2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo you support the Free Trade policies that the Corporate Democrats are selling?
The Corporate Democrats that support Goldman-Sachs and their sponsored candidate won't come to grips with the disaster that unregulated capitalism has brought to us. Clinton, when asked what to do about the growing wealth gap, says to grow the economy. No journalist will follow up and point out that the economy has been growing and is glowing, for the wealthy. In fact the Clintons are doing very well. But we all know that the rising tides lift the yachets and swamp the skiffs. Although waffling now, Clinton has always been a big supporter of Free Trade in spite of the fact that it brings massive job losses to the working class.
In theory, an improved economy should result in a higher standard of living for its citizens. However, in Mexico poverty and unemployment have actually increased since NAFTA was enacted in addition to an increase in illegal aliens crossing from Mexico to
the United States in recent years
Maquiladoras
(Mexican sweatshops) along the border. (From 1994-2000,
In 2004, the Washington post reported that ten years after NAFTA was enacted,
19 million more people were living in poverty than twenty years ago, and nearly one in
four Mexicans were unable to afford adequate food 17.
If one of the provisions of NAFTA was to create new employment opportunities and raise living standards, why has poverty
increased in Mexico?
http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/naftas-sociaeconomic-effects-on-mexico.pdf
It's not rocket science. The Big Corporations are not about helping the workers of the world. In fact their charters require them to make as much profits as they can. That puts them in direct conflict with workers trying to make an honest living. If you let the Big Corporations write the "Free" trade agreements, it is abso-fracking-lutly a fact that they will screw the workers in our country and in foreign countries to increase their profits.
I ask those of you that support Clinton and the Major Corporations to consider that the status quo has given us 4.8 million homeless incl 2 million children, 50 million people living in poverty incl 16 million children and the worst infant mortality rate in the modern world. Goldman-Sachs and the other major corps that support Clinton expect to gain higher profits, that's a capitalist fact, and not help those struggling among us. Why would you help the major corporations keep their strangle hold on the People of this country?
The rich and powerful don't wish us peons to die, but we have resources they want and if we die as a result of them getting them, it's not personal it's just business.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do you support Free Trade that destroys American jobs or do you support the People?
Zorro
(15,737 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Zorro
(15,737 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Zorro
(15,737 posts)He knows what he's doing, and makes decisions based on the best interests of the country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)People blindly followed Bill Clinton when he signed NAFTA saying the same as you. It's like Lucy telling you she won't pull the ball out this time.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, seems reluctant to take a firm position on an issue dividing her party: whether President Obama should have fast-track trading authority for the immense trade deal he has been negotiating, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With some progressive voters eyeing her with some skepticism, and facing a challenge (such as it is) from candidates on her left, she is being advised to tack in that direction.
President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in the House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key part of the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern about the lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly: "Ms. Clinton should take notice."
Here's why the TPP is such a big deal
Here's why the TPP is such a big deal 03:24
She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don't get it, there should be no deal."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)The Obama State Dept REFUSES TO RELEASE HER EMAILS on TPP Until AFTER The FUCKING ELECTION... 11/20/16! Fuck THAT SHIT!
Loudestlib
(980 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The president should...... Of course the president should, but the statement says nothing about her position. We should have world peace.
Here is some more Clinton speak about the TPP, "I don't like the wording as currently written.." What wording doesn't she like. And does that mean she would be against it's passage until reworded? She doesn't commit herself.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)believes in the Easter Bunny. It's just campaign rhetoric for the masses...kind of like Obama pushing a public option in the primaries, but then conveniently forgetting about it post election.
think
(11,641 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)have one goal and that is to gain the largest profits they can. Do the non-progressives think that their success will trickle down to those among us struggling? Actually I doubt they think any harder than they really adore Hillary.
appalachiablue
(41,123 posts)and society, not increased profits for corporate entities, aka 'persons.'
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They want to think they are progressive but supporting the big money in politics isn't progressive.
pampango
(24,692 posts)more than the US does. Neither FDR nor Sweden were or are unprogressive. I agree with Bernie that we should be more like Sweden.
Prior to FDR, the US trade policy was essentially "Trump-like" - high tariffs, imposed unilaterally with ultimate national sovereignty over the process. We imposed tariffs and other trade penalties whenever we wanted, for whatever reason we wanted and against whomever we wanted.
FDR (a 'phony progressive' perhaps?) did not like that. First he lowered tariffs with dozens of bilateral trade deals. Then he went a step further and introduced the International Trade Organization - a concept (a multi-country trade organization that would govern trade rules rather than national governments doing it) that had not existed before.
You may not like the concept. That is fine. But that does not mean that it is conservative ideology. It means that liberals can disagree about some policies and still be liberals.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)real reason for our division of the party. Since that became the strategy for Bill Clinton's wins in the 90s, many Dem supporters have come to realize that we're nowhere near the policies of FDR & Truman, which was the model for the modern Dem party. And the way we're lining up now will mean more happy days for Goldman Sachs!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)One did and insinuated that American workers had it so much better than China that they shouldn't complain.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)NAFTA was enacted in 1994.
Unemployment is lower than in 1993.
Labor participation is higher than in 1993.
The poverty rate is lower than in 1993.
Median wages are higher than in 1993.
The wage at each quintile is higher than in 1993.
Median incomes are higher than in 1993.
The incomes at each quintile are higher than in 1993.
Your attempt to gaslight Americans will fail. They remember the 1990s.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Who can say?
People are stupid.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)A lot of people's lives have been totally destroyed.
You're speaking in statistics and averages. I'm telling you we've got whole cities that look like a nuclear bomb got dropped on us.
Something's not right.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)median income.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)We're at about 2007 levels this year, and that was the highest median income in history.
You're going full Orwell now. It's a 20 year upward trend.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)But most people who "feel like" they're barely surviving are wrong.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Gentrified city raised the prices on my gluten free, free range, organic sushi. I tell you, it's like a nuclear bomb went off here and we are starving.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)And yet still not tell the whole story.
Labor participation may be higher because more older people need to work instead of retire.
Unemployment may be lower because we were recovering from a recession in 1993.
The poverty rate may be lower but how many people are "just above" the poverty rate and still struggling?
The increase in median wages/income may not have accrued in an equitable manner and that may not show in the charts.
Has the increased wage/income in each quintile kept up with the increase in prices for necessities? For example, if your income goes up 25% but your rent goes up 200% and your grocery costs go up 100%, then you're losing.Also does this account for people working multiple jobs or needing additional sources of income?
For the most part I'm not being rhetorical, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because to my ears, it sounds like you're the one gaslighting Americans.
With that said, all of that may not be due to NAFTA, but dismissing the insecurity of a lot of people by saying "they're stupid" is not an argument.
And if you do think that everything is better than it used to be for the average person, what is your advice to the people who think differently?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Well, no: it is an argument, and it's a fact-based one, but it's not one I'd take on the road as a politician.
People at every quintile make more inflation-adjusted money today than they did in 1993, and for that matter the increase over those 23 years was larger than the increase in the 23 years from 1970 to 1993.
As far as why people "feel bad" about the economy, well, this really, really pisses people off, but that's largely a white male phenomenon, the polls tell us. And that makes sense, because the wage stagnation Sanders (and Trump) built their campaigns on is entirely a white male phenomenon: women and people of color saw huge income increases over that period while white males treaded water or slightly worse.
So, yes: white males don't like having to compete with women and minorities because their inflated pre-1970s wages took a hit. I don't know of a political way to even point that out, nationally, without taking a huge hit, let alone a "solution" (I'm still not sure what exactly the "problem" there is), but that is the reason white guys are angry.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Racial wage inequality is commonly measured by the ratio of African-American (or Latino) wages to white wages. In 1979, the median black worker earned 83 cents for every dollar paid to the median white worker. The situation has not improved, but worsened since then. In 2013, the median black worker took home just 77 cents on the dollar. For the median Hispanic worker, that gap has gone from 81 cents on the dollar to a shocking 69 cents on the dollar.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3203265/Waters_ImmigrationEthnic.pdf?sequence=1
fter the passage of the (Civil Rights) act, the wage gap for minority groups narrowed, both in absolute difference with white wages and as a percentage of white wages, until the mid-1970s; at this time, progress for many racial minorities slowed, stopped, or reversed
http://www.hadsellstormer.com/blog/2015/08/the-widening-racial-wage-gap.shtml
What's more, research indicates that the gaps in wealth along racial lines is only widening with, from 2010 to 2013, the median household wealth for non-Hispanic black households falling from $16,000 to $13,700 or nearly 38 percent. During this same timeframe, the median household wealth of non-Hispanic white households increased more than two percent from $138,600 to $141,900.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/03/26/3639201/black-unemployment-recession/
Granted, wages and wealth are not the same. Also your thesis doesn't really make much sense when considering the real conditions of POC in America - it would suggest that white economic privilege isn't exactly a thing anymore which is...rather ridiculous.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's exactly it.
Also your thesis doesn't really make much sense when considering the real conditions of POC in America - it would suggest that white economic privilege isn't exactly a thing anymore which is...rather ridiculous.
Huh? That's the literal embodiment of white economic privilege: they get angry when minorities even start[/] to catch up.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)I'm talking about material privilege, you're talking about privileged attitudes. Both are valid but are describing different things.You're basically saying that the playing field has evened, all that's left is to make up generations of lost time, but white people are angry about the evening of said playing field. I'm saying the playing field isn't even close to even yet, either in wealth or income.
The question is why is there data that says two different things about the same issue?
Also I think location is an issue, as is expectations. For example, my wages may be higher on paper as a young AA than they would have been in 1990. But due to discrimination and other factors, to access those wages, I have to live in an expensive market like DC where the median price of a 1BR is 2000 dollars/mo (which is almost ALL of my after-tax income). Because after all, I can't access the kind of good-old-boy networks that create access to either the high pay, high access jobs, or the few quality jobs in suburban and rural locales. Right now, people are trying to sell *rooms* for 1k a month here (and yes I am considering moving). And also, it may be that young people had much higher expectations in terms of material wealth (even if many of the degrees are rather iffy, millenials are the most educated generation in history, and not ALL of those degrees are in basket weaving), and are comparing a tighter job market for middle wage jobs in diverse fields to a time when any mediocre white guy could support a family. I think young POC millenials share those heightened expectations, which is how Bernie Sanders was able to (barely) win black people under the age of 30.
think
(11,641 posts)That's always left out of the equation.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Why did you make up the claim that it isn't?
The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).
think
(11,641 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The CPI is how "high costs" are "figured into" "snake oil statistics"
think
(11,641 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)think
(11,641 posts)BY DREW DESILVER - October 9, 2014
Following the better-than-expected September jobs report, several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of meaningful wage growth, even as tens of thousands of people head back to work. Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice workers their way.
But a look at five decades worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages that is, after inflation is taken into account have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.
Cash money isnt the only way workers are compensated, of course health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.
~Snip~
But after adjusting for inflation, todays average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today....
Read more:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Recursion
(56,582 posts)than in the 2 decades before it.
Like I said, FTAs delivered.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Wages are stagnant, class mobility is down, and nearly all of the wealth gains have gone to the top.
Free Trade delivers nothing but misery to the rest of us.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)where do you get your info-----Fox news? labor is decimated and our infrastructure is dismal.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)BLS. Go and do likewise. You'll probably learn a lot.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)certainly not for US manufacturing
djean111
(14,255 posts)No vote. No support. Set in stone.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The TPP isn't about free trade, it's about establishing corporate hegemony over government by the people.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)+1,000,000
pampango
(24,692 posts)We have trade agreements with some of the countries. (Should they not be 'renegotiated'?) And the WTO governs trading rules with the other countries. (Should those rules not be 'renegotiated'?) Bernie is recommending renegotiating existing trade agreements including the WTO. Trump wants to rip them all up.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Because she is one of the biggest proponents of them.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)I've always been a rebel so...maybe there's something to that.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)What the hell is wrong with you?
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)a minimum wage.
We didn't wait on Brunei to set one for us and their's will not increase ours to a living wage.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Kicking and screaming, I might add.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)simply refuse to trade with them and deny Pax Americana to them until they do.
We don't need some phony wage and sovereignty killing deal to funnel more wealth to billionaires to do it.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)So much so that I will be changing my registration to independent as soon as the Clinton is coronation is complete. Been a registered Democrat since 1976, but I can no longer accept the Party's shift to GOP lite. In 2008 I had some hope that maybe Obama was finally the change I had been hoping for, but I see now that for the neoliberal crowd, populism doesn't really exist beyond simple campaign rhetoric.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)our Party and will literally anything to hold down progressiveism.
The Wealthy don't wish us to die, but we have resources they "need" and if it brings our death, it's not personal, it's just business.
elana i am
(814 posts)and any dem who does doesn't have any business calling themselves a dem.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)everyone who supports clinton candiate of top 1% support trad e deals like nafta and TPP.elections have consequens.they have choosen to back pro-trade deals candiate.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)came out against it. I don't want corporations to
decide that, what our courts do now either.
This is a big item for Trump as well as his support of
the blue collar workers, who have been forgotten by
the Third Way party. He is a liar, so we cannot believe
him, but both of those issues are attracting a lot of
voters to him.
These were the issues of our party until the seventies,
which were woefully dismissed.
pampango
(24,692 posts)well in knowing their opposition to trade agreements. He will 'rip them up'. Bernie will 'renegotiate' them. I know whom I support (and his first name starts with a 'B').
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)deep as the Corporate Democrats go. They want the major corporations to be free. Not so much for the People.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I suspect there is more to Democratic support than the word "Free" since they support international negotiations and agreements in general, but yours is an interesting opinion of Democrats from a liberal Democrat.
Why is the republican base not fooled by the word "Free"? IMHO, they are not known for their deep and intelligent insight into complex issues. And they are well known for their opposition to essentially all international agreements (which Trump perceives and led him to promise to 'tear them all up').
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Yavin4
(35,433 posts)If you have any of these items, then you directly support free trade.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Yavin4
(35,433 posts)We buy goods and services from companies from around the world. There's no realistic way to manage the economy without trade.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)corporations to side-step regulations. It's about reducing wages around the world. It's about more and more profits for corporations.
We are engaged in a class war and either you side with the People and Sen Sanders or you side with the Big Corporations and Clinton. You decide. But remember, the big corporations in their quest for more and more and more have given us 2,500,000 homeless American children. Those that idolize capitalism don't care, rationalizing that it comes with the territory. I am hoping you don't think like that.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)21 years ago he bought an American refrigerator. It lasted 19 years. He replaced it with a refrigerator made in Mexico. It lasted 2 years.
He now is looking for an American made one but can't find one.
All that stuff from China is in no way free trade. We put tiny tariffs on their stuff and they put huge tariffs on our stuff.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bigger profits. Well, maybe we aren't doing it, our so called representatives are doing it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)All that stuff from China is in no way free trade.
Now you're getting it. China will never, ever agree to a free trade agreement with the US, because of the labor and environmental standards they would have to enforce. China bad, FTAs good.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)just recommendations. Even if there were, do you think that the trade lawyers in charge of it are going to complain/rule against themselves over it? Enviromental standards?
What country in the agreement makes the things you listed?
think
(11,641 posts)By Michael McAuliff - 04/22/2015 07:32 am ET | Updated Apr 22, 2015
~snip~
Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, testified to that claim at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on legislation to grant President Barack Obama so-called fast-track authority to cut at least two new enormous trade agreements with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union. It appears to be the first time anyone has revealed such a stance on the part of a U.S. government that has been touting its efforts to improve wages and working conditions among its trading partners, relying in part on trade agreements.
But Trumka charged that the labor standards included in those trade deals are poorly enforced, and that before he would back the White Houses push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he wanted to see tougher labor provisions that could be enforced.
When you say, Oh these are some standards, theyre better than no standards, we were told by by the [United States Trade Representative] general counsel that murdering a trade unionist doesnt violate these standards, that perpetuating violence against a trade unionist doesnt violate these agreements, Trumka said, directing his remarks to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who backs the deals...
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/fast-track-trade_n_7113412.html
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Brunei will be required to implement a minimum wage. Vietnam and Malaysia will be required to raise theirs. They have to certify that this is done before the first round of tariff cuts go into effect. All three will be required to allow unions to elect their own officers, and to allow those unions to affiliate internationally. None of them wanted to do that, but the tariff reductions were the incentive to get them to.
Either you never bothered to read the TPP and just reacted to shit you saw online, or you deliberately lied. Either way that's disappointing.
Enviromental standards?
Yes. Again, read the agreement. It's at the USTR's website.
think
(11,641 posts)ALANA SEMUELS JAN 22, 2016
~Snip~
The TPPs Labour chapter reiterates that all members should adopt and maintain the labor rights of the ILO. It also calls for all participants to end child labor and forced labor, and to allow workers to form unions and collectively bargain. It requires a minimum-wage, and safety and health standards meant to prevent common abuses like overcrowding, fire hazards, and overwork. But the document does not specify how any of those measures should work. And thats a big shortcoming, according to John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director with Human Rights Watch. The minimum wage, for example, could be set at a penny an hourwhich wouldnt do much to help workers.
Read more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/tpp-mexico-labor-rights/426501/
WASHINGTON | BY DAVID LAWDER - Tue May 17, 2016 12:25am EDT
Colombia has failed to enforce worker protections in a free trade agreement with the United States, U.S. and Colombian labor unions said on Monday, raising questions about similar provisions in the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
In a complaint filed with a division of the U.S. Labor Department, the unions said threats and acts of violence against trade unionists in Colombia were neither properly investigated nor prosecuted.
The AFL-CIO and four Colombian unions said in the complaint that since the U.S.-Colombian trade deal took effect in 2011, some 99 Colombian workers and worker advocates were killed as they tried to exercise their rights. Six workers were kidnapped, and 955 death threats were received, the complaint said....
Read more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-colombia-trade-labor-idUSKCN0Y71G8
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's not clear to me how many different ways a country can do a minimum wage, though.
In a complaint filed with a division of the U.S. Labor Department, the unions said threats and acts of violence against trade unionists in Colombia were neither properly investigated nor prosecuted.
Exactly. AFL-CIO can now file complaints with the U.S. Labor Department about shit like this, and they go to those evil "trade courts" people seem to hate. Without CAFTA AFL-CIO couldn't do a damn thing.
think
(11,641 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)think
(11,641 posts)And even though we have no authority to make sure the minimum wage isn't set at a penny this is guaranteeing and protecting workers rights in those countries?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't know why you keep ignoring that. We forced all the Austalasian signatories to raise (and in some cases institute) their minimum wage, and they don't get market access until the plenary certifies they did so.
think
(11,641 posts)WASHINGTON | BY DAVID LAWDER - Tue May 17, 2016 12:25am EDT
Colombia has failed to enforce worker protections in a free trade agreement with the United States, U.S. and Colombian labor unions said on Monday, raising questions about similar provisions in the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
In a complaint filed with a division of the U.S. Labor Department, the unions said threats and acts of violence against trade unionists in Colombia were neither properly investigated nor prosecuted.
The AFL-CIO and four Colombian unions said in the complaint that since the U.S.-Colombian trade deal took effect in 2011, some 99 Colombian workers and worker advocates were killed as they tried to exercise their rights. Six workers were kidnapped, and 955 death threats were received, the complaint said....
~Snip~
The free trade deal was to guarantee Colombian workers the right to freely unionize and collectively bargain with employers. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal has similar provisions but also requires all 12 members, which include Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru, to establish minimum wages, working hours and occupational safety requirements.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the TPP labor provisions negotiated last year a "near carbon copy" of those in the Colombian trade deal and said they, too, would probably fail, driving down wages and standards in the United States
Read more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-colombia-trade-labor-idUSKCN0Y71G8
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Why?
think
(11,641 posts)when he re did NAFTA. Which NEVER happened.
Quit trying to put words in my mouth. It's rude and completely dishonest.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You want to make that impossible for them to do. Again: why?
think
(11,641 posts)in Columbia.
Let that sink in...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Do you actually not understand that?
CAFTA allows AFL-CIO to sue foreign governments in those "evil trade courts" that people here for whatever reason hate.
They could not do that without CAFTA.
think
(11,641 posts)That's crazy talk!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)but if CAFTA were abandoned and we went back to PNTR they would not have the right to sue.
think
(11,641 posts)of the process. 600 corporate lobbyist got their say though....
The signing of the TPP is only the beginning of the process to make the TPP law not the end. Each of the 12 TPP countries has to go through a domestic process to approve or reject the TPP. In fact, thats what last years Fast Track fight was all about: to create the process by which Congress will vote on the TPP. We are doing all we can to make sure Americas working families are educated about the TPP and organized to fight against it.
The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade policies so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.
The TPP's backers--mostly big business lobbies--boast the trade agreement as a gold standard, and the Obama administration promises it will promote and respect labor rights and raise wages for U.S. workers and workers across the Pacific Rim. The grim conditions facing workers in TPP partner countries were not effectively addressed in the TPP text or the side agreements called "consistency plans." Too many commitments to improve labor rights and environmental practices are vague, and the proposed enforcement scheme relies wholly on the discretion of the next administration. The failure of the TPP to incorporate needed improvements to labor commitments that already have proved inadequate in existing trade deals belies the agreements stated commitment to workers. Instead, the TPP contains strict, clear and strong protections for foreign investors and pharmaceutical monopolies. It is clear that, as currently drafted, the TPP would increase corporate profits and skew benefits to economic elites, while leaving workers to bear the brunt of the TPPs shortcomings, including lost jobs, lower wages and continued repression of worker rights.
During the negotiations, labor union input was sidelined, especially in comparison to corporate input. Here's more information on the risks of the TPP:....
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP
For the average citizen, the negotiating process for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is anything but transparent. The negotiators for the United States and the other 11 TPP countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Japan, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) meet in private. The negotiating texts are not public. Even Members of Congress do not have unlimited access and cannot seek advice from outside experts.
The TPP, like many of the failed trade agreements that came before it, will cover issues including health, food safety, conservation and environmental protections, Wall Street regulations, labor rights, and a whole host of other issues that, under our system of government, would have to be debated publicly in Congress before becoming law. But because the U.S. government treats trade deals differently than all other policiesit is allowed to negotiate rules that affect our lives in these areas behind closed doors. This is undemocratic.
Ive heard labor has a seat at the table and gets to see the TPP texts. Is this true?
No. Under U.S. law, there are several trade advisersprivate citizens appointed by the Presidentwho advise on trade policies. Of these advisers, the vast majority
(85% according to the Washington Post) represent businesses. About 5% of the advisers represent labor. The other 10% represent local and state government officials, academics, think tanks and non-governmental organizations. Labor advisers are allowed to review and advise on draft U.S. proposalsadvice that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) can freely ignore. But we are locked out of the negotiating room and cannot see the actual negotiating texts, which combine the proposals from all 12 countries and evolve over time as negotiations progress. Nor can we share what we learn with members without violating national security laws.
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Fast-Track-Legislation/Labor-s-So-Called-Seat-at-the-Table-at-TPP-Negotiations
think
(11,641 posts)The US ignored those violations. The US labor unions now have to sue because the US govt failed to do it's job in enforcing the trade agreement.
The US labor unions aren't the ones designated to enforce treaty agreements are they?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The whole premise is that governments in developing countries are forced to allow local unions to elect their own officers and affiliate internationally. The international union they choose to affiliate with is generally AFL-CIO (just because it's the 900-pound gorilla) but is sometimes SEIU.
CAFTA FAILED to protect those workers
And PNTR failed to protect workers too. Now AFL can sue Colombia. Under PNTR they couldn't. That's better.
Again, I think you should explain why you want to remove AFL/CIO's ability to sue Colombia. It makes no sense to me.
think
(11,641 posts)And the USTR is the one designated to enforce the treaty.
http://trade.gov/fta/compliance.asp Do you see trade unions listed anywhere on that page?
And again you repeat the lie that unions would lose the right to sue if they were REALLY included in the creation of the FTAs.
~Snip~
Objectives
through bilateral partnerships, improve other governments' enforcement of laws and policies that protect workers' rights;
expand the ability of workers and their representatives to protect workers' rights;
increase governments' understanding of workers' rights, including specific labor commitments in trade agreements and the benefits of enforcing these obligations; and strengthen employer compliance with international standards and national labor laws.
ILAB tracks the implementation of these objectives by monitoring how well:
governments are adopting or revising laws, regulations, policies, and/or other instruments that strengthen worker rights;
labor inspectorates and other relevant enforcement agencies are improving their performance in conducting labor inspections and enforcing national labor laws; and
employers are increasing participation in effective social compliance programs (e.g., using the ILAB Toolkit for Responsible Businesses or participating in the Better Work program).
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/trade
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That was your invention. The unions' right to sue does not depend on who advised the teeaty negotiators.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)since you have claimed to have read it.
Free trade agreements are used to destroy enviromental regulations not the other way around. Mexico sued us over dolphin safe labeling and won. Canada is suing us over the Keystone pipeline.
The WTO could also sue my state for our ban of the sale of non US made flags but they chose not to do so.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)Not at all
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The Democratic Party knows this, the Republican Party knows this, the Ruling Class knows this- and they've been astonishingly successful at making sure the Working Class never learns this." ~ Anonymous
Sancho
(9,067 posts)There are many parts of trade agreements that are good for US workers and the US economy. There are other parts that don't turn out as planned. Yes, it IS rocket science. It's complex, difficult to predict, and depends on international cooperation.
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-immigrants-silly-tribal-and-economically-illiterate-358369
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-bernie-sanders-free-trade-michigan-chapman-0310-20160309-column.html
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I think I'll skip the rest
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Which of these do you disagree with?
Legal Weed Is Slowly Ending the Drug War
Jimmy Carter Was a Better President Than You Think
Scalias Defense of the Death Penalty Is in Tatters
Are We Executing Innocent People?
Confiscating 'Criminals' Property Is a Cop Racket
Again...you need to look before you leap.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He is against government funded mass transit, raising the minimum wage...on and on. Pretty much everything liberals and Democrats claim to stand for -- or at least used to stand for.
(Although they might agree with progressives on personal on some issues like easing drug laws.)
Hey if you want to use the right wing to set us straight about the wonders of "free trade" ...That's your prerogative I guess. I don't know what Democrats are supposed to stand for anymore.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Some of those links are clearly neutral or progressive. Some relate to scholarly studies.
I repeat the original point. NAFTA is not a simple yes or no.
I picked tobacco alongside migrants in the 60s in GA. I worked in a textile mill in SC in the 70s. When those jobs were lost to NAFTA, many were replaced with BMW, Michelin, etc. with better paying jobs from European investments. Mill villages were not "progressive".
The South still resists unions, but it's not ALL bad. Some parts of trade agreements are good, others are bad for US workers.
If you look at the facts, it's stupid to throw out the baby with the bath. That's what Bernie want to do. It's naive.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But as for the larger questions about the basic role of government and the total primacy of "free markets" over the public interest, he's 180 degrees from what Democrats claim to stand for.
..or at least used to stand for. It's becoming harder to tell the difference these days.
So great. Let's just let corporations bargain away our national sovereignty and our standard of living so that those wonderful Big Corporations can do whatever the hell they want to us.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)My father was an Army officer during the 50's who went to school on the GI Bill after WWII (50,000 Americans killed in Korea). I grew up on military bases.
I was A1 in the Vietnam draft, got a college deferment, and never got called (60,000 Americans killed).
The Iraq wars were minor in terms of American losses. Still, I burned a draft card while in college. We stood up in the 60s and early 70s to stop the Vietnam war.
I didn't see any real effort to stop Iraq. One or two politicians' votes have nothing to do with the general population rising up against war. In today's America, we glorify war!!! No one is seriously making the military budget an issue in this election with terrorists shooting people everyday.
Inequality is not a US issue - it's a worldwide economic issue that has been growing for decades. Manipulation of free markets is part of the problem. There is not enough international regulation of trade and monetary abuse. That seems obvious from the Panama papers, even though it was well-known for years.
Some trade agreements were purely created by corporations, but others had a lot of people at the table. It's been a mix. I think there are about 20 trade agreements now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)(I was in college but foolishly dropped out during the Vietnam War, which made me prime 1A Grade A chuck meat for the draft. Fortunately, they held the lottery shortly after that, I had the right birthday, so I escaped getting drafted.)
No one is saying there should be no trade agreements. But the devil is ion the details.
As for that link, I was simply pointing out that using someone who has an inherent (and outspoken) bias against basic Liberalism is not a neutral source of objective analysis on the issue, or a reasonable filter for a critique of Sanders positions -- unless one is already a conservative and wants to conform their existing biases.
coco77
(1,327 posts)she is a woman and your being sexist.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)of anything. It's a matter of the perfect vs the good.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's a matter of the BAD vs. the good.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)On what planet do "Corporations" want that?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And then we can get rid of that stinky $10 an hour we pay to Americans. Maybe we can apply that $1.25 standard to Americans too, even though they are totally different societies
Recursion
(56,582 posts)After TPP goes into effect they have to pay $1.25. Why would they want that cost to go up?
And any tariffs are paid by their customers, not them; they don't care.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's all about how bad Trump is and The First Woman President.
The rest of it? Fergedaboutit.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Why do you think President Obama has signed so many free trade agreements?
think
(11,641 posts)There is a difference between corporate created "free trade" agreements and fair trade.
And the majority of the House Democrats understand that. That's why Obama needed the GOP House members to pass fast track:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/18/1394407/-These-are-the-28-Democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track-twice
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Even Paul Krugman, who supports free trade, does not support the TPP.
think
(11,641 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like a friendly bridge between Poppy and Bill.
Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clintons Tutor in War and Peace
Last night, Clinton once again praised a man with a lot of blood on his hands.
By Greg Grandin
The Nation,FEBRUARY 5, 2016
EXCERPT...
Then in the early 1990s, Hillary Rodham Clinton would again be caught up in events related to Kissingers actions. Her husband, Bill Clinton, embraced Kissinger, which began Kissingers apotheosis into his current incarnation as a bipartisan elder statesman, invoked by politicians who want to appear serious.
As first lady, Hillary Clinton spent the early months of her husbands administration drafting healthcare-reform legislation, only to see it put on the back burner by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Kissinger, in his role as a global consultant, had played a critical role in bringing the various parties who would write that trade treaty together during the previous George H.W. Bush administration. Kissinger continued his NAFTA advocacy with Bill Clinton. As Jeff Faux writes in his excellent The Global Class War, Kissinger was the perfect tutor for Clinton, who was trying to convince Republicans and their business allies that they could count on him to champion Reagans vision.
By September 1993, Hillarys healthcare bill was ready to be presented to the public and to Congress. But so was NAFTA. All of Kissingers allies in the White House, including Mack McLarty, who would soon join Kissinger Associates, pushed Clinton to prioritize NAFTA over healthcare. Clinton did. It was Kissinger who came up with the idea of having past presidents stand behind Clinton as he signed the treaty. Reagan was sick and Nixon still non grata, but flanked by former presidents Bush, Carter and Ford at a White House ceremony, Mr. Clinton delivers an impassioned speech, The Wall Street Journal reported. No such presidential backdrop was assembled to help support Hillary Clintons healthcare proposal. By August 1994, healthcare was dead.
CONTINUED...
http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/
Too bad about all those jobs and middle class. Losers. They should stop complaining a get a job.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)No trade deal has worked out well for Michigan thus far, and I have no hope that any of them will work out well here in the future.
If Michigan goes for Trump over Hillary in November, it will be because of the trade deals, and not much more. People here are just sick of being told that everything is rosy when it simply is not.
I've been talking about this for decades, and I have nothing more to say.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)From my point of view, MFN for China was a far worse proposition than NAFTA. Many jobs that might have moved to Mexico and ultimately strengthened their economy went to China instead. A Mexican economy more on par with Canada or Costa Rica would be a good trading partner and be good for the US.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They've done a really good job of convincing Americans to be angry about the wrong thing.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)We get so focused on Asia and the Middle East when there is so much positive impact we can have here in the Americas.
shanti
(21,675 posts)But HELL no!
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)there are too many of our rights being handed to the corporations - both domestic and internationally:
they will have the right to copyright and patent at their discretion - anyone who sues for their "rights" or even a right protected under local or international law will be sued for damages and loss of revenue.
the tpp and tpip has sections which over rule or outlaw any local or state or government law or statutes designed to stop, prohibit or keep out gmo seeds/plants/trees/fish, mining operations, logging, pipelines of oil or gas or fracking or any corporate venture that is not in the best interests of the local or state community's citizens.
the purpose of those Free Trade policies is immanent domain over any land - public or private, any resource - public or private - everything will belong to them. even books and ebooks such as gutenberg press - that have been in the public domain for years - will now be owned by them - they aim to create and purchase the rights to everything.
this means eventually or land, water, air, food, etc - will belong to them and we will have to pay for them at prices they set.
greed, plain and simple.
BootinUp
(47,139 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)but that's no secret.