General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuite a formula the oligarchs have developed :
Want to repeal democratic regulation of the environment, health & safety regulations, labor law, financial regulations, etc, but think it's too much of a stretch (even post-Citizens United) to get bills that (openly and directly) advocate repealing these laws through Congress, the states, and local governments, or that some pesky court might actually rule in favor of the people?
Here's the ticket:
Do an end run around the whole dang process:
(1) First, propose a "regulatory takings" legal concept that presumes corporations have the legal right to anticipated profits from anything they might want to do, and demand that any democratic government that passes any law that reduces these anticipated profits pay the corporation for "losses". (Sure beats making money the old-fashioned way: coming up with "better mousetraps" is work!)
(2) If the courts don't give you every last thing you want via the "takings" philosophy, then proceed to Step 2: Bundle all the individual de-regulations into one package.
(3) Label the package a "trade agreement", & negotiate it with foreign nations.
(4) Get your pals appointed "trade" negotiators.
(5) Make sure the negotiations are categorized as "classified".
(6) Get Congress to cede, in advance, their authority to do anything beyond 2 options: Either rubber-stamp the "trade agreement", or reject the entire bill, in which case get your pals in the media to label them as "obstructing progress" because they are "impractical", "emoprog" "purists" who "want everything". including "ponies". . . . . . Get your pals in the media to say that since it's a "trade" agreement, it needs the same deference to the executive branch as do negotiations about Iranian nuclear deals, and not the open debate and amendment powers which Congress has when debating changes in environment law, financial regulations, health and safety regulations, labor law. . . (Pretty slick, eh?)
(7) If any pesky Congress people want access to the particulars of negotiations before they cede their authority, make sure the language is complex and opaque so that the actual impact is difficult to assess without detailed study and consultation with experts, so, whatever you do, DON'T give them, or let them make, copies. Moreover, DON'T let them take notes. Take away their cameras or cell phones. Threaten them with national security violations if they discuss actual details with the public or press.
And here's some extra bonuses:
(1) Throw in expansion/extension of intellectual property monopoly terms. (Those Asian generic manufacturers need to busy themselves with outsourced manufacturing of BRAND-NAME drugs, not actually COMPETING with us! . . . And getting rid of Fair Use can do to the internet what getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine did to those pesky "liberal" commentators!)
(2) And, how about this: Finance it with automatic cuts to Medicare!
(3) And, just in case some pesky courts decide to interfere, establish an extrajudicial system immune from judicial review. Call them "Investor-State Dispute Resolution" tribunals. make their decisions exempt from appeal to any court, by virtue of entering to agreement with foreign governments.
Now, how's that for a slick package?
Who says we can't have it all?
Agony
(2,605 posts)Oh
wait
this is for real. my bad. the truth really is stranger than fiction.
it _will_ be an adventure, probably not the good kind.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The President and his advisors should have gone to congress before they began deliberation in which the congress would have had a voice in setting limits that would be acceptable. I understand that after the deal has been negotiated that changes could cause other countries to void the agreement, but this could have been avoided if the process was reversed. The United States is most important market and the our representatives should have been included up front. We can't ignore the fact the previous trade deals have not resulted their promised results of increasing our trade. Proponents of the trade deal say that it will result in lowering of tariffs, however, how many of these countries' workers can even afford to buy what they produce let along purchase our high tech products.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Make the rules? That makes no sense to me.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Who gives a fuck what party makes them if they're bad rules?
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)The harsher reality is that this is a transnational push for a one-world, fascist government where corporations are our kings. I fear for my children's future.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)with anything being negotiated in secret. I have a problem with anything that remains secret. I especially have a problem with fast track authority. Without it most of these gravy train trade deals would be DOA.
erronis
(15,255 posts)A very limited window of exposure to the huge amount of material is essentially the same as the old flip-card animation effect.
Now you see it, now it's gone. Now it's been voted on. And now it is enshrined and can't be changed.
I dig the negotiation part - much has to be done shrouded in blankets so the other side doesn't see your cards.
I don't dig the part that makes it un-amendable, gives corporations superiority over nations, weakens human rights (altho the US ones aren't the best).
Until BO or ex-Sec.State HRC is more forthcoming for the underlying reasons for all of the machinations, we will all distrust their rationale.
erronis
(15,255 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)Absolutely spot on.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Obama's legacy is selling us out.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Segami
(14,923 posts)Duppers
(28,120 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)involved in legal disputes. It's was system that expanded greatly in the 20th century with the rise of consumer recourse to courts. Ostensibly, the alternative saved time and money of dealing with prolonged court fights. It became quite popular, and as it became popular clauses were put into contracts that mandated any disputes would be abitrated between the parties rather than settled by a judge.
It's an end-run around the protections provided by the courts.
This is how a judge commented on alternative dispute resolution back in 2003:
Judge William G. Young
An Open Letter to U.S. District Judges, 50 FED.LAW. 30, 33 (2003).
This alternative to courts has the potential to save corporations BILLION$. Not surprisingly, this concept is included as ISDS in trade contracts between nations. It should be eyed with caution as it not only strips contractual partners in trade the protections of their legal systems, it also has the potential to be an end-around of their laws and regulations at -all- levels of governance.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)needs to be understood in order to grasp ISDS, its acceptance by lawyers (including Obama), and how ADRs pre-emptive subversion of consumer rights will have parallels in sovereignty issues and the capacity of citizens to have local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding community choices regarding type and quality of goods allowed in commerce.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)from Home Depot, you will have to take one of them back because it doesn't work properly.
ISDS will be BAD for consumers and taxpayers. It will deepen "class levels" of products even worse than it is now. We, the little guy taxpayers, will be forking over billions of our tax dollars to pay for some corporate invented loss-of-profit. They will bankrupt and own entire nations.
The corporate tort reform will turn from a wet dream into an orgasmic reality.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)They have corrupted our legal system that is now based on the whim of rich old men. And yet that is not enough for them. They want a special court that keeps out the citizens, customers and victims. So what kind of horrors will this bring? And why does Obama want his name on it?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Carly Fiorina and Alice Walton and Christy Walton and Gina Rinehart and...
Imo, their hearts are just as dark as anything that kept dick cheney walking...
fasttense
(17,301 posts)but the majority are men.
In fact it was my understanding that sociopaths or psychopaths were mostly male. But there are women with that psychosis too.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)spending their ill-gotten gains and voting with them.
Stereotypes are such a convenient way to group our prioritize. Often useless, incorrect, and hurtful, but that really doesn't stop people from resorting to them.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)That's why we need to oppose this so called 'trade' agreement. It's HORRIBLE for everyone but the oligarchs.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Good post. Very had to accept the complete evilness of most companies...but most corps are evil...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)and the Secret "End-Game" Memo
Thursday, August 22, 2013
By Greg Palast for Vice Magazine
EXCERPT...
The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.
Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: "derivatives trading." JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as "assets."
Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.
But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?
[font color="green"]The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous. [/font color]
CONTINUED...
http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo/
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)... and went to the World Bank, where he was chief economist until he was fired for expressing dissent with its policies. ( The Bank's External Affairs department told the press that Stiglitz had not been fired, his post had merely been abolished.)
When Stiglitz talks about a corporate takeover, looks like he knows what he is talking about.
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/
PS: Thank you for the links to the important articles on Dr. Stiglitz firing and career. For some reason, this important information is missing from the newspaper and never mentioned on tee vee.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)I always wonder how he's still walking around.
He must be on so many hate lists ...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Look at what Barrick Gold, one of Poppy Bush's favorite charities, did to The Guardian and Greg Palast, for telling the truth, including the bits about the buried alive gold miners, as it happens. So, the Big Corporation sued and sued and sued. With their deep pockets, they can buy justice, judges, prime ministers, presidents and whoever and whatever else they need to turn a buck.
Their crime? Telling the truth.
Poppy Strikes Gold
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Originally Posted July 9, 2003
By Greg Palast
EXCERPT...
And while the Bush family steadfastly believes that ex-felons should not have the right to vote for president, they have no objection to ex-cons putting presidents on their payroll. In 1996, despite pleas by U.S. church leaders, Poppy Bush gave several speeches (he charges $100,000 per talk) sponsored by organizations run by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, cult leader, tax cheatand formerly the guest of the U.S. federal prison system. Some of the loot for the Republican effort in the 19972000 election cycles came from an outfit called Barrick Corporation.
The sum, while over $100,000, is comparatively small change for the GOP, yet it seemed quite a gesture for a corporation based in Canada. Technically, the funds came from those associated with the Canadian's U.S. unit, Barrick Gold Strike.
They could well afford it. [font color="green"]In the final days of the Bush (Senior) administration, the Interior Department made an extraordinary but little noticed change in procedures under the 1872 Mining Law, the gold rushera act that permitted those whiskered small-time prospectors with their tin pans and mules to stake claims on their tiny plots. The department initiated an expedited procedure for mining companies that allowed Barrick to swiftly lay claim to the largest gold find in America. In the terminology of the law, Barrick could "perfect its patent" on the estimated $10 billion in orefor which Barrick paid the U.S. Treasury a little under $10,000. Eureka![/font color]
Barrick, of course, had to put up cash for the initial property rights and the cost of digging out the booty (and the cost of donations, in smaller amounts, to support Nevada's Democratic senator, Harry Reid). Still, the shift in rules paid off big time: According to experts at the Mineral Policy Center of Washington, DC, Barrick savedand the U.S. taxpayer losta cool billion or so. Upon taking office, Bill Clinton's new interior secretary, Bruce Babbitt, called Barrick's claim the "biggest gold heist since the days of Butch Cassidy." Nevertheless, because the company followed the fast-track process laid out for them under Bush, this corporate Goldfinger had Babbitt by the legal nuggets. Clinton had no choice but to give them the gold mine while the public got the shaft.
Barrick says it had no contact whatsoever with the president at the time of the rules change.(1) There was always a place in Barrick's heart for the older Bushand a place on its payroll. In 1995, Barrick hired the former president as Honorary Senior Advisor to the Toronto company's International Advisory Board. Bush joined at the suggestion of former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, who, like Bush, had been ignominiously booted from office. I was a bit surprised that the president had signed on. When Bush was voted out of the White House, he vowed never to lobby or join a corporate board. The chairman of Barrick openly boasts that granting the title "Senior Advisor" was a sly maneuver to help Bush tiptoe around this promise.
CONTINUED...
http://www.gregpalast.com/poppy-strikes-gold/
Wow. So his flock of supporters in the media and elsewhere wanted it known: George Herbert Walker Bush did do something nice when he was President. It just happened to be that it was for a rich, powerful corporation.
The story continues, in which Mr. Palast details how said gold mining company employed fascist tactics to take over the mine, part of which involved bulldozing the miners homes and mines, some with the miners still inside. Let that, uh, sink in. For his trouble in reporting the story, Barrick threatened to sue.
The Truth Buried Alive
By Greg Palast, From The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (Penguin/Plume, 2003)
Source: UTNE Reader
April 2003 Issue
EXCERPT...
Bad news. In July 2001, in the middle of trying to get out the word of the theft of the election in Florida, [font color="red"]I was about to become the guinea pig, the test case, for an attempt by a multinational corporation to suppress free speech in the USA using British libel law. I have a U.S.-based Web site for Americans who cant otherwise read my columns or view my BBC television reports. The gold-mining company held my English newspaper liable for aggravated damages for my publishing the story in the USA. If I did not pull the Bush-Barrick story off my U.S. Web site, my paper would face a ruinously costly fight.(1)[/font color]
Panicked, the Guardian legal department begged me to delete not just the English versions of the story but also my Spanish translation, printed in Bolivia. (Caramba!)
The Goldfingers didnt stop there. [font color="green"]Barricks lawyers told our papers that I personally would be sued in the United Kingdom over Web publications of my story in America, because the Web could be accessed in Britain. The success of this legal strategy would effectively annul the U.S. Bill of Rights.[/font color] Speak freely in the USA, but if your words are carried on a U.S. Web site, you may be sued in Britain. The Declaration of Independence would be null and void, at least for libel law. Suddenly, instead of the Internet becoming a means of spreading press freedom, the means to break through censorship, it would become the electronic highway for delivering repression.
And repression was winning. InterPress Services (IPS) of Washington, DC, sent a reporter to Tanzania with Lissu. They received a note from Barrick that said if the wire service ran a story that repeated the allegations, the company would sue. IPS did not run the story.
I was worried about Lissu. On July 19, 2001, a group of Tanzanian police interest lawyers wrote the nations president asking for an investigationinstead, Lissus law partner in Dar es Salaam was arrested. The police were hunting for Lissu. They broke into his home and office and turned them upside down looking for the names of Lissus sources, his whereabouts and the evidence he gathered on the mine site clearance. This was more than a legal skirmish. Over the next months, demonstrations by vicims families were broken up by police thugs. A member of Parliament joining protesters was beaten and hospitalized. I had to raise cash quick to get Lissu out, and with him, his copies of police files with more evidence of the killings. I called Maude Barlow, the Ralph Nader of Canada, head of the Council of Canadians. Without hesitation, she teamed up with Friends of the Earth in Holland, raised funds and prepared a press conferenceand in August tipped the story to the Globe & Mail, Canadas national paper.
CONTINUED...
http://www.mapcruzin.com/palast-2.htm
It's getting harder and harder for a man without a corporation to be heard these days. Perhaps one day no one will wonder why so few people remember democracy. The People will know penury, however -- a fate worse than death for the rich, life for greater and greater numbers of humanity.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Can't be posted often enough.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Important news and information gets missed when there are:
A. A thousand important things going on, each playing a major role in democracy or lack thereof, from the water to the outer spaces.
B. Criminality happening so fast one needs a supercomputer to keep track of satraps, connected cronies and evil toadies in Wall Street-on-the Potomac.
C. Several million distractions like two-headed squee and Inflategate.
To simplify things, personally, I read DU. BTW, your posts are among the many worth reading. Then, again, I repeat myself.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)corporations. It is shameful and I am hoping that at least in the House, it will fail.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)starting a non-violent revolution against the multinational corporations that were taking away our rights and controlling our lives.
We do have the right to change government for our own self interests and the very existence of all the life on earth.
I fear that's what it's coming down to.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)hedda_foil
(16,374 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Blue Meany
(1,947 posts)along with the "takings" doctrine. If corporations want to sue for regulations that limit their profit, there should be a parallel process in which they can be sued for the full cost of damage they do, such as environmental degradation and economic disruption. Then, too, under a "givings" doctrine, they could be charged for the use of government- funded infrastructure, economic development, and security. Once they are unable to externalise their costs, I suspect that the "takings" to which they feel entitled will seem pretty small in comparison to the indirect and direct subsidies that they already receive.
salib
(2,116 posts)What you seem to be suggesting is that instead of real protections, rights, due process, etc., we simply need to be able to sue, just like the big boys
Libertarians argue this method for food safety, and we know it does not work.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)If you don't want to be bothered by pesky regulations, simply staff all the regulatory agencies with people who don't believe in enforcing the regulations. That's an easy one to do when you're in charge of the Executive branch of government. (ie-you've got a police department, but they can't catch any crooks if they never leave the police station because they don't think it's their job to do so.)
And if you don't control the Executive branch, and don't get to make the appointments to the regulatory agencies, you go for Plan B. Simply gut the funding for those agencies so they can't do their jobs.
That second strategy has been going on since the Clinton Era when Phil Gramm gutted the funding for the IRS. The first people the IRS had to lay off were the highly paid auditors who specialized in auditing complicated, large income accounts. That was better than a tax cut for the rich anyday. No wonder the first thing Gramm did when he retired from the Senate was to go to Switzerland and work for UBS, so that he could take advantage of all that money the plutocrats were hiding from the IRS.
salib
(2,116 posts)Still, I would much rather work with my Government than expect a chance at fair treatment from a tribunal.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Capitalism wrecked communism in the old Soviet Bloc. Now it's out to destroy democracy worldwide.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And it is well on the way!
Thank you, Faryn Balyncd.