Night and Day: Post-NAFTA Trade Deals Yield Steady Surpluses

[yallerdawg]

You wouldn’t buy a 1994 car, but our trade debate is stuck on a 1994 trade deal. Since the implementation of the NAFTA in 1994, the United States has concluded trade deals with 17 countries. Just as the quality of automobiles or computers has vastly improved since 1994, so have our trade deals. Modern deals, all concluded post 2000, have improved as a result of the lessons we learned from NAFTA. These new deals have strong labor standards that benefit U.S. workers, while NAFTA did not. These new deals have environmental protections in the agreements, while NAFTA did not. Enforcement measures have been strengthened as has access to foreign markets. We’ve come a very long way since NAFTA.

By 2030, the world economy is expected to grow by roughly $60 trillion, with almost 90% of that growth occurring outside the United States. Meanwhile, the United States derives a smaller share of its GDP from exports than 38 of 40 of the largest world economies. There is no path to middle-class prosperity without increasing exports.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest trade deal in history, will soon be before Congress. Policymakers will rightly be asking: How does this deal help America, and how does it help the middle class? There will be attempts to compare it to NAFTA, but TPP is a far cry from NAFTA. The labor, environmental, and human rights provisions are considered the strongest ever. Tariffs are reduced on over 18,000 goods. And for the first time in any trade deal, there are standards for the internet economy, protections against state-owned enterprises, and rules to stop currency manipulation. TPP is, in fact, much stronger than any modern trade deal, and those modern deals—as we show below—are already delivering.

?

?

Source: http://www.thirdway.org/report/night-and-day-post-nafta-trade-deals-yield-steady-surpluses

[pipoman]

1. It's the greatest thing evvvvah! Secretly negotiated

By big business and industry, what could go wrong? Those guys always are concerned with the US middle class....JUST FUCKING TRUST THEM YOU LOSERS!

[yallerdawg]

2. Stuck in the past.

We can read the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement now. Form our own opinions. The negotiations have been finalized, now we can see what all parties agreed to.

Negotiations aren't detailed while being negotiated - if you think they should be, you'd probably be a lot of fun to play hi-stakes poker with!

What trade does for us and jobs here in US. Pick a state, any state:

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/united-states

[pipoman]

3. Fuck TPP and all who support it.

The labor party is dead.

[Adrahil]

4. Not tht I support TPP in its currnt form, but...

What is the trade policy you support?

[yallerdawg]

5. Don't let facts...

interfere with your opinion.

I'm sure YOU know what's best for all of us.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. I would buy a car from the 90s.

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)

In fact have done so twice recently.

The TPP is not something I would buy.

[TheBlackAdder]

7. Meanwhile, China is a mercantile nation dragging down the Central and South American Nations.

.


Not bound by NAFTA, China undermines any attempts to bring reform. The same will happen with TPP.


They come into countries and buy raw materials at a lower cost than NAFTA nations, because they are not beholden to any of the human rights, worker's rights, investment and political reforms that NAFTA sets guidelines for. Many of those raw goods are toxic and have a high human impact ratio to collect and package.

Then, China comes back and sells finish goods to those countries below the costs of any local suppliers, driving many out of business, the lowering of employment then drives the demand for even more Chinese goods. This cycle further lowers the countries.


It's sort of like a Wal*Mart,with its government subsidized workforce giving an unfair advantage, moving into an area and undercutting all local shops, driving many either out of business or to fire employees. The lowering of the standards of living then force those displaces to rely on Wal*Mart for their goods, which further drops the area around the store.


TPP will do the same thing to all TPP nations, including the US. Without China onboard, it's a raw deal.
But, China does not want to become a signer to it, because they will be the nation that benefits most.

.

[yallerdawg]

8. One of the many arguments for TPP...

is to influence the future with American progressive values, including labor and environmental standards.

If we don't, China will. And you clearly state you don't like their standards.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. But, China is not part of TPP, correct? Meaning that they will have an advantage over all.

.


So while we're trying to influence regions, China undermines these priciples and money rules out.

They will become the predominate economic power in the TPP nations too. Dragging down each economy.


As it stands, TPP is a gift to China.


.

[yallerdawg]

10. China is proposing trade agreements...

with the Pacific-rim countries in TPP.

Our agreements include progressive American values - China's agreements don't, but when you have a big bully neighbor like China, and no agreements with other partners in the region, China will be pushing their values and advantages, including the ones you pointed out.

Question

“You’ve talked a lot about the U.S. writing the rules instead of China, but won’t China just be able to join TPP whenever they want anyway?”

Answer

No. The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill makes clear that that no new country can be added to the TPP without demonstrating the capacity and will to live up to the high standards embodied in TPP, followed by Congressional approval.

TPA requires close consultation with Congress on any new TPP members, including a 90 day notification before beginning a negotiation with any new country, and another 90 day notification before an agreement can be signed with any new party.

And, of course, TPA requires a vote by both houses of Congress before a potential new party could join TPP.

https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73#.97ktyujb6

[Rex]

11. Many people said that and still say that, this is a gift to China.

China follows it's own laws and thumbs it's nose at other nations. This trade deal will help them in the long run.

[amandabeech]

25. The Chinese do what they want, when they want.

Most of the other countries in the area hate them because they bully their neighbors.

They took Putin to the cleaners on the natural gas deal. It is unlikely that Russia will get much profit from it.

China became empowered when it was allowed into the WTO by Clinton and Bush and it became possible for every manufacturer on the planet to do business there.

It's not just the cheap labor with absolutely no humane protections.

It's that China won't enforce any environmental protections or anything else.

Anyone who thinks that China will do any different under the TPP will be sorely disappointed.

[Rex]

12. LOL 3rd Way.

Nice source.

[yallerdawg]

13. Democratic/independent sources are allowed on DU.

No more laughable than "RT" and "The Inquisitor."

Fringe candidates and policies fail at the national level.

We either live in reality or fantasy.

I choose reality. Plenty 'left' enough for now, in case you haven't noticed.

[arendt]

14. Its not about trade. Its about ISDS. Trade is a smokescreen.

You can quote all the trade stats you want.

The problem with TPP and all deals with ISDS in them is that they put multinational corporations above countries.

If you believe in democracy, instead of corporatism, you cannot possilby vote for TPP.

The rest of your post is distraction.

[yallerdawg]

15. We can read it now - no more speculation and innuendo.

Question

“Is it true that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) would allow corporations to override laws, including environmental and public health regulations?

Answer

No. ISDS cannot change law in the United States or any other country. No government measure (federal, state, or local) can be blocked or reversed under the ISDS provisions or any other part of TPP. The United States would never negotiate away its right to regulate in the public interest, and we don’t ask other countries to do so either. This is true with regard to public health and safety, the financial sector, the environment, and any other area where governments seek to regulate.

Put simply, ISDS is a mechanism to promote good governance and the rule of law. ISDS protects basic rights — such as protection against discrimination and expropriation without compensation — akin to those enshrined in U.S. law and the Constitution. We already provide these protections at home to foreign and domestic investors under U.S. law. That’s why — although we are party to 51 agreements with ISDS — the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case. Our trade agreements ensure the same kinds of protections to U.S. businesses and investors operating abroad, where they face a heightened risk of discrimination and bias.

https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73#.2toh2agh5

[arendt]

16. This canard has already been beaten to death

They don't change the law.

They sue the country for billions if not trillions of dollars. Then the country changes its laws.

It is extortion, pure and simple.

It is disingenuous to say "laws aren't changed by the treaty". Just like saying the robber did not grab the wallet from the victim's pocket. He merely pointed a gun at him and said "your money or your life". According to you, it was the victim's decsion.

[yallerdawg]

17. More speculation and innuendo - no examples.

"Maybe could be" is not our standard.

[arendt]

18. Example: the US is being sued by the Keystone pipeline company.

If the company wins, US environmental laws will be sued again and again until they are repealed.

It is not all speculation.

lTop 10 Most Pernicious Investor-State Dispute Settlement Lawsuits

You asked for evidence; I gave it.

[yallerdawg]

21. You're just a wealth of misinformation!

There is nothing but speculation and innuendo from 'bloggers' with agendas on these 'articles' passed around from source to source.

Yes, there are some cases. 'Creative speculation' does not apply!

TransCanada's actions against the Obama administration - makes one wonder...

http://www.oilandgas360.com/does-transcanadas-keystone-xl-pipeline-stand-a-snowballs-chance-in-court/

[arendt]

19. Another example.

NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals

[arendt]

20. From that: "the government was FORCED to remove the policy"

The government has lost some of these environmental challenges and has been forced to overturn legislation protecting the environment.

In 1997, the Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. chemical company, used chapter 11 to challenge a Canadian ban on the import of MMT, a gasoline additive that is a suspected neurotoxin and which automakers have said interferes with cars’ diagnostic systems. The company won damages of $15 million and the government was forced to remove the policy.

A year later, U.S.-based S.D. Myers challenged Canada’s temporary ban on the export of toxic PCP waste, which was applied equally to all companies. Canada argued it was obliged to dispose of the waste within its own borders under another international treaty. However, the tribunal ruled the ban was discriminatory and violated NAFTA’s standards for fair treatment.

[randome]

23. In other words, Canada allowed the use of MMT but not when it was imported.

And they allowed the storage of PCP waste but only within its own borders.

In both these cases, with the countries of the world becoming more united because of trade treaties, does it make sense to have Canada-specific laws that don't deal with Canada-specific issues?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[yallerdawg]

24. Are you opposed to legal, lawful redress? Sometimes you win...

On April 15, 1997, Ethyl Corporation, a Virginia corporation with a Canadian subsidiary, submitted a claim under the UNCITRAL Rules on its own behalf to arbitration against Canada. Ethyl claimed that a Canadian statute banning imports of the gasoline additive MMT for use in unleaded gasoline breach Chapter Eleven's requirement of national treatment (Article 1102), prohibition of expropriation (Article 1110) and prohibition of performance requirements (Article 1106).

A Canadian court subsequently found the act to be invalid under the Canadian law, and Canada and Ethyl settled the Chapter Eleven claim.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3745.htm

[yallerdawg]

22. The devil is in the detail.

The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.

Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

[Hoyt]

26. Well then, just about every trade agreement since 1959 has that provision, even agreements among

Scandinavian and European countries. If a country wants foreign investment, jobs, tax revenue for social good, they gladly sign onto that aspect.

[NorthCarolina]

27. ThirdWay.org??? We allow links to that site here on DU?

Amazing how far we've sunk.

[yallerdawg]

28. Really?

Third Way is a Democratic and independent think tank.

They have proposals most DU'ers support!

Nice to see some "Democrats" are as rigid in group think as Republicans are.