General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHeaded full speed back to the 19th Century - on the TPP express
Last edited Tue Feb 10, 2015, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/robert_reich_america_is_heading_full_speed_back_to_the_19th_century_partner/This Robert Reich column in the link above starts out with, "It was an era when many workers were happy to toil twelve-hour days in sweat shops for lack of any better alternative." I read this and thought "twelve-hour days" what I wouldn't give for a ceiling at a mere 12 hours of work a day. When I was in corporate I regularly worked 14-hour days (on salary of course) and stayed connected at home via electronic device.
Says Reich on the Age of the Robber Baron -->
Yep, sounds familiar. This is Reich in high form calling for enforcement of anti-trust laws and a return to protecting labor -- and we ALL agree this is needed.
What's funny about this article on Salon is that was the second piece in their news feed this morning. The FIRST story was by David Dayen called "What POTUS wouldnt tell Ezra Klein: The scary truth about Americas new trade deal." I'm sure Salon's news feed will shuffle as the day wears on, but this is what I found when doing my morning news read.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/what_potus_didnt_tell_ezra_klein_the_scary_truth_about_americas_new_trade_deal/
In Dayen's words, the TPP -->
Dayen then points out that in the interview POTUS asks us to *trust* those who haven't earned our trust (international monopolies, polluters, ROBBER BARONS), with a trade agreement that's entirely secret.
So right here on the front page of Salon this morning you get the full spectrum of why we're heading straight back to the 19th Century. We're caught in a Catch-22 where the "best of our leaders," (who sounds like a member of the Progressive Caucus on many other issues) is fighting to institute the worst of all possible policies for American families.
I wish I had some insight into why this is so. I wish I could cast my vote for leaders who I could trust to represent me and then sit back and rest assured that they'll be looking out for MY interests in return. But they're not. They're looking out for the interests of modern-day Robber Barons, and things are going to get progressively worse until we put a stop to it.
So, there's no magic leadership formula. Even if we elect Elizabeth Warren for President and take back the House and/or Senate, the time when we could sit back and trust in our leaders to protect us is long gone. At best they need us to loudly support them when they do the right stuff. At worst we have to fight tooth and nail just to survive what's coming down the road.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)on things like this i always wonder how much horse-trading is involved. it just feels like this is something that Obama doesn't believe in, but is somehow obliged to promote...i imagine b/c of the powerful interests involved.
and that's just what sucks so bad about it. we elect leaders to LEAD. not to fold when it's convenient.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)from trusts, monopolies, polluters, labor exploitation, etc. Monied interests have always thought they were entitled to unlimited power.
But it seems like we've forgotten all of that.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)should be quite enough for us to realize that "monopoly capitalism" is eating itself. but, we're like fish that can't tell they're wet. it's the "new normal."
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/back-to-the-futurewithmonopolycapitalism.html
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)SpearthrowerOwl
(71 posts)Last week on N.P.R. they had a full segment of Diane Rehm on the T.P.P.
One of the "expert guests" was Linda Dempsey of the National Association of Manufacturers -- obviously it was going to be massive propaganda.
There was some reason on the show, but nobody openly challenged Linda Dempsey's massive attempts at misleading the public. A statement by Steven Clemons, a lead editor at the Atlantic, pointed out a central problem with the T.P.P.:
We have a 260 billion dollar trade deficit with the 11 other countries in the TPP proposal.
This means that we're importing $260 billion more than we're exporting -- that's 260 billion worth of job-creating economic demand lost each year; when you're importing products, you're not creating them and creating employment -- it's $260 billion of capital that flows away from the U.S. economy every year.
"The 20 countries we have free trade agreements with right now purchase 47% of our exports. We have a trade surplus with our 20 free trade partners including NAFTA." - Linda Dempsey
Notice that she said "exports" and not "net exports" -- so it's completely meaningless propaganda. Public Citizen did an analysis (Scroll down and see the article: "U.S. Trade Deficits Have Grown More Than 440% with FTA Countries, but Declined 16% with Non-FTA Countries" on the claim that we have a "trade surplus with our 20 free trade partners" and found it to be completely untrue -- it's in fact the opposite.
It's amazing that N.P.R. frequently allows guests from trade associations and other rightwing elements to blatantly lie to the American public. Of course, N.P.R. is always so far to the right that I can't even see it (yes, this is a pun for two separate reasons...)
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Diane Rehm -- for whatever reason -- is spectacularly bad at covering complex issues like this. She's the very definition of "centrist." By showing only paid shills on her panel, it gives the impression that the policy is a-okay. there was so little "truth" in that particular show i nearly lost it.
she's amazing at cultural coverage. but on complicated policy discussion...i get the feeling that she doesn't endeavor to gain understanding of the issues, and lets other people construct the debate thru booking panelists and writing questions.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)The agita one gets when hearing ( or reading ) some corporate shill gish-galloping un-rebutted bullshit.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)but a living breathing human can only take so much!
SpearthrowerOwl
(71 posts)It's good to know that I'm not alone on this. The Diane Rehm Show consistently features guests that are obviously biased, corporate shills that are obviously not looking out for the public interest.
And yeah, this particular show on the T.P.P. was pretty ridiculous because of Linda Dempsey (I feel weird mentioning her by name, because she's not really a person, she's simply a corporate extension) that nobody really directly challenged -- well, expect for that one caller who cited the Department of Agriculture study to which Linda replied (paraphrased) "I haven't seen that study, I usually stick to the manufacturing sector"; translation: That fact does not conform to the worldview I'm pushing.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)the pressure from inside and outside must be ridiculous as Rehm is seen as a "flagship" NPR host. the tone of the show (via guest bookings) i'm sure, is policed as if the world were ending.
I was amazed way back when she'd have David Corn on semi-regularly for the Domestic Friday Roundtable. Haven't heard him in a while, or anyone near his stature from the "left." I did have a spat of having a 10am-Friday conflict so I couldn't listen -- so maybe I'm being unfair. Haven't heard him in the recent past though.
wonder if Media Matters has done a analysis of her guests. seems like Heritage is over-represented.
then...i lurve Nicole Sandler on http://radioornot.com, which I stream while I work. her guests are everyone i WANT to hear. people whose opinion i value. so, i've been listening to DH's line-up for the first 15-20 minutes and then switching over to internet streams right when Sandler is getting rolling. Best of both worlds.
SpearthrowerOwl
(71 posts)I feel like there's always a guest from either the Council on Foreign Relations, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings, Heritage, trade associations, etc. It's really really annoying.
I'll definitely have to check out Nicole Sandler -- I haven't heard of that stream before.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)It's the same sleight of hand they've been using to peddle this crap for the past 20+ years.
We'll lose on every transaction because imports will grow at a faster rate than exports. It's not like you'll make up for it in volume.
I remember distinctly how some jerkweed corporate shill tried to whitewash NAFTA's giant sucking sound of jobs in order to grease GATT through. As you know in regards to Mexico, we went from a trade surplus ( albeit a modest one ) to a burgeoning trade deficit. This talking head said since NAFTA, "total trade with Mexico has increased...." and then squirmed like a Hudson River eel when pressed with the actual numbers.
SpearthrowerOwl
(71 posts)It's so ridiculous listening to these corporate shills try to sell such an absurdly bad proposal. heheh, and yeah, when they say totally absurd stuff like that I just stand there in complete shock -- NAFTA was beyond egregious.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)It looks like an attempt to 'legislate' for the control and profits of resources, labor and the commons, as opposed to invading and bombing for said loot
Either way, not sure the body count won't be just as high
DURec