The Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like a giant step toward the end of sovereign nations.

[rhett o rick]

This trade agreement as those that went before it like NAFTA are agreements between nations and corporations. Corporations have become big enough that they can negotiate on a level field with countries. These trade agreements allow certain corporations to by-pass laws and regulations of countries in which they operate. They can by-pass labor laws, environmental laws, and health regulations. If the laws of a country negatively impact a major corporation, that corporation can sue the country. In fact, “Swedish energy company Vattenfall reportedly plans to sue the German government, seeking massive damages related to Germany's phase-out of nuclear power.” (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/vattenfall-vs-germany-nuclear-phase-out-faces-billion-euro-lawsuit-a-795466.html)
Consider the meaning of this. A corporation is trying to flex it’s power to get Germany, no light-weight, to alter it’s plans to phase out nuclear power.

From: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/the-global-corporatocracy-is-almost-fully-operational.html#bT84Q6SPHHkwP1C0.99

“a recent leak of part of the TPP document has shown, the new rules would limit how governments regulate such public services as utilities, transportation, healthcare and education, including restricting policies meant to ensure broad or universal access to those essential needs.”

There’s more at the above link.

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. They Want A "One World Economy" Where They Can Exploit Everything.

[rhett o rick]

2. Yes I agree. Even Democrats want that. nm

[solarhydrocan]

5. See: Clinton

and lots of D's would vote for her, TPP or not. So party > principle for many.

[Progressive dog]

66. TPP or not, I'll vote for Hillary

if she is the nominee of the Democratic party. I will gladly vote for her, TPP or not. I also voted for Barack Obama twice and I am proud of it. He has been and continues to be an excellent Democratic President.

[JDPriestly]

73. I haven't decided. But her support of TPP would weigh against it.

I don't think I could vote for anyone who would support the TPP.

I'm still an American, not an international corporation. I don't see any benefit for the United States or for ordinary Americans. None at all.

[glinda]

88. I don't want her. I want someone better to run.

[JDPriestly]

98. Bernie Sanders has said that if no one else runs, he will.

I could easily support Bernie Sanders. All he has to do is say he is running as a Democrat, and he will have my support.

[glinda]

163. He would have mine also. Just hate to tie his hands should he get elected.

[rhett o rick]

91. Yes I can see how those that support Wall Street would support Clinton-Sachs. nm

[Progressive dog]

116. I do support capitalism with FDR regulation,

like most Americans. It has to do with those freedoms. The founders even put the right to own property in the Constitution. Pure or close to pure socialism has never worked. It's not in our genes.
I'm a Democrat so I support the Democratic party of FDR, who saved capitalism by regulating it.
I'm a Progressive, who wants progress, greater equality in the distribution of both material goods and civil rights.
As to your specific complaint, Goldman Sachs has existed since 1869. FDR didn't get rid of it.
Wall Street has existed much longer. Not one American president has even hinted at getting rid of Wall Street or the idea that it represents.

[rhett o rick]

118. Do you think that H. Clinton-Sachs is a progressive? Do you think her close ties with

Wall Street will result in FDR type regulations? Her husband supported NAFTA and killed Glass-Steagall, and she supports the TPP. None of these meet the FDR regulation standard. Corporations need desperately to be reigned in and H. Clinton-Sachs wont do it.

No one here (with the exception of one or two posters) are advocating either pure socialism or "getting rid of Wall Street". Your use of those arguments are strawmen.

If you truly support FDR type regulated capitalism then dont look to H. Clinton-Sachs.

[Progressive dog]

119. Hillary Clinton is a Progressive,

I don't know who H. Clinton-Sachs is.

[rhett o rick]

120. By whose definition is H. Clinton a progressive? Does she support FDR type regulations?

Do you not recognize her close ties with Goldmen-Sachs? Her views on NAFTA and the TPP are not progressive.

IMO you have a distorted view of what is progressive.

[Progressive dog]

121. Yes, she supports FDR style regulations.

Your view of her views on TPP and NAFTA are not progressive.
FDR was not an isolationist. The conservatives who opposed him and reviled him were. They used to call them RW but you've imagined them to be progressive.

[Armstead]

126. There's a huge difference between "isolationist" and basic common sense

One does not have to be against any international laws and trade to bekliueve that nations should be nations, and not just corporate colonies.

The "free trade" scam that the Clintons and Obama endorse are NOT about fair rules for trade. They are about who the hell controls everything -- including the economy, national laws and civil society.

"Free trade" as it has come to be known, is nothing but a power grab by the oligarchs to gut the laws of nations and encourage a future dictated only by the laws of Big Capital.

[Progressive dog]

128. Basic common sense relies on facts, not imagination.

When you have facts proving that the US economy shrank as a result of imports from NAFTA countries, let me know.

[Armstead]

130. I'm not going down that road

There is abundant evidence of the damage that NAFTA and other free trade agreements have caused.

And through experience I know that conservative progressives and reakl conservatives have a favorite tactic in debates. They say "You're not basing your argument on reality. Show me the facts."

Then when one digs out a few facts, it's never good enough. It's either called an untrustworthy source, doesn't go far enough, is not specific enough...etc.

I've wasted too much time in the past on such circular arguments. Disagree with me if you want -- but don't hide behind that worn out mantra of claiming you are "fact based" and anyone who disagrees is just "imagining things."

[Progressive dog]

132. Of course you need no evidence, facts don't matter

because you already have your "common sense." The point of having facts is to make an informed decision. I assume you have no desire to be informed.

[Armstead]

133. See you're already doing it." Nyah nyah I deal with facts. You're just making stuff up."

By the way can you explain how Clinton is just like FDR, when FDR pushed for financial regulation and Clinton helped to kill it?

[Progressive dog]

137. So that was all FDR and Clinton ever did in your mind?

We were talking about TPP and because you can't defend your position, you have tried to move it. Now you have even moved away from claiming that Clinton is not a Progressive to a specific opinion on a specific factoid that you think defines both FDR and Clinton for all time. You don't even cite the factoid, probably because you are not sure of your facts.

[Armstead]

139. Oh you're good at this

First you complain I don't have the facts. Then when i mention a fact, you claim I'm using a factoid to divert attention from the real subject. (You are the one who compared them to FDR).

That's really skilled.

Especially good since i mentioned a whole host of other issues too, which you blithely ignore.

"In the United States, the sun rises in the east."

Have a go at that statement, why doncha? I'm sure you'll find fault with that too. I'm just making it up and have no verifiable evidence to support it, something like that.

[Progressive dog]

140. You don't even know what a fact is

hint 1: It is not the same as a Question.
hint 2: "The sun rises in the east is a fact but has nothing to do with the topic.

[Armstead]

142. Now you've become boring.

Thanks for playing. Bye.

[Progressive dog]

143. You started there

[Armstead]

134. P.S. I've been paying attention to this stuff for 30 years...

No desire to be informed?

[rhett o rick]

146. Do I understand you to say that you think that the TPP and NAFTA are progressive? nm

[Progressive dog]

147. No you did not

[rhett o rick]

148. In the area of economy, how is H. Clinton-Sachs progressive? nm

[Progressive dog]

151. There is no Clinton-Sachs

[Armstead]

125. Socially progressive -- But a corporate conservative on issues of money and power

[Progressive dog]

127. If she is a corporate conservative,

then so were FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, JEC, and of course Bill Clinton. I'm happy to be in their company and of course that of Barack Obama. I'm am a progressive democrat, whether you are confused about what progress is or not.

[Armstead]

129. FDR pushed for financial regulation. Clinton killed it.

I am not "confused" by what progress is.

But progress is in the eye of the beholder. If one thinks that progress is advancing the interests of Big Money over everyone else, then people like the Clintons can certainly be considered progressive.

On almost EVERY fundamental issue that has involved placing restraints on Big Corporate Monopolies to protect regulated competitive free enterprise and the interests of the population Bill Clinton was on the WRONG side oif tghe debate. NAFTA and "free trade" and financial deregulation and lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws and telecommunications deregulation....etc.

Glass Stegal, which was partr of FEDR's New Deal reforms, was killed during the Clinton administration. Thus Clinton handed the economy completely to the Monopoly Bankers and helped to cause the Meltdown of 08.

[antigop]

83. See Business Week: she played a leading part in drafting the TPP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

[sabrina 1]

92. That does. I will never support her, wouldn't have anyway because of her support for War, but that

is the last straw. And hopefully will be for enough people so she drops the whole idea of running and we can start thinking about someone who will appeal to ordinary people and work for them, not for Corporations.

[NYC_SKP]

96. I won't back down, we have to push back early and hard.

The people need our help and soon, the Hillary machine has already left the garage.

If we don't get it right this time we may just as well give up trying.

[sabrina 1]

97. I agree. Now is the time to make it clear that if Dems push her they will lose. So they better start

listening, and we have to mean it. I know the consequences but they are counting on us backing down because of that. I think it's time to place the blame on THEM, now and if they insist hoping we will back down, we will blame THEM for not giving the people a choice.

So sick of them bribing the voters, almost threatening them, do it our way or else. Time to turn that around.

[NYC_SKP]

105. They need to own their shit, their wars and their selling out the middle class.

The nerve, really, of them to represent themselves as supporting a working middle class in America.

[sabrina 1]

117. Exactly. And in many ways it's our fault too for looking the other way because the alternative is

worse as if we didn't have the power, IF we were united, to force a different alternative.

[abelenkpe]

155. Yeah

I'm right there with you. I hope democrats find a better candidate.

[magical thyme]

80. it's not dems versus gop

it's 0.1% versus the world.

They believe they rightfully own everything. We exist at their pleasure, as do all other life forms.

[rhett o rick]

81. My point exactly. nm

[babylonsister]

18. Who are 'they'? nt

[delrem]

32. see reply #5, for one of "them".

[ronnie624]

46. The rich, powerful people, who meet in secret,

to plan the global economy for their own benefit. Who else?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

56. Is this a rhetorical question implying that anyone who thinks there is a "they"

is off their rocker?

[ronnie624]

58. The question implies that there is a 'conspiracy theory' at play.

We aren't supposed to understand that groups of people often, without conspiring, advance causes that benefit them collectively, because they have similar interests.

I've often found that people who who brandish the CT meme, are generally very ignorant, understanding little about what they are attempting to discuss.

[Maedhros]

59. "Conspiracy" is not some lunatic notion.

Conspiracies are quite common.

From Merriam-Webster:

con·spir·a·cy

: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

plural con·spir·a·cies

Full Definition of CONSPIRACY
1: the act of conspiring together
2
a : an agreement among conspirators
b : a group of conspirators

The Trans Pacific Partnership is being created in secret by a group of corporate representatives, so it certainly meets at least half of the definition of "conspiracy." There is some question as to whether it is designed "to do something that is harmful or illegal", but that is only an open question for Conservatives - what has been leaked so far about the TPP is unquestionably "harmful" from a traditional Liberal or Progressive stance.

[ronnie624]

60. I agree with you 100%.

Their economic summits are always held in secret, shielded from media scrutiny. Clearly, they do not want us to know what they are discussing.

[bvar22]

65. By definition, the TPP is a conspiracy,

especially when one considers that the meetings planning how the Global 1% are going to Rule the World are held in secret.

[JDPriestly]

74. "Conspiracy" is a legal term defined as follows:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracyConspiracy

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."


Conspiracy generally carries no penalty on its own. Instead, punishment derives from the illegal acts carried out by the conspiracy. Where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts. Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies. Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense. Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Prosecutors base cases on theories of conspiracies, that is conspiracy theories, all the time.

Of course, whether a case wins or loses depends on whether the evidence supporting the theory convinces the judge and jury.

The quality and persuasiveness of the evidence is decisive. Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories that are well supported by the evidence. No one should be insulted when others speak of their ideas as "conspiracy theories."

[Ikonoklast]

57. All those currently attending Davos.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

64. Winner! ^^^^^ nt

[pampango]

42. The right is all over the "One World Government" and FTA's and the WTO (One World Economy?)

Do you believe that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order, or not?

'Very Liberal' : Yes - 12%, No - 69%;
'Somewhat Liberal' : Yes - 20%, No - 51%;
'Moderate': Yes - 23%, No - 56%;
'Somewhat Conservative' : Yes - 33%, No - 38%;
'Very Conservative' : Yes - 45%, No - 26%.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf

Of course, the "very conservative" view a OWG as a liberal, socialist conspiracy.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/09/americans-are-of-two-minds-on-trade/

[Swede Atlanta]

52. This is one time when I agree with the conservatives.....

NAFTA was a significant trade agreement. Canada is our largest trading partner. We have seen how that has worked out. I have not followed how Canada experienced the agreement in terms of job loss, etc. but it has arguably been a disaster for American workers that want to have a job that pays a living wage with benefits and some level of security and a boon for American consumers that want cheap goods at Walmart.

The TPP from what I have read is NAFTA on the strongest hormones known to man. Among other horrible things it strips signatory nations of the ability to legislate and control certain aspects of domestic life including labor and environmental law. We cede all those powers to the TPP "membership" to decide.

We cannot allow TPP to happen. It MUST be scaled back. I am not opposed to any truly FAIR trade deal that reduces or eliminates tariffs provided it is fair, includes labor and environmental protections and does not undermine our ability to enact and enforce legislation.

So far I have yet to see one that does that. NAFTA has been a disaster.

[JDPriestly]

82. Yes. TPP is very unpopular among both Republicans and Democrats.

Any Democratic presidential candidate who supports TPP is likely to lose. The TPP would eat away at our sovereignty, at our national identity. It would destroy our democracy. It could force us to choose between protecting our economy and our environment or paying enormous speculative damages.

Yes. We are one world. But we are individuals and nations making up that world. The TPP would jeopardize our individuality and national identity. It might help other countries. It might serve the purposes of very wealthy people and international corporations.

But it would harm ordinary people all over the world and especially in our country.

I oppose it.

Why is it secret?

Because it stinks.

[whathehell]

109. I was once surprised to hear a Canadian say that NAFTA "only benefited the US"..

I told him that most in US didn't think so and disliked it as much as he did.

I'm not a NAFTA expert, but I suspect it only benefited the One Percent in all the countries involved.

[truedelphi]

158. One Canadian industry that benefitted from NAFTA was

a firm that produced MTBE, the toxic gas additive.

Since our scientists led by John Foines proved it to be extremely detrimental, it was banned from being put into our gasoline. (Except for amounts under 2%.)

So then the state of California had to pony up tens of millions of dollars, I think around 700 millions of dollars, for NOT buying the MTBE! And since no company pays workers to not produce anything, I imagine that heavy duty fine went right into the pockets of the Canadian owners of the company.

[El_Johns]

101. So what? Are you saying that not liking TPP means one is "right"?

That's like saying hitler liked dogs, so if you like dogs, you're hitler.

[bobduca]

104. "smear by association" is all they got

[pampango]

112. The poll does not have anything to do with the TPP. The far right believes it is the 'liberal elite'

who is pushing for a 'socialist' One World Government often focused on the United Nations. (They sometimes turn their ire on the WTO or the mythical North American Union, as well.) The fact that the right believes this does not make it true. (They believe a lot of things that are far from actual fact.)

The poll asked the question:

Do you believe that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order, or not?

It does not ask if the "authoritarian world government" would be fascist or socialist. It seems likely that the 12% of 'very liberal' respondents would think that a OWG is destined to be fascist and the 45% of 'very conservative' types would think it is will be socialist. The poll question did not ask about the TPP or the United Nations or NAFTA or any other specific organization or agreement.

It merely asked whether you believe in "a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government". Those who consider themselves to be 'very conservative' are much more likely to answer yes to that question but there are 'Yes' responses in every category of people, including 'very liberal'.

[bobduca]

103. IF DA TEA PARTY IS AGIN IT, WE MUST BE FER IT!1111

derp

[pampango]

136. Perhaps not. But we share little in terms of the tea party world view, I suspect.

And if the tea party if for something, it would be hard to call it 'liberal'. It may be 'good' or 'bipartisan' or something else, but the tea party is not well known for coming down on the liberal side of issues. Perhaps they have in other instances and I have just missed them. (They better be careful. If they slip up and act 'liberal' too many times, what is the world coming to? )

[Armstead]

131. And your point is?.......

Very simple question.

If the people promoting the TPP, for example, think it is so democratic and wonderful and will benefit everyone and they believe in democracy, why are they negotiating in secret and attempting to push it through Congress with no opportunity for public debate and changes?

Huh?

[pampango]

138. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't our international treaties and agreements almost always

negotiated in secret. If negotiators from all sides reach an agreement, it is presented to the Senate (for treaties) or both the House and Senate (for other international agreements).

Most recently our negotiations with Iran about their nuclear capability (though not the kind of agreement that needs congressional approval - fortunately since there seem to be a lot of Senators including many Democrats who would not have ratified it) was pretty much done in secret.

I don't like the secrecy. I think Woodrow Wilson had a better concept with his "Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."

Unfortunately that did not work after WWI, since the UK and France ignored him, and cooked up the Treaty of Versailles in secret. AFAIK, openly negotiated treaties have been a pretty rare occurrence since then. I wish it were not like that.

[Armstead]

141. That's the problem

These things are negotiated in secret, but it's all of us whio have to live with the consequences -- both the intended consequences and the unintended ones.

Some agreements and treaties should be negotiated in secret, if they involve sensitive information things that affect true national security. But those should be debated in the open before ratification.

But when you're talking about "trade" treaties that affect all aspects of life, they should be in an open manner.

[TBF]

76. Agree - the only benefit to that

is that those of us who are socialists worldwide can band together against them. We've got to keep channels of the web open so we can communicate.

[stuffmatters]

86. Adios, Our Social Security Trust Fund

American environmental. economic and legislative sovereignty are completely open for global corporate pillage in this
monstrous treaty. And it's permanent. A treaty can only be repealed if All countries who signed withdraw, making it essentially irrevocable.

Why has no reporter asked Obama straight up..."why in the world are you pushing a treaty which surrenders our national sovereignty and national treasury, including our trillions in social security, to foreign corporations and nations with this NAFTA on Steriods debacle.? Our trade deficit is already too high,evidence already shows your TPP will double it. And
make America complicit in crimes against labor (children & slave labor) across the globe."



Hilary also needs to be asked the same. Her fingerprints are as much all over the TPP as Obama's. Citizen's United made corporations "people', the TPP makes corporations nations.

It's not about Dem vs Republican... this is corporate "bipartisanship" (which seems to be the only bipartisanship that ever
gets passed) at it's most sweeping and devastating.

[Coyotl]

3. Treaties are a way around existing law. That simple!

The are meg-rules that override national rules the way U.S. law is written.

[solarhydrocan]

9. They are called "agreements" specifically for that reason

they are technically not "treaties"

SEE: NAFTA the North American Free Trade Agreement

The TPP is "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_agreement

Another example of a broken system

[rhett o rick]

11. So where is this leading? Will there be one world government run by someone chosen by the

major corporations? Our army will be used to kill those that try to sneak seeds into the ground that arent from Monsanto, or using water that doesnt come from Pepsi.

The Capitalistic End Game is near.

[solarhydrocan]

14. Joe Biden knows

Biden: The 'affirmative task' before us is to 'create a new world order'

Biden The Drug Warrior (he created the Drug Czar) has found a new passion.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Whoever is really running the show has 30,000 armed Drones coming to watch you where you live/work.

And they've stopped using 9/11 as their excuse. We see their long plan, a grossly undemocratic agenda, but it's simply too late to do anything about it.

[octoberlib]

4. This makes my stomach turn. nt

[840high]

22. and mine

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Exactly

And the ... guy we voted for is trying his damnedest to ram it down all of our throats.

[rhett o rick]

7. It's not his fault, Penny Pritzker is making him do it. nm

[marmar]

8. k/r ........ Sobering.

[Scootaloo]

10. "Corporate persons" need to be subject to corporal punishment

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Yes, it's been called the end of the order of Metternich

I know, way, and I mean this WAAAAYYYYYY too much inside baseball.

It is also the end of the Breton Woods agreement, but do not tell DC or they might wake up why this is really not good for the American Empire and the dominance of the US Dollar.

I will be at the corner hiding.

[rhett o rick]

13. No one in power is worried about the American Empire. They are looking to a World government.

And of course fascism is the best form for their government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. That is part of it

but they are worried about the empire as well. In my mind they believe (wrongly mind you) that they can get both

[rhett o rick]

29. They get their empire via these trade agreements, it's just not the American Empire.

It's the World Empire.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Led by the US

It iß semantics really, and I think they will be in for a shock.

[FiveGoodMen]

69. Harnessing the US military and infrastructure but above all of us (is what I suspect).

[indie9197]

38. They (our politicians) are expecting to be taken care of after they destroy our country.

But my guess is that when they are no longer useful they will be disposed of.

[pampango]

43. The TPP be the end of the Bretton Woods? The intent of FDR's 1944 conference is still alive.

The Bretton Woods Conference took place in July 1944, but some of its core accords did not become operative until December 1958, when all European currencies became convertible. The IMF was developed as a permanent international body. The summary of agreements states, "The nations should consult and agree on international monetary changes which affect each other. They should outlaw practices which are agreed to be harmful to world prosperity, and they should assist each other to overcome short-term exchange difficulties." The IBRD was created to speed up post-war reconstruction, to aid political stability, and to foster peace. This was to be fulfilled through the establishment of programs for reconstruction and development.

The main terms of this agreement were:

Formation of the IMF and the IBRD, which is today part of the World Bank.
Adjustably pegged foreign exchange market rate system: The exchange rates were fixed, with the provision of changing them if necessary.
Currencies were required to be convertible for trade related and other current account transactions.
As it was possible that exchange rates thus established might not be favourable to a country's balance of payments position, the governments had the power to revise them by up to 10%.
All member countries were required to subscribe to the IMF's capital.

Encouraging open markets

The seminal idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was the notion of open markets. In Henry Morgenthau's farewell remarks at the conference, he stated that the establishment of the IMF and the World Bank marked the end of economic nationalism. This meant countries would maintain their national interest, but trade blocks and economic spheres of influence would no longer be their means. The second idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was joint management of the Western political-economic order, meaning that the foremost industrial democratic nations must lower barriers to trade and the movement of capital, in addition to their responsibility to govern the system.

Failed proposal
International Trade Organization

The Conference also proposed the creation of an International Trade Organization (ITO) to establish rules and regulations for international trade. The ITO would have complemented the other two Bretton Woods proposed international bodies: the IMF and the World Bank. The ITO charter was agreed on at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Employment (held in Havana, Cuba, in March 1948), but the charter was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. As a result, the ITO never came into existence. However, in 1995, during the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations established the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the replacement body for GATT. The GATT principles and agreements were adopted by the WTO, which was charged with administering and extending them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monetary_and_Financial_Conference

The Bretton Woods conference in July, 1944 was FDR's effort to restructure post-war international politics and economics so that it was more multilaterally run by international organizations like the UN, IMF, World Bank and the ITO. The ITO was rejected by the republican senate as too injurious to national sovereignty but eventually came into being 50 years later in the form of the WTO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Yes, the us intents to dominate with the dollar

China is making noises about ending the status of the dollar as a reserve currency. Whoever is reserve next will dominate trade.

[WillyT]

16. Of Course It Is... They Just Don't Know How To Explain It, Without Using The Word FASCISM...

[ReRe]

17. This is the "New World Order" that GHWB referred to....

... but forgot to give us the meaning of back in the early '90s. I always wondered what he meant by that term. And now, 20 years later, I know the meaning. Those trade agreements (NAFTA & GATT) were begun in HIS administration and then passed by our beloved, Bill Clinton. All the living Presidents went up there and had a big ceremony. Anyone alive to remember that? Other trade agreements have been made since, and now we are getting ready to turn everything over to THe Corporation with the TPP. If it is passed and PO signs it, Congress will do The Corporation's bidding. They might let us go through the motions of having elections and all, but only their Corporate lackey Congressmen/women will be elected. If TPP goes through, stick a fork in it. Life as we came to know it in the USA will be profoundly changed, and not for the better.

[BelgianMadCow]

19. once went to an editorial meeting of an alternative daily here

carrying leaked drafts, and scared them (I confess) into covering it (TPP & TTIP) ever since. Well, I like to think

I think I said "if I had to set up a NWO, this looks like a great blueprint".

[Renew Deal]

20. NAFTA Super Highway FTW

[KoKo]

21. Wow...nice map!

Recommend!

[pampango]

41. Right Wing Watch: The NAFTA Superhighway and North American Union are far-right conspiracy theories

championed by the John Birch Society, WorldNet Daily, Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo among other far-right groups, including the tea party which is all over the NAFTA Superhighway.

Is God Using NAFTA Superhighway to Stop Homosexuality?

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah writes of immigration and the Bush Administration’s alleged secret plans to create a “North American Union”.

The concept of a behind-the-scenes “North American Union”—persistently advanced by Farah’s WorldNetDaily, the John Birch Society, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, presidential candidates Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, and others—is closely tied to the anti-immigrant sentiment that has struck right-wing politics over the last few years. But it has taken on a life of its own, thanks to vivid imagery like “the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S.” that was alleged in detail by Jerome Corsi last year. Corsi even provided a now-iconic picture, taken from a transportation-industry lobbying group:



In the picture, it appears as if almost all of middle America has been blanketed by some kind of yellow dust originating from south of the border and traveling up Interstate 35 like a swarm of killer bees. The “NAFTA Superhighway” and the “North American Union” may be “the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time,” as the Boston Globe recently discussed.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/god-using-nafta-superhighway-stop-homosexuality

The NAFTA superhighway is a term sometimes used to refer to certain existing and proposed highways. The beliefs associated with this appellation are associated with conspiracy theories regarding secret plans to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

Those highways part of the NASCO Corridor, including Interstate 35, Interstate 29, and Interstate 94, along the CANAMEX Corridor are often referenced among the existing highways. The term is also sometimes used to describe planned, or proposed highways and supercorridors which connect the road systems of the three nations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade bloc (Canada, Mexico, and the United States).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA_superhighway

[Renew Deal]

51. I know. So is "the end of sovereign nations" talk

[JoePhilly]

71. I noticed that too.

Under their logic, every treaty destroys your national sovereignty.

[Cali_Democrat]

145. Remember when the GOP blocked the UN disabilities treaty in the Senate in 2012?

With Bob Dole sitting right there in the Senate chamber in a wheelchair.

The GOP blocked it because they felt it infringed on American sovereignty.

Interesting to see that same kind of talk here.

[Cali_Democrat]

79. Thank you!

[brentspeak]

93. The GOP passed the job-killing "free trade" treaties

While the majority of Democrats were opposed.

http://firedoglake.com/2011/10/12/job-killing-trade-deals-pass-congress-amidst-record-democratic-opposition/

Record of Congressional Democratic Opposition to Democratic Presidents on Trade Pacts

-82.3% of House Democrats opposed the Colombia FTA (158 Democrats against, 31 for)
-67.7% of House Democrats opposed the Korea FTA (130 Democrats against, 59 for)
-64,1% of House Democrats opposed the Panama FTA (123 Democrats against, 66 for)
-60.6% of Democrats opposed NAFTA (1993)
-35% opposed the WTO (1994)
-65.56% opposed China PNTR (2000)

Record of Congressional Democratic Opposition to GOP Presidents on Trade Pacts

-62.6% opposed the Chile FTA (2003)
-62.14% opposed the Singapore FTA (2003)
-41.3% opposed the Australia FTA (2004)
-39.32% opposed the Morocco FTA (2004)
-92.6% opposed the Central America Free Trade Agreement (2005)
-40.4% opposed the Bahrain FTA (2005)
-87.6% opposed the Oman FTA (2006)
slightly more than half opposed the Peru FTA (2007)

Also, it was the Tea Party Freshmen who helped Obama pass his "free trade" treaties, despite record numbers of Democrats opposed:

(same source as above)

http://firedoglake.com/2011/10/12/job-killing-trade-deals-pass-congress-amidst-record-democratic-opposition/

Job-Killing Trade Deals Pass Congress Amidst Record Democratic Opposition

...

Given the strong Democratic opposition, ultimately it was the Tea Party GOP freshmen who passed these job-killing deals (Bush and Obama's brokered KORUS, Panama and Colombian deals) despite their campaign commitments at home to stand up for Main Street businesses, against more job offshoring and for Buy American requirements.

To sum: The GOP supports the job-killing "free trade" treaties. Also, so do you.

[pampango]

115. There is a huge divide between the republican base and politicians on NAFTA and 'free trade'

in general.

The GOP supports the job-killing "free trade" treaties. Also, so do you.

Slight amendment: The GOP politicians support the job-killing "free trade" treaties. Also, so do you.
Another slight amendment: The GOP bases hates the job-killing "free trade" treaties. Also, so do you. The Democratic base looks more favorably on NAFTA, the WTO and 'free trade' (by a 40%-35% margin view them as 'good for the US) than does the republican base (54%-28% 'bad') - particularly the tea party wing of their party which hates it by a 63%-24% margin.

And the real power of these 'job-killing' "free trade" treaties is that they have been killing manufacturing jobs all over the developed world, not just in the US, since 1955 - 40 years before they came into existence. Now that is real power.

[brentspeak]

122. So you provide graphs to illustrate how the trade treaties have killed the USA

Very sporting of you.

[pampango]

135. The graphs show US manufacturing employment has been declining since 1955. What "trade treaties"

are you referring to?

[KoKo]

144. Here's some Links to help you out about NAFTA since you seem confused:

NAFTA at 20

Read the new report from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch: NAFTA at 20 - One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Mass Displacement and Instability in Mexico, Record Income Inequality, Scores of Corporate Attacks on Environmental and Health Laws.


http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=531

Resources

Report: NAFTA at 20 - One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Mass Displacement and Instability in Mexico, Record Income Inequality, Scores of Corporate Attacks on Environmental and Health Laws
Press Release: NAFTA at 20: One Million Lost U.S. Jobs, Higher Income Inequality, Doubled Agriculture Trade Deficit With Mexico and Canada, Displacement and Instability in Mexico, and Corporate Attacks on Environmental Laws
Learn more about the NAFTA cross-border trucking case
Let them Eat Imports: Food Imports to U.S. Soar under WTO-NAFTA Model, Threatening Family Farmers and Safety
NAFTA's Broken Promises 1994 - 2013: Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement
NAFTA's Legacy for Mexico: Economic Displacement, Lower Wages for Most, Increased Immigration
Debunking USTR Claims in Defense of NAFTA: The Real NAFTA Score 2008
NAFTA Superhighway/SPP: The Truth is Stranger Than Fiction
NAFTA: Kicked Up a Notch (FPIF 5/23/07)
The World Bank on NAFTA: Wrong Numbers Lead to Wrong Conclusion
The Ten Year Track Record of NAFTA

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=531

--------------------AND----------------------

NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers--Economic Policy Institute
Posted December 9, 2013 at 4:00 pm by Jeff Faux (RESEARCH REPORTS AT LINK)


The North American Free Trade Agreement (NATFA) was the door through which American workers were shoved into the neoliberal global labor market.

By establishing the principle that U.S. corporations could relocate production elsewhere and sell back into the United States, NAFTA undercut the bargaining power of American workers, which had driven the expansion of the middle class since the end of World War II. The result has been 20 years of stagnant wages and the upward redistribution of income, wealth and political power.

NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.

Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: “If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border.” With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies.

- See more Research and Reports at:

http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/#sthash.TakkEZF0.dpuf
NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers

[pampango]

152. Thanks for not anwering the question. The 40 year decline in manufacturing jobs did not

get any worse after NAFTA. It did continue on the same pace as before. If you want to blame the continuation of a 40-year trend on the passage of NAFTA, be my guest. And manufacturing wages increased after NAFTA as the graph from Paul Krugman shows and stand at $19.60 an hour now.

[KoKo]

157. Not quite true...you need to check out the links. You are looking

at only one side. Repairing it...and not seeing the Damage the other Trade Agreements have caused. There's now enough research to show that Nafta and the other Agreements have cost us jobs and sovereignty and made the Financial Meltdown even worse because we were so weakened before. We were Prime for the Wall Street Crowd to take us Down and get OFF with just Financial Tap on Hand which they could well afford.

[blkmusclmachine]

23. Change You Can BeLIEve In, Bay-bee!

[woo me with science]

25. And by extension, democracy.

This is a major step in the dismantling of democratic governments by and for global corporate rule. Every citizen of a democratic government should be horrified and in the streets to oppose this.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024360371#post11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4360557

Secret TPP Deal will void democracy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023209078

[TheKentuckian]

36. That is the major thrust, the end of the democratic era.

All the voting will keep going on for show purposes but it will be window dressing with little actual impact, any laws or initiatives passed superceded upon creation. All the relevant votes will take place in boardrooms. We will be left to bicker about personalities and the arrangement of the deckchairs allotted by the overlords.

[truedelphi]

106. I think quite a few of us already have felt that for

Several years now.

[TheKentuckian]

123. No doubt but this is still a pretty significant actual legal advancement of that conclusion.

May have already been well underway but to actually institutionalize this shit and set in concrete, effectively beyond legislative remedy is something of importance.

[truedelphi]

154. Oops, I just realized I didn't focus on the words

You state:

To actually institutionalize this shit and set in concrete, effectively beyond legislative remedy is something of importance.

That really is important. Are you rather certain this will not be altered?

[TheKentuckian]

162. I don't see how really. We'd have to be of a mind to pretty much go rogue, drop out of the WTO,

and logically drop out of or put serious doubt on existing and planned agreements of a similar vein.

Impossible? Of course not but plausible in the current or similar conditions with the same or similar players, no.

[villager]

26. "It's not a game a man is supposed to grow strong in, Jonathan..."

Last edited Thu Jan 23, 2014, 01:37 AM - Edit history (1)

"You can appreciate that, can't you?"

[NealK]

27. K&R n/t

[TimeToEvolve]

28. i think its about time

for people to wake up and look beyond this left and right of center paradigm

[zeemike]

31. And welcome to DU

And you are right, but I doubt they will, because they keep doing things that will divide us even further...And many that do the divisive things are just duped into it, but some of them know full well what they are doing,

[polichick]

63. It's a scam. We have one party with two faces in order to keep...

the little people fighting among ourselves.

Welcome aboard!

[blackspade]

33. TPP is unbelievably bad.

No just for us but for the rest of the Pacific Rim.
The European version sounds just as bad.

[delrem]

34. More like the end of the "Western World" as previously defined.

TPP only covers certain nations. Other nations are coming to other trade agreements, and like it or not some of those trade agreements incorporate ideas that at least *suggest* the notion of 'fair trade', which incorporates ideas like 'workers rights' and 'national sovereignty over natural resources', etc. Countries like Venezuela/Cuba have engaged in resource swaps, oil for doctors, etc., and recently I've heard rumors of Iran/Russia swaps of the same kind. Not just the rising economic power of China is looking for different avenues for trade other than the US$ - an avenue that's being abused. The whole world *except* for those countries merging into a corporate dictatorship under the TPP is looking for alternatives. Perhaps there will be several.

But one thing for sure, the TPP doesn't encompass "the world". The TPP is being fast-tracked in secret by *our* countries, in a rush to overthrow national sovereignty in favor of corporate ownership and power, and it will only directly affect *our* countries - those countries inhabited by sleepwalking undead zombies.

[KoKo]

160. Good points and interesting perspective which makes much sense...

Recommend...

[babylonsister]

35. Go To DC! Do something! nt

[The Magistrate]

37. I Agree, Sir: This Is 'Corporate Sovereignity', And It Is An Abomination

No investor has any right, repeat any right, to profit from an investment, and any claim he has is absolutely without foundation in law, custom, history, or even economic theory. Laws, regulations, possible changes in them, acts of governments and rulings of courts are simply some of the factors people must calculate and try and anticipate when investing, and if you gauge these wrongly you are supposed to lose your money! That is how the thing works, how it is supposed to work, how it always has worked.

Further, a state, particularly a democratic state, has every right to take measures for the benefit of its people, whether to improve or safeguard their health and well-being or increase their personal income or social capital, without the slightest regard for what effect such measures may have on any particular set of investors or business owners.

"The trouble with our modern corporations is they have neither souls to be damned nor bodies to be kicked."

[dreamnightwind]

161. +1

[Skip Intro]

39. What is supposed to be the benefit of doing this?

What good is supposed to come from it? Why is it being done? It seems detrimental to the US, against our best interest. I wonder if we're being forced, somehow, to go along with this. Obama is for it, isn't he? Suddenly we're being managed like cattle.

[truedelphi]

107. Well, two things that I know of,

Although there are probably plenty more. Big Pharma's patents will be protected even if you are a very poor person in some third world country. Profits to Big Pharma will rise if the TPP is passed.

And same for banking. The four biggest Americans banks want total control over banking everywhere. Nations that have had decent economic officials see to it that their banking is protected via statutes similar to Glass Steagal will no longer have a voice in running their own economic policies. Instead, each nation will have its own crop of Tim Geithners and Ben Bernankes to strangle the chances of the poor becoming middle class, and to stop the middle class from remaining middle class.

And if you are one of the 85 wealthiest people in the world who are determined to do this, it is relatively cheap to bribe whomever you need to to do this. It is said that the Big Corporation known as Bechtel was able to buy up Bolivia's Senators for only $ 100,000 per senator. That is how Bechtel seized Bolivia's water supply for several years, until Bolivians took to the streets and after being bloodied and killed, got their water back. There are places where that much of an offering wouldn't be necessary.

And if Obama gets this done, he won't have to settle for the lousy $ 100,000 per Corporate Speech that Bill Clinton settled for.

[KoKo]

159. Sadly...

I think you make points that are probably what will come of it...as I try to look at the dark side of what we see while still trying to focus on the "hopeful" outcome of how we can push back against this. I try to remain hopeful that so much more information is coming out it will be harder and harder for the PTB/MIC/Info-Entertainment Complex to keep up this pillage of our rights and ability to earn a supportive living. I think we can do it...but, we can't ever lose sight of what the "other side" is up to.

[Enthusiast]

40. Recommended 1000X and kicked too.

[Octafish]

44. They don't call it 'Globalization' for nothing.

The Global Plutocracy

By Andre Damon and Barry Grey
Global Research, January 21, 2014
World Socialist Web Site

On the eve of the annual spectacle of parasitic wealth and power that is the World Economic Forum in the Alpine resort town of Davos, Switzerland, the Oxfam charity has issued a report warning of the unprecedented growth of social inequality throughout the world.

Describing a planet in the malevolent grip of handful of plutocrats, the report states that the richest 85 people in the world control as much wealth as the bottom fifty percent of the world’s population—3.5 billion people! It notes that the richest one percent today controls 46 percent of the world’s wealth. Oxfam writes: “The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion… 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.”

The report includes a chart showing that since 2008, the United States has had the largest increase in social inequality of any developed country.

?rendition=image480

The impoverishment of the working class on the one side and further enrichment of the financial elite on the other have accelerated since the Wall Street crash of that year. While the wealth of the world’s billionaires has doubled, there are today over 1 billion people living on less than a dollar per day, and nearly half the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, subsist on less than $2.50 per day.

CONTINUED...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-plutocracy/5365647

[pampango]

45. Interesting that the country that trades the least had the most go to the 1%.

While the ones that trade the most had the least go to their 1%.

In Denmark and Sweden international trade is 63% of the economy; in the US it is 25%. One would expect that if globalization and trade were to largely to blame for the shift of wealth to the 1% it would have been more apparent in Sweden and Denmark, less so in the US.

[Octafish]

47. Neat. I had not seen that.

Still. The vast bulk of wealth created since Ronald Reagan and Voodoo Economics became the stape of Washington and Wall Street has gone to the 1-percent. Here's a nice graphic that details the situation and link to the numbers:



http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[pampango]

54. You are very right about the concentration of new wealth.

The vast bulk of wealth created since Ronald Reagan and Voodoo Economics became the staple of Washington and Wall Street has gone to the 1-percent.

That is undoubtedly true. One of Democrats biggest goals should be to reverse that. The most important question to me is which of Reagan's many misguided policies were the cause of that skewing of wealth towards the 1%.

To me what distinguishes the US from really progressive countries is not how much we trade. Progressive countries trade a lot more than we do. What distinguishes us is economic policies that Reagan either started (and which run counter to the pro-middle class policies maintained in liberal countries) - cutting taxes for the rich which allowed them to keep more of their income gains; weakening and breaking labor unions which caused a lowering of wages; shredding the safety net which, obviously, benefits the working class and deregulating the oversight of corporations and the financial industry.

I think if we are going to reverse the trend of wealth going to the 1% we have to be smart about the policies we seek to change. If we focus on the wrong policy changes, succeed at changing them and it results in no positive change, disillusion may set in and it will be harder to muster support for attacking the really bad Reagan policies.

[El_Johns]

100. Selective examples. Try Singapore for a "country" that "trades the most." Like 270% of its GDP.

And it's pretty unequal.

http://thehearttruths.com/2013/02/21/singapore-has-the-highest-income-inequality-compared-to-the-oecd-countries/

Hong Kong is the next biggest trader (as a % of GDP, about 250%), and it's also pretty unequal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-29/hong-kong-poverty-line-shows-wealth-gap-with-one-in-five-poor.html


The point isn't how much countries trade anyway, but who the rules of trade favor.

[pampango]

113. Singapore and Hong Kong are essentially city-states but your point about the importance of

'high standards' in the trading rules is well taken. I agree. Most European countries do much of their trade under rules that protect labor rights and the environment.

The EU is does still embrace trade with other parts of the world. China actually exports more to the EU than it does to the US. The EU also has 'free trade' agreement with most of the same countries as the US and has been negotiating one with India for many years so they still lean in favor of more trade rather than less.

[jsr]

48. Elected governments will be meaningless

[Baitball Blogger]

50. Big worry.

Clinton has NAFTA to regret, and the only thing Obama will be remembered for is the TPP.

[SamKnause]

53. Just Say NO to the TPP !!!!!!!!!!!!

If this destructive disgusting trade deal is enacted, the politicians and CEO's responsible for it, should be tried for TREASON !!!!!!

No one left behind.

From the president down to the least wealthy CEO should be tried for TREASON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is time to start practicing protectionism, before there is NOTHING LEFT TO PROTECT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moondust]

55. Those pesky local labor laws

and environmental laws and stuff are slowing the growth of profits. Investors want a faster rate of return and we're going to deliver!

[tclambert]

61. Welcome to the United States of America, LLC

[polichick]

62. Really! The American flag with the corporate logos comes to mind.

[AzDar]

67. K & R

[ancianita]

68. This was the ultimate goal of world elites all along. Now resource/energy control can proceed

smoothly, anonymously and without threat to them. The world gets carved up for them, militaries and 'laws' are in place to keep the pacified residents as helpless as the Earth's landscape.

Will TPP control all communications within and across nations, too? Probably.

Will there ever be a chance for 'publics' to own their national parks, nature preserves, utilities and other common wealth entities of Earth? I doubt it.

Is this fast track move always going to threaten us? Is TPP the new litmus test for voting for 2014 and 2016 candidates? Or will lie detectors be the only means we have to trust candidates?

[One_Life_To_Give]

70. Like a Houseman speech in Rollerball

The game was created to demonstrate the futility of individual effort. And the game must do its work.

[JDPriestly]

72. Yes. The beginning of the end of nation-states, and the change to corporate-states.

Back to feudalism within the next century.

We cannot go that route. It leaves no room for local or national self-determination and democracy on a number of issues including the environment, products liability, the role of the jury in civil trials, the exploitation or safeguarding of raw materials and natural resources, land use, safety measures and so many other important matters.

No to TPP.

[Jack Rabbit]

75. Hamlet: Seems, madam? Nay, 'tis. I know not seems.

That is exactly what it is and why I feel justified in calling politicians and business executives who support the TPP "traitors." In any country, not just this one, they are traitors.

[pa28]

77. If you believe corporations should have extrajudicial power the TPP is for you.

Governments will be able to decide on national holidays and colors on the flag in the future and that's about it.

[Phlem]

78. and we have to get this news in the form of a "leak", makes me wonder

what else they're not telling us. The people have no control of their Democracy anymore.

O.T. I like your tag. What was that joke again, I forget who said but it was about a sale at "Name your store".

"Did you notice the sale merchandise at this store is shit, they basically want you to buy the left over shit that can't be sold anymore and that no wants. And if they really want to fuck you they'll sell you 2 for the price one."



-p

[sulphurdunn]

84. TTP = 666

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
Revelations 13:16-18

Of course this was written by a guy who was most likely suffering from hallucinations induced by acute lead poisoning twenty centuries ago, but still, I think he may have been on to something.

[paleotn]

85. Say hello to our new soverign.....

Once again, art imitates reality.

[ymetca]

87. Was the nation-state model ever all that good?

"What are we going to do today, Brain?"

"The same thing we do every day, Pinky. Try to take over the world!"

I like the idea of a New World Order. We should all embrace becoming Global Citizens. We should push to create a Global Direct Democracy, wherein each and every Global Citizen has a vote on each and every law, policy, border, etc.

The fat cat industrialists who run (most of) the show now don't have any intention of getting rid of nation-states. They use the bug-a-boo of the New World Order to scare us rubes into believing our flags are the best and bravest ones. That keeps us all contained.

Nations and corporations were invented by the Old World royal families cutting deals with the rising merchant class way back when the Dutch began sailing to the Far East. The corporations that were invented then have receded into the background, but they have basically financed everything since. A nation really cannot exist without "the articles of incorporation", financed largely by wealthy plutocrats.

Representative Democracy has been a stop-gap measure to rein in the excesses of these competing plutocratic regimes called "nation-states", but it is now failing as an archaic vestige of the pre-electricity, pre-Internet era. We have the technological know-how to create a one-person-one-vote global direct Democracy right now ... a New World Order, which would be universally hated by all persons who worship at the altar of hierarchy, and who cannot conceive of a leaderless world that actually functions better than the one we have now. A world in which we finally bury for good the ideologies of master and slave, the pyramids of the Pharaohs, and the casinos of Donald Trump.

[rhett o rick]

89. Will the wars of the future be between rival corporate cabals? nm

[El_Johns]

102. Weren't they always, more or less?

[rhett o rick]

156. Yes, more or less. The American Revolutionary War was between the colonies and

the East India Company which used the British to fight for them. Which was not too unlike Saudi Arabia using our troops to fight Iraq for them.

[Mosaic]

94. Welcome and good comment!

"A world in which we finally bury for good the ideologies of master and slave..."

I do believe we can reach this, hopefully peacefully. We have the technology, we have the will, the old way will fall off like dead dry skin.

[Humanist_Activist]

99. I feel that a World Parliament would be a good first step, particularly if we want...

to expand democratic(small d) values to countries that don't have robust, multiparty democracies themselves.

The problem is that we will need a transition, a global direct democracy could work, theoretically, as long all people are politically free to participate without undue pressure from local governments.

[WinkyDink]

110. You think cororate powers will promote DEMOCRACY???!!!! Bless your heart.

[Humanist_Activist]

111. First off no, second off, learn how to spell corporate if you want to try to be condescending...

don't fail at it so badly, wasn't even talking about the current and corrupt economic schemes, understood? Or do you need me to spell it out for you, in crayon?

Now go away, adults are talking.

[solarhydrocan]

114. The US says it wants to "expand democratic values" but does the opposite

and it's not the job of the US to do it even if the US was "expanding democratic values"

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change&quot without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The United States has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Examples:

2 During the Cold War

2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986

3 Since the end of the Cold War

3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

When you hear Biden or Kerry talk about "expanding democratic values" here's what they really mean:

"The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order" -Joe Biden April 2013

"Expanding democratic values" is pure Bollocks

[Armstead]

150. But you seem to be missing the point

You may be right that nation states are the cause of many evils. As are the plutocrats who exploit nationalism.

It's kind of utopian to think that the big diverse world could ever become one big happy democracy. But that's a point that can be debated endlessly.

However the real point in the here and now is WHO is going to drive the future?

These "free trade" agreements aren't advancing anything like a Global Democracy. Just the opposite. Their goal is to create a Global Oligarchy in which the rest of us average schumcks or all creeds and colors are subject to whims of Big Capital.

That's why they're bad and need to be stopped.

[KoKo]

90. Recommend!

[NYC_SKP]

95. Recommended. (nt)

[Jasana]

108. I said this two months ago...

nobody responsed my comment

[Armstead]

149. Maybe that's a good sign...(i.e. more peolple paying attention now) /nt

[woo me with science]

124. k&R

[City Lights]

153. The people of the world will be so fucked if this goes through. nt