Trans-Pacific Trade Talks Resume With Almost No Media Coverage

[Peace Piper]

http://s30.postimg.org/hlmm2yj35/secret_tpp.jpg

Trans-Pacific Trade Talks Resume With Almost No Media Coverage
Campaign for America's Future Dave Johnson December 8, 2014

Shouldn’t it be a trade violation to threaten to move someone’s job to another country? Shouldn’t we negotiate trade agreements that increase people’s wages on both sides of a trade border? These are the kinds of agreements we would make if We the People were negotiating trade agreements with representatives of the working people in other countries. Unfortunately that is not the kind of trade agreements that our current trade negotiation process produces.

The secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations resumed this week, this time in Washington. TPP is a massive agreement that sets up new rules for over 40 percent of the global economy. It will have profound effects on our jobs, our standard of living now and in the future and our ability to make a living as a country. Oddly, though, as of Monday morning you have to read about it in Japan Times because few-to-no U.S. media outlets are covering it.

In spite of the lack of American media coverage of this tremendously important agreement, representatives of labor, environmental, family farm, consumer, Internet freedom, public health, faith, human rights and community organizations held a rally Monday outside the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. These organizations represent “stakeholders” from all countries that are denied a seat at the TPP negotiating table.

Here’s what the Japan Times reported, in “TPP talks get back underway in Washington“ (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/08/business/leaders-reaffirmed-seeking-early-conclusion-deal-tpp-talks-set-resume/):


Chief negotiators from 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative resumed negotiations in Washington after their leaders reaffirmed last month they will conclude an agreement as soon as possible.

Media Blackout


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnC1mqyAXmw
TPP: The Dirtiest Trade Deal You've Never Heard Of

Here are a few stories about the media blackout of this important treaty – all in the non-corporate media:

Common Dreams, As TPP Opposition Soars, Corporate Media Blackout Deafening
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/02/06/tpp-opposition-soars-corporate-media-blackout-deafening

Media Matters, STUDY: Media Leave Viewers In The Dark About Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/05/study-media-leave-viewers-in-the-dark-about-tra/197932

Nation of Change, Mainstream Media Blackout of the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement
http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/11/21/mainstream-media-blackout-trans-pacific-trade-agreement/

Project Censored’s 2013 news that didn’t make the news #3
Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens a Regime of Corporate Global Governance
http://www.projectcensored.org/3-trans-pacific-partnership-threatens-regime-corporate-global-governance/

CREDO petition from February: TELL THE MEDIA: IT’S TIME TO EXPOSE THE TPP
https://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/tell-the-media-it-s-time-to-expose-the-tpp


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqBgU2a6Mso

Secret Negotiations

The TPP negotiations are secret, and the kids of people at that D.C. rally are not represented at the bargaining table. But corporate representatives have access to drafts of the treaty, and the negotiators typically come from and expect to go to lucrative corporate positions after the treaty is finalized – assuming they “play ball.” ------SNIP----------

MORE: http://ourfuture.org/20141208/trans-pacific-trade-talks-resume-with-almost-no-media-coverage

America concentrates on bad cops and "racism" while the next sell out of sovereignty happens behind closed doors.
The thieves know what they are doing.

[PaleoPaul]

There's also the torture report being discussed today, which I think is quite important.

[CaptUSA]

From what I've seen of this deal, I don't think it's as bad as all the socialists portray it.

Of course, there are global geopolitical implications that are hard to fully predict, but I think it will lead to less protectionist trade policies.

I know the left-wing blogs and Keynesian economists are going crazy about it. I've read several Cato articles and watched conferences that paint it in a much better light.

[Natural Citizen]

I've read several Cato articles and watched conferences that paint it in a much better light.

Can you share one of these sources that paint it in a much better light so that we may scrutinize the depth in which they discuss it, please?

[Peace Piper]

From what I've seen of this deal, I don't think it's as bad as all the socialists portray it.

You haven't seen anything but what has been leaked, if that


Of course, there are global geopolitical implications that are hard to fully predict, but I think it will lead to less protectionist trade policies.

Very little of this new "agreement" has to do with "trade policies", which, if you bothered to educate yourself on, you would know.


I know the left-wing blogs and Keynesian economists are going crazy about it. I've read several Cato articles and watched conferences that paint it in a much better light.

So you're on team Krugman

Paul Krugman: (the TPP is) No Big Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html

[twomp]

From what I've seen of this deal, I don't think it's as bad as all the socialists portray it.

Of course, there are global geopolitical implications that are hard to fully predict, but I think it will lead to less protectionist trade policies.

I know the left-wing blogs and Keynesian economists are going crazy about it. I've read several Cato articles and watched conferences that paint it in a much better light.

This is why Team Red and Team Blue is stupid. Just because the "lefties" hate it, you approve of it? This deal has been and is still currently being negotiated in secret. If it is as good as you seem to think it is, why the secrecy? Oh Team Blue hates it so it must be good...

[CaptUSA]

So you're on team Krugman

Paul Krugman: (the TPP is) No Big Deal
Krugman is against TPP. He was just trying to downplay its importance. Like Keynes himself, Krugman is all over the board depending on what he's trying to do at the moment. I could just as easily put you on team Stiglitz, Bernie Sanders, Economic Policy Institute, or Noam Chomsky.

But you are right about only seeing what has been leaked. Negotiations, especially multi-lateral ones, are always done in private.

And then you follow that up with "if you bothered to educate yourself more about this deal"?!! You don't see the irony in that? You're going off the same leaked details...

This is why Team Red and Team Blue is stupid. Just because the "lefties" hate it, you approve of it? This deal has been and is still currently being negotiated in secret. If it is as good as you seem to think it is, why the secrecy? Oh Team Blue hates it so it must be good...
And no. I am not "for" it because team blue is against it. It matches up with free trade principles - not perfectly (depending on the yet unknown details) but generally, it aligns with sound economic principles. Again, though, there could be troubling details that will need to be worked out.

Can you share one of these sources that paint it in a much better light so that we may scrutinize the depth in which they discuss it, please?

I posted this once before, but I don't think anyone watched it. It's a good discussion and hopefully will broaden some perspectives. It's too easy to hate it based on propaganda and demagoguery.

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/tpa-tpp-ttip-you-when-will-we-enjoy-fruits-us-trade-agenda

[The Free Hornet]

Again, though, there could be troubling details that will need to be worked out.

The purpose of secret negotiations is to enact troubling details with force of law so that they cannot be worked out.

There are no IP anarchists at the TPP table. If you can so much as identify a single libertarian there, I'll send you a cookie (provided you give me your address).


At a NicoNico live seminar called How Would TPP Change the Net and Copyrights? An In-Depth Examination: From Extending Copyright Terms to Changing the Law to Allow Unilateral Enforcement and Statutory Damages, artist Kazuhiko Hachiya warned that cosplay could also fall under the TPP, and such an agreement could give law enforcement officials broad interpretive authority in dictating how people could dress up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Intellectual_property_provisio ns

That aligns with your "free trade principles"???

[CaptUSA]

The purpose of secret negotiations is to enact troubling details with force of law so that they cannot be worked out.

Um, no. It's all in how you phrase it. What you call "secret", others would call private or confidential. Nearly every high level negotiation, whether public or private, is held in secret until a tentative agreement is reached. Why? Because it allows all parties to work toward a solution that they all find amenable, it preserves negotiation strength, and allows each party to bring up issues that they would otherwise not address. It also helps an agreement to be reached. Show me a multi-lateral negotiation that is done in public and I will show you a failure.

But, of course, those who are predisposed to be against free trade deals will want the negotiations to be done in open air - it ensures their failure.

There are no IP anarchists at the TPP table. If you can so much as identify a single libertarian there, I'll send you a cookie (provided you give me your address).
Yes, the selectively-leaked "preliminary" IP provisions that have not been agreed upon are indeed troubling. (There are other troubling issues as well.) IP gets a long debate, even in these forums. Personally, I'm a Jeffersonian when it comes to IP - namely, there are utilitarian aspects that cannot be denied, but there have to be limits on how long they last.

But again, the NicoNico seminar was demagoguery. Drawing extreme examples of what could happen if the strawman that was leaked were agreed upon. You need to recognize when your chain is being pulled - regardless of which way it is being pulled.

For me, the main concern is not about the individual details. I'm optimistic that in order for an agreement to ever be reached, many of those details will end up favoring freer trade. My main concern are the larger global geopolitical implications. It is hard to predict what China's reaction would be. Not to mention the reaction of Russia and European nations. Ideally, it would lead to more free trade agreements and a push toward globally-accepted free trade. Unfortunately, many nations will always lean toward their protectionist inclinations. There's the possibility that it could result in greater conflict. But free trade shouldn't be seen as the aggressor.

So in summation... I'm not really "for" this deal until I see the final agreement, but I am certainly not against it in principle. Any time we can knock down barriers to trade, all parties benefit. I think it's best to reserve judgment. I could very well be opposed to it, but I'll have to wait to see it's final form. One thing I can tell you is I would feel a whole lot better if it were a Paul administration orchestrating this deal!

[Natural Citizen]

...My main concern are the larger global geopolitical implications. It is hard to predict what China's reaction would be. Not to mention the reaction of Russia and European nations.


At the moment we're in the middle of a cold war of sorts between the BRICS nations and the west. And there is a lot to that. Just have to take a step back and look at it in broader terms. And, actually, they're not leaving much for us to guess about. They're doing everything in a rather in your face kind of way. There are some really informative threads here on the board with regard to this.

Make no mistake, though. This is a western corporate power grab (which is why we need to be very careful of our sources who would argue for or against it. I did some checking on the CATO stuff that you shared but am left with a bad taste in my mouth after hearing/reading the terms of controversy in which they chose to present their case). Of course, we see the same thing from other sources, too, that report on the negatives of the thing. And I'll admit my bias in the fact that I hold very little regard for CATO. I think that have a very shallow grasp on geo-politics as a whole. This seems to be a power grab of geo-political magnitude. And it does, in fact, threaten the sovereignty of nations from what we do actually have to go by at the moment. For multinational corporations to scribble up the rules that say they can sue away the sovereignty of nations is a bad thing. But, again, we need to step back and look at the bigger picture. This TPP won't fly over as easy as some think it will.

What won't work as far as learning about this thing is to turn it into a left/right paradigm and debate it that way. That is disingenuous and transparent. And I'm not saying that this has been done here but it is something that almost always hijacks the terms of controversy and then everyone gets caught up in redundance. And this is done for just that purpose a lot of the time.

This is one of those things were I'd likely research the thing from foreign sources. But that is just me. Western media has much to gain from this TPP. And that is why there simply isn't any reporting on it from western media.

[Natural Citizen]

I'd add that there are already court cases happening right here in America as I type this where western corporations are suing away the sovereignty of American citizens because the laws that they put into place hinder the profits of those companies. That's just a fact. I've shared those cases here on the board. There is no getting around it. It is happening. It is real.

Here is one specific case that I've shared here most recently but there are more.

TPP in America: Judge blocks County from implementing law that would harm corporate profit (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463308-TPP-in-America-Judge-blocks-County-from-implementing-law-that-would-harm-corporate-profit&p=5705198&viewfull=1#post5705198)

And, of course, this is a landmark case because of the the geo-political factors with regard to this particular industry. This is a big deal given that the rest of the world has the industry at the top of their list as far as the dangers that they represent in the interest of the many respective nations who oppose their model. And this is where we need to look at the battle lines between BRICs (Competitive NON-GMO/anti-western agribusiness) nations and western nations who are heavily influenced by specific industries (in this case agribusiness)who view the sovereignty of these BRICS and other nations as a threat to their bottom line or growth model.

Here is a good thread on how that is panning out on th international front... Monsanto in US Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415950-Monsanto-in-US-Foreign-Policy)

I had asked Bryan to change the title of that thread months ago but that never happened. What I should have done there when I started providing backdrop and relevant news/current events to that thread is that I should have said Agribusiness in U.S. Foreign Policy or something along those lines. Because it is absolutely a geo-political issue. Whatever, though. The point is that this is just one pafrticular (although very inportant) area of western ifrastructure that we see already flirting around with suing away the sovereignty of people and nations. They just happen to be starting here in the states as the first link that I shared indicatres. And so areas of debate with reagard to this issue is one that usually turns into a false left/right paradigm instead of stepping back and looking at th larger issue here. And this industry gets a lot of support for their so called "liberty" to destroy sovereignty. It's a travesty that this is supported under the terms of "liberty". But this just goes to show us that, yes, libertarianism does, in fact, often serve as the stalking horse for fascism itself.

[CaptUSA]

This is one of those things were I'd likely research the thing from foreign sources. But that is just me. Western media has much to gain from this TPP. And that is why there simply isn't any reporting on it from western media.

Good post. + rep.

This gets away from the demagoguery and false narratives to the heart of the matter. It is clear that there are implication on both sides of this thing. Certainly, Western media and Western companies have much to gain from TPP, but so do all of us, if properly negotiated. Broad trade deals like this can exponentially increase the wealth of the planet. I don't really worry about who the wealth goes to - I think greater wealth benefits us all.

And yes, I don't want to get into a left/right debate, but Cato is definitely more libertarian than the Economic Policy Institute! You may not like the terms in which they chose to discuss the TPP, but I think their terms have merit. On the flip side, I think the terms in which the opposition has been using lack some merit. Job losses? They're arguing for protectionism. Environmental concerns? They're afraid of losing governmental controls. Secrecy? They're arguing against sound negotiation practices. There are many good points as well, but they're usually not discussed as coherently. The IP issues definitely need to be worked out. The sovereignty issues need to be addressed as well. (Although, I don't think they're as dire as we are led to believe.) The global implications that you and I are discussing only get a passing mention in this debate. I think that's where the focus should be.

Again, I'll reserve judgment until we see a proposed agreement. At that point, we can debate the merits based on facts instead of basing our opinions on selectively leaked salvos in the negotiation process.

[Peace Piper]

According to the leaks, only 5 of the 29 chapters are about so called "free trade".

But even if the whole thing was about "free trade", the following videos explain how "free trade" has gutted the US

A prophetic interview with Sir James Goldsmith in 1994 Pt1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI

In this interview, Sir Goldsmith discusses the ramifications of free-trade agreements that were about to take place in 1994 (GATT), as you can retrospectively see, he correctly predicted many of the things that happened after that.


In part 2, Bilderburger Charlie Rose trots out the insufferable Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Clinton's "Free Trade" advocate. Her rudeness and tantrums don't phase Sir Goldsmith.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTzPmn-87w

Part 3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_hiEvTNV5k

part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yonUgZ2Y6Qs

part 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6KkF6aa_A

Would you trade the middle class for cheap labor and trinkets from Vietnam?

Can a nation that doesn't remember how to make shoes or furniture be called a "Superpower"? Will the Cato employees be outsourced? Surely India has some people that can do their "work" for a few cents on the dollar. Bring em on, they are cheaper AND probably more intelligent.

[Ronin Truth]

Best media non-coverage money can buy. :p :rolleyes:

[Deborah K]

It was the same with the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement between Canada, USA, and Mexico. Lots going on that wasn't covered in the MSM.

[The Free Hornet]

Um, no. It's all in how you phrase it. What you call "secret", others would call private or confidential. Nearly every high level negotiation, whether public or private, is held in secret until a tentative agreement is reached. Why? Because it allows all parties to work toward a solution that they all find amenable, it preserves negotiation strength, and allows each party to bring up issues that they would otherwise not address.

How do you and your lakehouse plan not to be parties to this agreement? Or by "all" do you mean a "trifling small percentage"?

[rg17]

bump