Trans Pacific Partnership - continuing the conservative assault on working people

[Jack V Savage]

hi again JVS,

oh alright. i just figured you were reading about the case and i'd made a mistake. i just rechecked it and it was Lone Pine Resources.

i saw Back to the Future when i was a very, very young boy ages ago. can't believe you remember those kinds of details from that film.

i remember, i think, that the protagonist was named "Marty" and the general plot lines, but thats about it.

- IGIT

I was born in '78 so I was the right age to really love that movie when it came out, especially on VHS (quite a bit after the movie's release).

 

[PolishHeadlock]

hi Egon,

if these are the two points that Mr. Chomsky and Bernie harp on the most, well, that's unfortunate.

i'm generally sympathetic to both of these men, but they're wrong on this issue. i think they're depending on the ignorance of the US electorate when they beat this drum to scare people into being averse to the TPP.

here's an example of this very mechanism you fear, in motion.

in 2012 a US energy company, Lone Pine Resources (LPS) filed suit against the Canadian government under the provisions of the

 

[IGIT]

TTP is another example of the US exporting its shady corporate business practices on the rest of the developing world, while trying to wage a proxy economic war with China.

hi Matburn H,

i disagree.

there is nothing shady about protection of intellectual property, nor is there anything inherently shady about lowering trade barriers.

you're right in stating that the US is trying to vie with China for economic supremacy by strengthening its ties with its geopolitical partners in the region. what would you prefer? B-2 bombers flying sorties over Beijing?

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

And that happened inc Canada. Imagine investing in Vietnam..

hi and well met, Mr. Headlock,

yep.

i don't quite grasp what all the tooth gnashing over the ISDS is, unless people just don't understand what it is.

- IGIT

 

[Aegon Spengler]

hi Egon,

if these are the two points that Mr. Chomsky and Bernie harp on the most, well, that's unfortunate.

i'm generally sympathetic to both of these men, but they're wrong on this issue. i think they're depending on the ignorance of the US electorate when they beat this drum to scare people into being averse to the TPP.

here's an example of this very mechanism you fear, in motion.

in 2012 a US energy company, Lone Pine Resources (LPS) filed suit against the Canadian government under the provisions of the “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS).

LPS had committed millions in investments in purchasing mining rights in Quebec…investments that Canadians profited mightily from. then the folks in Quebec summarily took the property away from LPS, due to environmental anxieties over fracking.

bear in mind, the attorneys who represented LPS said that Canada had the right to regulate the industry, or even impose a moratorium…but the Canadians weren't looking to pursue of those measures; they just took the property back from the Americans and kept the millions that were invested.

if you're ok with that, then you probably bear some kind of hostility to US business interests in general, and if thats the cut of your jib, that's fine i guess…but the ISDS that Chomsky and Sanders are rattling your cage over are merely measures to ensure fair play.

- IGIT

Canada is a 1st world G8 nation, they still have some power, can you find some other examples of the ISDS in, say, Mexico - and let's not forget that Vietnam has even less resources at their disposal than Mexico - how have they turned out there?

Also, in terms of hostility to U.S. business interests -

US Steel in went into Hamilton Ontario bought it's best Steel Mill, Stelco, with help from the federal government, in a good faith agreement where they promised not to relocate and make Steel elsewhere. U.s Steel prevented Stelco from entering into any domestic steel-supply contracts, which had been Stelco,s bread and butter, then declared Stelco was no longer profitable. U.S Steel sold off Stelco as best they could and shipped out within 2 years. 60 thousand jobs, gone, in a city of 500 thousand.

They entered into a bid to purchase Stelco with help from Canadian taxpayers, won the bid, then fucked that Canadian community in its ass as hard as they possibly could.

One example out of Quebec doesn't paint the entire picture in terms of business relations between the two countries, that's all I'm saying, and U.S. business come to countries looking to weaken local labour laws, exploit their people and resources, then leave - so, yeah, I'm little hostile to that.

 

[IGIT]

hi Egon (my last post for the afternoon, i have some deadlines that are crushing me at work),

Canada is a 1st world G8 nation, they still have some power, can you find some other examples of the ISDS in, say, Mexico - and let's not forget that Vietnam has even less resources at their disposal than Mexico - how have they turned out there?

i don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. i'll say this, though

 

[Which Doctor]

hi Egon (my last post for the afternoon, i have some deadlines that are crushing me at work),



i don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. i'll say this, though…the government in Mexico is pretty corrupt, it's a strange nation - and if you're trying to do business there, particularly business that involves the investment of millions upon millions of dollars, its good to have some ground rules.



i don't see what you're getting so energized about, really. this kind of thing happens in businesses that are profit driven (and most businesses are generally driven by profits). the same thing happened in New England with Evergreen Solar. local interests invested heavily in propping up the company and when the business itself turned out to not be viable, the owners of Evergreen just closed up shop and moved to China.

this is what happens when the bottom line can't be met, but i don't see anything particularly villainous about it. i felt bad for the folks in New England when it happened, but sometimes bets pay off, and sometimes they don't.



i gave you one example, i could give you more, but you seem pretty glued to your thesis no matter what the actual facts are.

i get it, you're a zealot.

its cool.

- IGIT

You are just as much a zealot; hiding behind a cool demeanor obscures nothing. Your kind are terrorists of the worst magnitude.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You don't have to pass it, you just need to actually create it and see it to judge it.

Do you really think it's possible to negotiate a pact between 11 countries without fast tracking it?

I'm not saying people need to support TPP but at least let the fucking thing become assembled so that experts can weigh in on the final product.

I get that it's complicated and negotiations would be hampered without the TPA. I get that this is how things have been done historically. I do. I also get that people should learn from there mistakes. Perhaps it shouldn't have been so complicated. Only 5/29 chapters deal with trade. Doesn't the "same as it ever was" rhetoric seem convenient if not simply outdated?

By leaving all this up to our Congress...can I get an approval rating?...to an up or down vote is irresponsible. A bunch of career politicians living donor to donor. You know it will pass. This is going to be the bill that is "Too big to fail".

They will rationalize liking one part of the treaty as reason to pass it, even if they are opposed to the other 28 chapters. And on the small chance it doesn't it will just be brought up for a vote, unchanged, every day until the lobbyists meet the collective price of our elected officials.


Hey, remember in the other thread you asked "[if it's all about money, why aren't we trading with Africa]"?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-clears-extension-of-african-trade-and-governance-bill-1435277216

The stage is being set.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Your claim was plainly false. You said that 600 corporations wrote it, when the reality is that 600 outside advisors, including industry, labor, and NGO representatives, had access to portions of the bill and were able to provide some feedback. You made a false claim. If you didn't intend to mislead, you should thank me and clarify. That would be the honorable thing to do, no? What it could be is that you heard Chomsky, took his comments literally, and exaggerated. But, again, why would you respond to a correction with such vitriol?

I guess I took your characterization of Chompsky as "unscrupulous" personally.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I guess I took your characterization of Chompsky as "unscrupulous" personally.

???

Do you think I'm a Chomsky fan or something? LOL!

 

[PolishHeadlock]

I get that it's complicated and negotiations would be hampered without the TPA. I get that this is how things have been done historically. I do. I also get that people should learn from there mistakes. Perhaps it shouldn't have been so complicated. Only 5/29 chapters deal with trade. Doesn't the "same as it ever was" rhetoric seem convenient if not simply outdated?

By leaving all this up to our Congress...can I get an approval rating?...to an up or down vote is irresponsible. A bunch of career politicians living donor to donor. You know it will pass. This is going to be the bill that is "Too big to fail".

They will rationalize liking one part of the treaty as reason to pass it, even if they are opposed to the other 28 chapters. And on the small chance it doesn't it will just be brought up for a vote, unchanged, every day until the lobbyists meet the collective price of our elected officials.


Hey, remember in the other thread you asked "[if it's all about money, why aren't we trading with Africa]"?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-clears-extension-of-african-trade-and-governance-bill-1435277216

The stage is being set.

What was the gist of my post?

I've been saying we are going to trade with Africa. You're going to see jobs shift from China to Africa.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

hi Egon (my last post for the afternoon, i have some deadlines that are crushing me at work),



i don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. i'll say this, though…the government in Mexico is pretty corrupt, it's a strange nation - and if you're trying to do business there, particularly business that involves the investment of millions upon millions of dollars, its good to have some ground rules.



i don't see what you're getting so energized about, really. this kind of thing happens in businesses that are profit driven (and most businesses are generally driven by profits). the same thing happened in New England with Evergreen Solar. local interests invested heavily in propping up the company and when the business itself turned out to not be viable, the owners of Evergreen just closed up shop and moved to China.

this is what happens when the bottom line can't be met, but i don't see anything particularly villainous about it. i felt bad for the folks in New England when it happened, but sometimes bets pay off, and sometimes they don't.



i gave you one example, i could give you more, but you seem pretty glued to your thesis no matter what the actual facts are.

i get it, you're a zealot.

its cool.

- IGIT

I edited my post because I thought maybe you couldn't handle the cursing, seeing as you're always so polite. A bit goofy, but polite.

You gave me one example, in Canada, so I asked for another example in a less powerful nation, seeing as that might be more relevant with the coming TPP. Most of the signatory nations are not as powerful as Canada. It's a perfectly reasonable request. As to you not understanding the point I was making... any literate person should have been able to understand the point I was making, that less powerful nations would have a tougher time taking American corporations to court and winning, so that's on you... and frankly it wasn't all that zealous of a post.

And it's a good thing Canada has the resources it does! Here, lets take a look at some other examples of how NAFTA has been used:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

I've picked some of the relevant points:

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study.

The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.

Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws.

What I got "so energized about" is how incredibly shady the deal in Hamilton with U.S. Steel was. Did you even read what I wrote? U.S Steel wouldn't let Stelco BID, on their bread and butter, the contracts that kept them in business... they intentionally tanked them to sell off their assets, even though they borrowed Canadian taxpayer money to set up there in the first place! There are 60 thousand human beings who could still be going to work if U.S Still hadn't bid with the intention of fucking them over. Some other company could have come in and operated in the way the deal was intended, which would have kept Stelco open. But U.S Steel undercut them because they had a plan to make a quick buck at the expense of people in a community. There are human beings involved in these deals, peoples livelihoods and families are on the line, the cold way you talk about this stuff is pretty sick and weird, it's far stranger than a little bit of human emotion coming out and forming a curse word or two.

Why are you so pumped up about "IP rights" of all things!? Do you think this deal is going to benefit American musicians? Those IP rights are for generic drugs, American pharmaceuticals are trying to stop medicine from reaching sick people unless they control the price and profits of that medicine.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/eli...it-against-canada-over-drug-patents-1.1829854

Ely Lilly is contending that the court decisions constitute an expropriation of the "exclusive rights" conferred to Eli Lilly under the two drug patents, the company said in the notice of intent to submit a NAFTA claim filed June 13.

By stripping the company of its patents before they were expired, the courts deprived Eli Lilly of its "exclusive rights to prevent third parties from making, using or selling its patented product during the patent term" and cost the company money, the drug maker said.

In Canada, fair game, sue away - in Vietnam, or other places where medicine is hard to reach, this is going to be a serious issue that will cost lives.

Look at some of the leaked documents and how they pertain to the environment:

https://wikileaks.org/tppa-environment-chapter.html

Instead of a 21st century standard of protection, the leaked text shows that the obligations are weak and compliance with them is unenforceable. Contrast that to other chapters that subordinate the environment, natural resources and indigenous rights to commercial objectives and business interests. The corporate agenda wins both ways.

I did a read through and that wikileaks summary is correct. All the measures concerning environmental protection are "voluntary", everything they talk about is "voluntary incentives" - they also stress that local environmental protection laws should be obeyed, but laws are easily changed by lobbyists with a tremendous amount of money and resources at their disposal, especially in weaker countries with no environmental lobby and underfunded political campaigns.

Your support of this TPP is founded on, what, exactly, other than the graph you posted that supported NAFTA because "trade went up" and blamed all the job loses that came after on "Technology and China"...? No credit for technology on the increase in trade though, and who cares what workers are being paid, right? All that matters is "trade went up" so everything else is a wash?

 

[IGIT]

hi Egon,

You gave me one example, in Canada, so I asked for another example in a less powerful nation, seeing as that might be more relevant with the coming TPP. Most of the signatory nations are not as powerful as Canada. It's a perfectly reasonable request. As to you not understanding the point I was making... any literate person should have been able to understand the point I was making, that less powerful nations would have a tougher time taking American corporations to court and winning, so that's on you... and frankly it wasn't all that zealous of a post.

a quick response is all i have time for at the moment, i'm due to scout a location for some work i have tomorrow.

i've already said on this thread and elsewhere, that the US has not been successfully sued under the Chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA. you've read that, right?

so, i guess your contention is that this is because the lawyers in the United States are better at making their case?

why isn't it possible that the US (the great satan, apparently from your POV) has just been in the right thus far on these matters?

And it's a good thing Canada has the resources it does! Here, lets take a look at some other examples of how NAFTA has been used:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

yes?

and?

the link states that Canada has been sued more than the either the US or Mexico. could it be that Canada has not been dealing fairly in matters that relate to NAFTA?

i mean, honestly, if the Canadians want out of NAFTA because its been so unjust to them, i've seen no moves in their legislature towards an exit.

What I got "so energized about" is how incredibly shady the deal in Hamilton with U.S. Steel was. Did you even read what I wrote?

sure, i've read that and more. did you know that Stelco was in serious financial trouble long before they were acquired by US Steel?

Why are you so pumped up about "IP rights" of all things!?

because i am a commercial artist.

because my parents are both scientists who have worked for decades in research and development.

because i am a shareholder of Merck stock.

i don't mean this as a slight, but you probably don't create things for a living or make scientific discoveries or hold patents, so you probably can't relate, since copyright protection or protection of intellectual property doesn't mean anything to you.

that's fine, a lot of Americans feel the same way, so you've got company on that point.

gotta go for now, Egon.

- IGIT

 

[Anung Un Rama]

???

Do you think I'm a Chomsky fan or something? LOL!

Not necessarily, but I thought you had enough integrity to admit that Chomsky's comment was far from unscrupulous.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Alright IGIT, I've enjoyed debating with you. I think I've learned enough to put it to rest with a handshake.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not necessarily, but I thought you had enough integrity to admit that Chomsky's comment was far from unscrupulous.

Chomsky's comment wasn't as bad as yours. You took a statement that was already stretching the truth, and you stretched even further. Funny take, though, painting a correction of your dishonest statement as a sign of a *lack* of integrity. Jesus, what the heck is wrong with you? How did you get like that, man?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What was the gist of my post?

I've been saying we are going to trade with Africa. You're going to see jobs shift from China to Africa.

Maybe I misinterpreted your position from this comment.

You're coming off like IDL here. The whole "they took our jerbs" logic is more correlation than causation.

The idea that we can promote an isolationist economy is nonsense in the long run.

Jack was right when he asked "we can already outsource to China, why would we pick Vietnam now?"

We have currency manipulation with China now.

What's stopping us currently from outsourcing to Africa?

Thanks for the welcome though

I took that comment to mean that if wages are the primary concern, then why aren't we moving jobs to Africa.

To which I replied:

This isn't a conspiracy theory. I've sourced several economists who share the same fears and none have written off the jobs lost as correlation. And I'm not proposing an isolationist economy. I'm all for trade, but if the government is negotiating a trade deal it should be for the USA, not GE.

Lost jobs COULD be offset if the US would invest in infrastructure. Those would be meaningful job shifts. But there is no sign of that happening. People are going to go from living wage to needing 2 jobs to get by.

And it is not just about jobs. There is some scary stuff leaked about the TPP. There are also privacy and sovereignty concerns. When you consider how the ACA limped out and the fact that it didn't include a clause to allow negotiations with Pharma, and the fact that it is not what it was billed to be compared to an enormous, complicated bill such as the TPP, its not hard to imagine/ recognize that some things could develop or loopholes capitalized on that hurt American workers and the American economy.



The currency manipulation with China is actually hurting us and is a huge part of our trade deficit.

Every outsourced job doesn't go to China or Mexico. While China may be the obvious Asian destination for outsourced American jobs at the moment, it is not a final answer to the potentiality that other countries will benefit. Globalization has benefited the rest of the world more than it has the US. I would expect this bill to incentivize the less wealthy countries to invest in their infrastructure (from what I've read this is a requirement) and thereby present themselves as a competitive alternative to China.

As soon as Africa gains some sustained stability the Trans Atlantic Africa Partnership will be in works.

You didn't respond to this last part, which is fine, but I was left with the impression I described above. Please correct where I was wrong. Thank you.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Maybe I misinterpreted your position from this comment.




I took that comment to mean that if wages are the primary concern, then why aren't we moving jobs to Africa.

To which I replied:



You didn't respond to this last part, which is fine, but I was left with the impression I described above. Please correct where I was wrong. Thank you.

My bad. I missed that. I guess I thought that was a good thing as it hurts China.

I'm of the opinion that we have to get over manufacturing as an industry.

I think all of this is inevitable so...

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Chomsky's comment wasn't as bad as yours. You took a statement that was already stretching the truth, and you stretched even further. Funny take, though, painting a correction of your dishonest statement as a sign of a *lack* of integrity. Jesus, what the heck is wrong with you? How did you get like that, man?

You didn't correct anything tho. You are simply defending the TPP (HARD) in spite of your protests to the contrary. Here is that entire piece of that conversation:

Gotta thank the activists for this one.

Years ago it was unheard of, now it's a somewhat mainstream issue. They campaigned hard.

"The (X) would expand the (completely unrelated and very different deal) model that (had various bad effects)." It's not even like a balanced and serious analysis of NAFTA, which is irrelevant to the TPP, which is mainly about containing China's influence.

The TPP is mainly about containing China, huh? How did you come to that conclusion?

Um, I came to that conclusion by reading a lot about it, pro and con.

How did you come to the insane conclusion that it's about illegal immigration from Mexico?

That is an interesting response. You have pretty much said that we don't know enough about the TPP to draw any conclusion, but the conclusion you've drawn now is that the TPP is now about containing China. That sounds a little like fear mongering.

Would you be so kind as to share an impartial link?

Is it safe to say that you believe the 600+ International Corporations that wrote the bill are concerned about containing China?

I don't think the TPP is about illegal immigration, I do believe that the push for bulk amnesty is linked to the expected mass job exodus if/when the TPP passes.

Now, Chomsky.

Its not secret from the hundreds of corporate lawyers and lobbyists who are writing the legislature, to them it's perfectly public, they're in fact writing it.

Let Sherdog be the judge.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You didn't correct anything tho. You are simply defending the TPP (HARD) in spite of your protests to the contrary. Here is that entire piece of that conversation:

You can't help lying, I guess. Sad.

And, yes, the video was posted, as was your dishonest claim, as was the real info.