[Keith_McClary]

SUNDAY, JUN 28, 2015
The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s glaring double standard
Obama's new pact provides legal rights to corporations that it does not extend to unions and public interest groups

In promoting a proposed trade pact covering 12 Pacific Rim nations, President Obama has cast the initiative as an instrument of equity. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would, in his words, “level the playing field” and “give our workers a fair shot.” But critics argue that within the hundreds of pages of esoteric provisions, the deal — like similar ones before it — includes a glaring double standard: It provides legal rights to corporations and investors that it does not extend to unions, public interest groups and individuals.

Recently leaked drafts of the agreement show the pact includes the kind of “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS) provisions written into most major trade deals passed since the North American Free Trade Agreement. Those provisions allow companies to use secretive international tribunals to sue sovereign governments for damages when those governments pass public-interest policies that threaten to cut into a corporation’s profits or seize a company’s property.

But also like past trade deals, the TPP is not expected to allow unions and public-interest groups to bring their own suits in the same tribunals to compel governments to enforce labor, environmental and human rights laws.

The discrepancy is a deliberate effort to make sure trade policy includes a “tilt toward giant corporations,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said.

“If a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS,” Warren wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in February. “But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts.”
...
“Corporations under ISDS can bring cases without their national government’s permission, while unions and environmental groups in order to enforce the labor rights and environmental rights in these agreement have to get their government to bring the case,” said Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO’s associate general counsel.

[dissident]

More of the same neocon economic dogma that we have been seeing since the 1990s. Free trade is a racket. You will note that Japan and South Korea had to practice quite a bit of protectionism to allow their economies to develop. But these days the expectation is that all countries, whether they are prepared or not, will open themselves up. This then becomes a modern version of colonialism with domination of the less developed countries by the developed ones.

Greece is an example of this in the EU. Poland is actually the same thing, where Germany companies now run the show.

[onlooker]

Exactly, free trade is almost axiomatic. For what it does is it severely limits what national economies can do and not do. In the process it curtails the ability of a country to fully develop it's own domestic economy. It really is just a method of rich countries to loot smaller countries and to bring down the global work force to the lowest common denominator as free trade is practiced within the matrix of open borders and globalization. In this framework the only winners are transnational corporations who can cut costs and in the meantime have almost unlimited access to capital, labor, resources and potential consumers.

[Keith_McClary]

EU Proposes To Reform Corporate Sovereignty Slightly; US Think Tank Goes Into Panic Mode

[Plantagenet]

Seems to me apart from starting legalising cannabis, the US takes the cake for far right government of all first world democracies. Some of your most right wing moves (handing welfare to State admin, forcing everyone into private health insurance, TPP, refusing to get real on gun laws) happened under your version of left.

Yup. And thats the tragedy of it.

It was O and the Ds who negotiated the TPP, failed to prosecute the banksters after the economy collapsed, have channelled billions to Wall Street while wages for average folks remain stagnant, and you are so right that the Ds went for private health insurance (i.e. Obamacare) instead of single payer government healthcare. And now Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street and the Big Banks and will be worse then O, but a huge majority of Ds stumble on, dumbly backing Hillary no matter what her positions are just because her name is Clinton.

You are exactly right----its a sad situation here in the US.

[Plantagenet]

The Australian delegates just walked out on the TPP negotiations. They want a better deal for Australia.

Whats the matter with them? Hasn't Obama shown over and over that the way to get to a deal is to accept the other side's views and give in on everything the other side wants?


The Aussies are negotiating like they think they are Donald Trump or something...they're actually looking out for Australia.

[SeaGypsy]

It's mainly about tariffs on sugar. We want open access to your sugar market, your government wants to keep farms on the teat. We had this discussion years ago here about how come you guys get foisted corn syrup where the stuff is almost unheard of here. How much is sugar a pound/ kilo retail now for in the US? About a buck a kilo here, 75 of your cents, about 35 cents a pound.

[Sixstrings]

How much is sugar a pound/ kilo retail now for in the US? About a buck a kilo here, 75 of your cents, about 35 cents a pound.

I just paid $2.32 for a 4lb bag of cane sugar at walmart. So that's 58 cents a pound, compared to your 35 cents a pound then that means our sugar prices are 40% higher than yours.

40% is a significant number -- when one considers all the products that sugar goes into.

There isn't much cane sugar grown in the US, if we've got tariffs on it then I'd assume that's to shore up beet farmers (rotation crop) and to make corn syrup more attractive.

Beet Sugar

Sugarbeets are grown as a rotation crop in 17 of the 50 U.S. states by an estimated 2,000 sugarbeet farmers. There are currently 10 sugarbeet processing companies with 30 processing facilities near growing areas. For 1997/98, SCI forecasts beet sugar production at 3.88 million metric tons, accounting for 56 percent of total production. Only beet sugar production in France is consistently higher.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x0513e/x0513e15.htm

Anyhow, I don't know about the issue in depth.. ideally, it would be nice if all the sugar tariffs could go away so that people can just have some real sugar and not any more of this corn syrup. But then, does that mean our farms are all screwed up, since they need the beets for the rotation crop? I don't know.

[SeaGypsy]

Update on failure of TPP hinged on US agricultural market & wanting to extend IP on meds from 5 to 10 years.

[Sixstrings]

Update on failure of TPP hinged on US agricultural market & wanting to extend IP on meds from 5 to 10 years.

I guess we're off onto TPP in this thread. Some more info:

Mr Robb faces a tussle at home over the deal, with Nationals MPs demanding a decent deal for sugar farmers.

Half a dozen federal Nationals indicated they would cross the floor when the agreement comes before the parliament if only a token result is achieved.

The US allows sugar imports based on a quota system, with Australian cane farmers now allowed to send about 100,000 tonnes there a year.

The farmers would like to raise this to more than 500,000 tonnes but the Americans are holding out.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/08/01/tpp-deal-can-still-be-grasped-robb

So it looks like Australia has derailed TPP until the next talks in November.

Are the "nationals" a party, in Australia? Article says they'll vote against TPP unless Abbot can get a deal that raises the sugar quota five times for Australian sugar imports into the US.

Meanwhile -- I wonder what the deal is about sugar, WHY do we have these quotas on it, do the corn and beet farmers REALLY need this or would things be okay if we weren't paying 40% more for our sugar? And more to the point, I don't think corn syrup is even good for people, and it's just strange that we've got corn syrup in everything and the rest of the world has real cane sugar.

It's not really an issue at the grocery store, $2.32 doesn't feel like too much to pay for a bag of sugar (or maybe it is too much, that's almost as much as a gallon of milk or gasoline, really sugar shouldn't be costing that much), but the thing is with Coke and soft drinks and any products like that -- you can't even find them, with real sugar versus corn syrup. I haven't had sugar Coke in so many years, I can't remember the taste.

[Sixstrings]

Coke says there is no taste difference between corn syrup and sugar, but this taste test says 85% of people can taste the difference and everyone prefers the taste of the Mexican coke (that has sugar):

Nearly 30 years ago, Coca-Cola switched over from sugar to high-fructose corn syrup to sweeten America's beloved carbonated soft drink. With corn subsidized by the government, its sugary syrup became a more affordable option for the beverage company.

...

Coke spokesman Scott Williamson told Rob Walker of the New York Times that despite the different use of sweeteners “all of our consumer research indicates that from a taste standpoint, the difference is imperceptible.” We decided to find out for ourselves: is there a palatable difference between regular Coke and Mexican Coke? Or are people just charmed by Mexican Coke's nostalgic glass bottle? Our team of 20 editors conducted a taste test to get real answers.

The Verdict

Twenty editors blind taste-tested the two cokes, side by side, and found ...

85 percent of our tasters could tell the difference between regular Coke and Mexican Coke.
80 percent of our tasters preferred Mexican Coke to regular Coke.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/coca-cola-taste-test_n_1324282.html

So anyhow this is a good example of a trade issue, maybe one example of protectionism NOT being a good idea for the consumer.

Sugar has these quotas limiting imports, which result in sugar costing 40% more which then results in corn syrup being cheaper than sugar (we don't have enough cane sugar growing land in the US, so it's all corn syrup and beet sugar). Meanwhile, Mexico has no tariffs on sugar (apparently), so down there Coke uses cane sugar. In other parts of the world, Coke bottlers use different sweeteners based on which is cheaper.

[Plantagenet]

Coke says there is no taste difference between corn syrup and sugar, but this taste test says 85% of people can taste the difference and everyone prefers the taste of the Mexican coke (that has sugar)

This is one of the nicest things about the US being flooded with illegal immigrants from Mexico. You don't have to go to Mexico city to get great Mexican street food. You can go almost anywhere in the US now and get a really good street taco with a Mexican coke to wash it down.


Muchas gracias amigo!

[Lore]

Thank you for your xenophobic comment!

[onlooker]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/ ... round.html
Magnificent article detailing the TPP status as of the present and going into the future. Also, how and why the TPP failed for now. Note this passage: "The TPP is a long-standing project of the global elites". Basically this deal was so pernicious to the countries and it's citizens that they could not go along with it. That in itself is amazing that a trade deal could basically scare away even politicians who routinely side with Big Business and the Elite agenda. Just demonstrates just how odious the Trans Pacific Partnership is to the interests of the common man.

[onlooker]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/ ... -ttip.html
Interesting article on the continued assault of the working class of the world by corporations via Trade deals utilizing the Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This settlement allows corporations to sue countries if they feel any of their laws are interfering with their profits and such. Of course if a tribunal or some such such entity rules in favor of the corporation then the taxpayers of said country in question must fork over lots of money in award settlement. So corporations are in a win-win situation. They rake in profits in a particular country yet are protected for losses by this ad hoc system of so called justice which actually is more like a travesty of justice. The posted link refers to an article about Spain being sued because of its recent cuts to renewable energy subsidies

[PrestonSturges]

Coke says there is no taste difference between corn syrup and sugar, but this taste test says 85% of people can taste the difference and everyone prefers the taste of the Mexican coke (that has sugar):

In some parts of the US, there is a kosher Coke Classic with sugar for Passover in bottles with a yellow cap.

[Keith_McClary]

In some parts of the US, there is a kosher Coke Classic with sugar for Passover in bottles with a yellow cap.

I will have to re-read Leviticus. I don't recall anything about corn syrup being unclean.

[vox_mundi]

Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Is Reached

After five years of talks, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman says, negotiators have reached a deal. Froman made the announcement in Atlanta.

The breakthrough came after several obstacles fell, including a dispute over the length of exclusive patents for new biological drugs, which had split the U.S. and Australia. It's one of several intellectual property issues that have been a top priority for American companies.

One of the issues that prompted last-minute negotiations centers on the dairy industry, according to The Japan Times, which says New Zealand, a large dairy producer, disagreed with Canada over dairy tariffs.

The newspaper also detailed a potential shift in the auto industry, saying:

"A 'rule of origin' would stipulate that only 45 percent of a vehicle would have to be sourced from within the TPP, down from the equivalent ratio of 62.5 percent under NAFTA, officials have said."

Lawmakers will not be allowed to amend or filibuster the TPP deal, but the vote will come during the presidential primary nominating contests. Candidates from both parties have lambasted U.S. trade policies as contributing to a reordering of the American economy that has led to a growing income gap.

Opponents of the deal, including labor unions, environmental groups and liberal Democrats, have pledged to mount a final campaign to block the accord on Capitol Hill. They have criticized the TPP as a regulatory framework aimed at protecting the interests of large multinational corporations while doing little to protect worker rights and the environment.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership charade: TPP isn’t about ‘free’ trade at all

You will hear much about the importance of the TPP for “free trade.” The reality is that this is an agreement to manage its members’ trade and investment relations — and to do so on behalf of each country’s most powerful business lobbies. Make no mistake: It is evident from the main outstanding issues, over which negotiators are still haggling, that the TPP is not about “free” trade.

New Zealand has threatened to walk away from the agreement over the way Canada and the U.S. manage trade in dairy products. Australia is not happy with how the U.S. and Mexico manage trade in sugar. And the U.S. is not happy with how Japan manages trade in rice. These industries are backed by significant voting blocs in their respective countries. And they represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the TPP would advance an agenda that actually runs counter to free trade.

Indeed, provisions in the TPP would restrain open competition and raise prices for consumers in the U.S. and around the world — anathema to free trade.

The TPP would manage trade in pharmaceuticals through a variety of seemingly arcane rule changes on issues such as “patent linkage,” “data exclusivity,” and “biologics.” The upshot is that pharmaceutical companies would effectively be allowed to extend — sometimes almost indefinitely — their monopolies on patented medicines, keep cheaper generics off the market, and block “biosimilar” competitors from introducing new medicines for years. That is how the TPP will manage trade for the pharmaceutical industry if the U.S. gets its way.

Similarly, consider how the U.S. hopes to use the TPP to manage trade for the tobacco industry. For decades, U.S.-based tobacco companies have used foreign investor adjudication mechanisms created by agreements like the TPP to fight regulations intended to curb the public-health scourge of smoking. Under these investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems, foreign investors gain new rights to sue national governments in binding private arbitration for regulations they see as diminishing the expected profitability of their investments.

Philip Morris International PM, +1.40% is currently prosecuting such cases against Australia and Uruguay (not a TPP partner) for requiring cigarettes to carry warning labels. Canada, under threat of a similar suit, backed down from introducing a similarly effective warning label a few years back.

Given the veil of secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, it is not clear whether tobacco will be excluded from some aspects of ISDS. Either way, the broader issue remains: Such provisions make it hard for governments to conduct their basic functions — protecting their citizens’ health and safety, ensuring economic stability, and safeguarding the environment.

Imagine what would have happened if these provisions had been in place when the lethal effects of asbestos were discovered.

[onlooker]

This is a continuation of a pattern seen throughout the 20th century, trade deals that benefit mostly the rich denizens of the world and exploit the natural and labor resources of the poorer countries. Also, that allow for new markets for trans-national corporations and that seek to bring down any barriers to attaining maximum profit for corporations and their stockholders.