Can we agree that jobs are not the problem with TPP?

[ucrdem]

Yes, the WH is doing a poor job of selling this thing, as usual, and doubtless there are legitimate questions to be answered before passing it, but can we cross labor issues off the list? Because creating millions of new, HIGH-PAYING, secure US manufacturing jobs is one of the main reasons Obama is so anxious to get this deal done. Altogether though it's a complex undertaking with many components and is not well-served by hot-button AM radio slogans. More on labor issues from a doc called "The President's Trade Agenda 2015," link below:











Of special interest are the NAFTA-TPP comparisons on pg. 24.

link: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/President%27s%20Trade%20Agenda%20for%20Print%20FINAL.pdf

[freshwest]

1. Nice charts. Expect *incoming* though! n/t

[ucrdem]

2. Thanks fresh!

Yeah it's a lot of info to digest and I probably could have been more selective but I'm going to pull out a few pages of special interest and post them below. Highly interesting but I doubt we'll ever hear much about any of it in the latest HuffPo bulletin, LOL!

[ucrdem]

3. Worker rights protections, comparison of TPP to NAFTA:

page 24 above:

[cantbeserious]

6. Senator Warren Has Pointed Out The Truth - No Trade Protection Follow Through By The US

History shows that trade protections and using them is a sham argument.

Does not matter what provisions may or may not exist in the TPP if the US is not serious about using the so-called trade protections.

[ucrdem]

8. Yes but she's looking in the rear-view.

TPP is the future and the enforcement provisions are different than NAFTA.

[cantbeserious]

10. If You Believe That anything Will Change With TPP - Well ...

eom

[eloydude]

135. I got this neat mountain to sell him...

If the Brooklyn Bridge hasn't been oversold already....

[merrily]

26. Those who disregard their history are doomed to repeat it.

The best predictor of future performance is past performance.

It matters little what provisions say unless someone enforces them. Just ask the people fleeced out of their pensions by Bernie Madoff about SEC regulations.

[daleanime]

155. Right...

[ucrdem]

93. Worker Rights, text and chart (bigger):

International labor protections, NAFTA vs. TPP, chart from p. 24 above:



Worker Rights

To keep strengthening our economy, we need better trade rules that protect American jobs and
workers. The Obama Administration believes that by improving labor rights through our trade
initiatives abroad, we can simultaneously uphold and promote U.S. values, strengthen the ability
of American workers here at home to have a fair shot at competing on a level playing field in the
global marketplace, and help grow a larger middle class in our trading partners that will fuel
demand for U.S. goods and services. The trade policy tools available to promote worker rights
have evolved significantly over time. Twenty years ago, when the United States entered into
NAFTA, labor provisions were secondary and not included in the core of the agreement. Rather,
they were in a side agreement, virtually all of the provisions of which were not subject to any
enforcement mechanism. Today, the Obama Administration is negotiating provisions that are
fundamentally different from NAFTA – and at the core of the agreement, subject to dispute
settlement and the full range of trade sanctions.

In 2015, we will seek to strengthen the respect for and protection of labor rights through our
major trade negotiations. In TPP, we are negotiating to put in place the largest expansion of
enforceable labor rights in history, renegotiating NAFTA and bringing hundreds of millions of
additional people under enforceable International Labor Organization standards.
TPP is also providing a powerful avenue for direct engagement with countries like Vietnam,
where because of TPP, we are making progress in improving the lives of workers on the ground.
Under TPP, we are working to ensure that violations of labor rights will be subject to the same,
strong dispute settlement mechanism as the rest of the commitments in the agreement. Some TPP
countries will need to pursue reform so that their laws and practices are consistent with the
International Labor Organization’s fundamental labor rights. That includes freedom of
association and the right to collective bargaining. It also includes protection from child and
forced labor and from employment discrimination. Also, for the first time, we are seeking to
include requirements in TPP for countries to adopt laws on minimum wages, hours of work, and
occupational safety and health.

Just as the heart of America’s economy is the American worker, the heart of the global economy
should be working people who stand to share in the benefits of global growth. Along the same
lines, we will use the unique opportunity afforded to us in T-TIP to negotiate obligations that
protect worker rights and set a high bar for other trade negotiations in the rest of the world. More
broadly, we will focus on the effectiveness of rule of law, implementation of the numerous
agreements we have entered into, and work with key trading partners around the world to address
specific labor issues.

In addition, in 2015 we will aim to strengthen engagement on and monitoring of labor
protections with a number of trading partners, in concert with other U.S. agencies and our
partners in the labor movement:

• We will continue to engage with the governments of Colombia, Bangladesh, Guatemala,
Honduras and the Dominican Republic to advance workers’ rights.

• We will work with the Colombian government to advance the implementation of the
Colombia Action Plan Related to Labor Rights, a critical component of the United States –
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, and urge additional action on areas of concern such
as collecting fines for unlawful subcontracting, targeting shifting forms of unlawful
subcontracting, and prosecuting recent cases of violence against trade unionists.

• We will continue to consult with the government of Bangladesh to press for further progress
on the GSP labor action plan, including issuing regulations implementing amendments to the
Bangladesh Labour Act, completing building safety inspections, responding to unfair labor
practice complaints, and enacting additional needed labor reforms, including for export
processing zones.

• We will continue to engage with Guatemala following the September 2014 reactivation of
our labor dispute settlement process.

• We will continue to press for improved labor conditions in Honduras and the Dominican
Republic.

In each of these cases, we will continue to use our trade policy tools to ensure that workers are
able to exercise their rights and to improve working conditions on the ground.
Here at home, the Administration is committed to working with
Congress to renew the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
programs, which will expire on September 30, 2015, to provide
critical support for Americans facing short-term trade-related
transitions. TAA provides resources to eligible workers to develop
new skills that are essential for employment in vital growth
industries of the 21st century economy. As the Obama
Administration works hard to create and maintain open markets and
support jobs through trade, we must also be mindful of our responsibility to ensure that trade
policy reflects our values and stands with American workers impacted by global competition.



https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/President%27s%20Trade%20Agenda%20for%20Print%20FINAL.pdf (pp. 24-26)

[mikehiggins]

134. Nope. Not in the least.

What is a more telling issue is the question of just why the GOP is so hot for this deal?

[ucrdem]

4. 1.8 million new US jobs supported by exports:

Page 4 above:

[arcane1]

126. If those charts are correct, we're doing just fine without the TPP, and will continue to do so.

Not exactly a good argument for changing the way things are now

[ucrdem]

127. Good point, but there's some variation in the numbers

I posted this chart earlier from a stat site that suggests that US exports slipped about a half a trillion between 2013 and 2014:



Source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/186577/volume-of-us-exports-of-trade-goods-to-the-world-since-1987/

As to the variation there could be a lot of legit reasons like seasonal adjustment which seems to make a big difference though I'm not fully up on the particulars. Anyway it looks like a healthy stimulus is needed to keep the ball rolling.

[MannyGoldstein]

129. Gee... why just exports, not *net* exports?

Because net exports become more negative after each of these agreements.

No.

Bad.

[ucrdem]

131. You're talking about balance of payments?

That seems to be more a function of which administration is in office than which trade deal passed when. Apparently it peaked in 2006 at $753 billion and has been declining more or less steadily since:

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt

[PETRUS]

137. It doesn't look that way to me.

It dipped because we were in a severe recession and consumption dropped. Line up exports/imports with a graph of the growth rate of GDP and you'll see it.

[MannyGoldstein]

150. Trade balance

Balance of payments is similar, but different.

Trade balance dropped a bunch in 2009 as the permarecession slammed us and consumers had less moneymto,buy stuff. But other than that... pretty ugly.

And the TPP will make it uglier.

[ucrdem]

156. Okay. US trade balance seems to reflect total US trade volume

with no dramatic jump after 1994 (NAFTA) except to reflect the increase in international trade that NAFTA facilitated:

US balance of trade, 1990-2015:

source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

As for ugly, I dunno about that, as it doesn't seem terribly problematic, but the general trend is probably worrisome and one of the goals of TPP is no doubt to close the gap.

I just came across an anecdote about Obama asking Steve Jobs in 2011 if iPhones couldn't be made in the US, to which Jobs said emphatically no, forget where. Something posted here? Anyway finding a way to ship jobs back to the US seems to have been an Obama project for some time, and reducing this particular metric would be a happy benefit.

[PETRUS]

162. Doesn't seem terribly problematic?

A trade deficit is demand leaving the country. In a context of persistent unemployment and a government unwilling to spend in order to fill the gap, it's a serious problem. The TPP is not needed to close the gap, but if closing the gap were in fact a goal, the agreement would have to include the kind of rules on currency that the administration has explicitly stated will not be a part of the deal.

[L0oniX]

171. The TPP already got someone a job ...making up those pdf's.

[cantbeserious]

5. Jobs And Job Protection Is The Problem

eom

[ucrdem]

7. Yes, that's the idea of the thread, to identify how TPP is addressing these two issues.

[cantbeserious]

9. Fool Me Once ...

I will never believe any Government or Government official that is tied to supporting and maintaining the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks power and monopoly over the 99%.

Believe what you will - I see the truth daily of rusted out industries let go by said same Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.

[ucrdem]

12. Okay but offshoring is created by tax incentives, not by trade deals.

Yes, they are related, they are created by the same bodies, etc etc, but the fact is they are different policies and trade alone does not produce job flight.

[cantbeserious]

17. Well I Guess Delusional Thinking Is Rampant And The Government Insists We Believe It

[ucrdem]

18. Well, Carlin's a funny guy but he's definitely not the government . . .

so I dunno. Plus the Nixon admin was a whole different ball of wax. We've come a long way comrade!

[cantbeserious]

19. As I See Things America Is A Shell Of Itself - Thanks To Bad Trade Deals

Carlin called it correctly.

"What the owners want is people just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just stupid enough to not complain about how badly they are getting fuc..."

Why else have a secret trade deal - maybe so the 99% won't know how badly they are getting fuc...

[ucrdem]

22. It isn't secret. The reasons we can't see it is that it doesn't exist.

It won't until it's finished, and it won't be finished until Congress passes TPA. That's not secrecy, it's just the process.

[cantbeserious]

25. Yeah Right - Drafts Of The Document Do Exist - Even So, Why Can't We Read The Final For Review

Wait, I know, because the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks don't want the 99% to see the truth.

Elizabeth Warren and Rosa DeLauro: Who Is Writing the TPP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026720019

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30340-who-is-writing-the-tpp

The president argues that the TPP is about who will “write the rules” for 40 percent of the world’s economy — the United States or China. But who is writing the TPP? The text has been classified and the public isn’t permitted to see it, but 28 trade advisory committees have been intimately involved in the negotiations. Of the 566 committee members, 480, or 85 percent, are senior corporate executives or representatives from industry lobbying groups. Many of the advisory committees are made up entirely of industry representatives.

A rigged process leads to a rigged outcome. For evidence of that tilt, look at a key TPP provision: Investor-State Dispute Settlement where big companies get the right to challenge laws they don’t like in front of industry-friendly arbitration panels that sit outside of any court system. Those panels can force taxpayers to write huge checks to big corporations — with no appeals. Workers, environmentalists, and human rights advocates don’t get that special right.

Most Americans don’t think of the minimum wage or antismoking regulations as trade barriers. But a foreign corporation has used ISDS to sue Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage. Phillip Morris has gone after Australia and Uruguay to stop them from implementing rules to cut smoking rates. Under the TPP, companies could use ISDS to challenge these kinds of government policy decisions — including food safety rules.

The president dismisses these concerns, but some of the nation’s top experts in law and economics are pushing to drop ISDS provisions from future trade agreements. Economist Joe Stiglitz, Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, and others recently noted that “the threat and expense of ISDS proceedings have forced nations to abandon important public policies” and that “laws and regulations enacted by democratically elected officials are put at risk in a process insulated from democratic input.” That was exactly what Germany did in 2011 when it cut back on environmental protections after an ISDS lawsuit.

[ucrdem]

29. It's not a "rigged process," it's how our government works.

Pushing that kind of false issue seriously makes me wonder if her party switch really took.

[cantbeserious]

32. Yeah Right - How Much More Rigged Could The Process Be With The 1% Represented But Not The 99%

eom

[okaawhatever]

40. Agreed, and remember the Congressional Budget Office found that NAFTA didn't cause job

losses. Depending on which metric you used, the job losses were either near zero or zero. The "study" showing the supposed 1 million job losses was paid for by big labor. Normally I celebrate big labor but paying someone to come to your conclusion is the Republican way.

People are willfully blind when it comes to TPP. When the final document is revealed I don't expect most of those here on DU to even bother reading it. We'll get more of the same knee-jerk, uninformed posts we always get.

I too have begun to question Ms. Warren's modus operandi. Her hair on fire fundraising emails are eerily reminiscent of those the right wingers put out during the gun debate and Benghazi.

[cantbeserious]

41. And Why Would Anyone Believe Anything The Government Says

eom

[okaawhatever]

45. Because the Congressional Budget Office's data is highly respected. They are non-partisan &

highly transparent in their methodology. Your closed-minded approach to government says a lot more about you than about the quality of information the government provides.

[cantbeserious]

49. In The Modern Error - All Government Data Is Politicized - Why Else Have Secret Trade Deals

eom

[ucrdem]

52. The modern error seems to be everywhere these days.

[okaawhatever]

71. It isn't a secret trade deal. It's a secret trade negotiation. Once the deal is finalized there will

be a minimum of 60 days to hold hearings, debates, etc. before voting. If the deal is so bad why do you have to misrepresent it to make your case?

Why won't you explain why NAFTA was so bad? (using credible sources)

Your response is the typical reality-free knee jerk response one sees from those who refuse to educate themselves.

[ucrdem]

48. Interesting, I didn't know about the CBO study.

But the way it seems to work is, if you look at the six years after NAFTA was implemented at the start of 1994, you see big gains in jobs and modest gains in wages. If you include the years after Bill Clinton left office, the economy goes to hell and there are massive declines. But they sure weren't NAFTA's fault.

[okaawhatever]

67. Yeah, that is part of the problem. There are too many moving pieces for the average journalist

or economist to pinpoint the exact cause of each increase or decline in jobs. That is why they commissioned the CBO to do a

Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain. The Congressional Budget Office surveyed all the major economic studies of NAFTA's effects in 2004 and concluded: "NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment."

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/

From Carnegie Endowment for Peace:

NAFTA’s net effect on jobs in the United States has been minuscule, given the size of the U.S. economy and the importance of other trading partners. The best models to date suggest that NAFTA has caused either no net change in employment or a very small net gain of jobs.

Link to the Carnegie Report:
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/nafta1.pdf


From FactCheck.Org regarding the CBO report

Also in 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service evaluated four studies on the subject, including the Carnegie Endowment’s, and said that "NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment." It also concluded, contrary to Scott’s report, that "NAFTA did not cause the widening U.S. trade deficit with Mexico."
NAFTA critics often point to the loss of manufacturing jobs, which have declined by 3.1 million between Jan. 1994, when NAFTA was implemented, and January of this year. But total nonfarm employment, meanwhile, has increased by 25.6 million in the same time period.

Link to the CBO report

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf

From NPR:

— NAFTA has more than tripled trade among the three countries, sending the total value above the $1 trillion threshold by 2011. Canada is the leading market for U.S. exports, while Mexico ranks No. 2. Together, the two countries account for about a third of all U.S. exports.

— North America has become one integrated market for the production of advanced goods, such as cars, planes and electronics. So when you are buying a vehicle assembled in Canada, it contains lots of made-in-America parts.

— The real advantage for the United States has been in services. American exports of services to Canada and Mexico tripled from $27 billion in 1993 to $82 billion in 2011, resulting in a trade surplus of roughly $30 billion.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/08/249079453/economists-toast-20-years-of-nafta-critics-sit-out-the-party

BTW the non-profit who did the highly questionable report was EPI, Economic Policy Institute. Just a heads up in case you see them quoted somewhere. The right wing Pete Peterson Economic Institute did a biased report also. That one just had a right wing slant.

[AgingAmerican]

61. Deals written by lobbiests?

That's how it works? Really?

[merrily]

30. That's not the answer the Koch brothers get.

The issue is not exact wording and punctuation, much as it was not the the issue with the ACA, which we were not fully informed about.

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/224490-gruber-frequently-visited-white-house

By the time the treaty does exist in final form, we'll be told it's way too far down the road to do anything about it now.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/10/irans-foreign-minister-schools-gop-traitors-constitution-international-law.html

(The title of the article at the above link is misleading. The Constitution says it is the highest law of our country; and the highest law of our country requires the advise and consent of the Senate to treaties.)

Anyway, Catch 22.

[ucrdem]

36. LOL, I doubt it.

You think Dems are going to rally to the cause?

[merrily]

43. No clue what your post is supposed to mean, but no worries.

I get that your mission has been, and is, to glorify whatever the administration does.

[ucrdem]

44. I answered before your edits, which are equally baffling to me. nt

[merrily]

46. Before or after edits, your reply is not comprehensible to me, but, again, no worries.

[bananas]

51. So the charts in the OP are made-up hype and bullshit which should not be believed.

Thanks for providing an example of how investment scams are sold.

[ucrdem]

53. No, they are not.

That was easy!

[AgingAmerican]

60. If it doesn't exist yet, the charts are meaningless

...in the context of the TPP, cuz you have no clue what is in it by admission.

[ucrdem]

73. It's an agenda. That's the title: President's Trade Agenda.

A consummation devoutly to be wished so to speak. If we like it, we pass TPA and let him try to implement it.

[AgingAmerican]

152. Do the GOP and corporate lobbyists have that agenda?

You know, the corporate lobbyists who are writing the TPP.

It doesn't sound anything like what the GOP or corporate lobbyists would want. In fact I can tell you with 100% certainty this is not what they are drooling about.

[earthside]

111. They have to be made up.

The 'treaty' doesn't exist yet.

That is how the process works.

[AgingAmerican]

57. It is classified Top Secret

nt

[L0oniX]

170. So I guess the OP is like Snowden revealing top secrets.

[ucrdem]

173. Well, since neither revealed any secrets, you have a point. nt

[lancer78]

132. Offshoring is not created by tax incentives.

Offshoring is created by companies being able to pay a worker $0.25 an hour in China.

[ucrdem]

11. Growth of US manufacturing jobs:

900,000 added since Feb. 2010. Pg. 17 above:

[ucrdem]

13. What TPA is and isn't

Page 11 above:

[freshwest]

14. Forgot to Rec. This is a bad time to get rated for more input. Almost 1 AM Pacific. Gotta go!

Besides, it's unintelligible to me.

And I have to download every graphic and enlarge it and scroll back and forth!

Eek!

[ucrdem]

15. Oh dang. Thanks for the heads up fresh.

Sorry about that! I made the jpgs from the PDF with MS Paint as I don't have a current paid Acrobat subscription and sometimes things that look good on my PC don't quite work on other ppl's. But they're all from the same doc which is here:

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/President%27s%20Trade%20Agenda%20for%20Print%20FINAL.pdf

I downloaded it and that's what I'm using but it also opened up in my browser . . . anyway I'll go back and pull out a few text highlights and type 'em in.

'night!

p.s. and thanks for the rec!

[ucrdem]

24. p.s. that's the problem with this thing -- it's ginormous!

No wonder it's a tough sales pitch, but they're going have to keep pitching until TPA passes in the House. So much for exciting summer plans . . .

[eridani]

16. I can agree that whoring for corporations is what TPP is about n/t

[ucrdem]

21. Small business agenda:

[eridani]

28. Nothing says bullshit like corporate produced color glossy brochures

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/30291-hundreds-of-tech-companies-line-up-to-oppose-tpp-trade-agreement

More than 250 tech companies have signed a letter demanding greater transparency from Congress and decrying the broad regulatory language in leaked parts of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bill.

The TPP would create an environment hostile to journalists and whistleblowers, said policy directors for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future, co-authors of the letter. “TPP’s trade secrets provisions could make it a crime for people to reveal corporate wrongdoing ‘through a computer system’,” says the letter. “The language is dangerously vague, and enables signatory countries to enact rules that would ban reporting on timely, critical issues affecting the public.”

[ucrdem]

33. I thought you said corporations loved it?

You mean it's NOT a sell out to big business?

[eridani]

35. Corporate bullshitters can afford glossy propaganda

Anyone who is in favor of this is a socipath

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/11/amid-tpp-fight-el-salvador-mining-case-shows-danger-corporate-tribunals

OceanaGold, which purchased the Vancouver-based Pacific Rim Mining in 2013, is suing El Salvador—the most water-stressed country in the region—for an amount equivalent to 5 percent of its gross domestic product for refusing to grant it a permit to put a gold mine into operation.

[ucrdem]

38. El Salvador is not in the Pacific Rim.

Anyway your link says the 250 tech firms are complaining about the regulations. Gee, who could have predicted that. Starting to see where the noise is really coming from?

[AgingAmerican]

65. El Salvador is in the Pacific Rim

All of Central America is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim#List_of_countries_on_the_Pacific_Rim

[ucrdem]

66. LOL, you got me. But it's not a current TPP signatory. They are:

Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

[AgingAmerican]

68. Then they are more fortunate than we

nt

[okaawhatever]

47. Nothing says bullshit like readersupportednews & common dreams. nt

[eridani]

139. So sorry they aren't Republican enough for you n/t

[okaawhatever]

147. No, they aren't accurate enough for me. I don't want propaganda, I want information. nt

[eridani]

148. They are more accurate about TPP than anything the corporate whores have put out n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Nnnnnnope.

[Art_from_Ark]

23. ....

[merrily]

27. No, and jobs are by far not the only problem, either. Next question.

[msongs]

31. as GWBush called it, catapulting the propaganda. sure are pretty pictures n graphics tho nt

[ucrdem]

34. If you can't read the text, click the link and read the PDF in your browser.

You could also download the PDF and read it in your favorite app.

[sendero]

97. Looks so slick as to be..

... professionally prepared doesn't it? And like most PR efforts, all kinds of assertions as to the interpretations of the "facts" presented are proffered, many of them laughable. Like NAFTA was responsible for the tech boom that was part and parcel of the economic growth in the 90s.

Forget NAFTA. Whether it was an angel or the devil, the TPP is the seventh level of hell and no sane objective person could support it. Unless they were beholden to the 1% in one way or another.

[eridani]

37. Only a vicious amoral sociopath could be in favor of the following--

Thanks to an ISDS provision in a past trade agreement, that mining company didn’t have to go to a Canadian court to challenge the permit decision – they went right to a special ISDS panel of corporate lawyers. Last month, the international panel ruled in favor of the mining company, and the decision cannot be challenged in Canadian courts.

Now the Canadian taxpayers may be on the hook for up to $300 million in “damages” to the mining company – all because their government had the gall to stand up for its environment and the economic livelihood of its local fishermen. And the next time a foreign company wants a blasting permit, what will the Canadian government do?

ISDS isn’t a one-time, hypothetical problem – we’ve seen it in past trade agreements. Just in the past few years:

• A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.
• A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.
• A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.
• Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.

[ucrdem]

39. Again?

[Hoyt]

116. You, like Senator Warren, don't do any research on the junk you post. For example,

Look up the case you cite -- Veolia v. Egypt.

The dispute is not about Egypt raising the minimum wage, as you assert --

It's a disagreement about whether a stabilization provision in a concession contract signed under the Mubarak regime required a government authority to compensate the concessionaire for increases in the minimum wage introduced by the incoming Morsi government.

That's an entirely different dispute than you assert. It's not about raising the minimum wage, it's about who should pay for it in this one little case, and is based upon a signed contract.

I'm also familiar with the Philip Morris case. They are getting nowhere after 4 years, and Australia's tobacco packing law has not been changed.

I've looked at the details of at least 10 or cases. In everyone of them, there is a reason for the dispute beyond what is usually posted by the Obama/TPP detractors. But, even then, the corporations don't even prevail in a third of the cases. When they do prevail, they don't get a lot and the laws aren't changed. Further, although Warren and the TPP demagogues say these tribunals are run by corporate lawyers, in most cases the three arbiters are legal professors. And, one is elected by the country, one by the corporation, and one by mutual agreement under the UN/WTO international arbitration rules.

And even if one ignores that, the countries still are ready to sign new agreements with the same arbitration provisions because they know they are good for their country.


I can understand why Obama gets ticked, when seemingly intelligent people, don't act like it -- including Warren and Sanders, especially when they spread junk that isn't true or leave out important facts in an attempt to gain political support.

[eridani]

141. Who should pay for it is obviously the little people

So what if corporations don't always prevail? Even if they don't, they steal a lot of money from taxpayers who have to defend themselves from this crap. What might Australia have spent its tax dollars on if they didn't have to defend themselves from Phillip Morris bullshit?

[Hoyt]

142. Usually when corporations fail, they pay arbitration costs.

Again the countries sign these agreements because they come out ahead from the jobs, investment and taxes these corporations bring to countries desperate for it.

[eridani]

146. As long as they don't mind killing their citizens to boost Big Pharma profits

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/05/24/gouging-the-sick/

First, it would extend the number of years that a pharmaceutical giant can keep a patent on its brand-name drugs. Not only would this artificially dump more monopoly profits into the coffers of drugmakers, it would simultaneously postpone competition from the makers of cheaper generic drugs — an especially dangerous delay for low-income people who are ill.

A second provision would restrict public regulation of drug prices by any of the 12 countries that are forging the accord. This would nix the people’s sovereign right to remedy price gouging by corporate profiteers that hold monopolies on life-saving medicines.

[Hoyt]

149. Actually, you should read about drug costs in poor countries. Brand name drugs are

often cheaper there than generics here. Drug companies practically offer big discounts in poor countries (because they can't afford them otherwise), not to mention foreign countries often don't honor patents and allow counterfeiting. Have you ever heard of poor people here buying drugs overseas?

With that said, we damn sure need to do something about drugs here, from the way Medicare doesn't negotiate except under Part C and D, and how companies are allowed to write off research costs.

[eridani]

151. That's what the TPP is for--actively preventing ngegotiated drug prices. n/t

[L0oniX]

172. Well there goes more of our sovereignty but not the global corporations sovereignty.

Have they got their own oceanic floating country yet?

[Art_from_Ark]

42. Not about jobs, huh?

Tell that to these 7,000 Japanese farmers and food producers who could be out of a job because of TPP:



And a study that was printed in the Tokachi News estimated that 40,000+ people in the Tokachi area of Hokkaido, Japan, alone would lose their jobs because of TPP, with a net loss of 500 billion yen (more than 4 billion dollars) to the local economy:



So no, we cannot agree that jobs are not a problem with TPP.

[ucrdem]

50. Can you give any more info on the study?

Maybe a date and/or a link to something translated or Google translatable?

[Art_from_Ark]

56. Here's an article from the Japan Times that provides some background

"Especially hard hit would be rice farms, where 14,000 people would be put out of work. Hokkaido’s dairy industry, selling everything from milk to artisan cheeses, would face a projected loss of ¥167 billion. An estimated 56,000 people working in the dairy industry would also lose their jobs."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/10/national/hokkaido-opposition-to-tpp-surges/#.VWGQ8N2Q2z5

I don't know if these articles are Google-translatable due to the syntax and structure of the Japanese language, but you can try

https://mamorenihon.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/札幌、ｔｐｐ反対集会に７０００人/

And here's a recent Japanese article about opposition to TPP that was published last week:

http://www.tokachi.co.jp/news/201505/20150517-0021053.php

[ucrdem]

64. Okay thanks, but note the first one is two years old,

and Japanese agricultural tariffs are one of the main sticking ponts in the negotiations. That means that a) the early bad press could have been part of a PR push to obtain a better negotiating position, and b) the actual negotiated language two years later is sure to have changed a lot.

[Art_from_Ark]

72. The last article is from last week

Things haven't changed so much in the past two years, except for one thing-- secrecy. There was more information available about TPP in Japan two years ago, but now it is kept hush-hush, which makes it even more suspicious.

[ucrdem]

75. Okay thanks.

But note I said the first article. As for changes, yes, two years of negotiations are what has changed in two years, and as I mentioned Japanese agricultural tariffs are a particularly contentious issue.

[Art_from_Ark]

76. No, the last article on my list is from this month

From the article's dateline:

2015年5月17日 14時13分

That means 2:13 pm, May 17, 2015

[ucrdem]

77. Yes I gather. But I said your first link.

I'll get to the Japanese ones, don't worry, so ありがとう for the links.

[ucrdem]

87. Okay #2 is from July 2013, and #3 is asking for transparency

in the negotiations. There's something about tariffs but in my translation it looks like they're opposing tariffs, which would be in alignment with, not in opposition to, the goals of TPP. But the only thing I could really make out clearly is that they want more participation in the negotiations, which after the Donnybrook stirred up here does not surprise me. But I grant that TPP negotiations are causing anxiety in Japan.

Anyway thanks again for the links and updates which are very interesting! ありがとう

[ucrdem]

74. oops .. wrong place

[questionseverything]

110. so basically the us would export cheap rice to japan

making japanese rice too expensive to grow so supply will be lowered

here in the us we will be competing for that rice in the form of higher prices

our food is the big thing we have to export and it is included in the manufacturing numbers

[shaayecanaan]

88. That table is far fetched

Take the column on beets (ie sugar beets). The fact is that sugar tariffs are likely to remain since both the US and Japan have horribly inefficient sugar sectors that rely on protection to survive.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-10/what-hope-for-us-sugar-concessions-in-tpp/6383638

Even if the sugar industry in Hokkaido collapsed, I doubt that 8000 jobs would go with it. Hokkaido only plants about 60,000 ha of sugar beets anyway, I can't see how they get to 8,000 jobs, unless they are counting every single time a seasonal worker chips a weed.

[Art_from_Ark]

90. Sugar beets in Japan are used to make oligosaccharide

which is a very popular alternative sweetener in Japan. The 8,000 jobs represent not only the people who grow the beets, but also the people who process the beets into oligosaccharide and other products-- see the second column, "関連産業"-- "Related Industries".

And 60,000 hectares is nothing to sneeze at-- that's 150,000 acres, or 235 square miles, about 1% of the total area of Hokkaido (which is very mountainous).

[shaayecanaan]

140. That just reveals how fundamentally dishonest this is

No other country besides Japan makes FOS or other oligosaccharides on any great commercial scale. Pretty much all the inulin and FOS in products sold here are made in Japan. As long as there is a market for those products then those jobs will remain. FOS production isnt dependent on sugar beets, you can make it from cane sugar just as easily.

Something like 47% of Okinawa is given over to sugar production. Thats where most of the Japanese sugar comes from. Okinawa is perfectly suited for sugar cane production and doesnt really need the protection, but the farmers of course quite like being artificially enriched.

Meanwhile consumers in the US, EU and Japan collectively pay $3.4 billion in protection money each year for the sugar industry alone.

[AgingAmerican]

54. So good that it's top secret!!

They don't want people to know what's in it and the GOP are drooling all over themselves to get it passed. GOP plus economics = fucked.

[Enrique]

55. Republicans ALWAYS say their policies are good for jobs

I stopped believing them a long time ago, why would I start believing them now?

[ucrdem]

58. Because they aren't Republicans? Because NAFTA created millions of new US jobs?

Because they've created 900,000 new US manufacturing jobs since 2010?

[Art_from_Ark]

70. I can think of at least 5 production facilities in my congressional district

that moved to Mexico after NAFTA was passed:

Levi Strauss (Fayetteville and Harrison, Arkansas)
Whirlpool (Ft. Smith, Arkansas)
Emerson Electric (Rogers, Arkansas)
Guardian Industries (Rogers, Arkansas)

Here's a list of some other companies that high-tailed it to Mexico thanks to NAFTA:

http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54nafta.html

[ucrdem]

78. Well, they might move to Malaysia under TPP

But I suspect that anything that could easily be shipped to Mexico has already been shipped there. In any case the net US job gain under Clinton was positive for the six years after NAFTA went into effect:

[LWolf]

128. Obama himself has blurred the partisan line.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. They polled the public and the public wants JOBS....

So naturally they claim their thing creates jobs.

If America wanted lettuce they'd claim their thing creates lettuce.

[ucrdem]

62. Well, NAFTA delivered jobs by any metric

Here's what the employment rate look like before Junior took the reins:

[Spitfire of ATJ]

122. LOL!! Look how broad the definition of work is on that chart.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. what on earth do you think that chart proves?

[Elwood P Dowd]

136. The sun came up the day after NAFTA was signed.

Without NAFTA, the sun would be gone and we would all be dead.

[bhikkhu]

153. That's the labor participation rate

lots of demographics issues are indicated by that, and its really not a number that tells a single story well.

[jtuck004]

83. Now I understand why I heard there were Unicorns in the Appendix. n/t

[joshcryer]

63. It's always been geopolitical.

What people keep missing from this debate is the role automation is soon to play in our global economy.

The US is going to supplant those sweatshop workers with automated factories. It's only a matter of time. And to box in a huge chunk of Asia will give the US a massive advantage.

That says nothing of jobs here, which is why we need a basic income / living wage / negative income tax. And no one is talking about it. Except me I guess.

[ucrdem]

69. LOL, Pat Moynihan talked about it.

Negative income tax, that is. But I haven't heard much about it since. As for separate issues that are often conflated with trade deals, and need to be addressed in order to improve standards of living, Kerry talked a bit about those at a speech he gave at a Boeing plant in WA last week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026714251

[joshcryer]

79. So did Nixon.

But it's really just a naming convention. Call it what you will, it's the same thing (though the difference in implementation might be between having Social Security write the checks or the Internal Revenue Service sending out refunds, or another Basic Income Administration handling it). A negative income tax might actually be a smart way to do it because you could kill two birds with one stone and create a more progressive tax schedule while you're at it. (And obviously you would not want Friedman's extremely low cap, it would have to be be some living wage / basic income standard as the Green Party advocates.)

But I'm not trying to conflate the issue too much here. American consumers have an appetite for cheap goods. Whether they're made here in the US with automation or whether they're made overseas by cheap labor.

TPP is a disaster for the environment, and I don't think it's supportable for that reason, but I see why it's being implemented, and I think it's folly not to address the much larger looming issue of a basic income that every single American and eventually everyone on the planet is going to require. Brookings is just now recognizing the effect automation is playing in our own manufacturing pools (much to the chagrin of the Third Way and Larry Summers who seem to shrug it off).

The policy wonks need to wake up.

And the Presidential candidates need to make it clear that this is a real issue we're facing right now.

[ucrdem]

80. I know but I didn't want to mention it.

As I recall it eventually got implemented in a watered down way as the Income Tax Credit that exists today. Not quite the same thing of course and it wouldn't have cost that much more, but I think philosophically it was just a bridge too far for the Nixon-Ford admin.

As for automation, yeah, manufacturing has been going in that direction for a while. What it does to healthcare and similar sectors remains to be seen but hopefully it will only eliminate the crappy dangerous jobs.

[joshcryer]

81. They did test trials and it was a disaster.

Because people just didn't want to work (let's be frank, work kinda sucks).

Krugman kind of hinted at the "Rise of the Robots" a few years ago: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robots/

And we're finally seeing the proof in the economic productivity studies, check out that link if you didn't, it's a quick read: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2015/04/27-robots-growth-statistics-andes-muro

[ucrdem]

82. Interesting.

About the robots I mean, at least the Brookings link. I would have thought they've been having a bigger impact. Still if I had to choose between running a robot and running my ass off you can guess which one I'd choose.



But yeah I know it's a lot more complicated than that ...

[joshcryer]

85. Hey, I just saw this, Warren Buffet is advocating EIC modifications:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-than-raising-the-minimum-wage-1432249927

Not quite negative income but it comes closer. He advocates a monthly return and higher dollar returns. Really cool that I found that while digging around.

I think that's the thing about those robots, they're hiding in the background, just noise. But just you wait until taxi services replace drivers with self-driving cars. Uber is already planning it. Apple is planning it.

Going to be quite interesting.

[ucrdem]

89. Another Warren to worry about LOL

Interesting, but the problem with EITC (yeah I forgot the e) is that if you aren't working you don't get anything, and if you're working minimum wage or slightly above you're problably not paying much federal tax anyway. But for a rather narrow sector of say lower-to-middle double-income no-children households I suppose it would make life marginally better.

[jtuck004]

84. "the WH is doing a poor job " < Don't be hard on them. It's not easy selling dog shit once the

people get a whiff of it.

[Art_from_Ark]

86. They're still trying to call those dog turds "saucisson"

Just add a few more spices, and they'll taste like the real thing!

[jtuck004]

92. Researchers now say that eating a single serving of processed meat every day could increase your

...
risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk is small, but cutting down on your processed meats is still probably not a bad idea.

Based the findings from seven different studies, Swedish researchers found that the risk of pancreatic cancer was 19 percent greater among people who ate roughly 4 ounces of processed meat per day. That’s equivalent to about one link of sausage or four pieces of bacon per day. The study was published in the British Journal of Cancer.
...

Here.

Like processed pork, one serving may be all it takes to start a cancer big enough to kill the country.

You picked a great analogy there.

[jwirr]

91. NO anything that gives multinational corporations more power is not going to give us more GOOD

jobs. And remember it also gives them more power over some of the poorest countries in this world. They do not have a good record in that either. IF when we actually get to read it and have economic experts tell us what it is about - not corporate lobbyists - then I will listen.

[TheSarcastinator]

94. no, but I bet most of us can agree that your OP

is nothing but propaganda. It's nice to know who the shills are, so thanks. I hope you are getting paid for this.

[Katashi_itto]

95. What pretty pictures. Well they have to wrap up a shit sandwich in nice packaging somehow.

[djean111]

96. I don't know what your point is anymore, really.

Looks like arms will be twisted, promises made, etc., and this thing will be inflicted upon us. Obama and the GOP are working together really really closely and really really well, after all.
Why care if we peons are singing hosannas to the thing? Obama is not running for office again, right? The GOP does not give a crap if any of us are unhappy, either. Is dissent just bad ch'i or not good feng shui or something?
Or are the DINO Dems really afraid some of us will stop supporting them? Mystifyin'.
I always think it funny when someone who is definitely on another page says "we", for some reason.

[ucrdem]

98. I thought we were all dying to know what the eeeevuhl was hiding from us?

Because secrecy and corporatocracy? So now it turns out we don't give a shit? So hard to keep up.

As for who "we" are it turns out that supporting TPP is in the 2012 platform: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026694048

. . . and of course there's this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Hope that helps!

[djean111]

102. Oh, that is not what I said, and you know it. And enough eeeevuhl (cute marginalizing trick, BTW)

has been leaked for some of us here and in other countries to know it reeks.

The Democratic Party platform is just a mush of feel-good platitudes.

And voting for Democrats? First, I will happily vote against anyone I consider a DINO, in a primary. And will give them no money or help. Haven't you noticed? Democrat is such a bendy word, lately.

So your entire argument boils down to shut the fuck up, because a Democratic president is pushing this. And what is in the TPP/TTIP is none of our business. And we should believe our government THIS time, really! As I said, why do you even care what dissenter think? Do you have counterparts in the EU and Japan, for instance? Because some citizens there hate this thing, too. Or is it the possible loss of support for DINOs?

[ucrdem]

104. Okay well alrighty then.

[sheshe2]

154. Dear Goddess. You are serious.

Obama and the GOP are working together really really closely and really really well, after all.

You believe this.

[djean111]

158. You are serious when you do not think Obama and the GOP are NOT working together on Fast Track?

Seriously? And if you think I meant working together on everything, and not just the TPP and Fast Track, then you really should not be commenting on my post, because you evidently do not understand that this thread is about Fast Track and the TPP. Nothing else.

Oh, and I don't look at the government in terms of Obama. I look at it in terms of what is the government doing. Obama will be gone in two years. Presidents come and then they go, and then the next one comes, and then the next one. We citizens, however, have to live with what they do long after they are gone. And - I think worrying about, or doing anything specifically for a "legacy" is ridiculous. This is not supposed to be a sporting event. But, I guess, in a way, that is what is has become, except, of course, the game is rigged and the outcomes have been predetermined by the money guys.

[ucrdem]

185. LOL, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum today . . .

HuffPo gave away the game:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/23/rush-limbaugh-tpp_n_7428034.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Looks like we were right all along, again!

Have a great memorial day!

p.s.

[PowerToThePeople]

99. Since we can not read it

I can not make an educated decision.

No.

[ucrdem]

100. Yes, it would be hard to read as it doesn't yet exist.

Kinda covered that above but I'll be happy to run through it again.

ETA: Post 71 much covers it succinctly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026720037#post71

[PowerToThePeople]

101. Well, no need for the TPA until it exists and we have read it.

pretty simple huh?

[ucrdem]

103. It won't exist if TPA doesn't pass. But voting for TPA isn't voting for TPP,

it's voting to initiate a review process leading to a vote, which will commence when the thing is finished, which it won't be if TPA doesn't pass. Yes it's tricky, and even though you probably knew that, it's worth rehearsing because there's always someone who doesn't.

[PowerToThePeople]

105. That does not have to be the case

Nothing but strong-arming from tptb. If they are unwilling to release the text without fast track passed, I say "fuck them."

[ucrdem]

109. Well the tricky parts are still being negotiated, like Japanese agricultural tariffs

and it would be irresponsible and undiplomatic to splash that around, though some like Darryl Issa and of course the entire jackal press corps would have no qualms about spilling the beans if they thought it might send the Obama administration sprawling. Good times.

But as for what is in it, I think this doc is a pretty close approximation of what the Obama admin is shooting for. That's why I posted it.

[TheKentuckian]

143. It is not only voting for the TPP but whatever sewage comes down the pipe on trade for six years

by willful supporting a process that circumvents the enumerated treaty process and deals us into a stacked deck where free traitors can sell the American people out with the greatest ease as they have repeatedly done for decades always with the same syren songs over and over again as our workers are absolutely strip mined to fatten bottom lines.

[djean111]

106. So when members of Congress go into that room where they can read the TPP, but not take notes or

even talk about specifics - there is just a mini-bar and a laptop for watching Netflix? Nothing valid in that room? Fascinating!

[ucrdem]

107. Now you know their dark secrets.

Kind of chilling isn't it?

[djean111]

108. Kind of bullshit, saying we cannot read the TPP because the "agreement" does not yet exist.

That has been twisted to imply that we cannot read the TPP because the TPP does not exist. In any event, I sincerely doubt you will get an all-join-hands and kumbaya here. I hope that is not some sort of assignment or whatever!

Either the DINOs will be routed out of the Democratic Party, or else they will completely finish taking over and us Fringe Left Wing folks will go elsewhere. Just a "D" on the jersey isn't getting unquestioning support any more. We are evolving.

[ucrdem]

112. Well if you really want a sneak preview I'm giving you one.

You're welcome.

[djean111]

113. No, you are giving me the Official Story. No thanks.

[TBF]

115. Unmitigated bullshit.

The senators are reading something - they've been sworn to secrecy on it. Release the damned drafts. Then we'll talk.

Your glossy sales brochures will not do it.

[Chan790]

138. Repetition is not truth.

If I have to repeat it, it's just going to be ironic.

You can say as many times as you like that it doesn't yet exist...but that doesn't make it any less spurious than my assertion that there is a naked supermodel astride a unicorn in my spare bedroom. We know (100% lock-solid fact) it exists because they passed a law barring anybody who has read it from disclosing what it says. The fact that it may be revised further or not be a final draft does not mean that an operating draft does not exist.

[TBF]

114. I don't want the glossy sales brochure -

I want the complete text of TPP.

After I read it we can talk.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

123. It's too complicated for your pretty little head. Just sign it.

[Hoyt]

117. Good work, ucr. Obama and/or TPP haters won't read it, anymore than they'd read the final

TPP.

What's a shame is that their self-styled "progressive" stance will negatively impact our future.

[ucrdem]

118. Hey thanks Hoyt!

No, some don't seem particularly interested in knowing about what they keep complaining about not knowing about. Quelle surprise eh?

[Hoyt]

120. I won't mention the poster's name, but we had one who went from saying it's a "secret agreement"

to the words in the agreement "don't mean what they say." If it weren't so serious, I'd just laugh.

[ucrdem]

121. LOL, that's progress, I guess

If Obama manages to get TPA through the House he can lock up and retire early as there's no way he could ever top that feat!

[AgingAmerican]

166. "Obama/TPP haters"

lol

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Nice shiny propaganda from the U.S. Government

is this piecework or by the hour? Go look for the KORUS sale job. We are in the hole the same 70k American jobs it was supposed to produce.

[L0oniX]

169. I'd post that Joseph Goebbels award but I got a hide the last time I did.

Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. It is far more sophisticated

Than that any longer

[ucrdem]

124. Enforcement: dispute resolution in action, 2014 (pg. 35):

Trade Enforcement, from p. 35:

[ucrdem]

125. More on ISDS from USTR:

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

What is ISDS?

ISDS is a neutral, international arbitration procedure. Like other forms of commercial, labor, or judicial arbitration, ISDS seeks to provide an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflicts. Various forms of ISDS are now a part of over 3,000 agreements worldwide, of which the United States is party to 50. Though ISDS is invoked as a catch all term, there are a wide variety of differences in scope and process. ISDS in U.S. trade agreements is significantly better defined and restricted than in other countries’ agreements.


Governments put ISDS in place for at least three reasons:

• To resolve investment conflicts without creating state-to-state conflict
• To protect citizens abroad
• To signal to potential investors that the rule of law will be respected

Because of the safeguards in U.S. agreements and because of the high standards of our legal system, foreign investors rarely pursue arbitration against the United States and have never been successful when they have done so.


What are the major criticisms of ISDS?

• For some critics there is a discomfort that ISDS provides an additional channel for investors to sue governments, including a belief that all disputes (even international law disputes) should be resolved in domestic courts. Others believe that ISDS could put strains on national treasuries or that ISDS cases are frivolous. Based on our more than two decades of experience with ISDS under U.S. agreements, we do not share these views. We believe that providing a neutral international forum to resolve investment disputes under international law mitigates conflicts and protects our citizens.

• The most significant concern that critics raise is about the potential impact of ISDS rulings on the ability of governments to regulate. Those concerns are why we have been at the leading edge of reforming and upgrading ISDS. The United States has taken important steps to ensure that our agreements are carefully crafted both to preserve governments’ right to regulate and minimize abuse of the ISDS process. Those steps are described in detail below.


What rights are protected by ISDS under U.S. agreements?

In U.S. agreements, the investment rules enforced by ISDS provide investors in foreign countries basic protections from foreign government actions such as:

• Freedom from discrimination: An assurance that Americans doing business abroad will face a level playing field and will not be treated less favorably than local investors or competitors from third countries.

• Protection against uncompensated expropriation of property: An assurance that the property of investors will not be seized by the government without the payment of just compensation.

• Protection against denial of justice: An assurance that investors will not be denied justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings.

• Right to transfer capital: An assurance that investors will be able to move capital relating to their investments freely, subject to safeguards to provide governments flexibility, including to respond to financial crises and to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system.

These investment rules mirror rights and protections in the United States and are designed to provide no greater substantive rights to foreign investors than are afforded under the Constitution and U.S. law. For example, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Several of these rights – such as those relating to expropriation and denial of justice – are also longstanding elements of customary international law protections for investors abroad.


Why aren’t local courts enough?

While ISDS does not provide additional substantive rights relative to U.S. law, it does provide an additional procedural right: the right for foreigners to choose impartial arbitration rather than domestic courts when alleging that the government itself has breached its international obligations, whether by discriminating against a foreign investor, expropriating the investor’s property, or violating the investor’s customary international law rights.

ISDS arbitration is needed because the potential for bias can be high in situations where a foreign investor is seeking to redress injury in a domestic court, especially against the government itself. While countries with weak legal institutions are frequent respondents in ISDS cases, American investors have also faced cases of bias or insufficient legal remedies in countries with well-developed legal institutions. Moreover, ISDS can be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lack the resources or expertise to navigate foreign legal systems and seek redress for injury at the hands of a foreign government. Indeed, SMEs and individuals have accounted for about half of all cases brought under international arbitration.

There is a long history of providing neutral forums for disputes that cross borders. Within the United States, for example, the rules of civil procedure allow for federal jurisdiction in cases involving citizens of foreign countries (or even citizens of different U.S. states) to eliminate biases that may occur within state courts. Internationally, there are a wide variety of judicial or arbitration mechanisms – including State-to-State dispute settlement and forums permitting direct actions by private parties – to create neutral means for resolving differences between parties from different countries; for example, the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.


Where did ISDS come from?

Disputes between investors and foreign countries have required adjudication for as long as there has been cross-border investment. Prior to the evolution of the modern rules-based system, unlawful behavior by States targeting foreign investors tended either to go unaddressed or to escalate into conflict between States. Military interventions in the early years of U.S. history – gunboat diplomacy – were often in defense of private American commercial interests. As recently as 1974, a United Nations report found that in the previous decade and a half there had been 875 takings of the private property of foreigners by governments in 62 countries for which there was no international legal remedy. Though diplomatic solutions were possible, they were often ineffective and political in character, rather than judicial.

ISDS represented a better way.

Though the modern form of ISDS did not emerge until the 1960s, the idea of using special purpose panels to resolve disputes between private citizens and foreign governments dates to the earliest days of the Republic. One of the forerunners of modern investor-State arbitration mechanisms, the Jay Treaty between the United States and Britain, was negotiated by our first Chief Justice and included a process for resolving property disputes that arose during the Revolutionary War to ensure that investors received “full compensation for [their] losses and damages” where those could not be obtained “in the ordinary course of justice.” Over the subsequent century, governments established more than 100 additional arbitration mechanisms, such as a series of U.S.-Mexican Claims Commissions, which heard thousands of private claims over the course of decades on issues ranging from cattle theft to denial of justice.

Opponents criticize ISDS for “elevating” corporations and investors to equal standing with countries by allowing corporations to “drag” sovereign governments to dispute settlement. But the right of private parties to challenge the actions of government is one of the oldest and most established legal principles (dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta): that “the king, too, is bound by law.”

Importantly, while it provides a venue for conflict resolution, ISDS protects the sovereign right of States to regulate. Under U.S. agreements, ISDS panels are explicitly limited to providing compensation for loss or damage to investments. They cannot overturn domestic laws or regulations.


How expensive is ISDS?

ISDS is a complex form of dispute resolution and is accompanied by similar legal costs to complex litigation in our courts. But ISDS represents just a fraction of the legal expenses governments incur defending lawsuits. Over the past 25 years, under the 50 agreements the U.S. has which include ISDS, the United States has faced only 17 ISDS cases, 13 of which were brought to conclusion. During that same time period, the United States government was sued in U.S. courts hundreds of thousands of times – more than 1,000 of those for alleged “takings”.

Though the U.S. government regularly loses cases in domestic court, we have never once lost an ISDS case and, in a number of instances, panels have awarded the United States attorneys’ fees after the United States successfully defended frivolous or otherwise non-meritorious claims. The U.S. federal government defends challenges to U.S. state or local government measures in ISDS disputes.

According to the most recent UNCTAD data, only a quarter of concluded ISDS cases worldwide have been decided in favor of investors. When investors win, the damages they are typically awarded are substantially less than the value they have claimed. Because of high arbitration costs, the low winning percentage, the potential for future retaliation against the investor by the government being sued, ISDS is typically a recourse of last resort.


Will ISDS affect the ability of TPP governments to regulate?

The United States already has international agreements containing ISDS in force with six of the eleven other countries participating in TPP (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam). The remaining five countries (Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia and New Zealand) are party to a total of over 100 agreements containing ISDS. TPP will not newly introduce ISDS to any of the countries participating in the agreement. Rather, it presents an opportunity to establish agreement among the parties on a high-standard approach to resolving international investment disputes.

Much of the concern about ISDS is the risk of companies using the mechanism to challenge legitimate regulations. Philip Morris International, for example, has challenged Australia’s plain packaging regulation under a 1993 Hong Kong-Australia Bilateral Investment Treaty. Though that case has not yet been fully adjudicated and Australia has made no changes to their regulation, we nonetheless are working to ensure that TPP includes important safeguards that protect against ISDS being used to challenge legitimate regulation. That is why the United States has put in place several layers of defenses to minimize the risk that U.S. agreements could be exploited in the manner to which other agreements among other countries are susceptible.

In an effort to safeguard against potential abuses of ISDS, TPP will have state-of-the-art protections. It will recognize the inherent right to regulate and to preserve the flexibility of the TPP Parties to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, and the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources. The investment chapter will include carefully defined obligations and exceptions designed to ensure that nothing in the chapter impinges on legitimate regulation or provides foreign investors with greater substantive rights than those already available under U.S. law. It will also reaffirm the right of any TPP government to ensure that investment activity in its territory is undertaken in a manner sensitive to environmental, health, or other regulatory objectives.

TPP will also incorporate numerous safeguards to ensure that the investment obligations are interpreted carefully and in a manner consistent with governments’ intent, and that the ISDS process is not susceptible to abuse. These safeguards include:

• Full transparency in cases. Governments must make all pleadings, briefs, transcripts, decisions, and awards in ISDS cases publicly available, as well as open ISDS hearings to the public. One key objective of these provisions is to allow governments that are party to the agreement, as well as the public at large, to carefully monitor pending proceedings and more effectively make decisions about whether to intervene.

• Public participation in cases. Tribunals have the clear authority to accept amicus curiae submissions. In U.S. cases, amicus briefs have been submitted by a variety of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Center for International Environmental Law. (Documents in all investor-State cases filed against the United States are available on the State Department website.)

• Mechanism for expedited review and dismissal of frivolous claims and claims outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. This mechanism enables respondent countries, on an extremely expedited basis, to move to dismiss (1) frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious claims (akin to provisions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and (2) claims the tribunal is not empowered to resolve.

• Denial of benefits for sham corporations. This provision prevents the use of shell companies to access ISDS.

• Restriction on parallel claims. This provision prevents a party from pursuing the same claims both in ISDS proceedings and domestic courts (i.e., restricting “forum shopping”).

• Statute of limitations. A three-year statute of limitations protects respondents against old claims, which are difficult for governments to defend in part because access to documents and witnesses becomes more difficult over time.

• Challenge of awards. Both parties to an arbitration have the option to challenge a tribunal award.

• Consolidation. On request, tribunals may consolidate claims raising common questions of fact and law, which may increase efficiency, reduce litigation costs, and prevent strategic initiation of duplicative litigation.

• Interim review of ISDS awards. Parties to the arbitration are permitted to review and comment on a draft of the tribunal’s award before it is made final.

• Prudential exception. This exception provides that nothing prevents countries from taking measures to safeguard the stability of their financial systems. If such measures are challenged, this provision allows the respondent country and investor’s home country to jointly agree that the prudential exception applies and that decision is binding on the tribunal.

• Tax exception. This exception defines and limits the coverage of government tax measures under the investment provisions. In addition, this provision provides that if the respondent country and investor’s home country agree that a challenged measure is not expropriatory, that decision is binding on the tribunal.

• Mechanism for treaty Parties to issue binding decisions on how to interpret treaty provisions. A binding interpretation mechanism enables TPP countries to confer after the agreement has entered into force and to issue joint decisions on questions of treaty interpretation that bind all tribunals in pending and future cases.

• Independent experts on environmental, health, or safety matters. In most ISDS cases, the disputing parties retain and appoint the experts. This provision provides arbitral tribunals with the power to appoint experts of their own choosing on environmental, health, and safety matters to ensure maximal objectivity in the evaluation of claims challenging such measures.

• Limitations on obligations: Clear limiting rules and definitions, including guidance on interpretation on the obligations frequently subject to litigation, to safeguard against subjective or overbroad interpretation – for example, the incorporation of U.S. Supreme Court standards on indirect expropriation and a clear tying of the “minimum standard of treatment” obligation to requirements under customary international law (i.e. the general and consistent practice of states that they follow from a sense of legal obligation).

The case record is instructive. Tribunals adjudicating ISDS cases under U.S. agreements have consistently affirmed that government actions designed and implemented to advance legitimate regulatory objectives do not violate investment obligations. In the Chemtura v. Canada case, for example, an ISDS panel rejected a claim that the Canadian government’s actions to ban the use of chemical product breached Canada’s NAFTA obligations. In rejecting the investor’s claim, the tribunal showed deference to the government’s scientific and environmental regulatory determinations. Similarly in the Methanex v. the United States case, an ISDS panel underscored the right of governments to regulate for public purposes, including regulation that imposes economic burdens on foreign investors, and stated that investors could not reasonably expect that environmental and health regulations would not change.

Some critics have argued that ISDS nonetheless “chills” regulation. But, far from inhibiting regulation, in the wake of U.S. trade agreements we typically see increases in public interest regulation. This is particularly true of recent U.S. agreements that have required trading partners to upgrade both their labor and environmental laws. But even under older agreements, there is strong evidence of countries making regulatory improvements subsequent to concluding trade agreements with the United States. For example, a recent study by the Organization of American States found that CAFTA-DR countries have improved over 150 existing environmental laws and regulations, and adopted 28 new laws and regulations related to wastewater, air pollution, and solid waste.

The evidence is equally clear in the United States. Despite having 50 ISDS agreements in place, the United States has never lost a case and nothing in our agreements has inhibited our response to the 2008 financial crisis, diluted the financial reforms we put in place, or has challenged signature reforms like the Affordable Care Act or any of the other new regulations that have been put in place over the last 30 years.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds

[Phlem]

130. !

right.

[Rex]

174. This thread did not go very well lol.

The OP really took a beating, nobody is fooled into thinking this is good. The ones that push the TPP, don't care about the other side of the equation one bit. It is capital vs labor and everyone knows it. No wonder they (corporate tools) wouldn't let Congress take notes! The only people that win out in the long run are the already filthy rich.

And everyone and their dog knows it!

[Phlem]

182. Agreed.

I still can't believe some people. The lies are getting more frequent.

[TheKentuckian]

144. Corporate mission statements and ambiguous negotiating positions are not the deal

and if they were it would still be manager porn and loose rhetoric poorly defined and with no mechanics.

Which by the way and again are just "positions" not the agreement.

[ucrdem]

145. Possibly but it sure beats what we're getting from the pundits.

Yes, much or all of this has been available for years on the various State Department websites, but the press certainly isn't going to bother digging any of it out when they can run with Liz vs Barack. And this doc would have probably remained unknown to most here as it too is buried on a government website.



p.s. when a finished draft is available I imagine we'll know it instantly.

[TheKentuckian]

159. Even a great press would put little stock in corporate mission statements being conflated with

the actual deal.

What is given as the deal in the OP is the stuff of a timeshare brochure not even a lose approximation of the agreement.

When we are allowed to see a finished draft there is no functional recourse from a Republican Congress and Obama from passing a bad deal, the minority of free traitor Democrats will of course go along for the ride.

No one with any sense that can at least count to 51 or 218 gives a runny sit about the 60 day or the following 30 of kabuki theater period. Even a magical 100% holding the line can't stop the deal once fast track is approved which is set up as the prerequisite for actually getting to see it.
Plus, it sets up another six years of the same conditions.

The treaty process is clearly enumerated in the Constitution and this bullshit ain't it and screws us every time regardless of party in charge at the time.

[B Calm]

157. LOL, nice pretty charts.

[treestar]

160. If you don't read it, you aren't considering both sides

It's interesting how people don't want to consider but one side on this.

[PETRUS]

161. It appears to me that many people are keenly aware of both sides.

One side is capital, the other side is labor, democracy, human rights, and the environment.

[ucrdem]

163. Okay you didn't read it.

Because it really isn't that simplistic.

[PETRUS]

164. It is possible to read it yet not be fooled by it.

And while my statement was a simplification, it is also accurate.

[ucrdem]

165. You think this thing can be reduced to five buzzwords?

Really?

[PETRUS]

167. What "thing?"

The TPP? Certainly not. The issue of sides, yes. If we say that PI is 3.14159, that is a simplification, but that simplification offers tremendous utility and efficiency in problem solving.

[ucrdem]

168. 29 volumes of legislation negotiated between 12 nations and probably thousands of orgs

over a period of five plus years cannot be simplified into "capital vs. labor," no. The idea is ludicrous. I have plenty of respect for Marx and Engels but stretching dialectical materialism that far is basically refusing to consider the details at all.

[PETRUS]

175. You left out part of my equation.

I also mentioned the environment and issues of self-determination. Capital vs. labor isn't the whole story, but it's an important part of it. Some people have more interest in and patience for the details of economic policy. I've waded through leaked draft text and read quite a bit of commentary and analysis (from "both sides," even!) and am comfortable with my opinions. The couple of times I've brought up specifics in a reply to you, you've left them unanswered. Who's refusing to consider the details?

[ucrdem]

178. Marx and Engels were writing in Dickens' London ironically enough.

And yes they really were in London. We've come a long way since then and capital and labor are no longer so easily distinguished. Who "owns" the environment for example? Well, neither. Who owns some of the biggest blocks of Wall Street shares? Labor -- through pension funds. And so on. It's a different world.

[PETRUS]

180. Two things:

First, I'd call myself a heterodox economist, drawing from a variety of schools (Ha Joon Chang's latest book is probably a reasonable reflection of my approach). You're the one who dragged in Marx.

Second, who "owns" the environment from a moral point of view might be an open question but who has legal title to what natural resources is a matter of record. Also, even after one factors in pension funds and 401k's, less than 10% of the population holds more than 90% of business equity - the waters are not nearly as muddy as you seem to think.

[ucrdem]

181. Okay, but you didn't give me much to go on

in #161:

One side is capital, the other side is labor, democracy, human rights, and the environment.

That's pretty reductive.

[PETRUS]

183. It's more informative than "both sides," yet I don't see you pouncing on that terminology.

It's not only an accurate reflection of how I predict the benefits and costs would shake out, but also a reasonably accurate description of what groups of people are arguing for and against it.

[treestar]

177. No one side of TPP is going to lead to all this doom and gloom

and the other doesn't think it will and may do good. You are simply shifting the issue to a slogan.

[ucrdem]

179. Exactly.

It isn't easy to figure out I'll admit that but that's why it's so important to not let the FUD-peddlers define it.

[PETRUS]

184. See posts 164 and what follows.

What's wrong with a slogan, particularly when it expresses something true?

[treestar]

186. It's nonthinking and doesn't reach the issue

It's also not true, and changes the issue.

The post asserts the poster's opinion as a given.

[ucrdem]

187. TPP at-a-glance

Here are some TPP threads I've started that explain what the TPP is and what it's supposed to accomplish:

What it is: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a 12-country free trade agreement that will replace NAFTA (US, Canada and Mexico) with a new treaty that also includes Japan, Australia, Peru, Vietnam and 5 other countries, China excluded, although China has recently expressed interest in joining:

"China may join the TPP...but it'll take a while, " Marketplace, Thursday, June 4, 2015
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/president-obama-talks-trade/china-may-join-tppbut-itll-take-while

What it's supposed to accomplish: The long and short of it is that it's part of President Obama's plan to grow the economy, to borrow Bill Clinton's phrase, by creating export markets for US goods and new US jobs producing them. Additionally the TPP provides a rather detailed regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property, labor rights, and the environment. And now the threads:

1. Sun Jun 7, 2015: Pew Research, May 27: "Free Trade Agreements Seen as Good for U.S."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026793057

2. Wed May 27, 2015: NPR on TPP: "It's A Beast"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026733529

3. Sun May 24, 2015: ISDS up close and personal: Philip Morris, FUD vs TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026723402

4. Sun May 24, 2015: Can we agree that jobs are not the problem with TPP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026720037

5. Sat May 23, 2015: WaPo: "Why Obama’s key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026716674

6. Fri May 22, 2015: John Kerry on TPP: "95 percent of the world’s consumers live beyond the borders of the US"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026714251

7. Wed May 20, 2015: NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026700031

8. Tue May 19, 2015: Supporting TPP is written into the latest (2012) Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026694048

9. Sat May 16, 2015: Guess which "national spokesman on the issue of sovereignty" opposed TPA?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026679777

10. Wed May 13, 2015: It's not a declaration of war, it's not an embargo, it's not a no-fly zone,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026670009

11. Sat May 9, 2015: If Sanders and Warren were telling the truth, they'd argue FOR, not against, the TPA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026649703

12: Fri Jan 30, 2015: The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159076

13: Fri Jan 2, 2015: "USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Outline"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6034217

14: Fri Jan 2, 2015: A US State Dep't site search returns 790 texts and transcripts using "Trans-Pacific Partnership," http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026034112