The TPP Has Always Been About Corporate Dominance, Not Trade or Economic Growth

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/26/tpp-has-always-been-about-corporate-dominance-not-trade-or-economic-growth

Critics of the "trade" deal — from the liberal mainstream (Paul Krugman) to the activist left (Ralph Nader) — have noted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is hardly a trade deal, at all.

"Is he completely unaware of the nature of the argument?" a puzzled Krugman asked in response to fellow New York Times contributor Greg Mankiw who, in a piece written in April of last year, praised the "wisdom of free trade" in the context of the debate about the TPP that was, at the time, raging in Congress.

"One thing that should be totally obvious," Krugman continues, "is that it's off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb."

And here's the key point underlying Krugman's gripe with Mankiw: "For this is not a trade agreement," Krugman writes, referring to the TPP. "It's about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharma companies and firms that want to sue governments."

For Krugman, Mankiw's entire piece was a diversion, one that served to direct attention away from "the issues that need to be argued" — namely, the parts of the agreement that, for instance, grant corporations the right to sue governments for lost profits, effectively giving business the power to manipulate the policies of sovereign nations and undermine regulations that safeguard the public against corporate overreach.

[bjo59]

1. It sure has. People in this country aren't going to know what hit them when/if that thing

goes into effect.

[Hoyt]

2. Most people don't get that trade agreements are more than trade.

"Why, then, did we ever pursue these agreements? A large part of the answer is foreign policy... And anyone ragging on about those past deals, like Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders, should be asked what, exactly, he proposes doing now. Are they saying that we should rip up America’s international agreements? Have they thought about what that would do to our credibility and standing in the world? ...
The larger point in this election season is, however, that politicians should be honest and realistic about trade, rather than taking cheap shots. Striking poses is easy; figuring out what we can and should do is a lot harder. But you know, that’s a would-be president’s job."

"And yes, Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue."

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/03/paul-krugman-trade-and-tribulation.html



Krugman has also said: “Mrs. Clinton isn’t just the most knowledgeable, well-informed candidate in this election,” he wrote, “she’s arguably the best-prepared candidate on matters economic ever to run for president.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/paul_krugman_only_hillary_clinton_save_the_american_economy_now/

[Betty Karlson]

3. Indeed: they are about corporation-coddling and subverting Democracy - just like most of

Clinton's foreign policy 'experience' they all boil down to war and greed: the perceived need for a trade war with China, and greed to avoid taxes and regulations.

[Hoyt]

4. Lots of consumers seem to prefer those Chinese and other foreign products --cheaper and often better

than American products, unfortunately.

[Betty Karlson]

5. No: a lot of suppliers prefer them.

Which is why supply-side economics have failed us.

[Hoyt]

6. Yeah right, suppliers will sell what consumers demand. If they wanted to buy American at high prices

that's all you'd find in the store. People like foreign cars, electronics, etc. If they didn't like foreign products, those stores would go out of business overnight.

[Betty Karlson]

7. Are you a Reagan Democrat, by any chance?

You are chanelling every talking point supply-side economy theorists make in defense of their 'trade' deals.

[Hoyt]

8. Nope. But I believe our best shot for health care, education, welfare, etc., is being able to tax

corporations doing business worldwide, while the rest of the world advances. That's good for us in ways beyond economics too. The demand for our products here is finite. Even if we shut off our borders to all trade, we'd flounder in a year or two. And, many jobs are going to disappear for reasons other than trade. We have a lot of jobs very similar to the iconic economic example of "buggy whip makers."

Are you myopic and believe that trading among ourselves will produce improved social security, education, health care, etc., LONG-TERM.

[Betty Karlson]

9. I see the point you are attempting, but the reality of such policies so far: a race to the bottom.

One way or another, we need to change the racing track if we don't want to reach that bottom.

For the last decades, the USA has been recycling other countries' trade surpluses AND other countries investment surpluses. That was a toxic mix, because it lead to a disconnect between finance and real economy. More of the same, means more of the same problems we are already experiencing - WORLDWIDE no less. And yes, that would be long-term as well.

[SusanCalvin]

11. Nobody is proposing that we trade among ourselves.

But I don't know of any other industrialized country that has allowed the deck to be stacked against their working people the way the US has. Other countries do have de facto tariffs in the form of VAT. China is documented as illegally dumping in many cases, with little or no pushback from us.

And now TPP proposes to place corporations above governments. Riiiiiiight.....

[pampango]

14. A VAT is not a 'defacto tariff'. Tariffs raise the price of imports. A VAT raises the price of all

goods whether they are made here or somewhere else.

With a 20% US VAT, a $20,000 car imported from Germany would now cost $24,000. With the same VAT, a $20,000 American-made car would also cost $24,000. How exactly does that function as a 'tariff' that favors domestically-made products?

If the VAT acted as a 'de facto tariff', Germany would not import 3 times as much as the US does nor would Sweden import twice as much as we do.

China is documented as illegally dumping in many cases, with little or no pushback from us.

Do you really not know what the Obama administration has done in the WTO against China's dumping of products here?

[Hoyt]

17. TPP doesn't change the Investor Dispute Mechanism from that in agreements since 1959.

All of the sudden people are going ape because they found out a country can go to arbitration with one arbiter selected by the country, one by the company and one by mutual agreement. And, the arbiters do not have to be corporate lawyers as the newly initiated seem to believe. 150 something countries have signed these agreements for decades, including Scandinavian countries because they want foreign investment and they don't want their countries companies nationalized or otherwise disadvantaged against domestic companies.

The fact is, we are losing many jobs -- like buggy whip manufacturers, clerical people, book printers, typewriter manufacturers, service station pump employees, etc. -- because the world is changing. We can't stop it.

We have to learn how to deal with it and take care of people. Personally, as long as human right and environmental protections are in place, I'm for helping corporations grow the world -- just tax the heck out of them. It's not like non-corporate BillyBob's contractors are going to help poor countries build roads, factories, etc. Protectionism will not work except in the very short-run.

[Mnpaul]

15. Not really

Underwriters Labs(UL) tells us under no circumstances should we use Chinese wire. That China stuff is crap and very dangerous. In many cases, it has been found that they don't even connect the ground wire(third pin on the wall plug) on power strips and power cords. You may be fine with getting electrocuted with your cheap Chinese garbage but I will pass.

[SusanCalvin]

10. BINGO. nt

[Enthusiast]

12. I remember then 2008 candidate Obama speaking of the urgency

to protect intellectual property rights. Sort of a curious thing for such a young candidate to hang their hat on clear back in 2008. I wondered about it at the time.

[Scuba]

13. It's the "gold standard" for corporate dominance.

[pampango]

16. Big Tobacco is not happy with TPP. It removes BT from the ISDS arbitration process.

We are seeing this now, on a smaller scale, in Uruguay, where the tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing the country over its cigarette packaging laws, which require "manufacturers to cover at least 80 percent of the packaging with medical warnings and graphic images."

If TPP is made the law of the land, this kind of case will become a common occurrence: Big companies, empowered by the legal clout granted by the agreement, will be permitted to sue governments — in secret tribunals — over future profits lost due to laws and regulations.

One good thing about TPP is that it exempts tobacco products and companies from using ISDS against governments as they are currently allowed to do under WTO rules. republican congressmen from North Carolina and Kentucky, who had voted for 'fast track' are now opposed to TPP due to the tobacco rules.

...the Environment chapter is fully subject to TPP’s dispute settlement process although some observers have expressed concerns about whether the U.S. government would effectively enforce the chapter’s provisions.

Most observers agree that TPP goes further than any other major trade agreement to address environmental concerns. Other provisions new to the TPP Environment chapter, compared with existing U.S. FTAs, cover transitioning to a low-emissions environment, removing barriers to environmental goods and services, and linking the Environment chapter to the SPS chapter in an effort to combat invasive alien species.

The TPP includes several labor provisions not contained in any previous U.S. trade agreement. These include requirements that all parties maintain laws that govern health and safety at the workplace, regulate work hours, and provide for a minimum wage. TPP also extends the existing prohibition on weakening worker protections so that it would cover export processing zones and other trade zones, as well as a measure discouraging imports produced using forced labor, among others. In addition, TPP includes three separate bilateral side agreements on labor which require Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam to undertake certain labor reforms before the agreement can take effect between the United States and those countries."

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf

International cooperation on which enduring peace must be based is not a one-way street. Nations like individuals do not always see alike or think alike, and international cooperation and progress are not helped by any Nation assuming that it has a monopoly of wisdom or of virtue.

Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics, may obstruct the paths to international peace. Let us not forget that the retreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started not by a direct attack against international cooperation but against the alleged imperfections of the peace.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16595

[Scientific]

18. K & R

[felix_numinous]

19. It's the ultimate corporate coup

first they get 'super' citizenship, and this will give them super powers. All of these countries are signing their lands and sovereignty away.

[Dont call me Shirley]

20. All the "trade agreements" since Nafta have been about Global Rule by the Economic Royalists.