Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Trans-Pacific Partnership


HeyHeyHey

Recommended Posts

How come this topic isn't the subject of headlines everywhere? To hear O speak about income inequality then push this...well...color me disappointed. After all, NAFTA worked out so well for workers in the US and Mexico.

http://rt.com/usa/congress-tpp-corporate-donations-802/

"According to data analyzed by government transparency advocate MapLight, current members of Congress received around US$24 million in the last ten years from organizations represented on an exclusive industry board, created and staffed by Congress. This board has inside access - such as not even granted to members of Congress, much less the public - to the highly-secretive negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which promises to give powerful industry players more clout over global trade rights."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/11/fast-track-trade-democrats_n_4580720.html

"Democrats in the House and Senate have complained for years about the secrecy standards the Obama administration has applied to the TPP, forcing members to jump over hurdles to see negotiation texts, and blocking staffer involvement. In 2012, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) complained that corporate lobbyists were given easy access while his office was being stymied, and even introduced protest legislation requiring more congressional input"

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2014/01/obama-fraud-tpp/

"The TPP trade deal is a “corporate trojan horse” with corporate-friendly provisions that even overshadow those of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA was passed 20 years ago during the Clinton Administration and was meant to lubricate foreign trade with lowered tariffs and eased foreign trade barriers. NAFTA’s true effect was that it limited corporate regulation and gave incentives to corporations that outsourced American work to low-wage countries. In the process, it destroyed American manufacturing.

Should there be any regulation that companies felt would interfere with profits, they could challenge the regulation before trade tribunals and demand government compensation over such regulation. NAFTA eventually killed millions of American jobs, created a $181 billion trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, and resulted in over $360 million of government compensation to corporations over policy disputes, policies designed for public interest. The TPP proves to have more devastating implications.

The TPP has been secretly negotiated for five years. The public was restricted access to its provisions and even Congress was only allowed very limited access. Much like with Clinton and NAFTA, Obama is wanting to spearhead the TPP through Congress. No hearings, no Congressional deliberation, just a straight up-or-down vote.

There are 29 so-called “trade” provisions in the TPP. But only five actually focus on trade, and the other 24 were designed for corporate protectionism. The protections via foreign tribunals would liken corporations to their own, individual nations with the right to govern themselves freely as such.

The TPP benefits Wall Street banks and undermines regulations that are paramount to economic and consumer protections. The trade deal nullifies transaction taxes designed to combat financial speculators. It would destroy the firewall between consumer banking and investment banking and block the Glass-Steagall firewall from reinstatement. American financial regulation could potentially be all but dismantled, as the TPP reinforces “too-big-to-fail.”

Corporations are guaranteed sweetheart deals regarding labor outsourcing. The TPP limits the cost and risk associated with U.S. factory relocations to low-wage countries. If the corporation’s plans violate any foreign public interest laws, it can sue foreign governments by way of an international tribunal. The company can also demand compensation from foreign governments over policies that it believes would disrupt their projected profits. This right is reciprocal.

Foreign investors and corporations can sidestep American laws and sue the U.S. government if they felt that our laws undermined their projected profits. Essentially, taxpayer money would be syphoned to pay for an unnecessary reason. Recent statistics illustrate that such suits between companies and foreign countries is increasing. Altogether, since 1999, investor attacks on international governments increased 460 percent. Governments have awarded corporations about $365 million with $13 billion in compensation pending."

I wonder how accurate these claims are? And if they are...wow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this post, HeyHeyHey.

 

NAFTA has allowed the export of jobs, TPP is more of the same.

 

I'm not concerned with exporting our goods, I'm concerned by the fact that we no longer use import tariffs on goods coming into the US, to even out the lower wages in other countries to protect jobs here.  Multi-national corporations have taken huge advantage of NAFTA and they will with TPP too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this post, HeyHeyHey.

 

NAFTA has allowed the export of jobs, TPP is more of the same.

 

I'm not concerned with exporting our goods, I'm concerned by the fact that we no longer use import tariffs on goods coming into the US, to even out the lower wages in other countries to protect jobs here.  Multi-national corporations have taken huge advantage of NAFTA and they will with TPP too.

 

I remember back during the 1990's I had a gig in Chicago which required me to fly out there every so often.  One flight I was sitting next to this Economics PHD from Harvard who was part of Clinton's NAFTA negotiation team...   So of coarse never being one to back away from a discussion I ordered a double gin and tonic and leaned in...  So I said quoting Ross Perot,  Is the giant sucking sound we hear really all the American Jobs going to Mexico...  As I remember it this guy want all that challenged by my inquiry..    He says..   Yes..  absolutely.    We are going to loose a lot of low wage jobs to Mexico because of NAFTA.   But those jobs are going away anyway.   NAFTA focuses the job looses into Mexico rather than Indonesia, the Philippians,  Vietnam etc....    Because if you give an Indonesian $100  he spends about 2$ on American products... If you give a Mexican $100  he buys $80 worth of American products.

 

Anyway his point was NAFTA was a preferable way to divest ourselves of industries like the textile industry than just letting them fly offshore.    I'm a huge critic of the United States open Trade policy...   We call it "Free Trade" but we are the only country on earth which subscribes to running these absurd massive deficit trade relationships...   We do it because it allows countries like Japan in the 70's and China in the 90's to pay for their own modernization.   We get cheap imports,  in exchange for the temporary control of dollars which we just print up.   The get the control of hard currency reserves which allow them to modernize...   Bottom line is all the dollars sent over to Japan or China must come home and be spent in the United States...   Regardless of when you spend them.. they do us good...

 

The flaw in this relationship is while these countries are emerging there is a lot of turbulence which stresses a lot of American Jobs and Industries...  Also we are trusting these countries to become responsible members of the world community when they emerge.   That seems to have worked with Japan...  Recent current events in the South China Sea seems to put into question that happening with China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come this topic isn't the subject of headlines everywhere? To hear O speak about income inequality then push this...well...color me disappointed. After all, NAFTA worked out so well for workers in the US and Mexico.

 

 

If I had to guess I'd say Fox isn't covering it because it is good for business and advertisers. MSNBC and the other side of the media isle are not covering it because they have to make sure these charges stick to Christie so he can't run for Pres. They also don't want to come out against the Administration agenda. And, of course, it is good for their advertisers too. It is a shame what the media in this country has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...