Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

[MtnGoat]

Okay WTH is the deal with the TPPA? Was this set up as a catch 22 to open up free trade and to provide a loop hole for US Companies? I can read on it, but what is the big deal over it? I haven't heard anything on this, yet I'm seeing talk across social media platforms over it. Seems to be what NAFTA did for North America. Meaning filled in the pockets of big business and overseas investors.

http://tppwatch.wordpress.com/what-is-tppa/

Who can talk smart over this?

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Okay WTH is the deal with the TPPA? Was this set up as a catch 22 to open up free trade and to provide a loop hole for US Companies? I can read on it, but what is the big deal over it? I haven't heard anything on this, yet I'm seeing talk across social media platforms over it. Seems to be what NAFTA did for North America. Meaning filled in the pockets of big business and overseas investors.

http://tppwatch.wordpress.com/what-is-tppa/

Who can talk smart over this?

MtnGoat,

Had a conversation a few months back with a past NZ Minister of Defense regarding this and the China issue. Not an expert, but have local knowledge . What were you wanting to talk about?

S

[MtnGoat]

We'll seems to me that the TPPA is a far thing from free-trade agreement. From what I'm getting off of FB is the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is being touted as one of the largest "free trade" agreements in US history. Last week 151 Democrats and 23 Republicans in the House of Representatives signed letters to the US chief negotiators expressing opposition to a "fast track" procedure for voting on the proposed agreement. I have no real clue of what this does, but if it is anything like NAFTA is could be another train wreak for America. When ever I see "Fast Track" my BS flag goes up.

My other question is what or how is this treaty violating or infringing on our constitutional rights? I get how the TPP doesn't even offer any economic gains for the majority of Americans business, NAFTA did the same thing for small and medium businesses. But who are saying that TPPA will have "Americans" being asked to sacrifice their constitutional rights?

Questions:

How is this the largest "free trade" agreements in US history?

How is this treaty violating or infringing on our constitutional rights?

[Flagg]

From my cursory understanding of TPPA it would appear at first glance to be a special interest, corporate friendly multinational agreement.

From the US end looking at NZ, it would appear to strengthen copyright/IP law to curtail offending, gain more influence over NZ PHARMAC collective purchasing to raise pharmaceutical prices in NZ, and ban parallel importing of US brands into NZ.

Even though I would profit enormously from the banning of parallel imported US goods(I represent a major US brand here in NZ), I don't think it sounds like a good idea.

Especially the part about PHARMAC. NZ has some quite affordable pharmaceutical prices, I'd hate to see that change significantly.

I'm all for protecting IP rights, but not sure about folks claiming the agreement could curtail internet freedom. I don't like illegal downloading, but I don't like infringement on internet freedom either.

So my best superficial GUESS is that while it would be financially good for my family personally, I don't like what I'm reading so far.

Smells like corporate special interests winning again, which to me is one of the core reasons why we are in the mess we are in, and why I think the US and the world are unable to more easily get out of the rut we find ourselves in.

Just my 0.02c

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

MtnGoat,

Had a conversation a few months back with a past NZ Minister of Defense regarding this and the China issue. Not an expert, but have local knowledge . What were you wanting to talk about?

S

Phil Goff?

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

We'll seems to me that the TPPA is a far thing from free-trade agreement. From what I'm getting off of FB is the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is being touted as one of the largest "free trade" agreements in US history. Last week 151 Democrats and 23 Republicans in the House of Representatives signed letters to the US chief negotiators expressing opposition to a "fast track" procedure for voting on the proposed agreement. I have no real clue of what this does, but if it is anything like NAFTA is could be another train wreak for America. When ever I see "Fast Track" my BS flag goes up.

My other question is what or how is this treaty violating or infringing on our constitutional rights? I get how the TPP doesn't even offer any economic gains for the majority of Americans business, NAFTA did the same thing for small and medium businesses. But who are saying that TPPA will have "Americans" being asked to sacrifice their constitutional rights?

Questions:

How is this the largest "free trade" agreements in US history?

How is this treaty violating or infringing on our constitutional rights?

Simple short answer...


ONE
Free trade is moving from controlling nations external trade policy, towards controlling nations internal policy. With the TPPA what looks like anything BUT Free Trade, is actually Free Trade 2.0, and yes it's huge. Deep effects, across many subjects, and many nations.

Also you've got to look at the whole board, there is economic warefare involved here. So this isn't just Free Trade 1.0 + Free Trade 2.0, but it's also Anti China junk as well. I can go into more details if you like.

TWO
It's a complicated document, and I'm not as offay with it as I'd like to be, however there are two main variables with-in the suggested framework that make it a little scary.

a) The right for corporates to sue nations for material damage caused by breaching the agreement.

b) The standardization of internal policy across regions is an issue. We may be left not as free to do what ever want as a nation re: internal policy. IMO This is a natural progression of the free trade process.

On the face of it, this may sound evil as hell, but done well it can be fairly argued that its not a big deal.

Again can go into more details if you like. Just not sure what more info or direction you're going here.

HTH

S

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by Flagg

Phil Goff?

Sorry Flagg, didn't mean to name drop, just trying to say I may be able to shed SOME light on the questions and concerns.

Let's leave at that shall we, not here to toot my own horn.

Cheers

S

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

Sorry Flagg, didn't mean to name drop, just trying to say I may be able to shed SOME light on the questions and concerns.

Let's leave at that shall we, not here to toot my horn.

Cheers

S

No worries!

Any thoughts on the pharmaceutical side for NZ as well as parallel importing?

[MtnGoat]

Flagg - the internet part I didn't think about those sides. Thanks for the Pacific rim inside over this. It helps.

Scimitar - The Free-Trade side I feel will end up like NAFTA. CRAP for us Consumers pockets. NAFTA, I feel did very little to ease any economic whatever's as they had promised with it. This is coming from people that are affected by it, that her mood by it, that use NAFTA in their daily lives that have very little outcome because of it. Most say it sucks for small and medium businesses.

[Scimitar]

Not an economist so not going to give you my musing on that... ain't worth a lot.

But I will give you this stream of consciousness...

Free Trade is about streamlining the international system, and pre 1960s there was a hell of a lot of false economy going on and that cost real money. Strip these away and you get efficiency = wealth. In free Trade some people win and some loss, but we all win more...on average.

Moving to the now....keep in mind that Risk (read, the unknown) is a huge cost to business. Free Trade is moving towards trying to regulate what governments can do, Standardizing economic policy externally, and moving towards internally. To mitigate a nations ability to do whatever it wants. Nationalizing utilities on a whim is a good example.

Again, no expert, but my belief is this is fundamental driven by the UN agenda for lessening the gap between rich and poor, both nationally and internationally. A good example is the UNs move towards the addition of a 4th variable to the Human Development Index. Equality.

And remember what you measure is what you get. Equality is becoming hardwired into the system. Is this a bad thing?

The theory is that equality, much like free trade, moves towards peace and prosperity and away from economic warfare, which is often the precursor to kinetic warfare.

However, if you believe in the Judeo / Christian western exceptional-ism...and frankly I do...I don't know if I really want a super level playing field, internally or nationally.

As is often the case, it comes down to degrees, where is the sweet spot for when the rich are too rich, but not rich enough, and the poor are to poor but not poor enough.

And the more I'm involved with this the more I come back to the issue I have with the Economic liberal, and boy the UN is. Life is often about choosing the lesser of two evils, not holding out for the perfect and ending up loosing both options. It seems to me liberals struggle with this.

The international movement towards socialism, risks removing the one true "GOVERNOR", natural cause and effect - screw around in life you are generally poor, engage in life, you will generally thrive.

"Men must be GOVERNED by God (read, law of nature) or they will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn.

The big picture here, is the post modern humanist thinks he can do a better job then the laws of nature, the law of consequence. So we are moving towards swapping the law of consequence (nature), for the law of man.

We so hate the law of cause and effect, which isn't perfect (there in lays the issue), that we are swamping this lesser evil, for a greater evil, in the hope it will be more perfect. We forget the law of diminishing returns.

But hey what do I know.

S

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Flagg - the internet part I didn't think about those sides. Thanks for the Pacific rim inside over this. It helps.

Scimitar - The Free-Trade side I feel will end up like NAFTA. CRAP for us Consumers pockets. NAFTA, I feel did very little to ease any economic whatever's as they had promised with it. This is coming from people that are affected by it, that her mood by it, that use NAFTA in their daily lives that have very little outcome because of it. Most say it sucks for small and medium businesses.

I'm a big fan of trade over aid.

But fair trade....or fair-ish trade.

But just as aid can cause serious negative consequences(think subsidized American farming commodities dumped on 3rd world, distributed for free or seized/sold for profit by corrupt regimes, crippling local farming networks), so can trade.

Both have strings attached....which is how the world works

I think the downside of trade will be found in the entrenched special interests that push aid and/or trade for their own benefit.....which isn't necessarily to the benefit of the general public to which it's sold.

Just like the NAFTA example you mentioned.

I still recall Ross Perot's "Giant sucking sound" quote. Which turned out to be true.

Just my 0.02c

[MtnGoat]

Okay I have to put a Disclaimer out over this link here because I haven't fully researched it something I pulled off of Facebook. But I'm posting because it gives links to articles over why TPPA sucks. Internet article by EFF is interesting.

http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/stopfasttrack/

[Pete]

One thing's for sure - there will be no free trade with sugar.

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by Pete

One thing's for sure - there will be no free trade with sugar.

LoL.. Or maybe not

[Hand]

I happened across a podcast today that delved into what is publicly available in regards to the TPP. [Common Sense 290 – The Illusion of Control. Can be found here]

Some of the main points

• 30,000 pages in current draft form
• Document is classified for 4 years AFTER it passes
• Fast track provision prevents Congress from debating it or even seeing it.
• Allows corporations to sue countries in a special tribunal for damages (As noted previously)
• Allows for patenting of plants and other naturally occurring matter.
• Most of what we know about it comes from ---> Wikileaks !?!

As to the secrecy (Old Story):

Wyden said that his office was locked out of information about a trade pact in the works known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The deal, which involves eight other Pacific nations, includes broad details on government contracting terms that would ban "Buy American" preferences for U.S. manufacturers, and intellectual property standards that would increase prescription drug prices abroad. Those positions have drawn criticism from American labor unions, domestic manufacturers and international public health advocates.

But while the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative shares draft negotiation documents on the Trans-Pacific deal with the governments of other nations and American corporate executives who serve on advisory boards, it withholds them from the American public and most nonprofit groups -- forcing many public health advocates, for instance, to learn about the deals through illegal leaks or informal channels.

"The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations -- like Halliburton, Chevron, PhRMA, Comcast and the Motion Picture Association of America -- are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement," said Wyden.

Source

"It is incomprehensible to me that the leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP while, at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge as to what is in it," Sanders said in a letter (pdf) sent Monday to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. "Members of Congress must have the opportunity to read what is in the TPP and closely analyze the potential impact this free trade agreement would have on the American people long before the Senate votes to give the President fast track trade promotion authority."

Source

Secrecy complaint is "overblown":

EMMA ALBERICI: So why is there so much secrecy surrounding this deal, Alan Oxley?

ALAN OXLEY: The secrecy issue's been way overblown. All trade agreements are negotiated in this way. Governments can't negotiate agreements without the confidence that they can do trades with the other governments. Every trade agreement's negotiated this way. So, this has been way overblown. The secrecy angle started really only in the US with the negotiation of NAFTA and it's now carried as a sort of article of argument by anti-free trade groups around the world.

Source

I just love it when its OK to do something because somebody else already did it.


Corporations Suing States:

Companies can file a lawsuit if they believe to be losing profit or even have a lower expectation of profit due to changes in the “environmental, health or other regulatory objectives,” according to the leaked document.

Moreover, if a foreign firm feels that a new law passed by a state impacts its rights under the TPP agreement, it could challenge the country’s decision in the private arbitration system, the investor-state dispute settlement

Source

Benefits:

EMMA ALBERICI: Alan Oxley, who benefits from the deal?

ALAN OXLEY: The people whose markets are going to be opened. What's not been talked enough about this TPP with the leadup and all the various issues discussed is how very significant it is. This is a major agreement. First of all, it had US engagement. It brought the US back into activity in the Asian Pacific region. It has Japanese engagement. It's the first time Japan's been involved in a major agreement and this agreement embodies trade between and investment between Japan and the US. This agreement also is very significant because it's really the first modern agreement in which the main issues being negotiated are not trade in goods; they're going to be reduction to barriers of investment and services and these are the things in the future in the Asian Pacific region which are going to unlock growth. What we need to understand is that GDP in most developed countries like Australia, about 70 per cent's contributed by services. In developing countries, it's only 40 per cent and we're not going to get the growth in the Asian region unless those countries open up their markets. And lastly, this is a very significant agreement for Australia. China has shown great interest and already what we're seeing now is that China is toying with the idea, which is advanced in APEC, of building on TPP and creating a free trade agreement among all the APEC economies. That's the 24 economies. This will be the biggest agreement in the world. This is very big. This is the big picture which has been put aside and set aside by all these other various points and arguments. But the big picture is the key here.

Source

I revived this thread due to this monster being fairly close to being completed for signing.