THE key difference between Bernie and Hillary - "Money isnt Everything" v. "Money is Everything"
If anybody wants to understand the difference between the two candidates, its likely much of it can be encapusulated right there.
All of the policy initiatives proposed by Bernie Sanders attempt to put us back on the path we were on in the last 20th century where we had a strong middle class and the models for globalization and deregulation were not as aggressive as they are now, there was room for middle class people to move upward, rather than a push to eliminate "overpaid" American workforces.
Hilllary represents the so called Washington Consensus, continuing the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama legacy of deregulation and liberalisation.
So Bernie is trying to reduce the impact of rapidly diverging levels of income on key things like ability to pursue education and ability to both "access" and afford health care without creating un-payable debts which will push people off the edge into the abyss. That's is where all of his policies differ from Hillary's which prioritize profit-making and try to avoid changes that will shift the balance back towards the taxpayers as opposed to the big players.
Its crucially important to understand that the negotiations over key parts of trade deals started during the first Clinton Administration are only being wrapped up now, and the effects of much of that deal are still in the future. The changes being made will likely be permanent, and they will drastically effect the future job prospects of all working people in member countries. Our indigenous workers will likely lose a substantial amount of income but large international services businesses as well as domestic businesses large enough to utilize workers in a contract based economy will become more profitable. Jobs will become less stable here but more of the value in the supply chain will be passed upward.
Large numbers of negotiators have been working for literally 20 years (during several bursts of activity in periods during which there was FastTrack authority) to create and work out the kinks of a huge new global jobs for markets trading scheme which privatizes large portions of what is now the public sector, making a great many jobs available for international competitive bidding in member countries. Under the Clinton era deal they used more of a "positive list" approach in services schedules but the newer set of negotiations is much more aggressive and uses a "negative list" (basically what would be called in Internet opt out) which will include by default all service sectors and modes of supply.
That will also greatly reduce the ability of people to enter the workforce via America, as American citizens, because with the opportunity to hire subcontractors for much less, many companies that want to reduce their various costs will subcontract them.
Hillary is thinking of the banks and the various other "major stakeholders" especially foreign direct investment in low value high profit services like commodified educational services and globalization of health care. (It may be more economical to send chronically ill poor people overseas for health care than treat them here. This maximizes the value in the supply chains, a key objective of globalization.)
Obviously her approach leaves the most wasteful practices in place, and that is in part their goal, because it makes them more profitable for their owners.
Bernie, being a Senator is likely prohibited from talking about the changes directly but he is trying to make his candidacy a sort of referendum on them by pretending they never happened, (since the nation has never been told about them, I think they lack legitimacy, in fact many proponents of them, for example, Pierre Sauve, have said the same thing) Bernie Sanders is operating under the assumption - and I think its the correct one, that the American public would find these changes so abhorrent they would reject them out of hand.
That unfortunately, will not save our economy from being drastically changed by them. The new trade deals (as well as the new interpretation of the existing WTO policies) contain standstill clauses that block literally completely blocks the old New Deal type programs and block the domestic government (Federal/state/local/quasi-governmental (grants)) spending to create domestic jobs approach (as discrimination against foreign corporations) perhaps eventually even down to the municipal / local level TPP (or TTIP or TISA) could be signed at any day, and all of them are disasters for our country.
= new reply since forum marked as read
ecept by re-convening the parties ad re-negotiating them, or withdrawing which is intentionally so expensive as to be made impossible.
So if he real question is, could these trade deals completely paralyze the next President in basically all the areas of policy that "matter" to us, the answer is definitely yes.
I think that they would block health care reform, they would block making education affordable and they would block all New Deal like programs.
All of those things have already been promised to others.
Do you know anything about "neoliberalism" or the WTO in particular?
Basically, they set up a deal between the developed countries and the developing countries, and the payoff for the developing countries has been proposed to be a bunch of things including market access to the developed countries services markets via something like the WTO Government Procurement Agreement's e-portal .
E-Bidding on contracts to provide goods and services. the WTO services agreement includes four modes of supply, the fourth mode of supply is movement of natural persons to provide services. ("Mode Four"
But WTO rues likely will apply more broadly in the future.
