General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow has any free trade agreement of the last 20 years benefited working Americans?
I'm not against free trade, but the age of the modern free trade agreement is increasingly less about traditional trade and lower tariffs, which are already at historically low levels, than it is about other issues; lowering barriers for the financial services industry, for example, extending patent protection, equalizing food safety regulations. The over all goal is about making regulation uniform across the tpp member nations- breaking down regulatory barriers.
But back to my questions. How has any free trade agreement since and including Nafta, improved labor conditions in our partner countries? How have they improved human rights?
Even if the words are enshrined in these agreements, if robust enforcement mechanisms aren't in place, those words are meaningless.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)The workers in every country involved get screwed.
cali
(114,904 posts)for labor, have improved human rights. All I've found is evidence to the contrary. If evidence exists that demonstrates the benefits to those outside the owner class, I'd like to see it.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)Agreed. "Robust enforcement mechanisms" do conflict with 'national sovereignty' (since their effectiveness depends on an ability to force countries to do things they did not want to do) but labor rights and the environment are more important. How get them is less important.
And that can be a bad thing or a good thing. In the EU, the uniform regulatory standards are high. When new countries join the tariff-free group they agree to abide by those standards which helps their workers. The regulatory barriers to trade are low because they are the same in every country - like the common regulatory barriers in the trade between our states.
But if uniform regulatory standards are low that drags everyone down - obviously not a good thing. If Obama thinks this is the "most progressive trade agreement in history" those uniform regulatory standards had better be high and subject to "robust regulatory mechanisms".
cali
(114,904 posts)exemplifies my concern over enforcement.
The questions in my op stand.
A country notorious for the killing of labor and union activists.
cali
(114,904 posts)Hey, thanks for keeping this thread kicked, Sam. Against the odds, I'm hoping to see some of those supporting the President on this, jump in
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)Unfortunately, I think you will be sadly disappointed.
pampango
(24,692 posts)And the inherent conflict between "robust enforcement mechanisms" and "national sovereignty" is a tough one to balance but one we must address to achieve labor and environmental goals.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)If a city is sued in ISDS and loses a mega-million dollar judgement and refuses to pay because it would have to cut services to its local American citizens causing pain and suffering, whose enforcing this?
cali
(114,904 posts)responsible
If the winning multinational then comes to confiscate assets and the cities police force is ordered to stop this, will the US military come to the corporation's rescue against American citizens?
I think we have a big problem here.
cali
(114,904 posts)There are plenty of things that do concern me, from food safety to weakening already weak financial regulations, higher drug prices and weakened environmental laws
aspirant
(3,533 posts)but the ISDS, usurping our sovereignty, I hope would concern you too.
cali
(114,904 posts)I've been posting specifics about cases under other ftas for a couple of years
aspirant
(3,533 posts)I look at Detroit and see a City in bankruptcy which these tribunal verdicts could easily accomplish.
The cities assets disappear and the people suffer. If this is how ISDS could work, the people must be informed.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)
If such a suit were brought before a kangaroo corporate lawyer type "court", I imagine a case could be made for extremely large sums expected by corps. in profit if only they could frack up the state. Our states budget is always strained and cuts are often proposed regarding education and other positive state investments, such a suit would cause damage.
The larger concern IMO is that such suits are inevitable, not as much for the free money over imagined profits (although that would generate some dripping saliva) but rather as an inevitable tool of such corps to affect legislation in other states, if other states see a great financial loss over passing environmental laws it would have the effect of crushing the will to pass them.
It is a tool to override sovereignty via financial threats, a bit of a protection racket if you ask me, "It sure is a nice shop you have here, it would be a shame if it were robbed by thugs and ya went bankrupt, it's a good thing that my friends want a meth lab in your shop, cuz ya know they'd protect ya from bad tings like dat happiinin"
aspirant
(3,533 posts)they are mob corporations acting as a protection racket.
If these threats are recorded or implied, couldn't we RE-SUE these mobsters under the RICO act?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The threats would neither have to be spoken nor implied, it would simply follow as it would work by making an example in cases where city, state, or federal laws pass such legislation and the result is a harmful loss in substantial funds.
My analogy would be better described as a thug publicly robbing a shop and publicly informing the entire neighborhood it was because they cost them money by not letting them set up a meth lab next to the deli.
After that, the other shop owners would do nothing to restrict the mob from setting up meth labs in their shops as they would know the costly consequences of trying to oppose such attempts.
----------
off topic but regarding the nomenclature use to describe this agreement.
It is called a "trade agreement", yet very little of it actually deals with trade.
I believe it should more accurately be described as a "Corporate rights agreement" as only a few of many chapters deal with trade and most chapters appear to deal with many added unreasonable global Corporate rights they simply should not have.
The right to sue governments at all levels in their own kangaroo courts over imagined profits with no means to appeal being just one of these added unreasonable corporate rights
aspirant
(3,533 posts)with no appeal, but does the TPP say they are immune from felony crimes?
The bankster's crimes, admitting guilt, has been sadly settled with fines but would they be able to sue the US in tribunals for lost profits to offset these fines?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)But I have only read three chapters (leaked) as this has been deemed classified information by the Administration and as such it has been kept secret from the public
Here is one of the latest failures.
U.S. South Korea trade deal.
From October 2011 to 2014.
60,000 U.S. jobs lost.
Trade deficit with South Korea has increased 8.7 Billion dollars.
Source Economic Policy Institute
http://www.epi.org/blog/korea-trade-deal-resulted-growing-trade/
I am sick of the lies !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am sick of these destructive trade policies.
I am sick of the wealthy making all the economic gains.
cali
(114,904 posts)I've actually been looking and what I'm finding is worse than I expected.
If the premise that they haven't is accepted, what I'd like to ask those supporting the President on the tpp, is why they believe this treaty is so different.
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)The only logical conclusions that I can come up with, are the people
who push these trade deals do it for money, connections, and
political or corporate power.
I wish they would all choke on their ill gotten gains.
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)13,000 Americans lose their jobs for every $1BN in trade deficit.
cali
(114,904 posts)SamKnause
(13,091 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)is that they avoid real discussions and specifics. There are one or two notable exceptions.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Non Free Trade means barriers, regulations which consume time and resources.
One of the keys to the flourishing wealth of the Roman Empire, Xth Century Califate, Chinese Empire or United States of America is that they removed trade barriers.
And, to answer one of your questions more directly, if you know people in continental China, they will tell you the average Joe or Chang has benefitted from market liberalization in much better working conditions, even if there still are big sweatshops. Most are now better sweatshops, and the growth of the middle class has been huge.
cali
(114,904 posts)And employing for the past 20+ years. Thanks for your response re China. How about the benefits to US workers?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)No China or India to compete, Europe recovering from war -> the USD and American tourists were the kings of the world.
The party couldn't last forever.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)no barriers, no regulations.
Why do you support 15,000 pages of TPP when Free Trade requires nothing.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Takes time and effort, trial and error to move towards it.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Then TPP is not Free Trade it's regulated trade and is far from free.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)this TPP deal is regulated trade, pure and simple. Anyone suggesting it is 15,000 pages of Free Trade is a dreamer.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)It's certainly not a simple matter but I'm sure there will be some teeth in the final agreement regarding this.
cali
(114,904 posts)OK.
History doesn't bode well in this regard.
In any case, are you aware of any benefits to American workers from the past 20 years of ftas? Human and labor right benefits in partner nations?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)There were good and bad effects from past agreements. I look at things more from a global perspective and many of the past deals have helped many in the developing world.
What good effects? What benefits for American workers?
Your claim to rationality and objectivity falls victim to your vagueness. (Digression: Claims to objectivity bug me. There is no such animal. We all create our views and opinions through our subjective filters. The best we can hope for is informed subjectivity.)
There is a ton of analysis and articles and books written on the good and bad effects of international trade deals. Its not a simple matter of saying there were or were not benefits to American workers. Its always a nuanced answer.. some benefited, some did not. Some companies benefited, some did not. The bottom line is we need updated trade deals as the world changes. Right now the US is playing at a disadvantage with many countries especially with Asia. The TPP aims to correct that.
cali
(114,904 posts)doesn't exist.
What are the specific disadvantages we suffer, beyond rice and vehicles with Japan. Our trade deficit grew under nafta and the Korean agreement. we will become more market buyers than sellers under this one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)since we once had a bad Trade Treaty,,,, all future trade treaties have to be bad?
I still await a enumeration of all the specific items in this new treaty that are bad accompanying with specific reason for each item......
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Lets say your state passen a minimum wage law and a China owned company employs people in your state, and they sue the state for lost profits because they have to pay more for labor?
And guess who pays the difference?...the taxpayer of the state.
Or your state bans fracking and BP sues you for the oil they expected to get from fracking?
OK now it is your turn to try to rationalize that and tell us what a good thing that is...or avoid it by saying it has not been voted on yet.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)as you pretend. We are talking about over a dozen.
I await your answer to the questions in the op. I've been specific in regards to items in the three leaked chapters. Inevitably I get the same dishonest crap from the pro or wait ad see crowd: they're only drafts. They' probably changed. The President will get the bad stuff out- even though it's his team that put them in or agreed to them, and on and on.
You guys don't argue in good faith. You are rarely substantively responsive. You make unreasonable demands as you just did in demanding that we enumerate every specific item in the treaty with specific detailed reasons. You don't even begin to live up to the demands you make of others. You are never specific and you are invariably evasive.
Such tactics are dishonest and contemptible.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)but nice try at some deflection..... I still await your list I ask for first!
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)by reducing the prices they pay for consumer goods. That begs the question, though, of whether the net effect of free trade agreements benefits working Americans or not. To wit, it little avails working Americans to pay lower prices for consumer goods if the work they once did is now being off-shored vis-a-vis some free trade agreement.
To the extent that trade agreements reduce prices, though, that is a benefit to workers.
cali
(114,904 posts)benefit, particularly in light of stagnant wages
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)as one sector where 'free trade' has tended to benefit Americans by making available less expensive automobiles with higher quality than a purely domestic sector might produce. (Remembering the all-American clunkers my parents bought in the 60s and 70s and contrasting them with my Datsun in the 80s\90s and now my Nissan).
ETA: Recommending for your asking the question and prompting the (mostly-civil) discussion! 
CK_John
(10,005 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)As for those not born with trust funds, into less than optimal circumstances or encumbered with a conscience, the message is clear. Your days are numbered. Get to lock stepping with the corporatocracy or get left behind.
The more secure your symbiotic link with them, the better you will profit from their abuses to this planet, its inhabitants and its swiftly warming future.
If you aren't getting checks from them, good luck affording the lifeboat they will sell you.
onecaliberal
(32,824 posts)That creates tens of billions in trade deficits each and every month.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)exposing this monstrosity (TPP) for what it is, particularly given the number of shills, apologists and see-no-evil presidential fanboys/girls that have tried to shout you down.
Thank you, cali!
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm also trying to understand the arguments for it, but they're largely of such poor quality.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... to the public for some immensely huge trade deal that is being done in secret if the PTB really want to stop the ABSOLUTE JOKE that this bill is somehow different and going to be good for us!
If they want to make the case that this bill is better than these others, then the real judges of that (WE THE PEOPLE, GODAMIT!) are the ones who should be able to look at this before it passes to make that judgement. If they aren't and expect us to believe this line of crap on a bill that would do so much more than the others that could potentially screw us, and might even screw democracy itself, they are basically provoking revolutionary actions from the people if they keep pushing this and bipartisan revolt with the people that finally will see that the social divides they've engineered for us for so many years are less important than shutting down this completely corrupt gravy train that our government has been engineered in to being the last few decades.
