The TPP is a bad deal

    Friday night I attended a town hall meeting on the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Bethesda, MD.  The TPP is:

    a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty. As of 2014, twelve countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region have participated in negotiations on the TPP: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

    Two Maryland Democratic members of Congress - Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen - spoke against the treaty.  Also participating were: AFL-CIO Metro Washington Council President Joslyn Williams; Stephen Shaff, President of the Chesapeake Sustainable Business Council; Ilana Solomon, Director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program; Jorge Aguilar of Food and Water Watch's Southern Region Director, and Lindolfo Carballo, Virginia State Director of We Are CASA.  In a short video, former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich explained his strong opposition to the TPP.

    At the town hall, Congresswoman Edwards spoke first and denounced the TPP in no uncertain terms.  She stressed the difficulties that she and other Congress members have when trying to review the plain language of the proposed treaty.  Twenty-nine chapters long, she is afforded the opportunity to review only one chapter at a time so she cannot compare possibly contradictory passages in different parts of the bill.  Note-taking is not permitted.

    She commented that the provisions protecting intellectual property like drug and electronic patents are strong and that corporations can enforce them in binding arbitration via the Investor State Dispute System (ISDS) - a group of international lawyers and arbitrators who are untethered to any country.  The ISDS also serves as the dispute resolution system when companies challenge state action that, they claim, negatively impacts on their ability to make profits.  These provisions are problematic since they will likely lead to higher prices for drugs, computers, and software and more corporate-friendly adjudication of civil disputes.

    After Donna Edwards spoke, labor leader Joslyn Edwards decried the exodus of American jobs that trail in the wake of trade deals like NAFTA.  In response to President Obama's claim that he has been a friend of working people, Edwards awarded him an F grade for championing job-killing bi-lateral "free trade" agreements with Colombia in 2011 and Korea in 2012.

    Edwards noted union labor leaders remain under constant threat of violence in Colombia with unsolved murders continuing to scar the landscape.  Yet the provisions of the pact remain in full effect.  Likewise, the Korea deal has harmed American workers, Edwards pointed out that a net of 55,000 American jobs have been lost as a result.

    Speaking as a representative of small businesses, Stephen Shaff argued that free trade agreements like the TPP, which Robert Reich has called NAFTA on steroids, have been destructive.  For retailers, the significant drop in the number of well-paid American workers means fewer customers.  For many manufacturers, the penetration of cheap imported goods into domestic markets has been fatal.

    The Sierra Club's Ilana Solomon criticized the weak environmental provisions in the TPP.  Acknowledging that the drafters did demonstrate a nodding concern for issues like deforestation and trade in endangered species, Solomon contended that there did not appear to be any viable enforcement mechanism for environmentalists to enforce the scant protections in the bill.

    She noted that there have been no suits brought against corporate polluters pursuant to recent free trade agreements but hundreds by corporations against governments trying to prevent or reduce ecological harm.   Solomon also reviled the TPP's reliance on the ISDS to settle disputes.  She noted that pursuant to NAFTA and CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement] multi-national corporations are even now using the ISDS to bludgeon towns, counties, provinces, and countries to choose between allowing them to engage in harmful but highly profitable activities or risking the award of a king's ransom in claimed lost profits.

    One particularly egregious example is a lawsuit brought against the province of Quebec for banning fracking due to environmental risks under the St. Lawrence Seaway.  Lone Pines Resources, a company with plans to drill for oil and gas using the controversial technique, is now suing Quebec claiming $241 million under the ISDS.

    Up next was Jorge Aguilar who focused on probable negative effects on our food and water.  The TPP would bar laws requiring country of origin and GMO labels.  The dangerous trend towards self-inspection by food plant operators would likely accelerate.

    After Aguilar's presentation, El Salvador native Lindolfo Caballo spoke passionately about the devastation that his home country has suffered due to "free trade" with the United States.  He described peasants forced out of farming due to the crash in prices caused by a flood of cheap American foodstuffs.  He attributed the high crime rate and endemic poverty in San Salvador to the resulting surplus of workers and low wages.

    Congressman Chris Van Hollen was the last speaker.  He noted that he supports international trade but opposes the TPP in its current form due to its reliance on ISDS, the absence of provisions addressing currency manipulation, and insufficient protections for workers.  One attendee challenged Van Hollen's support for more international trade in the abstract.  She noted that transnational transport by trucks and transoceanic transport by diesel-burning container ships and jet planes is a significant factor in global warming.

    President Barack Obama supports quick passage of the TPP and both houses of Congress are moving with bipartisan support to give him fast-track authority to negotiate terms.  If such authority is granted, Congress could not amend the language of the final agreed-upon proposal but would be limited to a strict up or down vote.

    Responding to concerns raised by Reich, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and others, President Obama and current Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez have staunchly defended the deal.  Earlier this week, Obama lashed out at those, including Warren, calling the deal secret: “Every single one of the critics who I hear saying, ‘this is a secret deal,’ . . . can walk over today and read the text of the agreement.  There’s nothing secret about it.”  Obama did acknowledge that the TPP is incomplete.

    In his Saturday April 25 Weekly Address, the President claims that he supports the TPP because it is in the best interests of working families:

    It’s the highest-standard trade agreement in history. It’s got strong provisions for workers and the environment – provisions that, unlike in past agreements, are actually enforceable. If you want in, you have to meet these standards. If you don’t, then you’re out. Once you’re a part of this partnership, if you violate your responsibilities, there are actually consequences.  And because it would include Canada and Mexico, it fixes a lot of what was wrong with NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement], too.

    On April 20, Labor Secretary Perez acknowledged that previous large trade deals like NAFTA have not necessarily benefited the American people but, he says, the TPP cleans up some of the more problematic aspects of that venerable deal.  Specifically, Perez claims, that signatories to the TPP must enact meaningful protections for workers and cannot hide behind tariffs and other gimmicks that keep American imports out.

    Both Obama and Perez argue that the the absence of penalties for currency manipulation shouldn't kill the bill since they are working on the issue in parallel discussions with the same countries.  Currency manipulation occurs when countries keep the value of their currency artificially low.  It makes American-made goods relatively more expensive and therefore uncompetitive versus similar goods manufactured in the manipulating nation.  At least one study has estimated that America has nearly 1,000,000 fewer auto-manufacturing jobs due to Japanese currency manipulation.

    So who's right?  The President and other TPP supporters, including large corporations, their lobbyists, and politicians friendly to multi-nationals or labor and environmental leaders and more liberal politicos.

    The President and Secretary of Labor Perez make some legitimate points.  They claim that Vietnam, one of the worst countries when it comes to protecting workers and labor organizers, will have to enact pro-worker legislation if it wishes to enjoy the benefits of the TPP.  It is true that penalties for currency manipulation can be agreed upon outside the TPP negotiations. Likewise, members of Congress have been afforded a chance to review the treaty's language.

    Nevertheless, obvious flaws in the TPP render it untenable.  The ISDS empowers foreign arbitrators to bankrupt American jurisdictions if they reject corporate demands.  Given the centrality of currency manipulation to American job loss to countries like Japan, addressing the problem within the text of the TPP should be a prerequisite to approval.

    Moreover, the President's heated reaction to those calling the deal secret smacks of disingenuousness.  Yes, Senators and representatives can look at the text of the TPP.  But severe restrictions on access and the fact that some aspects have not been committed to paper devalue that access.  Although negotiations have been ongoing for over three years, much remains unknown to the public because a shroud of secrecy has enveloped the talks.  What we do know strongly suggests that corporate interests have been paramount.

    Ultimately, the concerns of labor and environmentalists cannot be dismissed.  Economic inequality and climate change are the defining challenges of 2015.  The rapid rise of international trade over the past twenty years has significantly exacerbated both.  It is almost certain that any multi-lateral trade agreement, now matter how well-crafted, would continue these damaging trends.

    Large integrated corporations are best-equipped to exploit the geographic and demographic advantages (including low wages and weak environmental protections) of manufacturing in one nation and selling in another.  More goods being shipped means more diesel-powered trucks, trains, and container ships churning up sea waters and emitting CO2-dense smoke plumes.  Simply put, more international trade means aggravating the environmental crisis and greater economic control by global elites.  The TPP is a bad deal for American and for the world at large.

    ---------

    If you enjoyed this blog, please visit my website www.halginsberg.com.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    TPP, TTIP, CETA & Global Treaties; 
    'Schadenfreude' & the Public; Too 'Unenlightened' to Figure out 'The Global Slight of Mind' Illusion.

    - David 'Copper' Smith

    'Fast Tracking', TPP corp. 'U.S.'s' Feeble Attempt to Avoid Court; SHAREHOLDERS & NON Shareholders Await Supreme Court's Findings to Proceed. 'But, I didn't know that that I'd have to pay for it (& somebody else doesn't)!'

    Using Shareholders' Meetings to I.D. Toxic Investment Houses, Brokers, Neighbors, In-laws, et al. TPP, TTIP, CETA, et al, Shareholders 'Personna non Gratus'.
    Global Treaties Not about How Much Trade, but, How to & Who to Trade with and 'Undermine' AIIB. 

    Corporate America, Wall St., Congress; Deluded, or, Deluding; IGNORAMUS et IGNORABIMUS?
    Just Blame & Punish/Sue Info Deprived Citizens of US, EU, Canada, et al. 

    Time to Buy GOLD to Cool off the 'Stockbrokers' again?

    Will Individual States Jump at Opportunity to: Refuse, or, 'Over Charge' Business Licenses, Raise Targeting State Taxes, 'Road' Taxes, etc. to Recoup Global Treaties' Suits (plus Earn Lucrative 'Punitive Damages') from Non Good Corporate Citizens (State non Compliant), Associated/Support Corps., Securities Exchanges, et al?

    How the Global Corporate Economy (w/out BRICS) can Punish Mutual Fund Shareholders (UnProtected), et al, to Reward 'Preferred' Shareholders (Protected) & Corporate leaders? 

    The limited number of direct beneficiaries of the TPP, TTIP (China -Canada Investment Treaty) & the other global treaties (ie. the global corporate leaders & their 'preferred' shareholders), are most desperate to keep from the prying, due diligence eyes of the of the potential global un-preferred shareholders' & the harmless NON shareholders.

    The fact of the matter is, the flurry of global treaties have very little to do with trade. The treaties are about 'preferred' trading partners who are successfully attempting to legitimize for the signatories of the treaty/'Arrangements', settlements of the TPP's 'contrived' disputes, et al, by enabling the parties to alleged 'disputes' to use non adversarial settlements whereby,
    the corporations & preferred shareholders 'merely' shift all of their costs from themselves to the harmless NON shareholder & the un-preferred shareholders, ie. the general public/individual taxpayers.

    These costs include the costs of determining:
    1) which harmless non shareholders will have to pay corporations & some SHAREHOLDERS ('preferred' SHAREHOLDERS) for the corporations' 'mistakes', contrivances, unrealistic, &/or, any expectations, etc.,
    2) how high (win-fall) the punitive penalties, awards, damages, etc. will be
    without the harmless NON shareholder being represented throughout the determination
    of, not, if the NON shareholders are guilty, but, 'merely' how 'guilty' the harmless NON shareholders are with no means/opportunity to appeal the decisions by way of the Treaties' ('Death-Star-Chamber') new superseding, cyber jurisdiction Tribunals,
    &
    3) et al.
    ***
    For Further Information, see,
    'TPP & Global Treaties & Anti AIIB'.
    Also see;
    'The Submission' to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA:
    "The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, Australia, Canada, the EU, et al
    v
    the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al"
    including
    'The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued?'
    (see;  davidehsmith.wordpress.com)
    ***
    TPP & GLOBAL TREATIES;
    IS HOLLYWOOD PART of the (TPP Global Treaty & Anti AIIB) PROCESS, or, OUT-of-the LOOP, too?
    - L.A. Times, Apr. 7, 2015, blog

    It may regrettable that the simplest & most basic information & questions that can lead to a much more secure & profitable relationship between the potential signatories of the TPP & China, et al, has not been shared with Defense Secretary Carter for his humble consideration. Perhaps, he may consider answering some of the enclosed questions in order for us to get a better idea of what his understanding is of how the TPP & other Global Treaties can be vastly improved inclusively & thereby, minimize, &/or, eliminate the dangerous problems below that have led some to understand that

    'What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century (ie. provided the basis for World War II) PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st'.

    Unless, of course, the long term economic destabilization and subsequent (secret) military weapons development & appropriations are the intent of DefSec Carter, et al, in the secret (Death-Star-Chamber) 'arrangements' of the TPP & the Global Corporate Treaties/Agreements.
    ***
    But, how many 'savvy' Americans  & their global corporate associates are 'poised' to make windfall profits from their international cross investments, 'nest-feathered' lawsuits & preplanned (contrived?) treaty 'arrangements' at the direct expense of the harmless non shareholders, ie. 95% - 99% of America     , et al?
    ***
    While the good sales folks of Wall St. may prefer to tell their 'Enron-able' customers     who     were also the victims of 'The Preliminary Foray of The Wall St. Meltdown', et al, that it's just some Unions that are fighting back, how much of the Fighting Back of Unions against the Secret, Unethical & Anti-Democratic Arrangements of The Global Treaties' 'Death-Star-Chamber' Tribunals, can be understood in the context of the harmless NON Shareholders, including Union members, fighting to Survive (not 'thrive') Against the Uncaring, 'Profits at Any (body else's) Costs', SHAREHOLDERS & their Colluding, Global Corporate Leaders?
    - Wall Street Journal, blog, Mar. 25, 2015

    TPP & GLOBAL TREATIES;
    Gain a political 'Smidge', Lose ('Hidden' & Secret Costs) a Lot; The NET EFFECT.  There goes Our Retirement Date & Much more...

    How to Discourage Corporate 'USA's', et al, 'Need' to Fleece Harmless Non-shareholders & Globally Expand & Dilute $17 Trillion Debt; Secret TPP, TTIP, et al, Globalizes Wall St.'s Unregulated 'Eron- Derivatives' Transgressions. Too Big, BigGER, BIGGEST to be 'Allowed' to Fail?

    Global Corporate Economy Conniving to Get Harmless NON Shareholders to Pay Trillion$ in Court Costs, Punitive 'Penalties', etc.?
    No Treaties = Corporations/SHAREHOLDERS pay for Their Own 'Mistakes'.

    How Many Preferred Shares of TPP, C-CIT, TTIP, CETA, et al, Generated Enterprises are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for? 'New' Shareholders Can Say 'NO' to & Over-Rule TPP, CETA, TTIP, et al, Plans?

    Will corp.'USA' et al, & Feds to Prepay $Billions for All 'Trade' Treaty/'Arrangements', et al, Secret ('Death-Star-Chamber) Tribunals' Punitive Damages to Protect Home State's Taxpayers? Other States, Municipalities, et al, "...(we) need to control corp. USAs 'Contributions' “.

    But, If Not PUTIN; 'The WHITE KNIGHT', then Who Do YOU Want to Bankroll the Saving of the harmless NON shareholders of the World from Fast Tracking TPP's, CETA's (TTIP) Secret 'Death-Star-Chamber' Tribunal Penalties?
    Will China, Iran, the Muslim World, et al, Support Putin in Suits?
    How about Warren Buffett, &/or, the 'coveted' Hong Kong investor, et al?
    ***
    To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord,
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
    ***
    Please consider sharing  the enclosed information & questions with 10 friends who will share it with 10 others...


    Excellent analysis. Congress has the ability to vote this down. Since this is a multinational endeavor, what are the logistics if the U.S. is not a part of the agreement?


    The deal could certainly go through without the US but I'm guessing it would not since the other countries are hoping for even easier access to the US consumers than they currently enjoy.  Excepting Japan, none of the other potential signatories, including Canada and Mexico, has anywhere near the consumer base that the US has.  Unlike the US, Japan never enters trade deals unless it feels confident that it will emerge with a greater trade surplus.


    Hal, thanks for the review of major arguments against TTP, but I'm still on the fence.

    What would convince me one way or the other is a better understanding of the geo-political advantages of this deal, given the current participants, in relation to China's aims and practices in the region.

    In other words this discussion needs to include the "China counterweight" angle and, unfortunately, I'm not able to provide same.

    With respect to Japan, having tried to introduce medical products to that country a while back, currency manipulation is the tip of the iceberg as far as obstacles are concerned.
    Irregardless of currency manipulation, if this deal eases Japan's import restrictions (and perhaps they have been eased over the past two decades) it would be a great deal for American workers.


    Oxy - I debated whether to include the China angle in this but decided not to as it was not raised at the Town Hall and the President started using it as an affirmative talking point over the weekend.  For now, suffice it to say that I believe the specter of China rising is a red herring.  Look for a follow-up blog this week. 


    Thanks, Hal, I'll be looking for it.


    Hal, there is an interview of Stiglitz on Salon which has me thinking more along the lines that this is a bad deal. Stiglitz refers to the agreement in the context of American giant corporations vs. American small corporations along the issue of income inequality.

    I do think that inequality is partly the result of the advantages of large corporations in obtaining credit, monopolizing markets and addressing and complying with regulations vs. the ability of smaller firms to do the same. I think it is logical to assume that guarantees under the agreement will follow the same bias---that is, large firms have the resources to address grievances and smaller firms do not.  As a small company owner I can't see any virtue in this agreement to me or my employees---I can only see more of the same size-discrimination.

    Did I tell you that the largest, most prominent corporations with whom I do business are the worst payers?  Simply because they can. Many of my smaller company clients pay in few weeks' time whereas the big companies stretch me out as far as ninety days. In other words, not only do I get screwed by the banks on interest rates but I have to turn around and finance invoices to large corporations for a month or two longer than is fair. My recourse is not to do the work---and they know that.

    Thanks again for introducing this subject.  I hate this agreement.


    Thanks Oxy.  I have not gotten a chance to write a blog explaining why I believe the claim that the TPP will help contain China is a red herring.  But, I will get to it.


    Allen Grayson has a you tube video just posted a couple days ago on TPP. I am just catching up on my email and this was in it. Please take time to watch it. 


    Thanks trkingmomoe - Grayson nails it here.  I watch videos like this one and Robert Reich's mini-Econ 101 classes on youtube and think how obvious it is that "free trade" (along with tax cuts for the rich) have devastated our country.  Yet, so many just don't get it.


    It looks like he is going to make a run for the senate in Florida.  This will be an interesting race if he does.  South Florida has not been turning out for conservadems in the last few elections.  It will be interesting to see how he does as a true blue liberal in the primary against a hand picked conservadem by the state party. Some think this is why he made this video.  


    Let me try it this way - I fill up at Shell every week and someone siphons gas from my tank at night. Should I say Shell gas gives bad gas mileage? Trade deals are supposed to account for revenues, profits, taxes. Yes, untaxed business on the internet hurts bricks and mortar shops that pay taxes, and untaxed foreign profits do nothing to help the local system that fosters it while taking government resources to support it. It doesn't have to be that way and used to not be that way. Much is a simple change in tax code. The IRS now makes foreign individual earnings count towards how investment income is taxed, and makes individuals list all their foreign banks. But corporations? Too big to bother, and by the way, have another tax break.

    Okay, I take back anything good I said about Grayson.

    1) he focuses on NAFTA - ignoring trade with China (at least the first 3 minutes I watched) - so our TV industry died - so did everyone else's - Panasonic had 7 years of TV losses before quitting the business; Sharp quit too, Sony lost $7 billion on TVs in the last decade, Toshiba has now quit making TVs in the US too. The old CRT TV business is far removed from LCD/LED/plasma TVs of the last 15 years. Sadly it's washed up - what do we replace it with? What about overall trade? not such a big gap between imports & exports - more of an issue re: agricultural sector damage from cheap US imports. China passed us as the major manufacturer in 2010 (most countries lost manufacturing jobs during this period) - why the hell are we discussing Mexico? but still...

    2) the National Association of Manufacturers places manufacturing jobs at 18% of all US jobs, with average pay $77.5K/year. But that's not making TVs - it's making John Deere & Caterpillar equipment, Boeing & Raytheon planes & drones, etc. Non-extensive manufacturing is hard to compete in in 2015. Especially when...

    3) Demographics and labor market shifts are tightening up the job market. Women make up nearly half the labor pool now - with  women being about 9 percentage points above men in degree category. Hispanics have gone from 58% high school degree to 72% over 10 years or so. The result is likely more competition for low-end and high-end jobs.

    4) Grayson can demagogue about the $500 billion deficit, but a) our foreign trade increased from $1/$1.4 trillion in 2000 to $2.3trill/$2.8trillion with b) much of that $500b directly due to oil prices (thanks, Cheney), not to Chinese - see below. And if it's really a problem, let's not import so much, otay? should be simple. But it's really not a problem, despite deficit scolds.

    5) the US has played up its military-industrial-agricultural complex to the max the last 100 years - do we think we can maintain oligarchist advantages over the rest of the world and they can't even compete on grunt labor? and if we're going to beat Mexico on assembly lines and agriculture, what the hell do we expect them to rise out of poverty with? same with China and dozens of other countries. "Free trade" isn't synonymous with "US always wins" - it's about increasing trade and finding mutual benefits, and if it's with 20-50 countries, the trade imbalance might be bad with one country but better with other countries. And like a credit card you can manage payments on, just because you're in debt doesn't mean debt's bad - you use credit to grow and enjoy.

    6) companies not paying tax is a bigger issue than the deficit - we just let companies walk away with our money, nothing in return.

    7) we're competing with IT (Google/Facebook/Microsoft), manufacturing (Boeing, Caterpillar), big oil & energy (ExxonMobil, Elon Musk), banking (yes, ughhh), big agro, big pharma, big health care, armaments, cloud (VMware, RedHat, Amazon), etc., etc. - and our response is for more minimum wage jobs? Walmart & Starbucks must be pleased.

    There are a lot of huge changes going on, and Grayson's response is pathetically antiquated and simplistic. Yes, I agree there are lots of worker & economic issues before just throwing the gates open to free trade, but to just miss the boat on what the US economy - including exports and offshoring - has been doing the last quarter century is just bizarre for a guy I thought smart.


    Yes, there are many factors that impact on an economy.  But the most salient dynamic over the past fifteen years in the American economy has been ever more free trade deals.  Grayson in the linked video and Robert Reich here and elsewhere make the commonsense point concisely and correctly that it is the off-shoring of jobs, due to such deals, that is responsible for our declining living standards.


    "But the most salient dynamic over the past fifteen years in the American economy has been ever more free trade deals." - uh really? we don't have a free trade deal with China, and NAFTA went into effect Jan 1, 1994 - more than 21 years ago. In the meanwhile, hasn't the war on terror-9/11-wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, shift in oil policy, the EU Schengen area, the 2008 economic crunch & Wall Street bailout, the collapse of the Big 3, the real estate bubble, the rising war-induced cost of oil, etc. etc? Here are those huge foreign trade deals - aside from Canada, Mexico and Korea, I don't see the big deal.


    George W. Bush "leveled the playing field for American workers by increasing the number of countries partnered with the U.S. on free trade agreements (FTAs) from three to 16." http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/factsheets....

    "President Barack Obama signed three free trade deals opposed by many of his fellow Democrats in a low-key ceremony on Friday, capping a five-year push by Republicans to get them approved. The pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia are expected to boost U.S. exports by around $13 billion annually, which the administration estimates will create or maintain about 70,000 jobs."  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/21/obama-signs-three-long-de....

    Regarding China, its "MFN status was made permanent on December 27, 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation

    And, of course the specter of NAFTA hangs over the entire period. 

    Reich and Grayson and Warren and Sanders and labor leaders are correct.


    Sorry, I can't waste my time with you if you're going to toss out such imprecise stuff.

    NAFTA passed in 1993 and went into effect Jan 1, 1994 - it is not part of "ever more free trade deals" of the last 15 years however much you want a mulligan on your words.

    Most Favored Nation is the standard for all our trading partners, despite its name. It is not a Free Trade agreement.

    I already gave you the list of countries on our free trade list - aside from Israel & Korea and the NAFTA Canada/Mexico, I can't find any that are significant to US jobs.

    (I also note the amount of trade difference due to oil imports, that Chinese effects were much larger than Mexican effects, and that the deficit in NAFTA trade was moderate compared to size of trade - no response)

    The most salient economic point of the last 15 years to *me* is not offshoring, but trillions of dollars spent on post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a bit in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria and Libya and foisting our security practices on others. That all our diplomacy and foreign aid has turned from trade to paranoid security probably does not foster a lot of extra jobs aside from army enrollment.

    A point I'd meant to bring up is that the US simply does not have the manpower - especially cheap manpower - to supply the world's production needs like we did in our sweatshop days. We *were* the China of the late 1800's/early 1900's that Europe was offshoring to with its vast resources and cheap labor. Now we're whimpering that we can't be the China of the 2100's too - coincidentally with the world's 10 most polluted cities as well.

    Additionally, no one will answer how they see us promoting jobs in poorer countries without putting in danger our lesser-skilled jobs. Is our idea to have all the jobs and cut them a UNICEF/USAID check to make it all better? Or do you favor huge Mexican immigration to the US so that we can count those jobs as "American"? [I also hinted at the increase in semi-educated Hispanic workers competing for jobs that were once the boon of Detroit auto makers and Pittsburgh steel mills - how you gonna keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen gay Peoria?]

    I'm concerned about fair trade pacts, including protections for the environment and work conditions, but I'm not a Luddite or nostalgic for the 50's (nor can I quite forget that the 1890's-1910 were a time of great exploitation (Chinese labor anyone?), the 30's weren't exactly grand for American workers and Grayson's cherished windfall of the 50's/60's was built on the absolute destruction of Europe in WWII and the stalemate/occupation of the Cold War- something we can't simply recreate just to keep America #1. We will have to re-create ourselves, which should include figuring out how to force corporates to pay reasonable taxes and treat workers fairly even in a more open international setting.

    Glibly proclaiming "the off-shoring of jobs, due to such deals, that is responsible for our declining living standards" while ignoring the high-cost real estate bubble, the trillions stolen in the bubble burst & bailout that accrued to the 1%, and trillions for wars that got pissed into the desert and more trillions wasted on extortionist health costs & trumped-up oil windfalls is simply intentional self-delusion - the robbers went thataway, so I'm going to blame it all on the tied up Mexican/Chinee I can see - another game of blame the foreigner but without taking responsibility for being an economic racist. Yes, we are all Archie Bunker now, at least where it counts.

    Lastly, I'd appreciate if math and accounting can be used consistently across the board. If offshoring lowers prices of goods, we should recognize that downward pressure as a benefit of free trade, even if at the same time oil and health care and real estate and banking/finance oligarchs come along to steal the savings we would have had. Obama's cynical deals with the GOP to cut US government services and jobs is not the fault of China or Mexican offshoring - it's the fault of cynical "drown government in the bathtub" political economics.


    There are many factors that have led to downward mobility.  The most common thread is deregulation.  Deregulation of both trade and financial markets especially.  I guess we'll just have to disagree about how significant a percentage of the harm suffered by non-affluent Americans can be attributed to trade deficits.  I share the view of the Economic Policy Institute, among others, that more than half of the 5.1 million American manufacturing jobs lost between 2001-2011 were due to deregulated or free trade with China.  We will also have to disagree about whether conferring MFN status on China was tantamount to a free trade agreement with that country. 

    From useconomy.com, "Most Favored Nation (MFN) status is when a country enjoys all the lowered tariffs and reductions of trade barriers. It is conferred between two or more countries that have a free trade agreement" (Emphasis supplied.)

    With regard to your concern for "truth in accounting", yes we don't have inflation in the US probably in large part because so many goods are manufactured by underpaid foreign laborers.  But that doesn't mean that we're better off because of the relatively low prices.  The question is whether working and middle-class pay has risen faster or fallen more slowly than prices.  Over the past 15 years, the answer has been no.


    EPI likes double counting - 3 million due to China, 1.6 mill to Mexico - you'd never guess we had high oil prices and a major economic meltdown to kill manufacturing demand. Anyway, conflating 159 countries of the WTO with a Free Trade Agreement, yeah, it's a ditzy article -I simply give up - this isn't a serious discussion.

    I see you're in your rant mode again. You're all over the place and there's flawed arguments every step of the way, too many to deal with, hard to sort out or even know where to begin. It's true that NAFTA and other free trade deals aren't the whole problem. They are just emblematic of the problem of out sourcing of jobs and the problems it causes in the US.

    it's about increasing trade and finding mutual benefits, and if it's with 20-50 countries, the trade imbalance might be bad with one country but better with other countries..

    That's a simplistic version of classical economic theory. You complain that Grayson's response is "pathetically antiquated and simplistic" but so is your's. We're running trade deficits with almost every country, it's not just China, or Bangladesh, or the oil producing states. We're running deficits with Mexico at about 54 billion, Japan 71 billion, Canada 33 billion, Germany 67 billion. We're running deficits with most of the countries in Europe. Those few countries where we sometimes run a surplus is inconsistent by year and small in comparison. Then you glibly say, don't import so much. The whole purpose of these trade deals is to make it easier to import stuff. I agree, don't import so much. No more free trade deals. Let's make more shit here.

    Caterpillar? They just stared down the union and got a wage freeze for the workers while the company is having record breaking profits. A year before they gave raises to their executives. It's not just the high levels of unemployment that gets the unions and the workers to cave. At the top of all these fights is the threat to move those jobs overseas.

    And you point to facebook? Let's compare it to John Deer. John Deere is about half as profitable as facebook but it employs nearly 10 times as many people. I don't see why I should give a shit about a few hundred people at facebook getting filthy rich.

    The reality is communities in every state are losing jobs to out sourcing and being devastated. I watched it happen in my home town of Bethlehem when the Bethlehem Steel shut down. It's not like we're not still using steel, we're just not making much of it in the US anymore. And I think that has national security issues, steel making as well as the loss of other industries which I don't want to get into here.  I watched it happen in Fort Payne, Alabama formerly known as the sock capital of the world. It's not like people have stopped wearing socks. We're just not making the socks in America anymore.

    Have you ever worked in a factory? I have several times. Yes I hated it and yes I don't want that for the US. But that's me. Lots of people like those jobs compared to the alternatives and are happy there. My sister was happy making electrical switches at Lutron. She's always worked in a factory of some sort or another but that was her favorite. When my mother left her job at W.T.Grants, a old time chain department store, to work at Lutron she was ecstatic.

    We are never going to get everybody to like to study and read, go to college and get a degree. Even if we could there wouldn't be enough work for all those college grads. It's not about fighting for minimum wage jobs. It's about not making the problem even worse with another free trade deal that sends even more jobs overseas. Sure it's not just about trade deals and stopping TPP won't solve all our problems. But until we begin to enact some plan to deal with all the unemployed excess labor I don't want to go deeper into the hole.

     


    This is taking too much time, but rant #x:

    1) yes, not spending is an option - free trade simplifies barriers, it doesn't remove the cost of imported goods. For example, if "conservatives" insist on burning gas & electricity needlessly, yes, we'll import more oil. The countries below in blue are where we run a surplus.

    2) On $2.3 trillion exports growing steadily per year, a deficit of say 10% ($230 billion) is rather sustainable - especially if we think our energy costs will dip significantly in the next 30 years. The only real problem is China, which has kept its market closed to US & other foreign goods, and we've had trouble figuring out how to break open the market (or how to deny ourselves the pleasure of manufacturing there). And I don't think China has any sort of IOU they can walk in and collect on - it's all a bit funny money at that level, and they're better off if the US prospers. The idea that China will have enough of our debt to tell us what to do is fiction.

    3) Yes, I've worked in a factory. In some areas it will still make sense to have some domestic production even today. In fact we do have them with greater revenue & productivity than ever - just not the same number of bodies. Sure, we can close off our borders and pay $3 for a pair of socks or whatever our going internal rate will be - including our extortionary health care costs. And pay the climate bill for dyes and solders and silicon dumped in our rivers & air. Of course much of our wealth has been built on dumping our goods on other countries, so expect our exports to dip if we get bitchy. There's a longshot that we can create something here that will make 100x the revenue and employ 10x the people that couldn't easily be made somewhere else with much more profit somewhere else (which tends to kill off most people's/company's benevolence, especially when there's competition that will kill you off as well - hey, even Alabama & Tennessee were stealing Detroit jobs - but they're just getting back for Reconstruction & the dearth of railroads for 100 years ;-) ).

    4) so the real issue is some combination of a) how to make corporations pay a fair share on profits & revenues*, including multinationals, and b) either to create enough jobs or finance other rewarding/not-so-rewarding activity/survival for those not working. And yeah, we can go back to our own sweatshops an steel mills as one way of doing this - but automation means it's not nearly as necessary and the cost premium will be significant. Or we figure out a way to translate economic growth at least partially into jobs growth. I still think that our expenses are relevant to our income, and that a lot of our expenses went up arbitrarily or due to oligopolistic reasons and not due to actual costs of production, and that really amounts to theft in several sectors. But no one's going to prosecute - half of our populace seems intent on electing more crime-abettors. Even education's a cash cow rather than relatively free (or heavily subsidized via the GI Bill for "our greatest generation"™).

    * and of course keeping corporations from voting/contributing, but that horse has rather left the stable

    5) some level of socialism is great - we can manage a 10-20% freeloader rate no problem if our new services economy doesn't require so many workers - let them eat cake, go to school, play in bands, do volunteer work - but we need transfer of payments from that 1% to the bottom 20% if it's going to work - obviously just dire poverty at the bottom isn't a solution, nor is working at WalMart until you're 85. And if expenses actually due go down to lower cost of production elsewhere, then the freeloader bill should decrease as well. But if we allow health monopolies and let the oil producers jack up prices and let Wall Street sell worthless securities with no penalties and make everyone pay $200K+ for the privilege of getting an education and so on and so on, well, it's gonna be a helluva future.

    6) a PS item - unions were great as well, but the fuckers managed to gut them and make them un-American to make a real wage, whereas sending guys in uniform at shit wages around the world to lose limbs and lives is now sacred and lofty. I don't make the rules here, I don't understand our priorities - I'm just trying to keep the lines clear - not Mexico blamed for China's part, technology being blamed for Wall Street's theft, etc., etc.


    Interesting example of how the US continues to fail upwards. Just like a David Brooks moral lecture on poverty, poor countries should pay attention to how you can corner the market with flawed products - not a bug, a feature (or just manifest destiny?). Of course you need a finely-tuned moral ethic along with belonging to the right ethnic group and having sound venture capitalist backing, but hey, who doesn't?

    I bring this up because there's a different mechanism going on here, and we can rant on about trade agreements, debt forgiveness, bailouts and whatever, but we're no closer to addressing what really helps people dig out of the basement and build a sane productive economy - or maybe those 2 efforts are contradictory these days - more Snapchat and Beats audio at multi-billion dollar levels!!!


    I recognize that Nature is a reputable journal and have no reason to disbelieve the author of the study of which this chart is a part.  Nevertheless, I am skeptical.  There are scientists who are reflexively anti-medication and anti-pharmaceutical company (a reasonable position to take).  My bias is that the FDA doesn't usually approve medications that help fewer than 1 in 20 people who take them.


    The thrust of the article is about the need for drug trials based on genetic testing and more attention to the impact of lifestyles. I can't speak for the diseases like depression but Remicade, Enbrel, and Humira are going to be used in patients who have failed conventional therapy. So the trials are in people with relatively severe disease. In such cases a 25% overall response rate may not be unexpected.

    The drugs are not first line drugs. The response rate to therapy in refractory patients is low. The author argues that drug trials focusing on genetic markers will yield better results. He points to the use of Gleevec in a certain type of leukemia first identified by an investigator based in Philadelphia. The abnormal chromosome is called the Philadelphia chromosome. Gleevec doubles the response rate when patients with the Philadelphia chromosome receive Gleevec.

    The limitations to what the author proposes are that target genes have not been identified for many diseases. Additionally, the genetic tests are costly. 

    Please keep in mind, at least for Enbrel, Humira, and Remicade, the bulk of patients did not respond to first line therapy so we are not looking at everyone with a given diagnosis, but refractory patients.

    I'd have to look closer at the sources used to generate the poor Advair and Nexium results. The Crestor results probably reflect use of the drug as a single agent. Again I'm not certain if the trials are in first line therapy trials in patients who did not receive prior therapy or people who failed other treatment. A confounding factor in response is that cholesterol levels can decrease but other factors may prevent stroke and heart attack risk to remain high. If the drug success is based on clinical outcomes rather than just lowering cholesterol, Crestor could fail if no other therapy is being offered.

     


    There is a great text that aids how deal with medical literature, "Studying a Study and Testing a Test:: Reading Evidence based Health Research" by Richard K. Riegelman, an M.D., PhD. It goes into detail about pitfalls in analyzing medical information.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0781774268/ref=sr_ob_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430...

     


    It has been evident since the beginning of this secret so called TPP who these 'partners' actually are. None of the countries involved are including their citizens in the drafting of this multinational corporate power and control manifesto and the people will have no control over its passage or implementation.

    The only real debate here and now is not about if but about  how it will be passed and whether the corporate minions we call our representatives will be allowed to add pet provisions or protections  for their corporate sponsors.

    We have already seen what damage NAFTA brought not only here in the US but especially south of the border and  Ross Perot was probably too modest in his claim about the sucking sound of jobs leaving the homeland.  That phase of the corporate labor readjustment was completed and now this TPP will eliminate the remaining roadblocks, environmental and labor protections here and abroad, to bring us closer to the ideal Capitalist dystopia.


    I don't know economics, but NAFTA didn't seem to have the dire results that were predicted. In the 90s,  unemployment went down and wages went up. If some jobs were lost, a lot more jobs were created.


    There seems to be a debate about the impact of NAFTA as shown in this 2013 debate in the NYT.

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-n...


    I don't think there is actually a debate just a business perspective vs a human perspective. The Peterson Institute jawbone did admit that there were 60,000 people 'dislocated' annually for ten years but he claims they all found better jobs somewhere.

    The dislocation of millions of small Mexican farmers was the most heinous result of NAFTA along with lowering of wages there and increased unemployment that drove the flood of migrants we saw here from that economic penetration.

    US Agribusiness certainly benefited from this deal as did US businesses who relocated to Mexico to profit from the newly displaced and lower paid victims of this well planned and executed Capitalist incursion.

    The macabre beauty of this business plan was in the news a few years later when maize prices skyrocketed and the Mexican poor, who spend a large part of their income on this staple, were forced by hunger and desperation to demand that their government  increase subsidies, in effect guarantee US agribusiness profits.


    The article says nothing about effects on the US, little we didn't know about destruction of Mexico's Ag sector and shows no causality re Mex immigration that began before NAFTA or the peso effect, dismisses increased FDI into Mexico which would have been one of the desired effects, etc

    Did you read the other articles in the debate?

     


    I read part of the EPI one - they seem to have an axe to grind, so would need confirmation.

    I do like Robert Reich - he usually makes sense to me. EPI just seems to play with numbers to please the left.


    You can only blame the corporations for people hating trade deals. They took the jobs out of the country so they could make more money for the investor class. The party that stands up to that is the party that will now hold office.  People want jobs and want to make things again. Tax breaks for rich and corporations are nasty words and now secrete trade deals have been added to that lexicon.  


    Chuck Shumer points out that currency manipulation by China makes US goods more costly, adding to job loss. Democrats want limits on currency manipulation as part of the treaty.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/chuck-schumer-currency-manipula...


    Yes, though Clinton pursued a strong dollar which made exports a real sign of success, while Bush did a weak dollar to increase exports while gutting savings. We spend a lot of time blaming the Chinese for imitating us.

    Oh, there's blame to go around. People in the 90's got greedy, thought the Dow reflected their own success, every homeowner counted their valuation as bankable and many took out 2nd mortgages and got ahead of themselves. Those in government got complacent or over-confident or accessories to crime. The dotcom bubble made many think it was sustainable and it was more expansive - and we see now it was marginally successful for jobs. But I really think their might be a philosophical breakthrough coming where we understand that we don't all need to work. Obviously old people and kids over the last 80,years were considered off limits (except at WalMart), with France the poster child for early retirement. But it's like a crap shoot, only a certain % "succeed" wildly and that's okay we do something besides shaming. To develop this idea later...

    I think you are mistaken about most people becoming greedy in the '90s, some may have felt more affluent if they had stock investments that made them feel more secure about their retirement but i don't think this explains the surge in refinancing of mortgages. Real wage increases  had been minimal since the mid '70s and to maintain the level of consumption that many people had become accustomed to they took on ever increasing debt, credit card debt, new auto, boat, other toys and perceived necessities debt. Refinancing or a second mortgage was a way to consolidate those high interest debts and convert them to long term lower interest payments with possibly some remainder for new consumption. People had  already been forced to be 'ahead of themselves'  because productivity gains were no longer being shared with workers but over consumption was still the metric of success. We have seen what happened when the housing bubble popped, bankruptcy and foreclosure, unemployment and permanently lowered expectations for many  previously Middle Class people.

    The idea that people won't need to work would make some sense if we had a guaranteed minimum income or well funded retirement plans but the reality is that many people are being forced to join the large and growing surplus population who will never be needed again except for menial or temporary positions in this final stage of Capitalism. They are still useful in that their growing numbers help to drive wages even lower and subdue any demands that those who are working might make.


    Stick to your guns Hal. There are brilliant people on both sides of this issue,some of them politically left. Trust your gut instincts and hold to your stance.


    Thanks Flavius! I think.


    Latest Comments