Elizabeth Warren says Pacific trade deal alarming ‘for everyone’

[Playinghardball]

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unleashed a fresh attack on a Pacific Rim trade deal being negotiated by the Obama administration, saying part of the proposed agreement raises “alarm bells” for everyone from conservatives to progressives.

In a call with reporters, the Massachusetts Democrat ripped the so-called investor-state dispute settlement process, a section of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. President Barack Obama is pushing hard for the TPP, which is a proposed 12-nation deal Obama says will benefit American workers and businesses.

Warren, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, disagrees, at least about the section she singled out in comments on Wednesday.

“ISDS allows foreign companies to challenge American laws and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers without ever stepping foot in an American court,” she said on a call organized by the group Alliance for Justice. Warren added companies that want to challenge U.S. laws could do so before an international tribunal.

Warren said that conservatives oppose the process for challenging U.S. sovereignty; libertarians dislike its effective subsidy to countries with weaker legal systems; and progressives oppose its allowing companies to weaken labor and environmental rules

More here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elizabeth-warren-says-pacific-trade-deal-alarming-for-everyone-2015-03-11

[HappyMe]

1. k&r

Too bad she isn't running for president.

[Hoyt]

2. If conservatives, etc., oppose it, any agreement submitted to Congress will not pass.

Somehow we've managed to survive similar dispute mechanisms in NAFTA, as have the European Union.

[djean111]

4. This dispute mechanism is different because the disputes take place outside of any country's legal

system. The judges are corporate lawyers. There is no appeal.

NOT THE SAME THING. NAFTA on steroids.

Oh, and the GOP has deemed the TPP the very special thing that they really want to work on with Obama. Isn't that special.
So - no hopes there.

[Hoyt]

5. It is the same as NAFTA and what the European Union has used for years.

Actually, the judges are often university professor or other experts in the field, and each side gets to choose one. But that doesn't play well with those who are trying to defeat the TPP before we even get a chance to see what Obama can achieve.

To repeat what I have posted before, I'm still convinced Obama will not endorse a final agreement that sells us down the river. I know there are plenty who thought he'd gut Social Security, push the pipeline, work against net neutrality, etc., but he hasn't.

And I believe Obama when he responded to Matt Yglesias a few weeks ago by saying: "Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its own weight or following the rules of the road and we were, and in some cases we got the short end of the stick. This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating. There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, 'Why would we want another trade deal that hasn't been good for American workers? It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.'"

"And my argument is two-fold. Number one: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we're trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer, because right now it's not fair, and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime. We can't just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us."

"But the second reason it's important is because the countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged. Why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal. It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them, but they're already selling here for the most part. And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be. . . . . . ."

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript



Truthfully, it appears to me we are undermining Obama's chance to get something that helps our country long-term, not unlike the letter to Iran. Whatever, you and I wish to conjure up on this issue, I am convinced doing nothing will not help us long-term.

[djean111]

7. Is this true or false -

http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#

Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état. The proposed pact would limit even how governments can spend their tax dollars. Buy America and other Buy Local procurement preferences that invest in the US economy would be banned, and “sweat-free,” human rights or environmental conditions on government contracts could be challenged. If the TPP comes to fruition, its retrograde rules could be altered only if all countries agreed, regardless of domestic election outcomes or changes in public opinion. And unlike much domestic legislation, the TPP would have no expiration date.

Failure to conform domestic laws to the rules would subject countries to lawsuits before TPP tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against member countries. The leaked investment chapter also shows that the TPP would expand the parallel legal system included in NAFTA. Called Investor-State Dispute Resolution, it empowers corporations to sue governments—outside their domestic court systems—over any action the corporations believe undermines their expected future profits or rights under the pact. Three-person international tribunals of attorneys from the private sector would hear these cases. The lawyers rotate between serving as “judges”—empowered to order governments to pay corporations unlimited amounts in fines—and representing the corporations that use this system to raid government treasuries. The NAFTA version of this scheme has forced governments to pay more than $350 million to corporations after suits against toxic bans, land-use policies, forestry rules and more

Also, I do not believe for one minute that Vietnam, for example, is suddenly going to improve conditions. I have read that there is verbiage about this, but no penalties. And no country of origin labels, for that matter. More off-shoring, with China as the boogeyman to scare us into submitting.

Anyway, The GOP seems real real happy about the TPP, so why the need to defend it? This is the ONE thing they want to work with Obama on. Wonder why.

[Hoyt]

9. Wallach's article -- like most biased opinion pieces -- has some truth and a lot of BS.

The dispute resolution aspects involve disputes over trade where one country is treating another country's companies unfairly. For example, Japan has built some auto plants here in the USA which employees US workers.

If a myopic Congress passed a law that only Japanese cars had to have zero emissions, but US cars could double their emissions, Japan would qualify for dispute resolution in tribunals. Of course, it works both ways. If Ford, doing business overseas is discriminated against, Ford could pursue the dispute in a presumably fair court rather than going to Japan's courts.

Of course the truth of the matter is, if either nation decided the agreement was not of benefit to them (not just in short-term financial terms) and really didn't like the results of the dispute, they'd tell the other country to go pound sand.


If Vietnam does not improve conditions to level the playing field, they will lose out on trade. I think they will see the benefit of accepting some compromises to gain long-term. If they don't, I trust the Obama Admin to take the proper action.

[djean111]

10. I have no trust in anything you have said. But that's okay, neither you or I make the

decision. I do not believe Elizabeth Warren, for example, is just delusional about the TPP. I will continue to write and call about my belief that it is a bad deal. Let's see if Obama actually answers questions about this, or falls back on rhetoric.

[Hoyt]

11. When Obama gets the best deal he can, he'll tell us if he supports it or not.

And he'll tell us why.

In the meantime, some politicians, special interest groups (including some I usually support except when they exaggerate to attract followers), etc., will try to make political hay out of this nebulous thing they have no definitive knowledge of, with the implication that Obama is once again trying to sell us down the river.

I trust Obama to do the right thing.

[colsohlibgal]

3. Obama Is Pushing It Hard Now

I just got an email from Obama saying, right in the title of the email, that this was the most progressive trade deal ever.

Really? Then why did he want to shove it through congress without debate?

The details I've gleaned are chilling for many reasons, so I'll stand with Senator Warren 100%.

Meanwhile I think Barack and I have much different ideas of what is progressive and what is not.

[Hoyt]

6. It won't go through Congress without debate, they will debate it and approve or disapprove.

What they won't do if it is Fast-Tracked -- which is doubtful -- is get the right to change every damn thing they want to from font size to substantive parts.

If you were one of dozen or so countries -- that will also have to approve it -- would you offer your best deal (in terms of human rights, environmental restrictions, etc.) if you knew our Congress was going to play politics with the agreement for years, and might gut the whole thing. That's the same reason people are pissed at the GOP for writing the letter to Iran, it undermines Obama's ability to have a chance to get better terms than the status quo.

[Faryn Balyncd]

13. So what do you think Woody would think of investor-state trubunals & extended copyright monopolies?

Do you think the fellow who wrote:

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do."

when he published "This Land Is Your Land" in the 40's, only to have Ludlow Music sue to prevent use of the song 60 years later, and who wrote,

"There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
That side was made for you and me"

would side with the corporations today?

[Hoyt]

14. I think he'd be fine with it if it means jobs for the poor, here and abroad.

This ain't the 1940s.

Although I wish it were not the case, your mom-and-pop buggy whip manufacturer of old ain't gonna produce enough jobs for us, not to mention funds for education, food stamps, welfare, etc. Nor would a 1940s economy allow us to encourage other countries to adopt better worker conditions, improve emviromental standards, etc., through trade agreements that will make the world better long-term.

Woody was not as myopic as some here seem to believe. You really out to read up on the man.

[AtomicKitten]

8. She's shoving the secret deal into sunlight.

[woo me with science]

12. K&R

[RiverLover]

15. It is alarming. We need "Fair" Trade, not "Free Trade"

How Our 'Free Trade' Policies Kill Jobs
Dave Johnson
Campaign for America's Future
3/10/15

The U.S. is currently running a net trade deficit of over $500 billion each year with our "trade partners." We have been running trade deficits every year since the late 1970s. We buy from them, but they don't reciprocate and buy from us, so the trade is out of balance -- way out of balance.

These other countries use the proceeds from our purchases to set up their own industries so that they don't have to buy from us in the future. We let this happen, so as our industries move away, we will have no choice but to import. In many cases our own so-called "American" corporations are voluntarily "deindustrializing" and sending the factories and equipment to "trading partners" elsewhere.

The Damage

When a country runs a trade deficit, it means that the "demand" for goods and services created by that country's economy is being exported, and people are being hired in other countries instead of in that country. It means that the growth of that country's economy and the number of jobs available is lower than it would be otherwise. Last week's Wall Street Journal article "U.S. Trade Gap Narrows in January," for example, called our trade deficit "a drag on overall growth." They quantified by how much, reporting, "Net exports -- the difference between exports and imports -- subtracted 1.15 percentage point from fourth-quarter gross domestic product."

...At Economy in Crisis, John Olen writes in "Lack of Jobs is Due to Our Trade Deficit":

Trade policy that encourages businesses to relocate production of goods to other nations without penalizing them for selling those goods back to this nation has resulted in millions of lost jobs. White House estimates show that for every $1 billion in goods exported, the economy creates 5,000 jobs. Unfortunately, that street goes both ways -- data from the Economic Policy Institute shows that for every $1 billion in goods imported, the economy loses 9,000 jobs.

Read More~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/how-our-free-trade-polici_b_6839248.html