Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby MayDay » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:07 am

I'm really sickened by this. The left-wing is calling it "NAFTA on steroids". The Tea Party hates it (gasp) My tech friends are all opposed to it, and some vocally on Boingboing.net The EFF opposes it. Most democrats, labor leaders, and environmental groups oppose it. Elizabeth Warren has spoken out against it in quite a huff. And yet, Obama promises to fast track it through congress, with widespread support from his supposed republican enemies. "They" (experts? people smarter/ better informed than I?) say it will roll back environmental protections and worker's rights in the US, Canada, and other countries involved. Will send at least 5 million US manufacturing jobs over seas. Allegedly provides incentives for US corrporations to outsource jobs to places like Vietnam, where the average manufacturing employee makes .56 cents an hour. Extremely secretive, all we know is what wikileaks has scavenged for us. Hurts freedom of speech, probably kills the internet as we know it.

I'm ready to take this on. Call it OWS part 2- the tea party and the liberal queer internet weirdos get jiggy. I'll do whatever it takes to stop this shit, including walking around with a bilboard like I did before Occupy.

Thoughts? Cause I'm at my wits end. These fuckers are serious. (Obama and the neocons, it seems)
Last edited by MayDay on Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:26 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
MayDay
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby MayDay » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:13 am

Trans Pacific Partnership: Obama ready to defy Democrats to push secretive trade deal

The TPP has drawn the ire of Democrats including Elizabeth Warren who object it will destroy jobs, limit online freedom, increase outsourcing and derail climate agreements. Ironically, it has made allies of his GOP rivals


http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... epublicans

THis story seems to be from today (date in the url). What the hell is with these bastard media outlets no longer visibly dating stories? I hate this world a little more every day. Now I can't even easily figure out if what I'm reading is recent.
User avatar
MayDay
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby MayDay » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:22 am

I feel stupid. The date is there on the page, just not where I expected it to be. The wine is obviously going to my head, and dang these newfangled internet contraptions! Oh, shit. I'm getting old. (The only thing worse than looking 18 when your 28- looking 40 when your 31. Something has to change. Guess it's time to go to college- I'm already enrolled and on my way to- something)
User avatar
MayDay
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:57 am

Post-Nafta, the US saw a mass exodus of jobs, with nearly 700,000 jobs offshored, 60.8% of them in manufacturing.


It's no secret the closing of factories in the 1970's, 80's and 90's were a major contributor to the now hopeless despair of inner cities. And goodness knows how many young men got swept into the prison system in these depressed areas
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-sing ... 93626.html

Since the 1970s factory jobs in the United States have been shipped overseas. Companies do not need students prepared for factory work, so schools have evolved to perform a new social role. In inner city minority neighborhoods especially Black and Latino young people attend schools organized on the prison model where they are treated as if they were criminals.

Students enter buildings through metal detectors. If the device goes off they are bodily searched. Armed police stand guard. Uniformed security crews that report to the police sweep the halls. Students are forced to sit in overcrowded uncomfortable classrooms doing rote assignments geared to high-stakes Common Core assessments. Stressed out teachers, fearful that they will be judged by poor student performance on these tests, use boredom and humiliation to maintain control of the classroom.


Since the early 1970s, the United States prison population has quadrupled to 2.2 million. It is the largest prison population in the world. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, China is number two at 1.7 million people, Iran is number 8 at 217,000 people, and the United Kingdom is number 17 at 85,000. Fourteen million people are arrested every year and over two million are sent to jail. Approximately 65 million people in the United States, or more than twenty-five percent of the adults population, has a criminal record.

The U.S. incarceration rate is five to ten times the size of other democratic countries. It is over 700 prisoners for every 100,000 people compared to 149 for England and Wales, 143 for Spain, 102 for France, 90 for Italy, 81 for Germany, and 57 for Sweden.

Meanwhile, more than half of state prisoners are in jail for nonviolent crimes. Mass incarceration has destructive impact on families, communities, and state and local budgets. It cost $80 billion a year to keep all these people in prison and more than $250 billion to pay for all the additional police and court expenses. According to the human rights group Human Rights Watch, while prison should be a last resort, in the United States "it has been treated as the medicine that cures all ills."

In 2000, over two million American children had a parent in prison. I saw the impact of this on young people at a conference at the City University of New York. Eight students who attend a school for teenagers already involved in the criminal justice system discussed how they grew up in families where parents were incarcerated and its impact on them as children.


But hey, America will least be making one new commodity...the very thing used to kill so many people of color around the world...

AK-47s: Soon to be made in USA


http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/20/news/ka ... index.html

Wouldn't it be ironic if they used prison labor? Surprised Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman don't.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby DrEvil » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:38 pm

Don't forget the Investor State Arbitration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Paci ... rbitration

Basically - if a corporation stands to lose profits from a law enacted by a government, they can sue the government and force them to cough up the "lost" profits, and the case will be decided by a panel stuffed with corporate goons, and no rights of appeal.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby MayDay » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:16 pm

Hump. Cause my mind's always in the gutter. Marlboro suing the Australian Govt. for billions over it's "empty label" law. A glipse of the future. TransCanada has a huge hard on for The #TPP right now, and Obama's stroking it. We are so fucked.
User avatar
MayDay
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby slimmouse » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm

I was wondering whether to drop this here or in the Vaccine thread, because it certainly relates to both, but is probably more appropriate here.

Its the latest episode of "The new World this Week" Hosted by James Corbett. The presentation is only 20 minutes long, but talks amongst other things about Tisa, which is another, (somewhat onomatopoaeic) head of the Global Corporate Hydra.

all the links to the Tisa stuff in the video are included below, for anyone wanting to look into any of this further. All other links are available at the link for the show.



Story #1: Globalized Healthcare Is Coming
http://ur1.ca/jniwl
Flashback: TISA, Yet Another Secret “Trade” Threat (Oct 2014)
http://ur1.ca/jniwo
YouTube Search: “TiSA Trade In Services”
http://ur1.ca/jniws
Wikileaks: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex
http://ur1.ca/ht5bq
“Why Come You Don’t Have A Tattoo?”
http://ur1.ca/jniwv


Link - https://www.corbettreport.com/interview ... an-pilato/
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby jingofever » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:16 pm

Unions to Fight Trade Pact by Freezing Political Donations:

Dozens of major labor unions plan to freeze campaign contributions to members of Congress to pressure them to oppose fast-track trade legislation sought by President Barack Obama, according to labor officials.


It kind of fades out but Daily Kos provides more:

The move is part of the unions’ campaign against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which the Obama administration is negotiating with 11 nations around the Pacific Ocean. The unions worry the trade agreement could send more jobs to low-wage countries, including Vietnam and Malaysia.

Unions have opposed the TPP through demonstrations, letters to lawmakers and political ads, but withholding political contributions is a more forceful way of flexing their muscle. In the 2014 midterm elections, unions—the lifeblood of the Democratic Party—contributed about $65 million from their political-action committee, or PACs, to candidates, nearly all Democrats.

“Every single union in the AFL-CIO has agreed to join together to send Congress a message that if you mess with one of us you mess with all of us,” Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said Monday at the union’s legislative conference in Washington. “We need to cut the spigot off.”

The firefighters spearheaded the effort by challenging other union presidents to follow suit at an AFL-CIO executive council meeting in Atlanta last month. The union said it took the lead because fast track would create job losses, which would hurt communities’ tax bases and their ability to fund public services.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:10 pm


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/2 ... TPP-Draft#

Per WikiLeaks:

This is an advanced January 2015 version of the confidential draft treaty chapter from the Investment group of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks between the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam. The treaty is being negotiated in secret by delegations from each of these 12 countries, who together account for 40% of global GDP. The chapter covers agreements on investments from one TPP nation to another, including empowering foreign firms to "sue" other states' governments, as well as regulations around investor-state dispute settlements and tribunals. This document was prepared by TPP investment chapter negotiators in advance of the informal round of negotiations held in New York City 26th January to 1st February, 2015
Global Trade Watch has just provided an analysis of the leaked text via email (and now on its website more details):
The TPP would grant foreign investors and firms operating here expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to U.S. firms under U.S. law, allowing foreign firms to demand compensation for the costs of complying with U.S. policies, court orders and government actions that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms. This includes:
§ Foreign investors would be empowered to challenge new policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms on the basis that they undermine foreign investors’ “expectations” of how they should be treated. This includes a right to claim damages for government actions (such as new environmental, health or financial policies) that reduce the value of a foreign firm’s investment (what the leaked text calls “indirect expropriation”) or that change the level of regulation a foreign investor experienced under a previous government (a violation of what the text calls a “minimum standard of treatment” for foreign investors).

§ The leaked TPP text largely replicates the “minimum standard of treatment” language found in previous U.S. pacts that tribunals have used to issue some of the most alarming ISDS rulings. Tribunals often have broadly interpreted this vague “right” to fabricate new obligations for governments that do not actually exist in the texts of ISDS-enforced pacts, such as “not to alter the legal and business environment in which the investment has been made.” Due to such expansive interpretations, the “minimum standard of treatment” obligation has been the basis for three of every four ISDS cases “won” by the foreign investor under U.S. pacts.

The text allows foreign investors to demand compensation for claims of “indirect expropriation” that apply to much wider categories of property than those to which similar rights apply in U.S. law. To the limited extent that “indirect expropriation” compensation is permitted in U.S. law, it is generally available only for government actions affecting real property (i.e. land). But the leaked text would allow foreign investors to claim “indirect expropriation” if government regulations implicate their personal property, intellectual property rights, financial instruments, government permits, money, minority shareholdings or other forms of non-real-estate property.

· Foreign corporations could demand compensation for capital controls and other macro-prudential financial regulations that promote financial stability. This obligation restricts the use of capital controls or financial transaction taxes, even as the International Monetary Fund has shifted from opposing capital controls to officially endorsing them as legitimate policy tools for preventing or mitigating financial crises. Proposed provisions touted as “temporary safeguards” for capital controls would fail to protect many standard forms of capital controls, including those successfully used by TPP governments in the past to ward off financial crises.

· The leaked text could newly allow pharmaceutical firms to use TPP ISDS tribunals to demand cash compensation for claimed violations of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) rules regarding the creation, limitation or revocation of intellectual property rights. Currently, WTO rules are not privately enforceable by investors. But the leaked TPP investment text could empower individual foreign investors to directly challenge governments over policies to ensure access to affordable medicines, claiming that they constitute TPP-prohibited “expropriations” of intellectual property rights if ISDS tribunals deem them to violate WTO rules.

· There are no new safeguards that limit ISDS tribunals’ discretion to create ever-expanding interpretations of governments’ obligations to foreign investors and order compensation on that basis. The leaked text reveals the same “safeguard” terms that have been included in U.S. pacts since the 2005 Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA tribunals have simply ignored the “safeguard” provisions that the leaked text replicates for the TPP, and have continued to rule against governments based on concocted obligations to which governments never agreed. The leaked text also abandons a safeguard proposed in the 2012 leaked TPP investment text, which excluded public interest regulations from indirect expropriation claims, stating, “non-discriminatory regulatory actions … that are designed and applied to achieve legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety and the environment do not constitute indirect expropriation.” Today’s leaked text eviscerates that clause by adding a fatal loophole that has been found in past U.S. pacts.

· Most TPP countries, including the United States, have decided to expose decisions regarding the approval of foreign investments to ISDS challenge. Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand have reserved the right to pre-approve foreign investors. But the United States took no exception for reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of planned foreign investments to determine whether they pose threats to national security.

· The amount that an ISDS tribunal would order a government to pay to a foreign investor as compensation would be based on the “expected future profits” the tribunal surmises that the investor would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking as violating the substantive investor rights granted by the TPP.

· The text would submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of World Bank and United Nations tribunals. All TPP nations have agreed to be so bound with the potential exception of Australia, which has indicated that it might do the same, “subject to certain conditions.”

· None of the structural biases or conflicts of interest inherent in the ISDS system would be remedied. TPP ISDS tribunals would be staffed by highly paid corporate lawyers unaccountable to any electorate or system of legal precedent. They still would be allowed to rotate between acting as “judges” and advocates for the investors launching cases against governments. Corporations launching cases would still directly select one of the “judges.” The text includes no requirements for tribunal members to be impartial, reveal conflicts of interest or recuse themselves in instances of direct conflict. There is no internal or external mechanism to appeal the tribunal members’ decisions on the merits, and claims of procedural errors would be decided by another tribunal of corporate lawyers. The leaked text provides tribunals with discretion to determine the amount of compensation governments must pay investors and the allocation of costs, such as the tribunal members’ fees. A proposal that appeared in the 2012 leak of the text to standardize hourly fees for tribunal members at the lower end of the range of fees currently paid (about $375 per hour, compared to the $700 per hour that some tribunal members receive) has been eliminated.

· An overreaching definition of “investment” would extend the coverage of the TPP’s expansive substantive investor rights far beyond “real property,” permitting ISDS attacks over government actions and policies related to financial instruments, intellectual property, regulatory permits and more. Proposals in the 2012 leak of the text that would have narrowed the definition of “investment,” and thus the scope of policies subject to challenge, have been eliminated. Also omitted is a proposal from the earlier leaked version that would not have allowed ISDS cases related to government procurement, subsidies or government grants.

· An overreaching definition of “investor” would allow firms from non-TPP countries and firms with no real investments to exploit the extraordinary privileges the TPP would establish for foreign investors. Thus, for instance, one of the many Chinese state-owned corporations in Vietnam could “sue” the U.S. government in a foreign tribunal to demand compensation under this text.

· The leaked text reveals that U.S. negotiators are still pushing, over the objection of most other TPP nations, to empower foreign investors to bring to TPP ISDS tribunals their contract disputes with TPP signatory governments relating to natural resource concessions on federal lands, government procurement of construction for infrastructure projects, as well as contracts relating to the operation of utilities. (In the leaked chapter, text that is not yet agreed upon appears in square brackets; Public Citizen has seen a version of the text that lists which countries support various proposals.)

More from Global Trade Watch:
The leaked text provides stark warnings about the dangers of “trade” negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight. It reveals that TPP negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms that would give foreign investors expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to domestic firms under domestic law.
The leaked text would empower foreign firms to directly “sue” signatory governments
in extrajudicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals over domestic policies
that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms that foreign firms claim violate their new substantive investor rights. There they could demand taxpayer compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use and other policies and government actions they claim undermine TPP foreign investor privileges, such as the “right” to a regulatory framework that conforms to their “expectations.”

The leaked text reveals the TPP would expand the parallel ISDS legal system by
elevating tens of thousands of foreign- owned firms to the same status as sovereign governments, empowering them to privately enforce a public treaty by skirting domestic courts and laws to directly challenge TPP governments i n foreign tribunals.

And remember why this is important:
Foreign corporations have used these claims to attack tobacco, climate, financial, mining, medicine, energy, pollution, water, labor, toxins, development and other non-trade domestic policies. Under U.S. “free trade” agreements (FTAs) alone, foreign firms have already pocketed more than $440 million in taxpayer money via investor-state cases. This includes cases against natural resource policies, environmental protections, health and safety measures and more. ISDS tribunals have ordered more than $3.6 billion in compensation to investors under all U.S. FTAs and Bilateral Investment Treaties
(BITs). More than $38 billion remains in pending ISDS claims under these pacts, nearly
all of which relate to environmental, energy, financial regulation, public health, land use and transportation policies. Even when governments win cases, they are often ordered to pay for a share of the tribunal’s costs. Given that the costs just for defending a challenged policy in an ISDS case total $8 million on average, the mere filing of a case can create a chilling effect on government policymaking, even if the government expects to win. [emphasis added]
By the way, the screams and groans you just heard are coming from the White House and TPP supporters because when the elite New York Times--which has always flogged so-called "free trade" and treated opponents of such deals as backward people--writes this, this deal is sinking fast:
An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurts their business, according to a classified document.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:43 pm

The Cathedral chimes in on TPP -- I guess some checks just cleared last week.

Noah Smith ==> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... -live-with

Tyler Cowen ==> http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... rship.html

Once Krugman pens a mea culpa about how he was wrong, we'll know the fix is in.

(Just kidding. The fix was always in.)

This whole shit is closely related to the increased valuation for "intangible assets" -- the Western World's final gambit for world dominance, at least before the gloves come off, is Intellectual Property.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby Nordic » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:16 pm

I'm now seeing this being referred to the notion of "corporate nationhood".

As if "corporate personhood" wasn't enough of an abomination.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:06 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:43 pm wrote:The Cathedral chimes in on TPP -- I guess some checks just cleared last week.

Noah Smith ==> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... -live-with

Tyler Cowen ==> http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... rship.html

Once Krugman pens a mea culpa about how he was wrong, we'll know the fix is in.

(Just kidding. The fix was always in.)

This whole shit is closely related to the increased valuation for "intangible assets" -- the Western World's final gambit for world dominance, at least before the gloves come off, is Intellectual Property.


You mean this one Mr. WRex?

TPP at the NABE

March 11, 2015 8:43 am

I was in DC yesterday, giving a talk to the National Association of Business Economists. The subject was the Trans-Pacific Partnership; slides for my talk are here.

Not to keep you in suspense, I’m thumbs down. I don’t think the proposal is likely to be the terrible, worker-destroying pact some progressives assert, but it doesn’t look like a good thing either for the world or for the United States, and you have to wonder why the Obama administration, in particular, would consider devoting any political capital to getting this through.

Actually, I was glad to see Larry Summers weigh in on the same subject in yesterday’s FT. Reading that piece, you may wonder what just happened – did Larry come out for the deal or against it? The answer, I think (slide 1), is that he basically supported an idealized TPP that could have been, but came out against the TPP that actually seems to be on the table. And that means that he and I are in a similar place.

So, about the deal. The first thing you need to know is that almost everyone exaggerates the importance of trade policy. In part, I believe, this reflects globaloney: talking about international trade sounds glamorous and forward-thinking, so everyone wants to make that the centerpiece of their remarks. (The same thing happens to an even greater extent when international money issues like the dollar’s role as a reserve currency crop up.)

Also, there’s an odd dynamic involving the role of international trade in the history of economics. Comparative advantage was an early, classic example of how economic reasoning can lead to results that are true but not obvious; naturally, economists have always wanted this intellectual victory to be important in the real world too. This leads to the odd dynamic: comparative advantage says “yay free trade”, but also suggests that once trade is already fairly open, the gains from opening it further are small. But because economists want to keep shouting yay free trade, they look for reasons why those gains might be larger – even though the stories they then end up telling are inconsistent with the competitive model that was the basis for free-trade advocacy in the first place.

One particular misuse of the yay-free-trade sentiment is the persistent effort to make protectionism a cause of economic slumps, and trade liberalization a route to recovery. How many times have you seen the Kindleberger “spiderweb” chart showing declining world trade in the early years of the Great Depression, which is then invoked as showing the evils of protectionism (slide 2)? In fact, it shows no such thing; you can draw a similar chart for the Great Recession (slide 3), when we know that there was no upsurge in protectionism.

The fact is that at this point trade is fairly free (slide 4), and estimates of the cost of protectionism from standard models are quite small (slide 5). Trade restrictions just aren’t a major drag on the world economy these days, so the gains from liberalization must be small.

What about TPP? There are still important barriers in agriculture, but advocates are pinning most of their case on services, where we’re talking about more diffuse issues of access. How much could that be worth? I try to put some upper bounds on the gains (slide 6). I’ve estimated that “hyperglobalization” – the expansion of world trade to unprecedented levels since 1990 – has added about 5 percent to world incomes; but that’s the combination of everything: containerization, drastic trade liberalization in developing countries, the internet. A better model might be Europe’s Single Market Act, which the European Commission now estimates added 1.8 percent to real incomes; but Eichengreen and Boltho suggest that about half of that reflects policy changes that would have happened anyway.

And Europe, which has a compact geography and the kind of shared institutions and culture (and transparency) that make access doable, is surely a better case than the diverse, sprawling group of countries involved in TPP. I’d argue that it’s implausible to claim that TPP could add more than a fraction of one percent to the incomes of the nations involved; even the 0.5 percent suggested by Petri et al looks high to me.

These gains aren’t nothing, but we’re not talking about a world-shaking deal here.

So why do some parties want this deal so much? Because as with many “trade” deals in recent years, the intellectual property aspects are more important than the trade aspects. Leaked documents suggest that the US is trying to get radically enhanced protection for patents and copyrights; this is largely about Hollywood and pharma rather than conventional exporters. What do we think about that (slide 7)?

Well, we should never forget that in a direct sense, protecting intellectual property means creating a monopoly – letting the holders of a patent or copyright charge a price for something (the use of knowledge) that has a zero social marginal cost. In that direct sense this introduces a distortion that makes the world a bit poorer.

There is, of course, an offset in the form of an increased incentive to create knowledge, which is why we have patents and copyright in the first place. But do we really think that inadequate incentive to create new drugs or new movies is a major problem right now?

You might try to argue that there is a US interest in enhancing IP protection even if it’s not good for the world, because in many cases it’s US corporations with the property rights. But are they really US firms in any meaningful sense? If pharma gets to charge more for drugs in developing countries, do the benefits flow back to US workers? Probably not so much.

Which brings me to my last point: Why, exactly, should the Obama administration spend any political capital – alienating labor, disillusioning progressive activists – over such a deal?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/?_r=0
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:52 pm

Breaking: Leading House Democrat Will Oppose TPP Fast Track

As legislation to fast-track Congressional approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership gets ready to finally make its debut in Congress this week, a top Democratic member of the House announced he would oppose the bill.

Representative Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, wrote in a letter Representative Sandy Levin, the ranking member of the House Ways & Means Committee, that he would oppose fast-track authority, also known as Trade Promotion Authority or TPA. The letter was obtained by The Nation and its authenticity was confirmed by an aide to Van Hollen.

Van Hollen opposed a previous iteration of fast-track legislation last year, as did most other top Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But so far, many of those Democrats (including Van Hollen) had not yet announced a position on the new TPA legislation being hammered out by Senators Ron Wyden, Orrin Hatch, and Representative Paul Ryan. (Levin opted out of those talks, and believes Congress should see at least the outline of a trade deal before taking up legislation to fast-track its approval.) Pelosi still remains publicly undecided.

If Van Hollen—a visible member of the Democratic caucus and ranking member of a major committee—ultimately supported the Wyden-Hatch-Ryan bill, it would have been a signal that House Democrats were ready to go along with the Obama administration’s trade agenda. But in his letter, Van Hollen wrote “it is clear that many [of my concerns] will not be included in a revised TPA.”

While the legislation remains behind closed doors for now, Van Hollen said continuing public opposition from Republicans made it clear that the TPA legislation wouldn’t include additional currency, labor, and environmental provisions. Moreover, he wrote that since TPA was being unveiled so close to the conclusion of the overall trade talks, “it is clearly too late for TPA to have any meaningful impact on the shape of TPP negotiations.”

Like virtually all Democrats, Van Hollen cited concerns that enforceable currency manipulation obligations would not be included in the trade deal.

He also said he objects to further entrenching the investor-state dispute settlement process, which according to negotiating documents leaked last month by Wikileaks will be included in the TPP deal. Those provisions set up a process of international tribunals where foreign companies can challenge regulatory actions by sovereign governments, and seek financial damages for any lost profit as a result of regulation. Van Hollen wrote that “a TPP that allows for increased investor lawsuits could undermine a government’s right to regulate in the public interest and involve the US in costly and detrimental lawsuits covered by American taxpayers.”

Van Hollen further cited concerns over labor standards in some of the signatory countries, particularly Vietnam, and said he insists on an agreement that includes “strong and enforceable labor protections as well as an action plan to ensure that countries are complying with internationally recognized labor rights.”

The next several days will be crucial for the fate of TPA. Many Democrats have so far remained neutral or muted on the ongoing talks, but as the legislation finally proceeds towards a vote, several leading and visible Democrats like Van Hollen will start to take positions. Activists were heartened that Van Hollen dropped an early marker in the fight. “This letter lists some good reasons why fast track is in trouble—including investor lawsuits, currency manipulation, and workers rights—but this will come down to the growing realization that fast track will make it easier to send American jobs overseas,” said Jason Stanford of the Coalition to Stop Fast Track.

Wyden's office did not immediately return a request for comment. Van Hollen's letter can be seen here:

4.14.15 Van Hollen to Levin Letter on TPA
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby Nordic » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:52 am

"Fast tracked" = sneaked
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Fuck the TPP. And fuck Obama for pushing it so hard.

Postby Harvey » Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:49 am

There are a lot of these about. I've been going to protests against TTIP since the late last year but there are relatively few people who seem to be aware of these, let alone their number and comprehensive reach. Very few, apart from government spokesmen and corporate CEO's, business leaders etc seem to be in favour. None of the negotiations are publicly accountable, and real information is scanty.

TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

TISA Trade In Services Agreement



TPP - Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment Chapter

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/press.html

WikiLeaks releases today the "Investment Chapter" from the secret negotiations of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement. The document adds to the previous WikiLeaks publications of the chapters for Intellectual Property Rights (November 2013) and the Environment (January 2014).

The TPP Investment Chapter, published today, is dated 20 January 2015. The document is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor said: "The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty. Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies."


TISA - Memorandum on Leaked TISA Financial Services Text

by Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand

https://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/analysis.html

This memorandum provides a preliminary analysis of the leaked financial services chapter of the Trade in Services Agreement dated 14 April 2014. It makes the following points:

The secrecy of negotiating documents exceeds even the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and runs counter to moves in the WTO towards greater openness.
The TISA is being promoted by the same governments that installed the failed model of financial (de)regulation in the WTO and which has been blamed for helping to fuel the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
The same states shut down moves by other WTO Members to critically debate these rules following the GFC with a view to reform.
They want to expand and deepen the existing regime through TISA, bypassing the stalled Doha round at the WTO and creating a new template for future free trade agreements and ultimately for the WTO.
TISA is designed for and in close consultation with the global finance industry, whose greed and recklessness has been blamed for successive crises and who continue to capture rulemaking in global institutions.
A sample of provisions from this leaked text show that governments signing on to TISA will: be expected to lock in and extend their current levels of financial deregulation and liberalisation; lose the right to require data to be held onshore; face pressure to authorise potentially toxic insurance products; and risk a legal challenge if they adopt measures to prevent or respond to another crisis.

Without the full TISA text, any analysis is necessarily tentative. The draft TISA text and the background documents need to be released to enable informed analysis and decision-making.

Unprecedented Secrecy Reverses WTO Trend of Disclosure

The cover sheet records that the draft text will not be declassified until 5 years after the TISA comes into force or the negotiations are otherwise closed. Presumably this also applies to other documents aside from the final text. This exceeds the 4 years in the super-secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA)! It also contradicts the hard-won transparency at the WTO, which has published documents relating to negotiations online for a number of years.1

TTIP - Why The Rest of The World should Be Wary

http://ttip2015.eu/files/content/docs/Full%20documents/ttip_the_rest_of_the_world_should_be_awareenglish.pdf


The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a comprehensive free trade and investment treaty currently being negotiated – practically in secret – between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US). It could have massive implications for people and the environment on both sides of the Atlantic. The stakes couldn ́t be higher, and not only for Europeans and Americans, but also for the rest of the world, which would be affected in many different ways by this agreement between these two superpowers of trade. The objectives of TTIP go well beyond intentions to solidify the Anglo-Saxon neoliberal model. It is a geopolitical
strategy to confront the emergence of a multipolar world.

In this paper, we explore from various angles why human rights, environmental, consumer advocate and many other types of organizations all over the world that are working toward a world different from the corporate-led neoliberal dogma, should pay special attention to TTIP.

We offer here a summary.

Some potential global impacts of TTIP at a glance

    1. TTIP seeks to undermine the historic resistance to US and EU intentions to impose a global model of free trade and investment

    2. The EU and the US aim to set global standards on trade and investment and impose them on the world

    3. Regulatory cooperation in TTIP as a threat to the global South TTIP and financial Services

    5. The EU and the US attempt to establish “common values” undermining and marginalizing non participant countries. (Do the US and the EU really have “common values”?)

    6. TTIP as a response to the emergence of china, the BRICS, and other emergent countries and its impact on multilateral trade (and trade related) negotiations

    7. TTIP as leverage for the US and EU bilateral and inter – regional negotiations (i.e. the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, the EU–MERCOSUR negotiations, EU–ASEAN, etc.)

    8. TTIP contradicts EU pro-development rhetoric and Policy coherence for Development, and global efforts to overcome poverty

    9. TTIP would put pressure on other countries against “localization barriers to trade” measures, and weaken policy tools to foster local development (contradicting the European concept of “subsidiarity”)

    10. TTIP is a frontal attack on state-owned enterprises (SoEs) and other government–controlled entities

    11. TTIP could have an enormous economic impact on other countries, including market access to the EU and the US, for lDcs (impact on preferential treatment programs)

    12. TTIP and global food safety standards

    13. Trade of energy under TTIP and the endangerment of efforts to tackle climate change

    14. TTIP and the threat to Digital Rights

    15. TTIP and the undermining of International Treaties on Human rights


Not a lot was known about TTIP, but according to wikileaks, Zeit Online have published a draft version of the document but I haven't managed to find it yet:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/439570482866577408

http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2014-02/freihandelsabkommen-eu-sonderrechte-konzerne

Anyone speak German?
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests