General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts)

52. I can't. The republican-controlled congress rejected FDR's ITO. FDR and Truman believed in

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 06:18 AM

Nov 2015

the concept of neutral tribunals to arbitrate trade disputes or it would not have been in the negotiated agreement signed by over 50 countries.

To be effective, any international agreement needs some kind of fair and effective enforcement mechanism. FDR and Truman believed that allowing each country to decide its own guilt or innocence in resolving trade disputes was a recipe for a failed agreement. They decided that arbitration was fairer.

The UN, the IMF and World Bank (also part of the many international organizations proposed by FDR) were negotiated more quickly and approved by Congress when it was still in Democratic hands. The negotiation of the ITO took longer, unfortunately, and it was not submitted to congress until republicans were in control. The ITO died as a result - except for the GATT part which Truman approved by executive order, knowing that congress would reject that, too.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TPP and these other trade deals show the end result of capitalism... [View all] AZ Progressive Nov 2015 OP

I would go for option 2 Cheese Sandwich Nov 2015 #1

I agree, but whatever replaces it will need to trade and the USA will "lose" as Hoyt Nov 2015 #2

You are right, I think. SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #3

The only transfers that have taken place are those going to the 1%-ers in poor countries. eridani Nov 2015 #4

Most of the wealth will disappear when taken, since it is just paper. Then, Americans Hoyt Nov 2015 #5

Bull. SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #9

From a world perspective, you are a 1%er. Hoyt Nov 2015 #19

I am fully aware of this. nt SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #25

"Wealth" is not "just paper". ronnie624 Nov 2015 #15

Exactly. SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #16

The OP is about capitalism. Apparently, you have no interest in helping poor countries. Hoyt Nov 2015 #18

I think capitalism is intellectually and morally flawed. ronnie624 Nov 2015 #20

The purpose of an empire is to fuck over countries for the benefit of the 1% everywhere eridani Nov 2015 #23

Yeah, poor countries will progress trading among themselves. I thinj they've tried that. Hoyt Nov 2015 #31

India has made cheap pharmaceutical knockoffs for years. Very successfully, too. eridani Nov 2015 #35

"We had tariffs in place for many years ..." And then along came FDR who pampango Nov 2015 #40

True, but reducing tariffs is just reducing tariffs. It has nothing to do with ISDS and other-- eridani Nov 2015 #44

FDR's ITO pioneered the concept of neutral arbitration of trade disputes, much more than just pampango Nov 2015 #46

Give an example of a tribunal overruling a government in the FDR/Truman era n/t eridani Nov 2015 #48

I can't. The republican-controlled congress rejected FDR's ITO. FDR and Truman believed in pampango Nov 2015 #52

OK, then how about an example of ISDS overruling any government before NAFTA n/t eridani Nov 2015 #53

This is about the one percent fucktards who impoverish everyone eridani Nov 2015 #21

what a bunch of BS Skittles Nov 2015 #36

I care about poor everywhere, and think TPP is one way to help all of them, including those here. Hoyt Nov 2015 #37

uh huh Skittles Nov 2015 #38

What is your proposal to help the poor globally? Do nothing, stifle trade, what then? Hoyt Nov 2015 #39

it's got NOTHING TO DO with HELPING THE POOR *ANYWHERE* Skittles Nov 2015 #42

Good. You clearly don't care, and certainly have no idea how to do it. Hoyt Nov 2015 #43

Stop big pharma from jacking up prices for generics by stopping TPP, for one n/t eridani Nov 2015 #47

Don't think TPP does anything to generics. Well, maybe prevents a. Country from counterfeiting Hoyt Nov 2015 #49

Gvoernment regulation of drug prices is what TPP is designed to prevent. eridani Nov 2015 #50

On the mark... ReallyIAmAnOptimist Nov 2015 #6

The end result of capitalism is the concentration of wealth in the top tier bhikkhu Nov 2015 #7

Bingo. nt SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #10

+1000 smirkymonkey Nov 2015 #33

I favor option 2 Hydra Nov 2015 #8

Bingo. nt SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #11

Have you ever Munificence Nov 2015 #12

Well, it's functioning fine to reward the capitalists. SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #13

'Small-scale' might be okay, I guess, ronnie624 Nov 2015 #17

Absolutely. nt SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #26

Well isn't that a good thing...the end of capitalism? Isn't that what DUers want? kelliekat44 Nov 2015 #14

TPP is a race to the bottom to benefit the 1% eridani Nov 2015 #22

The end of capitalism is what this DUer wants. PowerToThePeople Nov 2015 #54

And yet the past 20 years have seen the largest *decrease* in global inequality in history Recursion Nov 2015 #24

Not opposite, just progress. SusanCalvin Nov 2015 #27

80 people own most of the worlds wealth. Rex Nov 2015 #32

The 1% did even better before FDR when there were no trade agreements and little trade. pampango Nov 2015 #41

From your link: ronnie624 Nov 2015 #28

Here's a take on the TPP from across the Atlantic. GoneOffShore Nov 2015 #29

The TPP scrupulously avoids the elephant in the living-room: ronnie624 Nov 2015 #30

K&R. eom Betty Karlson Nov 2015 #34

Civilization is a resource concentration mechanism The2ndWheel Nov 2015 #45

Restrained capitalism with a helping of socialism thrown in worked very well for a long time Warpy Nov 2015 #51