TPP: do you truly give a crap?

[MannyGoldstein]

How passionate are you about this TPP thing?

46 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Fantastic idea
	0 (0%)
	Great idea
	0 (0%)
	Good idea
	1 (2%)
	Whatever
	2 (4%)
	Bad idea
	0 (0%)
	Terrible idea
	3 (7%)
	Disastrous idea
	38 (83%)
	Idunno because it's being kept secret and I don't think the leaks are real
	2 (4%)
	Idunno because Idunno
	0 (0%)
	Other (please elaborate)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Recursion]

1. Marginally bad idea

There's little sense pissing off other countries and our own party for a treaty that doesn't actually change very much.

[fadedrose]

2. Idunno

because I find it hard to believe that anything so bad will be agreed to by all the countries in the world .. ..

There appear to be no advantages to people anywhere. I'm thinking TPP must be an April Fool's Day joke .. .. maybe that's the day they'll pass it and the President or Somebody will say "Gotcha!" .. ..

[MannyGoldstein]

3. What if it's good for most of the world's 1%?

Say, if it's a worldwide agreement to strip the 99% of protections?

[fadedrose]

4. Call the French

and see where they got their guillotines....

Seems like workers there call the shots, now asking for a shorter day. I can't see them putting up with this crap.

[CJCRANE]

19. They voted for Hollande, an economic populist and boring "normal guy"

but soon found out that his private life was anything but boring and his economic policies didn't live up to expectations.

His approval rating is now at 12%.

Sometimes politicians manage to convince us of things that we later regret, but by then it's too late.

See...an endless array of examples.

[wandy]

35. Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%...............

Ever get the feeling that this game is rigged?

[Ykcutnek]

5. According to Krugman, proponents and opponents of it are hyping the positives and negatives.

He said it's no big deal if it goes through and no big deal if it doesn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html

[MannyGoldstein]

6. But Elizabeth Warren thinks it's a pretty bad idea

Both people I respect.

[Ykcutnek]

7. Good point.

My main problem with it right now is the lack of transparency.

The entire deal needs to be released and publicly debated, rather than being ramrodded through Congress before we know what hit us.

It could be the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since the cattle cars in Nazi Germany.

We deserve to know.

[Jim Lane]

20. Krugman, an economist, is analyzing the economics. My biggest concern is legal.

The leaked tidbits strongly suggest that TPP would give multi-national corporations unprecedented powers to set aside laws (notably state and local laws) that inconvenience them.

I can see this as being no big deal economically. The Republicans fear-monger about how, for example, environmental protection costs jobs, but it really just redirects the jobs. Instead of dumping the effluent in the river, the company hires a few extra people to operate the treatment facility, and therefore can't hire quite as many in other parts of the plant. Economically, I agree, that's no big deal.

My perspective, however, is that of a lawyer who's done environmental work, including mass tort cases, and who might end up representing the people downstream. If the state can't enforce its regulation against the dumping, it's a big deal to those people.

[Dont call me Shirley]

26. +1

[MannyGoldstein]

37. I agree with you. nt

[sendero]

22. Well if it is no big deal if it doesn't..

.... then why all the work, secrecy and subterfuge to get it passed?

I'm rapidly losing my already limited faith in Krugman.

[olddots]

8. beyond the beyond in dumbth .

We ain't seen nothin yet ....

[nationalize the fed]

9. I don't like it for the same reasons Obama gave when he said he was going to re-negotiate NAFTA

of course he was lying, but still he managed to tell the truth while lying, which is somewhat impressive. And his people calling Canada and telling them it was just campaign bullshit is worth a laugh or two.

Which was worse, saying he would re-negotiate NAFTA or promising no insurance mandate...Decisions, decisions.

At least we all know where Hillary Rodham Clinton stands. Not because anyone in the Media has brought it up though. Hmmm. Maybe there's a reason for that.

[pampango]

14. Canada and Mexico are part of TPP negotiations. Terms of trade with them are being "renegotiated".

It seems unlikely that the TPP will ever be approved but if it were, NAFTA would become defunct just like the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement that NAFTA replaced.

[Octafish]

10. We* bail out the banks. Give multi-billion dollar bonuses to the banksters who stole it.

We let the warmongers and war profiteers who lied America into wars for profit walk free.

We are giving away our jobs and economy to the lords of international finance, the self-proclaimed masters of the universe who own an increasingly large share of the planet.

* By "We" I don't mean the People, I mean the government -- the Administration and the Congress and the Courts.

So, yeah. I care.

[Hoyt]

11. Why is it taking so long to get it passed? I thought corportists, Obama, other nations planning to

take our jobs, Wall Street, the Third Way, etc., had it greased and ready to fast track.

I think Krugman is right on this, like most things.

Plus, our problems are a lot deeper than we are losing jobs to trade agreements.

[BootinUp]

32. krugman is not always right, but

he's usually pretty damn close.

[JDPriestly]

12. I oppose any agreement that is so bad, so thrreatening to our society that its provisions have

to be kept secret.

If the agreement were good for America, Obama would be very honest and open with us about what it entails.

If Obama requests fast-track approval without having given the American public plenty of time to review and discuss what is in it, I will be very upset. It's just wrong.

Treaties like this are serious business. They have the same force of law as the Constitution basically. They impose a judicial system that does not answer the the American people. They decisions of a court that is not foreseen by our Constitution specifically and that does not answer to the American people will have the authority and jurisdiction to prevent or prohibit enforcement of state and local laws as well as federal laws. This could really hurt us in terms of our ability to pass and enforce laws that protect our environment, our families and our country in general.

I absolutely oppose the TPP. The trade agreements we now have are doing us more than enough harm. We should be renegotiating or ending the agreements we have. Our negative trade balance is a danger to our country. We are importing way more than we are exporting. If you don't believe me, Google it for yourself.

[RiverLover]

13. This is the problem Elizabeth Warren has with it~

Elizabeth Warren Speaks Out Against The President’s Trans-Pacific “Free Trade” Agreement
Sept 2013

As more and more people across the United States find out about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), we’re beginning to see a growing opposition to not only the President’s latest pet project, but his economy-killing, corporatist trade agenda in general.

Not only are people upset about President Obama and others in control keeping the details of the TPP a secret, but President Obama’s declaration that he’s willing to use fast-track authority have many up in arms, including Senator Elizabeth Warren.

The problem with President Obama utilizing fast track trade authority – a common tool in passing international trade arrangements – is that Congress is limited to a black and white vote of yes or no. Essentially, no changes can be made to the text of the TPP. This is alarming when you consider that trade agreements like the TPP affect millions of Americans.

By dismissing input from congressional representatives and the public on trade agreement matters, President Obama is sending a message to the country that says bluntly: “I don’t care about your opinion.”

The message from the President is resonating across the country, and people like Sen. Elizabeth Warren have begun to raise the alarm about the harm the TPP could do to our country. In fact, Sen. Warren has recently been demanding more transparency from the White House regarding the TPP, condemning the secrecy it has been shrouded in.

She’s even said that “if transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”

Her words align with many others who believe the only reason President Obama would be going to such lengths to keep the details of the TPP a secret is because he knows if the public ever found out what was in the text, we would never allow it to pass...

http://economyincrisis.org/content/elizabeth-warren-speaks-out-against-the-presidents-trans-pacific-free-trade-agreement

[F4lconF16]

25. This is yet another problem I have with the TPP.

By dismissing input from congressional representatives and the public on trade agreement matters, President Obama is sending a message to the country that says bluntly: “I don’t care about your opinion.”

This is not what we need to win an election. If voters know that even if they vote Democratic, they will be ignored, they will not vote for either. It is critical that Democrats in Congress and the President at the very least release this to the public for debate, or they will simply perpetuate the (sadly correct) meme that Democrats ignore the people they are supposedly protecting.

[MisterP]

39. that's the fatal flaw of "you OWE us your votes," innit?

[dmosh42]

15. If it was to be so good for us, where's the transparency? I'm sure the 1% love it!

[pampango]

16. It would be a good idea IF, as China and some republicans seem to fear, it has labor and environment

standards that are enforceable. Obviously, those are two things that China and republicans can agree should not be in any international agreement.

China seems to fear that TPP is a plot to weaken its economy by excluding it from trade benefits that go to countries that agree to higher labor and environmental standards than China is comfortable with. If it just involved cutting tariffs and weakening environmental rules China would probably be all for the TPP.

I don't know why China's government and some republicans are so convinced that there are strict standards on labor rights and environmental standards. None of us have seen any leaks that have shown that to be true. Perhaps they are just inherently suspicious that there is some international conspiracy out to get them.

[ucrdem]

21. Environmental protections and labor rights have been in the language of the TTP from the start.

Whether and how they appear in the final treaty remains to be seen. Anyway here's a typical example, from the Nov. 2014 Trade Ministers’ Report to Leaders:

• Recognizing the commitment of all TPP countries to strong environmental protection and conservation, we have made progress toward agreement on a set of enforceable environmental disciplines.

• To ensure that the benefits of trade are broadly shared, we are close to agreement on a set of enforceable commitments on labour rights that embody key ILO labour rights.


Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/11/20141110310755.html#ixzz3L7wYCZ4P

[pampango]

23. Thanks. I had never seen that Trade Ministers’ Report. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

31. The provisions won't be strict, that is the problem.

Which of our prior trade agreements have had labor and environmental provisions that actually raised standards? NAFTA, Guatemala, Colombia?

Nope, none of them. It is smoke and mirrors to say that a labor or an environmental chapter can be strong enough to outweigh the corporate rights provisions in the investment, financial services, government procurement, sanitary and phytosanitary (food safety), and technical barriers to trade chapters. These deals enshrine neoliberal (aka trickle down, supply side) economic rules, and labor and environmental chapters, particularly when the Administration has complete discretion to enforce them or not, can't undo that.

[pampango]

40. We don't know that. If they are not strict, there is not good reason to consider them. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

42. We do know that.

Have you read one of the labor chapters in any of our trade agreements? I have. Here is one:

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/peru/asset_upload_file73_9496.pdf

There is nothing in this chapter that requires ongoing review of a country's labor laws or enforcement practices. There is nothing that requires a government to act even if they do find that a trading partner's law are out of compliance or enforcement is lax. There is nothing at all that ensures a level playing field between the US and our trading partners.

Even the GAO says that the USG is doing a shitty job of enforcing labor chapters of trade agreements:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-160

And, the US has never once instigated an environmental case against any trading partner. So the environmental provisions might as well not even be there. Unless of course you think that places like Mexico and Colombia are environmental paradises.

Try doing a little research before believing the USTR's pro-trade propaganda.

[pampango]

44. Your point is that labor chapters in previous agreements were bad. I agree.

If you are saying that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past forever so we should quit trying to make a better agreement, I disagree.

If the final draft of the TPP is not much better on labor rights and environmental standards than previous agreements were, then it should be rejected.

If we then reject the TPP, we would then continue to trade under existing WTO rules or the rules of the separate trade agreements that are already in force with several of these countries. That won't be good for labor rights or the environment either but it would be better approving such a flawed new agreement.

[OrwellwasRight]

45. I am saying that neither Obama nor Froman

has indicated that the labor and environmental chapters of TPP will be different in substantial ways from prior agreements. They keep saying bullshit like "21st Century Standards" but that doesn't mean anything. Their silence on meaningful changes is telling. You do know who Froman is, right? Citibank, Wall Street, neoliberal. Not a friend to labor I can tell you.

If the TPP is so great, why isn't the AFL-CIO campaigning for it? The AFL-CIO holds a seat on the "labor advisory commitee" which gets to see the secret US texts before the US puts those texts on the table. They can't reveal the contents of what they have seen without breaking the law, but they can form an opinion about it.

Here is what the AFL-CIO has to say:

http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/EC-Statements/Get-Off-the-Fast-Track-to-Job-Loss

http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/EC-Statements/Why-Aren-t-We-Having-a-Meaningful-Discussion-About-the-Global-Economy

[pampango]

46. I believe they have made clear that is the intent. I don't think it will matter.

Congress is not going to approve 'fast track' authority for Obama to negotiate the TPP. As Sherrod Brown said: "They (republicans) don’t want to give him power certainly with the Environmental Protection Agency. They don’t want to give him power on human (and labor) rights. They don’t want to give him power on health care. Do they want to give him power on international trade?”

Liberals in congress don't want him to have fast track authority. Tea party politicians don't trust him to have it. Without the up-or-down vote that goes with fast trace, the republican-dominated congress will be able to delete anything they don't like. If there are strong labor and environmental standards or not won't matter much when republicans delete them from the TPP and pass it without those provisions.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

It is the Obama administration’s avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high — especially rules regarding behavior by state-owned enterprises — that China could never join without transforming its economic system.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/

...the negotiation is subject to the U.S. domestic politics. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html

[OrwellwasRight]

47. NAFTA also had "strong labor and environmental provisions"

according to Clinton. Read this: www.aflcio.org/NAFTAat20

and the Peru FTA had "strong labor and environmental provisions" according to Bush. It is already rolling back labor laws: http://www.laborrights.org/blog/201408/fighting-labor-law-rollback-peru

And the Colombia FTA had "strong labor and environmental provisions" according to Obama (by the way they are still killing people for joining unions in Colombia and they are still hiring workers through illegal subcontracting arrangements in order to avoid paying fair wages and recognizing labor rights). Read this: http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/04/u-s-colombia-labour-rights-plan-falls-short/

What leads you to believe that their "intent" has anything to do with the truth?

Also, you are far too certain that the the President won't get Fast Track. Try reading the non-propaganda about it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-he-willing-to-defy-democrats-on-his-support-of-trans-pacific-partnership/2014/12/03/25edcaf4-7b30-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-washington-whats-next-20141106-story.html#page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-crafts-narrow-agenda-for-new-congress-seeking-unity-democratic-votes/2014/11/05/b9305bf2-6518-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html

Or, check how Tea Partiers actually voted WITH Obama on trade deals in 2011:

Panama Deal: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll782.xml (Republican vote 234-6)

Colombia Deal: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll781.xml (Republican vote 231 - 9)

Korea Deal: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll783.xml (Republican vote 219-21)

It is foolhardy to assume that Fast Track or the TPP are dead.

[nationalize the fed]

48. Fast track and the Trans Pacific Partnership

were both part of the 2012 Republican Party Platform (as well as the Democratic party platform).

Congress is not going to approve 'fast track' authority for Obama to negotiate the TPP. As Sherrod Brown said: ...Blah Blah...Do they want to give him power on international trade?

What a joke. Except it's not funny. We're talking about people's jobs here.

Sherrod Brown is either not paying attention or playing politics. Screw the income tax. The Feds spend that in seconds on war anyway. If people just paid attention the nation would be in better shape.

Republican Party on Free Trade
Party Platform

Restore presidential Trade Promotion Authority

International trade is crucial for our economy. It means more American jobs, higher wages, & a better standard of living. The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies facilitated the creation of nearly ten million jobs supported by our exports. That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration's slowness in completing agreements begun by its predecessor and its failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations.

We call for the restoration of presidential Trade Promotion Authority. It will ensure up or down votes in Congress on any new trade agreements, without meddling by special interests. A Republican President will complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open rapidly developing Asian markets to US products. Beyond that, we envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a "Reagan Economic Zone," in which free trade will truly be fair trade.

Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

Even with the vast amounts of info available on the internet, many people are just plain uninformed. And so the next generations will have to figure out how to get rid of abominations like the TPP.

Because Fast track will be granted and the TPP will happen. And there won't be any protests (to speak of) because most people will be talking about the Super Bowl.

[raouldukelives]

18. Once we can get our wages on par with China it will be an employment renaissance.

Think of the job creation stats. Little Foxxconns popping up all over. Environmental regulations out the window. OSHA? We can do this for the kids.

[RiverLover]

24. Nat'l Geographic: 4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment

"If the environment chapter is finalized as written in this leaked document, President Obama's environmental trade record would be worse than George W. Bush's," Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement after a draft of the agreement was published Wednesday on WikiLeaks.

"This draft chapter falls flat on every single one of our issues—oceans, fish, wildlife, and forest protections—and in fact, rolls back on the progress made in past free trade pacts," he said.

The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership is a huge pact that would govern about 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product and one-third of world trade, said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The agreement involves a sprawling cast of countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.

The NRDC joined with the Sierra Club and WWF in criticizing the leaked draft of the environment chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange said proved the chapter was "a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."

The White House has pushed back against such criticisms. In a blog post responding to the leak this week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) wrote that "stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) or we will not come to agreement."

Here are four grievances voiced by environmental groups over the leaked chapter:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140117-trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-environment-obama/

[FiveGoodMen]

27. Obama's craziest detractors have alleged some wild stuff

But none of it is worse than what he's actually doing.

This is a plan to end democracy worldwide (allowing people to keep the word but not the reality).

[think]

28. CWA Union: EMERGENCY MEETING ON FIGHTING FAST TRACK FOR TPP

(Bold added for emphasis)

EMERGENCY MEETING ON FIGHTING FAST TRACK FOR TPP


Dec 4, 2014

Rep. Rosa DeLauro sounded the alarm yesterday at an emergency meeting at CWA Headquarters called by the Citizens Trade Campaign: A bill calling on Congress to give up its right to review the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is sure to come early next year.

"I have never voted for fast track; I don't care if it was for a Democrat or a Republican," a defiant DeLauro (D-CT) told activists gathered at CWA yesterday. "I didn't come to Washington to say, here, you take it. I don't want the responsibility.&quot *)

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was equally adamant he would fight fast track. "I have a fundamental aversion to simply handing over congressional authority," he said.(*)

~Snip~

"We've seen this movie before and it doesn't have a happy ending," DeLauro said. "NAFTA pitted good American jobs against Mexico's $10-a-day wages. TPP puts us with Vietnam where we're looking at minimum wage that is more like 52 cents an hour. We know that we're going to watch more American jobs vanish."


Read more:
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/emergency_meeting_on_fighting_fast_track_for_tpp#.VIMjZTHF8To

[djean111]

29. IMO the TPP is a step towards making the US (and the world) sort of like a giant WalMart.

Low wages, shoddy goods, no benefits, spit on environmental and human concerns.
Killing the golden goose - the working class.

Here are some other things that the "trade" agreement will do :

http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_Public-Health.html

The TPP would provide large pharmaceutical firms with new rights and powers to increase medicine prices and limit consumers' access to cheaper generic drugs. This would include extensions of monopoly drug patents that would allow drug companies to raise prices for more medicines and even allow monopoly rights over surgical procedures. For people in the developing countries involved in TPP, these rules could be deadly - denying consumers access to HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and cancer drugs.

The TPP would establish new rules that could undermine government programs in developed countries. The TPP would control the cost of medicines by employing drug formularies. These are lists of proven medicines that the government selects for use by government health care systems. Lower prices are negotiated for bulk purchase of such drugs and new medicines that are under monopoly patents are not approved if less expensive generic drugs are equally effective. Drug firms would be empowered to challenge these decisions and pricing standards. In the United States, these rules threaten provisions included in Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' health programs to make medicines more affordable for seniors, military families and the poor.

TPP would empower foreign pharmaceutical corporations to directly attack our domestic patent and drug-pricing laws in foreign tribunals. Already under NAFTA, which does not contain the new rules proposed for TPP, drug firm Eli Lilly has launched such a case against Canada, demanding $100 million for the government's enforcement of its own patent standards.

The TPP would also empower foreign corporations to directly challenge domestic toxics, zoning, cigarette and alcohol and other public health and environmental policies to demand taxpayer compensation for any such policies that undermine their expected future profits. Often initiatives to improve such laws are chilled by the mere filing of such an "investor-state" case. In other instances, countries eliminate the attacked policies. For instance Canada lifted a ban on a gasoline additive already banned in the U.S. as a suspected carcinogen after an investor attack by Ethyl Corporation under NAFTA. It also paid the firm $13 million and published a formal statement that the chemical was not hazardous.

Gee, what will this do to health care premiums? The insurance companies will just raise them, they are not going to eat increased prices for medicine or health care.

My, what a legacy! And how wonderful that The Inevitable One helped write this and is, of course, in favor of it.
I guess being against the TPP is my glitter-shitting unicorn. But - it is quite a massive unicorn, no?

[99Forever]

30. Anyone who supports this, is my sworn enemy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Idunno.

I've read arguments for and against it; I think most people overestimate their ability to make an informed judgement on it. On the one hand, the arguments against seem superficially more convincing, but on the other hand, it's seems to have the support of more than 50% of those who know what they're talking about (obviously, overall, its support is much lower than 50%).

Give me a few years to study economics and trade, then get back to me.

[CJCRANE]

34. Regardless of whether it's good or bad, I believe in democracy

and the right of the populace to be informed about and engaged in decisions made on their behalf.

I don't go along with the traditional view of "representative democracy" anymore as that's failed us too many times.

We need a more direct, participatory democracy (in which our representatives and media listen to us more and take our views into account).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. I completely disagree - I believe in representative democracy.

I think that informed opinion should count for far more than uninformed opinion.

The virtue of democracy is not that the will of the people is the wisest arbiter, but that it forces the ruler to consider the interests of the ruled, not just his own personal well-being. But, on average (there are exceptions) elected politicians, even the ones who are wrong, are much better informed about political issues than most people are.

I think that government by referendum would be an untrammelled catastrophe.

[CJCRANE]

38. I didn't say anything about government by referendum.

I just believe that representative democracy in its present form isn't serving the people as it was meant to.

There is a lack of transparency. Just look at the events of this century: 9/11 about which we still don't know the full story, CIA torture likewise, the same with the run up to the Iraq War, the financial crash and many more.

Time after time our elected representatives have not made choices that benefit the majority of the people. They have made choices that benefit a small clique of people. Even if they are better informed (which is debatable - just look at the recent vote on the NDAA which many voted on without reading) that doesn't mean that they have our best interests at heart.

[aspirant]

49. How do the uninformed get informed?

If 51% of the electorate became informed, would govt by referendum be righteous?

Does the informed want to maintain their private club by means of propaganda and making educational knowledge too expensive for the masses?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. Years of dedicated study.

The problem is not that "people are stupid" - on average, people are of roughly average intelligence.

But consider the average man in the street.

You would not, I submit, instinctively trust him to repair your brakes, or educate your children, or remove your tonsils, or programme your antivirus software, or fix your boiler, or fly your plane, or measure the curvature of spacetime, or build your house, or raise horses, or do anything else hard.

It may well be that, through years of study and training, he has acquired one or two of those skills, and if he can demonstrate that he has done so, *then* you would trust him to undertake that single activity on your behalf, and hopefully defer to him in matters concerning it unless you have similar expertise.

And yet in politics - much of which is extraordinarily complicated - we seem to assume that simply reading newspapers now and then makes one a qualified expert. This strikes me as deeply misguided.



The answer to your second question, incidentally, is very simple: "no".

[Odin2005]

41. TTP means the strangling of American Democracy.

[OrwellwasRight]

43. +1000

[Odin2005]

52. Orwell was definitely right!

[WillyT]

50. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Scootaloo]

51. As I brought to another poster, there's a simple test for whether it's a good idea.

First. name all the rich people you can think of who support these sort of trade agreements.

Then...

Name one poor person who wants them.

[Derek V]

53. Based on the consequences of past "free trade" deals...

I say we had all better give a crap.