There's a giant american flag behind Obama, while he speaks at a company that says in its annual report almost all its workers are overseas
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 8, 2015
As reported by the radical pamphleteers at USAToday:
… Obama made his case for free trade at a company that many liberals — notably Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a presidential candidate — see as a symbol of failed trade policies. Nike, the world’s largest athletic shoe manufacturer, imports shoes from contract factories in places like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 56 cents an hour…
The question of why President Obama has decided to stake so much on this particular Satan sandwich remains a mystery, even to the cheering corporatists at the NYTimes:
… Mr. Obama, who normally eschews legislative schmoozing, has made his case in dozens of telephone calls and one-on-one or group meetings with lawmakers.
He has also become increasingly aggressive in taking on critics in his own party, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a popular figure among the liberal base who has denounced the trade deal as a sellout to corporate interests. Mr. Obama has suggested that they are either intentionally misrepresenting the issue or being duped by misinformation about it. That has put the president in the uncomfortable position of feuding openly with activists who have usually revered him…
But Yahoo‘s Matt Bai gets a personal interview and finds an exciting new theory for himself — it’s about punching the DFHs!:
… Throughout his presidency, Obama has mostly avoided public feuds with what his first press secretary, Robert Gibbs, liked to call the “professional left” … But like a marriage in which the spouses pretend to be happier than they really are, Obama’s polite alliance with the populist left appears to be suddenly crumbling under the weight of free trade. The more Warren and Senate colleagues like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown attack the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, joined by big unions and environmental groups, the more liberated Obama seems to feel in portraying them as reckless and backward-looking, much as Clinton might have done. He evidences none of the self-doubt or conflicted loyalty that seemed plain when they criticized him for being too cautious on Wall Street reform or health care…
What’s mostly going on here, though, is that frustrated liberals see in the Asian trade deal an opportunity to draw the line on globalization, period. No one thinks this deal is going to be the ruin of American workers, when all is said and done. What they think is that there has to be a moment when industry loses and the country finally turns its attention to the things you can do for workers, like raising the minimum wage (a more than reasonable suggestion) and relaxing rules that make organizing more difficult.
Taking a stand against the trade pact is really just a way of taking a stand against 30-plus years of policies that favored business over everyone else.
And this is what so frustrates Obama, to the point where he would come to make his stand at the headquarters of a company reviled by labor, almost as a provocation. Obama, as his detractors have often pointed out, is a study in cool-blooded analysis and professorial debate; whatever his gift of oratory, his real passion is for the triumph of reason over histrionics…
Reason over histronics! Who could misdoubt such a noble venture? Well, there’s the killjoys at Doctors Without Borders/MSF, per the National Journal:
… The physicians group has quietly been opposing the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership for a few years now, but its efforts are growing more public. It sent multiple letters to Obama in the past few months, as the congressional debate about giving the president fast-track authority has ramped up, warning about the implications for drug costs in other countries. And it is putting up subway ads on the D.C. Metro…
The concern, Sanjuan said, is that the deal would require the dozen or so participating countries to amend intellectual property law, including patent rules, to give pharmaceutical companies more exclusive time on the market. Those fears were sparked by a 2013 WikiLeaks disclosure on the TPP negotiations.
“It would force them to change the law of many of these countries that are currently negotiating to create new intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical drugs, including but not limited to patents,” Sanjuan said of the deal’s reported provisions. “The effects of these new obligations would limit generic competition and therefore increase the cost of medicine.”…
“MSF believes this is essential to closing the gap in access to medicines for millions of people around the world,” its leaders wrote in a March letter to Obama. “The TPP could be an opportunity to make significant progress toward these goals. Instead, in its current state, the TPP is a threat to the health of millions.”
I’m just not seeing any reason to side with the Nike Corporation and Matt Bai, or against my beloved Senator Warren, labor leaders, and MSF.
11 dimensional chess explanation: Obama is moving right to help Hillary position herself as a "real progressive."
No, I don't buy it either
— Billmon (@billmon1) May 8, 2015
mkro
Perhaps the President simply thinks it’s a good deal for the country answers gives us an advantage over China? Have you considered that it is as simple as that?
singfoom
Yeah, let’s give multinational corporations more power, especially the ISDS part:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/04/tpp-toward-absolutist-capitalism.html
Seriously, where’s the upside for a normal human being or citizen or a class of people other than heads of multinational corporations in this?
Ridicule me for wanting a pony and being bitter about it, but I wish he was as half as strident about the public option during the ACA “negotiations” that he’s been for this.
Betty Cracker
I think PBO is dead wrong on this trade deal, but I don’t buy the eleventy-dimensional chess or the hippie-punching theories. My guess is he sincerely (and wrongly, IMO) thinks it’s a good deal. Economics has always been his weakest subject; unfortunately, he listens to Wall Street tools.
Baud
@singfoom:
Bad analogy. The public option was one element of a much larger bill. This is about the entire trade deal.
jl
From what I know now, I am against the TPP. I think reckless expansion of US style IP law is enough reason to oppose it. I posted a youtube of Stiglitz speaking to a group of dissident negotiators, which from what I saw included some smaller IT and pharma company representatives. From the discussion, the way in which US IP law has been pushed in these agreements in the past has been rather crude. Literally US laws and regulations have been simply inserted into the treaties. Which has caused multiple problems for any entity who cannot afford armies of lawyers, and caused problems with other countries’ legal proceedings, since they use different legal systems. As of the time the video of Stiglitz’ talk, this approach is being continued.
In the Bai interview, Obama makes some substantive points that should be acknowledged and addressed. The proposed dispute resolution system is one of them. Obama says these dispute resolution proceedures were slopply written in previous treaties, but they will be done carefully in the TPP. Well, maybe so, but no one can know if the text of the treaty is not released in time for it to be examined and debated.
If the TPP is using the approach of previous treaties in extending US IP law, I have reasons to doubt Obama’s assurance that things are being done carefully.
Dean Baker, in his Beat the Press blog, claims the fast track vote will apply not only to the TPP but for other trade deals for the next five years. That does not seem careful to me either.
I am against fast track for the TPP, that is for sure, and I am very dubious about the merits of the TPP until the final text is made public.
IMHO, Obama, like Bill Clinton, does not know as much about economics as he thinks he knows, and it too reliant on conventional Washington Consensus economic opinion, which I think is pretty worthless, and should have been completely discredited by now.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
I agree. It seems like policy debates always end up in psychoanalysis on the tubes.
jl
@Betty Cracker:
” Economics has always been his weakest subject; unfortunately, he listens to Wall Street tools.”
Thanks. That is what I tried to say at the end of my comment.
Keith G
The AIDS fighting communities are not optimistic about what will happen to their efforts if this comes to pass. Plainly speaking more people will unnecessarily die. This is why I want fast track defeated. This administration must be held accountable for such decisions.
Obama is wrong, just plain wrong.
singfoom
@Baud: Ok, that’s a fair point….that was a piece of a larger bill….but the energy thrown behind this is just mysterious…. Again, what’s the upside for the American people here? (I know it’s in the OP that it’s still a mystery). Trade barriers/tariffs are generally down. As others pointed out in other comments, the US IP laws can’t just be grafted on to other countries.
Oh well, I hope for the TPPs defeat by any means.
jharp
I gotta tell you something about the 56 cents an hour wages overseas. And I speak as someone who has toured numerous factories in China.
First, and not that it matters but I feel it should be known. The work force is composed almost exclusively of the extremely poor from the agricultural areas. They travel to the cities for jobs and might stay one or two or even more years.
They are provided housing, a uniform, food, and medical care so pretty much every cent of that 56 cents goes right into savings.
Not that that is big living or makes it all OK but my point is I’m not sure the poor slobs working in U.S. factories have it much better.
Howard Beale IV
President Obama, with help from the non-batshit crazy wing of the GOP, will in all likelihood succeed in getting TPP and TTIP though with no markups. If that happens, then expect within a decade some cases comes before the ISDS that will upend the social fabric of many countries (which may include the United States)-and if that happens, stand back.
NCSteve
I’ve been coming here for many years. Long enough to know when I just need to roll on past one of AL’s posts and look for pet pictures.
Baud
@singfoom:
I don’t know. Part of the problem of not having the deal released yet is that, even if I wanted to defend it, I couldn’t.
Keith G
@jharp:
I think you are on to something. The poor slobs working in US factories don’t get anti-suicide nets, while the Chinese workers do.
Ruckus
Well she’s not my beloved senator but I will agree that she is pretty close to perfect. Other than that I agree with your assessment. Just because it is screwing the rest of the world, like the US has been concerning pharma, does not make this a good deal. I agree with the MSF that the application of US law to many of these trade deals has made it much harder/deadlier for other countries. So this will help our large money sucking corps, in the end, what does it do for me and all the rest of the general population? We only get screwed a little bit while we get to continue/get to screw a rather large percentage of the worlds population? I’m not really seeing an upside to the TTP, for anyone but the rich. And fuck them. With large, rusty, powered tree harvesting tools.
Elie
I dono. Obama might be wrong. That said, one thing IS true. TPP is not being driven by the US. The US is one of several signatories. If we blow our part up, the thing still goes on without us, potentially leaving us in a less than strong position with the other signatories who will have favored status. Does that mean much? Do we want access to Pacific markets without negotiating one at a time deals with the other partners and China? I dunno. Like it or not, our economy runs on consumerism. That aint changing anytime soon. Are we better off in the tent so to speak or outside of the deal? Can we skip this trade deal without economic consequences? I dunno – no one seems to be talking about that and that is an important point for the progressives to make if they can make it: “Look, we don’t need this deal to keep our competitive advantage in the high stakes Pacific market – we’ll have plenty of trade and jobs without worrying about trying to do this” Can they say that? If they can, well, then I am all for voting this thing down and saying fck you Mr President. If not, well, hmmm.. then I am wondering what the aich is going on. Political grandstanding by Ms Warren? Again, dunno.
jl
@jharp: But, China has not participated in the negotiations, and is unlikely to simply join in the TPP as written. The countries participating in the negotiations are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.
as per Wiki:
Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
singfoom
@Ruckus:
Sorry to be nitpicky……They’re not “our” large money sucking corps. Sure, they might have started out here, but multinationals have no home. Don’t get me wrong, they’re not the source of all evil and they can even do good things, but I don’t think one should consider them tied to any country, regardless of where their corporate headquarters is located.
@Baud: Everything I know about it is from the leaked versions – it’s worth reading through:
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
Sure, it’s leaked, so take it with a grain of salt, but it’s more information than we’re getting from our own government. I’m sure it’s changed since then given the passage of time, but I would put money on the broad outlines being the same..
Mike in NC
If President Obama retires to Hawaii, he’ll be well placed to make frequent trips to China, Japan, Korea, Australia and other Pacific countries. Lucrative speaking fees, anybody?
jl
@jl: And by the way, the very fact that these trade deals are being negotiated piecemeal raises my suspicions. The multilateral trade deal negotiations in the 90s and 00s collapsed, mainly because countries powerful enough to raise a stink and make a difference, like India and Brazil balked at many provisions they saw as unfairly favoring advanced countries like the US.
So, the US has been working with other high income countries to do a patchwork of deals with a few low and middle income countries at a time.
The US and similar countries should go back to the multilateral negotiations and address the concerns raised by the likes of Brazil.
Kay
@Elie:
Obama is selling this as a jobs deal. It isn’t a jobs deal. If we want to talk about “political grandstanding” there’s plenty of that to go around.
I have to admit I’m baffled why he chose to attack Democratic Senators like Warren and Sherrod Brown and labor leaders when he is having difficulty explaining how his own trade deal benefits ordinary people. I guess the hope was no one would oppose it so no one would have to defend or explain it, but that didn’t happen.
Tree With Water
@Betty Cracker: In his WW2 diary, General Joseph Stillwell wrote that at one point in a face-to-face meeting with FDR, the president breezily opined, “I know nothing of economics”. That’s paraphrased, but the gist of it, and was a statement which mightily surprised (and likely amused) Stillwell, as born out by the exclamation points he employed when recording his account of the meeting afterwards.
Chris
Simply looking at the players involved is pretty much setting all my alarm bells off. You’ve got a treaty which has been drafted in a process that included multinational corporations while excluding unions and environmentalists, and which is now being opposed by Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman while supported by the corporate wings of both parties.
Obama’s voice ain’t enough to redeem that kind of lineup.
Keith G
@Ruckus:
Actually a lot of bad can happen right here as well. Changing IP practices to favor patent holder even more can have nasty blowback right here. All it will take is a foreign company to make a case that current US regulations damage their intellectual property.
The model for this is the Eli Lilly case against Canada
Chris
@Kay:
Yeah, exactly. It stank of the reflexive way in which Washington VSPs immediately respond with hippie-punching any time something that challenges views Washington considers “mainstream” so they don’t have to answer the uncomfortable question (Iraq war, Nate Silver’s polls, wev). Sorry, Mr. President, weak sauce. Try again.
Elie
@Mike in NC:
Oh give me a break.
Oh — I get it… this is all for fees for speaking engagements —
Who he is “helping’, if anyone, is Hillary, who won’t have to get bloodied by the lefties on this one (yes, I know she gave some lame statement about “agreeing” with Warren, but hasn’t said a thing since)
The left progressives have had a knee jerk reaction to most trade agreements. I can’t say that I fully disagree, but I also don’t think that we can just avoid trade deals and still remain a player in markets. What I mean by that is both the driving of new business for our remaining manufactures and value added products and also providing markets to our consumers. That buzz back and forth is important to make our economic engine run.
For me, I want a deeper conversation about how to balance the needs for strong trade with protecting our workers, rather than a either/or argument which this has become. I think Obama knows that trade deals are frequently imperfect, but believes truly that our interests, and ability to influence are better in it than outside of it and that he is pissed about the lack of trust his own party has in his trying to make the best deal. From his perspective, Warren et al act like he is purposely trying to do our citizens harm — that he would not care about the impact on workers. That is why I think he is contemptuous of her
Baud
@singfoom:
I support the ability of the Executive Branch to negotiate international agreements in secret. The only reason it is an issue in this case is because they are seeking fast-track authority before releasing the final deal.
Mart
Heard from a caller on Hartman’s radio show that Obummer is on board with the Chicago zillionaires, the Pritzker’s and big pharma types. Maybe they promised to fund his presidential library. Realize that is a silly premise; but it’s at least as good as Obama wants to punch hippies.
From excerpts on wiki-leaks, TPP looks like another turd for the ever more frequently vanishing US manufacturing facility.
Kay
@Elie:
He’s on really shaky ground with his job projections. Given that. maybe someone on the political team can explain to me why it was smart to try to discredit Brown and Warren.
You know, if this is about foreign policy or American leading on trade or even favorable terms for corporations, those things are defensible. They should try that. Make their case on the merits instead of hinting that people who oppose them are lying political hacks.
singfoom
@Baud: Indeed. And it is the content of this deal which is a bad deal for everyone BUT multinational corporations which makes fast-track a necessity (if the leaked documents are accurate). One would suppose that the Executive Branch operates with the idea of the populace’s best interests in mind. In this instance, it is hard to believe that is the case. The proof will be the text of the final agreement.
jl
@Elie: Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker, and other economists who know, say that we do NOT have to rush ahead and make a deal before China steps in. Their reason makes sense to me, and involves simple things I can check. And their reason is that trade barriers, as conventionally defined for a hundred years, are already VERY LOW. The gains from trade that can be captured from further reductions in these conventionally defined trade barriers are therefore VERY LOW.
This is mostly about intellectual property protection (patents protection, licensing, copyrights),de facto international corporate investment insurance policies (sue a country that does something, anything, that interferes with what you decide you should make from investments in that country), and treatment of labor rights and environmental protection in aforesaid de fact international corporate investment in insurance policies.
Only a very small part of the TPP is a ‘free’ trade deal as conventionally defined for over one hundred years.
A lot of it is about writing a treaty with provisions like [INSERT US PATENT LAW, CASE LAW, AND REGULATIONS HERE] in it.
Corner Stone
@Elie:
Providing markets to our consumers? New business for our manufacturers?
Haven’t you been paying any attention at all for the last 30 years?
Kay
Here’s a question Sherrod Brown has and it has notjing to do with “fear” about what happened after NAFTA:
The problem with saying trade deals create jobs is, then we don’t get any help for the workers or communities disrupted or harmed by the trade deal. It’s a double whammy. The “job creation” benefits are over-sold to push the deal and as a result of that there’s no preparation for the downside.
jl
And, I think China has done more to ‘beat out the US’ in many developing economy national markets from international foreign aid in the form of foreign aid in the form of physical and intellectual infrastructure investment that they have provided in places like Africa and parts of SE Asia than they could get from any treaty.
Elie
@Kay:
There may be a back story here that we don’t get but I think that there is a sense by this President that he has had precious little backing or trust from white progressive pols and he is just sick of it. So many sat on their hands or ran away from him in 2014 and have often provided very weak backing. He swallowed a lot for a long time and is just tired of eating it. I tell ya, it hasn’t skipped my notice or the notice of many black people. So yeah, he is giving them a little disrespect right back.
Hillary can make nice with Warren and I think she has already.
singfoom
@Elie: Read some of the leaked documents and tell me what jobs this will create:
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/#article_e16
Other than further enriching pharmaceutical companies……
Maybe the real agreement will be substantively different, but I don’t see how prolonging drug patents, especially for biologics will do anything positive to our economy.
Corner Stone
@Betty Cracker:
President Obama is an extremely intelligent person. Witness Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, and Arne Duncan on education.
President Obama is getting what he wants here.
Corner Stone
@jl:
I’m pretty sure WJC knows a fuckton more about economics than we do. Hence his near $200M net worth.
Obama isn’t blind, nor stupid.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: Okay, running with this theory, when have Warren and Brown not had his back? When did they sit on their hands or run away from him?
Corner Stone
@Baud:
However it does lend itself to the aspect of lobbying for what you want.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
I hear ya — but then are you saying we don’t try to get trade deals at all? Again, its how to balance and get what we need but we end up in the black and white arguments … I sure don’t have complete answers but we are talking past each other…
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: And who does she think passed the ACA?
Elie
@Omnes Omnibus:
I dunno. Maybe never. But then your argument is equally weird — that somehow he has it out for people who have been strong allies? That he is just mean and pissed off and doesn’t care if he insults them because…?
Corner Stone
@Elie: We’re not talking past each other. I dislike it when people try that BS on.
I have been very consistent in opposing the TPP and specifically fast track authority. There is simply no wriggle room to say, “Some say one thing, President Obama says another.”
After fast track is granted it simply won’t matter who was right or wrong. We can do fuckall about it.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
That’s a factual question, however. I, for one, never bought into the meme that Obama did not fight for the public option. but the analysis is somewhat subjective, especially when you’re talking about one element of a larger bill.
Keith G
@Elie:
Oh my. Very problematic. Very problematic indeed.
Corner Stone
@jl:
It’s something like binding for the next 6 years. That is not acceptable, IMO, and I don’t give a shit if we elected FDR Lincoln Obama in 2016.
jl
@Corner Stone:
” I’m pretty sure WJC knows a fuckton more about economics than we do. Hence his near $200M net worth.
Obama isn’t blind, nor stupid. ”
Are you being cynical, or confusing cleverness at VSP ‘personal finance’ (aka, seeing the main chance and raking it in) with economics, or both?
Edit: OK, saw your subsequent comments. Cynical, looks like. Carry on, Sir.
Corner Stone
@Baud: Well at this point all we know that the president is actually arguing for is the fast track authority. He’s not giving us much else to hang our hat on with his lobbying.
Because he knows fast track is the whole enchilada.
Elie
@singfoom:
Well, would some other country having the patents help us? Again, do you want to unilaterally eschew all patents and intellectual property? Yes, we have a lot of corporate crooks, but the US also has great start ups and innovators who do good business. Do you want to not keep that part of our economy in good shape so their shit isn’t ripped off ? Don’t we want at least SOME US companies to do well, or are they all bad?
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: I didn’t make an argument. All I did was ask you to support your argument.
Betty Cracker
@Elie: So you’re saying PBO is calling out Warren and Brown, who have been strong allies, because whitey? Christ. That’s wingnut-class goofy.
Corner Stone
@jl: Some mix of all those suggestions. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that both WJC and Obama are two of the most intelligent people who have ever been in the WH.
Now, being a brilliant individual doesn’t mean you’re a master player on all things. But I give both men a large benefit of the doubt that the things they advocate for are the outcomes they desire, and aren’t fooled by some 30,000ft miasma.
They both know/knew what they were doing.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
So is it the fast track you object to or the whole attempt at any trade deal? Just asking to clarify. If you are totally against all trade deals then we don’t have much room for understanding where a balance in understanding can exist.
Kay
@Elie:
Forgive me Elie but I think analysing a trade deal that affects 40% of the world’s people on whether or not Obama is sick of white progressives is nuts.
Sherrod Brown is raising substantive questions on the trade deal. It isn’t personal. He always raises substantive questions on trade. He raised them with Bill Clinton and he raised them with Obama.
They aren’t a bunch of angry bloggers. They’re Senators. Of states. I mean, I guess we can say we don’t need the 14 Democratic Senators who oppose this but since no one knows what the benefits of this deal are I’m not clear what the upside is there.
singfoom
All the psychology-arm-chairing is funny. I don’t pretend to know the motivations of anyone involved, but I’ll say this: This deal is bad policy. IF (and yes, I recognize it’s a big if) the leaked documents are at all accurate, this is not so much a trade deal but a intellectual property / binding arbitration deal.
One can think it is bad policy without impugning the motivations or the characters of those who think it is good policy. The difficulty, as Baud has suggested upthread is that in the end it is impossible to properly judge the content of this policy due to the secrecy.
And there are those who would say the extreme secrecy (Senators only allowed to view, not take notes, staffers can’t see) is indication in and of itself that is bad policy, because why hide it if it is beneficial. Was NAFTA surrounded by such secrecy at the time? I don’t think it was.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
I tend to agree. I was skeptical about the Republican votes given their history, but everyone seems to agree that the Republicans will vote for this thing if given an up or down vote, so I’ll defer to the conventional wisdom.
Elie
@Betty Cracker:
Ok — maybe so – I get weird.
I don’t know why then. The alternative is that he is just an asshole and is finally showing his true “color” (ha ha)
I dunno.
jl
I recall seeing an item, i think on LGM, or Baker’s Beat the Press, or Thoma’s Economist View that looked at WH response to criticisms of the TPP. It was mostly a summary of research on the benefits of previous trade deals, not a response to specific criticisms of this particular trade deal, which would be relevant.
So, Obama wants this deal and he may not be ‘overly careful about the truth’, or like Bill Clinton, not very aware of the truth, regarding things his people say in order to get it.
Chris
@Kay:
Also exactly what I meant by “deflecting with hippie punching.”
singfoom
@Elie:
I never suggested we don’t have patents. That’s absurd. Also, the patents belong to companies usually, not the governments.
I never suggested all companies or all US companies are bad. That’s absurd.
I asked you specifically what jobs you think will be created by extending (that is a longer period of time) exclusive patents on drugs.
jl
@Elie: I don’t see any point in bringing in speculations about personalities or inherently unobservable motives, in discussing the specifics of this or other policy proposals.
I can’t see into the details of Obama’s thinking or motives on a specific issue any more than I could see into Bush’s. I have more confidence that something that can be recognized as rational thought is going on in Obama’s head than Bush’s but that is about all.
I definitely disagree with Obama on fast track, very probably will disagree with him about the merits of the TPP when the text is public. Better to focus on specific arguments about specific things.
Elie
@singfoom:
Ok. Probably very few.
jl
@Elie: Patents are just one way to finance research and development. Very poor and unsuccessful countries, like for example, Switzerland, did away with the patent system for most of the latter half of the 19th century along with a few other now quite wealthy European countries.
Patents, and especially the current US approach to patents, are not necessary for economic development or ‘winning’ in international trade.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: Why are you making this into all or nothing arguments? One could decide that one will support or not support individual trade agreements based on the content of the individual agreement. Me, I am pretty much opposed to any trade deals that do not have strong and enforceable worker and environmental protection clauses.
Elie
@jl:
Sounds fair to me. I would like to hear more about the specifics of what people object to and the consequences of those.
Unfortunately I have to head out to an appointment but would still like to read later about some of the details. While I submit that Obama may be wrong on this… I am trying to think clearly about the pros and cons best we know.
Baud
@jl:
What does that mean? Do they not protect any intellectual property in those countries anymore?
Elie
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’m explicitly not trying to make it black and white…. I want to hear more about the details of the arguments against this to better understand.
Corner Stone
Elizabeth Warren fires back at Obama: Here’s what they’re really fighting about
“SENATOR WARREN: The president said in his Nike speech that he’s confident that when people read the agreement for themselves, that they’ll see it’s a great deal. But the president won’t actually let people read the agreement for themselves. It’s classified.”
“[ISDS mechanisms] never had the authority to override regulations. What they had was the authority to impose a monetary penalty directly against the government and its taxpayers. That’s the point at which governments have backed up and said, “we can’t afford this, we’ll just change the law.”
singfoom
@Elie: You want to understand more?
Start here: https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
If you want a summary instead of primary documents, go here: http://www.citizen.org/TPP
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has been following this story for a long time, you can find all her TPP posts here: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/tpp
singfoom
Gah, I always get moderated when I start throwing links up, FYWP!
@Elie: You want to understand more?
Start here: https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
singfoom
@Elie:
If you want a summary instead of primary documents, go here: http://www.citizen.org/TPP
singfoom
@Elie:
Sorry for the comment carpet bombing, wordpress ate my three link legitimate comment:
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has been following this story for a long time, you can find all her TPP posts here: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/tpp
liberal
@Elie:
So it’s all about “respect”?
Go fuck yourself.
liberal
@Corner Stone:
That doesn’t follow at all. There are plenty of people much wealthier than I am who thought that the Fed “printing money” would create massive inflation.
Despite their wealth, and whatever smarts/cunning it took to get it, they have absolutely no understanding how our monetary system works.
…hmm, maybe I missed some snark?
jl
@Baud: Several European countries abolished patents in the latter half of the 19th century. Companies were gaming the patent laws in ways that minimized actual innovation and maximized monopoly rents for inventions. This was a particular problem in chemistry, chemical engineering, and machine tools.
So several countries simply abolished patents, and reformed their trade secrets laws. Switzerland had the longest experiment in this, IIRC, and did not return to the patent system until the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein was got his job at the Swiss patent office soon after Switzerland decided it should use the patent system again.
liberal
@Elie:
We already have trade deals. It’s not like this is going to create new trade where there was none before.
Kay
@Chris:
I find this terrifying:
They’re all taking this information from one book, by the Peterson Institute. That job number isn’t even in the book. They’re using “methodology” from the book and the “methodology” is division. Additon, subtraction, multipilcation, division. Bill Clinton used the same think tank to sell NAFTA.
Corner Stone
@Elie:
I am highly sceptical of any trade deal as I have not seen one in my lifetime enure to the benefit of the average American. And yes, I want to raise others around the world, but not to the sole enrichment of the already insanely wealthy. And that’s who always overwhelmingly benefits.
But it’s much more that I am 100% opposed to fast track authority. I don’t trust these fucking wankers in Congress further than I can throw them but Obama isn’t giving us much choice. Telling us “trust us, I know what’s a good deal” when I can point to policy decision after decision I disagree with simply does not work for me. Show everyone what the big chunks of this deal are. Then say we’re still fine tuning some stuff, give us some room.
Fine. But nobody rides for free.
To mention, this WH just authorized Arctic drilling deals for Shell. Is that an acceptable good?
Keith G
@Elie:
I bet there are other choices that can be checked off.
Presidents get tons of advice from very powerful, very smart, and very well connected types. It may depend who has given him the “best” counsel that already meshes with his established views. I want to think the best of him and in general I do, but all humans have flaws.
Hmmm. Just a thought:
Remember that “we” have often repeated that Obama was very fortunate in the emergence and behavior of his opposition. His tactical choices seemed genius in the face of the other side. And as often as not, the other side was not playing an “A” game.
How much was Obama the political tactician ever truly tested?
His attacks on Warren and Brown seem clumsy, disingenuous, and thin-skinned. Is this all he’s got?
Baud
@jl:
I’m trying to understand what that means. Are you saying that those countries no longer give temporary legal monopolies for inventions that are publicly disclosed? That’s the essence of patent law in the United States. In these other countries, do people simply have to keep their inventions secret in order to prevent others from using them?
I’m sorry if I sound difficult, but I’m trying to understand because I find this interesting. Thanks.
liberal
@Omnes Omnibus:
Because she’s too stupid to understand that “false dilemma” is a logical fallacy? Just guessing.
p.a.
Because that has already been 2/3 accomplished.
He’ll go to the mat for this, but for card check couldn’t get the time of day. (Chorus:”it had no chance.”) Not without a push it didn’t.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
This TPP debate reminds me (and not in a good way) of the “Grand Bargain” debates back in the day. I don’t think Obama is going to sell us out, myself.
There is a good summary of what Obama thinks the TPP will do and why it is important at the White House. It’s worth a look, IMHO.
Also, Smartypants has posted a few things on the TPP. E.g.:
Let’s see what’s in the agreement before we freak out, eh?
But it sounds like the agreement is unlikely to be approved unless something changes. So perhaps its all moot.
We’ll see.
Cheers,
Scott.
Betty Cracker
@Elie: Maybe he sincerely thinks it’s a good trade deal and he’s just wrong? That’s my theory.
Corner Stone
@Kay:
Holy shit.
Omnes Omnibus
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Fine, as long as we take fast track off of the table.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
Too minimalist. Can’t you come up with a more elaborate psychological theory for everyone’s behavior?
jl
@Baud: They abolished patents in the mid 19th century when they seemed to produce more costs than benefits, and companies had to rely on (sometimes reformed) trade secrets law to protect their intellectual property. By the first decades of the twentieth century, they decided that other countries’ experiences with patents and developments in engineering and science, showed how to make patents useful again, and they returned to the patent system.
No country was impoverished or left behind in irreversible poverty because of their temporary abandonment of patents.
There is a good historical overview. Check back tonight and I might have found it. Will provide link if I have one.
liberal
@Elie:
No, he’s a neoliberal. Certainly his domestic cabinet appointments are entirely consistent with that.
BTW, you do realize, don’t you, that he raised enormous amounts of campaign dollars from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign?
Of course, he was better than Hillary in 2008, and obviously better than McCain and Romney. But that doesn’t mean he’s a saint or not a neoliberal.
Baud
@jl:
Thanks!
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: No, people are never simply wrong. That’s crazy talk. They are lying and have ulterior motives every time.
jl
@Betty Cracker:
” Maybe he sincerely thinks it’s a good trade deal and he’s just wrong? That’s my theory.”
Like Bill Clinton and his ill advised steps in financial reform. I think that may be it.
Clinton’s bad policy may not have turned disastrous if not for what Bush did with it, but that is the problem. Maybe HRC is likely next president, but that is not guaranteed, and even so, after her?
BobS
@Chris: Here’s a few of Obama’s allies on TPP and Fast Track Authority — John McCain, Mitt Romney, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernacke, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch, & John Boehner.
@Elie: Thanks – now you have me questioning whether Axel Foley really is the dumbest motherfucker that comments here.
Corner Stone
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
And this is exactly one of the concerns Warren and others have addressed. It’s not the contention that the ISDS can *change* regulation. Compensation dictates behavior. And if you keep being found to have to pay out of pocket for your public good regulation, what do you think is going to happen?
Corporations have access to challenge through the ISDS, but govts do not have the same kind of access or recourse.
Pace Warren. But I guess she’s wrong.
liberal
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
That right there shows that the source is arguing in bad faith.
Yes, they don’t have the power to change laws (or regulations, I presume). They merely can force the offending sovereign to pay them for all the “plaintiffs” forgone profits.
As far as past experience with these dispute mechanisms goes, why anyone things the past will be a reliable predictor of the future (as opposed to corporations increasingly taking advantage of it when it suits them) is beyond me.
Furthermore, why just investors? Why not a separate mechanism where workers can sue a sovereign by appealing to a board stuffed full of, say, left-leaning labor exports? Ditto for environmentalists.
Not to mention that it’s ludicrous to see all this crap in this “trade” treaty, and nothing (AFAICT) dealing with countries’ having mercantilist policies based on undervaluing their currency by taking actions in the currency/bond markets.
singfoom
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
No, they don’t have the power to change laws. But if the signatories laws affect their bottom line and the company wins the arbitration case, they can seek monetary damages.
Sorry if you think opponents are “freaking out”, but I don’t like the prospect of my tax dollars paying to guarantee the income of a multinational corporation. The very structure of the ISDS being outside our normal justice system is a tell to me. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see the burning need to make these tribunals so powerful. I don’t see the rush. We’re already heavily integrated into international trading systems. This doesn’t HAVE TO HAPPEN or we’re isolationists. I just don’t buy that. Your mileage may vary.
Kay
@Corner Stone:
I know.
Obama has to give us more than “trust me”. This idea he has that we all believe the US negotiator has a laser-like focus on the working class is just crazy. One can benefit US business interests and not one dime of that benefit can trickle down. We know that. Now.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
You gotta link? I’m not up on all the trade deals and their various provisions, but I’m pretty countries sue each other all the time under the WTO rules.
liberal
@jl:
IMHO that seems unlikely. I haven’t seen anything that shows that the evolution towards the 2008 debacle wouldn’t have happened had it not been for Bush.
Cervantes
@Elie:
If your position is that Obama is acting here out of spite, “giving them a little disrespect right back,” are you also saying the technical merits of the thing don’t matter to him? Please elaborate.
Corner Stone
You know, it’s pretty fucking hilarious to see the same group of people saying that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” all the time until we get to a part we our president “needs” secrecy in order to pass a fast track authority. For a deal no one will then be able to do a damn thing about, or other deals passed after, for some six years.
liberal
@Kay:
Yeah, but Kay, they’ll renegotiate it later!!1! It’ll be OK!!1!
liberal
@Cervantes: Touche.
Corner Stone
@Baud: It’s in the Plum Line Warren link I posted at 68.
“WARREN: Once a group of independent arbiters, whose decisions cannot be appealed, can issue a money judgment of any size, then the ISDS problem arises….Here’s what you could do. If corporations had to go through the same procedures that anyone else has to go through to get the trade deal enforced, then the problem wouldn’t exist.
Now, if a labor union says, ‘Vietnam promised not to work people for a couple of dollars a day, and to raise working conditions, and then failed to do it,” they have to get the U.S. government, through the trade rules, to go to Vietnam and prosecute the case. If corporations had to do the same thing, then it would be a level playing field…ISDS gives a special break to giant corporations, a break that nobody else gets.“
Baud
Not to diminish the importance of this issue, but there are some interesting things going on with the NSA/FISA reform bill in Congress that maybe some ambitious front pager could put up a post about.
Chris
@Kay:
Again, one of the tells in this for me is that if I recall correctly – and please correct me if I’m wrong, somebody – multinational corporations shared in the process and helped to shape the treaty, but unions were excluded from the same process.
I agree with Elie that it’s important to balance between staying competitive in international markets and protecting American workers. But one were trying at all to balance between those interests, seems to me the most elementary thing is that you don’t exclude the unions right from the very beginning. That doesn’t mean you always do what they say, but at the very least you give the representatives of American workers a seat at the table, a look at what’s being discussed, a chance to voice their objections, a chance to shape the process.
If you’re not doing that, you couldn’t possibly be any louder in screaming “fuck the workers, we’re in it for the bosses.”
liberal
@Corner Stone: IMHO the fact that fast track means these shit deals can’t be filibustered is at least as important. (Of course, resident moron Burnsie refuses to believe that these “treaties” are certain not to follow the civics class “2/3 of the Senate” process.)
singfoom
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Well shit, I was against it, then I went to the whitehouse link and since I saw “THE MOST PROGRESSIVE TRADE DEAL IN HISTORY” seven times, now I’m convinced.*
(*Except that I’m not convinced and that reads like a car dealership describing a bullshit feature on a new car model)
CTVoter
@NCSteve: Right behind you.
liberal
@Chris:
Frankly, that’s naive. The entire purpose of this process is to exclude the non-elite from any meaningful input. The most you’re going to get is tokenism.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Omnes Omnibus: Why? If it’s a horrible agreement then then Senate should vote it down. FastTrack just means that it can’t be amended – not that it can’t be voted down.
The Executive should be able to negotiate agreements without 100 additional Presidents in the Senate adding their own provisions. Negotiations won’t work that way (as we’ll see with the Iran nuclear agreement shortly).
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
Thanks, I’ll check it out. From your excerpt, it sounds like she’s comparing the access that corporations get to that of other private organizations. That’s different from what I thought you were saying, which is that governments could not enforce the trade agreement through arbitration.
Kay
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
This is just bullshit, though:
Saying US workers will be able to “compete” with Vietnamese workers because Vietnam promises not to use child labor is not true. At best they’re raising the global floor slightly. That is valuable for human rights but it doesn’t do jack shit for US workers.
Not job creating, not wage-raising. Again, there may be other reasons to support this but “direct benefit” to US workers is not one of them.
Chris
@liberal:
Yeah, it’s why I said “the most elementary thing,” not the only thing.
The point is that if you’re so indifferent that you can’t even be bothered with the pretense that you give a shit what the peons think about this, you can’t exactly be surprised if they blow a fuse over it.
liberal
@Chris:
That word “competitive” is going a lot of work.
The fact is that the status quo is already immensely stacked against American workers, simply because of currency imbalances created by countries like China taking positive action to ensure their currencies are undervalued.
And, strangely enough, the TPP and like treaties don’t do anything (AFAICT) to prohibit states from putting their thumbs on the scales when it comes to currency policy.
liberal
@Chris:
Yeah.
Corner Stone
@Baud: I could be wrong but my understanding is that govts can challenge but they have to go through the mechanisms of the negotiated trade deal. ISDS gives corps a “fast track” to challenge public good regulations through a litigation method that unions and govt actors do not have access to.
Hence, her claim that ISDS gives corps access no one else has. Happy to be corrected if that reading is inaccurate.
liberal
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
That’s fine, but why can’t it be filibustered? And why are you only referring to the Senate? You do know, don’t you, that this isn’t a “treaty” in the sense of “it must have 2/3 of the Senate in support”? It only needs a majority of both houses, unlike the simplistic discussions of treaties in civics class.
AFAICT, agreements like the TPP not only trump Federal law, they trump state law. Nominally the only thing they don’t trump is the Constitution. Why should passage requirements for something like that be weaker than a typical statute?
Omnes Omnibus
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Because the make-up of congress pretty much ensures that this particular agreement will be approved if fast track is approved. As a result, fast track means that the deal is effectively approved before the public knows what’s in it.
Corner Stone
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
No it also means it can’t be filibustered. And since almost all R Senators are onboard with passing fast track, that means it can’t be stopped. No matter what the deal contains at the end.
Look at who wants this fast track and deal.
liberal
@Corner Stone:
Even if governments could go through an expedited arbitration process (which I doubt, as you do), it’s still asymmetric, in that the only private parties privileged in this sense are “investors”.
Kay
@Chris:
What bothers me more I think is Obama announcing his is now the “progressive” position, by unilateral declaration or something.
He took ti much further than “I disagree with Warren and Brown”. He’s redefining “progressive” to mean “the things he supports”.
The whole reason we have labor and environmental protections in trade deals was labor and liberals pushed for them. They wouldn’t be in there without the people he’s attacking. He’s rewriting history here. The free traders he’s supporting did NONE of those things. Free trade opponents did them.
liberal
@Corner Stone:
Yes, this is an extremely important point.
Corner Stone
@Kay:
It’s just straight wage exportation.
El Caganer
@Kay: Jesus Christ. Peterson, as in Social Security Assassin Pete Peterson? That’s the theoretical support for this puppy? We are, indeed, truly fucked.
fuckwit
*sigh*. He’s done this over and over again. Keystone. Gay Marriage. Surveillance. Etc etc. Obama believes that it’s up to the people to drive the agenda, and he doesn’t believe in bully pulpit. He’s happy to do the work that the billionaire campaign donors paid him to do– and to hate that he has to do it, and to do it so publicly and so brazenly that it infuriates people and gets them motivated and agitated and mobilized. He does this on purpose, because the one thing he believes in more than anything, is democracy. And you have to get people to pay attention, be motivated, be organized, in order for it to work.
He and Warren are old friends and colleagues. I cannot believe this isn’t planned.
So yeah, it’s chess. He trolls the wingnuts and the media all the time, and I love that he does that. Now he’s not so much trolling the left, but sticking a sharp stick under our asses. He’s selling the deal hard. But he’s also hoping it infuriates people and they take action to fix this kind of thing. That Nike announcement is an American flag in front of the bull. If his job is to speak for the corporate whores, he’s going to do it in a way that all but begs the left to please oppose him as hard as possible.
I personally think this TPP deal sucks balls, and yes I agree the world will not stop if it passes, and yes I agree that worse deals already exist, and yes I agree that this could and maybe should be a line in the sand after 30 years of racing to the bottom, just like the line in the tar sands was with Keystone. Remember how the Keystone thing worked out? This is the same thing.
I’d say, chill out, but I don’t want that. I want people agitated and screaming foul. Write letters, march, protest, call your Congresscritters, give money to Warren, etc. We need to put a stop to this shit and Obama has given us a great opportunity to try that.
liberal
@El Caganer: Yeah, but Obama says it’s OK, so it’s all good.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Chris: See the WhiteHouse link in #82 – it says that unions, small businesses, state and local governments, environmental groups, etc., all provided their input to the US position. No, they didn’t have a seat at the negotiating table (and the administration saying they “had a seat at the table” was sloppy and invited confusion) – but it only makes sense to have professional treaty negotiators there, IMO.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Corner Stone
@El Caganer: Peter G. Peterson, Chairman my friend.
That’s who wants this fast track and deal.
liberal
@fuckwit: Uh yeah, sure. “Obama is ultimately good!” presented in a completely non-falsifiable manner.
liberal
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: So why did corporations have a seat at the table? Or are you claiming that they had no more a seat at the table than unions did?
Kay
@El Caganer:
I get that there should be some compromise but Lord have mercy., the ENTIRE line-up of supporters of this are horrible.
Also, just as a side note, can we get more than ONE BOOK as a source? All of these people are relying on this one think tank book?
Corner Stone
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Numbers two and four are such straight fucking shit they may as well come with a biowaste warning.
The more we sell abroad, the more jobs we support here at home
You mean like Nike? With some 990,000 workers outside the US? Selling abroad DOES NOT equal a job plan inside the domestic US.
Ninety-five percent of the world’s potential consumers live outside our borders
How many of that 95% can afford to buy goods made in the domestic US? What is the actual number of potential consumers we need to reach to make this a balanced deal?
liberal
@Kay: Well, they’re sure as shit not going to rely on the historical impact of NAFTA on non-elites in both Mexico and the US.
Corner Stone
@liberal:
More to the point, why did 85% of the people actually at the table represent Big Corp as opposed to random groups getting to submit position papers?
Corner Stone
@fuckwit:
Come right the fuck on, friend.
BobS
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Input may have been provided, but it seems to have been summarily dismissed if the broad consensus of opposition from those groups is any indication
@liberal: Everyone knows all the best professional treaty negotiators come from the corporate ranks.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Omnes Omnibus: Ok, maybe.
According to the Wiki, Obama started asking for renewal of Fast Track authority in 2012. One could argue that it’s an accident of the calendar that Fast Track is being tied up with the TPP.
Yes, it’s true (as indicated at the link) that the 3 trade deals Obama signed were grandfathered under FastTrack (the negotiation started under W when FT was active), and it’s easier for such deals to pass under FT. But the Senate can still vote them down.
It’s not at all clear to me that the Teabaggers won’t find some reason why they’ll refuse to approve FT and even the deal itself. They don’t want to give Obama anything.
But we’ll see.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
El Caganer
@liberal: I wouldn’t be crazy about secret negotiations under any circumstances, but I think I could swallow them if I knew that there were some non-governmental entities besides big business taking part. If it’s just corporate pirates and their pet governments, we’ll get the Adam Smith thing again: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Kay
@El Caganer:
Also, speaking of law professors and HYPOTHETICAL, those job predictions are the ultimate hypothetical.
If you’re dividing projected trade benefits by “$131,000” and you come up with “jobs created” maybe you shouldn’t be attacking other people.
I mean, come on . This is a made-up jobs number.
BobS
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: TPP negotiations began in 2005 — it was originally intended for them to be concluded in 2012.
El Caganer
@Kay: Well, it would help if there were some respectable economists pimping TPP. Maybe there are, but the only economists I’m aware of who have commented on TPP think that it sucks.
Corner Stone
@BobS:
How was Obama able to start negotiations on this in 2005?
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Time machine.
Kay
See I would be more open to this assertion if the US protected workers here, but since regulators just found out that we have slaves as nail techs, my confidence has been shaken.
Maybe we could raise standards here along with this trade deal. Then everyone’s happy! We’ll be a rising tide lifting all boats!
BobS
@Corner Stone: Under Obama, the US joined negotiations that had been initiated by several other nations during the George W administration.
Corner Stone
@BobS:
Wait a second. What?
Cervantes
@BobS:
Yes, except it was Bush who joined on-going negotiations, citing financial services and investment as a primary interest.
BobS
@Corner Stone: TPP
BobS
@Cervantes: That’s true — my mistake. And one more clusterfuck Bush helped to create.
jl
@Baud:
links to Journal of Economic Perspectives html page for article with (what should be) publicly available pdf file with some economic history of patents.
Moser, Petra. 2013. “Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1): 23-44.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.27.1.23&fnd=s
jl
@Kay: That kind of language is encouraging, but it is far too vague. In his interview with Bai, Obama said that criticisms of previous deals are not relevant for the new trade deal (TPP) because previous deals did things sloppily and his people will make sure to do things right. Well, OK, but people need to be able to check that things are not sloppy in THIS deal.
After all, Obama did implicitly admit that is very possible to mess things up in a trade deal. We need to be able to check his assurance that things were not in fact messed up in this one.
So, no fast track. Period. Especially if the text is not released for a timely examination and debate.
I might go with a fast track approach for real, global, multilateral deals where almost every country was at the table, but not these gimmicky ad hoc trade deals.
Bill Murray
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
So five years after the deal has gone through fast tack, been passed and in effect, is when we should “freakout”, as that’s when we are currently scheduled to know what is in the agreement.
As many of the cases under the older agreements (pre-2004) are confidential how does the Times know this for sure. Further, many cases are settled rather than arbitrated so we could have paid but not have it count as a loss. Overall, through 2012, there were about 500 known ISDS cases, of which about half had been completed with about 2 in 5 in favor of the host state, 1 in 3 in favor of the suing foreign corporation (foreign corporations are the only entities allowed to sue) and about 1 in 4 being settled.
Even if the host country won every time, they do not always get their costs paid and in any case must spend years defending their laws before any repayment of costs. For instance, Uruguay is estimated to need to spend $8 million to defend themselves against a trade agreement suit by Phillip Morris. One of the goals of this suit is to chill anti-smoking regulation in poor countries, at least until the suit is resolved and if PMi wins long after that.
Corner Stone
Also, The Economist has this really helpful nugget:
“As well as dismantling tariff barriers, the TPP is meant to tackle tough issues such as intellectual property, labour and environmental standards. American trade negotiators predict that by 2025 the TPP will make the world $220 billion a year richer.”
So, based on stats from the US recovery, 90% of that $220B per year will be going to the %.01 of the US population?
jl
@Bill Murray: I think the five year fast track vote would mean Congress agrees to fast track other proposed deals for the next five years. We get to see the text of the TPP before the vote. Question is, how long before the vote and how much debate is allowed.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Bill Murray:
Unless we’re talking about different things, that’s not the case.
NY Times:
The text is not going to be secret when the Congress votes on it.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
Cervantes
@jl:
Joe Stiglitz has some good analysis on this (2014):
Naturally, being about Intellectual Property Rights, the Pool of Knowledge, and Innovation, the paper is not freely available on the web.
Baud
@jl:
Thank you! Downloaded for later.
Ruckus
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
There is a good summary of what Obama thinks the TPP will do and why it is important at the White House. It’s worth a look, IMHO.
I’m not really interested in what he thinks it will do, I’m interested in what people who do economics for a living think will happen. I’m interested in what is in and how this deal is being handled. And from what I’ve seen this deal stinks. That link makes it look like we can’t do trade without this deal. That’s just basic bullshit right there. Sort of like every other major trade deal I’ve seen in my lifetime. 90% of the country gets fucked in the end, 9% likes it, and 1% loves it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: Obama majored in political science with a specialization in international relations and then went to law school; so did I. I can tell you that this educational background is unlikely to produce any degree of expertise in economics.
jl
@Cervantes: What’s the title? It may be available at his website. He makes almost everything he write publicly available there.
https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/
Tree With Water
Hillary’s silence insults the democratic rank and file, and is harmful to the best interests of party in general. No one is served by her silence, least of all her own presidential aspirations. Democrats have a perfectly reasonable expectation to know where she stands on TPP, indeed, to understand her thinking thoroughly. NAFTA gutted too many millions for it to be otherwise, yet still she deigns not inform. It reflects poorly on her overall judgement, and does nothing to lend understanding to the person it is that she claims to be.
Zalid Jalani at Alternet.com makes some sense of it: http://alternet.org/
jl
Thought I would mention that Stiglitz seems to walk the walk on IP. I saw a clip of him telling the story of how he was asked by the pirate publisher to write a new introduction and provide an afterword update to a pirated Chinese edition of one of his books. Stiglitz was fine with the idea, but said he could not convince his publisher who owned the rights to go along. Actually, I think Stiglitz said his publisher laughed him off the phone and refused to talk with him about the idea.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tree With Water: Aren’t you irrevocably opposed to her due to her vote on the AUMF?
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
Sort of my point. Of course there are a lot of people who claim to be economists who don’t seem to be able to count to eleven with their shoes on and people listen to them, so what the hell do I know.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: She’s unfit, as we’ve been told.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: Yeah, I was just riffing off your comment not disagreeing or arguing.
jl
@jl: ha ha. I didn’t get your jokey joke.
This copy seems to be publicly available at Stiglitz’ homepage:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE POOL OF KNOWLEDGE, AND INNOVATION
https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/papers/2014_knowledgepools_NBER_pub.pdf
For those who don;t like microeconomic equations (‘applied mathematics with no applications’ is the old mathematics joke about econ) , there are plenty of graphs that give a good idea of the concepts.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@liberal:
The USTR says that’s FUD.
There’s more at the main USTR TPP page.
I guess we’ll see soon enough…
Cheers,
Scott.
Doug R
@Elie:Strangely enough our professional left and labor leaders don’t seem to be too worried about worker rights in other countries.
Ruckus
@Ruckus:
I’m just a simple guy who lost a small business to the latest recession but before that I had 21 yrs of running a businesses. I’ve seen work taken out of my shop and the US. Mattel was a customer till they went overseas. They tried to come back when they found out trying to go to the lowest cost producers got them the lowest quality product but they had burned so many bridges and shuttered many business in going that it became unworkable to come back. I survived Mattel because I was diversified in my customer base. Many did not. But it’s a story that is/has been repeated in many parts of our industries. Did the Taiwan(name your choice of country) economy get better? Yes it did, but at a huge cost to ours.
There has to be a balance to trade, to currency exchange, to legal protections, and yes to patents. There has to be a balance to worker protections(both here and abroad), the environment(not just ours but our trading partners as well). No trade agreement I’ve ever seen does that, and from what I heard neither does this one.
Keith G
@Doug R: Say what?
Cervantes
@jl:
Title was the italicized phrase at the bottom of my previous comment.
Oh, I have the paper but could not find a way to make it accessible here. If there is interest I can have something worked up in the morning.
And meanwhile: have a great evening!
Cervantes
@jl:
Never mind my little joke.
And yes, the graphs at the end illustrate the analysis I was talking about.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
I know but I think sometimes riffing gives some the idea that an argument is in progress so I like to expand when I think that is possible. With this subject there is a lot of that going on, mainly I think because no on can publicly discuss this deal. So we get folks like Scott who want us to wait and see. But as you and others have noted, waiting and fast track will almost guarantee passage. With the actors on the right who are in agreement with the President here and those opposed this deal stinks worse then a cow pen in the summer.
jl
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: That is where good intentions can go awry because a treaty is sloppily written, as Obama himself admitted in his interview with Bai. Obama himself admitted that trade deal provisions that supposedly protected against its use as de facto corporate investment insurance. The provisions were used in that way by big tobacco companies, and managed to thwart very legitimate public health policies in several countries.
I don’t see why Obama cannot give as much public access to the text before it is taken up by Congress as Bush Ii did.
I think that once trade deals go beyond traditional barriers such as tariffs and quotas, they should be vary conservative and reluctant to try to eliminate supposedly non-traditional trade barriers, since these are very vague and hard to define, and involve some ideological issues about markets and economics for which there are no objective standards.
And if evidence shows that large gains in welfare can be achieved from going after these non-traditional barriers, they should be dealt with through multilateral treaties that find a way to resolve disputes with an open and accountable process that is consistent with democratic self-governance in each country. The European Union trade harmonization is an example. Yest it is endless and bureaucratic and sometimes results in seemingly absurd flaps. Like, just why cannot the Brits call their beloved low quality sausage stuffed with oatmeal filler a ‘sausage’. But I don’t think three person arbitration panels are a good alternative.
I am down on the whole approach to trade deals that the US has taken since the last round of multilateral talks failed. No on fast track, and I am dubious about TPP itself, and I am against the whole strategy towards trade that leads the US to negotiating in these NAFTA and TPP type deals in the first place.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus:
Now that’s where the poli sci and legal education come in handy. I’ll admit that that much of my judgment on this comes from looking at who is for and who is against.
Paul W.
@mkro:
It’s actually the only thing that makes sense to me, and, while I don’t like some of the patent issues, having an international tribunal where some rulings are decided makes sense to me because more often than not it is going to lean towards the side with stricter human rights laws seeing as how they have the bigger budgets to throw their weight around.
Doug R
@liberal: So is fixing NAFTA such a bad thing?
jl
@jl:
” Obama himself admitted that trade deal provisions that supposedly protected against its use as de facto corporate investment insurance. ”
should read
” Obama himself admitted that trade deal provisions that supposedly protected against its use as de facto corporate investment insurance were used for just that purpose “
Doug R
@Kay: any raising of a global floor is good for domestic workers
liberal
@El Caganer: yep.
MJ
The vitriol in this comment section against someone like Elie (who has a mildly dissenting opini)on is disturbing.
I think I’m going to be taking a break from reading anymore TPP posts on here for a while. I’m all for vigorous discussion here, but y’all need to chill.
liberal
@Doug R: LOL.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
Do you know anything about patent law? I had to delve into it a bit at one time about 8-9 yrs ago and found it to be very frustrating. It now protects for too long a time and due to the process seems to favor (once again, in a long line of things) those with the most money.
Corner Stone
@Doug R:
In what way? Exporting wages to people making $.56 an hour can’t possibly help domestic workers in the US.
What do you think they are going to be paid in Vietnam or the Philippines?
ETA, this is a complicated issue but to be clear, not sure how exporting wages overseas helps domestic US workers.
liberal
@MJ: wait…someone acts like an ignorant, petulant asshole and people aren’t kind in return? OMG!
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: I’ve done a little with IP law when a friend and I did a couple of short films and we had to get rights to the music we wanted to use. OTOH, I know nothing at all about patent law.
@MJ: You consider that vitriol? Oh dear.
Corner Stone
@MJ: Elie balls out stated that Obama was giving the finger to excellent D Senators on this issue because they were white. And he needed to disrespect some peeps in his party to get something something mumbles.
Ruckus
@Doug R:
That really isn’t true. We already pay more and have worker protections than a lot of the countries we trade with. If you had said equalizing then I might be able to agree with you, for establishing a global floor will mean that many go up but the more expensive/better protected have to come down. And that is what has been happening over the last 30-40 yrs to worker pay and protections. Not to mention the environment.
Doug R
@Keith G: there just seems an awful lot of poo pooing of the idea of International worker rights actually improving. Why shouldn’t we try? I thought dirty F hippies were supposed to be in favor of at least trying to improve things for everyone.
Corner Stone
@Doug R:
Agreed. We should definitely work in US workers wage concessions to fund anti-suicide nets in other countries.
This isn’t hard. Any concession or agreement here goes to damaging workers around the world, not lifting anyone up.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
That sounds a lot like what I was doing. Had a product that I wanted to build and patents had been applied for by someone else. Their app was crap and was rejected but I had to change my product dramatically to avoid lawsuits. In the end that made it better so not a total loss. There is more to the story of course but that’s the basics.
Doug R
@Ruckus: I don’t see it that way. most of these cheap labour countries rely on cheap labor to produce their goods. increasing automation- an American specialty makes us more competitive. American Apparel pays their workers a living wage and can afford to do so because they are highly automated and fairly competitive. Making the other countries pay higher wages will make us even more competitive. This is probably the thinking behind the extended patent protection.
Ruckus
@Doug R:
It is a great idea to try. And we should be. This trade deal most likely won’t do anything to help along those lines other than superficially at best. How do I know that? Look who is backing this. Look who is fighting this. The people that want it are almost all for big business and those that are questioning it? They are the one’s who want better worker protections and not just here.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: We were unable to actually track down rights to this song. Blind alleys and dead ends. We used it anyway and kept a file of our correspondence with all of the our efforts to get the rights. And banked some cash – in case we needed to pay.
Keith G
@Doug R:
That could be helpful in a scenario where other factors harming US workers were also addressed. But as far as we know TPP does nothing to address the issue of currency manipulation used by other counters to gain advantage for their exports.
Wage parity will not made a damn bit of difference if Singapore (for example) chooses to weaken it’s dollar to effectively undercut the price of it’s manufacturing. Which is exactly what is happening in such industries as steel and medical devices.
jl
@Doug R:
Who is saying that people who are skeptical, or already 100 percent against, the TPP are against improving international workers’ rights and wages.
Maybe people are saying that the TPP, and treaties like the TPP are not the best, or a safely reliable, way to do it. Or, that approving treaties like this using fast track is not a safe way to make sure the treaty will perform as advertised.
The TPP is not a ‘free trade treaty’. it does not address some issues (such as currency manipulation) that lead to some of the problems with high capital mobility paired with low labor mobility.
NAFTA and the TPP negotiations are not the only kind of international trade negotiations that can take place: other models are possible. They are not the only kind of international trade regimes that can exist: others are possible too. The dispute resolution system in the WTO and NAFTA and that proposed in the TPP are not the only dispute resolution systems possible. Other approaches have existed and do exist today. I gave the example of the EU above. (Edit: it is interesting to me that more egalitarian and open systems like the EU mainly exist between countries that can deal with each other as equals. That true for Vietnam versus US, or Canada or Australia?)
Patents and US-style IP law and economics are not the only ways to ensure sufficient R&D to keep technological innovation humming along.
So far, the TPP is mystery meat, with very vague assurances that all will be well. I think they way some of the most prolminent economists and policy hacks are promoting the TPP is dishonest. It should not be called a ‘free trade’ agreement, since most of its provisions will result in more restraint of trade, and of a kind that will favor capital and big corporations in the short and medium run. So, how well does any kind of labor, high or low, cheap or dear, anywhere come out on that end of the deal?
Ruckus
@Doug R:
Highly automated. How is that protecting workers? And this comes from a person who has embraced more autonomous equipment for two reasons. Skilled labor was getting harder and harder to find in a business that demanded them. Affording was not the issue. And as our prices were/are higher cutting back on something that was hard to find in the first place makes sense from a business perspective. But help the workers? Not on your life.
Keith G
@Doug R:
This is patronizing and insulting and/or nieve. There is a lot more to care about regarding the lives of foreign worker than just their earnings. As I mentioned above here (@Keith G). As proposed and written by our benevolent friends at Big Pharma, TPP will indeed cost lives in developing societies as well as drive caring governments deeper into debt if they try to help address the inevitable increasing costs of lifesaving medications.
People who might have been saved will certainly and unnecessarily die even if they might have been paid more.
Corner Stone
@Ruckus:
Rawr. That sounds hot.
jl
@Keith G: ‘naive;, but other than that., I agree.
Ruckus
@Keith G:
Agreed
Keith G
@jl: Yikes. Sorry. Past my bedtime. Already shaky cognition is shutting down.
Elie
@liberal:
.. and a nice evening to you too.
I had to step away from commenting earlier. I am not stupid. I do not have a clear idea of what is at stake though clearly, there is a great deal of emotion around the issue. I still have not heard to my satisfaction what the show stopping issues are though there have been hints around patent law that give rich people too much power and general antipathy against the corporate sector. I will have to read up more and that is my responsibility to do that.
Cervantes
@Omnes Omnibus:
In your quest, I assume you tried contacting the obvious entities (SABAM, etc.). I’m curious as to what they said.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
relax CS. I was off the mark in this case maybe, but my assertion in other circumstances is not incorrect… white liberal/progressives DID run from the President on several occasions. While I accept that Warren did not deserve my criticism, I definitely would not say that about others. I am not fighting a war about this though… I was wrong to give that example and I think that I said so. Ok?
jl
@Elie:
“though there have been hints around patent law that give rich people too much power and general antipathy against the corporate sector. ”
I posted a link at comment 152 that gives a relatively neutral overview. From an economic perspective, the patent issue is not about antipathy towards the rich or corporations. Patents are an economic mechanism to accomplish a social goal. Does the current US patent system achieve that goal or not, and at what cost? is it a good idea to try to export it to the rest of the world? Doesn’t have anything in my mind to do with feelings towards the rich or corporations. Though I can only speak for myself.
Elie
@jl:
Thanks jl —
Sorry that I missed most of the fun stuff earlier in the comments. I will read up more and be ready for the next time we all discuss. This IS a complex strategic issue that has many consequences. I am hoping to stay away from my own emotional arguments to understand better
PurpleGirl
I can foresee our costs for pharmaceuticals going up. We already pay premium prices for drugs and if companies can play with patent periods and IP rights, they raise prices and tell us to fuck off. Either pay the price or you can’t have the drug.
Ruckus
@PurpleGirl:
This is the big part for MSF.
BurghLady
@mkro:
For a different perspective;
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/?author=530becebe4b05f876e32e2f0
I suspect the truth is that it is not as bad as it’s detractors say it is, and not as good as it’s supporters say it is.
Most like something that will happen with or without us.
It’s difficult to know when people you respect and trust contradict each other.
What makes me cringe is when people from the left tell me that I must accept EVERYTHING that “So & So” says and ANYONE else who veers from that is lying.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
(Trying for the 3rd time…)
@Doug R: I think at least part of the problem with raising everyone up (as desirable and necessary as that is) is that the folks with the power and the money treat the world economy as a zero-sum. The folks at the very top continue to grab for more of the pie because it’s not about having more money than they can ever hope to spend, it’s about showing that they’re better and more important than their peer group.
Yes, if [WorldBank GDP per capita linky] per capita income in Vietnam were $10k/yr rather than less than $2k/yr, then their workers would be better off and they’d buy more stuff from the US so US workers would be better off too (as the wage disparity would be less). But Vietnam has very poor infrastructure, few highly-educated workers, poor health care, and lots of other structural barriers to getting to $10k/yr. Their “competitive advantage” (such as it is) is low wages. Vietnam’s wages can only rise at a rate that their relative advantage can support.
Workers in the US cannot afford to give up even more of their share of the US economic pie. So business that leave the US to go to Vietnam will put continuing pressure on US workers – for a while. Maybe a long while. But it was that way with China, and before that Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. They are now good customers for US companies as their per capita incomes have risen.
We understand these issues well enough that ways could be found to help Vietnam advance faster toward a 1st-World economy. And we could do it in a way that does not hurt existing 1st-World workers (or at least has real economic mobility so that buggy-whip makers move on to manufacturing modern items as foreign competition heats up rather than throwing those workers out). But that takes money and the MOTUs don’t want to give any up…
Ultimately, fixing this probably requires something like publicly financed elections, striking down “Citizens United”, and reversal of similar SCOTUS rulings that money == political speech. The rich have too much political power. They get that power from their access, and they get the access because politicians need ever increasing amounts of money to run for office. I’m not holding my breath that things will change soon.
My (too long) $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Kay
@Doug R:
The whole point of labor leaders and liberals pushing for labor protections is for “worker rights in other countries”
Like the President, you’re attacking the people who actually succeeded in getting these protections added to trade deals. There wouldn’t be any worker protections in trade deals without them. This deal has MORE labor protections than NAFTA did specifically because labor leaders pushed for them after NAFTA.
In fact, one of the main concerns about this trade deal is the US isn’t enforcing the labor protections in past deals.
“But Trumka charged that the labor standards included in those trade deals are poorly enforced, and that before he would back the White House’s push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he wanted to see tougher labor provisions that could be enforced.”
Worker rights in other countries. That’s what he’s talking about there.
Kay
@Doug R:
Where do you think labor protections in trade deals came from? Mitch McConnell? Nike? Microsoft?
They came from labor leaders. That’s the whole reason they want to be included in negotiations. Labor protections are called “non trade barriers”. They have to be added to trade deals. They come from somewhere. They’re an impediment to the ideologically pure vision of “free trade”.
What I object to is the claim that they “level the playing field” for US workers. No, they don’t. They slightly raise the floor. Since US workers are not at or near the floor (thankfully, yet) they don’t “level” anything. That’s a huge exaggeration. It’s political rhetoric designed to placate US workers so they won’t oppose trade deals.
Cervantes
@Kay:
A coherent reply would be nice. I hope you get one.
Kay
@Cervantes:
The President could have opened his speech with a nod to the work labor unions have done to make trade deals better, unless he thinks 60 of the largest corporations would have added labor protections out of the goodness of their hearts:
.
I think it’ll pass, because lots and lots of powerful people want it to pass, but maybe the people he’s identified as “opponents” can push for more concessions in the meantime. I know Sherrod Brown usually asks for training for displaced workers. Maybe he and Warren and Casey can get that.
Cervantes
@Kay:
If part of that “training for displaced workers” teaches them to never again trust a Republican paean to the free market and its invisible hand, then forget Sherrod Brown: I’d pay for it out of my own damn pocket.
terraformer
I don’t know, I think fuckwit has it right. I’d like to think that Obama is purposely trying the hard sell so that it gets more daylight and is ultimately defeated or at least severely constrained on key issues. No question that the paymasters want it and to some extent have given him his marching orders. But I’d like to think this is what’s going on…
les
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
But, of course, if a law or regulation is found to be “not fair,” the remedy is to pay the firm their projected financial outcome. Some pretty fine bs there.