Loki Loc: Georgia

The public debate over the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership has been a lot more robust and educational than the one that preceded the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement more than two decades ago. During that fight, then-Washington Post editorial page editor Meg Greenfield didn’t see a problem with a six-to-one ratio of space for pro- vs. anti-NAFTA editorials. “On this rare occasion when columnists of the left, right, and middle are all in agreement ... I don't believe it is right to create an artificial balance where none exists.”

Today there are more economists in the news debunking the arguments put forth to promote the TPP, and this has contributed to the collapse of some of these talking points.

This week, economists Dean Baker and Paul Krugman warn that people should be suspicious of any agreement that leads its proponents to lie and distort so much in order to sell it. They called attention to President Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff William M. Daley, who made the ridiculous claim in a New York Times op-ed that it is “because our products face very high barriers to entry overseas in the form of tariffs, quotas and outright discrimination” that the U.S. ranks 39th of the 40 largest economies in exports as a share of GDP. As Baker and Krugman pointed out, it is actually because the U.S. is a very large economy, and therefore the domestic market is sufficient for many U.S. companies.

This is just one of the many arguments in TPP’s favor that cannot pass the smell test. Take the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which enables businesses to sue governments and can force them to overrule their laws, even the decisions of their highest courts, or pay hefty fines. Proponents’ alleged rationale for including this provision is to protect foreign investors in countries where the rule of law is weak. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate economist like Krugman, pointedly asks why it is included in the proposed trade agreement with Europe (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). Let me offer you a hint: It’s not because Germany and France are likely to expropriate factories owned by foreign investors, or that their judicial systems are weak on investors’ rights.

Public interest groups that care about the little things in life — you know, the environment, public health and safety, financial regulation — have railed against this corporate power grab. Not to worry, says the White House: The U.S. is party to dozens of agreements that contain ISDS, and there have been only 13 judgements against the U.S. over the past three decades.

‘If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules,’ President Obama warns. Who does ‘we’ refer to? The corporate and industry association representatives with access to the negotiated text of the TPP?
Now comes economist Jeffrey Sachs, who has long been a supporter of expanding international trade, with some inconvenient facts: “In 1995, only a handful of ISDS cases had been filed; as of the end of 2014, there had been more than 600 known claims (because most arbitration can be conducted in secrecy, there may have been many more claims).” So, the past is no guide to the future damage that these pro-corporate tribunals may bring. Another TPP defense flunks the smell test.

Economists have helped at least the more open-minded among journalists to discover a few things that in prior years got lost in all the ideology and hand-waving about “free trade.” For example, that the TPP is not mostly about trade, and even less about free trade, but about establishing a set of rules that benefit large corporations: Consumer losses to powerful protectionists buoyed by TPP such as big pharmaceutical companies can easily wipe out the miniscule gains from trade — and yes, they are miniscule. The impact of trade liberalization on wage inequality can also negate any gains from trade for most employees.

On the defensive much more than Bill Clinton was, President Obama attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren for suggesting that the TPP could be used to undercut financial regulatory measures approved in the wake of the Great Recession. Just four days later, Canada’s Minister of Finance Joe Oliver said at a securities conference in New York that the Volcker rule, a key provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, violates NAFTA.

Having lost all the economic and public-interest arguments, TPP proponents have resorted to one last-ditch argument. “If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules,” President Obama warns, only to be parroted by any number of “patriotic” pundits and politicians.

The key word here, of course, is “we.” Does “we” refer to the corporate and industry association representatives that are 90 percent of the official trade advisers with access to the negotiated text of the TPP? If so, it’s not so clear that we the people should be so worried about China. Should we the people care if China expands its influence in Asia, which is pretty much inevitable because its economy is already bigger than that of the U.S., is growing several times faster, and happens to be located in that part of the world? Are we the people going to be worse off if Chinese companies increase their access to cheap labor in Vietnam or Bangladesh faster than U.S. corporations do?

Another smell test: Why is it that the Obama administration is expected to give up on the TPP if it can’t get what it needs from Congress before the presidential race heats up? Because many and perhaps most Americans have probably never heard of the TPP, but many will if it becomes an issue in the presidential race. This admission that public awareness is deadly to the TPP is not very flattering to the proposed agreement — which, by the way, we aren’t even allowed to see.

Unfortunately there is one thing that hasn’t gotten better since Bill Clinton’s fight for NAFTA 20 years ago: vote-buying in Congress. In 1993 this took the form of not only campaign contributions but also billions of federal dollars the Clinton administration steered to the districts of members of Congress whose votes they needed. Today, the Senate has already been bought; now we will see whether the grassroots lobbying of public interest groups and ordinary citizens can win in the Congress what it has won in the public debate.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the forthcoming book "Failed: What the 'Experts' Got Wrong about the Global Economy."




The public debate over the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership has been a lot more robust and educational than the one that preceded the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement more than two decades ago. During that fight, then-Washington Post editorial page editor Meg Greenfield didn’t see a problem with a six-to-one ratio of space for pro- vs. anti-NAFTA editorials. “On this rare occasion when columnists of the left, right, and middle are all in agreement ... I don't believe it is right to create an artificial balance where none exists.”

Today there are more economists in the news debunking the arguments put forth to promote the TPP, and this has contributed to the collapse of some of these talking points.

This week, economists Dean Baker and Paul Krugman warn that people should be suspicious of any agreement that leads its proponents to lie and distort so much in order to sell it. They called attention to President Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff William M. Daley, who made the ridiculous claim in a New York Times op-ed that it is “because our products face very high barriers to entry overseas in the form of tariffs, quotas and outright discrimination” that the U.S. ranks 39th of the 40 largest economies in exports as a share of GDP. As Baker and Krugman pointed out, it is actually because the U.S. is a very large economy, and therefore the domestic market is sufficient for many U.S. companies.

This is just one of the many arguments in TPP’s favor that cannot pass the smell test. Take the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which enables businesses to sue governments and can force them to overrule their laws, even the decisions of their highest courts, or pay hefty fines. Proponents’ alleged rationale for including this provision is to protect foreign investors in countries where the rule of law is weak. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate economist like Krugman, pointedly asks why it is included in the proposed trade agreement with Europe (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). Let me offer you a hint: It’s not because Germany and France are likely to expropriate factories owned by foreign investors, or that their judicial systems are weak on investors’ rights.

Public interest groups that care about the little things in life — you know, the environment, public health and safety, financial regulation — have railed against this corporate power grab. Not to worry, says the White House: The U.S. is party to dozens of agreements that contain ISDS, and there have been only 13 judgements against the U.S. over the past three decades.

‘If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules,’ President Obama warns. Who does ‘we’ refer to? The corporate and industry association representatives with access to the negotiated text of the TPP?
Now comes economist Jeffrey Sachs, who has long been a supporter of expanding international trade, with some inconvenient facts: “In 1995, only a handful of ISDS cases had been filed; as of the end of 2014, there had been more than 600 known claims (because most arbitration can be conducted in secrecy, there may have been many more claims).” So, the past is no guide to the future damage that these pro-corporate tribunals may bring. Another TPP defense flunks the smell test.

Economists have helped at least the more open-minded among journalists to discover a few things that in prior years got lost in all the ideology and hand-waving about “free trade.” For example, that the TPP is not mostly about trade, and even less about free trade, but about establishing a set of rules that benefit large corporations: Consumer losses to powerful protectionists buoyed by TPP such as big pharmaceutical companies can easily wipe out the miniscule gains from trade — and yes, they are miniscule. The impact of trade liberalization on wage inequality can also negate any gains from trade for most employees.

On the defensive much more than Bill Clinton was, President Obama attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren for suggesting that the TPP could be used to undercut financial regulatory measures approved in the wake of the Great Recession. Just four days later, Canada’s Minister of Finance Joe Oliver said at a securities conference in New York that the Volcker rule, a key provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, violates NAFTA.

Having lost all the economic and public-interest arguments, TPP proponents have resorted to one last-ditch argument. “If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules,” President Obama warns, only to be parroted by any number of “patriotic” pundits and politicians.

The key word here, of course, is “we.” Does “we” refer to the corporate and industry association representatives that are 90 percent of the official trade advisers with access to the negotiated text of the TPP? If so, it’s not so clear that we the people should be so worried about China. Should we the people care if China expands its influence in Asia, which is pretty much inevitable because its economy is already bigger than that of the U.S., is growing several times faster, and happens to be located in that part of the world? Are we the people going to be worse off if Chinese companies increase their access to cheap labor in Vietnam or Bangladesh faster than U.S. corporations do?

Another smell test: Why is it that the Obama administration is expected to give up on the TPP if it can’t get what it needs from Congress before the presidential race heats up? Because many and perhaps most Americans have probably never heard of the TPP, but many will if it becomes an issue in the presidential race. This admission that public awareness is deadly to the TPP is not very flattering to the proposed agreement — which, by the way, we aren’t even allowed to see.

Unfortunately there is one thing that hasn’t gotten better since Bill Clinton’s fight for NAFTA 20 years ago: vote-buying in Congress. In 1993 this took the form of not only campaign contributions but also billions of federal dollars the Clinton administration steered to the districts of members of Congress whose votes they needed. Today, the Senate has already been bought; now we will see whether the grassroots lobbying of public interest groups and ordinary citizens can win in the Congress what it has won in the public debate.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the forthcoming book "Failed: What the 'Experts' Got Wrong about the Global Economy."=]]]

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

Imagine that. We are not allowed to see this proposal in print. That's not because it's over our heads. It's because the majority of citizens would vote it down and the world wide players who are robbing our future could not explain away the inequities in store for the American people written within it.

Smacks of the same baloney as obama care. Wealth redistribution.

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

Bingo! US companies have no intention of coming back to american soil, and the rest of them can not wait to move overseas. Human Rights, and a Living Wage shrink the bottom line of Big Business.
This is the very best chance Big Business has to really turn large profits.
They are not doing this for the average worker.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

TPP really stands for "Total Poo Poo".

Loki Loc: Georgia

A brief article by Dick Morris about the TPP:



The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has nothing to do with trade.

While it officially embraces 11 countries plus the U.S., 76 percent of our trade with these nations is with Mexico and Canada, already covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Any export growth is likely to have been already covered by NAFTA, making the TPP irrelevant to our trade relations.

The TPP is nothing but an effort by the globalists to circumvent American sovereignty, transferring a host of issues from the control of the U.S. Congress and the various state legislatures to international trade courts.

Start with the fact that nobody knows what is in the TPP. President Obama will not let anyone see it. Indeed, many of the provisions are said to be aspirational, setting policy goals and leaving it to the trade courts to sort out. Any assurance that the treaty curbs currency manipulation is fanciful. The courts can interpret it any way they want. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund now does so, preventing any effort to restrict Chinese manipulation, despite overwhelming evidence that it is happening.

But the main impact of the TPP is to create legal obstacles in the way of American attempts to regulate access to our market.

Does American or state law restrict genetically modified food? The TPP won't permit it.

Does the U.S. Congress impose limitations on the "free flow of labor" between America and Mexico? The TPP can stop it.

Will Congress refuse to take action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions? Lawmakers can be required to under the environmental provisions of the TPP.

Obama has labored long and hard to strip Congress of its authority over immigration, emissions and the environment, food regulations and energy policy. Congress, in turn, has worked to take away state power over insurance regulation and banking. Now comes the coup de grâce: a treaty taking many of these powers away from the United States -- executive and legislative branches -- and state government.

The long-term goal of the globalists is an international rule of law unaccompanied by democracy. Because there is no global forum for the manifestation of worldwide popular will, this formula leads to rule by bureaucrats: those who know best. It is government by a new aristocracy of civil servants and technicians.

Why are they so eager to pre-empt the power of elected bodies? Steeped in the traditions of opposition to democracy, they regard the will of the people as unpredictable and subject to demagoguery. The French and the British have always used their civil service to insulate their countries from the ravages of ambitious populist politicians. Germany has a well-deserved suspicion of popular sovereignty, and Japan has always been ruled by its bureaucracy.

Multinational corporations find bureaucrats easy to control, subject as they are to the influences of the revolving door between regulators and those they regulate. Coming from industry or planning to return there, the supposedly disinterested bureaucrats are anything but impartial.

What is incomprehensible is why normally trustworthy Republican senators and congressmen are falling in line behind Obama. Hasn't this president stripped our nation of enough power? Has he not tipped the system of checks and balances all out of kilter? Are we to trust him with more power? Are the Republicans to vote him more power?

Under fast-track authority he can negotiate anything he wants, put it in a treaty, jam it through Congress and make it the law of the land, permanently. Don't Republicans see what they are doing in handing him this kind of power?

In the hands of other presidents, fast-track made sense. Before the development of the World Trade Organization, free trade deals were the only way to stop a world of tariffs and prosperity-killing regulations. But now, the era of tariffs is over, and trade deals are really about sovereignty and power.

Don't hand over more of American sovereignty, particularly under this president!

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

Fer cryin' out loud. Who gave the ether to America, anyway?