• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The TPP trade deal

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,038
Location
Yokohama, Japan
I guess this is an issue that divides Democrats. Obama is for it, but Elizabeth Warren is against it (more broadly, businesses seem to mainly be for it, with some exceptions, while labor and environmental groups are against it). Me, I'm generally in favor of freer trade and lower barriers to trade, and against protectionism because I think the benefits outweigh the costs. However, the benefits can be harder to see than the costs, which is why populist arguments for protectionism seem to sway a lot of people.

This article is from the Boston Globe:
Warren, Mass. business groups at odds on trade pact

WASHINGTON — The Capitol loomed behind Senator Elizabeth Warren last week as she raised her fist to the crowd of union workers and promised to fight against one of the world’s most expansive trade deals.

The cheers by labor and environmental groups in Washington were met with silence by companies back in Massachusetts, where the state’s thriving life science and tech sectors consider the trade pact critical to the region’s economic prosperity.

This disconnect pits Warren and some in the Democratic delegation against the state’s key business groups as lawmakers consider legislation that would propel the deal forward.

“This [trade pact] is a huge opportunity not to be missed,” said Christopher Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council.

The dichotomy underscores deeper fault lines among Democrats about the role of free trade and its effects on American workers. The divide is particularly acute in Massachusetts, where Boston’s surging technology, biotech, and medical device hubs contrast with post-industrial towns and their rising unemployment rates.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, I think Warren has a good point to make about the deal: why is the fine print secret? Here she is in her own words:

You can't read this

Have you seen what’s in the new TPP trade deal?

Most likely, you haven’t – and don’t bother trying to Google it. The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret.

Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.”

If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the United States.

The Administration says I’m wrong – that there’s nothing to worry about. They say the deal is nearly done, and they are making a lot of promises about how the deal will affect workers, the environment, and human rights. Promises – but people like you can’t see the actual deal.

For more than two years now, giant corporations have had an enormous amount of access to see the parts of the deal that might affect them and to give their views as negotiations progressed. But the doors stayed locked for the regular people whose jobs are on the line.

If most of the trade deal is good for the American economy, but there’s a provision hidden in the fine print that could help multinational corporations ship American jobs overseas or allow for watering down of environmental or labor rules, fast track would mean that Congress couldn’t write an amendment to fix it. It’s all or nothing.

Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it.
Click to expand...

Even though I am generally in favor of free trade, I find this argument persuasive: Why can't we see what's in the deal? Why can't we see the fine print? If someone asked you to sign a contract, but told you you can't read the fine print, would you sign it? What sorts of things did corporate lobbyists put in the fine print? I want to know before I sign on to it.

This isn't the side of the issue I want to be on, but I want to do my due diligence, and if the fine print is secret, I simply can't support it.
 
Other, perhaps related, causes for concern:

Some of the leaks are alarming. They include what British medical journal The Lancet calls an "unprecedented expansion of intellectual property rights that would prolong monopolies on pharmaceuticals and reduce access to affordable and lifesaving generic medicines".

Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme spends $1 billion a year on the 10 most expensive of the super-expensive so-called biologic drugs, manufactured from living organisms.

In addition to patent protection, the manufacturers get five years in which the makers of cheaper generics are unable to use their data to prove their alternatives are safe. The US wants to extend the period to eight years. Deborah Gleeson, from La Trobe University, says that would cost the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme $205 million a year.

It isn't to facilitate trade. It's a measure to restrict trade. And the TPP is full of them.

In one part buyers of pharmaceutical products (such as Australia's PBS) would be restricted in their ability to offer whatever price they wanted to their suppliers (mainly US-owned pharmaceutical companies), a restriction not normally thought of as advancing free trade. In another, even minor breaches of copyright (such as burning a copyrighted DVD for a friend), would become a criminal rather than a civil offence.

And outside tribunals would be able to adjudicate and impose penalties on Australian governments even after their laws had been found valid by Australia's courts. It would open the way for alcohol manufacturers to take on Australia over laws requiring labelling, food manufacturers to take on Australia over anti-obesity campaigns and mining companies to sue Australia over environmental regulations, as happens in Canada under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Australian businesses ought to love the TPP. They would get the ability to take on 11 other governments in overseas tribunals, and to the extent that they export intellectual property (Australia is a net importer) they would benefit from the criminalisation of copyright breaches.

But would they actually be able to sell much more product?

It looks as if they wouldn't. The department of foreign affairs and trade said Australia's mega trade deal with the United States, signed 10 years ago, would boost Australia's gross domestic product by $5.7 billion. However, 10 years on, the Australian National University says it has not boosted trade at all. A US Department of Agriculture study says the agricultural component of the TPP will not boost Australia's GDP at all.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Hard to comment on secret deals, they are secret. Maybe we need a new forum Titled "proven conspiracies" or at least a subforum of the conspiracy theory forum.
 
I am also opposed to the TPP because of the secrecy but Obama did make one good argument. If we don't reach some agreement, others (read, China) will make some agreements and those won't have any financial, labor or environmental limitations at all. Is something better than a worse alternative? I really don't know the answer.
 
Not if it means corporations can sue our governments! If we don't have a deal, China can't impose legal restrictions on our sovereign government's decisions to ban harmful products etc.

Sounds like Obama is being a politician and not a shepherd of good governance.
 
What, massive for-profit corporations working hand in hand with politicians might not have the best interests of the people at heart? You astonish me!

Moderators, when criticism of our of corporate overlords becomes criminalized, please delete this post.
 
Whoops, nvm.

I'll just say that many of the same problems exist with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between USA and EU. For example, do the American posters here think that Congress would change or remove the Buy American Act of 1933 to allow Pacific countries/EU to compete in the U.S. public procurement market? At least back in July, 122 Congress members were strongly in favour of the Act.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
If we the people would oppose it if we knew what was in it, then its proponents need to either improve it of make a better argument for it. Just sneaking it through Congress is not the answer.
Click to expand...

<cough>bollocks!</cough>



Seriously, though, it's a good point: The leaks suggest a trade restricting deal, not a trade liberalizing deal.

Thanks, Obama!

Annoyingly, opposing this deal on account of its secret clauses puts me on the same side as American trade unions and Elizabeth Warren--two interests I would normally prefer to die in a fire.
 
The details are made public before a vote in Congress. Scream then if it's a problem. Until then, much of it may be negotiating positions.

This isn't some new sinister behavior.
 
Beerina said:
The details are made public before a vote in Congress. Scream then if it's a problem. Until then, much of it may be negotiating positions.

This isn't some new sinister behavior.
Click to expand...

New? Perhaps not. Sinister? From a presidential administration who promised increased government transparency as a major plank in his election campaign... well, actions speak for themselves.
 
Hmmmmmmm...a bill that we have to pass in order to know what's in it that if it was known what was in it, it would be opposed by the American people...where have we heard that before?

;)
 
luchog said:
New? Perhaps not. Sinister? From a presidential administration who promised increased government transparency as a major plank in his election campaign... well, actions speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I understand the need to keep negotiating positions secret while the negotiations are going on. If that's all this is, then I withdraw my objections. I might raise them again if the final draft is not made public for a reasonable amount of time before it goes to Congress, or if Congressional leaders quash debate before voting, or if the White House is unwilling or unprepared to address concerns about the published draft.
 
Beerina said:
The details are made public before a vote in Congress. Scream then if it's a problem. Until then, much of it may be negotiating positions.
Click to expand...

At which point the argument becomes that the whole treaty can't be renegotiated just because of a few details and refusing the deal means throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
 
Puppycow said:
I guess this is an issue that divides Democrats. Obama is for it, but Elizabeth Warren is against it (more broadly, businesses seem to mainly be for it, with some exceptions, while labor and environmental groups are against it). Me, I'm generally in favor of freer trade and lower barriers to trade, and against protectionism because I think the benefits outweigh the costs. However, the benefits can be harder to see than the costs, which is why populist arguments for protectionism seem to sway a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Is protectionism even a thing anymore?

I don't really see how these trade deals have anything to do with that.
 
Why does any country need a huge trade deal? Why not just drop the restrictions you have?

It's probably got clauses re: gun ownership, medical care, abortion, civil rights, LGBT rights, right to work, criminal prosecution, environmental rules...... (Did Hillary write it? )

Few of which are needed for free trade. Just everybody eliminate your restrictions. NOT a treaty for One World Government.
 
It's hard to take Warren seriously with that fist in the air pose. You can get away with that jazz when you're college-aged, but it just looks silly from a grandmother.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
At which point the argument becomes that the whole treaty can't be renegotiated just because of a few details and refusing the deal means throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the plan. Try to get all the ducks in a row before it sees the light of day, then ram it through before the public has a chance to really work out the implications. Hit them with a PR blitz and a bunch of pliant media lapdogs who will confuse and misinform the general public.

My predictions for the actual content of the bill:

1) There will be something in it that the general population will support. If there is nothing good whatsoever in it, then they won't be able to go the baby/bathwater route. It is difficult enough to get people to eat a s*** sandwich, they will at least make sure the bread is tasty. It will also give congressmen and senators the ability to say that they voted for the good thing, and that while they opposed the bad stuff, it was all unfortunately attached to the good stuff, so sad (sniff).

2) There will be lots of serious rules and regulations regarding protecting the environment. There will also be no effective enforcement mechanism for implementing them. Same with labor regulations, wages, and pretty much anything else that people making less than $100k will care about.

3) Banks will be able to do whatever the %*&$ they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom