General Discussion

Progressive dog

(7,617 posts)

34. No country would allow trade on terms that require

Sat Nov 7, 2015, 02:15 PM

Nov 2015

them to lose so that we can claim victory. There would be no reason for them to trade with us. We have to both be winners, by increased production and/or lower prices.

There is no corporate coup. NAFTA has an arbitration clause too. You should look up what claims have actually been made and what happened to them. It might give you a tiny bit more confidence that all trade is not designed to reward "corporations".
BTW In the days of FDR, we were at war with Germany. Before that,we were a creditor nation tom Germany, along with everyone else who fought Germany in the 1st world war.
We already have a multi-lateral trade agreement, which is the only one we have with Germany. The whole idea of the smaller agreements, like NAFTA and TPP, is to make the trade fairer to the USA.
I'm going to assume you support the EU trade deal that is now under negotiation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Just how bad the TPP is - guaranteed profits on EXPECTATIONS of profits [View all] packman Nov 2015 OP

K&R for exposure 2naSalit Nov 2015 #1

Sigh. Again? randome Nov 2015 #2

You need to read what is posted. fasttense Nov 2015 #43

This "Trade Deal"- ruffburr Nov 2015 #3

Hyperbole much? VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #77

Denial much? nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #85

They KNOW a Dem will be in the WH, dixiegrrrrl Nov 2015 #4

Yes, that's something I posted here earlier. polly7 Nov 2015 #5

What the hell is an "International Tribunal" anyway? packman Nov 2015 #6

United Nations and WTO. Hoyt Nov 2015 #11

Wrong MFrohike Nov 2015 #35

You really need to do some research before making comments like that. Hoyt Nov 2015 #51

You should read your links MFrohike Nov 2015 #90

Your mistake there is in somehow seeing the WTO as "competing" with TPP, which makes no sense Recursion Nov 2015 #93

Sigh MFrohike Nov 2015 #94

No, you're really just wrong there Recursion Nov 2015 #95

Nope MFrohike Nov 2015 #96

This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Nov 2015 #97

Actually, they are related. Whether it's WTO or WB is sort of immaterial except to those who play Hoyt Nov 2015 #98

Right MFrohike Nov 2015 #109

That's like saying Medicare is not a government program because private insurance Hoyt Nov 2015 #110

What? MFrohike Nov 2015 #111

Jeez, even the NYT calls them tribunals, not to mention Senator Warren. Hoyt Nov 2015 #112

And? MFrohike Nov 2015 #113

Of course the WTO is the arbitration mechanism. Recursion Nov 2015 #88

Oh? MFrohike Nov 2015 #91

In what sense do you see it as a competing organization? Recursion Nov 2015 #92

Your description of the selection process for "judges" is incomplete BelgianMadCow Nov 2015 #59

You mean World Bank under United Nations. Hoyt Nov 2015 #60

You mean the Stiglitz who was the World Bank's Chief Economist. Hoyt Nov 2015 #61

yes. He became critical of it and isn't there anymore. n/t BelgianMadCow Nov 2015 #62

Every organization deserves criticism. Here's what Stiglitz said when pushed in interview: Hoyt Nov 2015 #63

Bush joked about international law and international lawyers daleo Nov 2015 #67

It's the WTO. The judges are appointed through a process that's gone on for 50 years Recursion Nov 2015 #89

Same dispute mechanism that 150+ countries have signed since 1959. Yet, now, it's an issue. Hoyt Nov 2015 #7

Yes, many countries want to attract jobs and investment. polly7 Nov 2015 #8

Well, the TPP has provisions that help in that respect. Hoyt Nov 2015 #9

Riiiiight. polly7 Nov 2015 #10

They do not "win" most of the time, plus thousands of potential issues are never arbitrated. Hoyt Nov 2015 #12

I don't believe you. I also don't trust one single bit that the people in poorer nations will polly7 Nov 2015 #13

Yet they beg to be part of the agreements. Clearly they are better off than before. Hoyt Nov 2015 #15

The people in those poor countries do not 'share the wealth'. polly7 Nov 2015 #17

Sure they do. Mexican workers are lining up for jobs at Audi for $8/hour vs the 50 cents Hoyt Nov 2015 #19

Because Mexican farmerS were DECIMATED by NAFTA and have polly7 Nov 2015 #21

They were the ones making 50 cents a day. In any evenr, Mexico begged Hoyt Nov 2015 #22

Ok .............. hold on. polly7 Nov 2015 #23

The TPP's arbitration courts are an abomination. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #24

So after 2500 trade agreements worldwide since 1959, the investor dispute mechanism is now an issue. Hoyt Nov 2015 #28

Yup, fasttense Nov 2015 #46

TPP helps them organize. Hoyt Nov 2015 #56

Many of those countries adopted or inherited a system of civil law. They don't know JDPriestly Nov 2015 #52

all those European countries, including England and Denmark, sign the agreements. Hoyt Nov 2015 #55

With the exception of England, I believe they are civil law countries. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #57

They sign the agreements, yielding to arbitration, which is also in EU agreements. Hoyt Nov 2015 #58

The bottom 70% of the world's population have seen large income gains in the past 25 years. pampango Nov 2015 #27

Tell that to them. I don't think they'll believe it. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #29

Excellent post. Hoyt Nov 2015 #30

It's bullshit. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #31

Analysis is bullshit. Fears are real. n/t pampango Nov 2015 #36

Nah. Not fears. polly7 Nov 2015 #38

Please post your analysis of global income changes. pampango Nov 2015 #39

Post em yourself. I just have articles showing how 'real' people have polly7 Nov 2015 #41

Real people have suffered and real people have benefitted. That's the conclusion of pampango Nov 2015 #47

84 people own 52% of global wealth...they have trade policies to thank for it. Rex Nov 2015 #33

We do indeed need to 'sprite the 1%'. Progressive countries do that with progressive taxation, pampango Nov 2015 #37

I wonder how much of that is due solely to China? hifiguy Nov 2015 #66

You mean their 1%-ers want in. The 99% are 100% against them. n/t eridani Nov 2015 #69

Even the lower middle class here are the greedy 1%ers to rest of world. Hoyt Nov 2015 #70

The purpose of "trade" agreements is to force poor people in rich countries to give money to-- eridani Nov 2015 #71

Ask a Mexican who was making 50 cents a day, who is now working for Audi at $8/hr Hoyt Nov 2015 #73

All the ones forced off their land by privatization of the ejidos came here eridani Nov 2015 #76

Luke Krugman says, too many people blame NAFTA for things caused by other factors. Hoyt Nov 2015 #78

Privatization of rural communal land was bloody well not caused by other factors eridani Nov 2015 #79

+1,000,000. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #80

Exactly. polly7 Nov 2015 #81

Apparently poisoning poor people with mine tailings is done only to help them n/t eridani Nov 2015 #83

Yep, I'm sure we'll see a 'study' soon that shows us just exactly how. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #84

This is not about trade. This is about a CORPORATE COUP. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #25

Exactly right! nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #26

+1 You nailed it. Enthusiast Nov 2015 #45

Thank you! polly7 Nov 2015 #48

Corporations lose sometimes in our courts. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #32

corporate whores can always justify corporate whoring Skittles Nov 2015 #68

Excuses are easy to make up. And that is what corporate whores do. They don't have to be GoneFishin Nov 2015 #74

You're right, Skittles. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #82

The truth shall set you free Progressive dog Nov 2015 #14

We are going to have trade. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #18

No country would allow trade on terms that require Progressive dog Nov 2015 #34

I am very familiar with NAFTA's arbitration clause. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #54

Lot of trade stuff you oppose Progressive dog Nov 2015 #64

I am opposed to trade agreements that give power that should be exercised by JDPriestly Nov 2015 #72

Bullshit. TPP is a corporate coup. And "we" don't get shit when jobs are sent overseas unless by GoneFishin Nov 2015 #75

TPP is not a corporate coup. Progressive dog Nov 2015 #100

You are advocating precisely what FDR wanted to avoid. pampango Nov 2015 #50

And the corporations have so exploited and dominated and bullied FDR's ideal JDPriestly Nov 2015 #53

So we should give up on FDR's ideals and go back to the Coolidge/Hoover trade policy - high tariffs, pampango Nov 2015 #101

We should renegotiate all of our trade agreements to make sure they protect human rights, not JDPriestly Nov 2015 #102

I'll stick with FDR, Sweden and Germany on trade policy but I do agree that all agreements pampango Nov 2015 #103

I know what FDR wanted. I don't think it included having corporate arbitration panels JDPriestly Nov 2015 #104

The concept of neutral arbitration in trade disputes was introduced by FDR's ITO. pampango Nov 2015 #105

It is undemocratic. FDR was not all-seeing and all-knowing. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #106

You have your opinion. I'll side with FDR, Sweden and Germany. n/t pampango Nov 2015 #107

More horseshit about how TPP has something to do with "trade" eridani Nov 2015 #86

This! nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #87

More bullshit that TPP is about corporate takeover. Progressive dog Nov 2015 #99

Yes there is--which is why Canada is the most sued country in the world eridani Nov 2015 #108

And the US has won ALL the cases under NAFTA Progressive dog Nov 2015 #114

Fuck corporations suing governments for not getting the profits they expect n/t eridani Nov 2015 #116

So true, but the American people including people here on DU, are so poorly educated about JDPriestly Nov 2015 #16

I see the "but it is just like all the other trade deals" is still be thrown about. Rex Nov 2015 #20

K/R marmar Nov 2015 #40

All Made Possible By The Sell Out President And Former Secretary Of State cantbeserious Nov 2015 #42

Kicked and recommended to the Max! Enthusiast Nov 2015 #44

Great article, packman, thank you. +1000. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #49

K & R AzDar Nov 2015 #65

The reinstitution of slavery or feudalism is the end game. hifiguy Nov 2015 #115