I am surprised to see no interest in TPP here in this forum

[Horatio Parker]

A must read article supplying some perspective on trade agreements and sovereignty.

Fifty years ago, an international legal system was created to protect the rights of foreign investors. Today, as companies win billions in damages, insiders say it has got dangerously out of control
[...]
A small number of countries are now attempting to extricate themselves from the bonds of the investor-state dispute system. One of these is Bolivia, where thousands of people took to the streets of the country’s third-largest city, Cochabamba, in 2000, to protest against a dramatic hike in water rates by a private company owned by Bechtel, the US civil engineering firm. During the demonstrations, the Bolivian government stepped in and terminated the company’s concession. The company then filed a $50m suit against Bolivia at the ICSID. In 2006, following a campaign calling for the case to be thrown out, the company agreed to accept a token payment of less than $1.

After this expensive case, Bolivia cancelled the international agreements it had signed with other states giving their investors access to these tribunals. But getting out of this system is not easily done. Most of these international agreements have sunset clauses, under which their provisions remain in force for a further 10 or even 20 years, even if the treaties themselves are cancelled.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why would a public trade agreement need secrecy about its provisions? If somebody is introducing a clause because a political contributor would profit from it and several congresspeople are agreeing to support it in exchange for infrastructure projects in their districts, I want to know that as early as possible. If Congresspeople aren't going to read a massive tome of an agreement and understand all the items in it, I want the drafts of it publically available as early as possible so that others can comb through it and find clauses which they don't understand so that they can be either explained or removed before they get too far along in the process.

I don't trust the motives of the people writing these agreements nor the motives of the those giving money to the people writing these agreements. As such, I want as much public oversight of them as possible as early in the process as possible. If there's something in the trade agreement which various parties don't want to come to light then good - that's generally a good reason in and of itself to not have those things in the agreement.

Transparency in negotiations tends to reduce the frankness and deal-making because all negotiations involve positions and compromise that make someone look embarrassing or dreadful. Which is why negotiations are down in closed meetings - it makes the ugly process more tractable and amenable to a faster conclusion.

The end result is transparent - Congress has the opportunity to read the agreement and share it before the chambers vote on it. That is why congressman and senators are elected - it is their responsibility. And Congress can always change the fast-track authority laws if it so wishes.

If they're asking for something that makes them look embarrassing or dreadful, then I'd prefer that they either not ask for it or be able to come up with a decent rationale as to why they'd want something like that. A fast conclusion isn't an objective people should be interested in if it compromises what's in that conclusion. What is an example of something that would be embarrassing or dreadful to ask for which would be good to have in a trade agreement?

 

[ksen]

If you want fast track then we need transparency.

If you want opacity then we need congress to be able to amend things.

That should be a fair compromise.

 

[laughing dog]

If they're asking for something that makes them look embarrassing or dreadful, then I'd prefer that they either not ask for it or be able to come up with a decent rationale as to why they'd want something like that.

As would the negotiators who have to deal with it. But parties have initial positions.

A fast conclusion isn't an objective people should be interested in if it compromises what's in that conclusion.

Prolonging negotiations in the goal of getting an ideal compromise means the status quo prevails until an agreement is reached. Using your logic, it is preferable to wait an additional 2 years for a very incremental improvement in a compromise.

What is an example of something that would be embarrassing or dreadful to ask for which would be good to have in a trade agreement?

For example, the US asking for preferential treatment for US made Ford products. Or Canada asking for hockey pucks be transported for free in the USA. Or the US quickly dropping demands for observable progress towards sustainable palm tree harvesting.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If you want fast track then we need transparency.

If you want opacity then we need congress to be able to amend things.

That should be a fair compromise.

The trend towards corporate trumping of sovereignty began in the '60's. Fast track came soon after.

Also disturbing is the misrepresentation. Objections to ISDS is brushed aside as talk of fearmongerers; what talk there is of jobs. So Obama and the Repugs will buy Congress off with TAA. Of course, this goes against the GOP grain and it remains to be seen if Boehner and co will sign on. If not, TPP will be in real trouble. But I think it will pass with TAA as ass covering for the Dems.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As would the negotiators who have to deal with it. But parties have initial positions.

A fast conclusion isn't an objective people should be interested in if it compromises what's in that conclusion.

Prolonging negotiations in the goal of getting an ideal compromise means the status quo prevails until an agreement is reached. Using your logic, it is preferable to wait an additional 2 years for a very incremental improvement in a compromise.

You don't need some kind of "ideal compromise", they can come to whatever compromise they want. What I'm interested in openness and transparency in the process, throughout the process.

What is an example of something that would be embarrassing or dreadful to ask for which would be good to have in a trade agreement?

For example, the US asking for preferential treatment for US made Ford products. Or Canada asking for hockey pucks be transported for free in the USA. Or the US quickly dropping demands for observable progress towards sustainable palm tree harvesting.

Those are good examples of things I'd like to know as early as possible. Why are Ford products being given special treatment as opposed to US-made auto products in general? Did Ford pay someone to give them preferential access to the market which smaller US companies are not going to be able to take advantage of because of how the trade agreement is worded? If the US government is using the trade negotiations to give special consideration to one company which gives large political contributions that similar companies can't match, that's the kind of thing that needs to get nipped in the butt as early on as it can be. Maybe there's a very good, non-bribe-related rationale as to why Ford is mentioned specifically, but if that can't be spelled out, then this clause shouldn't make it into the second draft of the agreement or the clause should be changed to include all domestic autopart suppliers. This is much easier to change during the early negotiation process than when dealing with a complete and finalized deal with thousands of such clauses, many of which are dependent on other clauses being there.

Does the US have a domestic hockey puck manufacturing industry? If so, why are tariffs and other transportation-related costs being removed for competing foreign products? What concessions is Canada offering in order to get that clause and who benefits from those? If these things cannot be spelled out, the clause should be removed or modified and done early enough in the process that any such concessions which were dependent on the removal of these costs can then be tied to something else or removed themselves.

Why is the US dropping its demand for this observable process on the sustainable harvesting? Who profits from that and what political contributions have they made? If it had a reason for this demand in the first place, what's the newer reasons which invalidate the original reasons they wanted the progress? This one seems especially fishy to me and the rationales behind it need to be exposed to the light of day as early on as possible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you want fast track then we need transparency.

If you want opacity then we need congress to be able to amend things.

That should be a fair compromise.

The trend towards corporate trumping of sovereignty began in the '60's. Fast track came soon after.

Also disturbing is the misrepresentation. Objections to ISDS is brushed aside as talk of fearmongerers; what talk there is of jobs. So Obama and the Repugs will buy Congress off with TAA. Of course, this goes against the GOP grain and it remains to be seen if Boehner and co will sign on. If not, TPP will be in real trouble. But I think it will pass with TAA as ass covering for the Dems.

What jobs? The US has been bleeding jobs for a long while now. What can the rest of Asia take, that they already haven't?

 

[Horatio Parker]

The trend towards corporate trumping of sovereignty began in the '60's. Fast track came soon after.

Also disturbing is the misrepresentation. Objections to ISDS is brushed aside as talk of fearmongerers; what talk there is of jobs. So Obama and the Repugs will buy Congress off with TAA. Of course, this goes against the GOP grain and it remains to be seen if Boehner and co will sign on. If not, TPP will be in real trouble. But I think it will pass with TAA as ass covering for the Dems.

What jobs? The US has been bleeding jobs for a long while now. What can the rest of Asia take, that they already haven't?

I think you mean the jobs we gave them.

I don't think ISDS has traction with voters. But everyone remembers NAFTA and outsourcing. By allowing jobs to become the issue, ISDS and patents, the real issues, get a pass.

 

[Malintent]

My main concern is who's lobbying for what clauses and why. If they have a good reason, then fine, but if something's in there solely so that a political contributor can profit then I have an issue and I want to know about that issue.

I am with you on this point. I have stated before that I would like to see a NASCAR solution to this. That is, all public officials, and those seeking public office, shall be required to wear an official political jacket, adorned with the logo's of every corporation that contributed funds to the politician, sized relative to the percent of total contributions. This will allow voters to clearly identify what they are voting for.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My main concern is who's lobbying for what clauses and why. If they have a good reason, then fine, but if something's in there solely so that a political contributor can profit then I have an issue and I want to know about that issue.

I am with you on this point. I have stated before that I would like to see a NASCAR solution to this. That is, all public officials, and those seeking public office, shall be required to wear an official political jacket, adorned with the logo's of every corporation that contributed funds to the politician, sized relative to the percent of total contributions. This will allow voters to clearly identify what they are voting for.

The same should happen with the military. That way, when you "accidentally" blow up some kids at a wedding, the last thing they'll see will be a sign saying "This missile brought to you by Pepsi". Then they can think "Yum - Pepsi. I could go for one of those right now". Make their last thought something pleasant.

 

[Axulus]

The Democratic Tea Party
by David Brooks

Last week, the Congressional Democrats defeated the underpinnings of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Let’s count up the things these Democrats will have done if this policy stands.

Impoverish the world’s poor. There’s an argument over what trade agreements do to workers in the nation’s rich countries, but there is no question they have a positive impact on people in the poorer ones.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, probably didn’t affect the American economy too much. But the Mexican economy has taken off. With more opportunities, Mexican workers feel less need to sneak into the U.S. As Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, a regime that was anti-American has turned into one that is pro-American.

In Asia, the American-led open trade era has created the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. The Pacific trade deal would lift the living standards of the poorest Asians, especially the 90 million people of Vietnam.

As Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, wrote in his Marginal Revolution blog: “Do you get that progressives? Poorest country = biggest gainer. Isn’t that what we are looking for?”

Damage the American economy. According to a survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 83 percent of the nation’s leading economists believe that trade deals have been good for most Americans. That’s not quite the level of consensus on man-made global warming, but it is close.

That’s because free trade is not a zero-sum game. The global poor benefit the most, but most people in rich countries benefit, too. As Jason Furman, the chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors pointed out in a speech at the Brookings Institution, since World War II, reductions in U.S. tariffs have contributed an additional 7.3 percent to American incomes.

Trade treaties have led to significant growth in American manufacturing exports. According to Furman, export-intensive industries pay workers up to 18 percent more than nonexport-intensive ones. Rising imports also give American consumers access to a wider range of inexpensive products, leading to huge standard of living increases for those down the income scale. The authoritative study on the Pacific trade deal, by Peter Petri, Michael Plummer and Fan Zhai, suggests it would raise U.S. incomes by 0.4 percent per year by 2025.

Stifle future innovation. Democrats point out that some workers have been hurt by trade deals. And that’s true. Most manufacturing job losses have been caused by technological improvements.

But those manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. The best way forward is to increase the number of high-quality jobs in the service sector. The Pacific trade deal would help. The treaty is not mostly about reducing tariffs on goods. That work has mostly been done. It’s mostly about establishing rules for a postindustrial global economy, rules having to do with intellectual property, investment, antitrust and environmental protection. Service-sector industries like these are where America is strongest, where the opportunities for innovation are the most exciting and where wages are already 20 percent higher than in manufacturing.

Imperil world peace. The Pacific region will either be organized by American rules or Chinese rules. By voting against the trade deal, Democrats went a long way toward guaranteeing that Chinese rules will dominate.

As various people have noted, the Democratic vote last week was a miniversion of the effort to destroy the League of Nations after World War I. It damaged an institution that might head off future conflict.

The arguments Democrats use against the deal are small and inadequate. Some Democrats are suspicious because it was negotiated in secret. (They seem to have no trouble with the Iranian nuclear treaty, which is also negotiated in secret.)

Others worry that the treaty would allow corporations to sue governments. But these procedures are already in place, and as research from the Center for Strategic and Internatioanl Studies has demonstrated, the concerns are vastly overblown. They mostly protect companies from authoritarian governments who seek to expropriate their property.

In reality, the opposition to the trade pact is part of a long tradition of populist reaction. When economic stress rises, there is a strong temptation to pull inward. The Republican Tea Partiers are suspicious of all global diplomatic arrangements. The Democrats’ version of the Tea Partiers are suspicious of all global economic arrangements.

It would be nice if Hillary Clinton emerged and defended the treaty, which she helped organize.

Rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership will hurt economies from the U.S. to Japan to Vietnam. It will send yet another signal that America can no longer be counted on as the world’s leading nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/o...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Thanks Tea Party democrats. Under untermenche's Nuremberg principals, the resulting deaths from poverty and any conflicts that arise as a result of keeping Vietnam impoverished will be the result of these Tea Party Democrats and their support group. They'll have death and suffering on their hands.

 

[arkirk]

As usual, Axulus bring us the ravings of the madman David Brooks. He is talking about how Mexicans benefitted from NAFTA. I know some Mexicans whose families lost their ass because of NAFTA. This agreement would do NOTHING TO LESSEN THE PREDATORY RELATIONSHIPS OF CORPORATE AMERICA WITH THE DEVELOPING WORLD. Instruments that pretend to improve the world by vastly increasing trade with global transportation of products has no grasp on the nature of modern industry which is totally dependent on fossil fuels to do its cheating on working people world wide. TPP is not a free lunch and does nothing to deal with environmental or safety or labor issues except disenfranchise working people. It is a document to keep GE and Exxon in charge.

Vietnam is doing remarkably well for a nation that bombed back to the stone age by the U.S. in the 60's and early 70's. They are relating well to other countries in their area and in fact building a super highway between Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok. It appears they are doing better with new highways than we are. Our country is sinking of its own weight and the hubris that characterizes nations with empires. Our infrastructure needs work...not of chinese cooleys but of Americans with American materials. Trade should be reserved for things a country cannot do for itself. Establishing global transportation needs when such needs need not exist amounts to increasing our carbon footprint without a genuine justification.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Democratic Tea Party
by David Brooks

Last week, the Congressional Democrats defeated the underpinnings of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Let’s count up the things these Democrats will have done if this policy stands.

Impoverish the world’s poor. There’s an argument over what trade agreements do to workers in the nation’s rich countries, but there is no question they have a positive impact on people in the poorer ones.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, probably didn’t affect the American economy too much. But the Mexican economy has taken off. With more opportunities, Mexican workers feel less need to sneak into the U.S. As Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, a regime that was anti-American has turned into one that is pro-American.

In Asia, the American-led open trade era has created the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. The Pacific trade deal would lift the living standards of the poorest Asians, especially the 90 million people of Vietnam.

As Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, wrote in his Marginal Revolution blog: “Do you get that progressives? Poorest country = biggest gainer. Isn’t that what we are looking for?”

Damage the American economy. According to a survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 83 percent of the nation’s leading economists believe that trade deals have been good for most Americans. That’s not quite the level of consensus on man-made global warming, but it is close.

That’s because free trade is not a zero-sum game. The global poor benefit the most, but most people in rich countries benefit, too. As Jason Furman, the chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors pointed out in a speech at the Brookings Institution, since World War II, reductions in U.S. tariffs have contributed an additional 7.3 percent to American incomes.

Trade treaties have led to significant growth in American manufacturing exports. According to Furman, export-intensive industries pay workers up to 18 percent more than nonexport-intensive ones. Rising imports also give American consumers access to a wider range of inexpensive products, leading to huge standard of living increases for those down the income scale. The authoritative study on the Pacific trade deal, by Peter Petri, Michael Plummer and Fan Zhai, suggests it would raise U.S. incomes by 0.4 percent per year by 2025.

Stifle future innovation. Democrats point out that some workers have been hurt by trade deals. And that’s true. Most manufacturing job losses have been caused by technological improvements.

But those manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. The best way forward is to increase the number of high-quality jobs in the service sector. The Pacific trade deal would help. The treaty is not mostly about reducing tariffs on goods. That work has mostly been done. It’s mostly about establishing rules for a postindustrial global economy, rules having to do with intellectual property, investment, antitrust and environmental protection. Service-sector industries like these are where America is strongest, where the opportunities for innovation are the most exciting and where wages are already 20 percent higher than in manufacturing.

Imperil world peace. The Pacific region will either be organized by American rules or Chinese rules. By voting against the trade deal, Democrats went a long way toward guaranteeing that Chinese rules will dominate.

As various people have noted, the Democratic vote last week was a miniversion of the effort to destroy the League of Nations after World War I. It damaged an institution that might head off future conflict.

The arguments Democrats use against the deal are small and inadequate. Some Democrats are suspicious because it was negotiated in secret. (They seem to have no trouble with the Iranian nuclear treaty, which is also negotiated in secret.)

Others worry that the treaty would allow corporations to sue governments. But these procedures are already in place, and as research from the Center for Strategic and Internatioanl Studies has demonstrated, the concerns are vastly overblown. They mostly protect companies from authoritarian governments who seek to expropriate their property.

In reality, the opposition to the trade pact is part of a long tradition of populist reaction. When economic stress rises, there is a strong temptation to pull inward. The Republican Tea Partiers are suspicious of all global diplomatic arrangements. The Democrats’ version of the Tea Partiers are suspicious of all global economic arrangements.

It would be nice if Hillary Clinton emerged and defended the treaty, which she helped organize.

Rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership will hurt economies from the U.S. to Japan to Vietnam. It will send yet another signal that America can no longer be counted on as the world’s leading nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/o...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Thanks Tea Party democrats. Under untermenche's Nuremberg principals, the resulting deaths from poverty and any conflicts that arise as a result of keeping Vietnam impoverished will be the result of these Tea Party Democrats and their support group. They'll have death and suffering on their hands.

Democrat Tea Party? Try Moore-Coulter. Jebus!

 

[laughing dog]

You don't need some kind of "ideal compromise", they can come to whatever compromise they want. What I'm interested in openness and transparency in the process, throughout the process.

As I have pointed out, that usually retards the process and can lead to even less desirable agreements. How they come to the proposal is less important than the actual contents of the proposal.

Those are good examples of things I'd like to know as early as possible. Why are Ford products being given special treatment as opposed to US-made auto products in general? Did Ford pay someone to give them preferential access to the market which smaller US companies are not going to be able to take advantage of because of how the trade agreement is worded? If the US government is using the trade negotiations to give special consideration to one company which gives large political contributions that similar companies can't match, that's the kind of thing that needs to get nipped in the butt as early on as it can be. Maybe there's a very good, non-bribe-related rationale as to why Ford is mentioned specifically, but if that can't be spelled out, then this clause shouldn't make it into the second draft of the agreement or the clause should be changed to include all domestic autopart suppliers. This is much easier to change during the early negotiation process than when dealing with a complete and finalized deal with thousands of such clauses, many of which are dependent on other clauses being there.

Does the US have a domestic hockey puck manufacturing industry? If so, why are tariffs and other transportation-related costs being removed for competing foreign products? What concessions is Canada offering in order to get that clause and who benefits from those? If these things cannot be spelled out, the clause should be removed or modified and done early enough in the process that any such concessions which were dependent on the removal of these costs can then be tied to something else or removed themselves.

Why is the US dropping its demand for this observable process on the sustainable harvesting? Who profits from that and what political contributions have they made? If it had a reason for this demand in the first place, what's the newer reasons which invalidate the original reasons they wanted the progress? This one seems especially fishy to me and the rationales behind it need to be exposed to the light of day as early on as possible.

Sounds to me like you think you should be one of the negotiators. But everyone cannot be in those groups. At some point, you have to live with the outcome that others produce.

 

[laughing dog]

Rejection of the TTP proposal by Congress by Democrats indicates a rather troublesome mixture of economic ignorance and poor strategic thinking. Trade that is based on comparative advantages improves the overall welfare of the involved countries. But it may be the case that the benefits and the costs are poorly distributed among the citizenry. I don't understand why the Democrats did not try to hold the TTP hostage for some other legislation that would have spread the benefits and the costs in manner which they would approve.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is the deal. Is hatred of free-trade deals trying to hold onto the past? Aren't we well beyond the days of national centrism? The economy is global. To pretend it isn't is ridiculous and the time to try to get the biggest piece of pie is now, not later.

Written by someone who has never negotiated a deal among competing interests.

Or apparently has cable or sat television (i.e. sat cable company agreements with channel providers). Lots of deals are secret.

The problem is not free trade. I'm for free trade. The problem is evil masquerading as free trade.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A must read article supplying some perspective on trade agreements and sovereignty.

Fifty years ago, an international legal system was created to protect the rights of foreign investors. Today, as companies win billions in damages, insiders say it has got dangerously out of control
[...]
A small number of countries are now attempting to extricate themselves from the bonds of the investor-state dispute system. One of these is Bolivia, where thousands of people took to the streets of the country’s third-largest city, Cochabamba, in 2000, to protest against a dramatic hike in water rates by a private company owned by Bechtel, the US civil engineering firm. During the demonstrations, the Bolivian government stepped in and terminated the company’s concession. The company then filed a $50m suit against Bolivia at the ICSID. In 2006, following a campaign calling for the case to be thrown out, the company agreed to accept a token payment of less than $1.

After this expensive case, Bolivia cancelled the international agreements it had signed with other states giving their investors access to these tribunals. But getting out of this system is not easily done. Most of these international agreements have sunset clauses, under which their provisions remain in force for a further 10 or even 20 years, even if the treaties themselves are cancelled.

Sorry, but this is a bad example of the problem. This dispute arose from the government wanting the company to subsidize water prices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As usual, Axulus bring us the ravings of the madman David Brooks. He is talking about how Mexicans benefitted from NAFTA. I know some Mexicans whose families lost their ass because of NAFTA.

Of course--some people will lose their ass when things change. That does not prove that the change was a bad thing.

 

[arkirk]

As usual, Axulus bring us the ravings of the madman David Brooks. He is talking about how Mexicans benefitted from NAFTA. I know some Mexicans whose families lost their ass because of NAFTA.

Of course--some people will lose their ass when things change. That does not prove that the change was a bad thing.

If you raise hogs or corn in mexico, you find yourself out of business...Irretrievably out of business. It is should not be your or your government's place to dictate to foreign countries what businesses they can run...what crops they can grow etc. etc. We need to cope with climate change. It appears to me sustainability is NOT COMPATIBLE WITH PREDATORY CAPITALISM. It is a major problem because the predators have all the capital and they are using their capital advantage to fight the inevitable so stupidly, it scares me. The Kochs are spending billions to keep stuff out of the hands of the "collective." So it looks like their declared enemy is ALL OF US. The truth is that we should not be burning fossil fuel we do not need to burn. Dictation by big corporations that we have extensive unnecessary trade will also demand energy consumption that is unnecessary and dangerous to the future of the human race (another word for the "collective.")

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course--some people will lose their ass when things change. That does not prove that the change was a bad thing.

If you raise hogs or corn in mexico, you find yourself out of business...Irretrievably out of business. It is should not be your or your government's place to dictate to foreign countries what businesses they can run...what crops they can grow etc. etc. We need to cope with climate change. It appears to me sustainability is NOT COMPATIBLE WITH PREDATORY CAPITALISM. It is a major problem because the predators have all the capital and they are using their capital advantage to fight the inevitable so stupidly, it scares me. The Kochs are spending billions to keep stuff out of the hands of the "collective." So it looks like their declared enemy is ALL OF US. The truth is that we should not be burning fossil fuel we do not need to burn. Dictation by big corporations that we have extensive unnecessary trade will also demand energy consumption that is unnecessary and dangerous to the future of the human race (another word for the "collective.")

I see no rebuttal, just a luddite.