PDA

View Full Version : Why Fast Track Isn’t Free Trade




Brian4Liberty
06-13-2015, 04:26 PM
Why Fast Track Isn’t Free Trade (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-fast-track-isnt-free-trade/)
Today's agreements aren't focused on lowering barriers, but harmonizing global regulations at the cost of sovereignty.
By David Grewal • June 11, 2015


...
Fast track commits Congress to an up-or-down vote on whatever the president’s trade negotiators deliver, without the possibility of filibuster in the Senate or further amendments. It thus streamlines and expedites the process of Congressional approval: under fast track, trade deals get special treatment unavailable to other kinds of legislation. And without fast track, it is unlikely that President Obama will be able to pass two controversial trade agreements with our Asian and European allies and competitors.

Fast track approval in the House now hinges crucially on Republican votes because most Democrats are bucking their president to vote against his trade agenda. But why are so many conservatives willing to trust the Obama administration on this issue, while otherwise trying to thwart it at every turn?

Conservatives are caught between their general support for “free trade” and a concern to uphold American national sovereignty. The support for free trade doesn’t just come from a general pro-business orientation; it reflects an older idea that trade unencumbered by government regulation is not only good for business, but good for individuals and for society as a whole, continuous with rights of property and liberty generally.

But today’s trade agreements aren’t really about free trade, at least not as traditionally understood. They are efforts to achieve regulatory harmonization across borders, initiatives in what is now called “global governance.” They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the new enthusiasm for special “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) mechanisms. ISDS gives foreign corporations the right to sue national governments for regulations that interfere with their expected profits. It allows multinational litigants to bypass the national courts and instead empowers panels of private arbitrators—most of whom are practicing attorneys who cycle in and out of arbitral work—the right to sit in judgment of national laws. These arbitrators owe no special allegiance to any particular system of justice. They are not bound by precedent, and what precedent there is has often been developed by earlier ad hoc panels, not judges vested with constitutional authority. And the decisions of ISDS panels are typically final, not subject to review by any higher court.

The inclusion of ISDS in the proposed trade deals shows just how far the trade agenda has been transformed in recent decades. The old trade agenda—the plan to bring down tariffs in the postwar era—was largely successful. Tariffs are now lower than they have ever been and, in many sectors, almost gone altogether. But instead of declaring victory, the trade agenda morphed into something else: a subtle and ongoing push to integrate regulatory regimes across borders. Obama’s trade agreements represent a vigorous new effort to construct new global rules that go beyond simply freeing up trade to bind individual nations to new international regulations.
...
But the choice for conservatives should be clear. A vote for fast track is not, at root, a vote for free trade. Rather, it is a vote to grant the White House broad authority to make treaties, in secret, for a new era of global economic governance.
...
More: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-fast-track-isnt-free-trade/

Origanalist
06-13-2015, 09:53 PM
This is such bullshit. Anyone who would support something this big being done in secret is either in on it and has a lot to gain or needs their head examined.

r3volution 3.0
06-13-2015, 10:03 PM
Despite its claim, as bolded in the OP, the article cited not a single example of how the TPP will increases government intervention in the economy - quite the opposite.


ISDS gives foreign corporations the right to sue national governments for regulations that interfere with their expected profits.

States being forced to repeal certain regulations? Works for me.


Most immediately, the TTIP will put US industries into greater competition with the power of the German export industry, which is subsidized by what amounts to currency manipulation in effect, if not intent.

US consumers getting to enjoy lower prices on German imports, at the expense of German taxpayers? Works for me.

Origanalist
06-13-2015, 10:08 PM
Despite its claim, as bolded in the OP, the article cited not a single example of how the TPP will increases government intervention in the economy - quite the opposite.



States being forced to repeal certain regulations? Works for me.



US consumers getting to enjoy lower prices on German imports, at the expense of German taxpayers? Works for me.

None of this works for me. How can you say something works for you when the whole thing is done in strict secrecy? Do you really trust the people pushing this to put in place a policy that "works for you"? When have they ever done so before?

r3volution 3.0
06-13-2015, 10:18 PM
None of this works for me. How can you say something works for you when the whole thing is done in strict secrecy?

How can you say that the TPP will increase government intervention in the economy without a scrap of evidence to that effect?


Do you really trust the people pushing this to put in place a policy that "works for you"? When have they ever done so before?

I'm assuming that the TPP will be similar to previous trade agreements, such as NAFTA, which, as far as I can tell, wrought significant net reductions in government control of the economy. Can you give me some examples of how NAFTA or the others increased government control of the economy?

Big Picture Point - it's foolish to assume that everything the government does is anti-libertarian. They sometimes do the right thing (even if only because their selfish interests at that moment happen to align with what's right).

William Tell
06-13-2015, 10:22 PM
This is such bullshit. Anyone who would support something this big being done in secret is either in on it and has a lot to gain or needs their head examined.

^^^

Origanalist
06-13-2015, 10:26 PM
How can you say that the TPP will increase government intervention in the economy without a scrap of evidence to that effect?

I can't say, nor can you. I can only go on past experience of the people pushing this. I am now to believe Barrack Obama is of a libertarian bent? Really?


Big Picture Point - it's foolish to assume that everything the government does is anti-libertarian.

No, not really.

r3volution 3.0
06-13-2015, 10:43 PM
I can't say, nor can you. I can only go on past experience of the people pushing this. I am now to believe Barrack Obama is of a libertarian bent? Really?

No, you are to believe that various business interests who will profit from the lifting of certain trade restrictions are pressuring him.

Just as other business interests who will lose profits from the lifting of those restrictions are pressuring Pelosi and the like.


No, not really.

Yes, really - this kind of thing happens fairly often.

The general trend is for pressure groups to demand more government, but sometimes they demand less.

On another note, why no response to this?


Can you give me some examples of how NAFTA or the others increased government control of the economy?

Natural Citizen
06-13-2015, 11:00 PM
r3volution 3.0. When government functions at the direction of the pens of multi-national corporations we have to define government a bit differently than the way that you seem to want to do here. You're separating the two in a slick kind of way and in a manner that solicits the begging of redunadant questions. And, so, when a multi-national corporation dictates the rules of a nation whether it be foreign or domestic in the interest of their expected profits by way of government we call this mercantilism. This protects them from a free market. It protects them from free trade. That said, we can't just say "government" like the way that you want to spin it here.

So, I asked you some time ago if you could explain the difference between a free market and mercantilism but you never did. Can you do that, please? I'd just like to understand your argument better is all. Thank You.

Natural Citizen
06-13-2015, 11:06 PM
States being forced to repeal certain regulations? Works for me.





To be clear, you support the destruction of states rights that are meant to protect their citizens from the federal government? We've seen legislation penned by industry and then introduced in order to do just that by way of congressmen who were receiving lobby money to ensure that the legislation would be introduced. Of course, that legislation was introduced in order to void states rights that ensured that their citizens could actually participate in and guide a free market. This legislation, of course, was intended to protect those industries from a free market. And, again, we call this mercantilism. So...are you just a mercantilist pushing his agenda here or what? I can accept that. Well...as long as you're honest about it. You know?

LibertyEagle
06-13-2015, 11:10 PM
How can you say that the TPP will increase government intervention in the economy without a scrap of evidence to that effect?



I'm assuming that the TPP will be similar to previous trade agreements, such as NAFTA, which, as far as I can tell, wrought significant net reductions in government control of the economy. Can you give me some examples of how NAFTA or the others increased government control of the economy?

Big Picture Point - it's foolish to assume that everything the government does is anti-libertarian. They sometimes do the right thing (even if only because their selfish interests at that moment happen to align with what's right).

Because it adds another ruling body above our own Congress. Don't you think we have enough to deal with without adding in another international organization????

Our Founders wanted the majority of what little government we were to have, kept close to us at the local and state levels, so that we could easily change it. They damn sure didn't intend for a huge federal government, much less ceding sovereignty to an international ruling body.

r3volution 3.0
06-13-2015, 11:13 PM
r3volution 3.0. When government functions at the direction of the pens of multi-national corporations we have to define government a bit differently than the way that you seem to want to do here. You're separating the two in a slick kind of way and in a manner that solicits the begging of redunadant questions. And, so, when a multi-national corporation dictates the rules of a nation whether it be foreign or domestic in the interest of their expected profits by way of government we call this mercantilism. That said, we can't just say "government like the way that you want to spin it here.

I agree that business lobbies largely control the government (I said as much in my last post).

My point is that, in this case, the selfish interests of those business lobbies (some of them) align with a good cause (lifting trade restrictions).

I don't know why this should be so hard to believe.

Maybe the problem is that you're lumping all lobby group together into one monolithic entity with one set of interests, when in fact there are many competing lobby groups. In this context, it's easy to see how one or another of them might push for less government in some area of the economy. For instance, steel companies and companies for whom steel is an input would have very different opinions on the lifting of a steel tariff.


So, I asked you some time ago if you could explain the difference between a free market and mercantilism but you never did. Can you do that, please? I'd just like to understand your argument better is all. Thank You.

A free market is a situation where all economic exchanges are voluntary.

Interventionism is a situation where the state restricts certain voluntary exchanges (e.g. bans import of X) and/or forces certain involuntary exchanges (e.g. taxes Peter to subsidize Paul).

(....this is following Mises' categories of economic systems: liberalism, interventionism, socialism)

Mercantilism is a particular kind of interventionism, characterized by high tariffs, state-sponsored monopolies, and industrial subsidies.

TaftFan
06-13-2015, 11:19 PM
http://theconservatarianreview.com/jeff-sessions-reveals-the-truth-about-tpa-that-ted-cruz-and-barack-obama-are-trying-to-hide/

Sessions tells the truth about the TPA

Natural Citizen
06-13-2015, 11:20 PM
My point is that, in this case, the selfish interests of those business lobbies (some of them) align with a good cause (lifting trade restrictions).



Hm. Okay. Thank You. Which ones, if I may ask? That is to say which business lobbies, specifically, with regard to this "trade deal"? And which ones are aligning with good causes verses bad causes? As well, what are the good causes versus the bad causes? That way, I'n not at risk for lumping all business lobby groups together into one monolithic entity. Thank You.

r3volution 3.0
06-13-2015, 11:38 PM
To be clear, you support the destruction of states rights that are meant to protect their citizens from the federal government? We've seen legislation penned by industry and then introduced in order to do just that by way of congressmen who were receiving lobby money to ensure that the legislation would be introduced. Of course, that legislation was introduced in order to void states rights that ensured that their citizens could actually participate in and guide a free market. This legislation, of course, was intended to protect those industries from a free market. And, again, we call this mercantilism. So...are you just a mercantilist pushing his agenda here or what? I can accept that. Well...as long as you're honest about it. You know?

I meant state in the general sense (France is a state, the US is a state, Japan is a state, etc), not state in the sense of one of the fifty members of the United States.

But anyway, if the TPP brings down some harmful regulations by some of the 50 states, I won't weep for it.

I'll take a movement toward laissez faire over a futile defense of the states' totally moribund rights, which they have not possessed in reality for generations.

The states are already de facto provinces of the federal government, so at least let them be well governed ones.


Hm. Okay. Thank You. Which ones, if I may ask?

I have no idea.


Because it adds another ruling body above our own Congress.

Not really.

In other words, if the US government has a change of heart down the road and decides to stop enforcing the TPP - who's going to make them?

The UN? LOL, with its little army of blue-hatted peacekeepers funded mostly by the US?

I'm not worried.

Sovereignty is about force. Some nebulous international body without the ability to enforce its demands is sovereign over nothing, whatever the pieces of paper might say.


http://theconservatarianreview.com/jeff-sessions-reveals-the-truth-about-tpa-that-ted-cruz-and-barack-obama-are-trying-to-hide/

Sessions tells the truth about the TPA

And the rebuttal (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?474052-%91Critical-Alert-Jeff-Sessions-Warns-America-Against-Potentially-Disastrous-Obama-Trade-Deal&p=5862219&viewfull=1#post5862219)...

Natural Citizen
06-13-2015, 11:52 PM
But anyway, if the TPP brings down some harmful regulations by some of the 50 states, I won't weep for it.



Yeah, I'd have to disagree with you here. The reason for that is because "harmful regulations", more often than not, simply means laws that undermine the industry's expected profit in the eyes of the industry who penned the legislation and introduced it by way of federal government in the first place. I mean, if a consumer isn't allowed to be able to participate in a genuine free market or to be able to make an informed or educaed choice because the states right to protect the citizens means to do that has been voided so that the industry is protected from a free market, then, that's a problem for me. And, of course, geo-politically, these companies are actually protected from free trade under the same model.

Ah, well. I suppose that we'll just have to disagree. We likely view freedom differently, I think.

r3volution 3.0
06-14-2015, 12:13 AM
Yeah, I'd have to disagree with you here. The reason for that is because "harmful regulations", more often than not, simply means laws that undermine the industry's expected profit in the eyes of the industry who penned the legislation and introduced it by way of federal government in the first place. I mean, if a consumer isn't allowed to be able to participate in a genuine free market or to be able to make an informed or educaed choice because the states right to protect the citizens means to do that has been voided so that the industry is protected from a free market, then, that's a problem for me. And, of course, geo-politically, these companies are actually protected from free trade under the same model.

Ah, well. I suppose that we'll just have to disagree. We likely view freedom differently, I think.

That was poor phrasing on my part. "Harmful regulations" is redundant. All regulations are harmful: any restrictions on property rights or the voluntary exchange thereof.

But it sounds like you disagree. You are in favor of certain regulations?

If so, then we have very different ideas of freedom indeed.

TaftFan
06-14-2015, 12:47 AM
And the rebuttal (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?474052-%91Critical-Alert-Jeff-Sessions-Warns-America-Against-Potentially-Disastrous-Obama-Trade-Deal&p=5862219&viewfull=1#post5862219)...
That was rebutting something else.

But in your rebuttal, you say that Congress retains the right to vote it up or down, "end of story."

Ok, and removing the Constitutional threshold of 67 votes and the filibuster threshold of 60 is pretty insane.

Natural Citizen
06-14-2015, 01:09 AM
You are in favor of certain regulations?

If so, then we have very different ideas of freedom indeed.

I never mentioned the term regulations aside from quoting you on the term. I'm talking about laws. Again, if a states right to create laws that protect it's citizens from intrusion by the federal government are voided in a manner in which the entity (who penned the legislation in the first place) creates federal laws that protect itself from a free market by way of the force of the federal government, who, may I ask, are you referencing in terms of freedom? We The People and whatnot. Who are they to you?

Origanalist
06-14-2015, 01:23 AM
No, you are to believe that various business interests who will profit from the lifting of certain trade restrictions are pressuring him.

Just as other business interests who will lose profits from the lifting of those restrictions are pressuring Pelosi and the like.



Yes, really - this kind of thing happens fairly often.

The general trend is for pressure groups to demand more government, but sometimes they demand less.

On another note, why no response to this?

Were the details of NAFTA kept in a secret room and only allowed to certain people with the understanding they could not divulge it's contents? I don't trust this posse of clowns to craft anything that resembles free anything.

Origanalist
06-14-2015, 01:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPIsjH25GHo

Brian4Liberty
06-14-2015, 09:01 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLRuMHAK_w

Brian4Liberty
06-14-2015, 10:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPS_-1O7PyY

r3volution 3.0
06-14-2015, 02:53 PM
....you say that Congress retains the right to vote it up or down, "end of story."

Ok, and removing the Constitutional threshold of 67 votes and the filibuster threshold of 60 is pretty insane.

I don't see why.


Were the details of NAFTA kept in a secret room and only allowed to certain people with the understanding they could not divulge it's contents?

1. The contents of the TPP will be released to Congress and the public long before the final vote.

2. There's nothing wrong or unusual about negotiations in progress remaining private.


I never mentioned the term regulations aside from quoting you on the term. I'm talking about laws. Again, if a states right to create laws that protect it's citizens from intrusion by the federal government are voided in a manner in which the entity (who penned the legislation in the first place) creates federal laws that protect itself from a free market by way of the force of the federal government, who, may I ask, are you referencing in terms of freedom? We The People and whatnot. Who are they to you?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What are these good laws that you think the TPP might overthrow?

dillo
06-14-2015, 02:59 PM
Theres no such thing as a half free market

nobody's_hero
06-14-2015, 04:53 PM
I meant state in the general sense (France is a state, the US is a state, Japan is a state, etc), not state in the sense of one of the fifty members of the United States.

But anyway, if the TPP brings down some harmful regulations by some of the 50 states, I won't weep for it.

I'll take a movement toward laissez faire over a futile defense of the states' totally moribund rights, which they have not possessed in reality for generations.

The states are already de facto provinces of the federal government, so at least let them be well governed ones.



I have no idea.



Not really.

In other words, if the US government has a change of heart down the road and decides to stop enforcing the TPP - who's going to make them?

The UN? LOL, with its little army of blue-hatted peacekeepers funded mostly by the US?

I'm not worried.

Sovereignty is about force. Some nebulous international body without the ability to enforce its demands is sovereign over nothing, whatever the pieces of paper might say.



And the rebuttal (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?474052-%91Critical-Alert-Jeff-Sessions-Warns-America-Against-Potentially-Disastrous-Obama-Trade-Deal&p=5862219&viewfull=1#post5862219)...

You realize the loss of sovereignty doesn't happen in one big obvious fell swoop? For example, the E.U. didn't just pop up overnight, and I think that's what many people here are afraid of. And for your comment about treaties needing the power of 'force': The E.U. doesn't have to enforce anything. It's become etched in the minds of the witless masses to the point that they will readily put their own chains around their ankles. I don't have to 'force' my dog to get in his kennel. I just say 'it's time for bed' and he practically shuts the cage door behind him. He's well trained, and so too will your children be.

--------------------------------------

I see these trade agreements similarly to the 'entangling alliances' warnings we got from the founders of this nation. Why is it that military alliances would be scrutinized, but the act of engaging in equally binding economic alliances seems to be given the benefit of the doubt? Especially when it is done with such secrecy? This is not a red flag. This is a 50'x30' red flag on a hill with sparklers, neon lights, and a spotlight which keeps it illuminated 24 hours a day.

r3volution 3.0
06-14-2015, 05:27 PM
^^^
Oh please, this isn't the EU.

(not to mention that the EU still has no real power and won't until it has its own army - it exists now [and maybe not for much longer] at the pleasure of its members)

PRB
06-14-2015, 05:39 PM
would you support it if it was?

What would free trade look like? More imports? More immigrants? Lower labor costs? Less regulations? Less taxes? More ethnic diversity? Less jobs for Americans?

r3volution 3.0
06-14-2015, 06:12 PM
would you support it if it was?

If this deal really did create an EU-like supranational power?

No, that wouldn't be worth it.

EDIT: by way of a visual aid

[farce]---[TPP]------------------------------------------------------------------[EU]----------[real regional/global government]


What would free trade look like? More imports? More immigrants? Lower labor costs? Less regulations? Less taxes? More ethnic diversity? Less jobs for Americans?

Lower prices for all consumers immediately

Temporary unemployment for those working for inefficient firms unable to compete

New and better paying jobs for those people after a little while - unless they can't be retrained, in which case, tough luck

nobody's_hero
06-14-2015, 09:08 PM
^^^
Oh please, this isn't the EU [yet].

(not to mention that the EU still has no real power and won't until it has its own army - it exists now [and maybe not for much longer] at the pleasure of its members)

Fixed it for you.

Origanalist
06-14-2015, 09:17 PM
Now your avatar makes sense.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/customavatars/avatar58077_4.gif

r3volution 3.0
06-14-2015, 09:19 PM
^^^

?

PRB
06-14-2015, 09:30 PM
Lower prices for all consumers immediately

Temporary unemployment for those working for inefficient firms unable to compete

New and better paying jobs for those people after a little while - unless they can't be retrained, in which case, tough luck

Good to know we agree there.

One slight disagreement is that I don't believe new and better jobs for people who are replaced by offshoring or automation is a requirement for better quality of life. I'm sure most people can be retrained,but i don't think they always need to be.