Stop Calling the TPP a Trade Agreement – It Isn’t

[JohnyCanuck]

Stop Calling the TPP a Trade Agreement – It Isn’t

“Trade” is a propaganda word. It short-circuits thinking. People hear “trade” and the brain stops working. People think, “Of course, trade is good.” And that ends the discussion.

Calling TPP a “trade” agreement lets the pro-TPP people argue that TPP is about trade instead of what it is really about. It diverts attention from the real problem. It enables advocates to say things like, “95 percent of the world lives outside the U.S.” as if that has anything to do with TPP. It lets them say, “We know that exports support American jobs” to sell a corporate rights agreement. It enables them to say nonsense like this about a corporate rights agreement designed to send American jobs to Vietnam so a few “investors” can pocket the wage difference: “Exports of U.S. goods and services supported an estimated 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs … and those export-supported jobs pay 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average wage.”

Trade is good. Opening up the border so you can get bananas and they can get fertilizer is trade because they have a climate that lets them grow bananas and you already have a fertilizer plant. Enabling companies to move $30/hour jobs to countries with $.60/hour wages so a few billionaires can pocket the difference is not trade.

snip

TPP elevates corporations and corporate profits to and above the level of governments. TPP lets corporations sue governments for laws and regulations that cause them to be less profitable. Enabling tobacco companies to sue governments because anti-smoking campaigns limit profits has nothing to do with trade. Enabling corporations to sue states that try to regulate fracking has nothing to do with trade.

http://ourfuture.org/20150526/stop-calling-tpp-a-trade-agreement-it-isnt

[delrem]

1. From what I've read and learned of it,

From what I've read and learned of it, the TPP is a set of internationally recognized (upon signing) laws written for the advantage of investment bankers. It is, in effect, the ultimate in deregulatory schemes, as it acts pre-emptively to outlaw new regulation -- as well as eliminating existing regulatory barriers that disadvantage investment capital.

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. I've been saying that for years. They're simply investment/outsourcing scams that have the added

feature of giving the giant corporations more control of our laws and regulations. Won't be long before your right to vote is ruled a non-tariff trade barrier and outlawed.

[rhett o rick]

3. The TPP is the baby of the conservatives. Progressives need to band together and

fight those that would outsource American jobs and all the rest of the garbage included.

[Joe Turner]

4. Any democrat shilling for TPP

Is certainly not a progressive and has more in common with the republican party...at least on economic issues.

[rhett o rick]

5. yes. nm

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. TPPeeing was started by George W. Bush in 2007. That's all you need to know. (nm)

[pampango]

9. That's probably what would have been posted about FDR's International Trade Organization back in the day

on DU if it had existed.

FDR's whole economic preference for lowering tariffs early in his administration and later promoting international trade, labor rights, business regulation and full employment through multilateral organizations run cooperatively by many countries would have been scorned by some on DU. What about our sovereignty? What about our democracy? How can you allow foreigners who help run these organizations to have a say in what the US government does? Maybe France and Germany can learn to cooperate but the US cooperates with no one!

(Fortunately, for "DU'ers" back in the day, the republican congress of the late 1940's rejected the ITO.)

Is certainly not a progressive and has more in common with the republican party...at least on economic issues.

If true, one would not expect the majority of Democrats to support it and the vast majority of republicans (particularly the most conservative wing) to oppose it.

[Joe Turner]

10. FDR never would have never opted to support corporate trade deals

that are diametrically opposed to the interests of the American people. That you, and other 3rd way types do is another story. As discussed at length before, you conspicuously dodge the fact that America, prior to Reagan's adventure into "free trade" (which I assume you agree with) always had tariffs well above today's 1% rate. That FDR cut tariffs to an average rate of 13% is hardly comparable to the near zero rate today. Moreover, you conflate the trade policy we had back then, which gave no protections to foreign investment, to the corporate welfare trade deals we have now. Keep on shilling! It must be hard trying to sweep all the ugly facts on TPP under the rug everyday.

[pampango]

11. U.S. tariffs in 1980 were 2.9%. During Reagan's presidency they increased to 3.2%.

Actually he and Eisenhower were the only post-war presidents who increased tariffs during their times in office.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history

... prior to Reagan's adventure into "free trade" (which I assume you agree with) always had tariffs well above today's 1% rate.

If you consider 3% to be "well above" the 1.3% today, that is fine. Reagan's "adventure into 'free trade'" was a rhetorical adventure rather than a real one.

That FDR cut tariffs to an average rate of 13% is hardly comparable to the near zero rate today.

He not only reversed the high tariffs he inherited from his republican predecessors, he set up the international institutional framework to make sure that countries could work together to further reduce them.

... you conflate the trade policy we had back then, which gave no protections to foreign investment, to the corporate welfare trade deals we have now.

Actually investment protection was included in FDR's International Trade Organization though it went far beyond this and also included labor rights, business regulation and other progressive policy ideas.

[Joe Turner]

12. Nafta, the first of the corporate welfare trade deals was hatched under Reagan

Nurtured under Bush I and born into law by Clinton with full support of the republican party. All Clinton had to do is peel off a few votes from the Democratic congress to get it enacted. Speaking of Reagan, it was he that let Japan get away with dumping practices with slap of wrists trade fines that were only symbolic in nature...as that country proceeded to take over our consumer electronics industry and take a big bite out of our auto industry. This was when this country's middle class decline started in earnest. I would say things were much better under Eisenhower, who happened to also warn this country of exactly what has transpired since then with the marriage of corporate and governmental powers. TPP is the perfect example of this. You might want to read is farewell speech. And again, to compare FDR trade policy with today's corporate written trade policy is simply ridiculous.

[pampango]

13. I agree with most what you posted.

... to compare FDR trade policy with today's corporate written trade policy is simply ridiculous.

I don't think it's ridiculous to compare and of FDR's policies to our modern ones. There is much we can learn about what he did right and where we have gone wrong.

FDR's trade policy focused on cutting tariffs in his first term. In 1944 it evolved into the International Trade Organization which went way beyond tariff reductions.

It would have had enforceable provisions on labor rights, business regulations and investment protection, among other provisions and would have used arbitration to enforce them. The ITO was negotiated by Truman after FDR's death. It was signed by 53 countries in 1948 but rejected by congress.

Europe has largely followed FDR's ideas on high/progressive taxes, empowering unions, regulating business and free trade within a multinational organization that enforces these policies. It would have worked in the ITO, just as it has worked in the EU. FDR's ideas work today as well as they worked in the past.

[Skittles]

7. fuck our resident TPP pimps

SERIOUSLY

[nationalize the fed]

8. k/r

Enabling companies to move $30/hour jobs to countries with $.60/hour wages so a few billionaires can pocket the difference is not trade.

And there it is.

That's precisely what Sir James Goldsmith said, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson called him a luddite. The Young Hip Clinton NAFTA MAFIA were the cool people. Cool people scoffed at manufacturing jobs.