HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The TPP: Toward Absolutis...

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:04 PM

 

The TPP: Toward Absolutist Capitalism

Good read on TPP. An informed & thoughtful analysis IMHO.

The TPP: Toward Absolutist Capitalism
Saturday, 25 April 2015 * By Lambert Strether * Naked Capitalism via TruthOut

There are many excellent arguments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), two of which — local zoning over-rides, and loss of national sovereignty — I’ll briefly review as stepping stones to the main topic of the post: Absolutist Capitalism, for which I make two claims:

1) The TPP implies a form of absolute rule, a tyranny as James Madison would have understood the term, and

2) The TPP enshrines capitalization as a principle of jurisprudence.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30368-the-tpp-toward-absolutist-capitalism

37 replies, 2177 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply The TPP: Toward Absolutist Capitalism (Original post)
99th_Monkey Apr 2015 OP
IDemo Apr 2015 #1
99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #2
Hoyt Apr 2015 #3
99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #4
Hoyt Apr 2015 #5
99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #6
raindaddy Apr 2015 #8
Hoyt Apr 2015 #15
fasttense Apr 2015 #9
Hoyt Apr 2015 #16
Hoyt Apr 2015 #18
stillwaiting Apr 2015 #19
Hoyt Apr 2015 #21
stillwaiting Apr 2015 #24
Hoyt Apr 2015 #30
stillwaiting Apr 2015 #32
Hoyt Apr 2015 #34
cali Apr 2015 #26
Hoyt Apr 2015 #31
bvar22 Apr 2015 #28
L0oniX Apr 2015 #7
hifiguy Apr 2015 #11
Enthusiast Apr 2015 #10
WillyT Apr 2015 #12
blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #13
ymetca Apr 2015 #14
Hoyt Apr 2015 #17
Octafish Apr 2015 #20
Hoyt Apr 2015 #22
Octafish Apr 2015 #25
Hoyt Apr 2015 #35
99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #37
bvar22 Apr 2015 #29
riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #33
Hoyt Apr 2015 #36
99Forever Apr 2015 #23
moondust Apr 2015 #27

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:11 PM

1. Commence slow-motion swandives onto keyboards to Google "Lambert Strether +dirt"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:17 PM

2. LOL .. Yes. To be expected I guess. nt

 

Probably he's soft on Greenwald, et. al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:28 PM

3. Whew. Do you even understand how the arbiters/judges are selected under trade agreements?

The corporation selects one; the state selects one; and then one is selected by mutual agreement. And, they are not necessarily lawyers, could be college professors or others knowledgeable of the issues.

Sure, the parties to a suit have lawyers to make their case, just like any criminal or civil case in this country.

As I understand it, Obama and his government negotiators have gone for improvements that include limiting frivolous law suits, more precise definitions of what types of cases can subject to tribunals, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:34 PM

4. However Obama tries to polish the TPP turd

 

It's still a turd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:42 PM

5. And what are the people spreading bull?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 03:02 PM

6. What? Are you against composting?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 03:56 PM

8. Right no room for corruption there...

We have three bodies bodies of government and all three seem to be corrupted by the flood of unlimited $$$ funding our election process. So what could possible go wrong with armed to the teeth with unlimited cash corporations involved in an arbitrating process?

Besides why would anyone want some foriegn corporation trying to undermine laws and regulations their community agreed upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raindaddy (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:59 PM

15. They don't undermine. But as to your question, it's simple. They want foreign investment

and the jobs that come with it. They are not likely to come if their investment can be expropriated.

How many jobs here are from foreign companies? A load of them if you don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 03:58 PM

9. They could actually select a labor leader, a social activist, a liberal too

 

But they are not going to. The politicians are in the pockets of the corporations. So they are going to pick corporate lawyers and say see we are infinitely fair and just. While all the time the citizens get screwed.

If it is so wonderful let us read it now. Don't give us a 60 day countdown to read and analyse over 15,000 pages of legalese and lobbyist lawyer gobbledygook. And if Obama is so into improving "free" trade treaties then why did he allow the trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to go off without the fixes he claims he's putting in this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:03 PM

16. Why would a state pick a judge that is likely to rule against them?

Do you even think before posting this junk?

Do they still have the Evelyn Wood speed reading courses? Take one if you really think it's going to be 15000 pages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:42 AM

18. South Korean agreement was a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 07:53 AM

19. Well, your argument is solid. I'm sold.

Based on what metrics was the South Korean agreement a good one?

Good for who? Who has benefitted, and who has lost ground?

If you confidently state that it's good, you surely have some things to point to to justify this strong opinion. I'd love to be properly informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:05 PM

21. Well, haven't seen any facts from you where it was bad. South Korea is an ally of ours,

trade between allies.

The agreement has just gone into effect, these things take years to produce results.

Those who work for manufacturing, engineering, construction, other services, weapons (sadly) etc., companies will benefit.

Glad to have South Korea as one of our friends, and trading partner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:17 PM

24. Ask and ye shall receive.

Strongly increasing trade deficit balance with South Korea from 2012 to 2013 to 2014 to 2015 (looks like we're off to another huge increase in our trade deficit with Korea for 2015).

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5800.html

Imports have strongly increased from '12 to '13 to '14 to '15.

Exports have not.

Why did we do this again? That's not what was promised.

Your rationale sounds good, but I prefer to look at what's happened and see if what was promised would happen is what we got. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:42 PM

30. Sounds like Econ 101 or Remedial level. Actually, Economists vary as to opinion on whether trade

deficit are good or bad:

Take this view of the good (you can look at the article to get the bad view, because I'm sure that's all you really want to see to continue trashing trade agreements):

". . . . . .Economists who consider trade deficits good associate them with positive economic developments, specifically, higher levels of income, consumer confidence, and investment. They argue that trade deficits enable the United States to import capital to finance investment in productive capacity. Far from hurting employment, they believe that trade deficits financed by foreign investment in the United States help to boost U.S. employment.

Some economists see trade deficits as mere expressions of consumer preferences and as immaterial. These economists typically equate economic well being with rising consumption. If consumers want imported food, clothing, and cars, why shouldn't they buy them? That range of choices is part of a successful economy.

Perhaps the best view of trade deficits is the balanced view. If a trade deficit represents borrowing to finance current consumption rather than long-term investment, or results from inflationary pressure, or erodes U.S. employment, then it's bad. If a trade deficit fosters borrowing to finance long-term investment or reflects rising incomes, confidence, and investment—and doesn't hurt employment—then it's good. If a trade deficit merely expresses consumer preferences rather than these phenomena, it is immaterial."

Read more: International Finance: Trade Deficits: Bad or Good? http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/trade-deficits-bad-good.html#ixzz3YRT42haY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:57 PM

32. Underneath the BALANCED VIEW of trade deficits that you posted

it should clearly indicate that the U.S.'s trade deficit is bad. Our trade deficit does not reflect rising incomes and it has hurt employment (good jobs gone; service jobs created). Also our borrowing does finance our current consumption. That's bad according to the info. you posted.

All I know is that we are told over and over again that these free trade agreements will help us export more to these countries (that's false), and that we will get lots of new jobs (any new jobs we've been getting over the past few decades have NOT been good ones; we've lost those through these trade agreements). That's the B.S. that keeps getting repeated over and over though, and there's no truth to it.

I have seen you on numerous occasions here state that you realize that these trade agreements will result in the loss of jobs for U.S. citizens, but that it creates good jobs in other countries (which supposedly raises them out of poverty). You've touted that as a good thing, and I believe you've even stated that you don't understand why liberals would be against this series of events. You certainly seem to not care too much about the worsening plight of the American middle class, working class, and poor as you are so cavalier about this happening.

Although I do give you credit that you at least state that you believe some jobs will be going to other lower labor countries. Most of your compatriots on this issue don't even acknowledge that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:47 PM

34. I don't think you have any idea what employment would be like here if we weren't trading with others


Some jobs may go, but other jobs will open up.

Anyone today who thinks they will be working in the same industry all their life is living a pipe dream. That's why education is so important. The world is changing rapidly, and either folks better prepare for it, or we better prepare for how we will take care of those who don't change. To me, that latter means we better be making a lot of money somehow and taxing it heavily enough to take care of those unable or unwilling to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:27 PM

26. bullshit. first of all we had extensive trade with South Korea before

 

The deal. We haven't gained jobs do it as the President promised. We've lost jobs. Our trade deficit has ballooned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:44 PM

31. We've lost jobs under the way those promoting an agenda calculate them.

The assume a trade deficit represents lost jobs, and use that to calculate lost jobs.

As the article above demonstrates, lots of economists disagree. Plus, a trade deficit with Korea, does not mean the overall trade deficit increased. If we weren't trading with Korea, it is likely many of the products would have been purchased from China or Japan, etc.

But, heck, why ruin a good Obama is selling us into slavery rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:44 PM

28. South Korean agreement was a good one????

Only if you are in favor of shipping 60,000 American jobs overseas,
and INCREASING the Trade Deficit.

Yeah. The South Korean Trade Deal was a "good" one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 03:39 PM

7. Fuck the mega corporations and the big pile of capitalist bullshit they rode in on.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:32 PM

11. Well said.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:28 PM

10. Corporations have entirely too much power already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:35 PM

12. K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:48 PM

13. Remember when Obama said he was "against" Citizens United???

 

I think he meant he was against citizens, united.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:56 PM

14. People don't get that the objective of the TPP is Litigation

Multinational corporations have designed the TPP specifically FOR litigation to extract profits from puny, whining nation-states that want a clean environment and their citizens not exploited. The whole "free trade" jargon is pure propaganda. The objective is not the fair exchange of goods and services. The objective is to enslave the entire planet to the illusion of "profit".

And so begins the death-knell phase of Capitalist ideology. It's starting to eat itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ymetca (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:05 PM

17. Yeah, they are going to walk away with trillions from Vietnam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 07:57 AM

20. That's the idea.

All the benefits of colonialism, without the capital requirements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:06 PM

22. No, it's not the idea, it sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:24 PM

25. Michael Parenti noticed that phrase gets used a lot when power is threatened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:49 PM

35. Nope, I'm thinking of those who appear to think there is language in the TPP that says:

"The intent of this agreement is to screw Octafish, Hoyt, and every other DUer. Obama and our overlords are selling us into slavery."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 10:46 PM

37. Nicely played! Parenti rocks. nt

 

Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:47 PM

29. Oh yeah. Thats what it is. a Conspiracy Theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:02 PM

33. Here's a typical case under NAFTA. Rich American deliberately lead poisoning children

 

This is a prominent case in Peru where investor-state treaties have provided an avenue for companies to delay or reverse agreements which had been enforceable in courts: Peruvians may now be on the hook for an $800 million payout to Renco even though Peruvian children are the ones dying.

It's despicable and a foreshadowing of what lies ahead globally instead of just our usual fucking up South and Central America.

...Renco Group Inc., a company owned by one of the richest men in America, invested in a metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. The site has been designated as in the top 10 most polluted in the world. The firm has been sued in U.S. court on behalf of severely lead-poisoned children in La Oroya. Sulfur dioxide concentrations at La Oroya greatly exceed international standards, with sulfur dioxide levels doubled in the years after Renco’s acquisition of the complex. Renco’s Peruvian subsidiary promised to install sulfur plants by 2007 as part of an environmental remediation program. Although it was out of compliance with its contractual obligations, the company sought (and Peru granted) two extraordinary extensions to complete the project.

In December 2010, Renco sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack, alleging that Peru’s failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a violation of the firm’s FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration.

Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen, the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad enough, but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism.

Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroya’s children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investor-state case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state court’s remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case...


read more: http://www.citizen.org/documents/fact-sheet-tpp-and-environment.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 05:03 PM

36. Well there is a little bit more to the story than you print, not to mention in 5 years, Renco

hasn't gotten far.

http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1396.pdf


You also left off that the US courts are allowing the US suit to go forward, so Renco will pay for hurting children.

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/peruvian-childrens-toxic-exposure-suit-to-proceed/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:11 PM

23. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:08 PM

27. Global corporate hegemony

is soooo much better than global communist hegemony doncha know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread