2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat are 3 things that would make any trade agreement acceptable to those opposing TPP?
Seems like there should be trade agreements with other countries, the position that there should be none sounds tRumpish at best.
What are 3 things that any trade agreement should have to make them acceptable that the TPP doesn't have?
Thx in advance for your input
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I'm just saying that I never agree with any candidate 100%, but free trade is one area that I've really had to hold my nose over when voting for DLC dems in the past.
Now we truly have a chance to vanquish it since it's opposed by a significant amount of people in BOTH parties and we have a bunch of dems here being for it???? Am I living in an alternate universe?
What's next?? Dems pimping for more settlements in Palestine and attacking Iran??
What is going on with our party??
Andy823
(11,511 posts)How would YOU change to make it better.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Just like during the foreclosure crisis Obama is leaning towards the Wall St financiers. Didn't matter that FDR pioneered proven programs where the Federal Government bought underwater mortgages and later as the economy recovered, sold them back to the people - it didn't matter
We went down the road of propping up Wall St while Main St mired in quicksand
The TPP is another example of this. Now many proponents are saying it will help the working class world wide. If that is true then why are the Citizens of Australia and South Korea being forced to give up their Government Prescription Drug Benefits ???
Don't get me wrong - I'm not slamming Obama. He did lift us up out of the worst recession EVER. Its just that at every turn Wall St and the Wealthy Elite profited immensely while the working class is still trying to recover what was lost
ms liberty
(9,540 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Democratic, Republican, it doesn't matter. We are all Corporatists.
Well. Not me. Those neoliberals can go shove it. They get no support from me.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)... to prop their positions.
The proping of walls street was done by the Bush admin while Obama did Cash for Clunkers and the stimulus... that helped the street MORE.
The question here what would you do in regards to trade agreements that would make them acceptable, the notion that we're an island is NOT progressive
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I hate this Full On RATpubliCON deny any and all Truth approach taking over DU as of late - Fucking Sickening
Would be nice if you could post some links - hopefully they don't come the US Chamber of Commerce or the Heritage Foundation or even better yet the 3rd Way website itself
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)during Apartheid. In that case, trading with that government empowered then to abuse others. So apparently it is not possible to just say 'all trade is always good, any limits to trade are always isolationist and bad'. Ronald Reagan opposed the South Africa Sanctions. I strongly supported them. How about you?
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Protectionism is a conservative, reactionary position.
pnwmom
(109,373 posts)survive without any trade?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Free Trade ought not be about bondage and discipline for the participating countries, if you don't like it any more, it's not working for you, you should be able to leave. No infringements of sovereignty. No coercion. Everybody a willing partner. That kind of trade deal. Which sounds pretty much like plain old trade to me.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)uponit7771
(91,133 posts)... exit their current trade agreements with the EU.
hmmmm, I'm waiting on the TRUE effects of brexit... seems like a break you buy situation ...
They don't get the benefits of NOT being in the current trade agreement with the EU
think
(11,641 posts)The AFL-CIO has done a good job of outlining the major concerns with the TPP that need to be addressed.
The TPP allows currency-manipulating countries to kill U.S. jobs.
The current TPP text doesn’t contain enforceable currency manipulation rules. Countries that intentionally devalue their currency cheat U.S. manufacturers and undermine any benefits from tariff reductions. Enforcing currency manipulation rules is probably the single most effective thing the United States could do to create jobs; in fact, doing so could add as many as 5.8 million jobs.1
The TPP lets foreign corporations bypass U.S. law.
The current TPP text allows multinational companies to challenge U.S. laws, regulations and safeguards through a provision called investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a private justice system that undermines our democracy. Through ISDS, foreign investors can seek compensation from the United States for enforcing regulations and safeguards designed to protect America’s working families. In fact, multinational companies currently are using ISDS to attack democratic policies and laws in Australia, Canada, Egypt, Peru and Uruguay, among many others.
The TPP allows climate change to go unchecked.
The current TPP text doesn’t contain any enforceable climate change commitments or “border fees” to offset the cost of environment-damaging imports. This undermines our efforts to address climate change and jeopardizes the important U.S.-China bilateral agreement on climate change and clean energy.2 It does nothing to discourage U.S. manufacturers from moving their factories to TPP countries with weak climate regulations. This damages both U.S. jobs and our efforts to address climate change.
The TPP doesn’t strengthen international labor rights protections.
There are extensive, well-documented labor problems in at least four TPP countries (Mexico, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia)3 but the administration has not committed to requiring all countries to be in full compliance with international labor standards before they get benefits under the agreement. Worker rights obligations have never been fully enforced under existing free trade agreements, which have provided too much discretion for worker complaints to be delayed for years or indefinitely (e.g., Honduras, Guatemala). A progressive TPP would eliminate this shortcoming, not repeat it. Given that no administration has ever self-initiated labor enforcement under a free trade agreement, any promise to “strongly enforce” the TPP should be met with skepticism...
Read all ten reasons here:
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP/Ten-Critical-Problems-with-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Just because it will benefit the elites and is being backed by Obama does not mean that the TPP is a good thing.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)uponit7771
(91,133 posts)... make it acceptable.
I see there are things like rules to make currrency manipulation punitive and stop the abuse of the courts against regulation
think
(11,641 posts)All these concersn should be addressed when considering the drafting of a trade agreement:
1. Protecting against currency manipulation.
2. Making sure corporations can't bypass US laws to suit our country.
3. Making sure the environment is protected as this affects EVERYONE
4. Protect international labor rights so people aren't exploited.
5. Protect public services so corporations can't force countries to outsource them.
6. Protect small businesses from predatory practices of state owned and large wealthy mega corporations.
7. Make sure rules of origin laws aren't weakened to give advantage to certain countries.
8. Protect "buy American" legislation to ensure that when the US government makes procurements they aren't fored to buy from third world countries.
9. Protect consumers by limiting the power of global too big to fail banks that have a record of dangerous and reckless behavior in these agreements.
10. Make sure access to affordable medicine is not endangered by the trade agreement.
All of these things would seem very sensible when considering the impact of a trade agreement on the American people as well as the profits of corporations.
Yes. Corporations should be able to make a profit but the affects of the trade deal on the American workers and citizens should not be ignored. Nor should the affects of the trade deal on workers and citizens of other countries.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)participated in world wealth. The USA has taken more than it's share of the world's resources and wealth, and that's true for a lot of European countries. Now we want to win all the money at a poker game and leave.
Second, how do side agreements -- like the Paris Environmental Accord -- factor into all this? That is, why do people expect a trade agreement to solve all the world's problems? What if Clinton is able to enact some controls on currency manipulation to supplement trade agreements. Point is, one can't look at trade agreements in isolation, but opponents do.
Actually the TPP does strengthen international labor protections -- not enough, I'll grant you, but better than the current situation and something to build upon. Maybe with a country's progress, there will be enough dues money for so-called "international" unions to actually do something internationally.
As to corporations bypassing US Law -- there's that Nationlistic "who give a crud about foreigners" again -- that really is a bunch of junk if you look into the few cases that have been filed. The same dispute mechanism has been in place in darn near every trade agreement since 1959, and not just agreements which USA is party to. Countries sign these agreements for obvious reasons, they want the investment, jobs, taxes for social purposes that come from jobs. If they didn't want the investment, they wouldn't sign the agreements.
Trade agreements help small companies trade worldwide too. They are not as likely to trade worldwide on a large sclae, because it takes capital and fact is, a bunch of small business people just cant's raise the funds very easy to do it.
You can't stop globalization, so might as well jump in and participate rather than sitting out or getting pushed out. The Nationalists and America First types are quite wrong on this. Our long-term future does not depend on trading among ourselves, unless we are prepared to use our bombs some day to regain our wealth. I'm not.
Finally, trade agreements are much more than about trade. They bind us together with other countries in very important ways.
Personally, if Sanders or someone else can set up a new economic mechanism to compete globally, raise necessary investment funds, manage the cooperative successfully (by letting everyone of us be heard), and all the other stuff that would be required, I'd be for it 100%. But, right now -- and for the foreseeable future -- corporations are the mechanism who can do that. Most of us work for corporations, directly or indirectly, so regulate the hell out of them, tax the hell out of of profits from overseas investment (for domestic country's good and that of the country where they do business), force them to adopt more socially responsible activities (probably through tax incentives), and even assist them if they do all those things. If you want this generation to be better off than the last (using the standard people seem to be using like income, wealth, etc.), taking every penny we can from the wealthy won't do much but for a short period, if that. Might make us feel better by "sticking it to the man," but that's about all we'll get out of it.
Point is, we aren't going to be able to afford healthcare, education, welfare, guaranteed income, increased minimum wage, etc., very long without being part of a big old world that can grow faster than us. Trading manly among ourselves, just won't work long-term.
There's more, but what's the use.
think
(11,641 posts)Don't you think workers in 3rd world countries would like the opportunity to organize unions with out the fear of being murdered?
Don't citizens in other countries want trade agreements to make sure their water, air, and lands aren't polluted by big
companies?
Aren't people in these other countries concerned about the power of these US CORPORATIONS who had so much input in the agreement?
No one wants to stop globalization. But it should be done fairly and include the concerns of more than just the corporations and their profits.
The article below was written last year but the point of who was involved in creating the TPP are still valid:
By Elizabeth Warren and Rosa DeLauro MAY 11, 2015
CONGRESS IS in an intense debate over trade bills that will shape the course of the US economy for decades. Much of this debate has been characterized as a fight over whether international trade itself creates or destroys American jobs. There is, however, another major concern — that modern “trade” agreements are often less about trade and more about giant multinational corporations finding new ways to rig the economic system to benefit themselves. Hillary Clinton has said that the “United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors” for big business, in our trade deals. We agree with this blunt assessment – and believe every member of Congress should consider this carefully before voting to help advance these agreements.
Advocates of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive 12-country agreement, sell this proposal as a free trade deal — but the United States already has free trade agreements with half of the countries at the negotiating table, and only five of the treaty’s 29 draft chapters reportedly deal with traditional trade issues. While reducing traditional barriers to trade with countries like Japan will facilitate some international commerce, the TPP is about more than reducing tariffs.
~Snip~
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.
Read more:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/05/11/elizabeth-warren-and-rosa-delauro-who-writing-tpp/2FQZAV6uz9GGQI6pe3cd0K/story.html
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I do believe workers in poor countries would like unions, but there has to be some trade and industry there to make that happen. I also think many making almost nothing scratching food out of the dirt, would prefer to have a job where they make 30 cents and hour, then 50 cents an hour, then several dollars and hour. I think that is why poor countries sign these agreements. If some don't want that, they can continue scratching food out of dirt (personally, might not be such a bad thing, but I don't think most here really want to return to the farm).
There are lots of big foreign corporations, many of them operating right here providing jobs for people in very rural areas. Would be nice to see the same in other parts of the world.
"Done fairly" seems to mean what is good for Nationalists and American Firsters, not people in other parts of the world.
think
(11,641 posts)The AFL-CIO has fought hard to protect workers rights in these emerging countries.
It's very insulting to claim the efforts of the AFL-CIO and other Democrats are nothing more than the efforts of those that are "Nationalists" and "American Firsters".
They spent years trying to get the USTR to address union murders in other countries:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/183909-afl-cio-sends-list-of-killed-colombian-labor-leaders-to-obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/fast-track-trade_n_7113412.html
http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/AFL-CIO-and-Guatemalan-Unions-File-First-Of-Its-Ki
The AFL-CIO has been very dedicated tot he rights of workers EVERYWHERE.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)these countries in an attempt to stop murders? Or, is the AFL-CIO really suggesting American and European companies not set up operation in Columbia, Guatemala, etc?
think
(11,641 posts)And rather discuss what the unions have stated as actual problems and solutions to these issues?
~Snip~
But Trumka charged that the labor standards included in those trade deals are poorly enforced, and that before he would back the White House’s 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, they’re better than no standards,’ we were told by by the (United States Trade Representative) general counsel that murdering a trade unionist doesn’t violate these standards, that perpetuating violence against a trade unionist doesn’t violate these agreements,” Trumka said, directing his remarks to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who backs the deals.
Trumka pointed specifically to the Colombia trade pact that was signed in 2006, but passed by Congress in 2011. Trumka said that even after the Obama administration crafted an agreement to tighten labor protections four years ago, some 105 labor organizers have been killed, and more than 1,300 have been threatened with death.
“Excuse me. Excuse me if I’m not willing to accept that standard.” Trumka said....
Read more:
This week, the U.S. government made the deeply troubling decision to grant the government of Guatemala four additional months to come into compliance with “Mutually Agreed Enforcement Action Plan between the Government of the United States and the Government of Guatemala,” signed between the two countries in April 2013. The plan was enacted in response to a 2008 complaint filed by the AFL-CIO and six Guatemalan unions under the labor provisions of the Dominican Republic–Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), which requires that countries “effectively enforce”their own labor laws. For years, Guatemala has done nothing of the kind, a fact and confirmed by a 2009 investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor. In addition to persistent violence and impunity, workers face extreme barriers to enforcing the law against unscrupulous employers, who often pay below legal wages or skirt required benefits, including overtime, social security payments and severance, knowing the government will not hold them accountable. The plan was supposed to be completely implemented by April 2014.
As detailed in an April 19 letter from the AFL-CIO and a broad coalition of Guatemalan unions, the plan has done nothing to improve the situation on the ground over the last year, and there is no indication that a four-month extension will yield better results. Under CAFTA, a persistent failure to honor labor commitments should lead to an independent arbitral panel. The decision to instead grant yet more time further delays justice for Guatemalan workers and calls into question the U.S. government’s commitment to bringing real meaning to the labor provisions in trade agreements.
Egregious violence against union activists continues. Marlon Dagoberto Vásquez López, a 19-year-old youth leader and member of the construction workers’ union of Guatemala (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Construcción y Servicios de Guatemala), was murdered Jan. 5. Four other Guatemalan trade unionists have been assassinated this year, and many more have been subjected to threats and intimidation.
Required reform measures have not been enacted. Labor inspectors hired under the plan have come forward to report that they have not been given adequate resources to do their job. Employers continue to evade legal responsibilities and rob workers of hard-earned wages and pensions. Judgments against companies, which in themselves are still a rarity, often go uncollected. Workers continue to report that the Ministry of Labor and judges often refuse to even hear their cases....
Read more:
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/Enforcement-Plan-Fails-to-End-Murders-Violence-Against-Trade-Unionists-in-Guatemala
Working people around the world are united by the dignity of work. They are also facing many of the same issues. They’re struggling with massive levels of unemployment and an unrelenting global push to lower wages and living standards.
By joining together in a global network, workers have built the strength to advance workers’ rights and improve their ability to organize and collectively bargain in the global economy. In partnering with working people around the world, the AFL-CIO addresses labor law reform, files international claims for failure to respect labor provisions of trade and preference agreements and negotiates stronger labor language in trade agreements.
Currently, we are working to improve the labor laws in Colombia, Panama, Vietnam, Malaysia, Georgia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. We recently filed a complaint against Guatemala under the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and may file similar cases against Honduras, Costa Rica and Peru. We also are coordinating a global trade union coalition to urge the adoption of stronger labor language in new trade agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Free Trade Agreement...
Read more:
http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions/Global-Labor-Movement
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)However, I do not support that tactic because it deprives people in poor countries a chance. Don't believe it is good for the world or their membership long-term. Foreign workers are not scabs and should not be viewed as such.
think
(11,641 posts)Seriously....
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)calls them that. Trump doesn't use slurs for minorities here or abroad, but he's damn sure a racist/bigot.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Serving as cheap labor for First World countries is not the way to equitable prosperity. It's the way to a classic Third World social structure, with a few people making out like bandits and the rest living worse off than before (cf. China and India). We hear a lot about China's and India's "growing middle classes," but they are far outnumbered by people who are nomadic day laborers or who have been turned into debt slaves by rising prices amidst flat or falling wages.
The countries that have developed successfully are the ones that have kept firm control of their own economies, maybe acting as workshops for industrialized countries but only on the condition that the foreign investors train locals for executive and technological jobs and transfer the technologies when they inevitably move on in search of even cheaper labor. They have also ignored the international austerity enforcers and invested heavily in education, health care, and infrastructure.h
In my ideal trade world, trade agreements would be concluded only among countries of roughly equal economic status. Thus Canada and the U.S. would be OK as a trade bloc, but Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean would be a separate bloc, each building on its own strengths and replacing as many imports as possible with homegrown products.
Remember the invasion of Grenada and their supposedly horrible "Marxist" government? Well, one thing that government noticed was that even though the island grew oranges in abundance and exported oranges, it had to import orange juice and marmalade. The "Marxists" started juice and jam production cooperatives, and that was one of their sins, because what would agribusiness and Food Incorporated do if all those Third World countries started processing their own food products?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)people to preserve your lifestyle.
And to excluding Mexico, part of America by the way, I find that revolting. But further proof of what I said. Also sounds like something Trump would say and his supporters would cheer.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)It has devastated independent farmers by flooding the markets with cheap U.S. surplus products, leading to greater northward migration and foot soldiers for the drug war.
And saying that I sound like Trump is just beyond the pale. I'm done here. You've just revealed yourself.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Fact is, Mexico begged to be part of TPP. They are progressing, if slowly, but better than without trade.
Funny how you are worried about Mexican farmers, when American farmers are benefiting. But, you want to exclude them from trade with USA, otherwise. Sorry, I still find that idea revolting.
DemonGoddess
(4,858 posts)We can't be isolationist, it'll kill our economy. But, what if, before actually getting this finished, it's fine tuned to allow for what the AFL-CIO is stating above?
think
(11,641 posts)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 policies—it is allowed to negotiate rules that affect our lives in these areas behind closed doors. This is undemocratic.
I’ve 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 advisers—private citizens appointed by the President—who 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. proposals—advice 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.
I’ve heard USTR say the AFL-CIO is satisfied with the level of transparency in the TPP negotiations. Is this true?
No. We have been pushing not just for more transparency, but for a more democratic and participatory process since the beginning. The USTR has quoted selectively from AFL-CIO testimony about the TPP provided to Congress three years ago, when the TPP was still taking shape. At that time, we were very hopeful that our ideas for a more progressive trade agenda would be adopted into the TPP. Here is the entire quote in context:
Read more:
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Fast-Track-Legislation/Labor-s-So-Called-Seat-at-the-Table-at-TPP-Negotiations
No one is suggesting not having trade deals and being isolationists. But the unions and others like Sanders do want FAIR trade deals.
If the AFL-CIO got a true seat at the table like the corporate "advisors" (All top lobbyists and executives from the corporations. Even the top USTR TRade Rep, Michael Froman, is an ex Citigroup banker who got millions in bonuses to join the Obanma administration from Citigtoup.); and at least some of their ideas and concerns were addressed in regards to the TPP we probably wouldn't be having this conversation...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)competition for American jobs from poorer countries. You think that would go across well with foreign diplomats trying to help their people? Think of it how you probably feel about the 1%ers here, because that's what 90% of Americans are to most of the world.
Sancho
(9,078 posts)To make it better:
- include monetary manipulation controls by governments
- include provisions to track transfers of money
- provide for retraining and education of any US workers who are displaced (really, a US education program that would be tied to TPP)
That's a start...
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)That has a very real effect on taxation and your quality of life
Sancho
(9,078 posts)but there are ways to do it.
RDANGELO
(3,516 posts)If another country has a resource or an expertise that you don't have, and you want it, and you have something that they want that they don't have. Otherwise, what you are doing is facilitating the transfer of wealth to the top thru cheaper labor.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)... displacement should not be a reason for trade agreements and displacement laws should be enforced now.
So displacement laws or remediation should be outlined and enforced, what are some other things?
tia
katsy
(4,246 posts)1. No extra judicial trade courts. Full. Stop. Corporations obey all health, safety, environmental & tax laws of their host country.
2. Raise labor costs to a reasonable minimum (i.e. 10%, 15%, 20%) of cost to produce. Tie that # to inflation. That lifts all boats. Its unfair that an iphone that sells for $600 costs 4.95 to produce. Workers are getting fucked.
3. If you value the american, asian, european or any country's market, produce or assemble a percentage of the products you're peddling in that country. The corporation picks up their own tab for the cost of doing business.
It goes without saying that if you cant turn a profit without tax cheating, endagering consumer & environmental health or rigging the political system, it's time for your corporation to die. The world will carry on. You won't be mourned. Another maybe even more competent company will fill your shoes. The need will be met without pain.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)... US displacement laws that allow for the onshoring and offshoring of jobs cause the corps can just out right lie about the expenses that go to the individual doing the work?
2. is because we don't enforce displacement laws in the US or its mediation, if a company were made to pay to a commons before it outsourced it would think twice IMHO
3. Dead on... that should be a part of any trade agreement...
our displacement laws in the US suck and rarely enforced
katsy
(4,246 posts)to fix regulations. Public corporations are audited & the results certified. Yes there are cheats but the onus is on the IRS to ferret that out. Idk how big a problem cheats would be but it can't be as bad as giving them carte blanche.
Thought-provoking op... Thx
TheBlackAdder
(28,664 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)Our trade agreements should have labor and regulatory standards similar to those in the International Trade Organization that FDR proposed. And they should have labor and environmental standards similar to those of the EU. (If there is a conflict between the ITO and EU on labor standards, choose the one that is more stringent.)
All participating countries agree to implement these standards as absolute minimum standards in these areas. If they wish to make them more stringent, the agreement will support this 100% - as long as the more stringent standards are applied equally to domestic and foreign companies.
No country will be allowed to weaken any of the standards - and still participate in the benefits of the trade agreement - by claiming a sovereign right to enact lower labor, environmental and regulatory standards in order to be more 'competitive' in world trade. Neutral arbitration will govern cases when countries are accused of not meeting these minimum standards.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)...outright lie.
This environment laws are a good point too, a country shouldn't be allowed to dump poison even if they're not displacing a work force.
It seems a good portion of why the left doesn't like the trade agreements is because our current displacement laws aren't enforced like they should be.
pampango
(24,692 posts)allowing other countries to play the 'national sovereignty' card, and that trade agreement standards should not be allowed to trump 'national sovereignty' - particularly if it is OUR national sovereignty.
My position is that if we are raising labor and environmental standards we should want to them to be enforceable and not to allow countries to escape those standards using a "our country should not be forced to do that" argument.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Trade deals should be a mechanism for imposing high labor and regulatory standards globally, not the reverse. Put that language into the TPP and many on the left will give it a second look.
3. Any participating corporate or commercial or NGO or foundation engaged in trade activities must be employee-owned.
If only. Not politically feasible atm, sadly, but it MAY be possible to play hardball and impose mandatory union/environmental/community representation on corporate boards, even 20% of the board.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Our country needs to have safeguards for the citizenry so that they do not have their lives destroyed by the repercussions of any "deals" our Government makes.
The citizens of this country are the primary concern of our Government, not Corporate profits.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)... laws here are horrible
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
Alex4Martinez
(2,712 posts)2. No participating nation shall be permitted to lower the quality of human and environmental care that existed before any trade agreement.
3. Any participating corporate or commercial or NGO or foundation engaged in trade activities must be employee-owned.
For me, these three conditions cover the requirements for acceptability.
pampango
(24,692 posts)countries which would be fair. Agreements with European countries, Canada, Australia and others would be dictated by the other party. The 'national sovereignty' folks would howl but it would be good for workers and the environment.
Instead of TTIP we can just sign up for the EU in terms of its labor and environmental standards. (And they have a vacancy now after Brexit. 
) We would have to upgrade our labor and environmental laws and enforcement to be allowed to join. That would drive republicans crazy. I like it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Restored sovereignty
Unions
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)1. Tied with social packages for areas that are impacted by the deal. Free education, and training in growth industry skills for those anyone who has had their employment impacted. Government provided relocation, and tax break incentives for growth industries to hire on those who have lost jobs due to free trade. I.e. Line worker in a manufacturing impacted manufacturing industry gets free training, relocation complete with new comparable job at a shipyard that may see greater growth as a result of free trade.
2. The US needs to reach the Epiphany of the industrial age is past. We are still clinging to the outdated notion that everybody has to work, and the worth of all people is the equivalent of the crap that they own, or money they have squirreled away. As automation and technology continue to advance, it is a ridiculous notion that everyone should work. As technology and automation make things more affordable, more mass produceable we need to start accepting that jobs are going away. Let's stop attacking our disabled, our homeless, our poor.. Give them a home, give them all of the basic things that should be affordable and available to everyone in this age.. Transportation, internet, television, decent food and sustenance, medical care.. And not just the kind where they patch you up well enought to send you home to die.. But real medical care. Preventative care, and corrective care.
3. Fully socialize health care, energy (including oil and gas), internet, telecommunications, real estate, and banking industries to make #2 achievable.
JSup
(740 posts)1) All countries we 'free trade' with should have the same workplace standards we do. Safety, minimum wage (based on smart people math stuff so that it is equivalent to ours) and environmental regulations. Oh, and child labor laws.
As long as we're competing with nations that use might-as-well-be-peasants labor standards we will always lose unless we also ditch our standards, regulations and wages.
uponit7771
(91,133 posts)... what they should be then we wouldn't even need to compete.
Its illegal for companies to bring in cheaper labor to replace onshore but they do it anyway cause the corps who do out and out lie about wages.
I got the feeling that if US jobless rate went down 1% with every trade deal we'd welcome it so it sounds like it is mostly about US workers being displaced.
I'd add that corporations should pay for the displacement and have it tracked... then see if they want to move overseas.
It shouldn't be such a one side deal when it comes to us workers vs the labor force you mention... peasant labor.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I understand that is of no concern to the monetized moderates. I assume they find those aspects of TPP appealing.
840high
(17,196 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and the binding arbitration should require consent of the subject country with the arbitration decision. Otherwise it grants sovereignty to corporate arbitrators.
ibegurpard
(16,806 posts)We gave up the chance for that when we gave the President fast-track authority. Now it's only an up or down vote.
ISDS provisions are the absolute deal-breaker. Opposition to the TPP is uniting labor and environmental groups where I am... something you don't see too often.
It needs to be stopped.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)make it unpalatable to any other trade partner. And the net effect of that would be no trade and isolationism, both of which are wrong and backwards in the 21st century.