Trans-Pacific Partnership (all things TPP) - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Trans-Pacific Partnership (all things TPP)

...

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

02-04-2015 , 10:56 PM

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

I'm no fan. Tribunals where where foreign corporations can sue us if we institute regulations that stand in the way of their profits. WTF?

Quote:

Under previous presidential administrations, the United States signed a number of free trade agreements (FTAs) that grant foreign corporations extraordinary rights and protections beyond the rights of domestic companies. A little-known FTA mechanism called “investor-state” enforcement allows foreign firms to skirt domestic court systems and directly sue governments for cash damages (our tax dollars) over alleged violations of their new rights before UN and World Bank tribunals staffed by private sector attorneys who rotate between serving as "judges" and bringing cases for corporations. Using this extreme system, corporations have sued the U.S. government in foreign trade tribunals for enacting laws or regulations that “interfered” with the corporations’ expected profits. This “interference” has included essential environmental regulations, health laws, and domestic court decisions. These cases are not just threats to domestic U.S. policies. U.S. corporations have also used FTAs to attack public interest laws abroad.

Quote:

If a corporation wins its private enforcement case, the taxpayers of the “losing” country must foot the bill. More than $430 million in compensation has already been paid out to corporations in a series of investor-state cases under U.S. FTAs. Of the $38 billion in the 19 pending claims under U.S. FTAs, nearly all relate to environmental, energy, public health, land use and transportation policies – not traditional trade issues.

http://www.citizen.org/TPP-investment-map

America's Senator sure doesn't think it's a good idea.

Quote:

1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. ·∙ Service Sector Jobs will be lost. At a time when corporations have already outsourced over 3 million service sector jobs in the U.S., TPP includes rules that will make it even easier for corporate America to outsource call centers; computer programming; engineering; accounting; and medical diagnostic jobs.

Manufacturing jobs will be lost. As a result of NAFTA, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 jobs. As a result of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. lost over 2.7 million jobs. As a result of the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost 70,000 jobs. The TPP would make matters worse by providing special benefits to firms that offshore jobs and by reducing the risks associated with operating in low-wage countries.

2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.

The TPP creates a special dispute resolution process that allows corporations to challenge any domestic laws that could adversely impact their “expected future profits.” These challenges would be hea rd before UN and World Bank tribunals which could require taxpayer compensation to corporations. This process undermines our sovereignty and subverts democratically passed laws including those dealing with labor, health, and the environment.

3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.

NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and other free trade agreements have helped drive down the wages and benefits of American workers and have eroded collective bargaining rights. The TPP will make the race to the bottom worse because it forces American workers to compete with desperate workers in Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour .

4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.

The TPP will allow corporations to challenge any law that would adversely impact their future profits. Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filed based on similar language in other trade agreements. Most of these claims deal with challenges to environmental laws in a number of countries. The TPP will make matters even worse by giving corporations the right to sue any of the nations that sign onto the TPP. These lawsuits would be heard in international tribunals bypassing domestic courts.

5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.

The TPP would make it easier for countries like Vietnam to export contaminated fish and seafood into the U.S. The FDA has already prevented hundreds of seafood imports from TPP countries because of salmonella, e-coli, methyl-mercury and drug residues. But the FDA only inspects 1-2 percent of food imports and will be overwhelmed by the vast expansion of these imports if the TPP is agreed to.

6. Buy America laws could come to an end.

The U.S. has several laws on the books that require the federal government to buy goods and services that are made in America or mostly made in this country. Under TPP, foreign corporations must be given equal access to compete for these government contracts with companies that make products in America.

Under TPP, the U.S. could not even prevent companies that have horrible human rights records from receiving government contracts paid by U.S. taxpayers.

7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.

Big pharmaceutical companies are working hard to ensure that the TPP extends the monopolies they have for prescription drugs by extending their patents (which currently can last 20 yea rs or more). This would expand the profits of big drug companies, keep drug prices artificially high, and leave millions of people around the world without access to life saving drugs. Doctors without Borders stated that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.”

8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Under TPP, governments would be barred from imposing “capital controls” that have been successfully used to avoid financial crises. These controls range from establishing a financial speculation tax to limiting the massive flows of speculative capital flowing into and out of countries responsible for the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. In other words, the TPP would expand the rights and power of the same Wall Street firms that nearly destroyed the world economy just five years ago and would create the conditions for more financial instability in the future. Last year, I co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Harkin to create a Wall Street speculation tax of just 0.03 percent on trades of derivatives, credit default swaps, and large amounts of stock. If TPP were enacted, such a financial speculation tax may be in violation of this trade agreement.

9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.

The State Department, the U.S. Department of Labor, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have all documented Vietnam’s widespread violations of basic international standards for human rights. Yet, the TPP would reward Vietnam’s bad behavior by giving it duty free access to the U.S. market.

10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

Once TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset date and could only be altered by a consensus of all of the countries that agreed to it.

Other countries, like China, could be allowed to join in the future. For example, Canada and Mexico joined TPP negotiations in 2012 and Japan joined last year.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...st-be-defeated

Everything i hear about this (and it's not much considering they've been so secretive) leads me to think it's another ****ing disaster.

There isn't a thin line between 'protectionism' and complete and utter insanity (which is where passing this monstrosity would leave us).

Who could support this? If it was so great, why won't they let us know what's in it? And why do they keep trying to push for 'fast track'?

02-04-2015 , 11:06 PM

fatkid

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 8,860

Anyone know when the next Portlandia episode comes out? That's a good show.

02-04-2015 , 11:09 PM

Anacardo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 20,543

PTU,

I haven't heard much about this in a while, but I kinda-sorta seem to recall that this thing doesn't have much of a shot of actually going through because the Asian potential signatories are increasingly less interested in committing, in the increasingly ****-Washington climate of world opinion. Are you wise to anything like that?

02-04-2015 , 11:10 PM

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatkid

Anyone know when the nex Portlandia episode comes out? That's a good show.

no hippy, no ****, straight 'Murican'.

02-04-2015 , 11:16 PM

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anacardo

no clue on that.

i actually though obama was happy the democrats got ran off. they were the only ones standing in the way of the TPP.

absolute lock it happens in this congress.

maybe if millions told their congressman they'd make it their lives mission to fire them if they sell us out with this thing, then took to the streets of Washington in protest. but that ain't happening.

02-04-2015 , 11:17 PM

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatkid

Anyone know when the next Portlandia episode comes out? That's a good show.

you like shrimp that's not up to our standards?

02-04-2015 , 11:40 PM

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,198

I have no idea what this thread is about. I don't read walls o' quote without a compelling introduction.

Have our nation's universities stopped teaching basic composition?

02-04-2015 , 11:46 PM

Anacardo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 20,543

cliffs: OMG WTF IT'S THE CORPORATE STATE

02-04-2015 , 11:59 PM

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

I have no idea what this thread is about. I don't read walls o' quote without a compelling introduction.

Have our nation's universities stopped teaching basic composition?

huh??

this thread is about the trans-pacific partnership.

i didn't attend your fancy college. i'm a just a person from a disadvantaged background with an above average IQ looking to discuss policy issues with people who might be smarter than me.

you know where i stand. i make my position clear in the OP. where do you stand?

02-05-2015 , 12:06 AM

#10

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,198

I have no idea where I stand because explaining wtf a trans-pacific partnership is wasn't your lede.

02-05-2015 , 12:08 AM

#11

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

ok, well read that wall o'quote and you'll have a better understanding of it.

02-05-2015 , 12:10 AM

#12

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,198

No. I need to be spoon fed.

02-05-2015 , 12:12 AM

#13

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

anacardo,

the last i heard about it was when obama was talking about how we need to help the middle class in one breath and touting the benefits of fast track in the next during the SOTU.

it's coming...stone lock...

02-05-2015 , 12:15 AM

#14

Forfeiture

banned

Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 2,070

International trade agreements normally involve assessing the degree of harm from domestic job loss against the concomitant prospective increase in the overall world economy. Saying trade agreements result in x-thousands of lost jobs without mentioning that companies may be able to produce better goods (through increased capital infusions) at cheaper cost is disingenuous.

Of course, in some cases (maybe many) the gains to the larger public from trade agreements may not outweigh the harsh job losses and job displacement of entire industries where workers either cannot find immediate work given their present skills or require significant re-training and/or education to become employable.

02-05-2015 , 01:26 AM

#15

fatkid

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 8,860

02-05-2015 , 01:45 AM

#16

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forfeiture

International trade agreements normally involve assessing the degree of harm from domestic job loss against the concomitant prospective increase in the overall world economy. Saying trade agreements result in x-thousands of lost jobs without mentioning that companies may be able to produce better goods (through increased capital infusions) at cheaper cost is disingenuous.

Of course, in some cases (maybe many) the gains to the larger public from trade agreements may not outweigh the harsh job losses and job displacement of entire industries where workers either cannot find immediate work given their present skills or require significant re-training and/or education to become employable.

i'm more concerned for middle class americans and our countries sovereignty. but this agreement isn't really about either (the world economy or us) it's about empowering multi-national corporations.

02-05-2015 , 02:28 PM

#17

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

Reich has the right take on this.

Quote:

At a time when corporate profits are at record highs and the real median wage is lower than it’s been in four decades, most Americans need protection – not from international trade but from the political power of large corporations and Wall Street.

http://robertreich.org/post/107257859130

02-05-2015 , 02:33 PM

#18

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

PoundingTheUnder, you call anyone else a n***er lately because they angered you and you wanted to upset them back?

02-05-2015 , 02:34 PM

#19

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

don't follow.

02-05-2015 , 02:34 PM

#20

Anacardo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 20,543

Well, that hardly seems topical.

02-05-2015 , 03:06 PM

#21

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoundingTheUnder

don't follow.

You know, when you were posting under LedOut, one of your previously banned accounts?

02-05-2015 , 03:11 PM

#22

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

adios accused me of being that person.

the mod checked out the allegations and I've been cleared (it's in the bad posters thread).

i'm sure there are two people who think that the TPP is terrible policy.

02-05-2015 , 03:12 PM

#23

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

The mods checked if you were someone else.

Good to know you aren't LedOut though as it means if Elizabeth Warren becomes president you for sure wont be asking me for thousands of dollars.