Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
22. It's a monster waiting to crash our economy like it did before.
Mon May 11, 2015, 09:53 AM
May 2015

The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the financial service
chapters of U.S. “Free Trade” Agreements (FTAs) limit the regulation of financial service
sectors subject to these agreements. The United States bound most banking and securities services
to comply with these rules and made sizeable commitments in insurance. The “trade” pact rules
simply ban many common forms of financial regulation, even if such policies apply to domestic and
foreign firms equally.
U.S. government and corporate efforts in trade negotiations complemented
domestic lobbying to weaken and eventually repeal the New Deal’s system of banking regulation. For
instance, the Glass-Steagall Act created a firewall between commercial and investment banks to
prevent the former from speculating with consumers’ savings. But the 1997 U.S. WTO commitments
noted an intent to change Glass-Steagall to conform with WTO rules. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
which did so, passed in 1999 – the year the WTO’s Financial Services Agreement (FSA) took effect.


Many people still assume “trade” pacts are about traditional matters, such as tariff cuts. In fact, the
WTO, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other U.S. FTAs require signatories –
including the United States – to conform domestic policies to a broad non-trade deregulatory agenda.

Few in Congress read the legislation implementing the WTO in 1994 or NAFTA in 1993, much less
the pacts’ actual 900-page texts. Congress didn’t even get a vote on the expanded U.S. financial service
deregulation commitments contained in the subsequent WTO FSA. But if any country’s laws fail to
comply with WTO, NAFTA or FTA rules, the laws can be challenged before foreign tribunals, and
the country can be subjected to indefinite trade sanctions until its laws meet “trade” pact dictate

https://www.citizen.org/documents/FinanceReregulationFactSheetFINAL.pdf

If TPP passes, you can bet in about 3 to 5 years there will be another economic crash in the US. (The 2nd time around it always crashes faster.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

K&R. Thank you for your efforts to educate DUers with real facts about the TPP riderinthestorm May 2015 #1
thank you so much rider. cali May 2015 #2
The Renco case... ((shudder)) Waiting for anyone to read that case and justify this nt riderinthestorm May 2015 #15
oh, I've seen that. cali May 2015 #17
Oligarchs protecting their own n/t MosheFeingold May 2015 #26
More and more, TPP is sounding like a lot of Art_from_Ark May 2015 #3
I'd love to see any of the folks here supporting this cali May 2015 #4
Yeah, there's someone here who claims that Bernie and Warren are "misrepresenting" TPP, Art_from_Ark May 2015 #5
It's the politcs of adoration. It's personality driven rather than policy driven cali May 2015 #16
I know, I get the "you are so angry" insult whenever I disparage corporations and their GMOs fasttense May 2015 #18
thanks. There is such a large body of evidence contradicting cali May 2015 #19
We all know the outcome to this game - mostly US lawyers working for foreign affiliates suing the US leveymg May 2015 #6
yep. they don't care if they lose. they still get a hefty payday cali May 2015 #7
A positive evil. Corporations will be able to deter labor and environmental laws leveymg May 2015 #34
so where are you tpp supporters? Never mind. I completely understand why you're avoiding cali May 2015 #8
K&R Scuba May 2015 #9
K&R SamKnause May 2015 #10
well, I'd say trade deals that are more harmful than beneficial cali May 2015 #11
Thanks cali. SamKnause May 2015 #12
I'm not arguing with you, but I'm sure you can understand cali May 2015 #13
I understand. SamKnause May 2015 #14
some noteworthy ISDS suits, and very high awards magical thyme May 2015 #20
Thanks for adding those. cali May 2015 #21
yup. from 50 in the 60s to more than 500 now. (very good link below) magical thyme May 2015 #24
hey, mt cali May 2015 #25
It's a monster waiting to crash our economy like it did before. fasttense May 2015 #22
thanks for adding that cali May 2015 #23
Alls I need to know, USA never lost one, and ISDS -- used since 1959 -- can't change our laws. Hoyt May 2015 #27
LOL. You have just demonstrated with great emphasis why your arguments cali May 2015 #29
I don't need links, your post said it. That's why I distilled it to one sentence. Hoyt May 2015 #31
actually, you do need links to evidence for your claims if you expect cali May 2015 #32
Have you read the Renco case? US corporation lead poisoning kids riderinthestorm May 2015 #36
Renco has been in arbitration for 4.5 years, and has gotten nowhere. They won't either. Hoyt May 2015 #38
The U.S. always "wins" these cases - remember? You've been proudly touting that fun fact riderinthestorm May 2015 #40
You need to reorient. Our government has never lost a case against USA. Our companies have lost Hoyt May 2015 #41
K & R historylovr May 2015 #28
thanks Cali for this tutorial. very helpful. bbgrunt May 2015 #30
thank. glad you find it helpful cali May 2015 #33
kick for the "trust the president on the tpp" folks. cali May 2015 #35
afternoon kick cali May 2015 #37
Let's Bern Em kick eloydude May 2015 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Unpacking the ISDS: Why ...»Reply #22