Will your candidate support TPP?

[Octafish]

Mine won't.

Neoliberalism at work in Michigan: There aren't as many UAW members as when NAFTA got passed. A lot less. NAFTA went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.



It's not all bad, though. What were once-bankrupt car makers and car suppliers are doing great, hiring like crazy. The problem for U.S. workers is that most of the hiring is for new plants overseas.

Consider the case of DELPHI Automotive, a parts maker spun-off when General Motors couldn't make it sufficiently profitable:

[font color="green"]Talk about a turnaround. Delphi's epic 2005 bankruptcy exacted high costs on communities, unions and the pensions of salaried retirees. Yet the creative destruction of the four-year ordeal, shaped by management, private equity investors and the demands of the Obama auto task force, produced a global supplier that now offers 33 product lines from 141 manufacturing sites in 33 countries and employs 160,000 worldwide — only 5,000 of which work inside the United States.

SNIP...

"When we went into this one of the covenants was to maintain the pensions," O'Neal says, clearly mindful the subject remains raw with many salaried retirees who believe — rightly — they were shafted by the auto task force. "We went on the record with that. I did three plans of reorganization. In two of them, the pensions were intact. The last one: We ran into a global economic tsunami. It took another year-and-a-half to get out" of bankruptcy.

"What happened, happened. It was legal. But it could have happened another way, and it was legal. I failed, and I failed miserably." It "was never in our plan to throw the pensions over."[/font color]

-- Daniel Howes, Detroit News

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/columnists/daniel-howes/2015/02/18/howes-delphi-surges-quietly-one-regret/23655511/

[font color="red"][font size="6"]NOTE WHO GOT THE SHAFT: The pensioners -- the workers who created the wealth.[/font size][/font color]

The above is from a business columnist describing the good work of DELPHI's then-president in turning the company around. "Good work" is, of course, defined in maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder," seems to me, is defined as "Owner."

Gee. Owners are the ones who benefit from neoliberalism. Just like owners are the ones who benefit from neoconservatism.

What a coincidence.

[djean111]

1. According to Hillary, who traveled the world shilling for the TPP - 30, 40 speeches? -

the TPP is the Gold Standard. Just not for, you know, us little people.

[Octafish]

2. In Canada, she addressed the banks behind the Keystone XL Pipeline.

WASHINGTON -- Two Canadian banks tightly connected to promoting the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the United States either fully or partially paid for eight speeches made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the period not long before she announced her campaign for president. Those speeches put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate's pocket.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/hillary-clinton-speeches-keystone_n_7463108.html

Nice work, if you can get it.

[Scuba]

15. Yet her fans object when she's called a "corporate whore."

[davidlynch]

3. My interpretation: Hillary *does* support the TPP (see why...)

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Excerpted from another post of mine earlier:

Hillary says that she cannot support the TPP "as written." In this case, it is super important to note the wiggle room provided by “as written.”

Hillary is trying to make you think that she doesn’t support the TPP, but is leaving wiggle room. By simply changing anything, even word-smithing, the TPP would be changed "as written" potentially transforming the TPP into an acceptable trade agreement.

[Octafish]

4. She is a brilliant lawyer, serving six years on the Walmart Board of Directors.

A fact left out of her official biography and assorted campaign materials.

As is the love for Walmart being Buy Partisan:



Important history from 1992 campaign:

Bush Ventures to Clinton Turf, Honors Sam Walton

Republicans: The trip to Arkansas is billed as nonpolitical. The gravely ill Wal-Mart founder is given the Medal of Freedom.

by Douglas Jehl
Los Angeles Times, March 18, 1992

BENTONVILLE, Ark. — On the day Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton emerged as the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, President Bush visited the governor's home state on a trip he insisted had nothing to do with politics.

Bush made the journey to present the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, to one of its richest men, Sam Walton, the gravely ill 73-year-old founder of Wal-Mart Stores.

SNIP...

Walton, who built the Wal-Mart empire from one store to a $9-billion fortune, now is confined to a wheelchair, and Bush choked up during the ceremony at the company's headquarters in Bentonville as he praised the entrepreneur as an emblem of "America's success."

"I think it's important that all Americans understand that some things are going very, very well in the United States of America," Bush said. "And one of those things is Wal-Mart."

SNIP...

Wal-Mart has retained its Arkansas roots even as it has grown beyond the region. The chain also has links to the Clintons--the governor's wife, Hillary, has a substantial financial stake in the company and serves on its board of directors.

Walton's family has generously supported many of Clinton's past campaigns. This year, Walton has contributed the legal maximum of $1,000 to both Clinton and Bush.

CONTINUED...

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3841_1_sam-walton

Walmart continued to grow since then, making the heirs of Sam Walton very wealthy. Most everone else in the USA has not done so well.

[Octafish]

7. That is about the most undemocratic thing ever said to me on DU.

"Mine won't." You'll either STFU about that or be gone in July.

Either way is fine for me.

-- Buzz Clik

You know, I'll remember that. I'll also remember whether your candidate, whomever that may be, all of a sudden, as president, signs TPP into law.

[Buzz Clik]

8. You think I'll be forgetting soon all the horrible shit you've spewed on me?

This ain't exactly a mutual admiration society.

If the candidate you'll be voting for won't be supporting TPP, and HRC is the Democratic nominee, then the consequences at DU are readily apparent and automatic. If you find that undemocratic, I am not sorry.

[Broward]

11. Right-wingers here are feeling their oats.

[gordianot]

6. The reason I am a Progressive/Liberal is I follow issues such as TPP and NAFTA.

Maybe half of the people I know who call themselves Democrats do not have a clue about these disastrous trade agreements. Union people are among the best informed Democrats I know, then there are Union Democrats who say they will vote for Trump. Given that Trump is anti TPP NAFTA I always ask them if they trust Trump in his Siren call to crash on the rocks? I have yet to get a good response.

[Octafish]

10. NAFTA Has Decimated Detroit

The Truth About NAFTA and Its Disastrous Effects

THOMAS HEFFNER, Economy In Crisis, DECEMBER 08, 2013

Few are aware that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has rendered us uncompetitive in the world, destroyed our industrial base, caused us to outsource most of our production, and killed most of our manufacturing jobs.

Detroit has been ravaged by NAFTA. It now looks like a war zone. Yet, what if the government made special arrangements to fix Michigan, to the detriment of the rest of the country? Imagine if Congress enacted special laws only for the state of Michigan that:

* Dropped the minimum wage to $4.00/Hour

* Exempted employers from child labor laws

* Expanded the work week

* Reduced health and work place safety laws

* Banned unions

* Allowed Michigan exporters full, duty-free access to the rest of the states

Sounds crazy, huh?

This is what NAFTA did for Mexico, to the detriment of all of America, and is the reason Detroit has shut down.

Why would any company manufacture in the U.S. when it can produce next-door in Mexico with all these unfair advantages?

Mexico ships more cars to us than we ship to the rest of the world–and where did Mexico get an auto industry?

We are increasingly forced to live on imports and debt at every level while thousands of our best companies are being sold to foreign interests and our industrial infrastructure is collapsing. If you are concerned for the future for your kids, you should demand that we do something about these conditions.

SOURCE: http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-truth-about-nafta-and-its-disastrous-effects

PS: I find it weird having to "sell" DUers on being pro-Union and pro-Labor. That used to be what being a Democrat was all about.

[disillusioned73]

13. truth...

"PS: I find it weird having to "sell" DUers on being pro-Union and pro-Labor. That used to be what being a Democrat was all about"


You can say that again... I feel like I live in bizarro world lately around these parts..

[amborin]

16. yes, and Mexican taxpapers are still bearing the brunt of its passage:

A little-known clause in NAFTA meant that Mexico had to allow foreign ownership of its banks (and major industries).

So, Clinton Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, of Citi Bank, took over Banamex, Mexico's largest bank. It subsequently had to be "rescued" by the Mexican government---and Mexican taxpayers----so that foreign investors would not suffer.

CitiGroup was then allowed to buy/takeover Mexico's remaining largest airline, Aeromexico, although there were Mexican businessmen who had submitted a better bid for the airline. Mexican taxpayers had to foot the bill for all of this foreign ownership.

.... Zedillo rescued the Too Big to Fail Banamex by buying its largely worthless portfolio of uncollectible loans–on credit. Mexican taxpayers are still paying Banamex interest for the government purchase of the bank’s junk securities a dozen years ago. The exact amount of the subsidy is buried in obscure government accounting, but a 2004 estimate was that the government still “owed” Banamex roughly $4 billion.

In 2003 the Mexican government subsidy to the banking industry–by then almost totally owned by foreign corporations–was three times what it was spending on roads, school buildings, health facilities and other infrastructure. This, in a country where 42 percent of the people don’t earn enough to support a minimum Mexican market basket of food, clothing and other essentials.

In 1999 Rubin resigned as Treasury Secretary to become chair of the executive committee of Citigroup. Two years later, shortly after the date on which Mexico had to open up its banks to foreign ownership, Rubin flew to Mexico to buy Banamex for $12.5 billion plus a seat on the Citigroup board for Hernández. The Mexican press reports that the well-connected Hernández masterminded the Aeroméxico deal, which will provide Citigroup/Banamex with substantial revenues from financing airplane leases and insurance, along with being the preferred banker for the airline’s suppliers.

As the icing on this very lucrative cake, the Calderón government decided that the Citigroup/Banamex gang should not have to pay the normal sales tax. Sales taxes, it was explained with a straight face, really fall on the seller, not the buyer (try this out next time you go to the store), and since the seller was the government, there is no point in the government paying the sales tax to itself. Neat. No wonder the Citigroup board just elected Rubin to be its chair.

So here is your global free enterprise system (a k a socialism for the rich) at work: Citigroup/Banamex, which is Too Big to Fail in the United States, has also been deemed Too Big to Fail by the Mexican government and is being subsidized by Mexican taxpayers to buy Aeroméxico, also Too Big to Fail.

The World Bank, IMF and other neoliberal hangouts are still pushing developing countries to open up their financial markets to multinational banks, precisely on the grounds that it will eliminate crony capitalism. ....

http://www.thenation.com/article/citis-mexican-cronies/

[tk2kewl]

12. Given the ISDS provisions of current and pending trade deals...

no one who supports these deals or supports a candidate that supports these deals has any business calling themselves liberal or progressive

[disillusioned73]

9. K&R

I've been getting my head around "Neoliberalism" lately.. I guarantee the vast majority of the general public has no understanding of that term yet.. and if the corporate media has any say - it will remain that way..

[Octafish]

22. What is Neoliberalism?

What is Neoliberalism?

A Brief Definition for Activists

by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
CorpWatch

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

SNIP...

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

SOURCE: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

CorpWatch is good. Real good.

About that image: http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml

Seeing how the People caught on to "Trickle Down" and "Supply Side" as the same scam, they figured out something new to occupy the media radar. So, on one side neo-liberalism and on the other neo-conservativism. As neither really is an extension of liberalism or conservatism, as previously defined by "freedom" and "tradition," they were punching up keywords deep within the psyche -- concepts previously having to do with economic justice now transformed into everything to do with economics for "just us."

William K Black explains what we need to do:

Deprogramming Progressives Indoctrinated into Supporting Austerity

[amborin]

14. HRC owns the TPP:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html

[Octafish]

23. Chamber of Commerce Lobbyist Tom Donohue: Clinton Will Support TPP After Election

Chamber of Commerce Lobbyist Tom Donohue: Clinton Will Support TPP After Election

By Robert Naiman
Truthout | Sunday, 31 January 2016

In an interview from Davos with Bloomberg TV on January 20, Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue - a top lobbyist for the pro-corporate-power Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement - assured viewers that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election, she will support the TPP, even though she opposes it now.

Reporting on the interview, Inside U.S. Trade noted:

The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.

Donohue also said TPP will not be voted on prior to the election because Senate Republicans do not want to do anything that could jeopardize Republican Senators in close races. But he said he believed there was a 75 percent chance that TPP would get done in the lame-duck session after the election.

CONTINUED...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34629-chamber-of-commerce-lobbyist-tom-donohue-clinton-will-support-tpp-after-election

It may not have the same people pushing it in public, but Neoliberalism works just like Trickle Down: The Rich get Richer and everybody else gets poorer.

[snot]

17. K&R'd & bookmarked.

[yawnmaster]

18. Not arguing for or against TPP but your graph doesn't seem to show correlation between NAFTA and ...

the decline of the UAW. It was in heavy decline prior to NAFTA, apparently.

[90-percent]

19. A sub-correlation?

With the defeat of the PATCO air traffic controllers union by Reagan in 1981. Very big set-back for unions. And I suspect, but I'm pretty ignorant about how much the non-union replacements jeopardized the safety of air travelers when all the union controllers were fired?--

-90% Jimmy

[Octafish]

21. Great point. Chart shows an uptick...

...then it continues down after things settle.

If you have a better chart, please post. I don't know tech stuff.

[Ferd Berfel]

20. IF CLinton wins - TPP will be implemented - US GOvernment sovereignty ends

Federal, State and Local sovereignty is history. What is left at that point?


Global Fascist Oligarchy?
The New World Order?

only 5 of the 29 chapters of TPP address trade. All of the rest are about ceding Government sovereignty to corporations - all Corporations globally.

Thanks Obama, Clinton and the Third Way corporate whores

[ucrdem]

24. Your chart shows a slight uptick in UAW membership following NAFTA, but other than that, no effect.

And guess what? Most Americans, including most Dems -- and more Dems than repukes, who mostly do NOT favor trade -- support the TPP. It's only Dem pols who don't. It's an anomaly but that's the way it goes.

[pampango]

25. The graph shows that UAW member ship declined by more before NAFTA than after.

Before NAFTA: In 1979 membership was more than 1,500,000. By 1993 it was a little under 800,000 - a decline of over 700,000 in 14 years.

After NAFTA: It then declined to a little over 300,000 in 2009 the last year in the graph. That's a decline of about 450,000 in 16 years.

The decline in UAW membership started long before NAFTA, briefly stabilized from 1993 to 1998, then resumed its plunge. Unfortunately most auto workers now are now non-union in right-to-work states which has contributed greatly to the decline in UAW membership.

[Armstead]

28. But why make such problems worse

It's kind of like "I have a headache."....."Okay, here's a hammer. Go hit yourself over the head with it few times. That'll fix it."

[pampango]

29. OR the decline after NAFTA represents the same trend as before NAFTA. In that case,

NAFTA may have nothing to do with it, other than not curing a pre-existing problem. Only those looking to blame NAFTA for something that existed before it and after it, would find NAFTA to be the cause of something that began in 1980 and continues.

[Armstead]

30. I think it's a big chicken and egg things that boils down to...

a total loss of morality and ethics and any sense of national loyalty by Corporate America, the Wall St. elites and its Transnational counterparts.

The trade agreements grease the skids for that.

We (the public and political system) have enabled it for too long. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

I realize it's a lot more complicated, but it ultimately boils down to that IMO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Nope.

[Armstead]

27. Clinton will oppose it in the campaign when asked...But once in office, different story