America is about to make a horrible mistake all over again

[RiverLover]

Bill Clinton signs NAFTA into law in Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 1993. (Credit: Reuters/Mike Theiler)

America is about to make a horrible mistake all over again
SALON
5/8/2015

Throughout all of the media escapades, a lot of promises were made. On the signing of NAFTA, President Clinton said that the deal would create an economic order in the world that would “promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment and a greater possibility of world peace.” Specific promises were also made — Clinton said that the deal would “create 200,000 jobs [in the U.S.] by 1995,” specifically “by fostering an export boom to Mexico.”

NAFTA was not a typical trade deal. There was much more to it than just cutting tariffs and quotas. This deal was more about expanding corporate privileges and safeguarding foreign investments, which in a sense makes it less about free trade, and more about hooking up big business with the ultimate corporate welfare package. NAFTA included the infamous Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision, extended patent rights for medicine, and limited regulation for certain industries.

The promises were great, but like so many political promises, they were just plain wrong. While an export boom to Mexico was predicted, the opposite happened....

...Of course, with a trade deficit came the loss of American jobs. It is estimated that NAFTA resulted in a net loss of more than 1 million U.S. jobs, while more than 5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since its signing. Certain corporations, which had lobbied for NAFTA, also made promises that it would help them create new domestic jobs, but ended up outsourcing jobs. Johnson & Johnson, for example, promised that it would hire hundreds of U.S. workers, but instead moved jobs offshore to Mexico. Three years after NAFTA went into effect, 60 out of 67 companies that had made these sort of promises had not fulfilled them. It has also been shown that NAFTA has contributed to our growing inequality, which is unsurprising, with all of the cheap labor offshoring brought to corporations.

So, promises of job growth and equality were completely false. But what about President Clinton’s promise of “better preservation of the environment”? Well, a look at use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which is set to be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, does not give one much hope....

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/08/america_is_about_to_make_a_horrible_mistake_all_over_again/

[RiverLover]

1. Does this sound familiar? Deja Vu is headed our way...

House Passes NAFTA, 234-200 : Clinton Hails Vote as Decision 'Not to Retreat' : Congress: Sometimes bitter debate over the trade pact reflects hard-fought battle among divided Democrats. Rapid approval is expected in the Senate.

November 18, 1993|JAMES GERSTENZANG and MICHAEL ROSS | TIMES STAFF WRITERS

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-18/news/mn-58150_1_trade-pact

April 2015 -GOP confident on fast-track votes

May 1, 2015 - Trade Deal on Hold While Obama Woos Democrats

Why do our Democratic presidents do Republican deals once elected.

Why????

[sulphurdunn]

42. Because if our deomcratic

presidents weren't really republican presidents, we'd only have republican presidents, which would be bad for maintaining the fiction that the US is a democratic republic.

[GoneFishin]

55. Boom. You nailed it!

[hifiguy]

120. Clinton gave us the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

(a/k/a the Protect Mickey Mouse Forever law), the Telecom Act (which allowed for the insane concentration of media ownership we now see) and his/HRC's buddy Larry Summers was the driving force behind ending the Glass-Steagall law, which has allowed the banks to completely take over economic policy.

No wonder the Clintons were so lavishly rewarded since leaving office. They carried an ocean's worth of water for the billionaires and bankers.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

78. Because we have no true Labor Party ...

It's as simple as that.

[99Forever]

2. HUGE K&R Never forget that NEOLIBERALS are pushing this shit on workers scam.

This is their legacy.

Don't say you weren't warned when your living in a cardboard box under a bridge.

[TBF]

22. Correct. And I believe that is how you get backlash votes like the

horror in UK this morning. When liberals cannot distinguish themselves from conservatives there is no need to vote for them.

[RiverLover]

53. ding ding ding!

Nailed it.

[BrotherIvan]

56. +1

Or the last two midterm cycles. I know! Let's do it again!!!!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

79. Absolutely Exactly. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Well NAFTA was literally a Republican deal, originated, negotiated and signed by George Bush

and then walked through Congress by Clinton after Bush's defeat in the election. Bill should have sacked it, but both Clinton and Bush supported it as candidates. Perot opposed it, but he was also a racist right winger.
Leaving Bush out of NAFTA discussions serves the GOP and the Bush legacy. I will happily blame Bill for his part in it, but I will not leave out the Republican part nor the fact that the entire agreement was a Bush invention. I question the motives for writers who simply edit out the Republicans from the NAFTA story.

[RiverLover]

5. Why did Clinton "walk through" a republican deal? He sold it to Americans! Myself included.

Suckered me right in.

And btw, the TPP originated with Bush Jr, but it was small scale when he left office, only 3 Asian countries. Obama took it & super-sized it.

Republican policies & deals are not any prettier or less damaging to US when they're signed by a Democrat.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Bill kept NAFTA because he was wrong. Why did the author of this piece leave Bush out of the NAFTA

history? There is no good reason to do that.

Not sure why you are 'btw' about Bush Jr and Obama, I said nothing about either of them nor about the TPP. I simply pointed out that this author for reasons I find dubious, chose to exclude George Bush's involvement in NAFTA entirely. In my view, the fact that it was Bush's makes Bill's support of it even worse. But to pretend Bill was the father of NAFTA and that the entire negotiation process and signing of the deal did not happen under George Bush is clearly an agenda based choice. I myself will never skip an opportunity to point out how shitty George Bush was.

[RiverLover]

13. LOL I agree:

I myself will never skip an opportunity to point out how shitty George Bush was.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I suspect ...

But to pretend Bill was the father of NAFTA and that the entire negotiation process and signing of the deal did not happen under George Bush is clearly an agenda based choice.

That's because many of the "NAFTA, OMG!!!!" folks don't know that history.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

80. Who cares where it came from?

Yes, history is important, but the here and now is, too.

[Dem2]

52. Good post

I'm not fond of agenda driven lies of omission.

[rhett o rick]

74. Apparently you missed the point of the OP. nm

[rhett o rick]

69. The reason that Bush wasn't mentioned is a distraction from the point of the OP.

As I see it the point of the OP is that we were lied to before BY DEMOCRATS. And here we are again with a DEMOCRAT trying to sell this piece of shit. And some here are willing to be fooled again. Well shame on them.

[Maedhros]

71. I have a friend that does this.

Every time I point out something horrendous the Democrats are doing, he responds with "I blame Bush!"

[TBF]

25. There is no reason to edit out Bush -

but I think you need to accept the fact that Clinton signed it and is held accountable for that action.

[merrily]

28. Bubba did more than sign it.

Prior to sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required US partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[citation needed]

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]

.....



Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact. The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA.[13]


....


NAFTA established the CANAMEX Corridor for road transport between Canada and Mexico, also proposed for use by rail, pipeline, and fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure. This became a High Priority Corridor under the U.S. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement


Those environmental and worker protection provisions do the trick every time, don't they? AFL-CIO says over 700,000 jobs were lost 1993-2011.


The whole wiki (at a minimumm) is worth a read.

[sulphurdunn]

47. You would think

that failure of the signatories to abide by a treaty's provisions (which is what these trade agreements actually are) would nullify them or give the parties the right to either annual or renegotiate them. If I understand this correctly, only private investors and not states my sue under ISDS. It seems unlikely that any private investor would sue a state to enforce that state's labor or environmental laws. And since as state cannot sue to enforce them against a foreign investor it is unlikely that labor and environmental standards in such agreements will be enforced because they would reduce return on investment, which seems to be the over arching purpose of the treaty. If that is true then dispute resolution provisions are more likely to be used to punish states that attempt to enforce labor and environmental provisions than the other way around.

[sorechasm]

96. Nice synopsis from sulpherdunn the question is...

...what are the supposed constraints for labor protection in the TPP. I love our President but his claim that TPP will protect workers rights sounds even more foolhardy than Clinton's claims about NAFTA.

[RiverLover]

97. +1! Warren gave good ex of this, a French company that sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum

wage....

http://time.com/3851113/elizabeth-warren-tpp/

[Hoyt]

112. Well, you kind of miss one important point -- the state can sue the corporation in their own courts.

That is likely a better way to handle that. If the state couldn't use its own court system, you guys would be saying they force the state to sue in a tribunal run by "international corporate lawyers."

The ISDS is designed to make sure an investor doesn't get trampled by a state's court in an effort by the state to treat the foreign corporation unfairly under trade laws or outright expropriate their company assets.

States agree to the ISDS because they want companies to invest in their country. If they were viewed as an overall negative, the states would not agree to the dispute mechanism.

The tribunals have been in over 2500 trade agreements since 1959. It's not something new.

Before being certified to use the ISDS system, the corporation must show that its case indicts it may have been treated unfairly by the state, especially compared to the state's corporations. Think South Carolina placing a special tax on a BMW plant that it doesn't levy on other auto manufacturers. If the state changes environmental laws that apply to everyone, it is highly unlikely a corporation would get anywhere under the ISDS.

And before you go saying the tribunals are run by "corporate lawyers," go read a few. Law professors are often the arbiters because international law is complicated. Each side appoints one of their choice and it doesn't have to be an attorney, and then they agree on the third. And the arbitration is under United Nation rules.

I don't see how things could be fairer. And Obama is tightening up the process to prevent frivolous lawsuits, and other problems.

[sulphurdunn]

113. There have been twice

as many ISDS cases since 2000 as there were from 1959 to that date. Seventy-percent have been won by foreign investors. The fact of the matter is that investment lawyers are almost always the ones rendering ISDS decisions on these extrajudicial tribunals.

Furthermore, traditional ISDS provisions were designed to deal with compensation for expropriation, not the loss of anticipated profits. Please site an example of a country or a state bringing suit against a foreign corporation under ISDS. In fact, only foreign investors can sue states under investment treaties, and only states can be held liable to pay damages for breach of the treaty. States have no corresponding right to bring an original claim against a foreign investor. Thus, a decision in favor of the state means that the state has not been ordered to pay compensation, not that it has received any compensation from the investor. A state cannot win in ISDS in the manner of a foreign investor. There is no compensation for victory. States suing corporations in their own courts is a matter unrelated to TPP.

Also, it is common practice under trade treaties for foreign investors to sue governments for the application of new laws or existing laws that apply equally to everyone. States have been sued for raising minimum wages, launching anti-smoking campaigns, deciding to phase out nuclear plants and for not issuing mining permits in areas that are protected habitats. There are many more such examples.

TPP is a rigged agreement made by corporation for corporations to benefit corporations. Nothing could be less fair.

[Hoyt]

114. Can you point to one case where the corporation won on raising minimum wage, anti-smoking campaigns?

I get that there have been cases by tobacco companies, but they haven't won anything and likely won't.

There are a couple of cases with phasing out nuclear plants, but read the case and the circumstances. Also, look at the amount of any awards.


If these things are so bad -- vs. the value of corporations investing in a country -- why would the countries sign them? Do you think Germany, Canada, and all the other countries, are just itching to pay out to foreign corporations? They want/need the investment, and the awards happen rarely.

The biggest fact is that Obama's trade team is negotiating to tighten up the rules.

[sulphurdunn]

115. When referring to countries

one refers to them in various ways. They are essentially huge associations of diverse people. When referring to trade treaties one should always ask who benefits? With the TTP as with NAFTA it is promised that everyone in the countries involved will benefit. it is debatable if that happened with NAFTA. What is not debatable is that those with the resources to invest in global finance benefited greatly. It is also arguable that they did so to the detriment of American labor. Regardless, Obama's team is up to a lot more than just tightening the rules. When foreign investors sue and win cases under these agreements, the taxpayers foot the bill. If foreign investment shies away from a country because it has good labor standards and environmental laws, so be it. I am very much not into making the world safe for global capital until it is also safe for global labor and the biosphere.

[Hoyt]

116. Hopefully, you looked for examples and have learned there aren't many.

I can assure you that skilled and unskilled workers in rural South Carolina, Alabama, etc. benefit when BMW, Toyota, Siemens, etc., build a plant there.

A worker in Mexico benefits as well when he can leave his dirt farm making almost nothing and go to work for an auto company at $8/hour. Even a Vietnamese peasant who gets a job earning the minimum wage benefits from foreign investment, as does the country.

Apparently advanced and poor countries want international investment in their countries, because they sign these agreements in the hopes of attracting more.

Sadly, I have found that many of us here really are Nationalists. Screw the rest of the world, even though America has sucked up more than our fair share of the world's wealth and resources.

[sulphurdunn]

117. Corporations are not altruistic.

Few have national loyalties, most are amoral, and would happily screw the entire world without hesitation to make a buck. They are, for the most part, run by and for the benefit of people who posses the attributes necessary to operate such enterprises. If reigning in the activities of such entities and restricting their power makes me a nationalist, I am proud to be one.

By the way, did you ever wonder why those non-union auto plants are profitable union plants in their own countries but not in the highly taxpayer subsidized American South, or why a pair of sneakers that cost $0.56 an hour to make in Vietnam sells for $100 in the US and could not sell for more if the cost of making them was $25 an hour in Vietnam or the US? Where are the savings to the American purchaser?

But what the hell, we took some kid out of a village rice paddy her ancestors have worked for centuries and put her in an urban sweatshop to work long hours for slave wages and wonder why 90,000 like her went on strike in March. Do you want to talk about the capitalist worker's paradise of Mexico?

[polly7]

118. +1000 nt.

[cheapdate]

54. He did.

"I will happily blame Bill for his part in it, but I will not leave out the Republican part"

[RufusTFirefly]

62. Plus Clinton's VP, our beloved Al Gore, made the case for it in a debate

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

We can't pretend that the Clinton Administration didn't push hard for it. They definitely did. And very publicly.

[merrily]

30. Definitely Poppy's brain child. On the other hand Bubba did a lot more than merely walk it through.

[WinkyDink]

4. I'll bet many of us mocked Ross Perot and his "giant sucking sound," though. J/S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound

[maddiemom]

6. Not me. I didn't vote for Perot, but whatever else you may have thought of him,

I always thought he was right on the money here. Discussing current events with a class of remedial students at the time, I was amazed at how many of them thought NAFTA (with no input of my opinion) was a REALLY BAD deal for the U.S. As high school students who were unlikely to go on to college, they were interested and really bothered by the whole idea.

[kacekwl]

8. I did vote for him

with no regrets.

[Ed Suspicious]

17. Me too. I was pretty young. He made a lot of sense. I went with it.

[BlueJazz]

19. Same, I knew these bastards were waiting like a spider in a web to ship high-paying jobs elsewhere.

[Person 2713]

31. No regrets for me at all voting for Perot. He was far from ideal I understand that also.

[Mojorabbit]

48. So did I

because of this issue. My one and only non Dem vote.

[davidpdx]

88. I almost voted for him, but when he dropped out

I supported and voted for Clinton. I think I may even still have a Perot button in a box somewhere.

[Maedhros]

72. I remember how Perot was mocked for his charts and graphs.

As if actually presenting facts in a debate is a ridiculous notion.

[RiverLover]

7. Yep

[HappyMe]

11. As kooky as that guy seemed, he did make sense sometimes.

[RiverLover]

12. Right? He came across as a dweeb, really a shame. The message got lost in the messenger. nt

[HappyMe]

14. I kind of liked the dweeb type thing though.

It made him seem more real. Not so polished and focus groupish. The guy did seem like he genuinely cared, which was refreshing.

[RiverLover]

16. I would like that now that I'm older & wiser. lol

I was a young adult back then, superficial appearances & media spin had an embarrassingly strong hold on me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. And some of his message ...

e.g., laying siege to predominately Black neighborhoods and going house by house to disarm the residents, was a message NOT to be lost in the messenger.

It's easy to look back in time and pick out the stuff that came to pass, decades later, while ignoring the stuff that we/I avoided because we/I listened to the entirety of his message, at the time.

[Doc Holliday]

51. Whew!

"It's easy to look back in time and pick out the stuff that came to pass, decades later, while ignoring the stuff that we/I avoided because we/I listened to the entirety of his message, at the time."

In a nutshell, hindsight is always 20/20.
.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. That's not even "20/20 hindsight" ...

That's 20/20 SELECTIVE hindsight!

Yes, he was correct on NAFTA; but, completely nuts on so much more.

[Punx]

27. I voted for him as well

Was in rehab from being a republican at the time.

And again, because it can't be said often enough. The Absurdity of President Obama being here at Nike today to promote "Fee Trade" with a company that doesn't make anything here.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. My Favorite Wingnut uses that phrase all the time in attacking Clinton.

I don't think these international trade agreements are much more popular among the Teabaggers than among us.

Ya know, in those states with open primaries, it might be interesting to educate the Tea Party on some of Bernie's views. He's the only candidate running who has a long and documented history of opposition to this stuff. And, incidentally, his "unconscionable" opposition to gun control will play well with this crowd, as well as his defense of SocSec & Medicare & a number of other positions. For example I don't think the NSA is particularly admired in that crowd.

Of course there's always the "danger" that some of the 'baggers in those states might cross over to vote for Bernie as a spoiler, hoping to ruin Bernie's chances, like their parents crossed over to vote for George Wallace in the Dem primaries.

[Octafish]

9. Wall Street Wins.

Democracy Loses.

Again.

[RiverLover]

15. Its getting old. Really old. We're the perpetual Bad News Bears, always losing to corporations

& Moneyed Interests.

[HappyMe]

23. I agree.

Let's just keep punching ourselves in the face, and then wonder the hell happened.

[yallerdawg]

18. Fight the future!

That "giant sucking sound" is called capitalism. This is the economic system we live under.

What massive trade agreement do we have with China? Did Walmart and Apple tell us all about it?

What's that old story? When they came up with the light bulb, think what would it do to the candle makers? And of course Henry Ford - “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

Kill these trade partnerships to save jobs? Smoke and mirrors, folks, smoke and mirrors.

Past trade deals like NAFTA have not always lived up to the hype – and the President is the first to recognize that. That’s why he is working with Congress to upgrade our existing trade deals with one that reflects American values. It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the most progressive trade agreement the world has ever seen.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a negotiation with 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, including Canada and Mexico. Through the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are renegotiating NAFTA and instituting stronger, fully enforceable labor and environmental standards. These high standards will not only bring hundreds of millions of people under enforceable labor standards and protect endangered wildlife in one of the fastest growing regions of the world—they will also help level the playing field for workers and businesses here at home by ensuring our trade partners are playing by the rules.

To help deliver the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the President is also asking Congress to work together to pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority which will help guarantee that America speaks with one voice on trade priorities like protecting our workers and environment.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/trade

[cali]

20. this is NOT the only template for trade.

[Romulox]

21. Thanks for the view from the US Chamber of Commerce. nt

[sendero]

29. It's beyond laughable...

.. that this administration would try to claim that TPP will "fix" the problems created by global trade. IT WILL MAKE THEM WORSE, MUCH WORSE. IT IS NOT GOING TO FIX ANYTHING.

[jeff47]

37. So it's failed every previous time, but this time it'll work!

Uh-huh.

Golly, I wonder why we don't believe Democrats now when they claim this is a good deal for us peons.

This isn't a trade deal. Tariffs and other trade barriers are insignificant between the 11 countries in the agreement. So why do we need it? To export capital, so it can create jobs in other countries instead of the US.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Healthcare reform failed every previous time (for the last 50 years), too ...

Perhaps, different a President and different times, will, like with healthcare reform, yield different results on trade.

Just saying ...

[jeff47]

45. If that were true, we'd also have seen leaks of the "good" parts of the TPP.

There's no particular reason opponents of the TPP are the only people that can leak parts of it.

If the TPP was the liberal nirvana promised by Obama and company, then they could have easily leaked something that wasn't a massive benefit to capital. But so far, we've gotten nothing but rhetoric.

I suspect Obama likes the treaty because it installs some worker and environmental protections in countries that currently do not have those protections. But that doesn't mean it has anything actually beneficial to US workers. It probably has a fig leaf like retraining programs for workers who "lose their jobs because of the TPP", but those don't work in the real world.

First, you have to prove the job was lost due to the TPP, which is not trivial. Second, a 40-year-old isn't going to be able to get a STEM job with a little "retraining".

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Why would you assume that? ...

If that were true, we'd also have seen leaks of the "good" parts of the TPP.

The "Bad parts" are being leaked by anti-trade agreement folks ... the "good parts" would be the openly available USTR's Negotiating Objectives ... in negotiations, one doesn't broadcast what you are getting, until the deal is done ... that good faith cover is how you get what you want. When you broadcast what you are getting, those you are negotiating with that are giving way, can't be seen as having given in.

If the TPP was the liberal nirvana promised by Obama and company, then they could have easily leaked something that wasn't a massive benefit to capital. But so far, we've gotten nothing but rhetoric.

Trade agreements will NEVER be a "liberal nirvana", and it has never been cast as such, by anyone other than anti-trade agreement folks (and I don't believe, even they believe their rhetoric).

I suspect Obama likes the treaty because it installs some worker and environmental protections in countries that currently do not have those protections. But that doesn't mean it has anything actually beneficial to US workers. It probably has a fig leaf like retraining programs for workers who "lose their jobs because of the TPP", but those don't work in the real world.

First, you have to prove the job was lost due to the TPP, which is not trivial. Second, a 40-year-old isn't going to be able to get a STEM job with a little "retraining".

The counter-argument is that the "job loss" argument is speculative, based on previous agreements that did NOT have worker and environmental protections in the trade partner countries. It doesn't require much in the way of worker and environmental protections to stem the tide of labor arbitrage ... especially when the off-shoring trend is already reversing itself do to the inefficiencies that have been realized, e.g., the design/engineering to production to design/engineering lag, the customer service language barrier issues, etc.

I suspect that with the disincentives to labor arbitrage through the establishment of universal worker and environmental protections among trade partners, the bigger concern regarding STEM jobs (which, BTW, are MORE sensitive to the design/engineer to production lag) is the broken American H1-B program ... that is outside of the trade agreement.

[jeff47]

50. Because there's no reason to not believe it.

the "good parts" would be the openly available USTR's Negotiating Objectives

No, those are the claimed goals of the TPP. There is no reason to believe that those goals are being achieved. Nor is there any reason to believe those goals are achieved by the specifics in the agreement.

Remember, we constantly have to battle Democrats who believe NAFTA was good for US jobs.

Trade agreements will NEVER be a "liberal nirvana", and it has never been cast as such

OH MY GOD SOMEONE USED HYPERBOLE!! THAT IS NOT ALLOWED!!!!

The counter-argument is that the "job loss" argument is speculative, based on previous agreements that did NOT have worker and environmental protections in the trade partner countries.

Apparently you're not familiar with NAFTA. It had a retraining program and supposedly required worker and environmental protections. Those protections were poorly designed enough to be meaningless. And without the specifics of the TPP, we have no reason to believe they got it right this time - the same people swore they got it right last time.

It doesn't require much in the way of worker and environmental protections to stem the tide of labor arbitrage

That would be true if worker and environmental protections were the main driver of higher US labor costs. They aren't. Cost of living is.

especially when the off-shoring trend is already reversing itself do to the inefficiencies that have been realized, e.g., the design/engineering to production to design/engineering lag, the customer service language barrier issues, etc.

Except the jobs that are being "re-shored" do not come remotely close to offsetting the jobs lost. "Re-shored" manufacturing is far more automated than it was when it left the US. So you bring the factory back to the US and hire 5 workers instead of 500.

Design/engineering didn't leave the US to begin with, and customer service jobs offer nothing like the pay and benefits of manufacturing jobs.

the bigger concern regarding STEM jobs is the broken American H1-B program

Yes, I left that out since I was talking about those who lose manufacturing jobs. Even without H1Bs, anyone over 40 will have a very hard time moving into STEM from manufacturing. You really need at least 4-year degree to even make an attempt at entering the field. Some retraining won't cut it. Add in the massive age bias in most STEM hiring, and that older person will have a very hard time switching to a STEM job.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Wait ...

No, those are the claimed goals of the TPP. There is no reason to believe that those goals are being achieved. Nor is there any reason to believe those goals are achieved by the specifics in the agreement.

And the "leaked" DRAFTS, something that you KNOW are incomplete, are to be more trusted? ... especially, considering what is observable conduct, i.e.,

in negotiations, one doesn't broadcast what you are getting, until the deal is done ... that good faith cover is how you get what you want. When you broadcast what you are getting, those you are negotiating with that are giving way, can't be seen as having given in.

suggesting that the USTR's Negotiating Objectives have been reached, or met to a satisfactory degree? (Perhaps, you should confer with someone that negotiates for a living.)

Your bias is showing.

It had a retraining program and supposedly required worker and environmental protections. Those protections were poorly designed enough to be meaningless. And without the specifics of the TPP, we have no reason to believe they got it right this time - the same people swore they got it right last time.

Again ... Different President and different times (see: healthcare finance reform).

That would be true if worker and environmental protections were the main driver of higher US labor costs. They aren't. Cost of living is.

What are you talking about? Lax Foreign labor protections (e.g., low wages and unregulated working conditions) and virtually no environmental protections are THE key driver of labor arbitrage!

Except the jobs that are being "re-shored" do not come remotely close to offsetting the jobs lost. "Re-shored" manufacturing is far more automated than it was when it left the US. So you bring the factory back to the US and hire 5 workers instead of 500.

This is what President Obama is talking about when he referred "fighting the last war" ... the fact is much of the manufacturing jobs in the US are gone, and aren't coming back ... for exactly the reason you state: AUTOMATION ... but the jobs that ARE being re-shored are those that industry has not figured out a way to effectively automate.

Design/engineering didn't leave the US to begin with, ...

True, and by addressing the labor arbitrage matter, through universal worker and environmental protections, we also address the Design/Engineering to production lag ... further, making off-shoring less attractive (profitable).

and customer service jobs offer nothing like the pay and benefits of manufacturing jobs.

Are you arguing fact or assertion? http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t24.htm ... with the exception of "Leisure and hospitality" wages across occupations are comparable to those of manufacturing.

Yes, I left that out since I was talking about those who lose manufacturing jobs. Even without H1Bs, anyone over 40 will have a very hard time moving into STEM from manufacturing. You really need at least 4-year degree to even make an attempt at entering the field. Some retraining won't cut it. Add in the massive age bias in most STEM hiring, and that older person will have a very hard time switching to a STEM job.

While I agree with most of this ... you are taking the speculations about jobs losses, as an article of faith; when in fact, that is based on incomplete information (the leaked memos) and/or previous trade agreements.

[jeff47]

119. History did not start yesterday.

And the "leaked" DRAFTS, something that you KNOW are incomplete, are to be more trusted?

Yes. Even if they are not exactly the final product, at this late stage in the negotiations they are close.

And the Obama administration is free to reveal that anything offensive in the leaked drafts have been renegotiated.

in negotiations, one doesn't broadcast what you are getting, until the deal is done ... that good faith cover is how you get what you want. When you broadcast what you are getting, those you are negotiating with that are giving way, can't be seen as having given in.


suggesting that the USTR's Negotiating Objectives have been reached, or met to a satisfactory degree? (Perhaps, you should confer with someone that negotiates for a living.)

Your bias is showing.

My bias is showing when you quote yourself. And apparently attack yourself.

Again ... Different President and different times

That's why we're getting 1990s policy. Because everything is different.

What are you talking about? Lax Foreign labor protections (e.g., low wages and unregulated working conditions) and virtually no environmental protections are THE key driver of labor arbitrage!

Nope. Your workers have to eat, and have to have a place to sleep.

Why is labor cheaper in some parts of the US? It isn't because of large differences in environmental laws - those are mostly federal. It isn't because of large differences in labor protection laws. Again, mostly federal.

What is different? Cost of living. A McDonalds in NYC has to pay more than a McDonalds in Syracuse. Same state. Same labor laws. Same environmental laws. Same job. Massive difference in cost of living and large difference in pay.

This is what President Obama is talking about when he referred "fighting the last war" ... the fact is much of the manufacturing jobs in the US are gone, and aren't coming back

So time to make things worse by repeating the same mistakes!! Full speed ahead! The iceberg will sink this time!

See, you are making the same claims as "the last war". You are claiming you will get good results, just like the last war. And now you desperately need people to forget about the results of the last war.

If you want to show that this is an entirely different situation, show that it actually is different. So far, all that has come out is the same promises as last time.

... for exactly the reason you state: AUTOMATION ... but the jobs that ARE being re-shored are those that industry has not figured out a way to effectively automate.

No. Those jobs remain offshore. Re-shoring is trivial except in highly automated manufacturing. Design and development never moved offshore in significant numbers, so you can't point to those jobs as successes.

True, and by addressing the labor arbitrage matter, through universal worker and environmental protections, we also address the Design/Engineering to production lag ... further, making off-shoring less attractive (profitable).

To translate from your attempt to make this sound good, "When we make our workers accept Vietnam's minimum wage, we'll get so many jobs!!!"

Are you arguing fact or assertion? http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t24.htm ... with the exception of "Leisure and hospitality" wages across occupations are comparable to those of manufacturing.

History did not start yesterday.

Manufacturing jobs of the 1960s paid six figures in 2015 money. They're gone, thanks to offshoring. You're now pushing a treaty to increase offshoring. Just how little do you think US workers should be paid?

While I agree with most of this ... you are taking the speculations about jobs losses, as an article of faith

No, every single "free trade" deal in the last 40 years has cost US high-paying manufacturing jobs. The leaks confirm that the TPP is similar in focus to every previous "free trade" deal. To expect the opposite result from this deal is an article of faith. And insane.

How many times do you need rocks to fall on your head before you decide to stop standing at the bottom of a cliff? "No, this time the rocks will just float in the air!!"

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. Okay. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

76. Failing to pass proposals and actually passing failures is a nonsensical comparison

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Okay. n/t

[TM99]

94. Health Insurance reform you mean.

And the ACA is nothing more than HeritageCare reworked. That plan is almost 30 years old, and it took a Democrat (ha ha!) to finally get it pushed through.

[RiverLover]

95. Truth!!^^^

The spin put out to us from all corners is mind-blowing. Blue is Yellow, they could tell us in enough different ways & from all sides, and we would believe....

The insurance companies, which are now also banks thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, benefit the most from ACA.

I always appreciate your posts TM99!! (Some posts are always ignorance-free zones, like yours.)

The Democrat’s Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why Are They So Upset?)
http://robertreich.org/post/65155134884

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. See post #100 for reality. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. Actually, I meant "healthcare financing reform" ...

and you know ... I don't think the 10s of millions that, now, have the ability to finance the (Literally) life saving healthcare they require, that they previously were denied or could not afford ... don't give a good GD where the program originated ... they leave that to folks with the luxury/arrogance/ignorance/assholishness to play "we should'a/could'a had ..." politics with other peoples' lives.

(Perhaps, you should DU search for the amazing OP of the, still live and not bankrupt, former "we should'a/could'a had ..." ACA critic.)

[Recursion]

106. I love it when advocates of single payer attack ACA as "just insurance reform"...

... when single payer is also "just insurance reform".

[TM99]

107. Universal health care or medicare for all

is not anywhere near the same thing as the insurance reform that is HeritageCare/RomneyCare/ACA.

But I love when Third Way Neo-Liberals try to convince us otherwise.

[Recursion]

108. Umm... Medicare is "insurance". You do realize that, right?

It's a social insurance program, which btw uses private insurance companies to do its actual provisioning.

Single payer is insurance reform. Health care provider reform would be establishing an NHS like in the UK (which, incidentally, is not "single payer". Actual single payer is fairly unusual; it's just what worked for Canada and a few other places).

[TM99]

109. I know exactly what it is

and to still attempt to compare Universal Single Payer like what is found in Europe to the ACA here today in America, cause...you know....they are both health insurance reform....is bullshit, and you know it.

But have fun with your word games as if that changes reality a bit.

[Recursion]

110. Apparently you don't, since you mentioned Europe. I don't think any European country

has single payer; they either have national health operator systems like the UK or a public-private insurance setup like the Netherlands (and the ACA, incidentally). Actually, wait: Austria has a single-payer system, now that I think of it. But I think that's it.

[Bradical79]

99. I don't see the parallels

Can you explain in more detail?

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. The parallel is ...

this President and these times produce different results in addressing healthcare financing, where previous Presidents and times could not ... It is, likely, that this President and these times will produce different results on trade agreements.

[bread_and_roses]

104. "Health Care Reform" failed this time too -

for everyone but the insurance vampires - AND those who made it on to expanded Medicaid (a "single-payer" system)

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. See Post 100 ...

search the thread referenced and tell that DUer, who is alive and not bankrupt how big a failure the ACA is ... then watch him/her tell you to kiss his/her live and not bankrupt former "we could'a/should had ..." ass.

ETA: Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6556601

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6556178

[Logical]

65. LOL, nice try! nt

[yallerdawg]

66. We're making progress on getting the facts out.

I don't think this thread has any comments about "secret agreement."

Enlightenment does come slowly.

[hedda_foil]

90. "What massive trade agreement do we have with China?" It's called PNTR.

Permanent normal trade relations

The status of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) is a legal designation in the United States for free trade with a foreign nation. In the U.S. the name was changed from most favored nation (MFN) to PNTR in 1998.

In international trade, MFN status (or treatment) is awarded by one nation to another. It means that the receiving nation will be granted all trade advantages, such as low tariffs, that any other nation also receives. Thus, a nation with MFN status will not be discriminated against and will not be treated worse than any other nation with MFN status.[1]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_normal_trade_relations

[yallerdawg]

91. So you are telling me...

"Most Favored Nation" status given every country we trade with is like NAFTA or TPP?

This links you to Free Trade Agreements, and I don't see China on the list:

http://trade.gov/fta/

[hedda_foil]

92. No, every country we trade with does not get onto status. It's what used to be called most favored

[kentuck]

24. They moved to Mexico for a year or two...

and then found out that they could get cheaper labor than Mexico if they moved overseas. Mexico was left high and dry, after all the enthusiasm was gone.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. And the resultant crash of the Mexican economy, combined with

the takeover of their agriculture by giant international corporations, resulted in a whole lot of desperate people who take crazy chances to get through our border security with the help of coyotes.

[pampango]

75. So without NAFTA, "they" would have stayed in the US for another "year or two" and then "moved

overseas"? Or if "they" had not moved to Mexico first, it never would have dawned on "them" to move overseas?

Kind of makes it sound like Mexico was not the real problem and what happened "a year or two" later would have happened anyway.

[BeanMusical]

26. Kick and R.

[WillyT]

32. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[fredamae]

33. No, America's Leadership is About

to make a Horrible Mistake...Not "we, the people". I'm pretty sure a large majority of "us" are Against this.
Those who promote this "deal" do NOT represent Me. Are they representing you?

[Marrah_G]

34. The ones putting this shit in place do not care about the working classes

They only care about their wealthy friends and donors. The two parties might be miles apart on social issues, but when it comes to big business, they really aren't that far apart.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. According the CEO types in this country Americans don't WANT manufacturing jobs....

Americans fall into two categories as far as they are concerned: Winners who woke up and realized they could be rich if they just stopped believing they are victims and losers who don't matter anyway and who should just go away.

[RoccoR5955]

39. Not a mistake

The Cons, and Third Way are doing it with great planning.
In the same way that marketed NAFTA, they are marketing these lousy deals. Well lousy for WE THE PEOPLE, but not them, the corporations.

[pa28]

70. NAFTA worked exactly as intended. Maybe even better than intended.

Just a little over twenty years later the American labor market has cratered and wages have stagnated to the point where it's feasible to start re-investing in American manufacturing.

That's not acceptable to ALEC and the US chamber of commerce. They think we need to open up new sources of cheap labor because the old ones are getting too expensive.

[RiverLover]

83. Really interesting post, pa28

What you say makes sense, sadly, in our corrupt capitalistic system.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

123. THIS^^^^^^^

NAFTA - just like a permanent war - increases profits. Profit always trumps people and those silly little notions of Democracy and liberty and (snicker), patriotism.

[Phlem]

44. K&R!

[blackspade]

46. The hits to the working and middle classes just keep on coming....

Not to mention he poor, who get ground down to nothing.

[BrotherIvan]

57. Raise your hand if you think this makes her extremely vulnerable in the general

Negotiating another awful trade deal that 65% of Americans oppose has got to bring back some bad memories...

[TBF]

58. It was a huge reason many supported Obama instead in 2008 -

we knew he was the stronger candidate for many reasons. I don't know how people can get past the cognitive dissonance of recongizing she was not a strong candidate then but now all of a sudden it's her "turn" and she is infallible? What has changed? She still has the same history she had in 2008.

[BrotherIvan]

60. Zactly

Once people know he can win a primary against her, the flood gates will open. All those who are dissatisfied with Obama fulfilling his promises will not be flocking to Hillary, that's for sure.

[Puzzledtraveller]

61. If a (D) signs it

it's gotstabegewd. If we had a republican in office then all the forces of the Democratic party would be against it.

[FairWinds]

63. I really don't like the tone of the article . .

a jingoistic fixation only upon the US.

Our Canadian and Mexican brothers and sisters were of course
also impacted by NAFTA - negatively. They hate it as much as we do.

We need an INTERNATIONAL opposition to TPP and TTIP (which is even worse),
and stop behaving as if we don't care what happens to people in other countries.

We need to stand for FAIR TRADE, not NO TRADE.

If we don't have a united international front of working people - we will lose,

and deservedly so.

[TBF]

64. You make good points -

resistance has to be global because capital is global.

Solidarity.

[nikto]

77. Exactly!

[RiverLover]

84. Here's some international action ag TPP...if only we could coordinate!

Global Exchange is an international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world:


Sign their petition ag the TPP & fast track!
http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/tpp

Protest in New Zealand~


Protest in Japan~


In Malaysia~


Hundreds marched in Minnesota


Protest in Salt Lake City~


With BERNIE in DC~


Sydney TPP protest~

[ibegurpard]

87. point well taken

[awoke_in_2003]

67. I say NAFTA....

Not Another F'ing Trade Agreement

[pa28]

68. Not a mistake. NAFTA did exactly what it was supposed to and what was expected.

The TPP will leave job losses, ruined communities and greater economic inequality in it's wake. The politicians who pushed it will shrug their shoulders and say "who could have predicted".

Barack Obama is not a stupid man. He knows exactly what this agreement means for working Americans.

[jomin41]

81. I believe Obama believes the TPP will do good for "us".

Maybe he's right, maybe not. But the White House is NOT making the case for it. Just saying "trust me", after what we've seen, ain't gonna cut it. Once they grant fast-track authority, we are stuck with whatever is in the deal. There is no one that we trust, who is familiar with the deal, who is for it. Why aren't people who are trusted by the left involved in the negotiations? Pig in a poke.

[Skittles]

86. he believes no such thing

he is not a stupid man

[whereisjustice]

85. Every president must leave office, but not before setting in motion the means to fuck over

the next several generations.

[yadig]

89. Clintonia

OH how we were deceived by the Clinton mystique while in sacrosanct halls he did unsheathe his vileness and put it into the interns mouth. Mocking all who supported him. (lest we forget.)

[AzDar]

93. K & R

[polichick]

98. Clinton-Obama-Clinton = NAFTA-TPP-???

Wake the fuck up Dems!!!

[RiverLover]

122. Seriously!!

What does it take to SEE what's really going on in one's own party. Time to take the blinders off.

[LWolf]

102. It's not a mistake,

and neither was the first time.

It's deliberate. America is very deliberately destroying herself.

[krispos42]

111. Dragging out middle class down to the Mexican standard of living...

...certainly reduces inequality.

Of course, I'd rather have dragged then up to outs.