Elizabeth Warren proves to be just another special interest hack - comes out against free trade agreement

[Tom Sawyer]

This answer seems to be off-topic to the thread you started. Warren says she's against the deal because she can't read it now and the negotiations are being done in secret. What would her being able to read it later have to do with the topic?

Is that why she's against the Iran deal too?

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that the details of the Iran deal were being kept secret so that senators didn't know anything about it. Thanks for that - I learned something today.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm a bit surprised. Warren is making Hillary look like a waffler. Isn't that a good thing for you?

I take it for granted that the GOPers would rather run against Warren, or anyone but Hillary.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It will strengthen our economic competitiveness, improve efficiency, and reduce prices and increase quality for consumers. Such an agreement is expected to add a few percentage points to GDP over the next few decades, amounting to hundreds of billions in additional economic activity and wealth for the country.

1) How do they know this if the negotiation isn't finished?

2) How do we know that all this windfall won't go right up to the richest people in the country like all the rest has?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trade economists do not dispute the economic benefits of trade liberalization, yet, in global warming denial fashion, Elizabeth Warren comes out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

It will strengthen our economic competitiveness, improve efficiency, and reduce prices and increase quality for consumers. Such an agreement is expected to add a few percentage points to GDP over the next few decades, amounting to hundreds of billions in additional economic activity and wealth for the country.

Good for her. The TPP is deeply flawed. They're trying to cram all the crap the big content providers want into it.

I'm not opposed to free trade. I am opposed to evil masquerading as free trade.

 

[untermensche]

These so-called free trade agreements are nothing more than investor rights agreements.

And they do benefit the most wealthy. The owning class. The people that own a lot. More than the average person could comprehend.

And hurt just about everyone else.

These agreements are merely the objectification of unmitigated greed and callousness.

To praise them, especially without even reading them, is an obscenity.

 

[Underseer]

Oh, this is rich.

She is a "special interest hack" because she opposes a "free trade" agreement?

You rightists are so cute.

Just like how asking Christians to stop persecuting homosexuals counts as "persecuting Christians."

Or asking rich people to stop screwing over everyone else counts as "class warfare" against the rich.

You right wingers really do live in a propaganda-fueled fantasy world totally divorced from reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These so-called free trade agreements are nothing more than investor rights agreements.

And they do benefit the most wealthy. The owning class. The people that own a lot. More than the average person could comprehend.

And hurt just about everyone else.

These agreements are merely the objectification of unmitigated greed and callousness.

To praise them, especially without even reading them, is an obscenity.

Free trade benefits everyone except monopoly interests that lose their monopoly status. That's no doubt why you don't like them--unions are monopolies.

 

[untermensche]

These so-called free trade agreements are nothing more than investor rights agreements.

And they do benefit the most wealthy. The owning class. The people that own a lot. More than the average person could comprehend.

And hurt just about everyone else.

These agreements are merely the objectification of unmitigated greed and callousness.

To praise them, especially without even reading them, is an obscenity.

Free trade benefits everyone except monopoly interests that lose their monopoly status. That's no doubt why you don't like them--unions are monopolies.

Once one reaches the age of reason they understand that just because the government calls something a "free trade" agreement that doesn't make it so.

Just like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was about bombing and killing Iraqi's and bringing destruction and had nothing to do with freedom.

You represent the views of the gullible who buy every single word the government says very well.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It will strengthen our economic competitiveness, improve efficiency, and reduce prices and increase quality for consumers. Such an agreement is expected to add a few percentage points to GDP over the next few decades, amounting to hundreds of billions in additional economic activity and wealth for the country.

Hard to say, not knowing what it is.

1) How do they know this if the negotiation isn't finished?

2) How do we know that all this windfall won't go right up to the richest people in the country like all the rest has?

But unless we are the very definition of naive, have forgotten history, are out of touch with reality, bumped our heads on the side of the bed, forgotten to take our meds, this is fun... point two is a fair assumption.

 

[ksen]

All right, I'll take the bait.

Who, Axulus, are these special interests you claim Warren is helping?

Workers, which were conspicuously off axulus's earlier list of beneficiaries.

 

[Trodon]

When someone says that a policy is good for the economy we should ask, "Whose economy?"

Moving production to countries with low wages lowers the wages of American factory workers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Free trade benefits everyone except monopoly interests that lose their monopoly status. That's no doubt why you don't like them--unions are monopolies.

Once one reaches the age of reason they understand that just because the government calls something a "free trade" agreement that doesn't make it so.

Just like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was about bombing and killing Iraqi's and bringing destruction and had nothing to do with freedom.

You represent the views of the gullible who buy every single word the government says very well.

I have big problems with the TPP because, as you say just because it's called free trade doesn't make it so.

However, that's not an objection to free trade.

 

[RVonse]

Nope, try again, think harder.

.....

+1 Like just about everyone else here except for Axulus, I am confused who her special interest is too.

Axulus, either speak English or admit you are wrong.

 

[RVonse]

So you are willing to blindly support anything that has a name you approve of?

They named a bill the "Patriot act" and told us that is was all about helping to catch terrorists. Congress critters voted it in without reading it. How many of them later regretted that decision?

Is it possible that you and Obama are counting your eggs before they have hatched?

It will benefit US consumers, the US economy, increase global cooperation and global peace.

But that is not what the US needs right now. Axulus have you been sleeping since before Obama was even elected? More job opportunities for the middle class are about the only thing that anyone talks about now. Not more US consumption or global peace.

Once again Axulus....what the US needs right now are more middle class jobs. Quality manufacturing jobs that were exported to China thanks to the Clinton era NAFTA trade agreement.

 

[RVonse]

Once one reaches the age of reason they understand that just because the government calls something a "free trade" agreement that doesn't make it so.

Just like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was about bombing and killing Iraqi's and bringing destruction and had nothing to do with freedom.

You represent the views of the gullible who buy every single word the government says very well.

I have big problems with the TPP because, as you say just because it's called free trade doesn't make it so.

However, that's not an objection to free trade.

Yes, this is not a free trade agreement, its a pile of shit.

But even if it were a for real free trade agreement, I would be against that too. Because right now, the US needs more protectionism to build back its basic industry that has been lost to China. The only accomplishment of free trade agreement is to level world prosperity. But if you already live in one of the richest countries...what is to be gained? If I were a poor country maybe I would want to do this but not if I am part of a rich country.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do poloticians always say that they create jobs, and why do people believe it?

 

[SimpleDon]

Trade economists do not dispute the economic benefits of trade liberalization, yet, in global warming denial fashion, Elizabeth Warren comes out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

It will strengthen our economic competitiveness, improve efficiency, and reduce prices and increase quality for consumers. Such an agreement is expected to add a few percentage points to GDP over the next few decades, amounting to hundreds of billions in additional economic activity and wealth for the country.

Just some data to think about:

U.S. Benefits from Trade with TPP Economies
U.S.-TPP Trade: $1.8 trillion in goods and private services in 2012 (37% of total)

U.S.-TPP Trade Growth: Goods and services trade up 46% in the last 3 years (2009-2012)

Foreign Direct Investment From TPP Countries in the U.S.: $620.3 billion (23% of FDI stock in the United States)

TPP Foreign Affiliate Employment: 1.4 million Americans

Top U.S. Markets in TPP: Canada ($354 billion), Mexico ($243 billion), Japan ($116 billion)

Jobs Supported by Exports: An estimated 4 million jobs were supported by U.S. goods and services exports to TPP countries in 2012.

U.S. Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Exports in TPP: 97% of all goods exporting companies to TPP countries are SMEs (2011)
SMEs accounted for 29% of the total value of goods exports to TPP countries in 2011

Goods Exports to TPP Countries: $689.1 billion (45% of total U.S. goods exports)
Up 46 % from 2009

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-of...ct-sheets/2013/December/TPP-Economic-Benefits

Elizabeth, the 19th century mercantalists called, and they want their senator back.

This is fortunate. You apparently arrived at the same conclusions as Greg Mankiw did in his column in the New York Times of 24 April about Warren's opposition to fast tracking of the TTIP in its current form. I don't have any chance of discussing it with Mankiw so I am happy to have you here.

I don't think that either you or Mankiw have established that Warren is opposed to free trade, you have assumed it because she opposes the procedures for enforcing the treaty. Where are your cites that Warren opposes free trade?

Here is her oped in the Washington Post explaining her opposition. She is opposing the extra legal arbitration that corporations can use to bypass the US's court system to collect damages from the US taxpayers. A one way mechanism which can only be used by corporations against government's not the other way and not by other organizations like labor unions who still have to go through the court system.

Do you support the 'Investor-State Dispute Settlement” or ISDS? The supporters of the treaty didn't want this part of the treaty made public. Congressmen and Senators could read it in single locked room but were not able to have copies of it, in its current form.

It would be much easier to argue that the free trade treaty is being threaten by the inclusion of this onerous and unnecessary enforcement mechanism rather than that the opponents of the ISDS are somehow automatically opposed to free trade as you have done. Since the vote on the treaty will be yes or no it wouldn't be unreasonable for a supporter of the treaty and free trade to have to vote against it because of the ISDS. Not just Warren, I imagine that principled conservatives would object to this provision putting international laws and courts above our own.

What special interest do you believe that Warren is championing by opposing the ISDS? It seems to me that the ISDS is included to benefit a special interest, the large multinational corporations, and that it doesn't do anything to advance free trade.

 

[arkirk]

All right, I'll take the bait.

Who, Axulus, are these special interests you claim Warren is helping?

Workers, which were conspicuously off axulus's earlier list of beneficiaries.

He's trying admirably to keep all those sweat shops in Asia a humming along, pumping out junk the unemployed Americans can buy at the big box. He is working to keep all the shippers of the world supplied with oil and the bankers with money. By treating money and gross production as having primacy, he ignores the steady stream of victims and spoiled land and water that result from his hierarchy of needs and scope of interest.

 

[SimpleDon]

Trade economists do not dispute the economic benefits of trade liberalization, yet, in global warming denial fashion, Elizabeth Warren comes out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Once again, an assumption too far. Warren says that she is opposed the ISDS, not that she denies the benefits of liberalized trade. I am sure that you have cities in hand were Warren denies the benefits of liberalized trade or you wouldn't have been able to say this. Now is the time to present them.

It will strengthen our economic competitiveness, improve efficiency, and reduce prices and increase quality for consumers.

These are primarily the benefits of the improvement in technology and not in foreign trade. Technology doesn't depend on the amount of trade with other countries to advance. In fact, transferring manufacturing to low labor cost countries actually delays technology to advance productivity because the lower labor costs takes away much of the pressure for improvements in technology.

US electrical component manufacturers, GE, Westinghouse, etc. moved their manufacturing from the East to the South to Mexico and then to China in search of ever lower cost labor. The European and Japanese manufacturers built heavily automated factories and now dominate the market.

Try again.

Such an agreement is expected to add a few percentage points to GDP over the next few decades, amounting to hundreds of billions in additional economic activity and wealth for the country.

Which pales in comparison to the nearly 10 points of GDP in two years that the Deregulation Derangement cost us in 2008 to 2009 or the points off of the GDP that the Republican commitment to opposing the recovery from the same because they think that a half *hite president has too much melolin.

A few points of GDP in few decades is the same as saying that you don't know if it will increase the GDP but if it does it wouldn't be by much.

We know from past rounds of liberalized trade that the main result isn't lower prices or anything you listed but,

• a shift in income from wages to profits
• lower capital investment in the US
• capital flight from the US as profits are kept off shore
• increases in income and wealth inequality

I have to point out that a combination of lower capital investment and higher profits is the exact opposite of the prediction of Greg Mankiw's economics. As his doppelganger can you take a shot at an explanation?

As for lower prices resulting from lower labor costs they generally don't happen. People grossly overestimate the amount of manufacturing labor costs that are in the final price that consumers pay for consumer products. The savings represent only a few percentage points of the price that is paid but means a whole lot more profits from selling the product.

I don't believe that you thought through the claim that quality improves between a product made in the US and one made say in China. Please explain.

Offshoring manufacturing is a wonderful way of transferring money from the US to develop the economies of other countries, especially underdeveloped ones. You can think of it as 400 to 800 billion dollars of foreign aid every year. Finally, we can understand the ridiculous estimates that conservatives make of the amount of foreign aid that the US provides every year.

I am not against free trade. I just believe that it has to be understood what its impact is and that we have to compensate for the negative ones. Like those listed above.

 

[arkirk]

Once again, an assumption too far. Warren says that she is opposed the ISDS, not that she denies the benefits of liberalized trade. I am sure that you have cities in hand were Warren denies the benefits of liberalized trade or you wouldn't have been able to say this. Now is the time to present them.

It will strengthen our economic competitiveness, improve efficiency, and reduce prices and increase quality for consumers.

These are primarily the benefits of the improvement in technology and not in foreign trade. Technology doesn't depend on the amount of trade with other countries to advance. In fact, transferring manufacturing to low labor cost countries actually delays technology to advance productivity because the lower labor costs takes away much of the pressure for improvements in technology.

US electrical component manufacturers, GE, Westinghouse, etc. moved their manufacturing from the East to the South to Mexico and then to China in search of ever lower cost labor. The European and Japanese manufacturers built heavily automated factories and now dominate the market.

Try again.

Such an agreement is expected to add a few percentage points to GDP over the next few decades, amounting to hundreds of billions in additional economic activity and wealth for the country.

Which pales in comparison to the nearly 10 points of GDP in two years that the Deregulation Derangement cost us in 2008 to 2009 or the points off of the GDP that the Republican commitment to opposing the recovery from the same because they think that a half *hite president has too much melolin.

A few points of GDP in few decades is the same as saying that you don't know if it will increase the GDP but if it does it wouldn't be by much.

We know from past rounds of liberalized trade that the main result isn't lower prices or anything you listed but,

• a shift in income from wages to profits
• lower capital investment in the US
• capital flight from the US as profits are kept off shore
• increases in income and wealth inequality

I have to point out that a combination of lower capital investment and higher profits is the exact opposite of the prediction of Greg Mankiw's economics. As his doppelganger can you take a shot at an explanation?

As for lower prices resulting from lower labor costs they generally don't happen. People grossly overestimate the amount of manufacturing labor costs that are in the final price that consumers pay for consumer products. The savings represent only a few percentage points of the price that is paid but means a whole lot more profits from selling the product.

I don't believe that you thought through the claim that quality improves between a product made in the US and one made say in China. Please explain.

Offshoring manufacturing is a wonderful way of transferring money from the US to develop the economies of other countries, especially underdeveloped ones. You can think of it as 400 to 800 billion dollars of foreign aid every year. Finally, we can understand the ridiculous estimates that conservatives make of the amount of foreign aid that the US provides every year.

I am not against free trade. I just believe that it has to be understood what its impact is and that we have to compensate for the negative ones. Like those listed above.

It is not "free trade" it is instead worldwide gladiatorial competition between behemoths the average man has no control over. We need international cooperation for the sake of humanity, not profits. We need to be cooperating, not bound by the wants of people out to maintain power over others through the medium of money. Warren is right on this one. TPP is the result of corporations and governments fusing together to guarantee the power of corporations over the people. It is pure bad news.