General Discussion

OrwellwasRight

(5,209 posts)

42. We do know that.

Sat Dec 6, 2014, 06:12 PM

Dec 2014

Have you read one of the labor chapters in any of our trade agreements? I have. Here is one:

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/peru/asset_upload_file73_9496.pdf

There is nothing in this chapter that requires ongoing review of a country's labor laws or enforcement practices. There is nothing that requires a government to act even if they do find that a trading partner's law are out of compliance or enforcement is lax. There is nothing at all that ensures a level playing field between the US and our trading partners.

Even the GAO says that the USG is doing a shitty job of enforcing labor chapters of trade agreements:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-160

And, the US has never once instigated an environmental case against any trading partner. So the environmental provisions might as well not even be there. Unless of course you think that places like Mexico and Colombia are environmental paradises.

Try doing a little research before believing the USTR's pro-trade propaganda.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TPP: do you truly give a crap? [View all] MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 OP

Marginally bad idea Recursion Dec 2014 #1

Idunno fadedrose Dec 2014 #2

What if it's good for most of the world's 1%? MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #3

Call the French fadedrose Dec 2014 #4

They voted for Hollande, an economic populist and boring "normal guy" CJCRANE Dec 2014 #19

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%............... wandy Dec 2014 #35

According to Krugman, proponents and opponents of it are hyping the positives and negatives. Ykcutnek Dec 2014 #5

But Elizabeth Warren thinks it's a pretty bad idea MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #6

Good point. Ykcutnek Dec 2014 #7

Krugman, an economist, is analyzing the economics. My biggest concern is legal. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #20

+1 Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #26

I agree with you. nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #37

Well if it is no big deal if it doesn't.. sendero Dec 2014 #22

beyond the beyond in dumbth . olddots Dec 2014 #8

I don't like it for the same reasons Obama gave when he said he was going to re-negotiate NAFTA nationalize the fed Dec 2014 #9

Canada and Mexico are part of TPP negotiations. Terms of trade with them are being "renegotiated". pampango Dec 2014 #14

We* bail out the banks. Give multi-billion dollar bonuses to the banksters who stole it. Octafish Dec 2014 #10

Why is it taking so long to get it passed? I thought corportists, Obama, other nations planning to Hoyt Dec 2014 #11

krugman is not always right, but BootinUp Dec 2014 #32

I oppose any agreement that is so bad, so thrreatening to our society that its provisions have JDPriestly Dec 2014 #12

This is the problem Elizabeth Warren has with it~ RiverLover Dec 2014 #13

This is yet another problem I have with the TPP. F4lconF16 Dec 2014 #25

that's the fatal flaw of "you OWE us your votes," innit? MisterP Dec 2014 #39

If it was to be so good for us, where's the transparency? I'm sure the 1% love it! dmosh42 Dec 2014 #15

It would be a good idea IF, as China and some republicans seem to fear, it has labor and environment pampango Dec 2014 #16

Environmental protections and labor rights have been in the language of the TTP from the start. ucrdem Dec 2014 #21

Thanks. I had never seen that Trade Ministers’ Report. n/t pampango Dec 2014 #23

The provisions won't be strict, that is the problem. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #31

We don't know that. If they are not strict, there is not good reason to consider them. n/t pampango Dec 2014 #40

We do know that. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #42

Your point is that labor chapters in previous agreements were bad. I agree. pampango Dec 2014 #44

I am saying that neither Obama nor Froman OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #45

I believe they have made clear that is the intent. I don't think it will matter. pampango Dec 2014 #46

NAFTA also had "strong labor and environmental provisions" OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #47

Fast track and the Trans Pacific Partnership nationalize the fed Dec 2014 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #17

Once we can get our wages on par with China it will be an employment renaissance. raouldukelives Dec 2014 #18

Nat'l Geographic: 4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment RiverLover Dec 2014 #24

Obama's craziest detractors have alleged some wild stuff FiveGoodMen Dec 2014 #27

CWA Union: EMERGENCY MEETING ON FIGHTING FAST TRACK FOR TPP think Dec 2014 #28

IMO the TPP is a step towards making the US (and the world) sort of like a giant WalMart. djean111 Dec 2014 #29

Anyone who supports this, is my sworn enemy. 99Forever Dec 2014 #30

Idunno. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #33

Regardless of whether it's good or bad, I believe in democracy CJCRANE Dec 2014 #34

I completely disagree - I believe in representative democracy. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #36

I didn't say anything about government by referendum. CJCRANE Dec 2014 #38

How do the uninformed get informed? aspirant Dec 2014 #49

Years of dedicated study. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #54

TTP means the strangling of American Democracy. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #41

+1000 OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #43

Orwell was definitely right! Odin2005 Dec 2014 #52

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Dec 2014 #50

As I brought to another poster, there's a simple test for whether it's a good idea. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #51

Based on the consequences of past "free trade" deals... Derek V Dec 2014 #53