General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I Simply Do Not Understand Obama's Support Of The TPP. [View all]truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Or the situation in Mexico, where after NAFTA went, through the banks in Mexico were in big trouble, sot he USA bailed them out to the tune of 20 billion bucks. That that meant the inflation that hit the middle and lower incomed in Mexico reduced their wages from 87 cents an hour to 45 cents an hour.
According to research done by David Swanson, "The United States had about 20 million manufacturing jobs before NAFTA, and lost about 5 million of them, including the closure of more than 60,000 facilities. Imports have soared while the growth of exports has slowed. Millions of service jobs have been offshored too, of course. The TPP is referred to by those who have seen drafts of it (and you can read some draft chapters online) as NAFTA on steroids. It expands on NAFTAs policies. The TPP would provide special benefits to, and eliminate risks for, companies that offshore jobs. Vietnams wages are even lower than Chinas. An average days wage in China is $4.11. In Vietnam its $2.75.
"The TPP will push U.S. wages downward. And if NAFTAs impact on Mexico is any guide, the TPP wont end up being seen as beneficial to Vietnam either, especially when some other country decides that it can pay workers even less than Vietnam does."
More fromSwanson on the TPP and how people aren't even allowed to comment on it:
"There is also, of course, nothing hidden about the hand of corporate trade agreements. These are not agreements aimed at maximizing competition by preventing monopolies. These are very lengthy and detailed agreements that include protection and expansion of monopolies. Rather than relying on the magic of the marketplace, a corporate trade agreement relies on the influence of lobbyists. Just as the corruption of the military industrial complex helps explain a global military buildup in the absence of a national enemy I mean an enemy that is a nation, not a handful of criminals who ought to be indicted and prosecuted rather than blown up along with whomevers nearby so, too, the corporate ownership of our government explains our governments trade policies.
"The senators were discussing how they would mitigate the damage of what they were about to support. They planned to try to help find jobs for some of the people they would throw out of work. I thought I should point out to them that they could just leave everybody in their current jobs. I was hoping they would realize that on their own. I didnt want to be rude and interrupt. But it seemed an important enough point. So I spoke up. And they arrested me.
"Then the senators discussed Korean and U.S. tariffs on beef. A woman in the audience spoke up and asked why we couldnt just leave the Korean beef in Korea and the U.S. beef in the United States instead of shipping beef both ways across the ocean. They arrested her. They arrested everybody who said anything. In the first year of the previous agreement made with Korea, U.S. exports to Korea fell 10% and the U.S. trade deficit with Korea rose 37%. The same sort of results are likely with a new one. On the plus side, Congress was kept safe from interruptions. The charges carried some months in jail, as I recall. Four of us made deals in court that kept us out of jail but banned us from Capitol Hill for 6 months. In the next courtroom over, some friends were convicted of speaking out against torture when some committee chairman hadnt asked them to. And straight across the hall, that same day, another friend was told shed completed her probation for having interrupted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in the Capitol, a punishment imposed even though Netanyahu had thanked her for speaking and bragged about how shed have been treated worse in Iran although the assault she suffered in the U.S. Capitol put her in a neck brace."