Stop Calling the TPP A Trade Agreement - It Isn't
This is a message to activists trying to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Stop calling the TPP a "trade" agreement. TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, not a "trade" agreement. "Trade" is a good thing; TPP is not. Every time you use the word "trade" in association with the TPP, you are helping the other side.
"Trade" is a propaganda word. It short-circuits thinking. People hear "trade" and the brain stops working. People think, "Of course, trade is good." And that ends the discussion.
This is a message to activists trying to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Stop calling the TPP a "trade" agreement. TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, not a "trade" agreement. "Trade" is a good thing; TPP is not. Every time you use the word "trade" in association with the TPP, you are helping the other side.
"Trade" is a propaganda word. It short-circuits thinking. People hear "trade" and the brain stops working. People think, "Of course, trade is good." And that ends the discussion.
Calling TPP a "trade" agreement lets the pro-TPP people argue that TPP is about trade instead of what it is really about. It diverts attention from the real problem. It enables advocates to say things like, "95 percent of the world lives outside the U.S." as if that has anything to do with TPP. It lets them say, "We know that exports support American jobs" to sell a corporate rights agreement. It enables them to say nonsense like this about a corporate rights agreement designed to send American jobs to Vietnam so a few "investors" can pocket the wage difference: "Exports of U.S. goods and services supported an estimated 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs ... and those export-supported jobs pay 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average wage."
Trade is good. Opening up the border so you can get bananas and they can get fertilizer is trade because they have a climate that lets them grow bananas and you already have a fertilizer plant. Enabling companies to move $30/hour jobs to countries with $.60/hour wages so a few billionaires can pocket the difference is not trade.
Calling TPP a "trade" agreement lets TPP supporters say people opposed to TPP are "anti-trade."
TPP Is A Corporate/Investor Rights Agreement
TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, and that is the problem.
TPP extends patents, copyrights and other monopolies so investors can collect "rents."
TPP elevates corporations and corporate profits to and above the level of governments. TPP lets corporations sue governments for laws and regulations that cause them to be less profitable. Enabling tobacco companies to sue governments because anti-smoking campaigns limit profits has nothing to do with trade. Enabling corporations to sue states that try to regulate fracking has nothing to do with trade.
While giving corporations a special channel to sue governments, labor, environmental, consumer and other "stakeholder" organizations do not get a channel for enforcement. This helps enable corporations to break unions, force wages down and pollute without cost. This increases the power of corporations over governments - and us.
Who Says?
Paul Krugman, "This Is Not A Trade Agreement":
One thing that should be totally obvious, however, is that it's off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb. For this is not a trade agreement. It's about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharmaceutical companies and firms that want to sue governments.
Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in "No, the TPP Won't Be Good for the Middle Class":
...TPP (like nearly all trade agreements the U.S. signs) is not a "free trade agreement"--instead it's a treaty that will specify just who will be protected from international competition and who will not. And the strongest and most comprehensive protections offered are by far those for U.S. corporate interests. Finally, there are international economic agreements that the United States could be negotiating to help the American middle class. They would look nothing like the TPP.
Jim Hightower, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not about free trade. It's a corporate coup d'etat-against us!":
TPP is a "trade deal" that mostly does not deal with trade. In fact, of the 29 chapters in this document, only five cover traditional trade matters!
The other two dozen chapters amount to a devilish "partnership" for corporate protectionism. They create sweeping new "rights" and escape hatches to protect multinational corporations from accountability to our governments... and to us.
On OurFuture.org," Economist Jeffrey Sachs Says NO to the TPP and the TAFTA Trade Treaties":
Without touching on the unpopular Fast-Track mechanism necessary to pass these two treaties, Sachs laid out five reasons why, on the substance, they should not be passed or ratified:
1. They are not trade treaties, but agreements aimed at protecting investors.
Josh Barro, "But What Does the Trade Deal Mean if You're Not a Cheesemaker?"
Much of the controversy is because the T.P.P. isn't really (just) a trade agreement. (There's a reason I called it an "economic agreement" at the top.) A lot of it is about labor, environmental standards, intellectual property and access to markets for services like banking and accounting. And in contrast with the tariff cuts, there's a lot more reason to worry that some of the agreement's non-trade provisions would hurt the world economy even as they benefited specific industries.
Techdirt, "If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong":
Instead, trade agreements have become a sort of secret playground for big corporations to abuse the process and force favorable regulations to be put in place around the globe.
... If you make the facile assumption that the TPP is actually about free trade, then you might be confused about all the hubbub about it. If you actually take the time to understand that much of what's in there has nothing to do with free trade and, in fact, may be the opposite of free trade, you realize why there's so much concern.
Timothy B. Lee at VOX, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is great for elites. Is it good for anyone else?":
In the past, debates about trade deals have mostly been about trade. ... In contrast, debates over the TPP mostly haven't focused on its trade provisions.
[. . .] As the opportunities for trade liberalization have dwindled, the nature of trade agreements has shifted. They're no longer just about removing barriers to trade. They've become a mechanism for setting global economic rules more generally.
... We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these -- it's secretive, it's dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.
Former IMF chief economist [Simon Johnson] on the problems with TPP:
The Trans Pacific Partnership is a notorious, secretly negotiated trade deal; from leaks we know that it continues "Investor State Resolution" clauses that allow foreign companies to sue to overturn national labor and environmental laws. Johnson's analysis stresses that trade agreements can be good for countries, but they aren't necessarily good -- and when they're negotiated in secret, they rarely go well.
Stop calling TPP a trade agreement. It is a corporate/investor rights agreement.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This is a message to activists trying to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Stop calling the TPP a "trade" agreement. TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, not a "trade" agreement. "Trade" is a good thing; TPP is not. Every time you use the word "trade" in association with the TPP, you are helping the other side.
"Trade" is a propaganda word. It short-circuits thinking. People hear "trade" and the brain stops working. People think, "Of course, trade is good." And that ends the discussion.
Calling TPP a "trade" agreement lets the pro-TPP people argue that TPP is about trade instead of what it is really about. It diverts attention from the real problem. It enables advocates to say things like, "95 percent of the world lives outside the U.S." as if that has anything to do with TPP. It lets them say, "We know that exports support American jobs" to sell a corporate rights agreement. It enables them to say nonsense like this about a corporate rights agreement designed to send American jobs to Vietnam so a few "investors" can pocket the wage difference: "Exports of U.S. goods and services supported an estimated 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs ... and those export-supported jobs pay 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average wage."
Trade is good. Opening up the border so you can get bananas and they can get fertilizer is trade because they have a climate that lets them grow bananas and you already have a fertilizer plant. Enabling companies to move $30/hour jobs to countries with $.60/hour wages so a few billionaires can pocket the difference is not trade.
Calling TPP a "trade" agreement lets TPP supporters say people opposed to TPP are "anti-trade."
TPP Is A Corporate/Investor Rights Agreement
TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, and that is the problem.
TPP extends patents, copyrights and other monopolies so investors can collect "rents."
TPP elevates corporations and corporate profits to and above the level of governments. TPP lets corporations sue governments for laws and regulations that cause them to be less profitable. Enabling tobacco companies to sue governments because anti-smoking campaigns limit profits has nothing to do with trade. Enabling corporations to sue states that try to regulate fracking has nothing to do with trade.
While giving corporations a special channel to sue governments, labor, environmental, consumer and other "stakeholder" organizations do not get a channel for enforcement. This helps enable corporations to break unions, force wages down and pollute without cost. This increases the power of corporations over governments - and us.
Who Says?
Paul Krugman, "This Is Not A Trade Agreement":
One thing that should be totally obvious, however, is that it's off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb. For this is not a trade agreement. It's about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharmaceutical companies and firms that want to sue governments.
Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in "No, the TPP Won't Be Good for the Middle Class":
...TPP (like nearly all trade agreements the U.S. signs) is not a "free trade agreement"--instead it's a treaty that will specify just who will be protected from international competition and who will not. And the strongest and most comprehensive protections offered are by far those for U.S. corporate interests. Finally, there are international economic agreements that the United States could be negotiating to help the American middle class. They would look nothing like the TPP.
Jim Hightower, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not about free trade. It's a corporate coup d'etat-against us!":
TPP is a "trade deal" that mostly does not deal with trade. In fact, of the 29 chapters in this document, only five cover traditional trade matters!
The other two dozen chapters amount to a devilish "partnership" for corporate protectionism. They create sweeping new "rights" and escape hatches to protect multinational corporations from accountability to our governments... and to us.
On OurFuture.org," Economist Jeffrey Sachs Says NO to the TPP and the TAFTA Trade Treaties":
Without touching on the unpopular Fast-Track mechanism necessary to pass these two treaties, Sachs laid out five reasons why, on the substance, they should not be passed or ratified:
1. They are not trade treaties, but agreements aimed at protecting investors.
Josh Barro, "But What Does the Trade Deal Mean if You're Not a Cheesemaker?"
Much of the controversy is because the T.P.P. isn't really (just) a trade agreement. (There's a reason I called it an "economic agreement" at the top.) A lot of it is about labor, environmental standards, intellectual property and access to markets for services like banking and accounting. And in contrast with the tariff cuts, there's a lot more reason to worry that some of the agreement's non-trade provisions would hurt the world economy even as they benefited specific industries.
Techdirt, "If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong":
Instead, trade agreements have become a sort of secret playground for big corporations to abuse the process and force favorable regulations to be put in place around the globe.
... If you make the facile assumption that the TPP is actually about free trade, then you might be confused about all the hubbub about it. If you actually take the time to understand that much of what's in there has nothing to do with free trade and, in fact, may be the opposite of free trade, you realize why there's so much concern.
Timothy B. Lee at VOX, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is great for elites. Is it good for anyone else?":
In the past, debates about trade deals have mostly been about trade. ... In contrast, debates over the TPP mostly haven't focused on its trade provisions.
[. . .] As the opportunities for trade liberalization have dwindled, the nature of trade agreements has shifted. They're no longer just about removing barriers to trade. They've become a mechanism for setting global economic rules more generally.
... We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these -- it's secretive, it's dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.
Former IMF chief economist [Simon Johnson] on the problems with TPP:
The Trans Pacific Partnership is a notorious, secretly negotiated trade deal; from leaks we know that it continues "Investor State Resolution" clauses that allow foreign companies to sue to overturn national labor and environmental laws. Johnson's analysis stresses that trade agreements can be good for countries, but they aren't necessarily good -- and when they're negotiated in secret, they rarely go well.
Stop calling TPP a trade agreement. It is a corporate/investor rights agreement.
This is a message to activists trying to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Stop calling the TPP a "trade" agreement. TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, not a "trade" agreement. "Trade" is a good thing; TPP is not. Every time you use the word "trade" in association with the TPP, you are helping the other side.
"Trade" is a propaganda word. It short-circuits thinking. People hear "trade" and the brain stops working. People think, "Of course, trade is good." And that ends the discussion.
Calling TPP a "trade" agreement lets the pro-TPP people argue that TPP is about trade instead of what it is really about. It diverts attention from the real problem. It enables advocates to say things like, "95 percent of the world lives outside the U.S." as if that has anything to do with TPP. It lets them say, "We know that exports support American jobs" to sell a corporate rights agreement. It enables them to say nonsense like this about a corporate rights agreement designed to send American jobs to Vietnam so a few "investors" can pocket the wage difference: "Exports of U.S. goods and services supported an estimated 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs ... and those export-supported jobs pay 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average wage."
Trade is good. Opening up the border so you can get bananas and they can get fertilizer is trade because they have a climate that lets them grow bananas and you already have a fertilizer plant. Enabling companies to move $30/hour jobs to countries with $.60/hour wages so a few billionaires can pocket the difference is not trade.
Calling TPP a "trade" agreement lets TPP supporters say people opposed to TPP are "anti-trade."
TPP Is A Corporate/Investor Rights Agreement
TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, and that is the problem.
TPP extends patents, copyrights and other monopolies so investors can collect "rents."
TPP elevates corporations and corporate profits to and above the level of governments. TPP lets corporations sue governments for laws and regulations that cause them to be less profitable. Enabling tobacco companies to sue governments because anti-smoking campaigns limit profits has nothing to do with trade. Enabling corporations to sue states that try to regulate fracking has nothing to do with trade.
While giving corporations a special channel to sue governments, labor, environmental, consumer and other "stakeholder" organizations do not get a channel for enforcement. This helps enable corporations to break unions, force wages down and pollute without cost. This increases the power of corporations over governments - and us.
Who Says?
Paul Krugman, "This Is Not A Trade Agreement":
One thing that should be totally obvious, however, is that it's off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb. For this is not a trade agreement. It's about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharmaceutical companies and firms that want to sue governments.
Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in "No, the TPP Won't Be Good for the Middle Class":
...TPP (like nearly all trade agreements the U.S. signs) is not a "free trade agreement"--instead it's a treaty that will specify just who will be protected from international competition and who will not. And the strongest and most comprehensive protections offered are by far those for U.S. corporate interests. Finally, there are international economic agreements that the United States could be negotiating to help the American middle class. They would look nothing like the TPP.
Jim Hightower, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not about free trade. It's a corporate coup d'etat-against us!":
TPP is a "trade deal" that mostly does not deal with trade. In fact, of the 29 chapters in this document, only five cover traditional trade matters!
The other two dozen chapters amount to a devilish "partnership" for corporate protectionism. They create sweeping new "rights" and escape hatches to protect multinational corporations from accountability to our governments... and to us.
On OurFuture.org," Economist Jeffrey Sachs Says NO to the TPP and the TAFTA Trade Treaties":
Without touching on the unpopular Fast-Track mechanism necessary to pass these two treaties, Sachs laid out five reasons why, on the substance, they should not be passed or ratified:
1. They are not trade treaties, but agreements aimed at protecting investors.
Josh Barro, "But What Does the Trade Deal Mean if You're Not a Cheesemaker?"
Much of the controversy is because the T.P.P. isn't really (just) a trade agreement. (There's a reason I called it an "economic agreement" at the top.) A lot of it is about labor, environmental standards, intellectual property and access to markets for services like banking and accounting. And in contrast with the tariff cuts, there's a lot more reason to worry that some of the agreement's non-trade provisions would hurt the world economy even as they benefited specific industries.
Techdirt, "If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong":
Instead, trade agreements have become a sort of secret playground for big corporations to abuse the process and force favorable regulations to be put in place around the globe.
... If you make the facile assumption that the TPP is actually about free trade, then you might be confused about all the hubbub about it. If you actually take the time to understand that much of what's in there has nothing to do with free trade and, in fact, may be the opposite of free trade, you realize why there's so much concern.
Timothy B. Lee at VOX, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is great for elites. Is it good for anyone else?":
In the past, debates about trade deals have mostly been about trade. ... In contrast, debates over the TPP mostly haven't focused on its trade provisions.
[. . .] As the opportunities for trade liberalization have dwindled, the nature of trade agreements has shifted. They're no longer just about removing barriers to trade. They've become a mechanism for setting global economic rules more generally.
... We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these -- it's secretive, it's dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.
Former IMF chief economist [Simon Johnson] on the problems with TPP:
The Trans Pacific Partnership is a notorious, secretly negotiated trade deal; from leaks we know that it continues "Investor State Resolution" clauses that allow foreign companies to sue to overturn national labor and environmental laws. Johnson's analysis stresses that trade agreements can be good for countries, but they aren't necessarily good -- and when they're negotiated in secret, they rarely go well.
Stop calling TPP a trade agreement. It is a corporate/investor rights agreement.