Why's The TPP Secret? "Trans-Pacific Partnership: Not About Free Trade"
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago to Government
Does Objectivist society need their government to make secret deals with other countries?
"Oddly, the same Republicans who won't trust Obama to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran are ready to write him a blank check on the TPP. They're fine with letting him reconfigure a huge chunk of the global economy. Why? Because TPP has a "free trade" façade around its much deeper market intrusions.
Think about this. If free trade between nations were really the objective, would we need document libraries and secret deals? Of course not. The agreement would only have to be a few pages long. "The governments of country x, y, and z agree not to impose tariffs or otherwise hinder trade between themselves."
Free trade is simple. TPP is anything but simple. Therefore, TPP is not free trade."
But we can trust those in our government, right? They'll take care of us.
"Oddly, the same Republicans who won't trust Obama to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran are ready to write him a blank check on the TPP. They're fine with letting him reconfigure a huge chunk of the global economy. Why? Because TPP has a "free trade" façade around its much deeper market intrusions.
Think about this. If free trade between nations were really the objective, would we need document libraries and secret deals? Of course not. The agreement would only have to be a few pages long. "The governments of country x, y, and z agree not to impose tariffs or otherwise hinder trade between themselves."
Free trade is simple. TPP is anything but simple. Therefore, TPP is not free trade."
But we can trust those in our government, right? They'll take care of us.
If you want your free trade, you can keep it.
If you can't, blame Bush maybe.
Sheesh!
He claims that he will consider it carefully, but I am past trusting congresscritters words when their actions speak louder. I sent a reply reiterating the problems with the process, the secret negotiations, and need for extensive public scrutiny and thoughtful legislative review (and that it isn't a constitutional power of the executive branch) before any agreement in order to avoid unintended consequences damaging to the people ... not that I expect it to have any effect.
My trade agreement with Home Depot was fine. I gave them money and they gave me goods and services. When the new Lowes opened up closer to my house, I liked their tools selections and their delivery arrangement enough to cancel my trade agreement with Home Depot and establish a new trade agreement with Lowes. Can't it be that simple? OK, maybe this is a stretch.............
You've got a valid point which I didn't address. I was trying to keep it simple (mainly for me) and really didn't consider the point you make. I'm not sure how we deal with these types of situations, since it's fairly common for both city and state governments to offer "incentives" (typically tax breaks) to bring new business into depressed areas. Before retiring, I worked in the Chicago area with several fairly large firms that benefited from tax and other incentives to move into low income areas. They probably gained an advantage on their competitors due to lower costs, which on the surface seems unfair, but they did bring new jobs into the area which was a good thing.
Respectfully,
smichael9
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/public/89...
The New American (pdf):
https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLink...
This 'agreement' was in the news frequently when I was living in Australia, and many people there have the same questions.
This agreement is about transfer of power from the sovereign governments (with inconvenient courts of law that must sometimes answer to the people and protect their property) to international corporate interests without ties to any community. Power corrupts in ALL concentrations of power, in business and government. If this was about a free market, it would not be secret, and it would not contain provisions that prevent sovereign countries from looking after the best interest of their people.
Secrecy is not just a clue, by any reasonable standard of justice, it counts as "overwhelming and conclusive evidence" of wrongdoing and bad intentions.
And I compliment you also on your one sentence statement of all an agreement on trade between countries needs to say.
Just to add some clarification: secrecy may indeed be necessary between governments, I'm thinking in terms of something like mutual defense plans against a common and real enemy, details of weapons systems.
But I see no possible reason for any secrecy in a trade deal, but am willing to consider other points of view.
[edit to expand and clarify]
OTOH...I'm not 100% sure if this is right...haven't thought it through all the way...but sometimes I think politicians should forfeit some of their rights to privacy vs. your average citizen...like felons lose the right to vote...at least as they used to...I know that's changed...
There are no specifics BECAUSE it's a secret deal, and there is no way to justify that.
We, the public, just can't possibly understand the complexity so we shouldn't have the information. It's in our best interest that we are treated like mushrooms. They are from the corporatocracy and they are here to help us. Sure. A pack of wolves deciding which of us sheep to have for dinner first.
"Think about this. If free trade between nations were really the objective, would we need document libraries and secret deals? Of course not. The agreement would only have to be a few pages long. "The governments of country x, y, and z agree not to impose tariffs or otherwise hinder trade between themselves."
Where is the "Snowden" with the real details?
Investment chapter released by wikileaks here:
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/
Reading the released documents is quite tedious but revealing. One double edged sword being implemented is the international court for resolving disputes. This in particular overrides anything in the US Constitution that protects individuals. Obviously power concentrated in DC has proven that often the interests of individual liberty are crushed under the weight of political self interest. A higher international power will have even less to restrict it from destruction of rights uniquely protected in America. A large part of what I have read involves lowering the risk of investment by participants (corporations) in locations outside the US where control of the domestic government by a corporate 'participant' is not as easy as in the US. From an American viewpoint this would enhance the attractiveness of moving jobs out of the US. From an ethics standpoint it makes corruption of any participating government against the local people and customs by any corporation easier.
If I was an independent POTUS, I would reject this agreement and veto it if it came to my desk. Any US elected official who signed it would be guilty of breaking his oath to the Constitution.