what it might have meant to a citizen of the U.S.S.R. in the bad old days of the Soviet Union.

As Machiavelli saw in his own time (and as he essentially foretold regarding our own), the dramatic changes to our political institutions have occurred without the people really noticing.




What has happened by degrees over the past fifty years is that our traditional political structure and culture have eroded and degraded into something that prior generations of Americans would have found shocking and unrecognizable. Indeed, they would have found our current state of affairs to be positively un-American.

Machiavelli certainly had it right, but an addendum is necessary. After the true and deep structures of power have been sufficiently transformed, the outward appearance must eventually catch up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #43)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:32 PM

47. An interesting historical reference

Last edited Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I haven't read anything from Machiavelli.

But indeed the process of hollowing out democracy whilst leaving the empty coat up for public consumption is how I feel about democracies all over the west. Granted, it's much more extreme in the US and UK, but the submission of politics to "the markets", with bank bailouts and austerity for the masses, is no different in continental Europe. It's purveyed by social democrats, centrists and liberals (european definition) alike.

I don't follow democracies elsewhere enough to extend that judgment worldwide, especially the latin american examples seem to show some "there" still there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 07:10 AM

71. Machiavelli and Game therory

Machiavelli also suggested to his 'Prince' that he play and support both sides to actually control the outcome and prohibiting both sides from gaining real control. Although this may be effective it can also have disastrous results such as Hitler coming to power who was a master of this game. The oligarchy thought they could control him.

Major conglomerates who are richer than many nations have computer simulation models to look at the possible outcomes using 'game theory
mathematics..This includes what is happening now with this so called trade agreement.

A further understanding of game theory for example here in Chapter 11

Oligopoly exists when there are a small number of firms selling in a single market. The usual reason for this situation is that the optimal size of firm, the size at which average cost is minimized, is so large that there is only room for a few such firms because there is more than one firm. It differs from monopolistic competition because the firms are few enough and their products similar enough that each must take account of the behavior of all the others. The number of firms may be fixed, or it may be free to vary.

This is from the Chicago School of economics type thinking which the Obama administration slants towards.


http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_11/PThy_Chapter_11.html


Also look at Naomi Klein's warning in 2008 on these policies.


Beware the Chicago boys
Obama's vow of love for free markets gives reason to fear a replay of Bill Clinton's 1993 U-turn



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/barackobama.uselections2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:52 AM

46. How does the party of NAFTA speak out on TPP? The party of Free Trade with Korea, China?

Democrats lack the very vocabulary to make these arguments, having been silent so long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:57 PM

48. Corporate Coup Indeed

The Tea Partiers are right about one thing, we must take our country back. They're just confused on who we have to take it back from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:17 PM

49. OMG! It's, it's, the New World Order!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:27 PM

50. OMG! It's, it's, the most succesful meme against critical thinking, ever!

referring to your use of , there.

But, no worries, it's not the NWO. It's the same world order of the last decades, just in a (much) higher gear. The ultimate codification of Profits Uber Alles into a non-appealable court system.

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:05 PM

52. A while back we had a discussion regarding this with a law professor...

... in the context of discussing local and national regulations concerning substance use (with specific reference to plain packaging tobacco laws, over which Australia is being sued in one of these courts). She pointed out that these international courts are secret and their rulings are binding, according to treaty. If the tobacco companies win they will extract a large payout from the Australian Government and the plain packaging laws will be suspended.

One implication of all this is that local laws and regulations aimed at improving public health will be made null and void, and that the power of these courts can extend all the way to local governmental bodies (cities and towns).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wysi (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:12 PM

53. The TPP court will not rule in secret, except when they choose to do so

as pointed out in detail at NC.

And I've read the entire investor-state chapter. You can find it here, if you haven't. The exact language used when saying it's illegal for signatories to enter into agreements that favoritise local production is downright chilling. The chapter also explicitly says all these rules apply across the board, from federal through state to municipal level.

I consider "going local" a big part of the solution to the several crises we have coming our way, and consequently the TPP & TTIP a major obstacle to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 03:52 PM

79. Today's update, courtesy of Wikileaks:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9398869/Roadblocks-revealed-in-TPP-talks

Leaked details of free trade negotiations between New Zealand and the United States show the two countries are in stark opposition on a number of key areas.

Whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has released confidential papers relating to the ongoing negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The documents show New Zealand and the US are in disagreement over a number of issues including affordable medication, intellectual property rights and the ownership of native plants and animals.

In total, New Zealand only agrees with the US in about 60 cases of 250 where New Zealand's stance is mentioned...


The article goes on to mention several instances of highly objectionable demands on the part of the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:21 PM

54. This is the issue of our generation. I wonder how Elizabeth Warren feels about this?

 

Run, Lizzie, Run!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #54)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:59 PM

60. Warren on Trans-Pacific Partnership: If people knew what was going on, they would stop it

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/warren-on-trans-pacific-partnership-if-people-knew-what-was-going-on-they-would-stop-it/

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Wednesday voiced her opposition to President Barack Obama’s top international trade nominee because of a secretive free trade agreement.

“I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the U.S. Trade Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular — the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said on the Senate floor.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been negotiated behind closed-doors for years by trade representatives from Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Though the free trade agreement could have wide ranging consequences on workers and consumers, the public only knows a few details of the treaty thanks to leaked documents...more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:25 PM

55. We do not want the TPP.

What the American people want should be a primary consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:47 PM

57. Ed is doing a segment on the TPP on his show tonight.

He's the only one I've seen even mention it on MSNBC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #57)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 08:14 PM

66. I saw that too

But now tweety is going on and on about Christie as he has done for the past week. He is really a one note tweetybird without an original thought in his little birdbrain, so I don't expect anything else. I mean, if he finds the guy so fascinating that he has to go on and on about him for days (and it will continue for months no doubt) at least he could try to find something interesting to say about him. But no, it's just Christie, Christie, Christie.... As far as why no one else on MSNBC will touch TPP (except Ed), I'm afraid it doesn't fit the corporate talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 07:09 PM

62. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, BelgianMadCow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 08:36 PM

68. K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Mon Nov 11, 2013, 11:52 PM

70. What of the other parties to it?

There are many other nations involved. Will they lose their sovereignty too?

I don't see how an agreement with other nations over international trade can do away with ours or anyone's sovereignty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 10:09 AM

73. k

r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:03 AM

74. K&R

The Hillary videos up thread were very interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 01:14 PM

76. this is a sad moment to watch

and Democrats get no pass for this.

so, honestly, they shouldn't gripe when people don't want to work for the party when the party leaders do this sort of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #76)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 02:06 PM

78. Agreed. The Dem Party, I have concluded, is still coasting on its former

interest in regular people. As Machiavelli's quote says above, the Dem party is one of those institutions that has been hollowed out, filled with something different, but is still presenting itself as a protector of the people. It is no such thing. Not any longer.

It grieves me that Hillary seems to be the front runner. The country can't take any more of this shit. We have ever-worsening problems of all kinds which are not, and will not, be addressed if Hillary wins. Of course, if any Pub wins the problems won't be addressed either. So we're in a hole either way.

I'm glad I'm old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 01:34 PM

77. Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at State Department (leading part in drafting TPP)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread