A Good Response to the TPP

[Rilgin]

The Arbitration Provisions of the TPP are the most controversial. They allow a corporation to sue in an international tribunal in front of corporate lawyers (who also are free to bring such cases) for changes in law that might affect profits.

The only defenses so far have been a claim that the US has not lost such cases although that could certainly change as we engage capital exporting countries.

Regardless, the best answer is that changes in law, like changes in costs, are risks that are part of the investment decision. Why should tax payers bail out investors for risks that the investor should consider in deciding whether to invest. Investors profits can be reduced for all sorts of reasons beyond their control .... increases in energy costs ... competition .... natural disasters.

There is no reason we should not put risks of changes in laws that affect potential profit on the Investor. If a country sees fit to add worker protections or environmental laws after the investment and it loses the investor all or some money, that should be one of the risks the investor is being paid for when he invests.

It occurs right now in third world investments where investors demand higher returns if they believe a country is instable. Let them price risk of legal change themselves rather than put it on the back of taxpayers after the fact.

[djean111]

1. Sure, that would be entirely reasonable - but look who wrote the TPP..........

Isn't that what the 1% and the corporations have achieved? No risk, nowhere, no how. We bailed them out of the mortgage gamble, so now they are just shooting for the moon, and looks like they scored a direct hit.

[nilram]

2. I like it. Could be a letter to the Wall Street Journal.

Seriously.

[Rilgin]

5. Have thought about it

I have not seen my particular point mentioned in any other forum and it would seem to be a natural and logical extension of how investments work. The only argument I could see against it is it could conceivably change the profit sharing ratio between the entrepreneurs and the capital providers in new businesses. Theoretically, it should not change the amount the costs to the public for the products or services of the new business. The supply demand curve that is thought to set prices does not change by how the profits are distributed. If you favor entrepreneurs over capital providers this is a slightly unfavorable expected result.

[msongs]

3. there you go again criticizing obama family values nt

[Rilgin]

4. Not sure what this is about

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Is this directed at me or this post.

I do not think I directly hit on the President at all in this thread but posted on policy and the TPP. Not the political aspect of it. Although indirectly I could see it as a criticism of any politician who supports the Arbitration Provisions of the TPP and other trade agreements.