TPP vs. Democracy: Leaked Draft of Secretive Trade Deal Spells Out Plan for Corporate Power Grab

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FyreByrd

As long as you aren't hurting anybody, you should be free.

TPP is a complex set of rules and regulations that are supposed to govern "free" trade.

Actually free trade requires no oversight.

TPP is little to do with trade and mostly to do with corporate profit and proliferation!

I don't begrudge profit itself of course but, I think I do agree with your sentiment.

If it is the advancement of our methods, materials and technology that we universally value, I cannot in good conscience advocate for state granted monopolies.

BRAVO!!!! Now how do we the people take action against this??

originally posted by: jacobe001
I don't understand why more citizens are not up in arms about the TPP and out on the streets protesting.

Because corporatist media isn't talking about it. Even most 'alternative' or 'progressive' media isn't talking about it. That's why people aren't up in arms, lack of knowlegde and exposure. Remember this was kept secret from our Congress and the few who eventually saw the bill were bound not to reveal anything.

The Corporations (as funnels for the mega-wealthy) wrote it and are pushing for passage without any oversight or input by other stakeholders. We are supposed to just do what they tell us and believe it's in our best interest.

Thank you Wikileaks.

More info here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FyreByrd

As long as you aren't hurting anybody, you should be free.

TPP is a complex set of rules and regulations that are supposed to govern "free" trade.

Actually free trade requires no oversight.

Free trade is impossible, oversight is required in order to make free trade mostly free. Without any oversight, the compounded advantage of one side getting a better deal than the other over and over creates an uncompetitive environment.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Keep telling yourself that. But first, define free trade for me.

Unmolested voluntary human interaction.

I firmly believe the only pure form of "free trade" is the good old-fashioned barter system, which only works on a local, community level.

"Hey, Bob, if you can come fix this truck for me (services) I'll give you a fair amount of (goods) from my garden, or anything else I can offer."

"Hey, Jim, ya wanna trade ammo? I've got a bunch of extra .22LR (ah, the good ole days) but what i really need is some .243 or .357 Mag."

At least, that works out here in the boonies.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

You are in many ways correct. The reason your local trade works is that you are all living and working within the local economy. Free trade as it applies to multinational corporations takes labor where it is cheapest, and then sends the product to where it is most expensive. Those who purchase the product cannot work for it. And those who work for the product cannot buy it. Free markets can only exist within the bounds of localities and even then there are issues. Once you go beyond the scope of your town swapping services the need to regulation increases, more and more until you need a lot of it.

All of this isn't to defend the TPP, from what I read in the article I don't like it. I just don't think deregulation is the way to go here. Taking my $80/hour job, and shipping it to India where it's worth $1/hour doesn't help me or the Indian.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The US and Canada are both signatories of the TPP - and are moving forward to define both nations as one single market (a big step towards neutralizing our status as separate nations). Have you seen the Fast Forward Plan to "harmonize" our regulations? [The Fast Forward Plan is the latest iteration of NAFTA, aka the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.]

Eg., No GMO labelling in either country, joint support for Monsanto and Round-up.....






Welcome to the New World Order.

originally posted by: CloudsTasteMetallic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Keep telling yourself that. But first, define free trade for me.

Unmolested voluntary human interaction.

I firmly believe the only pure form of "free trade" is the good old-fashioned barter system, which only works on a local, community level.

"Hey, Bob, if you can come fix this truck for me (services) I'll give you a fair amount of (goods) from my garden, or anything else I can offer."

"Hey, Jim, ya wanna trade ammo? I've got a bunch of extra .22LR (ah, the good ole days) but what i really need is some .243 or .357 Mag."

At least, that works out here in the boonies.

Yes, barter is the most simplified example of how free trade is always a better solution than managed trade.

No one could argue with a straight face that interfering with the hypothetical transaction noted above is beneficial to either party (well, I suspect I will be shortly finding some takers on that).

If parties can agree on a fungible currency, the benefits multiply exponentially as the utility of each transaction can be extended to third party exchanges, etc.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FyreByrd

As long as you aren't hurting anybody, you should be free.

TPP is a complex set of rules and regulations that are supposed to govern "free" trade.

Actually free trade requires no oversight.

Free trade is impossible, oversight is required in order to make free trade mostly free. Without any oversight, the compounded advantage of one side getting a better deal than the other over and over creates an uncompetitive environment.

In the barter example above, I am confident that you can see the utility in unmanaged voluntary trade.

Where this becomes debatable is at the mega corporation level. I would argue that such mega monopolies would not have the power to prevent more equitable trading amongst lesser associations and individuals without state regulatory oversight. Those forced transactions no longer being the only option, inequitable offerings won't be attractive options.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Keep telling yourself that. But first, define free trade for me.

No government interference.

When a corporate farmer pays politicians to write laws making small farms illegal, the corporate farmer is using government regulation to his advantage.

Corporations using bribes to lure politicians into creating regulations that would favor their businesses is not a "free market." Ending all government regulations against business would open us all up on a level playing field.

There should have been a clause in the 1st amendment that read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business..."

Free trade is just that--when the small farmer has the right to engage in commerce right alongside the corporate farmer, without fear of government retaliation because the corporate farmer bribed politicians.

a reply to: Aazadan

Free trade is impossible, oversight is required in order to make free trade mostly free. Without any oversight, the compounded advantage of one side getting a better deal than the other over and over creates an uncompetitive environment.

If free trade creates uncompetitive environments because "one side can get a better advantage than the other"--then why would corporations use government to write regulations that give their business unfair advantages with the backing of law--if all they actually needed to do was back politicians that would abolish government regulation?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Keep telling yourself that. But first, define free trade for me.

Unmolested voluntary human interaction.

Okay - basically - to be unmolested in doing what you want (regardless of everyone else) whenever, whereever, with whomever and however.

Okay anarchy and or bully rule. How is that different then the TPP?

I don't think you understand the definition of voluntary.

No one, with full knowledge and consent, volunteers to be bullied.

Your premise is inherently irrational. The government that is supposed to "protect you from corporations" can be bought by corporations--your solution? Go to that same government and expect them to work in your favor.

If free trade were truly advantageous to corporations, in that free trade would create an environment that allows corporations to bully "the little guy"--then why do corporations prefer using government to write laws that favor their business?

Why? Because we, you and I, cannot compete with law enforcement. Government is also a business, whose sole product is absolute power, and for which there exist no competitors. We cannot compete with the inherent organization of the executive branch.

Your position is ironic because, just like those corporations you hate, you do not want to live in a government-less, anarchist society.

You already live in an environment that breeds bullying. The state is the worst bully humans have ever created.

I find it infinitely superior to examine the meaning of free trade from a more fundamental perspective ... you see more often than not those defining it for us cannot imagine trade and commerce without a middleman present int he equation.... (like a purveyor of make believe units of currency pretending to be a "conduit" of trade.)

Trade and or commerce is a relationship between TWO entities; the seller and the buyer.

All this crap being peddled upon us that is supposed to "protect" trade involves the insertion of other parties in the transaction.

"Free trade" exists when there is an exchange in goods or services between a buyer and a seller... not between a buyer, seller, and some mandated third or fourth or fifth party.

Free trade can only be impeded; not "improved."

This is about the distribution of revenue flows and allowing the 'corporate' person to pretend to the rights of a human being engaged in trade. Corporations, of course, do not actually trade for their own direct benefit... they simply control commerce to the revenue flow of profit can be directed away from the actual laborers and resources (the corporate workings) and funneled to the self-entitled god-lings (board members and 'preferred' stock holders) who declare themselves the rightful beneficiaries of the commercial activity in perpetuity.

These treaties are made for the people who believe they can own everything...

a reply to: Maxmars

I agree with you. But all the new "free" trade agreements protect the corporation as "seller," and allow corporations to deal directly with nations as "buyer" - like Chapter 11 in NAFTA and other "remediation" clauses in other agreements allow corporations to sue our nations for "blocking their future profits" with regulations they don't like.

...Your argument has been twisted to support One World Corporate Government. ...Not what you had in mind, is it?

a reply to: soficrow

I assure you the argument is not mine. It's perversion is based upon the insertion of a construct of an artificial unit of exchange, virtual in nature, and nevertheless entirely owned by a clearly-more-sovereign-than-us entity, which profits from any, and every transaction.

Trade can work, commerce is fine, all the things are there for a successful market; except we have no real ownership of the units of exchange...whose abundance and worth are entirely based upon the worship of an economic probabilistic god. The middleman is the problem... as it has ever been with the sellers and buyers of currency.

Mind you, I mean not to detract from what you say; it is true a 'systemic' abuse paradigm is in place, and those benefiting from it are entrenched in it so deeply that one has to wonder if it wasn't their design (or influence) that brought us here.

a reply to: Maxmars

GREAT stuff. Nails it. ...Can you say it again in simple language? And when you do, can I steal it?





PS. RE: "one has to wonder if it wasn't their design (or influence) that brought us here." ...Do you honestly doubt it?

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Aazadan

Free trade is impossible, oversight is required in order to make free trade mostly free. Without any oversight, the compounded advantage of one side getting a better deal than the other over and over creates an uncompetitive environment.

If free trade creates uncompetitive environments because "one side can get a better advantage than the other"--then why would corporations use government to write regulations that give their business unfair advantages with the backing of law--if all they actually needed to do was back politicians that would abolish government regulation?

Because that's precisely how they create an uncompetitive environment. Once you're successful enough, you get some political sway and can use that to benefit yourself. These situations naturally evolve from an open market. In a free market, most people are supposed to lose because that prevents them from amassing political power or money to corrupt the market.

That is why you need controls on a free market in order to prevent corporations from getting too powerful.

Let me give an example in my town. Walmart is the towns largest employer, employing about 10% of the population (so about 16% of jobs). We also have a real unemployment rate of 43%. One of the problems our city council has been trying to quietly solve is that Walmart doesn't want new jobs brought into the area because that creates competition and will force them to raise prices. If someone acts against Walmart, their opponent gets large campaign contributions, and Walmart has threatened (being the only source for many goods in under a 1 hour drive) to simply leave if new jobs are brought to the area.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Somehow I hope to penetrate this sort of circular logic.

Walmart doesn't want new jobs brought into the area because that creates competition and will force them to raise prices

This statement challenges my sanity, I cannot reconcile what you mean by it. Why would walmart care what jobs came to your area? Why would competition cause them to raise prices?

If someone acts against Walmart, their opponent gets large campaign contributions

This seems to imply that you recognize that the entity that enables corruption is politicians in positions of official power receiving campaign contributions for in kind attention.

But, who acts against walmart? A competing hardware store? If you are saying that the local official government, having received large campaign contributions will punish the upstart hardware store, I agree and that is in fact my point.

Walmart has threatened (being the only source for many goods in under a 1 hour drive) to simply leave if new jobs are brought to the area.

I assume that you mean the above scenario and I would ask, who cares if you lose walmart to a more competitive store with better prices?

I am not sure I understand what you mean by bringing new jobs to the area, if walmart leaves because there are better stores who pay better wages (what I think you mean by new jobs), how is that bad?

originally posted by: greencmp
This statement challenges my sanity, I cannot reconcile what you mean by it. Why would walmart care what jobs came to your area? Why would competition cause them to raise prices?

Good catch, sorry I meant raise wages. As things currently stand they can keep wages lower. With more employers they would have to be more competitive and raise wages.

This seems to imply that you recognize that the entity that enables corruption is politicians in positions of official power receiving campaign contributions for in kind attention.

But, who acts against walmart? A competing hardware store? If you are saying that the local official government, having received large campaign contributions will punish the upstart hardware store, I agree and that is in fact my point.

All employers at some point become political entities, and that is when they've gained too much power. Cable companies that strike anti competitive agreements to be monopolies. Local Walmarts that prevent new business from taking root. It's all the same thing and it's the result of policies that don't limit the influence of corporations.

I assume that you mean the above scenario and I would ask, who cares if you lose walmart to a more competitive store with better prices?

I wouldn't care, but the people who are working at Walmart that would lose their jobs care even though more jobs would be created in the end. Given the realities of the economics of Walmart, new businesses that pop up wouldn't be able to offer prices that are as low either. So the consumers would lose out as prices rise.