I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the process) lacks their usual subtlety.
But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do.
There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.
I think Andrew Johnson ran for the Senate while still POTUS if memory serves.
So much for defending against big banks. :(
Also, I've learned to embrace incrementalism and transactional politics (quid pro quo).
Lastly, if you bring the heat, the targeted policy maker(s) will see the light. The color of their logo won't be a factor. Sanders' campaign, and massive following, absolutely moved Clinton to the left.
Examples: TPP, gay marriage etc. One could try arguing that she has evolved but MANY see her as just flip-flopping to what seems politically expedient at that time. Hence the tremendous amount of distrust.
Embrace incrementalism = let's make mediocre great again. Imagine that kind of mentality when it was announced that we were going to try to send someone to the Moon.
"Let's shoot for the moon!"
"Enh, let's just name an airport instead to build support"
I encourage you to read The Waxman Report by former US Sen Henry Waxman to get a sense of how much effort and time it takes to forge policy, move the needle.
Continue to disempower yourself thru cynicism, apathy, and inaction.
Or follow the examples of Sanders, Warren and 1000s of others and learn to convert your outrage into action.
Jill Stein has similar policy positions to Bernie Sanders, if the Sanders supporters realise this en masse she may have decent chance.
Preferably open-sourced.
The same statement is true about the Democratic party as a whole. They've been all over the place on those issues over the last two decades.
Clinton may not be as liberal as you seem to want, but she pretty clearly has had a liberal track record compared to her fellow party members: https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-libe...
All they can do is, like Obama did with Obamacare, run what is essentially an advertising/pressure campaign to get something passed.
There's a reason he ran as a Republican in the first place.
He doesn't really alight with either party.
But he's most certainly anti-free-trade. All of his business and money is in the US (mostly in real estate). It's in his best interest to artificially prop up US industry by shutting down inbound trade.
It is Republican orthodoxy to be against consumer and labor rights.
He has absolutely no interest in abandoning the TPP, since, as a Republican, he is in favor of exporting US jobs.
When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_...
Trump is a real estate guy. His business is intrinsically tied to the US. He can't outsource hotel construction jobs to China. That makes being anti-globalization an easy path for him.
Moreover, more capital sloshing around in the US instead of going overseas means lower interest rates for construction loans.
First of all, HuffPo is uh, far from an unbiased source when it comes to Trump. But secondly, a lot of that stuff has very flimsy reasoning behind it:
> 11. Claim: “She wasn’t dragged to the ground.” — Trump on Fields.
> Reality: Trump implies here that Fields said she was dragged to the ground. She never did.
> She said, “I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance,” which is what the video shows.
If you follow the link with her quote, right before the "I almost fell..." sentence, in her own words she says "Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down."
Which directly contradicts
> Reality: Trump implies here that Fields said she was dragged to the ground. She never did.
So uh, HuffPo is lying here about a time they claimed Trump is lying?
And then you get stuff like this:
> 53. Claim: “I am not soliciting money from insurance companies and from lumber companies and from banks and from — if I did, I would have made Jeb Bush look like a baby.”
> Reality: He made Bush look like a baby anyway.
Are we reaching here or what? They're seriously trying to say he's lying about not making Jeb look bad? And then you've got stuff like this:
> 40. Claim: “Only a fool would give a tax return [during an audit].”
> Realty: Lawyers do advise against doing this. But nothing about being audited prevents Trump from releasing his tax records.
So yeah, he's right that he shouldn't give out his tax return during an audit. What is he lying about here? He never said he couldn't, just that he shouldn't.
If the disclaimer the HuffPo puts on every Trump article hasn't clued you in, they've clearly got an axe to grind against him and you're not exactly guaranteed to get unbiased reporting about him from them.
(+) He's been polling in double-digits for weeks now, three points shy of the threshold for getting in the debates. That's a "current candidate" in my book.
https://mises.org/library/we-need-actual-free-trade-not-tpp
https://mises.org/blog/tpp-and-trade-rhetoric
I am pleased to report that Johnson seems to agree with them in this respect: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/off-message-transcript...
All current presidential candidates have come out against the TPP whilst running for office, that's not necessarily going to be their position if they reach the White House. Hilary Clinton was promoting the TPP before the current presidential race.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/...
Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion.
So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.
I think a strong nation is good for consumers, and a weak nation destroys the consumer base.
Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?
Pretty much all major trade agreements of the modern era have been largely drafted by corporate lobbyists, so, I guess "yes" is the answer you are looking for.
Why do you ask?
ISDS is in the treaty to encourage foreign direct investment in developing nations, which often do not have well-functioning, independent and fair courts the way the U.S. does.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-set...
This is just flat-out false. The second link you provided clearly lays out the criteria for resolution of a conflict via the ISDS:
> the dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply...wherever a Party considers that an actualor proposed measure of another Party is or would be inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement or that another Party has otherwise failed to carry out its obligations under this Agreement; or wherever a Party considers thata benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under [this agreement] is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement.
That is, the ISDS is for resolution of conflicts which are alleged to be in violation the the treaty, not for "any measures that they can claim hurts their business". The Phillip-Morris case you cite is because PM alleges that the Australian government expropriated their intellectual property without due compensation. This post[0] has a very nice breakdown of ISDS cases, rationale, and outcomes.
Also give this thread[1] a read - SavannaJeff is a well-known professional trade economist, and has a lot of very valuable expert insight on the TPP that's worth reading.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/390p5l/over_2000000...
[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/2srn0u/trade_sec...
And I admit that I still have trouble seeing the plaintiffs in these cases as any kind of victims. The first of your links states that companies can use the mere existence of an ISDS mechanism to produce a real "chilling effect" on countries not even part of the dispute. Is that "fair" to the people of those countries?
But okay, there are two sides. And we know which side the "sensationalist media" is on. And also the people of Europe, who (according to your second link) drove the EU to qualify and then scuttle ISDS language in the TTIP after "a lengthy public consultative process."
So I come away wondering what is the value proposition for the public. Or is this provision all carrot?
The allegations are breach of contract by the government (Veolia), local government changing the rules after signing a contract in order to make it difficult or impossible for the company to fulfill the contract (Vattenfall), and allegations that the government seized a company's IP without due compensation (Phillip-Morris). If the claims hold up, those are three very good examples of companies being victimized by local governments. The "chilling effect" that you mention is in regards to the Phillip-Morris case, where the author speculates that PM was attempting to use the suit to discourage similar behavior in other signatory countries. It didn't work out for them[0] - the system did what it was supposed to in that case, and (properly) no chilling effect was produced. We cannot simply say that because any threat of legal action may have a chilling effect that the possibility for companies to seek legal remedies is a bad thing.
> So I come away wondering what is the value proposition for the public. Or is this provision all carrot?
The value proposition is that by having an arbitrating entity that is not likely to be under the thumb of this or that sovereign entity, companies are much more willing to conduct business in those countries when they have some assurance that their disputes against a local government won't be heard and denied by a sock puppet court controlled by that same government. It's much the same reason that we domestically use our judicial system and neutral third-party arbitration to resolve disputes, rather than just relying on counterparties to self-police themselves.
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_(European_Union_law)
As to whether it applies to all treaties or just the EU ones, ... good question. In practice courts haven't really followed it.
Also, just as a data point, I've been working in Brussels for close to 20 years now and seen the evolution. I work as a consultant, so it has been a mixed bag for me. However, for just about everyone else, workers, middle class, business owners, ... it has been a consistently worsening disaster.
Having regularly worked for the EU commission, let me tell you this : any idea you may have that this organization has anything but their own economic interests at heart can be cured by chatting with one of them for 5 minutes.
The TPP would not, in US law terms, be a treaty, but a regular federal statute.
Specifically with regard to DRM I'd say they are just as ineffective, but more consumer hostile.
But this is all red herring since the TPP does not set any goals for measuring actual ENFORCEMENT, it only imposes new IP laws outside of the democratic process, with zero transparency, all while claiming to be a "free trade treaty".
Let's make it clear: Copyright laws have nothing to do with free trade. Let's suppose for a moment the US Copyright law is anywhere near "balanced" (and Canada is a caribbean pirate cove, as xxAA groups and the USTR love to claim). That still has nothing to do with Free Trade. If the Obama administration really wants to use TPP to fix all of the world's evils as they see them, why not push signatories to accept LGBT marriage for instance?
It's a large and complicated document; there's plenty of room for bad ideas, and plenty of room for good. The real question is, "Would we rather have nothing?" Because the existing ecosystem of loosely-affiliated nation-by-nation policies is a sh-tshow.
In the case of the EU, there isn't even a ratification step once the EU commission (which isn't elected) agrees to a treaty.
And of course ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_(European_Union_law)
That means that with EU commission agreement you get the supreme court (that supersedes all local courts) arguing that anything the commission agrees to can countermand local constitutions.
So local legislature agreement required, in many cases, is incorrect.
Do you know how many consumer advocacy groups are included in the negotiation process for TPP? I gather it's zero. Given the process is specifically intended to keep out consumers, why should we believe the end result will be any different?
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy.
Negotiating treaties in private has become normal because its inconvenient to those who wish to find ways getting their pet provisions packaged into something that is hard to resist.
Isn’t this the definition of doublethink?
It will prevent the public from influencing the treaty while it is being made (prevent outcries for random provision), but it will not undermine the ability of the public to influence treaties(It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy)
If everyone is willing to ratify a deal – that is, it's better than no deal at all – it's reasonable to take measures that make it possible for the deal to be reached in the first place.
Maybe you should move to Russia or China, and have all your deals and laws done like this.
And they give the same argument you're giving : "it's for your own good". And I bet in one case out of 10 that's actually true.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
It's 10x worse than the DMCA, it's anti-consumer, it advocates worse global warming and prevents people from doing anything about it, it's got disastrously bad anti-employee policies, and so on and so forth. I at one point called it the "Indians get medicine now. Let's fix that" agreement.
Why are you even defending it ? Aren't there any red flags in it from your perspective ? Because I'm pretty sure that if you aren't Lloyd Blankfein, that's guaranteed.
So why are you defending it.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-go...
The vote was 60-38.
Around that time, Clinton did refer to the secretly-written TPP as the "gold standard" in trade negotiations, but possibly due to pressure from Sanders and the rest of the party, has backed down, saying it was flawed and she doesn't support it.
Trump has also gone after the TPP numerous times, basically shoving a long-standing Republican establishment plank in their faces.
So weirdly both candidates oppose the TPP. I'm wondering if this is going to be saved for after the election, then jammed through.
More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/24/barack-obama-...
This is true. A supermajority in Congress chose to preemptively waive its filibuster, as it has routinely in such situations since the 1970s. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution grants each house of Congress the power to set its own rules. Many believe the filibuster shouldn't exist.
> and will receive little debate, oversight, and no amendments before the vote.
I don't understand how people are still making this argument.
The text has available for seven months at this point and no vote is in sight. There's been plenty of time for both NGOs and individuals to review. The treaty is fairly lengthy (it did take seven years to negotiate after all), but it's certainly readable.
If you're so concerned about not knowing the text, why don't you read it?
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
Accept that free trade as a general principal is a good thing for all parties.
NAFTA and agreements modeled after it have this in common: They throw US manufacturing jobs under the bus so that we can all have more competitive, fuel efficient, cheaper, safer cars. (Hooray).
OK, so lets say we just killed ~2,000,000 'decent paying' jobs, many of them union, and did a number on hundreds of rust belt communities. Well thats fine, everyone is better off. We are saving money here. Saving Lives.
But what about other industries? Pharmaceuticals do not support nearly the number of jobs that auto industry does. Maybe 30,000 very well paying white collar jobs, people who are upwardly mobile and educated. It is widely accepted that that industry is sapping US economy of strength. We regularly pay 10X what other countries do. Why don't we open up that market to competition too!
Oh wait, thats an industry with deep connections in Washington. They rank up there with banks as the largest political donors, spend the most on lobbyists, and so on. So count them out, they don't need competition.
OK, so the standard counter argument to this is that Pharma is a special case. We let them keep the fat on their margins because... innovation! Think of all the lives we are saving by shoveling them money! If only it were that simple.
The overwhelming majority of the increase in lifespan over the past 100 years has not been modern medicine; its been public health efforts like sewars, safety standards, and as well as a handful of fluke cures like polio vaccine, penicillin, smallpox vaccine, no thanks to the pharmaceutical industrial complex.
I could go on, the point is that too often trade deals are structured to protect the politically connected and their interests while regressively opening up high employment industries to competition. So even if you believe that free trade is a great thing (I do) it is also valid to acknowledge that it has historically been adopted in a regressive way.
Medicine is by far the most flagrant example, but plenty of others.
Another valid, if more contrived argument is this: A trade agreement is a treaty. Once a treaty is passed, congress cannot easily change it; it become the domain of the executive branch and regulatory agencies specified in the treaty. So a lot of progressive critics see it as a way of creating a court system to mediate trade disputes which is not accountable to the laws that congress makes or repeals.
On example of this is the cigarette industry, which has successfully used NAFTA courts to prevent third word countries from banning sales or making labeling requirements on the grounds that it was a violation of IP and so on.
But the bigger problem is that you have this international body making decisions that effect everyone which is not directly accountable to anyone. So in its way it is a separation of powers and taxation without representation type argument which really requires deeper reading than I can provide here.
To answer the question of why "Do the right thing", it is in my opinion to support actions that they deem "right" or "good" which otherwise aren't strictly required for their operations. For example their support of gay marriage.