TPP Fast track

[Brian Stirling]

Oh damn! Looks like a how-to on prioritizing corporations over people. I like how countries who enact laws to protect citizens and the environment from harm will have to pay corporations for any loss in potential profits!

What exactly does Obama see in this? Sure it protects US IP but at the expense of everything else that a countries citizens might feel are important to them.


Thanks for the link, I didn't realize that it had been linked.

(I also noted that New Zealand has quite a few objections and proposed a few protections for its citizens, protections the US opposed).

Obama sees in it the same thing Bill Clinton saw in it -- the chance for Dems to rake in campaign funding the same way Repubs have been raking it in -- and it need not be any more complicated than that!

Free Trade is not merely the great sucking sound Perot talked about it is the most persistent and largest transfer of wealth the world has ever known and the transfer isn't going from the rich to the poor.

The trade policies from the early 90's on have attempted to play the outsourcing to Japan game without the destination country being able to assume control over the industries moving there. The idea being, wrap these deals in a framework that so protects the IP that the destination country will forever be merely a labor foundry.

The problem with this idea is that when an industry is located someplace eventually the engineering talent to make it work either moves there or it grows there and over time China will not only be the place where these things are made, it will be the place where they're designed as well.

It does not matter to the current generation of investor class types pushing these deals as they will profit enormously from the transfer of wealth I mentioned before. Of course, when there is no middle class left in the west then the economy will evaporate and so will the cash flow to the next generation of wealthy.


Brian

 

[nickqt]

It does not matter to the current generation of investor class types pushing these deals as they will profit enormously from the transfer of wealth I mentioned before. Of course, when there is no middle class left in the west then the economy will evaporate and so will the cash flow to the next generation of wealthy.
Brian

Which is why it is of the utmost importance that we allow our oligarchs to get rid of the E̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶T̶a̶x̶ DeathTax™ so that they can cement their status as founders of their family aristocracy.

I mean, er, uh, freedom. Yeah, that's it.

Freedom.

 

[First]

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...g-trade-deal-asia-barack-obama-faces-showdown

An excellent article on why trade has been a net positive to American pocket books despite some real wage hits it has cost. Of course, what matters is the net improvement in costs and wages vs. without trade deals, which themselves (NAFTA) don't necessarily mean as much as people may think given our non-existent trade deal with India didn't stop us from doubling our imports of Indian products/services.

Nonetheless, opposition to the deal is strong. Democratic politicians are much less trade-friendly than Democratic voters or the country as a whole. Many fret that imports from low-cost countries such as Vietnam will hurt American workers in industries such as carmaking and textiles.

This is not a foolish worry. Globalisation has filled people’s shopping trolleys with cheaper, better goods: the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that imports boost the average American family’s purchasing power by $10,000 a year. However, trade has probably also held down blue-collar workers’ wages in rich countries. A new paper, from Ann Harrison of the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues finds that if there had been no imports, median real wages in America in 2008 would have been 3% higher than they actually were. For workers in menial tasks, they would have been 15% higher. Another paper found that a quarter of the employment decline in American manufacturing from 1990 to 2007 was caused by competition from Chinese imports.

Yet it is difficult to blame trade deals for this. America has no free-trade agreement with India, yet imports of goods from there have more than doubled over the past decade. Though many Democrats see NAFTA, a deal with Canada and Mexico that Bill Clinton signed in 1993, as a disaster for America’s workers, the consensus among economists is that it did not have much effect on the labour market. The effects of the latest deal are unlikely to be very different. What is more, thanks to pressure from Democrats, any trade deal would also include extra “trade-adjustment assistance”: ie, help for those whose jobs may be threatened by it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...g-trade-deal-asia-barack-obama-faces-showdown

An excellent article on why trade has been a net positive to American pocket books despite some real wage hits it has cost. Of course, what matters is the net improvement in costs and wages vs. without trade deals, which themselves (NAFTA) don't necessarily mean as much as people may think given our non-existent trade deal with India didn't stop us from doubling our imports of Indian products/services.

Good article however I am concerned with some of the outcomes. Lets assume the 220 billion extra money generated in trade by 2020 is correct. How much of that money will be recaptured by working people or will 90% go to corporations that then spend 5% of that in the US? The author played up the income increase but notice its 0.4% again how is this spread out, personally I don't think another dramatic trade deal that hasn't been properly spoken about is worth a couple hundred dollar per year pay increase. Finally the author talks about nearly 60% of the population supports more free trade, judging by conversations with friends, these boards and even the comments on that article no where near 60% agreed with it. I know this is simply an observation. I do find that number hard to believe.

 

[blankslate]

http://www.ibtimes.com/tpp-vote-201...-fast-track-trans-pacific-partnership-1921111

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-standoff-senate-117900.html?hp=t1_r

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-reaches-deal-on-trade/


I find it funny that the party which has some fringe element that decries the U.N. as a place where the U.S. gives up sovereignty is more than eager to give up U.S. sovereignty to Corporate and Economic Royalists who want nothing more than to increase their pool of wage slaves....

Sure there are blue dog members of the democratic party who favor trade deals but the loudest voices against the TPP have been Senators Warren and Sanders who hold some views that are the furthest things from the views of those who pander to the Economic Royalists.

Yes, Rand Paul has also been critical of the TPP, but not as vocally as some of his peers.


.....

 

[First]

Good article however I am concerned with some of the outcomes. Lets assume the 220 billion extra money generated in trade by 2020 is correct. How much of that money will be recaptured by working people or will 90% go to corporations that then spend 5% of that in the US? The author played up the income increase but notice its 0.4% again how is this spread out, personally I don't think another dramatic trade deal that hasn't been properly spoken about is worth a couple hundred dollar per year pay increase. Finally the author talks about nearly 60% of the population supports more free trade, judging by conversations with friends, these boards and even the comments on that article no where near 60% agreed with it. I know this is simply an observation. I do find that number hard to believe.

The results sound pretty straight forward to me; trade-attributed wage declines were 3%, but purchasing power was increased $10k/yr due to globalization and freedom of traded goods/services. Honestly I don't know if those numbers are true, but if they are close, a fair trade deal is always a no brainer.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The results sound pretty straight forward to me; trade-attributed wage declines were 3%, but purchasing power was increased $10k/yr due to globalization and freedom of traded goods/services. Honestly I don't know if those numbers are true, but if they are close, a fair trade deal is always a no brainer.

This is how it happens...

The CATO Institute makes claims about free trade and all the proponents repeat those claims without question. The idea that folks who have lost there manufacturing job see an income decrease of only 3% would be laughable were the pain for those that lost a good job not so terrible.

And, the Economist appears to have played games with statistics. You can claim the average wages have increased and you might even be right but average isn't median -- and that's a big difference. If there was an increase in the average but 95% of the money is going to the investor class the effect on the working class will still be very negative.

Look, we've been playing this game a long time and the middle class continues it's decline -- spin the fuck out of that!


Brian

 

[waggy]

This is how it happens...

The CATO Institute makes claims about free trade and all the proponents repeat those claims without question. The idea that folks who have lost there manufacturing job see an income decrease of only 3% would be laughable were the pain for those that lost a good job not so terrible.

And, the Economist appears to have played games with statistics. You can claim the average wages have increased and you might even be right but average isn't median -- and that's a big difference. If there was an increase in the average but 95% of the money is going to the investor class the effect on the working class will still be very negative.

Look, we've been playing this game a long time and the middle class continues it's decline -- spin the fuck out of that!


Brian

sigh. sadly this.

Fair trade is anything but fair. well i guess who we are talking about. the ones backing it it's fair for. they get more money. For the workers? it's shit. they always are.

eventually the middle class is going to be fucked so hard it just ends.

 

[norseamd]

Read somewhere a few days ago that free trade deals do not have much to do with free trade today and it is more accurate to describe them as investment deals and shit.

 

[norseamd]

Here it is.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ade-then-your-analysis-is-already-wrong.shtml

 

[Darwin333]

pretty much in a nutshell. no i do no trust your judgement mr. president.

IDGAF if you trust the presidents judgement or not, you'd have to trust the presidents and future, impossible to know who, presidents judgement or trust Congress to change the law when a future, in your opinion untrustworthy, president is elected. Frankly I trust neither the admin (current, future and past) or Congress (same).

 

[Linux23]

IDGAF if you trust the presidents judgement or not, you'd have to trust the presidents and future, impossible to know who, presidents judgement or trust Congress to change the law when a future, in your opinion untrustworthy, president is elected. Frankly I trust neither the admin (current, future and past) or Congress (same).

wtf?

 

[Brian Stirling]

Here it is.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ade-then-your-analysis-is-already-wrong.shtml

Yes, that's the thing -- much of the effort in the more recent trade deals is about creating a legal structure that makes challenging the trade deals more difficult and time consuming and providing corporations with greater leverage to prevent governments from enacting new regulations. But, the trade deals going back to the WTO have always had an eye towards limiting the say of governments and increasing the power of corporations.

Meanwhile, the disappearing middle class is left outside with no input and no voice.

The fact that Obama is all for this and can scold a fellow Democrat for "not understanding" this deal is -- sad! The Clinton era Democrats have done more damage to the middle class than the Republicans could ever wish for.

There was a time, not that long ago, when elected Democrats actually stood up for the middle class, for the workingman, but that time has passed and the middle class has no one at there back not holding a knife.


Brian

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, that's the thing -- much of the effort in the more recent trade deals is about creating a legal structure that makes challenging the trade deals more difficult and time consuming and providing corporations with greater leverage to prevent governments from enacting new regulations. But, the trade deals going back to the WTO have always had an eye towards limiting the say of governments and increasing the power of corporations.

Meanwhile, the disappearing middle class is left outside with no input and no voice.

The fact that Obama is all for this and can scold a fellow Democrat for "not understanding" this deal is -- sad! The Clinton era Democrats have done more damage to the middle class than the Republicans could ever wish for.

There was a time, not that long ago, when elected Democrats actually stood up for the middle class, for the workingman, but that time has passed and the middle class has no one at there back not holding a knife.


Brian

There is a reason why there is a movement to support warren for president. The dems, because of the radical move to the right by republicans, have basically been pushing a more center right agenda and supporting such policies. The logical move would be to support more hard left leaning politicians...do you know any?

 

[blastingcap]

There is a reason why there is a movement to support warren for president. The dems, because of the radical move to the right by republicans, have basically been pushing a more center right agenda and supporting such policies. The logical move would be to support more hard left leaning politicians...do you know any?

Warren said she's not running.

I am impressed by ZERO of the frontrunner candidates. If Warren were to enter I would vote for because she's done the most for the 99% and would have done more had it been politically feasible to attack the banks.

 

[Brian Stirling]

There is a reason why there is a movement to support warren for president. The dems, because of the radical move to the right by republicans, have basically been pushing a more center right agenda and supporting such policies. The logical move would be to support more hard left leaning politicians...do you know any?

The Republicans have been right for decades but it was the rise of Bill Clinton that accelerated the move to the right. The Republicans need something to distinguish them from Dems and if the Dems are now economic Republicans that leaves the Republicans with social issues to set themselves apart.

It is interesting to note that big business often prefers the Dems as the Dems are mostly the same as Republicans on the economic issues but tend to be less crazy on other issues.

It would be nice if the Dems returned to supporting the middle class and acted that way in office, but how does such a candidate get into office. I think a good many Dems accept the big business leanings of there candidates as a necessary thing in order for Dems to be politically relevant. But, how does that help if in order to get the money to run for election the Democratic candidate must promise to give the wealthy what they want?

There are, of course, quite a few big business and wealthy types that are hard core righties and hate having to give Dems campaign money. They do so because they don't want to be on the wrong side of the party in power but they'd greatly prefer to not give money to Dems. Citizens United and other laws/rulings make it easier for such folks to contribute to righties without the Dems knowing, for sure, that they have. That's the real purpose of that case.


Brian

 

[blastingcap]

Update: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...abor-rights/8CRBQuXKfopqMWLBb9oSGJ/story.html

Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, released a staff memo outlining “decades of failure” by U.S. administrations to ensure that American trading partners live up to promises in free-trade agreements.
“The history of these agreements betrays a harsh truth: that the actual enforcement of labor provisions of past U.S. FTAs lags far behind the promise,” according to the memo.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I just saw an ad on TV supporting the TPP deal. The ad, sponsored by a group called "Trade Benefits America Coalition," argues this is good for ... wait for it ... American workers. Not much has changed in the bullshit promoters of these deals spew.


Brian

 

[nickqt]

Update: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...abor-rights/8CRBQuXKfopqMWLBb9oSGJ/story.html

Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, released a staff memo outlining “decades of failure” by U.S. administrations to ensure that American trading partners live up to promises in free-trade agreements.
“The history of these agreements betrays a harsh truth: that the actual enforcement of labor provisions of past U.S. FTAs lags far behind the promise,” according to the memo.

You know you're a rabid leftist when you daydream about a House, Senate, and White House filled with Warrens and Sanders.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You know you're a rabid leftist when you daydream about a House, Senate, and White House filled with Warrens and Sanders.

Umm, not really.

 

[nickqt]

Umm, not really.

You're from Canadia. You don't get it.

Anything to the left of tailgunner Ted Cruz is hardcore Marxist-Communism to our right-wingers.

 

[norseamd]

You're from Canadia. You don't get it.

Anything to the left of tailgunner Ted Cruz is hardcore Marxist-Communism to our right-wingers.

Exactly.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You're from Canadia. You don't get it.

Anything to the left of tailgunner Ted Cruz is hardcore Marxist-Communism to our right-wingers.

No, I get it.

btw, just because I live in Canada doesn't mean I don't 'get' the US. You guys really aren't hard to understand.

 

[blastingcap]

You know you're a rabid leftist when you daydream about a House, Senate, and White House filled with Warrens and Sanders.

You could be more positive you know, and say that both parties should unite in opposing the turd known as the TPP.

 

[nickqt]

You could be more positive you know, and say that both parties should unite in opposing the turd know as the TPP.

I treat anyone who is reasonable in their disagreement with me reasonably, fullstop. I can have a reasonable discussion with anyone.

That said, I'm not going to hide my amusement that there are people who in one breath rail on about the TPP/Wall St./Oligarchs, and then in the next breath call for measures that literally lower the quality of life here in the US simply because it won't necessarily hurt them.

I see the forest and the trees. If you want a middle class, it requires, drumroll...Redistribution™ one way, instead of the normal redistribution from labor to capital.

The normal Redistribution™ from labor to capital has pretty much defined all of human civilization. It literally never fails to entrench an aristocracy/Feudal political system, because if having money is more important than actually, uh, doing work, then the wealthy and their heirs own you. It used to be called wage slavery, but never mind reality, let's play pretend Libertarianism™ reality.

Which of course makes me a Stalinistic 'Murrica hater, for wanting labor (you know, pretty much every rabble-rouser on this here forum) to get their share of the value added that they personally perform every single day.

While I fully support concepts such as personal property and despise property tax, because I stand for the rabble getting more of the value-added share of income than people sitting on their ass letting Wall St. criminals shuffle their money around for insane bubble profits, I'm instantly shrugged off as some sort of radical. And so are you.

Of course here in observable reality, we're like kinda center-left, but because we live in the literal heart of Empire, we're radicals. It'd be funny, if we had two functioning political parties. Instead, we have one dysfunctional political party and one batshit insane political party.

And the people peddling the BothSides™ bullshit are the enablers. I have less disdain for "honest" grifters like Glenn Beck or Master Limbaugh than I do with the faux centrists like David Brooks. But, let's be honest. I'm a few strata above the stone-agers here who know what they know simply because they've been told to believe it enough times that it's simply a natural reflex.