General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe TPP: Toward Absolutist Capitalism
Good read on TPP. An informed & thoughtful analysis IMHO.
The TPP: Toward Absolutist Capitalism
Saturday, 25 April 2015 * By Lambert Strether * Naked Capitalism via TruthOut
There are many excellent arguments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), two of which local zoning over-rides, and loss of national sovereignty Ill briefly review as stepping stones to the main topic of the post: Absolutist Capitalism, for which I make two claims:
1) The TPP implies a form of absolute rule, a tyranny as James Madison would have understood the term, and
2) The TPP enshrines capitalization as a principle of jurisprudence.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30368-the-tpp-toward-absolutist-capitalism
IDemo
(16,926 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Probably he's soft on Greenwald, et. al.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The corporation selects one; the state selects one; and then one is selected by mutual agreement. And, they are not necessarily lawyers, could be college professors or others knowledgeable of the issues.
Sure, the parties to a suit have lawyers to make their case, just like any criminal or civil case in this country.
As I understand it, Obama and his government negotiators have gone for improvements that include limiting frivolous law suits, more precise definitions of what types of cases can subject to tribunals, etc.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)It's still a turd.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)We have three bodies bodies of government and all three seem to be corrupted by the flood of unlimited $$$ funding our election process. So what could possible go wrong with armed to the teeth with unlimited cash corporations involved in an arbitrating process?
Besides why would anyone want some foriegn corporation trying to undermine laws and regulations their community agreed upon.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and the jobs that come with it. They are not likely to come if their investment can be expropriated.
How many jobs here are from foreign companies? A load of them if you don't know.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)But they are not going to. The politicians are in the pockets of the corporations. So they are going to pick corporate lawyers and say see we are infinitely fair and just. While all the time the citizens get screwed.
If it is so wonderful let us read it now. Don't give us a 60 day countdown to read and analyse over 15,000 pages of legalese and lobbyist lawyer gobbledygook. And if Obama is so into improving "free" trade treaties then why did he allow the trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to go off without the fixes he claims he's putting in this one?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Do you even think before posting this junk?
Do they still have the Evelyn Wood speed reading courses? Take one if you really think it's going to be 15000 pages.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Based on what metrics was the South Korean agreement a good one?
Good for who? Who has benefitted, and who has lost ground?
If you confidently state that it's good, you surely have some things to point to to justify this strong opinion. I'd love to be properly informed.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)trade between allies.
The agreement has just gone into effect, these things take years to produce results.
Those who work for manufacturing, engineering, construction, other services, weapons (sadly) etc., companies will benefit.
Glad to have South Korea as one of our friends, and trading partner.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Strongly increasing trade deficit balance with South Korea from 2012 to 2013 to 2014 to 2015 (looks like we're off to another huge increase in our trade deficit with Korea for 2015).
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5800.html
Imports have strongly increased from '12 to '13 to '14 to '15.
Exports have not.
Why did we do this again? That's not what was promised.
Your rationale sounds good, but I prefer to look at what's happened and see if what was promised would happen is what we got. Unfortunately, it isn't.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)deficit are good or bad:
Take this view of the good (you can look at the article to get the bad view, because I'm sure that's all you really want to see to continue trashing trade agreements):
". . . . . .Economists who consider trade deficits good associate them with positive economic developments, specifically, higher levels of income, consumer confidence, and investment. They argue that trade deficits enable the United States to import capital to finance investment in productive capacity. Far from hurting employment, they believe that trade deficits financed by foreign investment in the United States help to boost U.S. employment.
Some economists see trade deficits as mere expressions of consumer preferences and as immaterial. These economists typically equate economic well being with rising consumption. If consumers want imported food, clothing, and cars, why shouldn't they buy them? That range of choices is part of a successful economy.
Perhaps the best view of trade deficits is the balanced view. If a trade deficit represents borrowing to finance current consumption rather than long-term investment, or results from inflationary pressure, or erodes U.S. employment, then it's bad. If a trade deficit fosters borrowing to finance long-term investment or reflects rising incomes, confidence, and investmentand doesn't hurt employmentthen it's good. If a trade deficit merely expresses consumer preferences rather than these phenomena, it is immaterial."
Read more: International Finance: Trade Deficits: Bad or Good? http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/trade-deficits-bad-good.html#ixzz3YRT42haY
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)it should clearly indicate that the U.S.'s trade deficit is bad. Our trade deficit does not reflect rising incomes and it has hurt employment (good jobs gone; service jobs created). Also our borrowing does finance our current consumption. That's bad according to the info. you posted.
All I know is that we are told over and over again that these free trade agreements will help us export more to these countries (that's false), and that we will get lots of new jobs (any new jobs we've been getting over the past few decades have NOT been good ones; we've lost those through these trade agreements). That's the B.S. that keeps getting repeated over and over though, and there's no truth to it.
I have seen you on numerous occasions here state that you realize that these trade agreements will result in the loss of jobs for U.S. citizens, but that it creates good jobs in other countries (which supposedly raises them out of poverty). You've touted that as a good thing, and I believe you've even stated that you don't understand why liberals would be against this series of events. You certainly seem to not care too much about the worsening plight of the American middle class, working class, and poor as you are so cavalier about this happening.
Although I do give you credit that you at least state that you believe some jobs will be going to other lower labor countries. Most of your compatriots on this issue don't even acknowledge that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Some jobs may go, but other jobs will open up.
Anyone today who thinks they will be working in the same industry all their life is living a pipe dream. That's why education is so important. The world is changing rapidly, and either folks better prepare for it, or we better prepare for how we will take care of those who don't change. To me, that latter means we better be making a lot of money somehow and taxing it heavily enough to take care of those unable or unwilling to change.
cali
(114,904 posts)The deal. We haven't gained jobs do it as the President promised. We've lost jobs. Our trade deficit has ballooned.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The assume a trade deficit represents lost jobs, and use that to calculate lost jobs.
As the article above demonstrates, lots of economists disagree. Plus, a trade deficit with Korea, does not mean the overall trade deficit increased. If we weren't trading with Korea, it is likely many of the products would have been purchased from China or Japan, etc.
But, heck, why ruin a good Obama is selling us into slavery rant.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Only if you are in favor of shipping 60,000 American jobs overseas,
and INCREASING the Trade Deficit.
Yeah. The South Korean Trade Deal was a "good" one.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)I think he meant he was against citizens, united.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)Multinational corporations have designed the TPP specifically FOR litigation to extract profits from puny, whining nation-states that want a clean environment and their citizens not exploited. The whole "free trade" jargon is pure propaganda. The objective is not the fair exchange of goods and services. The objective is to enslave the entire planet to the illusion of "profit".
And so begins the death-knell phase of Capitalist ideology. It's starting to eat itself.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)All the benefits of colonialism, without the capital requirements.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"The intent of this agreement is to screw Octafish, Hoyt, and every other DUer. Obama and our overlords are selling us into slavery."
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)This is a prominent case in Peru where investor-state treaties have provided an avenue for companies to delay or reverse agreements which had been enforceable in courts: Peruvians may now be on the hook for an $800 million payout to Renco even though Peruvian children are the ones dying.
It's despicable and a foreshadowing of what lies ahead globally instead of just our usual fucking up South and Central America.
In December 2010, Renco sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack, alleging that Perus failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a violation of the firms FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration.
Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen, the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad enough, but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism.
Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroyas children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investor-state case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state courts remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case...
read more: http://www.citizen.org/documents/fact-sheet-tpp-and-environment.pdf
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hasn't gotten far.
http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1396.pdf
You also left off that the US courts are allowing the US suit to go forward, so Renco will pay for hurting children.
http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/peruvian-childrens-toxic-exposure-suit-to-proceed/
99Forever
(14,524 posts)moondust
(20,017 posts)is soooo much better than global communist hegemony doncha know.