If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong

from the don't-fall-for-the-marketing. dept

Fri, Apr 24th 2015 12:57am — Mike Masnick

George Mason University professor Bill Schneider recently had an interesting blog post over at Reuters in which he discusses how Hillary Clinton is in a tough spot concerning the TPP and TTIP agreements, in that much of the Democratic party is now vehemently against these "trade" deals, while historically, the Clintons have been for them. The piece argues that whichever side Hillary takes will create a problem for her presidential campaign. The politics in the piece may be right, but almost the entire thing is built on the assumption that the TPP agreement really is about "trade" and that such an agreement will lead to cheaper goods and such. Take this passage for example:

Trade is not an ideological issue. It’s a populist issue — the people versus the establishment. Ordinary Americans are suspicious of trade deals. Economists have a hard time understanding this, but most people see trade not as an economic issue but as a moral issue.

People think it’s wrong for them to benefit as consumers from lower prices for foreign-made goods if it throws Americans out of work. Will they purchase the foreign-made goods? Of course they will — as long as they’re cheaper. That’s rational economic behavior. They just don’t think they should be allowed to.

I don't think that's actually what people are thinking at all, but even if we run with it, it's based on the very faulty premise that these agreements have anything to do with free trade at all. As we've discussed in the past, they do not. They are quite clearly often about the opposite of free trade. In the past, we've strongly recommended Michael Goodwin's epic comic about TPP where he shows how it's really got little to do with free trade, and everything to do with the ability to move investment capital around:

Perhaps an even better explanation comes from Tim Lee over at Vox, who goes into the history of these agreements, noting that the "free trade" stuff has mostly already been taken care of, as there aren't that many meaningful tariffs/trade barriers left. Instead, trade agreements have become a sort of secret playground for big corporations to abuse the process and force favorable regulations to be put in place around the globe. He discusses the history and how organized labor, the copyright industries, the pharmaceutical industries and more now basically use trade agreements as a secretive, anti-democratic process to force through regulations they want.

As the opportunities for trade liberalization have dwindled, the nature of trade agreements has shifted. They're no longer just about removing barriers to trade. They've become a mechanism for setting global economic rules more generally.

This trend is alarming to Simon Lester, a free trader at the Cato Institute. "We've added in these new issues that I'm skeptical of," he says. "It's not clear what the benefits are, and they cause a lot of controversy."

And this system for setting global rules has some serious defects. We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these — it's secretive, it's dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.

If you make the facile assumption that the TPP is actually about free trade, then you might be confused about all the hubbub about it. If you actually take the time to understand that much of what's in there has nothing to do with free trade and, in fact, may be the opposite of free trade, you realize why there's so much concern.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free trade, hillary clinton, investment, non-tarriff barriers, regulations, secrecy, tpp, trade, trade agreements, ttip

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Actually, it IS about trade...

It's about trading our last remaining freedoms for even more corporate profits.

—Anonymous Coward

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

punched, 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:09am

tpp girl
I'm as confused as a teenage girl after getting her vagina punched for the first time by a guy with a big cock in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr. Oizo, 24 Apr 2015 @ 3:29am
  
  Re: tpp girl
  Thanks for not using a ,
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 4:58am
  
  Re: tpp girl
  What a dumbass thing to say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:44am

Actually, it IS about trade...
It's about trading our last remaining freedoms for even more corporate profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 4:00am
  
  Re: Actually, it IS about trade...
  Actually it's about ethics in trade journalism - oh snap
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 4:52am
    
    Re: Re: Actually, it IS about trade...
    Actually, it's about ethics in public interests. But hey.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Actually, it IS about trade...
      Actually, it's about corporations taking over the world.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually, it IS about trade...
        Actually, it's about corporations taking over the world.
        
        Actually, it's about corporations detaching themselves from the natural checks and balances of lowly consumer market forces. They don't want to have to bother with our "Hey, that's not right. I'm not buying!" provincialism. Mobility for them; not for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 4:40am

Nothing will derail her campaign
One thing I have learned is that a democratic candidate or office holder can lie 7 ways to Sunday and his constituents won't even bat an eye. They just don't care about lying, cover ups, etc, as long as it keeps the republicans out of office. Until we hold officials accountable, we will only get more lies, but when half the population doesn't mind being lied to there is little hope of any accountability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:01am
  
  Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
  Yes, because only one party is guilty of all those things you mentioned - amirite?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:43am
    
    Re: Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
    You are rite.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
      Then "Credulous Fool" would be a better name for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Burkhardt (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
  I am not entirely sure what that has to do with the subject at hand....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
  Wrong. It's about choosing the lesser of two evils. Republican's overtly lick the boot of corporate interests, and congressional voting records show it. Democrats do not. False equivalency, please leave and stop talking before you do actual research.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:20am
    
    Re: Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
    Your view of Dems is completely off. They are corporatists just like the Repbubs, only they cater to different businesses such as Hollywood.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:37am
    
    Re: Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
    The Democratic party licks corporate boots just as eagerly as the Republican party does. On this point, the only difference between the two is the style and technique they employ in their bootlicking.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- buster hapless, 25 Apr 2015 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
  One thing is have learned is that we have a one party political system: We have the Republican wing and the democratic wing of the *money party*. You know - one dollar equals one vote
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 7:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
    You know - one dollar equals one vote
    
    I hear you, but that's not really accurate. Congresscritters (et al) will sell themselves for pennies on the dollar. Ie., lobbyists send a couple thousand off to bought politicos who will then write laws favorable to them worth $[mb]illions. Politicians are really cheap dates. They can't wait to rip their clothes off for us to be ravaged. I almost want to feel sorry for the bastards. You'd think they might have a better understanding of their potential worth in selling us out, but they'll take anything it appears, no matter how little is offered.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:27am
  
  Re: Nothing will derail her campaign
  That's the problem, right there. People need to be willing to hold their representatives' feet to the fire, but they're not. Until such time as there are real consequences, this crap will continue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 4:44am

Revisionist history much?
George Mason University professor Bill Schneider recently had an interesting blog post over at Reuters in which he discusses how Hillary Clinton is in a tough spot concerning the TPP and TTIP agreements, in that much of the Democratic party is now vehemently against these "trade" deals,

Say what? They are being worked on right now, well into a democratic presidency. One who promised transparency but has kept the negotiations secret. This first sentence is so full of itself as to make me question the whole article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:03am
  
  Re: Revisionist history much?
  It is good that you question the entire article. What else did you find to be not entirely convincing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:45am
    
    Re: Re: Revisionist history much?
    When the opening premise is wrong you have to question the rest of the article. Amirite? But of course if you don't mind being lied too, feel free to roll with the lies and inaccuracies. Normally I agree with a lot of the articles posted here, but this first line couldn't be more incorrect.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Revisionist history much?
      The first line is quite correct. Much of the Democratic party is vehemently against these deals... but not all of it, and more significantly, not the guy at the top.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:13am
  
  Re: Revisionist history much?
  Say what? They are being worked on right now, well into a democratic presidency. One who promised transparency but has kept the negotiations secret. This first sentence is so full of itself as to make me question the whole article.
  
  Yes, they're being pushed by a Democratic executive, but nearly all of the Democrats in Congress (with just a few exceptions) are against it. On the whole, the Democratic party is mostly now against these trade deals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:22am
    
    Re: Re: Revisionist history much?
    If they are against it, why aren't they stopping it rather than give their power over to the executive branch? We will see who votes for it, if it ever comes up for a vote. But since congress is abdicating its power to the executive branch so often these days, it may never come before them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Revisionist history much?
      Perhaps you do not understand the balance of power between the three branches of government in the US ... did you sleep through civics class?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bureau13 (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:45am
  
  Re: Revisionist history much?
  Have you not been paying attention? We are in the surreal and heavily under-reported, in the mainstream, situation where the Democratic president and the Republican judiciary want the same thing. They're both apparently embarrassed about this. The article is not wrong, it just doesn't state that the portion of the party references is in Congress, not the executive branch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: Revisionist history much?
  
  ... in that much of the Democratic party is now vehemently against these "trade" deals ...
  
  Say what? They are being worked on right now, well into a democratic presidency.
  
  I believe that "much of the Democratic party" is referring to voters, not candidates and office holders. Which is good. The sooner both parties' voters come to understand that their party's candidates suck every bit as badly as do the other party's candidates, the sooner we might get to fixing the broken system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:16am

Hilary has bigger scandals than what side she picks to worry about.

The 2 that come to mind every time I hear her name mentioned.

"what does it matter" (Benghazi people that died because she could not be bothered to do her job)

and

"We are dead broke" (since having hundreds of millions is apparently poor in Hilary's mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:36am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps it would be helpful if one had a more detailed understanding of the discussion from which said blurb was extracted. The down side is, this might require more than simply sitting in front of their TV set listening to the talking heads spew their predigested talking points.
  
  No candidate is without fault, and it is good to criticize them for things they have actually done wrong. Pointing at a wall where the mud has stuck does little to promote the further discussion of things that may be helpful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:47am
  
  Re:
  Why yes, focus all your attention on Benghazi as opposed to the illegal war/bombing that preceded it! There's a reason why Repubs may accuse the administration of tyranny but are silent - or even supportive - of expansive war powers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  Yes - Hillary has bigger things to worry about (most scandals more relevant than the 2nd one you mentioned) but that is beside the point of the article.
  
  The author uses Vox (left) and the Cato Institute (right) to justify his conclusions? He also points out that organized labor and big pharma and copyright industries and more use these trade agreements as a secretive, anti-democratic process to force through regulations they want.
  
  Hard to believe that the AFL-CIO is publicly against it when their real plan is to use it to further their anti-democratic aims to force through regulations.
  
  Overall I think it was a weak article. Anyone who reads any major news outlet (WaPo, BBC, CBS - were just a few sites that explained the issue more clearly than this article) would know that free trade in today's world encompasses much more than things like getting Japan to open their markets to US autos or agricultural goods.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    The author uses Vox (left) and the Cato Institute (right) to justify his conclusions?
    
    Vox is not left or right. It's just a news publication. Cato is libertarian, not "right." Either way, the point was not about the ideological leanings of anyone, but the actual content. Do you have concerns about that?
    
    Hard to believe that the AFL-CIO is publicly against it when their real plan is to use it to further their anti-democratic aims to force through regulations.
    
    In the past, organized labor was very effective in using these deals -- but haven't been able to get their ideas into TPP this time around, which is why they're so against it.
    
    Overall I think it was a weak article. Anyone who reads any major news outlet (WaPo, BBC, CBS - were just a few sites that explained the issue more clearly than this article) would know that free trade in today's world encompasses much more than things like getting Japan to open their markets to US autos or agricultural goods.
    
    But most people still assume it's about *trade*. And it's not. That's the point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hang on. Everything I've read about NAFTA, FTA Korea, Colombia, etc leads me to conclude that organized labor has consistently opposed those deals. At best they were able to put some sort of text into them that said our government had to consider labor violations with our trade partners, but our government hasn't done anything to crack down on that. Not trying to gloss over any sort of bad behavior on part of AFL-CIO, but one area they've been consistent is in opposition to these deals.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Vox isn't left? I can't let that one go. Just looking at what's on today's front page of Vox, you'd have to be fairly blind to not see some leftward bias. The stories Vox chooses to cover support causes championed by the left (how great Obamacare is, the evil Koch brothers, etc.). That's just reporting the news? So MSNBC must be your favorite cable channel for "just reporting the news".
      
      As far at the rest of your comment. Two things. First, If Obama is at the table, organized labor has a voice in the negotiations. Second, It's not just about trade, but that's been true of trade pacts for decades. Nothing new here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you think Vox is left wing then you probably think The Nation is written by communists
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Vox seems as far left to me as Drudge seems far right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Drop the partisanship. Move away from the partisanship. Now look at the facts, not your opinions. We can't get anything done if we're divided between Team Red and Team Blue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As if Tech Dirt isn't partisan. Tech Dirt presents opinions, if you think they only present facts - you need to read their posts more critically.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As if Tech Dirt isn't partisan. Tech Dirt presents opinions, if you think they only present facts - you need to read their posts more critically.
        
        We've always said that we're an opinion blog. But we're not *partisan*. We don't cheer on a particular team for the sake of their uniforms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        adjective: partisan (source: Google)
        1. prejudiced in favor of a particular cause.
        "newspapers have become increasingly partisan"
        synonyms: biased, prejudiced, one-sided,
        discriminatory, colored, partial, interested, sectarian,
        factional.
        
        It's not about the uniforms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not about the uniforms.
        
        Also from Google, in reference to politics, which the way most people use this term:
        
        Partisan (political)
        
        In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.
        
        Source
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the definition of the noun. My definition was for the adjective. A more effective reply would have been to quote the definition for non-partisan (adjective).
        
        not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group. synonyms: unbiased, impartial, neutral, objective "the moderator must remain nonpartisan throughout the debates"
        
        Still wouldn't classify TechDirt as unbiased, impartial, neutral, or objective. TechDirt's opinion pieces present a point of view. They claim to be *non-partisan* in that they are not biased toward a particular political group. This claim falls apart when they advocate for a particular point of view which is shared by a particular political group even though that group may not align with either of the mainstream political parties. The fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats does not make them non-partisan.
        
        Not criticizing TechDirt for their point of view, only their claim that their point of view is not politically biased or partisan (adjective).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This claim falls apart when they advocate for a particular point of view which is shared by a particular political group even though that group may not align with either of the mainstream political parties.
        
        You are confusing partisanship with advocating an idea on it's own merits.
        
        The fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats does not make them non-partisan.
        
        If one is using "partisan" in the colloquial sense, than yes, the fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats makes them absolutely non-partisan.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If one is using "partisan" in the colloquial sense, than yes, the fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats makes them absolutely non-partisan.
        
        There are many on the left who criticize both the democrats and the republicans with equal measure as is true for many on the right. That doesn't make them non-partisan, that just makes them critical of the major political parties.
        
        Never the less, based on partisanship as you define it, would you consider the Occupy Wall Street movement partisan or non-partisan?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Never the less, based on partisanship as you define it, would you consider the Occupy Wall Street movement partisan or non-partisan?
        
        I would say that originally OWS protests were non-partisan. Their stated mission was against social and economic inequality worldwide.
        
        That's not to say that the movement wasn't eventually co-opted into a political partisan issue by those on both sides.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If Obama is at the table, organized labor has a voice in the negotiations."
        
        I disagree. Obama is less hostile to unions than many other politicians, but he's a long way from being able to represent them in any negotiations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I saw a video from 2011 where Richard Trumka claimed he talked to the White House several times a day and visited 2-3 times a week (it's out there on YouTube). That's not just "less hostile", it sounds like it was a pretty cozy relationship between a union boss and the WH - unless Trumka was exaggerating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know about the veracity of that, but let's say it's true. I would respond with two things:
        
        First, meeting frequently with the head of the AFL-CIO doesn't automatically mean that they are in agreement. It could very well be that they are not, and Trunka is trying hard to change that. (To be clear, I'm speaking purely from logic here. Frequent meetings like that certainly do suggest an amiable relationship.)
        
        Second, Trunka is the head of one specific union. That Obama may be representing the interests of that union in no way suggests that he is representing the interests of unions generally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 1:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Vox isn't left? I can't let that one go. Just looking at what's on today's front page of Vox, you'd have to be fairly blind to not see some leftward bias. The stories Vox chooses to cover support causes championed by the left (how great Obamacare is, the evil Koch brothers, etc.). That's just reporting the news? So MSNBC must be your favorite cable channel for "just reporting the news".
        
        Are you even remotely aware of Tim Lee's history? He's the one who wrote the article, and he is not, in any way imaginable, a "left-leaning" reporter.
        
        Either way WHO GIVES A FUCK about red team/blue team? This isn't about that.
        
        Second, It's not just about trade, but that's been true of trade pacts for decades. Nothing new here.
        
        Well, yes, there's a lot new here, but mainly the whole point of the article was that some supposed "expert" insisted it WAS about trade. So, clearly plenty of people still think it is, which is why I wrote this article.
        
        Not sure what your complaint is other than that you have some weird issue with identifying which "team" people are on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thank you for your reply.
        
        Are you even remotely aware of Tim Lee's history? He's the one who wrote the article, and he is not, in any way imaginable, a "left-leaning" reporter.
        
        I never accused Tim of being a left leaning reporter.
        
        the whole point of the article was that some supposed "expert" insisted it WAS about trade. So, clearly plenty of people still think it is, which is why I wrote this article.
        
        From the article you reference on Vox:
        In addition to conventional trade issues like tariff rates, it includes language on labor rights, environmental laws, copyright and patent protections, e-commerce, state-owned enterprises, corruption, and government procurement.
        
        Your article says these agreements have nothing to do with free trade. Convention trade issues are about free trade, so at least some part of the agreement is about free trade, yes?
        
        Three.
        
        Not sure what your complaint is other than that you have some weird issue with identifying which "team" people are on.
        
        I try to understand all sides of an issue so I read from sources on different sides of the political spectrum. That seems weird to you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I never accused Tim of being a left leaning reporter.
        
        You panned the Vox article as "left-leaning." The author, Tim Lee, has a long history working for libertarian and/or right-leaning organizations.
        
        From the article you reference on Vox:
        
        No, I was talking about the first link, the article from Reuters, in which the guy insisted it was about trade.
        
        I try to understand all sides of an issue so I read from sources on different sides of the political spectrum. That seems weird to you?
        
        No. Nor did I say that. Putting words in my mouth doesn't make you look good.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You quoted Tim's Vox article in your piece. I was pointing out that the Vox article you referenced in your piece appears to contradict your conclusion that furthering free trade is not part of the agreement. The agreement is at least partially about free trade according to Tim's article. The professor may have been wrong in implying the agreement is all about free trade but is it not just as incorrect to imply that the agreement has nothing to do with free trade?
        
        You can leave out the personal attacks, unless you can't defend your points based on their merits.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:17am

Hard to take an article seriously when it opens with a line like:
Trade is not an ideological issue. It’s a populist issue

What does the author think that populism is, if not an ideology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:49am
  
  Re:
  Populism isn't so much an ideology as it is an approach or doctrine. "Populism" is the strategy of appealing to general populace, and as such the principles that are considered populist change according to the mood of the populace. An ideology is a way of thinking about the world, and isn't dependent on the mood of the populace.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not exactly correct. Populism is a political phenomenon, not an ideology. The definition of populism does not change with the mood of the populace.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 11:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's in complete agreement with what I said. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:56am

Freedom of trade
Yeah. This is granting multinational corporations the right to trade our hard earned $$ for their profits! And we have zero say in the process. Heck, we don't even have to buy anything, other than medicine, energy, water, food, ... IE, if we want to continue living, we will have to pay these billionaires an ever bigger portion of the few pence we earn, and to heck with feeding or educating our kids, but then, that is probably their intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:34am
  
  Re: Freedom of trade
  Spaceman - For your comment to hold water, Obama - who is pressing for the agreement and has been for years - would have to be owned by the multinational corporations you're railing against. Is that what you're saying?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Freedom of trade
    Take a look at what his campaign spent on the last two elections. (Here's a hint: the order of magnitude is written with a B, not an M.) Who do you think provided all that money? It sure wasn't We The People...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Freedom of trade
    "Obama - who is pressing for the agreement and has been for years - would have to be owned by the multinational corporations"
    
    Perosnally, I thought this was obvious from the start. I'll admit, though, that my Democratic friends didn't understand this until a couple of years of his presidency had passed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Teamchaos (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 3:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Freedom of trade
      From the start I saw Obama as a typical "two chickens in every pot" politician. I figured he got tons of corporate money in 2008, but didn't most of them bail on him when he showed his true stripes after the election?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality bites, 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:41am

TPP = Traitors Protecting Profit
Any traitor signing the deal needs a quick trial and a speedy execution by firing squad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re: TPP = Traitors Protecting Profit
  Well, it seems congress thinks it can reverse any trade deal done by the executive. Let's see how that pans out - assuming they have the guts to follow through. I am not holding my breath.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mechtheist (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:28am

It's obviously not about trade
It should be immediately obvious TPP isn't about trade, just by reading its title. Like orgs with 'family' in their name, or 'religious freedom' laws, or 'voter fraud' laws, if nefarious deeds are afoot, you name your effort with the antithesis of your intentions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David E.H. Smith, 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:38pm

TPP & Global Treaties; Global Treaties Not about How Much Trade, but, How to & Who to Trade with
TPP & Global Treaties;
Global Treaties Not about How Much Trade, but, How to & Who to Trade with and 'Undermine' AIIB.

Corporate America, Wall St., Congress; Deluded, or, Deluding; IGNORAMUS et IGNORABIMUS?

Just Blame & Punish/Sue Info Deprived Citizens of US, EU, Canada, et al.
TPP, TTIP, CETA, et al, Shareholders 'Personna non Gratus'; Shareholders' Meetings I.D. Toxic Neighbors, In-laws,
Investment Houses, et al.
Time to Cool off the 'Stockbrokers' again; Buy Gold?

The limited number of direct beneficiaries of the TPP, TTIP (China -Canada Investment Treaty) & the other global treaties (ie. the global corporate leaders & their 'preferred' shareholders), are most desperate to keep from the prying, due diligence eyes of the of the potential global un-preferred shareholders' & the harmless NON shareholders.

The fact of the matter is, the flurry of global treaties have very little to do with trade. The treaties are about 'preferred' trading partners who are successfully attempting to legitimize for the signatories of the treaty/'Arrangements', settlements of the TPP's 'contrived' disputes, et al, by enabling the parties to alleged 'disputes' to use non adversarial settlements whereby,
the corporations & preferred shareholders 'merely' shift all of their costs from themselves to the harmless NON shareholder & the un-preferred shareholders, ie. the general public/individual taxpayers.

These costs include the costs of determining:
1) which harmless non shareholders will have to pay corporations & some SHAREHOLDERS ('preferred' SHAREHOLDERS) for the corporations' 'mistakes', contrivances, unrealistic, &/or, any expectations, etc.,
2) how high (win-fall) the punitive penalties, awards, damages, etc. will be
without the harmless NON shareholder being represented throughout the determination
of, not, if the NON shareholders are guilty, but, 'merely' how 'guilty' the harmless NON shareholders are with no means/opportunity to appeal the decisions by way of the Treaties' ('Death-Star-Chamber') new superseding, cyber jurisdiction Tribunals,
&
3) et al.
For Further Information, see,
'TPP & Global Treaties & Anti AIIB' below.
Also see;
'The Submission' to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA:
"The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, Australia, Canada, the EU, et al
v
the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al"
including
'The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued?'
(see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)
***
TPP & GLOBAL TREATIES;
IS HOLLYWOOD PART of the (TPP Global Treaty & Anti AIIB) PROCESS, or, OUT-of-the LOOP, too?
- L.A. Times, Apr. 7, 2015, blog

It may regrettable that the simplest & most basic information & questions that can lead to a much more secure & profitable relationship between the potential signatories of the TPP & China, et al, has not been shared with Defense Secretary Carter for his humble consideration. Perhaps, he may consider answering some of the enclosed questions in order for us to get a better idea of what his understanding is of how the TPP & other Global Treaties can be vastly improved inclusively & thereby, minimize, &/or, eliminate the dangerous problems below that have led some to understand that

'What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century (ie. provided the basis for World War II) PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st'.

Unless, of course, the long term economic destabilization and subsequent (secret) military weapons development & appropriations are the intent of DefSec Carter, et al, in the secret (Death-Star-Chamber) 'arrangements' of the TPP & the Global Corporate Treaties/Agreements.
***
But, how many 'savvy' Americans & their global corporate associates are 'poised' to make windfall profits from their international cross investments, 'nest-feathered' lawsuits & preplanned treaty 'arrangements' at the direct expense of the harmless non shareholders, ie. 95% - 99% of America , et al?
***
While the good sales folks of Wall St. may prefer to tell their 'Enron-able' customers who were also the victims of 'The Preliminary Foray of The Wall St. Meltdown', et al, that it's just some Unions that are fighting back, how much of the Fighting Back of Unions against the Secret, Unethical & Anti-Democratic Arrangements of The Global Treaties' 'Death-Star-Chamber' Tribunals, can be understood in the context of the harmless NON Shareholders, including Union members, fighting to Survive (not 'thrive') Against the Uncaring, 'Profits at Any (body else's) Costs', SHAREHOLDERS & their Colluding, Global Corporate Leaders?
- Washington Post, blog, Mar. 25, 2015

TPP & GLOBAL TREATIES;
Gain a political 'Smidge', Lose ('Hidden' & Secret Costs) a Lot; The NET EFFECT. There goes Our Retirement Date & Much more...

How to Discourage Corporate 'USA's', et al, 'Need' to Fleece Harmless Non-shareholders & Globally Expand & Dilute $17 Trillion Debt; Secret TPP, TTIP, et al, Globalizes Wall St.'s Unregulated 'Eron- Derivatives' Transgressions. Too Big, BigGER, BIGGEST to be 'Allowed' to Fail?

'Fast Tracking', TPP corp. 'U.S.'s' Feeble Attempt to Avoid Court; SHAREHOLDERS & NON Shareholders Await Supreme Court's Findings to Proceed. 'But, I didn't know that that I'd have to pay for it (& somebody else doesn't)!'

Global Corporate Economy Conniving to Get Harmless NON Shareholders to Pay Trillion$ in Court Costs, Punitive 'Penalties', etc.?
No Treaties = Corporations/SHAREHOLDERS pay for Their Own 'Mistakes'.

How Many Preferred Shares of TPP, C-CIT, TTIP, CETA, et al, Generated Enterprises are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for? 'New' Shareholders Can Say 'NO' to & Over-Rule TPP, CETA, TTIP, et al, Plans?

Will corp.'USA' et al, & Feds to Prepay $Billions for All 'Trade' Treaty/'Arrangements', et al, Secret ('Death-Star-Chamber) Tribunals' Punitive Damages to Protect Home State's Taxpayers? Other States, Municipalities, et al, "...(we) need to control corp. USAs 'Contributions' “.

But, If Not PUTIN; 'The WHITE KNIGHT', then Who Do YOU Want to Bankroll the Saving of the harmless NON shareholders of the World from Fast Tracking TPP's, CETA's (TTIP) Secret 'Death-Star-Chamber' Tribunal Penalties?
Will China, Iran, the Muslim World, et al, Support Putin in Suits?
How about Warren Buffett, &/or, the 'coveted' Hong Kong investor, et al?
***
FULL Article, see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
***
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 friends who will share it with 10 others...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 1:07am

If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade', Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Does that mean politicians' analyses are wrong, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GEMont (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re:
  Hmmmm - "politicians" and "analysis" - used in the same sentence... Gotta be something oxymoron in there someplace.
  
  Actually, Politicians don't think (I should probably stop there) that TPP is about Free Trade.
  
  They know its about trading public freedom for corporate control, increasing corporate profits (and thus increasing their own kickbacks from corporations), and installing protectionist laws in a manner that avoids all the safeguards against bad laws, but a politician never got anywhere by admitting he knew the truth.
  
  The very art of politics is the ability to lie believably and convincingly.
  
  When the public begins to distrust its government, you will often hear politicians speak about government's loss of public confidence.
  
  Did you know that the "con" part of the term "Con-Man", is an abbreviation for the word "confidence"?
  
  ---
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]