The TPP trade deal

[stevea]

What leaves you to believe

The phrase you lack is "LEADS one to believe", not "leaves".

that all progressive positions and arguments are based upon information only from progressive websites?

I don't, but I presumed you understood basic English. You stated ....
"I think the point that most progressives make, is ..."
followed by a list of about.com links. The clear implication is that the links are examples of the Progressive position. They are not. There are merely examples of bad logic ignorant of basic economics.

Cheap, especially when it incurs much greater externalities that must be born by the consumer regardless of where the trade-off between price and environment, mistreated workers and economic inequality is sacrificed, is not necessarily equitable to efficiency.

This is laughable. Environment or mistreated workers has nothing - ZERO to do w/ my argument or free trade. "economic equality is sacrificed" ?? WTF ?? You don't even understand the terms involved and you are "spinning" new unsupported claims to dance around the issue.

TRY AGAIN - my argument was that part of that first link made a very very silly and ignorant mistake. Address that without changing the goalpost.

===

Trade necessarily means that each side re-arranges it's economy; gains in some area, losses in others, but on net more efficient. As I predicted Pelosi led the Luddite charge against free trade and in favor of stuck-in-the-muddism based on completely ridiculously and economically ignorant arguments.

I don't like the TPP secrecy either, nor do I know the details even now. That doesn't make your and Pelosi's counter-args any less silly.

 

[Trakar]

I don't, but I presumed you understood basic English. You stated ....
"I think the point that most progressives make, is ..."
followed by a list of about.com links. The clear implication is that the links are examples of the Progressive position. They are not. There are merely examples of bad logic ignorant of basic economics.

Actually, there was only one "about.com" link that was inadvertently repeated. As you can see below there were a number of links given that constitute a very good distribution of solid references discussing the problems (particularly with many of the violation enforcement practices) of other recent major trade deals over the last couple of decades.

I think the point that most progressives make, is that TPP possesses the same types of flaws inherent to NAFTA that addressing these flaws instead of hiding them would produce better results than passing another such flawed trade agreement. Making it easier for US companies to earn higher profit margins, isn't, or should not be, the primary overriding goal of U.S. trade policies and treaties.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm

Nafta and labor
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22823.pdf

Nafta and the Environment
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/10/mm1093_03.html

Labor
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/ustr_must_press_enforcement_of_labor_violations_in_mexico

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/nafta.pdf

Why nafta failed and what's needed to protect workers' health and safety in international trade treaties. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17208827

Rethinking NAFTA’s Environment and Labor Agreements - http://www.globalization101.org/rethinking-naftas-environment-and-labor-agreements-2/

 

[luchog]

Yep. We had been moving toward a service economy long before NAFTA was ever thought of.

For this to be true, then something also "forced" us to move from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society. What was it?

The move from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society was the natural outgrowth of technological advancement in both manufacturing and farming. Fewer people were needed to work on farms, and more people were needed to work in factories. It was a slow progression from one to the other. Farming was not lost, it merely developed greater efficiencies that required less manual labour.

Yes, the US was already slowly moving towards a service economy as manufacturing technology improved, but that would not have entailed the loss of domestic manufacturing, merely the transition from manual labour to robotic labour for many lower-skilled positions. What NAFTA did was to effectively reverse that process and move those jobs out of the US in a very short time.

The expected progression which would have left the predominantly automated manufacturing industry in the US (though obviously not without problems of its own) with a population transitioning from factory labour to support and service industries due to the increased efficiencies resulting in manufacturing requiring less manual labour. However, the move toward automation was reversed, and the factories were moved to take advantage of cheap labour in questionably ethical circumstances, under predominantly corrupt regimes. This resulted in a severe and rapid spike in unemployment that would not have occurred otherwise, and a step backwards in technological progression. (This was not helped by several major US industries already declining in the face of foreign competition; predominantly due to management refusing to adapt to changing markets, with the obvious example being the automobile industry.)

It's not so much the shift in emphasis that was the problem; but rather the timing and deviation from the normal progression.

 

[Corsair 115]

Yes, the US was already slowly moving towards a service economy as manufacturing technology improved, but that would not have entailed the loss of domestic manufacturing, merely the transition from manual labour to robotic labour for many lower-skilled positions. What NAFTA did was to effectively reverse that process and move those jobs out of the US in a very short time.

Re: the bolded. I guess it's relative, but what exactly do you mean by "a very short time"? NAFTA has been in effect for 21 years now.

However, the move toward automation was reversed, and the factories were moved to take advantage of cheap labour in questionably ethical circumstances, under predominantly corrupt regimes.

Do you have some citations for the above interested parties could read?

 

[Praktik]

Economics is a lot like climate science - underneath it all is a hideously complex nest of trends and countervailing trends, a cherry pickers paradise.

Theres always some broader or alternative trend you can reference to sustain your favoured hypothesis.

Both disciplines are fraught with ideological bitterness and motivated reasoning.

If theres one difference i think climate science itself enjoys a broader consensus and a more mature/stable body of accepted research behind it. Its more in the public perception and debate where it appears so unsettled.

Economics as a discipline is still a bit behind the curve on that - and for good reason, its even more tied to our political processes and incentives.

All this to say i think that when discussing the latest trade deal or the IPCC, my signature is particularly apt.

 

[a_unique_person]

Business being able to dictate to government. This is from a serious business journalist for a reputable new source.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...-really-translates-to-we-lose-20150619-ghrqm8

The government is not merely determined to strip away the rights of its citizens on grounds of terror, it is also delivering powerful new rights to corporations on grounds of trade.
Get used to seeing these four letters: ISDS. They stand for Investor-State Dispute Settlement. They are legal clauses common in trade deals and they lend a foreign corporation the right to sue a government if that government has the cheek to govern in a way that damages their commercial interests.
And there they were this very week: ISDS provisions interred in the minutiae of Australia's Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China – provisions which may give the Chinese rights to sue Australia if they feel aggrieved by some change in our laws.
As corporations slowly but relentlessly tighten their grip over governments, it is worth considering how far they are prepared to go to enforce their rights, especially as the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal includes ISDS clauses too.
This is how far they have gone already: Egypt raised its minimum wage at the beginning of last year. It wasn't much by Australian standards, just $74 a month, but for a state employee on 700 Egyptian pounds a month ($102), a rise to 1200 pounds is not to be derided.
A French multinational with operations in Egypt, however, did not like this minimum-wage effrontery. A couple of months later, Veolia, the global services juggernaut, bobbed along and sued Egypt for the grievous disadvantage it had suffered thanks to the industrial relations changes.
Veolia's claim relies on ISDS provisions in a trade treaty between Egypt and France.
Then there is the fifth-largest pharmaceutical group in the US, Eli Lilly, which is suing Canada for having the temerity to make medicines cheaper and more accessible to Canadians.

 

[bit_pattern]

Business being able to dictate to government. This is from a serious business journalist for a reputable new source.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...-really-translates-to-we-lose-20150619-ghrqm8

I even saw Craig Emerson - the neolib flag-bearer of the ALP - condemning the TPP tonight

 

[bit_pattern]

Economics is a lot like climate science - underneath it all is a hideously complex nest of trends and countervailing trends, a cherry pickers paradise.

Theres always some broader or alternative trend you can reference to sustain your favoured hypothesis.

Both disciplines are fraught with ideological bitterness and motivated reasoning.

If theres one difference i think climate science itself enjoys a broader consensus and a more mature/stable body of accepted research behind it. Its more in the public perception and debate where it appears so unsettled.

Economics as a discipline is still a bit behind the curve on that - and for good reason, its even more tied to our political processes and incentives.

All this to say i think that when discussing the latest trade deal or the IPCC, my signature is particularly apt.

Second time tonight I've seen this comparison made - my thoughts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10721079&postcount=1399

FTFY

The comparison doesn't even begin to stand. The closest example I can think of was James Hansen accidentally predicting the Pinatubo eruption, i.e. factoring in the statistical likelihood of an unpredictable event happening and having the actual event occur out of pure fluke. Like the old saying goes, economists have predicted 10 out of the last 2 recessions. There are a few unpredictable factors with climatology - massive eruptions, meteor strikes, the sun suddenly going dim - but all in all the predictions it makes are incredibly sound because they are based on physical laws. Same with meteorology, to the extent that you can model into the future, i.e. around a week or so, their predictions are also excellent. But trying to model human emotion, phhhh, they don't call it the dismal science for nought. The fundamental assumptions built into most econometric models are laughably simplistic in comparison.



Yeah, this. And to add to the point, most econometrics involves the mathematisation of relatively simple concepts in order to make the field so dense as to be unintelligible to the average punter, which allows economists (of a certain ilk) to sit around stroking their chins like Wizards of Oz making pronouncements about how grand they are and how we should all cower in the shadow of their reflective awesomeness. Then this is the **** society is supposed to revolve around! It's the greatest scam foisted on the great unwashed since religion was first developed.

 

[Trakar]

Obama Secures his Conservative Legacy/bone fides

Passed the Senate, all that's left is for Barry to pluck a right-wing quill and sign his way into the history books.

 

[therival58]

well, I guess that's it then. Obama and the US congress have shown where their loyalties lie, and it's not to the American people. They're not even trying to hide it anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Bills should be limited to no more than 20 pages, must deal with a single subject, no earmarks and should be posted online for all Americans to read 24 hours in advance of a vote.

 

[gumboot]

Business being able to dictate to government. This is from a serious business journalist for a reputable new source.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...-really-translates-to-we-lose-20150619-ghrqm8

The biggest and most widespread fear spread about the TPPA is this idea that corporations will be able to control legislation in signed on countries, or that corporations will be able to sue governments.

The issue with this concern is that the way countries treat international treaties in regards to law (and the way countries treat legislative precedence) varies considerably.

Firstly, on the international level, the process by which any international treaty or agreement becomes law is two-fold. Firstly, a nation must sign the agreement. However at this stage this constitutes merely an expression of support for the agreement, if you like. It is only once the nation adjusts their own legislation to incorporate the agreement that it becomes law. This is called ratification. A nation can (and nations do, on a regular basis) choose to adopt particular aspects of an international agreement, and not others. The bottom line, however, is simple; the act of signing an international agreement does not make that agreement legally enforceable against that country.

At the domestic level, each state has their own processes for dealing with international treaties. The US, for example, automatically elevates any international agreement to the status of legislation when it is signed, above that of Federal Law but below the Constitution. In the US's hierarchical legislative structure that means an international agreement automatically takes precedent over Federal Law. The Supreme Court can rule a Federal or State law as illegitimate if it conflicts with international treaties, and can strike it down.

By stark contrast, countries under the Westminster system, such as New Zealand, exercise a principal called Parliamentary Supremacy. This means, in essence, that legislation passed by parliament is irrevocable, and incontestable. The concept of "unconstitutional law" simply does not exist, as any legislation passed by Parliament is by definition constitutional. Where legislation conflicts with previous legislation, the most recent legislation is viewed to be legitimate - the act of passing it automatically repeals the earlier legislation (alternatively courts may modify their interpretation of the earlier law so that it abides by the newer).

What that means, for example, is that the situation where a government might change a law, and a private corporation might successfully file court action against the legitimacy of that law, is a very real possibility in a country like the USA, but is legally impossible in a country like New Zealand.

 

[Trakar]

Passed the Senate, all that's left is for Barry to pluck a right-wing quill and sign his way into the history books.

A bit more background on the machinations Obama had to go through to once more shore up his conservative-lite cred :

"Hard Politicking Behind Democrats’ ‘Yea’ Votes on Trade Bill"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/u...ats-yea-votes-on-trade-bill.html?ref=politics

...Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, bluntly laid out his plans to save the president’s trade push, and House Speaker John A. Boehner endorsed it on the call. It would be up to Mr. Obama, the two Republicans said, to deliver a handful of Democrats in each chamber for a new set of trade votes — a high-stakes test for a president who has often seemed indifferent to legislative arm-twisting and whose relationships with lawmakers, even in his own party, have frequently been questioned.

“I said, ‘Mr. President, all you have to do is get the same 28 Democrats in the House who voted for it once to do it again,’” Mr. McConnell said in an interview this week. And, he told the president, “get the 14 Senate Democrats” too...

I don't know of anyone who voted for Obama with the hopes that he would use his office to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority of Democratic representatives in the House and Senate (not to mention democratic voters and supporters) to help Conservatives deliver to their supporters a means to evade environmental and worker protections throughout Asia and the Pacific rim. The only legacy he has earned is to convince many that Conservative-lite, is not a distinct or better alternative to Conservative.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The biggest and most widespread fear spread about the TPPA is this idea that corporations will be able to control legislation in signed on countries, or that corporations will be able to sue governments.

The issue with this concern is that the way countries treat international treaties in regards to law (and the way countries treat legislative precedence) varies considerably.

Firstly, on the international level, the process by which any international treaty or agreement becomes law is two-fold. Firstly, a nation must sign the agreement. However at this stage this constitutes merely an expression of support for the agreement, if you like. It is only once the nation adjusts their own legislation to incorporate the agreement that it becomes law. This is called ratification. A nation can (and nations do, on a regular basis) choose to adopt particular aspects of an international agreement, and not others. The bottom line, however, is simple; the act of signing an international agreement does not make that agreement legally enforceable against that country.

At the domestic level, each state has their own processes for dealing with international treaties. The US, for example, automatically elevates any international agreement to the status of legislation when it is signed, above that of Federal Law but below the Constitution. In the US's hierarchical legislative structure that means an international agreement automatically takes precedent over Federal Law. The Supreme Court can rule a Federal or State law as illegitimate if it conflicts with international treaties, and can strike it down.

By stark contrast, countries under the Westminster system, such as New Zealand, exercise a principal called Parliamentary Supremacy. This means, in essence, that legislation passed by parliament is irrevocable, and incontestable. The concept of "unconstitutional law" simply does not exist, as any legislation passed by Parliament is by definition constitutional. Where legislation conflicts with previous legislation, the most recent legislation is viewed to be legitimate - the act of passing it automatically repeals the earlier legislation (alternatively courts may modify their interpretation of the earlier law so that it abides by the newer).

What that means, for example, is that the situation where a government might change a law, and a private corporation might successfully file court action against the legitimacy of that law, is a very real possibility in a country like the USA, but is legally impossible in a country like New Zealand.

Thanks for this excellent post.

How do international tribunals (ISDS) play out in these situations? Australia has the same Westminster history, but we're still getting taken to court for our plain packaging laws for cigarettes, via a FTA we signed with Hong Kong.

 

[a_unique_person]

What that means, for example, is that the situation where a government might change a law, and a private corporation might successfully file court action against the legitimacy of that law, is a very real possibility in a country like the USA, but is legally impossible in a country like New Zealand.

Which is what the TPP will be negotiating we can only presume. Since it's all secret but the big corporations are in on the negotiations.

Take the current Plain Packaging for cigarettes law in Australia. What if the tobacco companies now make those cigarettes by a US company ( a company can be easily incorportated anywhere), for trade to Australia. Australia can stop an Australian company breaking the Plain Packaging laws, can it stop an American one that is exporting to Australia?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Which is what the TPP will be negotiating we can only presume. Since it's all secret but the big corporations are in on the negotiations.

Aren't most trade negotiations confidential? I didn't hear a thing about the Chinese deal this year until it was signed.

 

[Trakar]

Aren't most trade negotiations confidential? I didn't hear a thing about the Chinese deal this year until it was signed.

There is a difference between "not generally discussed in detail in the popular press" and "literally classified, until the agreement is finalized."

This is very unusual process, especially when coupled with fast track authority and the way classification generally means that this remains a national secret for four or more years regardless of whether or not the deal is eventually passed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/dont-keep-trade-talks-secret.html?_r=0

 

[bit_pattern]

Wikileaks has got the TiSA

https://wikileaks.org/tisa/press.html

Taking awhile to load though, I imagine the site is getting a metric **** tonne of traffic right now!

Today, 1500 CEST Wednesday, 1 July 2015, WikiLeaks releases a modern journalistic holy grail: the secret Core Text for the largest 'trade deal' in history, the TiSA (Trade In Services Agreement), whose 52 nations together comprise two-thirds of global GDP. The negotiating parties are the United States, the 28 members of the European Union and 23 other countries, including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan and Israel.

Today's publication happens the week before the next TiSA negotiating round that begins on Monday, 6 July. WikiLeaks is also today publishing the full agenda for next week's negotiations, which shows that discussions will focus on Financial Services, Telecommunications and the Movement of Natural Persons.

WikiLeaks is also publishing a previously unpublished Annex text – the secret TiSA Annex on Government Procurement. The draft Annex aims to reduce procurement regulation to ensure that TiSA governments will not favour local services over services supplied by foreign multinationals.

WikiLeaks is also publishing the new negotiating texts for three highly controversial TiSA annexes: the annexes on the Movement of Natural Persons, the Domestic Regulation Annex and the Transparency Annex. All three texts include negotiating positions of each of the participant countries in the TiSA negotiations, and illustrate developments from previous versions of the TiSA annexes, also published by WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has also released 36 pages of our own expert analysis.

 

[Corsair 115]

Well, for all those who have waxed a little conspiratorial on the TPP trade deal, the conspiracy has been derailed for the time being. it seems: Trans-Pacific Partnership talks hit snag, no deal reached.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

At the domestic level, each state has their own processes for dealing with international treaties. The US, for example, automatically elevates any international agreement to the status of legislation when it is signed, above that of Federal Law but below the Constitution. In the US's hierarchical legislative structure that means an international agreement automatically takes precedent over Federal Law. The Supreme Court can rule a Federal or State law as illegitimate if it conflicts with international treaties, and can strike it down.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Generally, democracies require ratification of treaties by parliaments. Anything else would give the executive law-making power.

In the UK a treaty is put before parliament. The houses have 21 days to resolve that a treaty should not be ratified at which point it automatically is.
In the UK it is far, far easier for the government to get treaties ratified.

By stark contrast, countries under the Westminster system, such as New Zealand, exercise a principal called Parliamentary Supremacy. This means, in essence, that legislation passed by parliament is irrevocable, and incontestable. The concept of "unconstitutional law" simply does not exist, as any legislation passed by Parliament is by definition constitutional. Where legislation conflicts with previous legislation, the most recent legislation is viewed to be legitimate - the act of passing it automatically repeals the earlier legislation (alternatively courts may modify their interpretation of the earlier law so that it abides by the newer).

This is true but irrelevant for international treaties.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Thanks for this excellent post.

Doesn't look excellent to me...

How do international tribunals (ISDS) play out in these situations? Australia has the same Westminster history, but we're still getting taken to court for our plain packaging laws for cigarettes, via a FTA we signed with Hong Kong.

These tribunals can award compensation to a corporation if they feel that a country has violated it's treaty obligations. This is an enforcement mechanism that is independent of any national law.
You could say that these tribunals can fine governments for non-compliance.

Practically it means that the wealth of multi-nationals is better protected than human rights, or even the wealth of "mono-nationals". Multi-nationals thereby have an additional, super-luxurious legal remedy to protect their interests.