General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: WikiLeaks Leaks TPP Draft!!!
UPDATED TO ADD THIS IMPORTANT SNIPPET:
:large
After more than five years of negotiations under conditions of extreme secrecy, on March 25, 2015, a
leaked copy of the investment chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was posted. Public
Citizen has verified that the text is authentic. Trade officials from the United States and 11 Pacific Rim
nations Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore
and Vietnam are in intensive, closed-door negotiations to finish the TPP in the next few months.
http://citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015.pdf
HERE!!!!!!!!!!
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf
WED MAR 25, 2015 AT 04:30 PM PDT
BREAKING: WikiLeaks Leaks TPP Draft!!!
Here it is, for the world to see.
Per WikiLeaks:
This is an advanced January 2015 version of the confidential draft treaty chapter from the Investment group of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks between the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam. The treaty is being negotiated in secret by delegations from each of these 12 countries, who together account for 40% of global GDP. The chapter covers agreements on investments from one TPP nation to another, including empowering foreign firms to "sue" other states' governments, as well as regulations around investor-state dispute settlements and tribunals. This document was prepared by TPP investment chapter negotiators in advance of the informal round of negotiations held in New York City 26th January to 1st February, 2015
Global Trade Watch has just provided an analysis of the leaked text via email (and now on its website more details): http://citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015.pdf
The TPP would grant foreign investors and firms operating here expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to U.S. firms under U.S. law, allowing foreign firms to demand compensation for the costs of complying with U.S. policies, court orders and government actions that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms. This includes:
§ Foreign investors would be empowered to challenge new policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms on the basis that they undermine foreign investors expectations of how they should be treated. This includes a right to claim damages for government actions (such as new environmental, health or financial policies) that reduce the value of a foreign firms investment (what the leaked text calls indirect expropriation) or that change the level of regulation a foreign investor experienced under a previous government (a violation of what the text calls a minimum standard of treatment for foreign investors).
§ The leaked TPP text largely replicates the minimum standard of treatment language found in previous U.S. pacts that tribunals have used to issue some of the most alarming ISDS rulings. Tribunals often have broadly interpreted this vague right to fabricate new obligations for governments that do not actually exist in the texts of ISDS-enforced pacts, such as not to alter the legal and business environment in which the investment has been made. Due to such expansive interpretations, the minimum standard of treatment obligation has been the basis for three of every four ISDS cases won by the foreign investor under U.S. pacts.
The text allows foreign investors to demand compensation for claims of indirect expropriation that apply to much wider categories of property than those to which similar rights apply in U.S. law. To the limited extent that indirect expropriation compensation is permitted in U.S. law, it is generally available only for government actions affecting real property (i.e. land). But the leaked text would allow foreign investors to claim indirect expropriation if government regulations implicate their personal property, intellectual property rights, financial instruments, government permits, money, minority shareholdings or other forms of non-real-estate property.
· Foreign corporations could demand compensation for capital controls and other macro-prudential financial regulations that promote financial stability. This obligation restricts the use of capital controls or financial transaction taxes, even as the International Monetary Fund has shifted from opposing capital controls to officially endorsing them as legitimate policy tools for preventing or mitigating financial crises. Proposed provisions touted as temporary safeguards for capital controls would fail to protect many standard forms of capital controls, including those successfully used by TPP governments in the past to ward off financial crises.
· The leaked text could newly allow pharmaceutical firms to use TPP ISDS tribunals to demand cash compensation for claimed violations of the World Trade Organizations (WTO) rules regarding the creation, limitation or revocation of intellectual property rights. Currently, WTO rules are not privately enforceable by investors. But the leaked TPP investment text could empower individual foreign investors to directly challenge governments over policies to ensure access to affordable medicines, claiming that they constitute TPP-prohibited expropriations of intellectual property rights if ISDS tribunals deem them to violate WTO rules.
· There are no new safeguards that limit ISDS tribunals discretion to create ever-expanding interpretations of governments obligations to foreign investors and order compensation on that basis. The leaked text reveals the same safeguard terms that have been included in U.S. pacts since the 2005 Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA tribunals have simply ignored the safeguard provisions that the leaked text replicates for the TPP, and have continued to rule against governments based on concocted obligations to which governments never agreed. The leaked text also abandons a safeguard proposed in the 2012 leaked TPP investment text, which excluded public interest regulations from indirect expropriation claims, stating, non-discriminatory regulatory actions
that are designed and applied to achieve legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety and the environment do not constitute indirect expropriation. Todays leaked text eviscerates that clause by adding a fatal loophole that has been found in past U.S. pacts.
· Most TPP countries, including the United States, have decided to expose decisions regarding the approval of foreign investments to ISDS challenge. Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand have reserved the right to pre-approve foreign investors. But the United States took no exception for reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of planned foreign investments to determine whether they pose threats to national security.
· The amount that an ISDS tribunal would order a government to pay to a foreign investor as compensation would be based on the expected future profits the tribunal surmises that the investor would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking as violating the substantive investor rights granted by the TPP.
· The text would submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of World Bank and United Nations tribunals. All TPP nations have agreed to be so bound with the potential exception of Australia, which has indicated that it might do the same, subject to certain conditions.
· None of the structural biases or conflicts of interest inherent in the ISDS system would be remedied. TPP ISDS tribunals would be staffed by highly paid corporate lawyers unaccountable to any electorate or system of legal precedent. They still would be allowed to rotate between acting as judges and advocates for the investors launching cases against governments. Corporations launching cases would still directly select one of the judges. The text includes no requirements for tribunal members to be impartial, reveal conflicts of interest or recuse themselves in instances of direct conflict. There is no internal or external mechanism to appeal the tribunal members decisions on the merits, and claims of procedural errors would be decided by another tribunal of corporate lawyers. The leaked text provides tribunals with discretion to determine the amount of compensation governments must pay investors and the allocation of costs, such as the tribunal members fees. A proposal that appeared in the 2012 leak of the text to standardize hourly fees for tribunal members at the lower end of the range of fees currently paid (about $375 per hour, compared to the $700 per hour that some tribunal members receive) has been eliminated.
· An overreaching definition of investment would extend the coverage of the TPPs expansive substantive investor rights far beyond real property, permitting ISDS attacks over government actions and policies related to financial instruments, intellectual property, regulatory permits and more. Proposals in the 2012 leak of the text that would have narrowed the definition of investment, and thus the scope of policies subject to challenge, have been eliminated. Also omitted is a proposal from the earlier leaked version that would not have allowed ISDS cases related to government procurement, subsidies or government grants.
· An overreaching definition of investor would allow firms from non-TPP countries and firms with no real investments to exploit the extraordinary privileges the TPP would establish for foreign investors. Thus, for instance, one of the many Chinese state-owned corporations in Vietnam could sue the U.S. government in a foreign tribunal to demand compensation under this text.
· The leaked text reveals that U.S. negotiators are still pushing, over the objection of most other TPP nations, to empower foreign investors to bring to TPP ISDS tribunals their contract disputes with TPP signatory governments relating to natural resource concessions on federal lands, government procurement of construction for infrastructure projects, as well as contracts relating to the operation of utilities. (In the leaked chapter, text that is not yet agreed upon appears in square brackets; Public Citizen has seen a version of the text that lists which countries support various proposals.)
More from Global Trade Watch:
The leaked text provides stark warnings about the dangers of trade negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight. It reveals that TPP negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms that would give foreign investors expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to domestic firms under domestic law.
The leaked text would empower foreign firms to directly sue signatory governments
in extrajudicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals over domestic policies
that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms that foreign firms claim violate their new substantive investor rights. There they could demand taxpayer compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use and other policies and government actions they claim undermine TPP foreign investor privileges, such as the right to a regulatory framework that conforms to their expectations.
The leaked text reveals the TPP would expand the parallel ISDS legal system by
elevating tens of thousands of foreign- owned firms to the same status as sovereign governments, empowering them to privately enforce a public treaty by skirting domestic courts and laws to directly challenge TPP governments i n foreign tribunals.
MORE - get reading folks:
http://citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015.pdf
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/25/1373335/-BREAKING-WikiLeaks-Leaks-TPP-Draft
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)companies want the same rights and powers as individual nations? Just scanned what you C&P here, but that seems like the point. I don't see how that can be enforceable.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Governments exist primarily to keep the rabble in line & to extract money from them in behalf of the rich. They have no business trying to interfere with corporate piracy, and the TPP is designed to make damn sure it goes that way.
Rex
(65,616 posts)A rational argument can easily be made that the non-governing elite, control the governing elite in America. Only a small minority of people say otherwise. It goes beyond politics. Was kind of convinced of that decades ago watching Reagan slice up America and sell it off to foreign investors and nobody stopped him.
So they want the other half of global currency and holdings? You know, this will create an entirely new type of job. You will have to work for free long enough to get a job that pays money. I mean third world already does this, I guess it is time for the rest of us to join them. The entire world will go back to third world status, with those already there probably going back into slavery.
All legally binding.
I've not paid much attention to the TPP, since I know from years of watching sneaky corporatists; anything they have to do in secret ALWAYS or almost always turns out to be a raw deal for the labor class.
And they don't even consider the homeless or working poor.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)America really has become one of the most corrupt systems in the world. SHAFTA gives them the opportunity to further subjugate the American system at MUCH LOWER COST and MUCH LESS EFFORT, and also gives them the means to increase their control over other countries that haven't been their primary targets to date.
It is hard work to buy these American elections and it doesn't always go as planned. It can take them 20 years to accomplish their goals through rigged elections whereas SHAFTA allows them to do their business immediately.
peoli
(3,111 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)This is so very whacked.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and 'pay for' schools. The only thing left is public transportation. And of course we already have 'pay for' freeways.
You think 'pay for' checkpoints are next on the border? This would mean they need their own 'pay for' army. I cannot see how this will work unless we radicalize the world of 7 billion people. If that is possible, then I guess we never moved out of the Dark Ages.
La Rage - Keny Arkana - French Rap (English subti :
The will to live, and to live the present moment, to choose our future,
free and free of their oppression plans.
The rage,
for its a bloody mess that everyone sticks to,
and for their GMO fields sterilize the earth.
The rage, for one day we break up the chain.
The rage, for too many people think that TV tells the truth.
The rage, for this world does not suit us.
but does feed us with false dreams and true ramparts
The rage, for this world does not fit us.
And Babylon grows fat and starves us to death.
Because we've got the rage.
We'll stand up, no matter what happens.
The rage.
To go through, to the end where life drives us
Because we've got the rage.
We'll neither shut up, nor sit down, for now we'll be ready.
Because we've got the rage, the heart and faith.
Because we've got the rage.
We'll stand up, no matter what happens.
johnnyreb
(915 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)I loved them when they had Angela Gossow.
I saw them open for Maiden back in 2004 and was blown away Angela and the boys.
Thx for the video
marym625
(17,997 posts)Works for me. Though death metal isn't really my thing.
Music plays a big part in any kind of fight against the PTB. Whatever gets into someone's psyche is going to help.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Reps & Lobbyists from the Global Corporations sit in judgement.
Nobody from the Working Class or Organized LABOR will be able to attend.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because they want you to think that. How do you know that is what it really says?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Articles 21 and 28? How would you interpret it? How else could it be interpreted?
treestar
(82,383 posts)1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.
2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section.
How does that let a company sue a government for "unseen profits?"
marym625
(17,997 posts)I may have quoted the wrong section.
Second, I have to leave for work. I will respond later. I believe this is much too important to just put to the side or try to respond to without quoting correct text. But I will have to do that when I get home
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)more power over our system of laws than even the POTUS. It is literally handing over our sovereignty to Foreign Corporations.
As Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden among others have said since they got a small peek at what is being so secretly plotted, 'If the American people knew what was in it, they would oppose it, that is why it is secret'.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Looks like their chance might be coming up. It is the hubris of the extremely privileged believing they are better at running the world and human lives, than the world and humans around them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to them is not the same as what we view as success. For them it is about profit. People starving to us, is failure. To them, it's inconsequential.
I have come to believe we are going through a really bad period where psychopaths have taken over, people who have no compassion, no ability to empathize, to care, about other human beings. They are not particularly intelligent, but they ARE good at one thing, finding ways to legally rob and pillage, nation after nation.
History seems to go through periods like this, and then there is a correction.
Apathy is probably what allowed it to happen, that they got a foothold in First World Countries. And they know how to use emotional 'themes', like 'Patriotism' eg, to avoid too much opposition from the masses.
Keeping people divided assures they are relatively safe from the people.
That is why OWS terrified them so much. Because it was not 'partisan', they could not use the old 'right/left' divisive rhetoric. It was just people, finally realizing we are all affected by the corruption and thievery and power grabbing.
marym625
(17,997 posts)That right there is a scary thing
AllyCat
(16,248 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,202 posts)who, after losing a case before an ISDS tribunal and being ordered to pay $50 Billion (in lost profits) to SomeBigassCompany, Inc., just says "Our laws prohibit the sale of such a product in our country, and SomeBigassCompany knew that before they tried to sell it here. So screw you. We're not paying it."
Shunning by the other Kool Kids? Blockades? National repossession? War?
I know the plan is to have this under the aegis of the UN and the WTO, but, to my knowledge, they have no muscle of their own and rely on member nations for any manpower they need (reference: Korean "Police Action" .
Perhaps their method of enforcement is covered in one of the other chapters that have nothing to do with international trade.
randome
(34,845 posts)Sure, anyone can break a treaty at any time but they rarely do so because no country wants to be a pariah.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else. It's only fair.[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)This is about corporations becoming sovereign entities unto themselves.
An investor group, from say Japan, as an example, can sue the US for damages if We the People pass an environmental law that might impact the profits of the investor group.
I have a huge problem with that. Do you?
randome
(34,845 posts)There is nothing in the TPP draft that says all environmental regulations will be thrown out. Different countries have different environmental regulations. If, however, a country tries to lock out a signatory to the treaty by coming up with some bogus "Oh, your company runs afoul of our environmental regulation that says countries starting with the letter 'H'..." And so on.
At least that's how I would guess it would work. That's why a tribunal would exist to parse such matters.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)This is about corporations being on par with nationstates. You don't see an issue in that?
randome
(34,845 posts)I see it more as an attempt to more closely integrate the workings of the world. As much reason as we have to hold corporations in dismay, we also look to them to provide solar panels, computers, etc. Like it or not, we need corporations or we wouldn't have anywhere near the kind of life we enjoy today.
The more closely intertwined the world becomes, the better. In general. Mostly. Okay, it's hit-and-miss. I simply don't think the TPP by itself is a definite miss any more than any other of the hundreds of trade treaties negotiated over the course of this country's existence.
It makes it easier for Corporation A from the U.S. to operate in Berlin and easier for Corporation C in Australia to operate in Japan, or whoever the signatories are.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)Like it or not, with robotics etc.. these huge corporations we are talking about will need little or no human capital. So where is that hidden hand that keeps everything in balance? You might not have any problems giving up your rights as a human being, but I sure do.
Why should we make anything easier for corporations? At one time (when we still half way regulated the market) companies had to do this thing called compete against each other and we all found out this was a good thing. It made companies have to have a good product in order to stay in the market. Sadly that is no longer how it works and if you think giving companies in China legal rights over parts of America, then I have to question your sanity.
OR is it that when individuals harm the nation (as is said over and over about GG and Snowden) I see you rail without hindrance, yet the harm that could be caused by a totally free market and a rogue nation like China (I am sure you understand what I mean) could be much much worse than any leaked documents. We are talking about a corporate global hegemony.
Not my idea of free enterprise, but like you said we all see things differently and I am trying to keep remembering that.
I use to joke about the great Coke vs Pepsi wars...might actually get to see such things as corporations form their own judicial systems, armies, 'pay for' penal systems etc..
NOT saying the TPP is going to cause the world to explode, but it will NOT help the labor class one iota. Not unless there are parts in the contract promising safe guards against neglect and abuse.
It is far more than just making it easier...again there is no good reason to make anything easier for a company (they are supposed to be able to be self-sufficient, like the taxpayer)...unless we just want to admit that the govt and bigbiz are the same creature.
IMO.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that anyone who goes "meh, no big deal about this" has no respect for the sovereignty of the US government and representation of the People, by the People and for the People.
I can't fathom supporting this. I just can't. If Jesus Christ came out in support of the TPP, I *still* couldn't support it. There is no charm offensive, generating of doubt, appeals to authority, or attack of the messenger that will in any way move my opinion of this into the "meh" category.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)I guess the purpose is to maintain the illusion of the people have power while giving it over fully to the boardrooms where we don't get a fucking vote.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)'fair trade'. Glad to see an issue arise that none of the usual suspects can weasel out of.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)pissing away my integrity by supporting this fucking over of the US as a sovereign nation, and throwing away our ability to pass laws of the People, by the People and for the People.
Rex
(65,616 posts)it will be interesting to see how other groups fall into line or oppose it. Personally, I find it quite hypocritical that some of these folks railed on GG and Snowden for damaging the country - yet appear to walk right by the fact that this will strip nations of their sovereignty.
And the tactic of, 'it doesn't exist, just a myth blah blah' was tried over the Third Way (which will benefit greatly from the TPP) and got them laughed out of thread after thread.
It is good to see almost all of DU laugh at them now.
randome
(34,845 posts)Every country has different environmental needs and therefore laws. That's not going to change. What's going to change is that a signatory cannot make bogus environmental laws to prevent a company from operating.
The same provision has been applied to high tariffs that deliberately restrain trade.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Shouldn't that be the people of the country, as opposed to some outside group?
randome
(34,845 posts)...then we probably need international cooperation with environmental and safety issues that are impacted by trade. And since the U.S. is pretty much the standard for those topics, I don't see any foreign company being able to 'dictate' to us what our environmental and safety laws will be.
More likely, other countries will need to catch up with our standards, which means benefiting other countries, which means fewer sweatshop conditions which means...a good thing.
At least that's what I hope will be the result and I think that's the intent.
The alternative is to do nothing and let China's abysmal record on workers' conditions hold sway.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)The net result of this passing is not about foreign companies, but multinational companies, many are US based, but they have no allegiance to any country, even their own. These companies only look to the bottom line. Under law, Capitalism demands this. So they can say go into a country (even the US) that requires a fair maternity leave for instance, and say that under TPP, they don't have to abide by the same rules, because it will lessen their profits. The same goes for labour laws, worker safety, environmental protections etc..
This bill has nothing to do with improving China's workers conditions. It has more to do with some Chinese multinational corp being able to operate in a country such as the US without having to abide by any of the US's labor laws. Do you really think it will work the other way? You're dreaming if you think some giant multinational will voluntarily cut into their own profits, and give their competition a leg up, by NOT squeezing the most from this agreement.....which means squeezing the workers.
This was the opposition to the North American Free Trade deal by unions and environmental groups. That all kinds of rights were built into the agreement for corps, but with no standards for wages, rights, protections etc..So that a Canadian or American company could more easily move their factory down to Mexico where there are less requirements for say pollution controls, and fair wages and benefits. This agreement is like that only includes more of the world.
randome
(34,845 posts)No foreign corporation is going to invalidate our laws. I'm sorry I can't explain it clearly but to think that this is the U.S. basically giving up its identity as a nation is ridiculous on the face of it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)other than the occasional meat for storage and dinner.
Therefore I don't have hip boots high enough to wade through your "opinions" to get to your smoker and turn it down. You need to get someone to check that out, though.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They would sell us into slavery if they could. There needs to be a HUGE response. Any of you non-critical thinkers out there that believe Hillary is still the answer should see this as a wake up call. Supporting a few "safe' liberal issues just isn't enough for you to have any clout in our party....either stand up and be counted or go start a 3rd party with Jeb Bush revolving around centrist war-mongering corporate edicts.
marym625
(17,997 posts)They will own us all in a very short time. Especially with this garbage.
Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)We will never get anywhere as long as we allow this. This is the way they control our Congress, President, Courts, Governors, State Houses, School Boards...
People like ourselves who know better must get active and educate others at every opportunity!
We need to join together the various groups fighting for the issues close to their hearts, whether it be the environment, education, gun control, immigration, women's issues..., and fight this one issue that causes the problems for all of these others.
We lost Representative Democracy long ago, with our Representatives only listening to their Donors. This cannot go on indefinetly so we may as well start fighting before it gets any worse. Climate Change will not wait for us and will not be properly addressed unless and until we take control of our government again!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You would be terrified of touching the root, I'm afraid.
Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)Don't understand your need to make a personal attack, maybe you should seek some professional help.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The problem is bigger than just "money in politic." We could address that, and still not actually fix anything meaningful; it would just break down again because it is inherent. Systemic. The problem is our very concept of "Civilization." And the only solution is to radically revise that concept. That idea terrifies me. it should terrify anyone. I wasn't trying to belittle you, nor to insult you. it's a genuinely scary notion.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Thanks!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Or should we just expect the swiftboating of wikileaks to commence?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Or something
erronis
(15,403 posts)They just do what their masters tell them to do. Remember McAin saying that he probably shouldn't have signed that joke note to Tehran... but he was too busy trying to get out of town to be bothered reading it beforehand.
pampango
(24,692 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Pres Obama won't sign anything that will be harmful to the 99%. Have faith, have faith.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)On who says something in defense of the TPP first and how they blame wikileaks? Politicians I mean
I bet the Republicans don't even mention it their base won't even see this
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)The Third Wayers will obfuscate and justify this to holy hell and back
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)continue to say bad things about Assange. Shoot the messenger
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This is just like when everyone jumped the gun and thought Obama would extend the Bush tax cuts! Or resume war in the ME!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)And in the asteroid belt.
dflprincess
(28,089 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)So in Pluto's case, it seems to be just a question of semantics.
treestar
(82,383 posts)LOL, you are as much as admitting that you want to be a victim of this great conspiracy of "corporatists." You want it to be bad, so you can complain about it.
And read the thing itself, not someone's opinion and interpretation of it. Many of those claims don't hold water.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And the fact that the administration has been negotiating this in secret for years now? Why is that? If it's so great why is it being hashed out in secret?
I don't want to complain. Quite the opposite. Unfortunately there is always much to complain about, especially these days when the Dem Party is so in bed with Wall Street and corporations.
My comment was directed at the people who don't want anyone to bring up any complaints about anything until it has been passed/enacted, which is exactly when it will be too late. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy is founded upon the principle that the govt enacts that which the people wish it to enact. How is that possible if the people aren't allowed to speak up?
The most important question is, why are you defending it?
djean111
(14,255 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The first step in the eventual "privatization" of every government on the planet.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)kpete
(72,035 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)is to privatize own everything.
Countries will become obsolete.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)people, will not become obsolete. They are very handy for the Powers That Be to plot against each other and keep the peons busy.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)against each other and not them? Divide and conquer. Everywhere.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)The Assange haters will be here soon.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)talking points straight (or perhaps in the case of those on the job, receiving the appropriate talking points).
We should have about another half hour to an hour before the deflections and apologia begin.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But their attacks on the TPP have been very silly so far. They will attack the messenger and then tell us to have FAITH in Obama.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)They will say funny things like, "Just imagine the millions of American jobs the TPP will create!"
Imagine being the key word here.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)and then the swarm hits all at once with talking points?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)So, that's probably not too smart of a strategy.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,202 posts)From the NYT article referenced in Post 15:
I guess the perpetrators figure four years should be enough time to build some impenetrable fortresses in undisclosed location(s). They'll need them.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)until it's all decided are actually saying that we have to wait till it's all decided (by our betters), PLUS FOUR YEARS, by which time it will already have been in force four years.
THESE ARE DEMOCRATS TELLING US TO JUST SIT TIGHT UNTIL DADDY OBAMA GETS IT ALL IN WRITING? THAT'S THE MOST DISGUSTING PIECE OF NON-DEMOCRATIC BULLSHIT LEGISLATION COME DOWN THE PIKE IN A VERY LONG TIME.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)iow, and more robbery of the public purse and the American people by unaccountable global capital.
But the limited use of trade tribunals, critics argue, is because companies in those countries do not have the size, legal budgets and market power to come after governments in the United States. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could change all that, they say. The agreement would expand that authority to investors in countries as wealthy as Japan and Australia, with sophisticated companies deeply invested in the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)maxrandb
(15,373 posts)but, I'm unsure about the TPP. I do know this, though, because the wingnuts have been using the tactic against Democrats forever -Throw outrageous charges of Armageddon against the wall, and hopefully, it will stick.
I guess I'm confused. Between the Original Post, and your "snarky" "where are the Obama and TPP defenders now?" post, exactly 49 minutes had elapsed. Somehow, in those 49 minutes, I'm expected to believe that the entire 3000+ page draft "legalize jargon" document, and the equally complex Summary, were able to be read, analyzed, compared...and most importantly...judged.
That is an amazing feat.
Now, I'm not saying the TPP is "good", or should ever see the light of day, because I haven't had time to do research and hear analysis about what it actually says, and why it's different than the thousands of other Trade Bills our country has signed and ratified. I guess I could just come out and say; "I'm against any Trade Bill---EVER", and I may be treated like a hero in this thread, other than the pariah I'm sure I will be, once the "bullies gang-up".
But what I will say is this. Can we NOT behave with the TPP in the same way the T-baggers behave with the Affordable Care Act?
I listen to some of the arguments against this trade deal on here, and it strangely sounds a lot like the prediction of Death Panels, 30% Unemployment, 1000% increases in premiums, Obama's secret army locking us in FEMA camps, and $70 Trillion in debt added to the deficit, etc., etc., etc.,
Most of which I would be remiss to point out, were...WRONG
Let the Schoolyard Bullies attack!
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)When Bernie Sanders, Richard Trumka, Robert Reich and Ed Schultz speak it is a strong indication we have a problem. I am guessing these brilliant men know a bit more than "Team Obama" here at DU.
maxrandb
(15,373 posts)The people you mentioned have had "rational", "intelligent" and "relevant" objections that I'm happy to hear and weigh against those, like the President, who see the positives to doing a deal that removes some barriers to trade that is already happening, so that America can participate and have a say in trade before China comes in and gobbles all the Trans-Pacific countries up.
There is hope that instead of lowering America's standard of living, the TPP, with a strong American partnership, will raise the standard of living in the Trans-Pacific, and enable America to once again be on the cutting edge of technological and scientific advancement and development.
or,
We could be stuck with an eternity of cheap crap, cheap wages, and woeful environmental and labor policy from China.
America has negotiated thousands of trade deals in our existence. It's what helped make us an economic superpower with a standard of living that "was" the envy of the free world, and in most places, still is.
I'm willing to allow it to be brought forward and debated before I decide it's the Apocalypse, or the 2ND coming of Jesus. Rational thought tells me the truth is somewhere in between.
All this hyperbole is equivalent to "Death Panels in the ACA".
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)It is unfair to compare "death panel" talking points that Frank Luntz created to concerns raised by Robert Reich, Robert Stiglitz an Bernie Sanders. This is an oranges to apples comparison.
We have a very bad history on big trade deals. It is one thing to be good for the economy as a whole but if American workers are prey then who cares if the rich get all the gains.
Regarding Ed, he is fabulous on labor.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)The legitimate complaints about the secrecy of the TPP are nothing like the whining lies tea baggers told about the ACA.
Your comparison is useless. I haven't seen anyone saying Obama was locking us in secret FEMA camps, or that unemployment was going to increase 30%. When you have to lie to make your point, it means you have no point.
maxrandb
(15,373 posts)The only thing that is classified in this entire TPP is the NEGOTIATIONS between the 11 countries, and that is common with many Trade Deals, much like the negotiations with Iran over it's Nuclear Program are "Classified".
There is nothing in the TPP that is "going to be hidden for 4 years" after it passes Congress.
There is nothing that is going to be "classified" in the TPP once the negotiations are complete
The entire TPP will be submitted to Congress, and if the President is granted Fast Track, it means it will get an "up or down" vote. If there is no Fast Track, the Congress will have the option to change it. The main reason for Fast Track is so that Congress doesn't come in and try to make changes to it after it's been negotiated by 11 different countries. Fast Track means that Congress can only approve, or reject, but they can't amend it, unless you'd want a Trade Bill to have to be amended by 11 different countries legislatures, over and over and over again. You'd never get anything done.
No, if the President decides to present this to Congress, not one word of it will be classified, or secret.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)I do not like your odds of being right on this. If Bernie and many more wise peole are calling it fast track, why should I believe you. Is Robert Reich wrong on this?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)written in the bill.
Gimme a break. Bye.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)omg...
Yes, just trust our leader... no need to know what he's doing, whatever he does is just fine. No need for input from the people, no need for them to worry their little heads about what their leader is doing in a democracy that is founded upon the principle of a govt of the people. That is so quaint people, get over it already.
I thought only Bushies felt that way. *sigh*
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Response to WillTwain (Reply #28)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Probably neither, why, because it is not the final document.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)When it is the final document it will be too late.
How do people who bother to take the time to post on a political message board not understand that? Perhaps they do, all too well, and they want us to not think about anything at all and just let our leaders do whatever they want without a peep from us until it has passed into legislation. Is that it? Are you trying to get the TPP passed?
SMH
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And they do not have the proper document to make an intelligent decision. They are still meeting and have more meetings on the future but take the time to post without the final document.
johnnyreb
(915 posts)..even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a c o n s p i r a c y against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)...Democratic Party:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 220)
"But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but for their own particular purposes."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 218)
''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025960410
appalachiablue
(41,184 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Marx said all he did was take Adam Smith's observations in the "Wealth of Nations" to its logical conclusion and for THAT observation Marx is hated and NOT studies (and except for saying Smith was the founder of modern Economic thinking, Smith is rarely cited today).
Rex
(65,616 posts)They would have to admit that socialism and the social contract we all have as citizens, keeps the grocery stores stocked with food, keeps the gas station running so the truck has fuel, etc.. AND you know how some people get about words. I doubt very many people even understand that the underside of our system is socialism.
Too many pretend communism was all about the USSR and ignore the current hybrid in China as if it doesn't exist. Of course our lazy media makes sure we stay uniformed.
glinda
(14,807 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The summary reads like a corporate wet dream.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)corporate coup' d'états.
Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111
United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121
appalachiablue
(41,184 posts)note it, as opposed to emails which they often just delete. The poster included an excellent letter outline. Wanted to pass along this idea knowing that communicating anything in any fashion helps to stop this global corporate take over.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)4000 constituents. When I heard that, I started calling about important issues.
Just me, I have the power of 4000 people! So does ever person in this country! That is motivating!
appalachiablue
(41,184 posts)Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)And bookmarked for later
K & R
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)comes into a town and invokes one of these clauses, causing ruin to its businesses and/or citizens, that that's when the revolution will begin?
antigop
(12,778 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I expect a major PR charm offensive. Whether most people buy it - or even care - is the big question.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)That realistically can never be explained away unless people simply choose to not care.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Get the popcorn ready.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Hard to protest when you are starving to death or killed out in the elements. Saves money too, you don't have to waste bullets or bombs.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)So that gets rid of a lot of fakers or idiots trying to make bank because they can claim to be an "investor" in some company that got shafted by some procedural thing.
That leaves serious contenders and they are unlikely to be able to sue a company into oblivion unless that company is already violating laws in our jurisdiction.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You are arguing that it is a GOOD thing that only the wealthy can bring a lawsuit.
Funny, I've heard Republicans make this argument for years. But then again, from an economic perspective there is no difference between the Republicans and the Third Way and its Koch-backed predecessors.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)suing each other.
The problem is with companies and foreign investors suing SOVEREIGN nations if they don't get expected profits. If a company invests in the US, and we pass a law, for example, to protect the environment, a Japanese corporation can sue the US because the law might impact their profits.
If you don't see a problem with that, you are holding your hand in front of your face so that you can't see anything.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)back less than an hour. I don't think that will deter them
Rex
(65,616 posts)This whole thing is giving away the farm. What I find very interesting is that all the sudden people here are not so upset with giving away their national sovereignty to the secret legalities of a faceless conglomerate on the other side of the planet. I don't see how a progressive could be for any such thing and I am glad their is zero wiggle room here - you either are loving some free trade our you are demanding fair trade for the labor class.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)This is so stupid.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)local, state, federal, and if they think they can get damages or overturn regulations that threaten the maximization of anticipated profit, of course they absolutely will do so.
Or what, are they too patriotic?! Speaking of stupid!
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It will not be corporations who are sued, but corporations bringing suits before the TPP tribunals against municipalities and states seeking to overturn regulations - labor, environmental, zoning - that threaten "future profit." There is no justification on earth for this, other than to assure the profits of these corporations above all other priorities.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)They've got to be on the tubes somewhere!!
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)against this. Right?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Otherwise:
midnight
(26,624 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Overseas
(12,121 posts)Let them know I had lived through the rosy promises of NAFTA which had proven to be false.
And that corporations already have far too much power.
Didn't refer to this particular disclosure because we'd already heard that this kind of policy was in the proposals. Giving multinational corporations the power to overrule local governments.
Very anti-democratic.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)This story was on DU back in January, I think. It is probably good to take another look at what NAFTA has done to my adopted country and realize that TPP is NAFTA on steroids.
Hopefully, Canadians will reject the conservatives in the next election. Stephen Harper is as evil as they come.
"Lawsuits against Canada under NAFTAs Chapter 11, investor-state disputes, are making Canada, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the most sued country in the developed world. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015"
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)--Signs mount that Canada's government is beholden to a religious agenda averse to science and rational debate
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission/
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Harper's conservatives are the negotiators of the TPP. This evil man will do anything to keep the fossil fuel money flowing into the pockets of his friends. His beliefs are there to help him screw the middle classes and the poor. Like a true conservative, Harper doesn't give a rat's ass about human beings. We must remove disgusting troglodytes from ALL seats if power.
NBachers
(17,156 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I am so glad an insider had enough of a conscience to leak this latest copy of this unconstitutional treaty. It makes me physically ill and it's just one chapter.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)Chinese corporations, in Vietnam, start suing the DOD for the cost of lost military contracts and the mega-billions the MIC were depending on evaporate into thin air,
2banon
(7,321 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Imperial overreach. No wonder they had to keep it secret for years. Won't happen and will stir up a hell of an unintended consequence. This is how uprisings are made.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)how was/is Public Citizen able to verify that the text is authentic?
How would anyone, other than a party to the agreement, be able to verify the text is authentic?
Has the text (that was verified as authentic by Public Citizen) been signed off on by all of the parties to the agreement?
I know ... I know ... "STFU you 3rd-way feaster on the flesh of the American worker. Questions will not be tolerated ... especially those that can only be answered with, 'Because they said so'."
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #87)
MFrohike This message was self-deleted by its author.
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)Ya got that right. They won't be.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)On one side we have noted economists Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz, along with Bernie and Liz.
On the other hand we have Larry Kudlow, Paul (Ayn Rand) Ryan and President (Cromnibus/slash Social Security) Obama.
This is a no brainer.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)Elizabeth Warren said it was ISDS based. So it's all rather cut and dry stuff. What people aren't acknowledging is that ISDS tilts disputes in the US's favor and that's why many countries are opting out of ISDS style agreements. We rarely lose cases brought against us.
So I can say with a degree of certainty that it's authentic and that at least the ISDS portions are unlikely to change from draft to final proposal.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But it raises another question (assuming that is true and it is in the still being negotiated agreement) ... Why is EW raising the alarm, if ISDS favors the US?
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)smaller governments, even if it's to our advantage. We do enough screwing over of other countries; I'd rather not enable even more of that. That, and there's no guarantee that it will favor the US.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)despite whatever benefits they bring.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)ISDS is literally the US boxing in developing countries with a pre-determined outcome.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)Or that the multinationals aren't the friends of the people?
If neither is wrong then your debate is with someone else and if one or both are wrong then argue those points because I said nothing about the board not being tilted in favor of "our" (an absurd concept) corporations.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)With anything relating to lawsuits against the US. We win them the vast majority of the time. The whole "multinational" element is a false argument. The ICSID runs the tribunals, in secret courts, using US judges and US lawyers. Apparently the US has never once lost one of these cases. They are based in the US's favor. The outcome is pre-determined in our favor.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)acting for the benefit of those corporations.
The US is its people, our constitution, and our land, air, and water so fuck no we don't win every time.
Go push the neoliberal/right wing line somewhere else, our nation is not what you insist on pretending it is to make this lame ass case.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)joshcryer
(62,280 posts)I did some research on it a few weeks ago (?) and couldn't "disprove" the US lost a case. If it's true the US never lost an ISDS case that is more reason to support ISDS dispute resolution as it concerns the US!
I had evidence (linked proof) that it favored the US, but never losing a case? Wow.
PS you may not agree, but if it's true, it's by design. But, simply, because the US has a well defined legal system with lots of precedent and such.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)everything about the TPP, I think ISDS is a red herring.
Check out this thread....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6407073
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)Couldn't agree more.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why is Warren raising the alarm about an agreement term that so clearly favors the US?
I can't believe that Warren would be chasing down/promoting a Red Herring.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)either the country or the world? Sure doesn't sound like a way to win friends.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)acting on the interests of the US?
I guess they can not support agreements that advantage the US in order to benefit our trade partners. That would be met with support here, right?
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)If it sounds good, then it must be good. I'm not impressed by Warren at all. And I can defend my position because she came from the academic / administrative background and as soon as she got on a committee she chastised the very people she was.
cali
(114,904 posts)will make it much more likely that corporations will succeed in those cases.
And lord knows that corporations have exploited ISDS in poor countries.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)for the agreement achieves the right balance between protecting investors and safeguarding a country's right and ability to regulate in the public interest."
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=179
The idea of arbitrators in international disputes in a good one. The specifics of what rules are followed to reach decisions is the key.
The quote above is from Europe but applies to all international trade negotiations and dispute resolution mechanisms.
treestar
(82,383 posts)This is their vehicle for claiming that. Any chance to believe what they want to believe and try to support it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the media reports (especially, those "leaked" were to be discounted, if not flat out, disbelieved.
Now 6 1/2 years later, despite demands for transparency in all aspects of governance, any and every anonymously "leaked", unspecifiedly (yes, I no that's not a word) "verified as authentic" report (which normally would be termed a "rumor" is to be accepted as fact.
What happened?
treestar
(82,383 posts)and any questions means you are a corporate apologist!
That we are victims of a conspiracy made by the one percent is undeniable! This TPP is another of their crafty tricks.
(And note international tribunals are now a terrible thing, whereas they are good when it comes to Bush/Cheney and their war crimes.)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is just voting for the sufficiently progressive candidate (to be named) because the global market-place is completely under the 1%'s control; whereas, the US electoral system is not!
... Oh, wait!
cali
(114,904 posts)use the link.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)which link?
Verified what?
The NYT is NOW a trusted source? My how times change.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Their usual schtick is "This is just a draft so no one is allowed to comment on it." Of course, when a draft is more than four years in the making, and the aim is to finalize it in only a few more months, a sensible prediction is that this is fairly close to what the final will look like.
This OP raises another point: For the first time that I can remembers, we're seeing comparisons with earlier drafts. The result of the changes is that the proposed agreement is getting worse, not better.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)Probably waiting for their bosses to come up with newer talking points. They exhausted most of the old ones.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)It's possible that you have some of them on ignore though. There's one in the post just above yours.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and not just accepting analysis of anonymous leaks, though "verified as authentic" (How?), is nonsense babbling.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)You may be right but you are walking far out on the plank.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)through the same organizations.
Frankly, if nothing, the pre-2008 media/reporting experience should have taught us that asking questions about something ... especially something everyone claims is "secret"; but, everyone seems to have just one side of that something ... should NEVER considered walking out on a/the plank.
But I guess times change.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)As stated earlier. This is a matter of trust.
Neither of us is going to read or interpret the full TPP. Frankly, trade policy is very complicated.
So, we have a choice. We have two camps to follow. The first, the pro-TPP camp, includes Paul (Ayn Rand) Ryan, almost every national Republican, Faux news talking heads, former Reagan guys like Larry Kudlow, and President Obama (who has proven his willingness to whack the working class in the past - Cromnibus, chained C.p.I.).
In the other camp we have many of the most brilliant economic minds on earth, including Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz. Richard Trumka, the brilliant AFL-CIO leader and talkers like Thom Hartmann and Ed Shultz (ED is as good a labor journalist as you will find). If you can find a person that has lobor's interest in mind more than Richard Trumka, tell me who it is.
Based on the strength of the latter team and the president's demand of secrecy and fast-tracking, this is an easy choice. There are just too many stars lined up against the president. He has strange bedfellows.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Is he sleeping around the issue?
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Michigan-Arizona
(762 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Look over there.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...but apparently they have turned out the lights, put the cat out, and pulled the latch string. No story over there.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Just the mention of "UN tribunals" will send them into a frenzy. Of course the media they pay attention to is probably ignoring this or misrepresenting it.
Omaha Steve
(99,818 posts)I wonder why?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Talk about this TPP.
I believe the TPP is a measure of "our" democracy. The passage of fast track authority for the TPP will determine if this democracy continues.
In recent years we have witnessed about every sort of corporate abuse. Are we foolish enough to believe things will improve with the passing of the TPP and TTIP?
randome
(34,845 posts)All I see in this thread so far is, "Monstrous! Abominable!" Without the slightest exposition as to what is so monstrous or abominable. I assume because it's so verbose and complicated that no one can really understand it?
I await enlightenment.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else. It's only fair.[/center][/font][hr]
tridim
(45,358 posts)It has been that way since the acronym TPP was first spoken.
So, good luck with your cricket response.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)G_j
(40,372 posts)what did I miss?
randome
(34,845 posts)'Expand' a system...'radical' terms. A lot of dangerous-sounding language that doesn't specify what we're supposed to be afraid of.
Court systems handle disputes all the time without governments getting involved.
So why should we polish our pitchforks?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
tridim
(45,358 posts)It never was and never will be until Obama is no longer the President.
randome
(34,845 posts)Not really expecting an answer but I refuse -like Obama- to despair of simple answers to simple questions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
do you have any idea that people have been loudly opposing these types trade agreements before Obama was president?
tridim
(45,358 posts)And when Obama became President and all the bullshit Chained CPI (bashing) predictions were proven 100% untrue, the Obama bashers on DU and elsewhere moved on to new bullshit TPP predictions that will also turn out to be 100% untrue.
Recent history is not your friend.
Have you ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?
G_j
(40,372 posts)etc.?
tridim
(45,358 posts)TPP doesn't exist yet.
But keep crying wolf. It's works so well!!1
G_j
(40,372 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)
not even clever...
And I wonder why YOU want to make it about Obama.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)It's really not verbose and complicated. Read it, if you don't understand a word look it up in a dictionary. Others in this thread that as you say, are posting "Monstrous! Abominable!" have most likely read it are worried and have formed THEIR opinion. The fact that you want the people you don't seem to like to enlighten you instead of reading and forming your OWN opinion speaks volumes.
randome
(34,845 posts)It sets up a system to mediate disputes. I see nothing that deserves the kind of panic some want to spread.
If someone wants to convince me otherwise, then what, pray tell, should I be worried about?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Autumn
(45,120 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)The TPP FUD is 100% pure bullshit.
It has been going on for the entirety of Obama's presidency.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I need say nothing more. Have a good day.
FUD Seriously that sounds so trite, IMO my proper response to the RW religious sounding FUD ( fear uncertainty and doubt) should be Satan made me do it!!!
randome
(34,845 posts)Perhaps a little more detail and nuance would help. But so far no one has stepped up to the plate. It's just "Horrible! Disgusting!"
And the new favorite theme: "What about our national sovereignty??"
That's not enough for me to understand something. But you're right, it's not your job to engage in an actual discussion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Autumn
(45,120 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)People who remember "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" may recognize how TPP is a conspiracy to loot the planet.
OTOH, seeing how TPP would be legal-like, it can't be a conspiracy!
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
Sparhawk60
(359 posts)Welcome our corporate Overlords. At least this makes it official.
PatrickforO
(14,602 posts)But workers will not be helped. Worldwide, we will have a very, very wealthy upper class, a narrow middle class and a huge lower class.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)LITERALLY as it is defined. Brought to you by the Koch brothers and many other of their ilk that want a global oligarchy heading up by their "royalty".
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Define "us". I don't consider myself part of the "us" that wants any company, just because it has the backing of my government, to run roughshod over the interests of the native residents of a country.
Long story short, all agreements must be looked at from the perspective of the 99%. Will we benefit?
Undermining workers overseas isn't just wrong, it eventually comes back to bite us in the ass.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)some big drug company might lose money?
It also means that We the People can't pass an environmental law without the US getting sued if it affects a foreign companies profits. Or projected profits.
Just throw the ability to regulate anything right out of the window.
Wella
(1,827 posts)by a company from overseas.
randome
(34,845 posts)Frivolous lawsuits result in damages and bad PR.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Wella
(1,827 posts)See how that works?
randome
(34,845 posts)Anything that unites the world a little more is generally a good thing, IMO. I would hope there are appeals processes in place, too.
The fact that these type of tribunals have never ruled against the U.S. makes the base for environmental and safety regulations to be the U.S. And much of the rest of the world is not up to our speed in regards to those issues so I'm okay with using our standards as a measuring stick.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Wella
(1,827 posts)It's an issue of whether a nation gets to be the final arbiter on its own laws. When it cannot, the nation state--and any citizen control of it--is completely and utterly over.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)The only thing its going to unite is the giant corporations and billionaire investors with tons more money and power at our expense.
randome
(34,845 posts)I agree this is a treaty for corporations and little else. So? Trade treaties have always been about corporations because people don't trade goods except under the auspices of a company/corporation.
There are mechanisms in place to regulate and prevent abuse. Could they be strengthened? Probably.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)so it is probably impossible for you to understand the expense part. FWIW, not everything is supposed to be about money.
"There are mechanisms in place to regulate and prevent abuse." Such as? What in the TPP so far that you know of, will prevent monopolies and cartels from forming?
randome
(34,845 posts)Country A can't impose 5000% tariffs and they also can't make an environmental law specifically aimed at protectionism.
As has been pointed out, the U.S. has never lost a case taken to similar tribunals. International trade requires cooperation. I don't think the TPP even addresses monopolies and cartels but I don't think it was ever designed to.
This will help raise environmental and safety regulations in some of the affected countries to be closer to our own, which means fewer sweatshops in the world. The alternative is to let China's 'methods' be the norm.
Could the TPP address more issues and include better protections? No dispute about that. But on balance it's not as scary as some make it out to be.
Hoyt's link to Ezra Klein's analysis is instructive: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership
He may not be the ultimate authority on any of this but it's an interesting article.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)So who then gets to ultimately arbitrate between the state and the corporation? And why should corporations get to decide on these standards and not someone like the UN? I guess this all boils down are you going to trust a privatized version of the UN for businesses only.
I just don't see how a corporation is going to enforce rules on nations, with what? How? The governments are basically saying that they cannot govern. I see that as a huge problem. We basically are saying governments are not fit to make policy and should leave it to a tribunal. I am afraid your setup is designed to make abuse of the labor class far far easier.
Anyway, I will check out the link.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)To protect Corporate Profits.
NAFTA declared that Corporations are entitled to profits, and even "Future Profits",
and anything that interferes with these profits will be stamped out by the Tribunals,
and the country interfering with these profits punished by punitive taxes (fines).
This HAS already occurred under NAFTA.
Do some reading.
End.
Rex
(65,616 posts)billionaires help bring the world together? I must have missed that memo.
randome
(34,845 posts)Although I believe it's only one member. And are there appeals processes? I haven't see anything about that. If there is an appeals process then it's not as straight-forward as letting the billionaires run rampant.
They don't have all the power. Too damned much, yes, but the TPP is additional regulations imposed on them while agreeing that onerous protectionism is not the norm. It may not be a perfect trade-off but, on balance, I think it will make the world a little better.
I hope.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The secret Tribunals are already the highest court in the World.
Where are you going to file your "appeal"?
randome
(34,845 posts)It's too bad this leaked document didn't address that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)clearly most Americans, and as we know, many of the people of the other nations who are a part of these secret negotiations, and we know WHY, as Ron Wyden has been warning for years now, they HAD to be secret, could not disagree with you more.
No free nation should have to spend money on legal fees, and the goal is that they won't after a few 'show' cases in the beginning, to protect THEIR laws from invading, foreign Corporations.
What this will do is to start a War against these invaders, who as we know, from their behavior throughout the Third World for decades, will have, DO HAVE their own 'Private Security' to 'fend off' any citizen of THIS country, who thinks they have 1st Amendment right to protest the violations of our laws we KNOW will happen.
How do we know? Because it's been going on for decades in other parts of the world.
Now they are moving towards the BIG PRIZE, the First World.
Any elected official who supports this, is betraying this country and the people who elected them.
It's already been going on with the Long Shoremen. What a tragedy for those people it has been where foreign corps have been destroying their rights and jobs, locking them out of their jobs, (an agreement to protect those jobs meant NOTHING for a while now.
You may not have a problem with this, but millions already do. And now more certainly will considering what was suspected is now out in the open.
Thanks to all the Whistle Blowers for doing their jobs as citizens. And thanks Wikileaks. No wonder the PTBs hate them so much.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's why we established the U.N. in the first place, although that's never lived up to its full potential.
This is a treaty regulating how corporations can operate in other countries. In general, I think more regulation is to be applauded.
I don't think it will start a trade war. I think it's the exact opposite. It establishes a mechanism to prevent bogus tariffs, etc. from being put up as barriers to trade.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)seen in action with the Long Shoremen. Anyone who wants to know what this 'deal' will do to the Working Class in this country only has to start paying attention to where it has already begun.
I have a problem with Americans not being allowed to walk on their own land. I have a problem with Foreign, Armed 'Security' keeping Americans OFF their own land.
And thankfully I know I am very much in the majority regarding this abomination.
It's like saying to the enemy: 'Okay, don't shoot, our land is YOUR land, do as you please. You won't get any resistance from us'!
No way should this be allowed to happen.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And the fact that robots are/will be replacing most of the labor force in the huge companies...doesn't even make them blink. So some progressives here are willing to give up some or all of their rights under the Constitution, so that a huge conglomerate can make even more profit at the expense of the labor class.
Learn something new everyday.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"I don't have a problem giving up some of our sovereignty"
If you have no trouble with it, I, and about several hundred patriots that fought the Revolutionary War *certainly* did.
Do you really think people are stupid enough to not realize what you just said?
randome
(34,845 posts)This is the 21st century, not the 18th. The world needs to be more integrated, not less. The TPP is a mechanism that provides for that. At least insofar as I can see.
We're talking about trade issues, not subverting one another's laws. A German corporation is not going to invalidate our laws. That's paranoia talking, although it would be nice if the nuts and bolts of this could be boiled down to reassure us of that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that said that the Constitution was outdated? I guess it's just a piece of paper. Democracy is an outdated concept?
Ludicrous.
randome
(34,845 posts)I said the Constitution has been modified in the past and it can be modified now. It literally IS a piece of paper, not a substitute for the King James Bible.
But what this has to do with trade issues, I don't know.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)What you meant by you were ok to give up a small bit of your sovereignty (for the greater world good) is admirable. You refer to the UN and its lofty goals which most times are not carried out. As a Canadian (one of our PMs was instrumental in creating the UN) we, and other less influential countries need a body like this to make our voice heard. I hear, mostly on Fox News etc, so much anti-UN hate speech. And even in here. Its frightening to those of us in less rich countries to hear that kind of talk from even the left of the US.
But what I want to address is that what is bad about secret high level deals like this, is not about allowing invading armies onto American soil, or any such nonsense. It is about a systematic erosion of labour and environmental protections globally.
This TTP is similar to the NAFTA in that companies can sue a host country if they deem that that countries laws for the environment or worker benifits cause them to lose profits in their eyes.
This is what many Canadians are seeing since NAFTA. Here's one example:
http://www.cela.ca/article/international-trade-agreements-commentary/how-canada-became-shill-ethyl-corp
In early April, 1997 the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, for one of the few times since its election in 1993, acted to "err", as the government put it, on the side of human health and the environment. Invoking its trade powers, Parliament passed a law restricting the import and interprovincial transport of the neuro-toxic MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl), a gasoline additive that contains the heavy metal, manganese.
Within days, the US multinational Ethyl Corp., the sole supplier of MMT in Canada, invoked the "expropriation" clause (article 1110) of the investment chapter of NAFTA to sue the government for $350 million Canadian for damages and lost income. With the NAFTA agreement working exactly as it was designed to, the pressure of significant potential public liability mounted on the federal government and on July 20th, 1998 it backed down, settling out of court before the NAFTA arbitral panel could rule.
In a final cruel irony the $13 million US ($19.5 million Canadian) compensation payment to Ethyl for lost profits and legal costs exceeds the total 1998 Environment Canada budget for enforcement and compliance programmes ($16.9 million Canadian). The government will also issue a statement to the effect that the manganese-based additive is neither an environmental nor a health risk which, or course, Ethyl will use to market MMT internationally.
Here's one involving our cheaper drug pricing by our laws allowing generic versions:
http://action.sumofus.org/a/eli-lilly/
"One of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is fighting a dirty war against Canada. Last year, Eli Lilly filed a lawsuit against Canada for $500 million dollars for passing policy that lets companies to make affordable versions of its medicines. But now they're playing really dirty and are lobbying in Washington to get Canada added to a "watch list" of countries that aren't friendly enough to investors."
So while some of you and your fellow Americans are lamenting your own loss of sovernty, American companies are attacking Canadian's hard fought higher standards for environment and labour rights....and winning thanks to this trade law.
And this is not an isolated case. There have been many sues involving different products and different issues. We have a better health care provisions. Here companies must contribute a certain amount to the plan. They have sued for "lost profits" on that issue too.
The net result is the chipping away of protections and rights of workers over time dictated by corporations suing countries that have stricter laws in these regards until eventually the lowest common denominator of protections is established.
The TTP is an extension of this plan on a more world wide scale:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tppa-when-foreign-investors-sue-the-state/5357500
"The investor-state dispute system, whereby foreign investors can sue the host-country government in an international tribunal, is one of the issues being negotiated in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
[...........]
Finally, investors can sue on the ground of indirect expropriation. Tribunals have ruled in favour of investors that claimed losses due to government policies or regulations, such as tighter health and environmental regulations."
Its like agreeing to a parasite that can invade and pressure governments to either pay large suits or cave in to weakening their own standards for their own people.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)The TPP is just the natural & expected evolution of the unbridled desires of shareholders.
They have sown the seeds, we will all reap the whirlwind.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Corporations can create their own tribunals, sue governments in their courts, and avoid regulations set up by those governments. I have a feeling Hillary Clinton might sign this piece of swill since bubba already sold us out to the WTO.
JEB
(4,748 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)What is more important, people or corporations? People can survive without corporations, corporations can not survive without people. This means that people, not corporations have to be the final arbiter in all matters affecting the people. Seen this way, it makes sense that the people should be in charge, not the other way around.
Curently, corporations are in the drivers seat. They are adversly affecting all people on this planet, arguably they may even bring about our extinction, via war, pollution and/or global climate change. The TPP is adding even more corporation control over people. The time for the people to be in charge is here, we need to be the final arbiter. Submitting to our supposed 'corporate overlords' may very well be a death sentence for both when seen this way.
That's my way of seeing it, it just doesn't get simpler than that.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)This is a tough one for the bots. They've mostly ignored this or feigned ignorance, being an apologist for this would be almost impossible - but I'm sure they will try now that Obama has came out of the closet on it.
Bill Clinton sold us out with this crap, now Obama, next Hillary may be up to bat, I'm not overly optimistic she would turn this ship around, even if she could.
randome
(34,845 posts)The TPP at least puts into place a mechanism to resolve disputes, which is a way of regulating the corporations. They have to go before the tribunal if this passes.
That's better than what we have now: nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #244)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)I've heard this drumbeat before and it always ends on a flat, anticlimactic and unremarkable note.
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)But not to worry. Another outrage will be along any time now, which will also signal the end of democracy as we know it.
That train is never late.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)The fat cats living off the tax. Sounds like a scheme to keep robbing the green. A bunch of people keeping busy doing nothing. We have a court system already in place. One world government with the wto un and world bank. Sounds like a bunch of time and money wasted.
End international trade! Buy local!
Response to kpete (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)what's the purpose of a government? At that point, the function of government is to collect the people's taxes and then dole them out to the Corporate Masters.
If the amoral multinationals have their own judicial system, can ignore counties existing laws, stash their money in secret accounts and monopolize economies how far are they away from world dictatorship?
When they start cutting overhead by withdrawing political donations because whatever a President, Congress and SCOTUS enacts doesn't apply to them, just the lowly citizens, we know the game is over. Once these new trade deals are passed politicians become obsolete, just toys to play with.
When you are too big to fail and jail, existing in your own world, then you are the masters and everything else is just pretense.