General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe best thing I"ve ever read on why the TPP sucks, from the heaviest hitter: Stiglitz
It's from March of last year. It's fantastic. It marries history and facts and the author's vast knowledge. He is a noble prize winning economist, respected world wide.
<snip>
Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the world are already low. The focus has shifted to “nontariff barriers,” and the most important of these — for the corporate interests pushing agreements — are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
What’s more, those regulations were often put in place by governments responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements’ new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.
<snip>
These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are captured by corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks and balances required to put limits on the negative effects of these agreements.
<snip>
Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims, the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well. American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government — getting rights as a “foreign” company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the government is strongest.
There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into corporate coffers: thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have to be compensated. That’s why we have a patent system. But the patent system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more available. I’ve written before about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily. Trade agreements provide even more opportunities for patent abuse.
The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_r=0
If after reading this, you're still convinced that there's no problem, you're either brain dead or so believing or way too trusting of the powers that be.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)you should read this in order to understand more fully and to hone your argument when challenged. If pro, this may get you to question. If you just want to understand some basics, it's great.
just starting this long fight.
calimary
(81,220 posts)
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
ms liberty
(8,572 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)there is so much great information so well laid out.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)<snip>
In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline’s early years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through tariffs and other trade restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there can’t be such complacency.
Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but can’t get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the unemployed. This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts downward pressure on wages.
<snip>
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts).
Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history.
Many proponents of the agreements argue that negotiations need to take place in secret in order to protect the fragile interests of participating countries. This has not sat well with public interest groups and more liberal members of the Democratic Party.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
Too important to let pass.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)
Thanks cali
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)is hopeless.
and Stiglitz demolishes Krugman on the TPP/
marmar
(77,073 posts).... it's clear that blind faith or party loyalty or cognitive dissonance (or all 3) trump reality for some, no matter how many facts are presented or how many respected economists like stiglitz or dean baker raise objections. It's sad and a little frightening.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)And it's really creepy to see people blindly rooting for that monstrosity when they clearly don't understand what it is and what's at stake. Not sure what is the worst: Bind faith, party loyalty at all cost or cognitive dissonance.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)rurallib
(62,406 posts)so long as those 'campaign contributions' keep flowing, many congress critters don't care.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Stiglitz's arguments are correct, if we only look at the short term (e.g. workers can't easily change or add skills for new jobs when old jobs are lost to free trade), but his arguments make no sense in the long run (e.g. there Is now no need to worry about what kind of jobs former buggy whip makers can do).
We always have to do what is the best for the long run; for short run problems, we can undertake stop gap measures. Because if we don't do what's best for the long run, we will condemn our long run (including our children) to failure........
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Refrigerators, Washing Machines, Sewing Machines, Vacuum Cleaners and latterly thousands of products that we manufactured are still being made by the thousands. Only we aren't making them anymore in that the CEOs and their stockholders can make millions off a cheap foreign labor. The negative effects of NAFTA are well documented. 50 thousand manufacturing plants have been closed since 2001 with the loss of millions of jobs and they weren't making "buggy whips." Companies have one goal and one goal only: that is to maximize profits regardless of the damage it can cause workers.
This is the major point. Corporations are without a soul or a conscience. There are actually only two effective means to control their greed. Unions and government regulations. I would like to emphasis that the it is the latter, regulations, that is the main thrust of the corporations since they have done a hatchet job on many unions. These include safety, health, environment, working hours, child labor, etc. These goals have been the target of the of Republicans and an increasing number of Democrats who have been bought literally body and soul by the major corporations to do their bidding.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)American made product. If they would, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The TPP adds labor and environmental standarda to the mix, that should help us, not to mention folks worldwide.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)really.
Just like NAFTA, CAFTA the rest of them did? LMAO!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)who to believe? Robert Reich, Dr. Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, all renowned economists, or you.
Forgive me for taking their words with a lot more weight.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In fact, Twitch still maintains the shortfall in NAFTA
was lack of worker and environmental standards. TPP corrects that. Reich is just ticked he's ignored by Obama and Clinton.
Krugman has been on both sides of issue.
Stiglitz is right about need to raise taxes, but seems to have missed it on TPP.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so is Krugman, Stiglitz and the rest of the crowd with Nobel Prizes in Economics and quite a bit of a name I s'pose.
Hey, if you want to believe that, be my damn guest.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)changed his tune in the past 12 months, probably because he's tired of trying to argue with folks who like to criticize Obama.
Even bigger, one's thoughts change if you are looking at the American economy vs. the world economy. To most of the world, just about anyone in the middle class here is a 1%er.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
salib
(2,116 posts)Just like Obama.
They have been convinced that something wicked this way comes and they then scramble. Perfect opportunity to swoop in and suggest something (TPP) that would otherwise be against their best inerests. But those considerations are overwhelmed by the "needs" of avoiding the disaster.
Textbook.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it started, the very really early phases under Bush, but this has been a project of the Obama administration. At least Clinton had an excuse... since he did inherit NAFTA fully formed.
Obama has no excuses for either the Korean FTA, or TTP (or it's cousin, TTiP)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)problems.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)due to FTAs, and with this excellent selection from The Hill
Moreover, factories provide the critical foundation for a community’s job base and tax bases as each manufacturing job supports as many as 7 additional jobs throughout the economy – the highest multiplier of any sector. Of course, when a big multinational corporation like Boeing or Caterpillar moves its production offshore chasing the benefits of the latest new trade deal, the rest of the supply chain – and the community — withers.
It’s not just economic prosperity put at risk by free trade pacts. It is also our national security. Here, TPP proponents argue the pact will strengthen America’s alliances with its Asian allies while providing those allies with the economic growth needed to finance their defense expenditures. The more sobering reality is this:
The continued erosion of America’s manufacturing base under the onslaught of trade pacts has so severely harmed the U.S. tax base that both the defense budget and the military preparedness of American forces are now in great jeopardy. At greatest risk is America’s so-called military “pivot” to Asia that was supposed to counter-balance the increasing aggression of a rising China.
I will not bother you with the local activists. Nor is this about horse whips... but about your chips for your military missiles, and your ability to pivot from a peacetime economy to war time footing if need be, like WW II. Right now we can't.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I get that it hurts communities. It hurts communities that don't get jobs elsewhere in the world too. One thing is for sure, it's easy to keep defense contractors here -- assuming we want them -- just say we'll contract with someone else if you move your plants.
As to Caterpillar and similar companies, I'd help them expand their operations around the world -- which would create new demand for our products and services. I'd also tax the hell out of them to be used for any short-term displacement here.
I'd also attract companies here like all the auto companies that are coming here and providing good jobs in rural areas that subsisted on moon shine and weed (I'd legalize that too).
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but what you are are doing is classic, and I mean this, CLASSIC misdirection. You do not discuss on the subject, because you know what? YOU got nothing to stand on.
Well except true belief in the leader. This is a dangerous thing we used to make fun with Bush fans. But seriously, those feet are made of clay.
have an excellent day. And at least thank you for NOT mentioning mentioning whips again. That one is made fully out of straw.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Fact.
We can expect and are already seeing the decline in quality of appliances.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Although my little smart phone sounds darn good too.
My Chinese TV is old but good.. I can replace it with something better for almost nothing. If American products were better considering cost, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Now when it comes to guitars, American made seems better to me. But, people not so wed to American instruments can get something quite similar, perhaps as good, from China for less than half the cost.
I don't take pleasure in that, but it's the truth.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)on the basis of reputation and trust. We made good stuff. It worked and it lasted. But the greedy MBA's found ways to cheapen the products and essentially convert that reputation into cash until they had managed to drive the company into the ground, at which point they would move on to the next victim.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)people want nowadays..
Artificially protecting our industries is not the way to do it lobg-term.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Fuck free trade. Return to a tariff system in which we add to the price of each imported good an amount based upon consideration of the cost of the labor to produce it in the US minus the cost of the labor in it where it was made. Thus, if the foreign country pays their labor the same as ours, the tariff is zero. The size of the tariff is related to the wages paid by the foreign company. We could adjust this formula in various ways depending on the situation prevailing in each exporting country--and, in fact, use the tariffs as a very effective means of bending other nations to our will. If we don't like what you'e doing, we will kick your tariffs.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)earlier in the 1900s?
Besides, it would start a trade war that we would not win. And American businesses would do just like they did in the 1950s - 1960 -- produce cruddy goods at high prices because there is no competition.
Now, making some adjustments to "level the playing field," makes sense. That's what the TPP does.
One's thoughts change if you are looking at the American economy vs. the world economy.
To most of the world, just about anyone in the middle class here is a 1%er.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)no wonder...
So how far down do you want to push the American standard of living. Mexico? Maybe El Salvador, or would you prefer The Ivory Coast?
Just so we have an idea.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)the notion that it need be a 1:1 correspondence on wages. Many other factors, ranging from efficiency of production in the foreign country to local economic conditions, would be weighed in arriving at a deal with each country, and those deals could be reviewed periodically. What I'm trying to do is to suggest a system that simultaneously incentivizes improving labor conditions around the world and restores American competitiveness.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Tariffs! A government that cared about the General Welfare would end this trade bullshit immediately.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Fundamentally the TPP is a shield behind which corporations can hide from the laws written by those I elect.
That is the whole point of the agreement. It is also a non-negotiable deal killer.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)NAFTA's supporters claimed their long-term plan was to train more people for STEM and other "high tech" jobs.
Then those jobs were also outsourced. And H1Bs were imported to do the work in the US - those STEM workers actually dared to want salaries similar to management! They foolishly believed that "supply and demand" should also make prices go up for labor.
So what are you claiming the government's long term plan is to deal with the "former buggywhip manufacturers"? Free community college will not get you any of those STEM jobs that were supposed to be our saviors.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)Super duper clever
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)any more than the TeaPubliKlans are on this though Stiglitz of course does it better but the proponents aren't overly comfortable discussing it or any issues really because they are about the cult of personality and/or party ID not any personal worldview or positions especially in response to someone that snarky one liners won't stand up.
Seems the only debate is flavor of corporate right wingery one wants to swallow the theocratic or the secular.
cali
(114,904 posts)but I don't like letting them get away with it. I want to place this square in front of their faces and maybe give food for thought to people who actually want to know more.
First Speaker
(4,858 posts)...as Stiglitz shows, this transcended "trade" long ago. It's about democracy, and the sovereignty of freely-elected governments. One more major step towards open plutocracy. I'm disgusted by Obama's rabid support of this, and think it will be the worst black mark on his administration. Incidentally--Cali--thank you for your labors on this issue. They're appreciated, and I've learned a lot from what you've posted. I think as much as any DUer, you write about things that really matter--TPP, women's reproductive health.
cali
(114,904 posts)people like you are why I post on these issues; people who care about facts and history and think beyond partisan politics.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)K&R
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)is wrong or old news. If TPP goes into effect, those people should be the first to recognize that they turned away from the truth...embracing a falsehood...causing America's demise.
What is wrong with Obama? Looking out for his future, I suppose, when he begins to collect his millions from the corporate world that he helped so much.
Thanks, cali.
K & R
cali
(114,904 posts)able to argue why he's wrong. they should address the arguments he makes and tell us why he's wrong.
postulater
(5,075 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I can provide them- might take me a while to get them all together....
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Love Stiglitz....proof that Indiana has produced some good in light of all the crap coming out of the Hoosier state recently.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks — and the history of arrangements in past trade pacts — it is easy to infer the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn’t look good. There is a real risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality reverberates through our economic policies.
Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem: our gross mismanagement of globalization.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Though, I get it. Hair on fire is fun and entertaining....the entire RW looney crowd has hairy bonfires every day!
And look at all the fun that ensues!
cali
(114,904 posts)merely "hair on fire" and entertainment?
Never mind. That was rhetorical. I've seen enough of your posts to know you never engage in honest debate. that you are what you so freely call others.
Your argument is that of a small child: Trust Daddy.
I present actual arguments, facts and information on the TPP- and I know quite a bit about it.
You are nothing more or less than a hyper partisan with little information or knowledge. That's better than being a hyper partisan republican, but just as devoid of thought.
That you think this is about "fun" is a reflection on YOU.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Jeez,Hero worship much?
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Isn't it bad enough now?
Thanks cali.
I will kick and recommend any article or video that is opposed
to the TPP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have been following this closely, as you have.
Thanks for spreading the word !!!!!!
Have a safe and pleasant weekend.
Broward
(1,976 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)I will never forget seeing some make the argument here, in all seriousness, that Paul Krugman's criticisms of the president's economic policies were a matter of his jealousy. As the poster saw it, the president no doubt got a lot of attention from the ladies in his college days, and Krugman almost certainly was a loser in the love game and thus wanted revenge.
Honestly.
some of the poster's objecting to Stiglitz' argument against the TPP are just as pitiful.
QC
(26,371 posts)of a hymn from my fundamentalist childhood.
I used to marvel at personality cultism among the freepers and think surely my side was too smart for that kind of thing....
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Those are the local laws passed to protect people and the environment.. to secure the rights to YOUR OWN LAND.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what I see is "This trade agreement MUST BE bad BECAUSE previous trade agreements WERE bad."
{Pre-emptive Note: No where in this writing will I indicate SUPPORT for the TPP ... I am/will remain undecided until the final deal is made public, in order that I can inform my opinion on what is; rather than, what might be.}
While past perform is a good PREDICTOR of future performance; it is only a predictor (and the unbiased observer must admit that this Administration has confounded predicters on just about every front) ... this piece quotes the from the US Trade Representative's "Purpose" section of its Objectives; but, ignores the rest ... that is to say, it ignores the sections that address the concerns that he later uses to condemn the agreement; and more, he makes predictive assumptions that are inconsistent with the Administration's other initiatives. For example:
This assumption ignores the Administration's Objective of raising the regulatory bar ... and further, is inconsistent with this Administration's climate change initiatives, i.e., Why promote forward moving climate change efforts, only to negotiate for a trade agreement that controverts the Administration's own initiative? Wouldn't the more reasonable assumption be that any trade agreement be more in line with, (though, possibly, not in perfect alignment with) the Administration's current climate change initiatives, than 50 year old regulations ... with any gap being attributable to the multi-state negotiations?
The same can be said about the universal wage and workplace protections components of any agreement ... wouldn't the more reasonable assumption be that these components would be more in line with the Administration's efforts to increase workers wages, worker protections and collective bargaining rights, here in the US, than such terms that would roll them back?
I don't know what the US has been/will be able to successfully negotiate (but we will soon(?) see); but, I doubt any final agreement will belie the other of this Administration's efforts.
Now, if this is me having too much trust in whomever ... so be it - I look at what has been accomplished/the trend lines of this Administration's efforts, and I am confident that I will be equally (though not perfectly) pleased.
Finally, I suspect that when the final agreement is made public, we will be back to a/the ACA-style debate, where the negative arguments will shift from "this IS a terrible thing" to "this WILL BE terrible thing" and/or arguments of "this COULD have be so much better!"
{Post-Posting Note: No where in my writing/thoughts have I indicated SUPPORT for the TPP ... I am/will remain undecided until the final deal is made public, in order that I can inform my opinion on what is; rather than, what might be.}
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)As stated in the OP the reason such trade agreements need to be killed is that a company in Vietnam ends up having power over a US state's regulations of the Vietnam company's industry.
Because: profits.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That of course the article will appear convincing and terrific and nobody could possibly argue against it.
And the TPP has to exist, it is a matter of what is in it.
That quoted excerpt makes zero sense. If we have a law, it stays until repealed, and no executive can get around that. If the Clean Air Act is still the law here, they have to follow it. The TPP cannot change that, only Congress.
Yeah when it is finally out, the same people are not going to be objective and are going to look for crazy ways to interpret what is there, just like Republicans and their death panels.
cali
(114,904 posts)there are exemptions and ways to get around it- like the Halliburton/Cheney loophole.
You really don't know what you're talking about. and you're not exactly objective either. You're the one emulating republicans in your lack of information as well as disingenuous attacks.
Republicans support this. Dems largely don't.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You've lost all objectivity on this and have made it a project. You've got like three threads today, all trying to convince us it's the end of the world. I seriously doubt that. It could have some bad effects and some good effects, but I'm keeping an open mind. Not reading any biased opinion pieces against it because I've already heard it all and they are all similarly conclusory, not backing up why it's the end of the world if it goes into effect. It's always based too on NAFTA being so horrible, yet it was not so horrible as we are in pretty good shape right now. Making trade agreements objects of trying to stir up hatred against all of The Establishment does not seem like its going to work to make this nation more left wing.
Rex
(65,616 posts)critizes the government or big biz! Not in all the YEARS we've been here! And they say they are the objective one! 
What amazes me, is that anyone still falls for their canards and over the top rhetoric (pretending you said it is the end of the world). Mostly the brain dead must still fall for it...because it is so obvious to anyone that can read and write.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)if someone is going to lie and distort, it's pretty pointless- except as amusement and that wears thin.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)I don't know what to do about the race to the bottom that global corporations are demanding,but TPP is not the answer.
appalachiablue
(41,127 posts)
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I won't let this sink.
We will not obey.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Anything the tenth]percenters want this badly is absolutely guaranteed to completely screw over the People as many ways as possible.
Another race to the bottom.
antigop
(12,778 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)They are reliably smart, thoughtful, and on the side of working Americans. (note Paul Krugman does not make that list -- the guy who received 50K from Enron for doing nothing, then was so shocked when the truth came out and it collapsed)
Thanks for the link, cali. We've got a big fight on our hands, and Obama is not on our side.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)His embrace of heritage care was the final nail in the coffin for his integrity as a populist
rurallib
(62,406 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)There are fears that it would make it much more difficult to reverse privatization of public services in the UK, including services related to the NHS.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Stiglitz is exactly right. There is NO Way that environmental & financial criminals like the Kochs & other ALECs (past & present members) won't create shell companies to "invert" and sue American taxpayers for millions/billions "lost" because of our protections.
Obama's naiveite ( or that of any Democratic legislator who votes for the TPP at this point) can only be perceived as willful.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)protections and regulations to align with the MOST STRINGENT safeguards. THAT should satisfy our corporatocracy, don't ya think?
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)just like they did for NAFTA, CAFTA, the Korean deal, and all the other fake free trade disasters.
Einstein said the definition of insanity was trying the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results. These TPP supporters are either insane and brainwashed, or they work for an agenda based organization like Heritage or CATO. Their talking points are identical.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)One wonders who their talking points are aimed at; the 30 or 40 people left who don't pay attention to history and are thus unaware of the disasters every FTA in the past 25-30 has been to the US? Like we all just parachuted in or were born last week.
Oh, and by "US" I mean the US working class; I couldn't give five-eighths of a shit about Wall St, the corporate controlled intelligentsia, or the USA Inc brand, so to speak.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Is it better to be there or not be at the table?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Very much appreciate your efforts, particularly on this topic.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I have no idea how I missed this by Stiglitz.
So thanks.
I think I will use some of it as part of the article on TTP I need to write this afternoon after the forum.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)K&R
Octafish
(55,745 posts)By Greg Palast
Reader Supported News, September 16, 2013
Joseph Stiglitz couldn't believe his ears. Here they were in the White House, with President Bill Clinton asking the chiefs of the US Treasury for guidance on the life and death of America's economy, when the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers turns to his boss, Secretary Robert Rubin, and says, "What would Goldman think of that?"
Huh?
Then, at another meeting, Summers said it again: What would Goldman think?
A shocked Stiglitz, then Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, told me he'd turned to Summers, and asked if Summers thought it appropriate to decide US economic policy based on "what Goldman thought." As opposed to say, the facts, or say, the needs of the American public, you know, all that stuff that we heard in Cabinet meetings on The West Wing.
Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books.
CONTINUED...
http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)who always hated the president
Ye gods I want to believe. When Obama says "trust me, give me this power, and I will use it for good", I am tempted.
But then I have to rely on common sense. Weve done trade deals before. They have hurt our country. Nothing of the limited amount of information leaked about this deal so far indicates it will do anything other than damage our country. And the republicans support it, and they are known for supporting things that will harm our country.
Can't do it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I could have used a lot more quotes from locals, but... and when The Hill turns on the administration... well what can I say?
http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/04/18/activists-come-to-talk-transpacific-trade/
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)They also seem to be primarily addressed to FTA's past. Yes, he discusses worries raised by leaked TPP negotiating docs, but since he published them in the NYT, I think we can safely assume that they reached the negotiators. So I'd look for a more recent assessment to see if they've been addressed, or wait until he's had a chance to assess the forthcoming final draft.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Unless you've read otherwise - please post a link.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Passage of TPP and the blockade of an Iran nuclear deal may be the only bipartisan acts of this Congress.
And people wonder why voters have become so cynical.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But here we are. 
leveymg
(36,418 posts)of uncertainty in markets. If he thinks there isn't a rational tradeoff in reducing regulatory barriers to trade with social utility in the TPP, then there probably isn't one.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
Kablooie
(18,625 posts)I've been looking for a good defense of it but haven't found one yet.
The ones I've found only say that the problems for labor are already bad so this can't make them much worse.
And they talk about higher prices for medication everywhere as good things.
