The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Warnings From NAFTA

[cali]

With the New Year the corporate lobbyists and the Obama administration are stepping up their drive for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the new trade deal being negotiated in secret by the United States and eleven countries in the Pacific region. The key at the moment is Congressional approval of fast-track authority. This would give any agreement a straight up or down vote on an accelerated timetable.

Fast-track authority would virtually guarantee passage since members would face intense pressure from corporate contributors and the media, in both the news and opinion sections, to support the deal. Failure to support a deal would mean that a member would be labeled a protectionist Neanderthal (name-calling is standard fare in Washington when pushing for trade deals) in addition to being badly under-funded in their re-election campaign.

As has frequently been noted, the TPP is not really about trade. The tariff barriers and quotas between the TPP countries are already low in most cases. Rather the point of the deal is to put in place a structure of regulations that will be more friendly to the large corporations who are in many cases directly part of the negotiating process.

The provisions in the agreement will overrule measures passed by national, state, and local legislative bodies, in effect stripping democratically elected officials of much of their authority. Since most of the text is still secret we can only speculate on what the final agreement will include.

<snip>

That is what we saw with the full court press used to pass NAFTA. And twenty years later the media and the economics profession are still covering up on the impact of NAFTA in order to avoid embarrassment to the deal's supporters. For example, The Washington Post recently wrote about Mexico's growing middle class which it attributed in part to NAFTA. This is in spite of the fact that Mexico had the second slowest growth on any country in Latin America since the passage of NAFTA.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trans-pacific-partner_b_4633675.html

[Kolesar]

1. S. Korea places arbitrary safety regulations to keep my company's products out of their market

As has frequently been noted, the TPP is not really about trade. The tariff barriers and quotas between the TPP countries are already low in most cases.

Maybe not so low.
What is your solution to those trade barriers?

[cali]

2. how about trade agreements that don't travel so far afield and stick to, you know, actual, trade

practices of actual governments?

[Kolesar]

5. "actual, trade practices of actual governments?"

What are you referring to?

[pampango]

10. As flawed as this thing seems to be, perhaps just another 'free trade' agreement is what Obama

wanted to avoid. Just sticking to 'trade practices' is what previous FTA's have focused on to the exclusion of other issues like environmental standards and labor rights. Obama may have wanted avoid another FTA that just focused on 'trade practices'.

If the previous 'free trade' agreement with South Korea did not address Kolesar's concerns, I doubt the TPP would even if it were approved.

[fasttense]

7. You have NO Right to sell your crap in S. Korea

No corporation, company or business has a right to sell their crap anywhere. If the citizens of a country don't want you, then you have no right to be there. You have no right to use their infrastructure (and probably pay NO taxes), their established markets, their police and security to sell your crap.

If you can't meet their safety requirements then don't sell there. They obviously don't want you there. They have a right to exclude any corporation, business or company if they want to. It's their country NOT your country. That's what sovereignty is all about.

[Kolesar]

8. That was obtuse .

The European Community has common safety standards that are law in every country. The requirement works quite well.

[pampango]

11. The European arrangement is a great example of a 'high standards' trade agreement.

There have been many instances where conservatives in Europe have tried to get their national government to scale back on these 'high standards' only to be rebuffed by the EU rejecting the anti-labor or anti-environmental changes.

It makes trade 'fair' and beneficial for everyone. I had hoped that the TPP could have been something similar but what has been leaked so far doesn't look like it.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. Thank you. People don't have a right to go where they aren't wanted.

There isn't a constitutional right to make a profit. If you can't follow a country's regulations, then don't go there. Just because their laws don't seem right to you and another country's laws are more friendly doesn't mean you get to apply the friendly country's laws to the country who doesn't want you. People's representatives make those laws and a people have the right to make any rules they like in their own territory.

[ronnie624]

40. The problem is, the people have no say.

Labor and environmental regulations in other countries are simply prevented or eliminated through 'lobbying' by corporations or strong-arming by powerful countries like the United States. The purpose of these trade agreements -- which are really just agreements between the rich people in various countries, demonstrated by the fact that only the rich and powerful are allowed to see the text of the TPP -- is to further entrench an economic paradigm that is designed to make huge profits for a tiny minority of the human population, instead of meeting the basic needs of all people.

[Enthusiast]

9. "What is your solution to those trade barriers?"

Enact some of our own trade barriers and tariffs too. Protect the interests of the American worker.

These nations will never have enough individual disposable income to buy our manufactured goods anyway. What manufactured goods remain after the advocates for "free trade" got done with us that is.

[magical thyme]

13. Just let corporations sue villages for hurting their future profits, judged by

appointed tribunals in a foreign country. Thus ending even a pretense of sovereignty, never mind local government that represents its citizens, thereby formally handing the rule of the world to corporations.

There. Problem solved. for the impaired.

[octoberlib]

18. +1. These free trade agreements undermine democracy.

This is the most worrisome thing about them, imo. If laws and regulations are put in place by my democratically elected representatives , a group of corporate lawyers should not be able to over ride them. That's not democracy, it's corporate authoritarianism.

[pampango]

23. Tell that to Europeans. They seem to make 'free trade', democracy and income equality coexist. n/t

[jeff47]

27. They aren't making lowest-common-denominator trade agreements. (nt)

[pampango]

29. Exactly. They prefer 'high-standards' agreements. n/t

[jeff47]

31. And if we were doing that, the TPP might be a good idea. We're not doing that. (nt)

[pampango]

33. I agree. But, on some level, I think that high standards were Obama's original goal.

(One administration strategy) will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. The most important of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administration’s avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high — especially rules regarding behavior by state-owned enterprises — that China could never join without transforming its economic system.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/

Obama seems to know that we cannot compete with China by lowering standards. China will always win that race. China is vulnerable to an agreement that raises standards since it cannot join unless it does the same. This is the what European countries get out of the EU. Membership brings no tariff barriers but high labor and environmental standards.

...the negotiation is subject to the U.S. domestic politics. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html

The report indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties.

But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.

The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration-is-seen-as-retreating-on-environment-in-talks-on-pacific-trade.html

[bvar22]

41. "High Standards"

Lets take a look at the "High Standards" being written into the TPP.
Here are some actual quotes from the draft released by WikiLeaks:

Article SS.8: Corporate Social Responsibility

Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or jurisdiction, to adopt voluntarily, into their policies and practices, principles of corporate social responsibility related to the environment, consistent with internationally recognized standards and guidelines that have been endorsed or are supported by that Party.


Article SS.9: Voluntary Mechanisms to Enhance Environmental Performance

The Parties recognize that flexible, voluntary mechanisms, such as voluntary auditing and reporting, market-based incentives, voluntary sharing of information and expertise, and public-private partnerships, can contribute to the achievement and maintenance of high levels of environmental protection and complement domestic regulatory measures. The Parties further recognize that such mechanisms should be designed in a manner that maximizes their environmental benefits and avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade.

http://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/

Are you really going to defend "voluntary" self-oversight for the Corporations involved in the TPP agreement?

Lets see what happens when Corporations are allowed to VOLUNTARILY enforce their OWN Environmental Standards:
[font size=3]"Chemical Leak Into West Virginia River Far Larger Than Previously Estimated" [/font]


Voluntary Corporate Responsibility?
Enough to gag a fucking maggot,
and so is defending the indefensible.

[pampango]

42. I did not mean to defend 'voluntary' self-oversight by corporations. Quite the opposite.

Most of what is in the environment chapter as released by Wikileaks is bad news. My point was that I believe that Obama envisioned the TPP as a high standards agreement particularly in the areas of the environment and labor rights. The reason for the excerpts I posted was to clarify why I thought was his goal initially was 'high standards'. We may well differ on our assessment of his motivations as the beginning of the TPP negotiating process.

The last snippet indicated that the administration has fought hard for "tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations", but that it is losing those fights to the resistance put up by the other countries.

If the provisions in the environmental chapter are as bad as they appear from Wikileaks, it is a very bad deal. It really does not matter whether one gives Obama credit for having a 'high standards' agreement in mind at the beginning and saw it torpedoed by unwilling partners OR one gives him no credit and figures he is just a duplicitous politician willing to sell out anyone to get what the 1% wants.

I think we agree that the environmental section as released stinks. We may differ on how the blame is shared between Obama and the other negotiating countries.

[bvar22]

43. Then WHY are you pimping the "High Standards" that have so far been completely absent...

...from everything that we have uncovered about these treaties being "negotiated" in secret?

If the standards are so high,
then WHY have representatives of Organized LABOR, Human Rights, and Environmental Protections been EXCLUDED from these "negotiations"?

Do you really expect any "High Standards" to emerge from Treaty being written by Global Corporate Lobbyists and Lawyers?

Unfortunately, Obama's WORDS have frequently NOT been followed by his actions.
Admittedly, he IS very good with the words & promises part.

[pampango]

44. I don't consider posting what I find about the original goals of the TPP to be 'pimping'.

Particularly when I point out that those goals are not in the current draft of the agreement.

Unfortunately, Obama's WORDS have frequently NOT been followed by his actions.
Admittedly, he IS very good with the words & promises part.

Obviously you think Obama was lying early in the process by publicly pursuing a policy that was based on the belief that we can't compete with China by lowering standards, only by raising them and keeping them out of the 'club' until they revise their system.

You must also think that it is impossible that Obama "has fought hard for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations, but that it is losing those fights to the resistance put up by the other countries." If anyone loses a fight, it must mean they never really meant to win in the first place.

I guess you are in the "he is just a duplicitous politician willing to sell out anyone to get what the 1% wants" camp with respect to Obama. At least we agree that the TPP stinks. If you need to blame Obama 100% for the stink, so be it.

[Buns_of_Fire]

25. I've often wondered what would happen...

Say InternationalMegaCorp (IMC), based in Yougaria, develops a new toy -- "My Little Guillotine" -- and markets it as fun and educational, and can also be used to slice vegetables.

The state of, say New York, says "Hell no! You're not gonna market that thing in our state!"

IMC immediately files suit in the CronyCourt, claiming that New York, by its actions, has deprived them of $50 million in potential income. The CronyCourt says, "That's right. New York, you owe IMC $100 million in punitive and compensatory damages, plus an extra $100 million in additional damages for emotional pain and suffering to IMC's CEO and shareholders.

So New York replies, "Screw you. We're not paying it."

What happens then? Who's going to enforce that "ruling," and how are they going to enforce it?

[magical thyme]

39. Nestle corporation sued Maine village after Maine village for the right to drill for our water

because, you know, the CEO of Nestle doesn't believe anybody owns water sitting in their aquifers and water should be a for profit commodity for Nestle.

They lost suit after suit and I think finally gave up and turned on Florida instead.

FWIW, Poland Springs water doesn't come from the village of Poland Springs. It's shipped in from another Maine village. And it's not even spring water!

[orpupilofnature57]

3. The secrecy of this thing should be what's highlighted...

Esoteric, fast tracking, with corporate insiders all smack of Fascism . And considering we're still recovering from BAIL-OUTS that will bankroll the benefactors, WE should have our questions answered .

[solarhydrocan]

4. NAFTA: 20 years of regret for Mexico

NAFTA: 20 years of regret for Mexico
Mark Weisbrot theguardian.com, Saturday 4 January 2014

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. He co-wrote Oliver Stone's documentary South of the Border.

Mexico's growth has been weak since the 'free trade' deal was signed, and it missed out on the region's poverty reduction



Mexican tractor drivers burn a tyre of one of their vehicles in Mexico City on 31 January 2008 prior to a rally against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Photograph: Mario Guzman/EPA

It was 20 years ago that the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico was implemented. In Washington, the date coincided with an outbreak of the bacteria cryptosporidium in the city's water supply, with residents having to boil their water before drinking it. The joke in town was, "See what happens, NAFTA takes effect and you can't drink the water here."

Our neglected infrastructure aside, it is easy to see that NAFTA was a bad deal for most Americans. The promised trade surpluses with Mexico turned out to be deficits, some hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, and there was downward pressure on US wages – which was, after all, the purpose of the agreement. This was not like the European Union's (pre-Eurozone) economic integration, which allocated hundreds of billions of dollars of development aid to the poorer countries of Europe so as to pull their living standards up toward the average. The idea was to push US wages downward, toward Mexico's, and to create new rights for corporations within the trade area: these lucky multinational enterprises could now sue governments directly before a corporate-friendly international tribunal, unaccountable to any national judicial system, for regulations (eg environmental) that infringed upon their profit-making potential.

But what about Mexico? Didn't Mexico at least benefit from the agreement? Well if we look at the past 20 years, it's not a pretty picture. The most basic measure of economic progress, especially for a developing country like Mexico, is the growth of income (or GDP) per person. Out of 20 Latin American countries (South and Central America plus Mexico), Mexico ranks 18, with growth of less than 1% annually since 1994. It is, of course, possible to argue that Mexico would have done even worse without NAFTA, but then the question would be, why? --->MORE
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/nafta-20-years-mexico-regret

[pampango]

12. From the OP: "As has frequently been noted, the TPP is not really about trade."

NAFTA was all about trade. Which makes the NAFTA comparison somewhat of a stretch.

[solarhydrocan]

21. From your post: "NAFTA was all about trade"

from the guardian article:

it is easy to see that NAFTA was a bad deal for most Americans. The promised trade surpluses with Mexico turned out to be deficits, some hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, and there was downward pressure on US wages – which was, after all, the purpose of the agreement.

The idea was to push US wages downward, toward Mexico's, and to create new rights for corporations within the trade area: these lucky multinational enterprises could now sue governments directly before a corporate-friendly international tribunal, unaccountable to any national judicial system, for regulations (eg environmental) that infringed upon their profit-making potential.

Do you know why are they both called "Agreements"?

Why, when campaigning, did Obama promise to renegotiate NAFTA?
Obama: "It is absolutely true that NAFTA was a mistake"

NAFTA was about much more than trade, but the very concept of sovereignty is foreign to many.

[pampango]

26. Good points. Here are my reponses:

This was not like the European Union's (pre-Eurozone) economic integration, which allocated hundreds of billions of dollars of development aid to the poorer countries of Europe so as to pull their living standards up toward the average.

I think that was Obama's original idea for the TPP - to make it a high-standards agreement like that which governs 'free-trade' within the EU (obviously without the open immigration that Europeans enjoy). The goal would be (as it in Europe) to pull the poor countries up rather than dragging the rich countries down.

The idea was to push US wages downward, toward Mexico's, and to create new rights for corporations within the trade area: these lucky multinational enterprises could now sue governments directly before a corporate-friendly international tribunal, unaccountable to any national judicial system, for regulations (eg environmental) that infringed upon their profit-making potential.

"The idea was ..." according to whom? That sounds like a statement of fact in an area where different actors undoubtedly had different motivations. In any case, it did not work that way. Manufacturing wages in the US have increased since the mid-1990's after declining since around 1980.

Why, when campaigning, did Obama promise to renegotiate NAFTA?
Obama: "It is absolutely true that NAFTA was a mistake".

If the only countries in the TPP were the US, Canada and Mexico, would that count as a renegotiating of NAFTA? If the TPP would replace NAFTA and includes the countries in NAFTA, does that not count as a "renegotiating"?

NAFTA was about much more than trade, but the very concept of sovereignty is foreign to many.

National sovereignty is important, but labor rights and the environment are even more important. I do not reserve the right for national governments to oppress workers or to destroy the environment among other important progressive issues.

[KG]

6. NAFTA - leveling the playing field to a swamp for workers

[Progressive dog]

14. "This is in spite of the fact that Mexico had the second slowest growth on any country in

Latin America". So the US shipped jobs to Mexico because of NAFTA and they lost them.

[pampango]

15. Makes you think that the US would have lost those jobs eventually to wherever Mexico lost them

with or without NAFTA. Of course the decline in our manufacturing jobs has been a trend for 60 years so blaming it on NAFTA was flawed to begin with.

[cali]

17. read Meyerson's article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365933

[pampango]

22. Myerson concludes:

Such deals increase the incomes of Americans investing abroad even as they diminish the incomes of Americans working at home. They worsen the very inequality against which the president campaigns.

But manufacturing wages and the wages of 'ordinary workers' (according to Paul Krugman) have increased since the mid-1990's after declining since 1980 or so in the era before 'free trade' agreements.

Is there a specific part of Myerson's article that you want to point out?

[jeff47]

28. Wages went up. Number of jobs went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.

The fewer remaining jobs are highly skilled, so they pay more.

The problem is the "fewer" part. Many more low-skill jobs went abroad. Those workers no longer count as "manufacturing wages", because they have been forced to take jobs in the service sector.

As a result, "manufacturing wages" appear to have gone up, because the lowest-paid manufacturing workers are no longer in that graph.

[pampango]

30. The number of manufacturing jobs has been going down at at steady rate since 1955.

NAFTA obviously had nothing to do with the decline from 1955 to 1995. When there is a trend that has been going on for 40 years and then continues after an event, it is a little disingenuous to blame the trend on the new event.

According the post from Paul Krugman, wages of US manufacturing and 'ordinary' workers declined from 1980 to 1995 when manufacturing employment was declining, then started to rise while manufacturing employment was continuing to decline. So manufacturing employment was declining before NAFTA and after NAFTA at the same rate, but wages declined before NAFTA (largely due undoubtedly to Reagan policies of union-busting, deregulation and regressive taxation) while they increased after NAFTA (not coincidentally, a Democrat was president).

I don't see that as an indictment of NAFTA but of Reagan's regressive policies on taxation, regulation and unions.

[jeff47]

32. As long as you ignore population growth.

Correct the rate for population growth, and the decline isn't nice and steady. It's accelerating.

I don't see that as an indictment of NAFTA but of Reagan's regressive policies on taxation, regulation and unions.

NAFTA didn't cause the problem, but it exacerbates the problem.

Mexico is still too expensive for the low-skill jobs assembling easy-to-ship things. That's where the majority of the job losses came from, and those jobs went to Asia.

What NAFTA made worse was low-skill jobs assembling large/heavy things went to Mexico. It was not a vast number of jobs, but it was the final bow on the gift to American labor.

Realistically, on the US side NAFTA just made an existing problem worse - no manufacturing jobs unless you are highly skilled. You can't point to rising manufacturing wages and say it was good, because the effects are not shown on that graph. You'd need to show something like overall wages for the bottom 50% to capture it.

On the Mexico side, NAFTA has been terrible. US farmers destroyed Mexico's agriculture industry. That was only offset by the relatively small number of low-skill manufacturing jobs they got in return.

[pampango]

34. Manufacturing jobs have declined in all developed countries at the same rate as in the US.

It is not a "US-only" phenomenon nor is it confined to the countries involved in NAFTA. If NAFTA caused or exacerbated this decline, it would show up in comparisons before and after NAFTA and with other countries not involved in NAFTA. It doesn't.

Mexico is still too expensive for the low-skill jobs assembling easy-to-ship things. That's where the majority of the job losses came from, and those jobs went to Asia.

If jobs went to Asia, it was not because of NAFTA and would have happened anyway if there had never been a NAFTA.

You'd need to show something like overall wages for the bottom 50% to capture it.

The graph provided by Krugman includes manufacturing ('production') workers and non-supervisory workers which he characterizes as 'ordinary workers'. That sounds like the bottom 50% (or more) to me. If you have a graph or something else that shows otherwise, I would love to see it.

[jeff47]

35. I'm not the one saying it's all NAFTA's fault.

I'm saying NAFTA didn't help. On the US side, it's a powerful example of what could go wrong with TPP. NAFTA didn't cause all of the decline in manufacturing, but it did make it worse.

Manufacturing jobs have declined in all developed countries at the same rate as in the US.

Accelerating rate. Not steady.

The graph provided by Krugman includes manufacturing ('production') workers and non-supervisory workers which he characterizes as 'ordinary workers'. That sounds like the bottom 50% (or more) to me.

I'm in that graph. I'm around the 80th percentile in income. I'm a software developer, so I'm non-supervisory, yet I'm paid much more than the workers who used to do low-skill manufacturing.

Most lawyers are non-supervisory. Most doctors are non-supervisory these days. And so on.

[pampango]

38. It seems to me that NAFTA gets blamed for things that went on for decades and happened equally in

places that had nothing to do with NAFTA.

Accelerating rate. Not steady.

Agreed. All the developed countries are losing manufacturing jobs at an accelerating rate. A hundred years ago they all lost agricultural jobs. Now it is manufacturing jobs.

I'm in that graph. I'm around the 80th percentile in income. I'm a software developer, so I'm non-supervisory, yet I'm paid much more than the workers who used to do low-skill manufacturing. Most lawyers are non-supervisory. Most doctors are non-supervisory these days. And so on.

If there is a graph or something else that addresses your point, I would love to see it. It many show something different from Krugman's. Still his is a reasonable attempt at documenting the wages of the non-managerial class of workers, until something better comes along.

[Progressive dog]

19. Exactly

[octoberlib]

20. Unlike Everyone Else, Some Big Political Donors Know What’s in the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Aside from select members of the Administration, the only people with full access to the working documents on the TPP negotiations are the members of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) trade advisory system, including the 18-member Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC-15). Members of ITAC-15 include representatives from businesses and industry groups like the Recording Industry Association of America, Verizon, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; no public-interest groups, academics, or other non-industry experts serve on the committee.

The industry trade advisory system was created by Congress, and membership is partly based on recommendations made from senators and representatives. The organizations represented on ITAC-15 include several top political spenders, who combined have given millions of dollars to members of Congress in recent years.

Data: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to current members of the Senate and House of Representatives from Political Action Committees (PACs) and employees of organizations represented by the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC-15), from Jan. 1, 2003 – Dec. 31, 2012. Data source: OpenSecrets.org

The 18 organizations represented by ITAC-15 gave nearly $24 million to current members of Congress from Jan. 1, 2003 – Dec. 31, 2012.
AT&T has given more than $8 million to current members of Congress, more than any other organization represented by ITAC-15.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has received $433,350 from organizations represented by ITAC-15, more than any other member of Congress.
Democrats in Congress have received $11.4 million from organizations represented by ITAC-15, while Republicans in Congress have received $12.6 million.
The members of Congress sponsoring fast-track legislation, which would allow the President to block Congress from submitting amendments to the TPP, have received a combined $758,295 from organizations represented by ITAC-15. They include Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus ($140,601), Senate Finance Committee Ranking Members Orrin Hatch ($178,850), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman David Camp ($216,250), House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade Chairman Devin Nunes ($86,000), and House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions ($136,594).

http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/17/unlike-everyone-else-some-big-political-donors-know-whats-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

[ProSense]

24. The most telling

part of Baker's piece:

The leaked chapter on intellectual property indicated that it would likely mean sharply higher drug prices in many countries since the TPP would strengthen patents and related restrictions on selling drugs. The final agreement may limit the ability of governments to regulate fracking. In the United States, federal law prohibits state and local governments from requiring disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process. This makes it far more difficult to detect pollution of ground water and drinking water. The TPP may include a similar provision.

It may also include restrictions on the ability of governments to regulate the financial sector. This could allow banks to skirt rules in Dodd-Frank or comparable financial reform bills approved by other countries.

It is likely that many of the provisions in the final agreement would be highly unpopular if they were put up for a vote, but the whole point of getting the deal as a fast-tracked take it or leave it deal is to prevent individual provisions from ever being considered. And there will be enormous pressure to take it.

Everything at this point is speculative. Still, it's hard to believe that the President would support a treaty that undermines his environmental, financial and health care regulatory efforts.

Here's a good point, counterpoint between Baker and Krugman.

Dean Baker: Paul Krugman and TPP

I've got to take some issue with my friend Paul Krugman over his blogpost pronouncing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) no big deal. As a trade question he is undoubtedly right. The countries in the pact are ones with whom the United States already has extensive trade ties and generally low barriers. Eliminating or reducing the remaining barriers cannot possibly have much impact on the U.S. economy.

However it is a misunderstanding to see the TPP as being about trade. This is a deal that focuses on changes in regulatory structures to lock in pro-corporate rules. Using a "trade" agreement provides a mechanism to lock in rules that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get through the normal political process...the U.S. and European drug companies face a serious threat in the developing world. If these countries don't enforce patents in the same way as we do, then the drugs that sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars per prescription in the U.S. may sell for $5 or $10 per prescription in the developing world. With drug prices going ever higher, it will be hard to maintain this sort of segmented market. Either people in the U.S. will go to the cheap drugs or the cheap drugs will come here.

For this reason, trade deals like the TPP, in which they hope to eventually incorporate India and other major suppliers of low cost generics, can be very important. The drug companies would like to bring these producers into line and impose high prices everywhere. (Yes, we need to pay for research. And yes, there are far more efficient mechanisms for financing research than government granted patent monopolies.)

<...>

There are many other areas where industry groups are seeking special treatment along these lines. No, I can't give a list with links because the draft text is a secret. Public Citizen's website probably is the best source available. It includes the chapter on intellectual property that was obtained through Wikileaks...Krugman is on the money in his assessment of the impact of the TPP on trade. But the point is that the TPP is not really about trade, it's about changing the regulatory process in ways that would almost certainly be opposed by the people in most of the countries included in the deal.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/paul-krugman-and-tpp

Krugman: TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024169463

TPP and IP, A Brief Note

Dean Baker takes me to task over the Trans Pacific trade deal, arguing that it’s not really about trade — that the important (and harmful) stuff involves regulation and intellectual property rights.

I’m sympathetic to this argument; this was true, for example, of DR-CAFTA, the free trade agreement with Central America, which ended up being largely about pharma patents. Is TPP equally bad? I’ll do some homework and get back to you.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/tpp-and-ip-a-brief-note/

Interestingly, Obama voted against CAFTA.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00170
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00209

[cali]

37. whatever, honeypie.

[AzDar]

45. K & R