The Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens Our Liberty

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/04/trans-pacific-partnership-threatens-our-liberty

Supporters of the pact try to divert the public from these issues with promises of big economic gains that imply more jobs. Take the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which is sponsored by Wall Street mogul Peter Peterson. News reports last week cited a Peterson estimate that if the agreement were approved, American exports in 2030 would grow by an extra 9.1 percent, or $357 billion, in 2030.

For people to remain free and governments to remain sovereign, corporations must remain subject to state control, not the other way around.

That sounds terrific. The problem is in a related fact all the news reporters missed because they read the press release, not the actual study. The report predicts that imports will rise by the exact same $357 billion as exports, making the net result a big fat zero, as economist Dean Baker pointed out in his invaluable Beat The Press blog.

Actual results will be not much better than zero, at least for America, the World Bank estimates. It projects the American economy in 2030 will be larger by an extra four-tenths of one percent. That’s roughly equal to the economy of metropolitan Oklahoma City. Australia, Canada, Chile and Mexico would see growth increase by a fraction of one percent to about 2 percent.

For people to remain free and governments to remain sovereign, corporations must remain subject to state control, not the other way around. If we allow corporate arbitration panels — especially panels drawn from a close-knit world of insiders — to rule over governments, our liberties will diminish.

[pampango]

1. 2 points. 1. Trade arbitration panels are FDR's fault. 2. They are everywhere now.

Prior to FDR there were no trade agreements and no trade arbitration panels. Coolidge and Hoover were more high-tariff, low-trade, the-US-makes-the-rules kind of presidents. Trade was very limited and disputes were resolved by the countries involved. The bigger and stronger country (USA!) usually won. Small countries played by the big country's rules and its unilateral dispute resolution process or the small country went elsewhere. We put tariffs on the other countries' stuff and did not really care that they did the same to our stuff. FDR changed that and arbitration panels were a part of his ITO proposal.

International arbitration panels are everywhere now. There are over 2,500 of them. We either need to improve them or get rid of them. Getting rid of them would require getting rid of the WTO and all trade agreements.

So far I have only heard that the Donald is willing to do that. (Polls show that ideas is much more popular with the republican base than with Democrats.) Unilaterally imposing tariffs (the 'Coolidge/Hoover' strategy) on China and Mexico (and others to follow undoubtedly) requires that the US withdraw from the WTO (which governs trade with China) and NAFTA (trade with Mexico). Bernie, in particular, and Hillary oppose the TPP but I have not heard them adopt Donald's position on the WTO, NAFTA and the need for unilateral US' action.

The real question is whether the structure of the panels in the TPP is better or worse than that of the existing panels in the WTO, NAFTA and other trade agreements. If the TPP panels are worse (in terms of the rules being arbitrated or the composition/powers of the panels) then the TPP is a huge step backwards.

[eridani]

2. The only way to fix the panels would be to have labor and environmental advocates on them n/t

[pampango]

3. The enforcement of high labor and environmental standards across national borders is indeed critical

As an example, that is why the unions in the UK don't want it to withdraw from the EU. Losing the labor standards that are part of EU membership would weaken labor standards in the UK in their opinion. To them that is more important than the 'national sovereignty' argument that the right hides behind.

[eridani]

4. That enforcement is something that all trade deals have failed at miserably n/t

[pampango]

5. Other than the EU's trading rules, I agree.

That does not mean we should stop trying. Enforcing labor and environmental standards across national borders will be difficult to do without enforceable international agreements of one form or another.

Europe has done it. FDR's ITO would have done it (at least with respect to labor standards since environmental concerns were not a factor then), but a republican senate refused to even consider it.

[eridani]

6. Europe consistes mostly of industrialized countries

Few of which are selling 50 cents an hour labor costs to the oligarchy.

[pampango]

8. True, but the EU labor and environmental rules apply to the poorer countries in eastern Europe

as well. AFAIK, US' trade agreements even with other 'rich' countries do not include enforceable labor and environmental standards so I will give some credit to the EU on this.

Again, I don't see how we achieve enforceable labor and environmental standards across national borders without strong international agreements.

[cali]

7. There is no one more knowledgeable on the TPP or more worth

paying attention to, than David Johnson.

Thanks for posting this.

[Octafish]

9. Welfare for Wall Street

Why is that our President and Congress can work together for that noble cause every time?