..from environmental regulation, workers labor laws (NLRB), American courts, congressional oversight (fast track/TPA), Unions, unionization, EFCA, collective bargaining, paying a living wage, taxation, and any other "concern" that may "threaten" the profits including long term future profit margins of the most powerful international corporations and financial institutions in the world
Maquiladora: the 'millers portion' (pictures of sweat shops) - These TPP type trade deals are heading towards a global coordination of Free Trade zone (FTZ's) agreements
A compendium of opinions, analysis and links.
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP): | WikiLeaks | Early analysis - 12/2011
In 2014, Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximize profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity."[111]
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who opposes fast track, stated that trade agreements like the TPP
"have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations."[112 - video segment w/ Senator Bernie Sanders]
Economist Paul Krugman reported,
"... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away," and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[113]
Economist Robert Reich contends that the TPP is
a "Trojan horse" in a global race to the bottom, giving big corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate any and all laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits."[114 - video @ link][115]
In a letter to Michael Froman, a US Trade Representative, Senator Bernie Sanders wrote:
It is incomprehensible to me that the leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP while, at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge as to what is in it
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTiP):
.. is a proposed free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. Proponents say the agreement would result in multilateral economic growth
Or does TTiP actually amount to this, from
John Hilary, Executive Director of War on Want | including analysis of the ‘investor-State dispute settlement’ (ISDS) and the risks involved in 'Fast Tracking" (pdf):
As officials from both sides acknowledge, the primary aim of TTIP is not to stimulate trade through removing tariffs between the EU and USA, as these are already at minimal levels.
The main goal of TTIP is, by their own admission, to remove regulatory ‘barriers’ which restrict the potential profits to be made by transnational corporations on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet these ‘barriers’ are in reality some of our most prized social standards and environmental regulations, such as labour rights, food safety rules (including restrictions on GMOs), regulations on the use of toxic chemicals, digital privacy laws and even new banking safeguards introduced to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.
The stakes, in other words, could not be higher.
In addition to this deregulation agenda, TTIP also seeks to create new markets by opening up public services and government procurement contracts to competition from transnational corporations, threatening to introduce a further wave of privatizations in key sectors, such as health and education.
Most worrying of all, TTIP seeks to grant foreign investors a new right to sue sovereign governments in front of ad hoc arbitration tribunals for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions. This ‘investor-State dispute settlement’ mechanism effectively elevates transnational capital to a status equivalent to the nation-state itself, and threatens to undermine the most basic principles of democracy in the EU and USA alike.
- emphasis added
Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)
From Workers/Labor Union(s) perspective:
The Public Services International (PSI) organization..
PSI is a global union federation of public sector trade unions representing 20 million working women and men who deliver public services in 154 countries.[1] Members work in social services, health care, municipal services, central government and public utilities such as water and electricity. Women represent two-thirds of the membership.
...described TiSA as:
a treaty that would further liberalize [aka loosen regulations - a "conservative" agenda iow's] trade and investment in services, and expand "regulatory disciplines" on all services sectors, including many public services. The "disciplines," or treaty rules, would provide all foreign providers access to domestic markets at "no less favorable" conditions as domestic suppliers and would restrict governments' ability to regulate, purchase and provide services.
This would essentially change the regulation of many public and privatized or commercial services from serving the public interest to serving the profit interests of private, foreign corporations.[13]
- emphasis added
One concern is the provisions regarding retention of business records. David Cay Johnston said, "It is ... hard to make the case that the cost of keeping a duplicate record at the home office in a different country is a burden." He noted that business records requirements are sufficiently important that they were codified in law even before the Code of Hammurabi.[14]
Freezing regulations:
Dr. Patricia Ranald, a research associate at the University of Sydney, said:
“Amendments from the US are seeking to end publicly provided services like public pension funds, which are referred to as 'monopolies' and to limit public regulation of all financial services ... They want to freeze financial regulation at existing levels, which would mean that governments could not respond to new developments like another global financial crisis."[15]
- emphasis added
Secrecy:
A preliminary analysis of the Financial Services Annex by Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand was published with the WikiLeaks release.[12] | Regarding the secrecy of the draft, Professor Kelsey commented:
"The secrecy of negotiating documents exceeds even the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and runs counter to moves in the WTO towards greater openness."[12]
David Kay Johnston adds,
"It is impossible to obey a law or know how it affects you when the law is secret."[14]
Elizabeth Warren (video), International President of the
United Steelworkers Union (USW)
Leo Gerard,
Communication Workers of America president
Larry Cohen and many more progressive Dems have all weighed in against TPA (fast track) and these "free trade" deals
Note: So this is less of a Diary with any new breaking information or any attempt by me at erudite analysis than it is a compilation of a bunch of sources and links all in one window, spurred by frustration as my computer hadn't enough CPU ability to process all the pages I've been researching at any given time.
Also too, I won't pretend to know the details in all this. After chasing down a bunch of links, what I discovered was a lot of talk concerning "expanding markets share", "curtailing burdensome regulations" (aka "streamlining Gutting regulations"), "securing and protecting profits", "increasing exports" of JOBS - that is (to countries with cheap underrepresented labor), reducing labor costs (relabeled as: "no less favorable conditions"),...iow's a package of Deals geared, not for the people of the countries these Global corporations extract profits from, but catering pretty much exclusively to the wants of Global corporations promoting and financing these Deals
A top down package of international venture capital driven bargaining done without accountability that gifts the most powerful corporations in the world with even more authority over real people, reminiscent of the trickle down theory that, once again, never makes it to the "down" part of the trickle - unless a race to the bottom is the goal here - that is
- and Kudos, WikiLeaks
With one last layman's question for those Dems that believe these corporate agreements are a good thing; beyond the deals being cooked up; and setting aside whether or not these "free trade' deals are a good thing:
Question: Since when is it ever a good idea to have a tiny minority of the most wealthy corporations in the world to be allowed the authority to negotiate and control the natural resources of a country and the Labor force made up of its people ? - and to do it in secret - that to me is the opposite of a democracy, and a dangerous set up - imo
Here is a link to a petition in this MB Diary covering more on this issue. In case you haven't been able to find one yet :)
And a reminder of something human persons often forget. Corporations
never do:.
Many decades and thousands of corporate purchased laws shielding them from accountability and the politicians they buy to enact those laws prove that - imo
I strongly support the President on a good many things, but not this
- Once again it's gotten late, I'm late on this and hope it's useful - time to turn in - Thanks for stopping by