Stiglitz: The secret corporate takeover hidden in the TPP

[cali]

The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called “free-trade agreements”; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the U.S. and the European Union. Today, such deals are more often referred to as “partnerships,” as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

But they are not partnerships of equals: the U.S. effectively dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming increasingly resistant.

<big snip>

Fundamental to America’s system of government is an impartial public judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal unfavorable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new agreements call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration. Moreover, this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example, arbitrators may be a “judge” in one case and an advocate in a related case.

The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments — on labor and environmental standards, for example — citizens, unions, and civil-society groups have no recourse.

If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading U.S. legal experts, including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to President Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these agreements are.

<snip>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-secret-corporate-takeover-hidden-in-the-tpp-2015-05-13?page=2

What would a Nobel Prize winning economist, former Chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and former chief economist for the World Bank know?

[octoberlib]

1. Excellent article. The ISDS subverts democracy

and that's exactly what multinationals want. I was reading through some Wiki leaks cables last year and came upon one concerning the privatization of Mexico's oilfields. An American oil company executive was complaining about how inconvenient democracy is for businesses . This guy also advised the Governor to declare martial law to keep protesters away from the oilfields.

[cali]

2. it's so disturbing. And Stiglitz is someone we should listen to- far more than President Obama

He's much, much more knowledgeable and he's been paying attention in the way the President can't possibly match. He's also been warning against these kind of trade agreements for years and pointing out the damage they've done. This one, for all the piles of stinking dog shit about how progressive it is, has the potential to do substantial damage in many areas and many ways.

[billhicks76]

14. Obama Being Blackmailed?

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Did NSA retain something embarrassing on him as a Senator on behalf of corporations or contractors? Many of his flip flops like Telecom Immunity are inexplicable. Something doesn't smell right that's all I know.

[truebluegreen]

30. No. Bought and paid for.

Hand-picked by the Big Money Boyz. Talked a good line though.

[SusanCalvin]

42. I'm sad to say I think you are right. nt

[hifiguy]

45. +1

We were flim-flammed. Royally.

Won't get fooled again.

[cali]

3. Letter from Stiglitz to the TPP Negotiators written in 2013

Dear TPP negotiators,

December 6, 2013

As trade negotiators, you are being asked to resolve a large number of
important issues that have divided Parties in the negotiations for a Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

The decision to make the negotiating text secret from the public (even
though the details are accessible to hundred of advisors to big
corporations) makes it difficult for the public to offer informed
commentary. But the recent publication of the negotiating text for the
intellectual property rights chapter by Wikileaks, and an earlier leak of
the investor state dispute resolution proposals, as well as numerous
reports in the business press, make it clear that the agreement presents
grave risks on all sorts of topics.

As regards the provisions on intellectual property, negotiators should
resist text that would, among other things:

- weaken the 2001 Doha Declaration on trips and Public Health
- mandate extensions of patents terms
- mandate lower standards for granting patents on medicines
- mandate granting patents on surgical procedures,
- mandate monopolies of 12 years on test data for biologic drugs
- narrow the grouds for granting compulsory license on patents,
- increase damages for infringements of patents and copyrights,
- reduce space for exceptions as regards limits on injunctions, and
- narrow copyright exceptions
- requiring life+ 70 years of copyright protection,
- mandate excessive enforcement measures for digital information, and
- otherwise restrict access to knowledge.

At this point in time, we do not need a trips plus trade agreement, we need
a TRIPS minus agreement. The TPP proposes to freeze into a binding trade
agreement many of the worst features of the worst laws in the TPP
countries, making needed reforms extremely difficult if not impossible.

<snip>

http://www.bilaterals.org/?joe-stiglitz-writes-open-letter-to

[donnasgirl]

5. Cali

I have been watching comments here and on other sites i frequent, the one thing that has stood out to me is how many people who have just threw their hands in the air and are saying they are giving up. I have seen comments like, I am no longer voting, i might as well vote for Republicans because i get screwed any how, many commenters are saying during the next election they are staying home and we are just giving up. Truthfully i understand their anger and why i think in this Election we are going to see millions stay the hell home and if they do i do not blame them.

[JDPriestly]

22. But then, Hillary may not be able to beat Bernie Sanders.

It looks like she will, but I still believe there is a God -- not a miraculous God, but a God. Hey! WWII was a pretty hopeless situation. The Russians were losing as were the Allies. And then a spark of brilliance and ENIGMA was there. Thank you, Alan Turing. Thank you for a brilliant mathematical mind.

We shall see.

[donnasgirl]

23. I don't believe

Hillary can beat Bernie once people start hearing him speak on the issues and start looking at his past record. As for a god i am agnostic.

[JDPriestly]

25. As I said, I am praying. Bernie is like a drink of water after a day in the desert

without water. We really need him in the White House. We need him dealing with foreign leaders. A bit of honesty. He trusts the American people and believes in American values. That's what we need.

[donnasgirl]

27. I love the analogy

And yes we do need him in the White House.

[Whiskeytide]

29. "He trusts the American people" ...

... That might be his greatest attribute, and distinguishes him from all the other candidates.

[JDPriestly]

24. "requiring life+ 70 years of copyright protection"

plus longer patent protections would slow or retard intellectual progress. It would put really important books and papers out of the reach of talented people who would derive inspiration and new ideas from them.

And in music the idea is ridiculous. Composing new music on the themes of music that exists and is even contemporary is what music does. There are only 12 tones in the western scale. Yes. You can deviate from those 12 tones and other cultures have other scales, but essentially innovation in music always builds on what is already there.

Our patent and copyright laws are fine as they are. And besides, the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to decide those laws in the US. That is a direct attack on the constitutional organization because those laws have to be consistent and can only be decided within our country by one authority. You can't have conflicting laws on copyrights and patents. And our Constitution is clear as to who has that power.

[hifiguy]

46. The force behind the ever-extending copyright periods is

none other than Disney. I once saw these provisions referred to as the "Protect Mickey Mouse in Perpetuity" clause.

[Scuba]

4. K&R

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. What would another Nobel winning economist (for international trade) know, too?

So why do some parties want this deal so much? Because as with many “trade” deals in recent years, the intellectual property aspects are more important than the trade aspects. Leaked documents suggest that the US is trying to get radically enhanced protection for patents and copyrights; this is largely about Hollywood and pharma rather than conventional exporters. What do we think about that (slide 7)?

Well, we should never forget that in a direct sense, protecting intellectual property means creating a monopoly – letting the holders of a patent or copyright charge a price for something (the use of knowledge) that has a zero social marginal cost. In that direct sense this introduces a distortion that makes the world a bit poorer.
...
You might try to argue that there is a US interest in enhancing IP protection even if it’s not good for the world, because in many cases it’s US corporations with the property rights. But are they really US firms in any meaningful sense? If pharma gets to charge more for drugs in developing countries, do the benefits flow back to US workers? Probably not so much.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/

[JDPriestly]

19. Thanks. That article points to the biggest issue here.

"Our" corporations aren't really ours.

That is "our" corporations do not support our country. They avoid paying taxes as much as they possibly can. Thus, in reality, they demonstrate no interest in making the US a healthier, better, more prosperous country for all citizens. Rather, they undermine our economy by taking money from us and investing it in other countries to an extent that they are causing us to have a huge balance of trade deficit that we will have to pay back. How will we pay that back? Not dollar for dollar paying down a debt like you pay a credit card bill but in terms of lost jobs and dwindling opportunities in our economy.

The dwindling opportunities are already apparent to our young people. I have a family member with two degrees who until recently was working in a small grocery store. And no, she isn't just out of college. She is years beyond that.

We will also repay that debt as our currency will eventually buy less and we will have more foreign investment (we've always had a lot but not realized it) than is healthy in a relatively balanced economy.

So, if we sign this trade agreement, as Stiglitz explains, the corporations not only take over our economy but eventually they can displace and replace our legislative and judicial branches. This is really, really a CORPORATE COUP. We shouldn't go there. We really shouldn't go there. My heart skips a beat when I think of it.

[Enthusiast]

7. Kicked

and recommended!

[stonecutter357]

8. !

[cali]

9. why thanks for your brilliant refutation: As the saying goes: You got nothin'.

You realize that this man is far, far more qualified than President Obama to weigh in, right? And that he has access to a lot of people as well as having read the recently leaked late round draft Investment chapter. Funny that you use the tinfoil hat smilie to apply to a Nobel winning economist who also happens to be a former Chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Chief Economist at the World Bank.

Yeah, he must be a real nutter.

damn, I'm tired of, er, reactive bullshit.

[deutsey]

10. +1

[myrna minx]

20. Exactly.

[paleotn]

11. But...but....

....my cult of personality overlords say TPP is wonderful, therefore it must be good and all the critics are nuts and cranks, no matter what their credentials or access to what's really in TPP. Is that what you're trying to tell us, stonecutter?

[Octafish]

12. Stiglitz speaks the Truth, even when at variance with Goldman Sachs.

"What Would Goldman Think?"

Larry Summers: Goldman Sacked

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/

[cali]

13. great addition to the thread! thanks

[deutsey]

15. I voted for Obama both times

but what prevented me from jumping aboard the Obama bandwagon in '08 like so many friends and family did was learning that the likes of Summers and Geithner had joined his inner circle.

[hifiguy]

47. The top brass at Goldman should have been hanged

a long time ago for financial crimes against humanity and the company itself smashed to atoms. The Vampire Squid is a clear and present danger to the world.

[L0oniX]

49. ^^^THIS^^^

[Dragonfli]

51. .

[Ford_Prefect]

16. I find Hillary's continued silence on these issues telling. How can she NOT comment?

Either she stands behind her work or she does not.

[JDPriestly]

18. If you have to have 200 or so employees to tell you what to say and think,

you should not be president of the US.

Bernie Sanders has a mind. He also has aides. But he is guided in his opinions by his values and not by a herd of poll-takers and opinion-writers and wordsmiths.

When your opinions are based on your values, they are more consistent than when your opinions are based on what you think will sell to the public.

And you are more likely to change your opinions only when the situation changes if you base them on solid values rather than on flighty and often false beliefs about what the public wants.

[cali]

26. Because she and her advisers view it as the best political tactic.

And they may well be correct.

[Ford_Prefect]

28. Blessed are the ignorant for they know not what She did.

[L0oniX]

50. Hillary Clinton’s Lucrative Goldman Sachs Speaking Gigs

Hillary Clinton spoke at two separate Goldman Sachs events on the evenings of Thursday, October 24 and Tuesday, October 29. As both Politico and the New York Times report, Clinton’s fee is about $200,000 per speech, meaning she likely netted around $400,000 for her paid gigs at Goldman over the course of six days.

Last Thursday, Clinton spoke for the AIMS Alternative Investment Conference hosted by Goldman Sachs, a closed event exclusively for Goldman clients. AIMS is an annual conference that explores the latest strategies and products available to financial advisers. At the event, Clinton offered what one attendee described to me as “prepared remarks followed by questions.”

On Tuesday, Clinton spoke at the Builders and Innovators Summit, devoted to discussing entrepreneurship and how to help innovators expand and grow their businesses. According to Politico, Clinton conducted a question-and-answer session with Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Goldman Sachs declined to comment on the subject of her remarks or why Mrs. Clinton in particular was invited to the events.

Keeping close to the investment world, Clinton also made visits to private-equity firms KKR in July and the Carlyle Group in September. At KKR’s annual investor meeting in California, Clinton answered questions from firm co-founder Henry Kravis on the Middle East, Washington, and politics. At Carlyle Group, Clinton made a speech to shareholders moderated by Carlyle founder David Rubenstein.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362637/hillary-clintons-lucrative-goldman-sachs-speaking-gigs-alec-torres

[JDPriestly]

17. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Joseph Stiglitz.

You state the truth. I just pray that our Congress hears you out. This is a matter of grave concern. The hidden purposes of this and other trade agreements are to undermine democratic institutions. That is evil, real evil.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

21. He was on Chris Hayes last week, called it a bad deal

He said he's basing it on conversations he's had with (people) here and abroad, where there's more transparency.

[historylovr]

31. K & R

[hedda_foil]

32. Everyone, check out the first page of this op-ed please. Here's the link.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-secret-corporate-takeover-hidden-in-the-tpp-2015-05-13?page=1

[Faryn Balyncd]

33. The silence of the corporate media on the abnegation of the judiciary is DEAFENING.

They have ensured that the majority of Americans have no idea what the TPP is about.

They have never heard of ISDR, the most direct assault on judicial process of out time.

They think its about "trade", the details of which should be left to the "trade experts".


And the responsibility for that ignorance rest squarely on the corporate propaganda machine masquerading as the media.

[RR2]

34. Secret, JEB has been very open about the intentions of the ...

organization called the Incorporated oops, I meant the United States of America. He has been saying this since his 2nd inaugural address as Governor of Florida. Which under pRick Scott the total Incorporated take over is almost complete.

Mature society can empty government buildings of workers

Like other governmental conservatives, Governor Bush disliked and distrusted government and promoted the idea that smaller government--combined with more privatizing of governmental services--was more efficient government. He argued that "the most efficient, effective and dynamic government is one composed primarily of policymakers, procurement experts and contract managers." He expressed his general philosophy about government in his 2003 Inaugural Address when he stated that "There would be no greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we make these buildings around us empty of workers, monuments to a time when government played a larger role than it deserve or could adequately fill."
With this philosophy guiding his actions, Bush worked to diminish the credibility of government in Florida, to reduce its size and scope, and to make it more accountable to political overseers.


Refused to fund state agency requests for specific services

" Bush pursued this goal relentlessly, using a wide variety of strategies: pressure on agency heads to limit annual budgetary requests, arbitrarily capping the monies that could be raised from service fees that were to be used for dedicated purposes such as affordable housing; and simply refusing to fund requests from agency heads for particular services, for example, beds for county jail inmates who had severe mental illnesses.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Aggressive_Conservatism_Government_Reform.htm

[cali]

37. He really is the worst corporatist of the whole repulsive bunch

he's a grover repuke.

thanks for the post.

[Dont call me Shirley]

35. Here are the 10 turncoats. Contact them. United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

"Therefore, in addition to calling your Representative (contact information here) be SURE to call your Senators if they are one of the traitors whose sellout was critical to Obama expecting to pass Fast Track later today. As reader Ulysses wrote:

These are the ten Senate Dems who were in a White House meeting, earlier today, and enlisted to assist the GOP with giving President Obama fast-track approval tomorrow: Tom Carper (Del), and Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).

I appeal to anyone who lives in any of these Senators’ states to contact them and urge them not to give fast-track authority tomorrow!! Carper and Wyden are probably lost causes, but the rest of them may be susceptible to constituent pressure."

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/give-the-democratic-trade-turncoats-hell-over-fast-track-vote.html

[Stonepounder]

36. What we are witnessing is the end of the concept of 'nations'

and the rise of a world-state oligarchy. Just as state governments can be overridden by the federal government, so too in the (near) future, federal governments will be overridden by 'dispute resolution' corporate tribunals, which seemingly can override not only national law but also a nation's own Constitution.

While I expect that I will be nothing but Soylent Green by then, I don't think my grand-children will be.

[WillyT]

38. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[lonestarnot]

39. Ah yes, richie richers.

[riderinthestorm]

40. I'd love to see the DU TPP supporters take on Stiglitz.

come on out folks! Don't be shy!

[Elwood P Dowd]

41. All DU TPP supporters have are memorized talking points and various corporate paid for articles

and links they've been given. Some of them sound just like Bob Michel and Bob Dole back during the NAFTA debate.

[jalan48]

43. I'm 'Ready for Hillary' to tell us where she stands on the TPP.

Isn't this what Presidential candidates are supposed to do? Let us know where they stand on the issues, especially the really, really big ones?

[hifiguy]

44. There are few if any people I trust more about economics

than Joe Stiglitz. He knows all there is to know and how the bodies get buried.

This should be conclusive evidence of the evil of TPP, as if there weren't enough already.

[mother earth]

48. & Stiglitz is not alone in the economics arena...which economists are for it may be the better

question.