"Free Trade" and TPP are simple issues, despite their complexity. The princple is what matters.

[Armstead]

Hillary's "disagreement" with the specifics of the TPP -- It;s good that she did that. But it is less iumportant than the larger principle, which is that these Massive Free Trade Agreements are just bad in purpose and scope.

That is NOT saying that international trade is bad, or that actual trade agreements between nations are bad.

But these huge package deals that go far beyond the specifics of actual trade, and which are negotiated in secret and presented in a "vote fast and take it or leave it" manner -- those suck. Especially when they are such "one size fits all" straitjackets among many different nations.

They limit the ability of participating nations to pass and enforce domestic civil laws that "violate the terms of trade" (i.e. the Corporate Imperative).

They impose a "neo-liberal (conservative) agenda on all nations.

They grease the wheels for outsourcing, sweatshops and other ways of undermining of workers here and abroad. They also directly and indirectly many otehr specific issue and policies regarding the environment, human rights, healthcare, freedom of expression, the status of public services, social issues and other laws and policies.

Unless the TPP somehow is a complete 180-degree change of course from all of its predecessors, it's another brick in the wall of MFN, WTO,NAFTA etc. agreements that have undermined the American economy-- and distorted the need for actual sustainable forms of economic development in other nations -- and imposed a Multinational Corporate Agenda in the world.

[randome]

1. Yet so many countries want it this way. Because they know it benefits them.

Singapore, for example, now must institute a minimum wage because of the TPP. Living and safety standards among the TPP signatories will now be more in line with our own instead of with China's.

Not everything about the TPP will be great. But it's not evil, either.

Negotiated in secret? Really? Every trade agreement is negotiated in secret and then presented to the public.

The ISDS arbitration panels? Been the norm since the 1990s.

The majority of the advantages of the TPP will accrue to the other countries and not the U.S., except in the long-term. Anything that brings nations together is, in general, mind you, a good thing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

2. There are many ways to accomplish positive goals

There are also many ways to accomplish goals such as not trading with nations that exploit workers, without being packaged together with so many other issues.

If we were serious about raising standards of livings abroad -- and not using sweatshops and slave labor to uncut US workers and domestic business options -- the US could for example, initiate laws that require that any imported manufactured goals be subject to baseline standards for working conditions and (relative) wages or be subject to tariffs or outright prohibition.

But such things are branded by the proponents of phony "free trade" call that isolationist and protectionist (as if protecting is bad thing.)

[randome]

3. In a just world, I agree, that's how it should go down.

But we still have far too many conservative minions within our borders. They will obstruct any attempt to 'interfere' with our home-grown corporations. A trade treaty like this, however, actually reduces the occurrence of sweat shops by insisting on many of the items you cited.

The alternative is to let these nations align with China. And we already know their opinion on sweat shops and slave labor.

On balance, I think the TPP is of benefit to a lot more than just the corporate profits. Yes, corporations will do very well with this treaty. But so will other aspects of trade, such as living and safety standards.

I've seen it mentioned that even China will eventually join the TPP. This is a hell of a lot more 'coming togetherness' than what's going on in Russia's neck of the woods right now. Hopefully, Putin will realize the 21st century is here before much longer. Because if China really does join the TPP, Russia will be the only superpower living in the past.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[FreakinDJ]

4. Any agreement negotiated by Corps is Bad for the Working Class

[randome]

9. There are aspects of it that the Corporations are angry about.

There are aspects of it that many small businesses are glad to see. It seems somewhat 'fashionable' to me -at least on DU- to say that anything that benefits a corporation is, by definition, an attempt to shaft the rest of us.

It's rarely that simple, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[FreakinDJ]

13. Since when did small business see any part of the TPP

It was negotiated in secret by corporate

[Armstead]

5. Time will tell, I suppose

Since it looks like we are likely to be stuck with the TPP regardless of what Sanders or Hillary might say, I would prefer that your optimistic predictions hold true than the pessimistic beliefs of those who are opposed to it.

Part of the reason many of are so jaded about them is we're seen the results of previous promises versus actual results, as well as opposing the basic principle of these things. But won't go into all that now.....All I can say is I hope TPP breaks that pattern in the long run.

I do hope the entry of this into the campaigns as an issue does at least bring more attention to it as an issue (since it is usually swept under the carpet) and causing a rethinking about how we are going about these things.

[sabrina 1]

8. Actually they don't, unless you're just talking about governments who stand to benefit, corporate

owned governments, like ours.

The people in all the nations dragged into this secret Corporate Deal have been as outraged and as opposed as the people of THIS country.

Handing over sovereignty to Global Corps is not generally a popular notion to most developed nations. But they are now operating in First World nations they way they have always operated in the Third World.

And sadly our government is ignoring its own people, as Third World govts have in the past.

[randome]

10. Again, the ISDS panels have been in existence since the 1990s.

What is the alternative regarding international trade issues? Have Country A always say 'No' to Country B? No trade treaty would work that way. Protectionism would be the norm again.

Or should Country A get to pick its own court? Same result.

A neutral court, however (yes, I know, theoretically) would be closer to having an impartial result.

Remember, the ISDS tribunals are not set up to determine the wishes of citizens but to resolve disputes between corporations and nations. If a country wants to beef up its environmental laws, that's up to the citizens and the lawmakers to see to that. An ISDS tribunal has no say over that, and that's how it should be.

What you're worrying about is that an ISDS tribunal won't do enough to do the citizens' jobs for them. That's not what they're set up to do. They are to resolve trade disputes, nothing more.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

11. The problem with them is....

they can either stop a country from doing things or crate an environment where it doesn't even try.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/trade-agreement-troubles
"In 2012, Australia implemented tough anti-tobacco regulations, requiring that all cigarettes be sold in plain, logo-free brown packages dominated by health warnings. Philip Morris Asia filed suit, claiming that this violated its intellectual-property rights and would damage its investments. The company sued Australia in domestic court and lost. But it had another card to play. In 1993, Australia had signed a free-trade agreement with Hong Kong, where Philip Morris Asia is based. That agreement included provisions protecting foreign investors from unfair treatment. So the company sued under that deal, claiming that the new law violated the investor-protection provisions. It asked for the regulations to be discontinued, and for billions in compensation.

The case has yet to be decided, but the concerns it raises help explain President Obama’s embarrassing setback last week, when the House failed to give him fast-track authority over one of two big trade agreements that had been envisaged as a key part of his legacy. ..."

[randome]

12. Certainly not perfect. However, Philip Morris is expected to lose this case.

Not only on the merits but on the matter of them signing a free-trade agreement with Hong Kong for the express purpose of using that country as a vehicle for the lawsuit.

It's pretty clear that Australia is applying its new rules across the board. PM doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And tobacco companies, last I heard, are being excluded from consideration of ISDS tribunals in the TPP. Which means they don't get the advantages of them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[AgingAmerican]

6. These agreements pre-exempt constitutions and such

They only benefit the uber rich at the expense of everyone else.

[reformist2]

7. Yes. We need a moratorium on these "free trade" deals.

[Armstead]

14. The whole concept needs to be dumped and rethunk

I realize that wonlt happen, but...