The New Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Thread

[Mazmaz]

This is starting to draw to a close with the negotiations, and there needs to be more outrage. These deals are drawn in secret, and will give corporations enormous power to sue governments for their protective laws for billions of dollars.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6182126.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...221143455.html

[Aleth]

I'm glad someone brought this up.

It's fairly clear that the TTP is not only a threat to hard-won protections and rights but to the fundamental basis of democratic government.

It also undermines the very role governments must fill in order for capitalism to function without going off the morality deep end and into a new corrupt era. Corporations will have huge leverage over governments.

That may sound alarmist but when companies can use a panel of corporate lawyers to preside over governments to take public money to refund lost "projected profits" because whatever the company planned was against the protective laws of that nation... then democracy is staring into the abyss.

I'm not talking about, say, fair reimbursement for costs when a government wants to cancel a contract early or so on. That already happens and is fair. This is lawyers extracting money from the tax payer because the government won't let their business break the laws of that nation, eg. poison the city water supply.

How long do we think the public purse can pay to prop up the protections so painfully won for its people? I'd wager that it wouldn't be for very long.

Even if these inevitable pay-outs didn't increase already massive deficits to breaking point and collapse, the public will have to take cuts to their services and infrastructure budgets to pay lawyers and businesses to, through their business practices not harm/poison/kill and otherwise violate their rights as citizens.
There's no way that is right.

If the western democracies allow this to pass then it will be a betrayal on a whole new scale.

Is all that we have left the hope that our politicians aren't planning to be part of this new future ruling class and will fight for our rights?

[myreality]

Heard about this a while ago.

Remember telling a friend about it who claimed it was just another conspiracy theory. I also couldn't take it seriously due to the absurd amount of power it would give corporations.

I can only imagine what the world may become if it passes.

[Aleth]

It's easy to sound shrill over this treaty but the threat is very real.

I believe El Salvador has already signed a treaty very like TTP with the U.S. and cases like this started popping up : http://fpif.org/meet-company-suing-e...-poison-water/

[Xno Kappa]

It's easy to sound shrill over this treaty but the threat is very real.

I believe El Salvador has already signed a treaty very like TTP with the U.S. and cases like this started popping up : http://fpif.org/meet-company-suing-e...-poison-water/

That's pretty scary, but what's to stop El Salvador from telling the company to go fuck themselves even if they lose the ruling? What authority does the corporation have to collect the payment?

[Pirian]

That's pretty scary, but what's to stop El Salvador from telling the company to go fuck themselves even if they lose the ruling? What authority does the corporation have to collect the payment?

Presumably, US sanctions or tariff increases, because the treaty is with the US government

[Aleth]

I suspect the US govt. thinks it will be good for economic growth. However I think siphoning tax money out of foreign nations to benefit US corporations will, in the long run, probably make the USA a huge number of enemies abroad.

Edit: Just to clarify, the TTP-stlye trade agreements being pushed globally effectively break the sovereignty of the signing nations. Nothing makes populations madder than messing with that. The "poisoning the well" of civil protections as a cherry on top just seems dangerously short-sighted.

Would help if they weren't literally threatening to poison wells or sue though.

[Mazmaz]

Don't mean to sound like an ass, but it's TPP not TTP.

[Aleth]

Ah some journalists are calling it TTIP over here. Seen it shortened to all sorts depending on the news outlet.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-...ip/about-ttip/

"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a trade agreement that is presently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States..."

I'm cool with using TPP for clarity here though.


Nevertheless similar treaties have been signed by other nations ( iirc South American and some Pacific nations... including Australia[?] ) and I have read enough horror stories already.

Also: It's worth noting that while the trade agreement has that horrific part about suing governments for civil protections, it also has a bunch of stuff that isn't unreasonable. I hope the EU is able to sort the sheep from the goats here.

[notorious bum]

Obama going hard for the TTIP Drill.

[Clash Perez]

TTIP and TPP are two different things. Not interchangeable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transat...nt_Partnership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

[Mazmaz]

thank you

[Aleth]

Derp, fair enough. TTP is something different.

TTIP does have the terrible "investor-state dispute settlement". I don't know the particulars of the TPP. I guess this was the wrong thread!

Edit: a link about TITP for those in the EU who are interested in how they get to lose their democracy http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-lawyers-eu-us

Edit edit: TTP AND TTIP have this "investor-state dispute settlement" in it. So, still relevant to thread.

Also: Nooo! The US has already shackled NZ with it! I wanted to stay there! This is the worst!

[Drex]

“Don’t fight the last war,” the president told fellow Democrats. “Those who oppose these trade deals, ironically, are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers.”

NAFTA was perhaps one of the worst deals for the lower and middle classes in US history. Why do we have to keep joining partnerships that require us to carry all of the weight and confer all of the benefits to others? NATO, NAFTA, TPP? Enough is enough.

“Right now,” Obama said, “there are no labor rights in Vietnam. I don’t know how it’s good for labor for us to tank a deal that would require Vietnam to improve its laws around labor organization and safety.”

Wow, I thought this was the Onion for a minute. I almost had a stroke reading this, especially when I realized it wasn't Cheney, Bush, or Satan. If Vietnam won't implement laws around labor organization and safety without a sword to hack at America's unemployment rate then they can pound sand.

He is really trying hard to be the worst president of all time with this.

[Aleth]

Actually I get why Obama says what he says.

By forcing trade partners to increase the standard of living abroad the US forces down the comparative cost of US labour.

The biggest threat to traditional manufacturing jobs in the western democracies comes from cheap labour in countries with much lower living standards. If you like, the balancing cost of cheap pacific-made goods is the loss of competing manufacturing industries in the developed nations.

Whether you consider this a failing of globalism - that's up to you, but it is the inevitable outcome. However, over time, a boom in manufacturing industries in the end (long term) results in an increase in wealth of the general populace and causes a middle-class growth-spurt (see: the industrial revolution). Before too long the living standards increase and the costs of labour go up and soon either the nation has to move to more high-tech industries (like how in the pacific ring they've moved on to computer parts) or face the loss of jobs to a nation that still has not developed as far and so has cheaper labour.

One could say that trading nations which are poor eventually benefit from globalism but often at the cost of the exploitation of the workers (for decades... lifetimes... ).

Obama seems to be trying to short-circuit this fairly slow process of trade based development in order to make goods from the USA competitive.
The cost in the long run is that all goods bought from foreign countries, eventually, will cost more. What you buy with that cost is everyone involved is paid a fair wage and noone is exploited.

I understand nationalism and wanting cheap TVs, but stepping back for a moment... If every worker whose nation trades with a 1st world country has to have the same rights and expected standard of living for the same work, then that is a good thing. It makes domestic goods far more competitive due to transportation costs. It makes the world a better place to be a worker.


As for the part of TPP/TTIP I disagree with: The "investor-state dispute settlement" infringes on sovereignty and puts citizen's rights at loggerheads with profit. It's also settled in such a way that the profit side has the balance way, way in its favour.

If Obama is going for a fairer trading new world, so be it. However if he's going for a new world run by lawyers for profit... no thanks.



TLDR:

- Raised living standards in foreign manufacturing nations actually makes USA labour way more competitive.

- If you think not being able to massively underpay for labour/goods is unfair then you are a bad person on the inside.

- TPP/TITP both have a clause that threaten democracy that MUST be dropped.

[Aleth]

Hmm my initial reaction to these agreements was this:



That still stands while the dispute settlement part of these agreements remain.

On the other hand, the rest of the stuff is actually fairly forward thinking. Long term it sounds great but the effects on import/export businesses short term might cause some huge issues to adjust to... especially import.

Has anyone spotted any other turds in the ointment of these agreements? No doubt there are other nasty things in there.

Without alteration it all looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Not any plain wolf either. World-eating Fenrir-type wolf.

[Drex]

Actually I get why Obama says what he says.

By forcing trade partners to increase the standard of living abroad the US forces down the comparative cost of US labour.

The biggest threat to traditional manufacturing jobs in the western democracies comes from cheap labour in countries with much lower living standards. If you like, the balancing cost of cheap pacific-made goods is the loss of competing manufacturing industries in the developed nations.

Whether you consider this a failing of globalism - that's up to you, but it is the inevitable outcome. However, over time, a boom in manufacturing industries in the end (long term) results in an increase in wealth of the general populace and causes a middle-class growth-spurt (see: the industrial revolution). Before too long the living standards increase and the costs of labour go up and soon either the nation has to move to more high-tech industries (like how in the pacific ring they've moved on to computer parts) or face the loss of jobs to a nation that still has not developed as far and so has cheaper labour.

One could say that trading nations which are poor eventually benefit from globalism but often at the cost of the exploitation of the workers (for decades... lifetimes... ).

Obama seems to be trying to short-circuit this fairly slow process of trade based development in order to make goods from the USA competitive.
The cost in the long run is that all goods bought from foreign countries, eventually, will cost more. What you buy with that cost is everyone involved is paid a fair wage and noone is exploited.

I understand nationalism and wanting cheap TVs, but stepping back for a moment... If every worker whose nation trades with a 1st world country has to have the same rights and expected standard of living for the same work, then that is a good thing. It makes domestic goods far more competitive due to transportation costs. It makes the world a better place to be a worker.

This may or may not be Obama's motive but it is not the sales pitch he made. If he's trying to sell this partnership, your argument is more compelling than the one he provided. Why go full retard about Vietnamese labor standards? Why speak about this as a hypothetical when we have real-world examples readily available that suggest caution is needed? Hence, my post.

- Raised living standards in foreign manufacturing nations actually makes USA labour way more competitive.

In theory. In practice, 20 years into NAFTA we have not seen these effects materialize in Mexico to the extent you described. Sure, people with money have cheaper things to spend that money on in the short run, and the net effect has probably been positive on GDP. There is at least your hypothesis out there that, in the very long run, these jobs will return to the US anyway as standards in foreign countries rise.

In the meantime, Democrat core constituents get another big middle finger...just like with Clinton. Free trade was supposed to make everyone wealthier, and in aggregate it certainly goosed GDP, but what about the unwashed masses? Automation may have hammered a final nail in the coffin but NAFTA killed the jobs in the first place.

Ironically, we are seeing this effect in China...with no trade agreement in place.

- If you think not being able to massively underpay for labour/goods is unfair then you are a bad person on the inside.

If cost of living in a foreign country for a similar standard is 50% that of in the US, then it is neither unfair nor underpayment to buy something for 50% of its hypothetical, Made in the USA cost. Foreign trade ends up with so many variables that purchasing power parity ends up incredibly hazy anyway so this is really a nonstarter.

- TPP/TITP both have a clause that threaten democracy that MUST be dropped.

No argument here.

I would also caution that making foreign countries more attractive investment targets takes away investment capital from the US, and could even convince companies to move headquarters. I don't see any silver lining on that cloud, unless you're rich and can take advantage of lower-risk growth in foreign markets that may be more amenable to sweet tax deals.

[Aleth]

I get what you are saying about comparative living costs. I suspect this will not be solved without a global currency. Hence, perhaps, the Euro experiment in the EU.

Thinking about it, the euro-zone of the EU probably has some good examples relevant to this due to the varying wealth of each nation and the free movement of goods and people.
Even with the same currency in Europe the prices vary from country to country (even city to city).

I find it hard to disagree with having a rule on working conditions for foreign goods. As an extreme example, I doubt many people would want to find out their Christmas gift was made by a slave who was worked to death in a work-camp.

I suspect most people in Western nations would agree on something along the lines of;
- no goods made via human rights abuses (conditions / hours / actual abuse / slavery)
- no goods from manufacturers who do not pay a liveable wage to workers (tuned to economy of nation of manufacture)

As you rightly said, what might be reasonable compensation in one economy isn't necessarily the same number of dollars as another.


As it stands all this is pie-in-the-sky due to the settlement thing. Perhaps all the altruistic feel-good fair-trade sounding stuff is all bait for the worst kind of trap...

[Aleth]

I missed the opportunity to use a real world example: Blood Diamonds

A moral Westerner would surely shun purchasing a wedding ring or jewellery with diamonds in it knowing it was from that cartel company that purchases blood diamonds.

I suspect products that are the result of exploitation, poor working conditions or wages will similarly be looked down upon, if not now then sometime in the future.

[Drex]

I get what you are saying about comparative living costs. I suspect this will not be solved without a global currency. Hence, perhaps, the Euro experiment in the EU.

Thinking about it, the euro-zone of the EU probably has some good examples relevant to this due to the varying wealth of each nation and the free movement of goods and people.
Even with the same currency in Europe the prices vary from country to country (even city to city).

At the risk of sounding tin foil hat-ty, the US is a better example. The states are fully integrated, share many laws, and share currency. They also already have a sort of de facto world currency (at least for bank reserves) in the way that English often serves as lingua franca, and trade agreements with the other countries in the developed world. What could we call a government whose predominant language is lingua franca, who has trade agreements all over the world, an army all over the world, sets legislation standards by consensus all over the world, and controls a de facto world currency? Fun thought experiment.

I find it hard to disagree with having a rule on working conditions for foreign goods. As an extreme example, I doubt many people would want to find out their Christmas gift was made by a slave who was worked to death in a work-camp.

Sure but that sounds like the UN's business if anything. We have our fingers in enough pies, meanwhile ours is getting cold.

I suspect most people in Western nations would agree on something along the lines of;
- no goods made via human rights abuses (conditions / hours / actual abuse / slavery)
- no goods from manufacturers who do not pay a liveable wage to workers (tuned to economy of nation of manufacture)

Doesn't the second one exclude the US? (lol)

As it stands all this is pie-in-the-sky due to the settlement thing. Perhaps all the altruistic feel-good fair-trade sounding stuff is all bait for the worst kind of trap...

I agree, it smells like a sales pitch. If politicians won't even touch the "suing the government for hypothetical profits" thing then it at least needs to be fought on the globalization front. And fast-track...