Obama hopes to enlist GOP in push for trade pact, despite Democratic resistance

[MFrohike]

62. This is why

"INVESTMENT

With trade following investment, we are working to ensure that U.S. investors abroad are provided the same kind of opportunities in other markets that we provide in the United States to foreign investors doing business within our borders. That is why we are seeking to include in TPP many of the investment obligations that have historically proven to support jobs and economic growth, as well as new provisions to take on emerging investment issues.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

Liberalized access for investment in TPP markets, non-discrimination and the reduction or elimination of other barriers to the establishment and operation of investments in TPP countries, including prohibitions against unlawful expropriation and specified performance requirements;
Provisions that will address measures that require TPP investors to favor another country’s domestic technology in order to benefit SOEs, national champions, or other competitors in that country; and
Procedures for arbitration that will provide basic rule of law protections for U.S. investors operating in foreign markets similar to those the U.S. already provides to foreign investors operating in the U.S. These procedures would provide strong protections to ensure that all TPP governments can appropriately regulate in the public interest, including on health, safety, and environmental protection. This includes an array of safeguards designed to raise the standards around investor-state dispute settlement, such as by discouraging and dismissing frivolous suits, allowing governments to direct the outcome of arbitral tribunals in certain areas, making proceedings more open and transparent, and providing for the participation of civil society organizations and other non-parties."

That is directly copied from your link. It's not a trade agreement, but a rules agreement. Trade barriers are virtually non-existent and the WTO is the proper venue to make changes in that arena anyway.

Liberalized access for investment? That means free flow of capital. It means hot money inflows, ala Asia in 1998, Spain up to 2008, Latin American in late 1970s, etc. It's a policy of permanent bubbles throughout the "trade" zone.

Provisions about SOEs and national champions? It means the government of a country will give up its right to direct investment where it wants. Want to require that foreign investors have to team up with domestic investors in order to spread the wealth? Too bad for you!

Basic rule of law protection for investors? I'm sure that's mighty comforting to the victims of the National Mortgage Settlement. I'm sure the investors whose property was expropriated in favor of the banks and their servicers, who were demonstrably at fault, will be thrilled to read about this provision. After all, the rule of law worked great to protect them!

Participation of civil society organizations and other non-parties? That means modern stakeholder governance. In other words, it means continuing the same failed policies of listening only to the favored when it comes to policymaking. It's the equivalent of allowing criminals to comment on the laws being made to prevent their crimes.

P.S. This sounds really obnoxious. Sorry about that. I got a bit carried away.