Did you mean anarcho?

"Anarcho-corporatist" also doesn't make sense. They want to transfer power from state/public to corporations. They aren't anarchists because they aren't against organized power per se.

One of the underlying theories behind the corporatist Tran-Pacific Partnership agreement is that corporations have a right to profit and that government regulation violates that right. Therefore, the TPP establishes a kangaroo court manned by corporate shysters; a corporation made subject to regulation can take the offending government to this kangaroo court, which has the authority to fine the government and make it reimburse the corporation for lost profits.

As I understand capitalism, no business has any right to a profit. They have to earn it by selling a quality product at a reasonable price in the market place. Moreover, it is in the interest of the government to abate pollution, set standards for workplace safety and outlaw fraud. Anyone who thinks a free market is self-regulating probably read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager, resulting in the arrested development of his learning capability.

That is the damages they would receive (that's the speculation -- deciding what they would receive) and there is no jury of their peers or of the citizens of the countries involved helping to decide whether the speculative damages are at all reasonable. It's really way beyond reality. It's an invitation to fleece taxpayers in countries all over the world. It's a horror.

If a company never sold its product in Country XYZ, how can it estimate damages that approach reality?

Speculative damages are damages claimed by a plaintiff for losses that may occur in the future, but are highly improbable. They can not be used as a basis for recovery in tort or contract cases. Example: A plaintiff claims the tortfeasor's failure to deliver a shipment not only hurt his current sales, but also customer satisfaction and thus future sales as well.

There is, however, one way that speculative damages can be recovered. If the plaintiff can prove that the speculative damages are reasonably likely to occur, he can recover the damages up to the amount that is reasonably likely to occur. The damages do not have to be proven with absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty.[1]

For example, if the aforementioned small business owner claims that the tortfeasor's claims hurt his customer satisfaction, and proved it by showing security camera footage of one of his most frequent customers being so upset over the business' inability to deliver the product that he ordered that he stormed out of the store and vowed to never come back, then the business owner might have something. However, he would only be able to collect on future sales for that one customer, as no other customer's future sales are "reasonably likely to occur."
. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_damages


Speculative Damages

Alleged injuries or losses that are uncertain or contingent and cannot be used as a basis of recovery for tort or contract actions.

An individual cannot be compensated for mere speculative probability of future loss unless he can prove that such negative consequences can reasonably be expected to occur. The amount of damages sought in a lawsuit need not be established with absolute certainty provided they are anticipated with reasonable certainty. Where the plaintiff cannot establish with reasonable certainty that any injury resulted from the act of omission complained of, he might be entitled to recover nominal damages. Mere uncertainty concerning the measure or extent of damages does not preclude their recovery in either tort or contract cases.

When an individual seeks to recover Compensatory Damages, she must establish evidence of their nature and extent as well as some data from which they can be calculated. No extensive recovery can be founded upon guesswork alone. Recovery must be backed with evidence that justifies an inference that the damage award is a fair and reasonable form of compensation for the injury incurred. In addition, when compensatory damages can be proved with approximate accuracy and determined with some degree of certainty, it is essential that they be so proved. If evidence of damage from various causes exists, but no evidence is available as to the portion of damage that the defendant caused, the proof is too uncertain to allow the jury to award damages against the defendant.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Speculative+Damages

Maybe I have misunderstood what the TPP foresees, but it sounds like Speculative damages to me.

His one skill is to avoid sharks in the water he does that by swimming away from blood (reverse shark). Someone noticed this talent when he managed to avoid too much questioning about a dead intern in his office. Joe did not have enough stamina to do real dirty work in congress so they gave him a job where he could claim he was reasonable in spite of spouting the line of the day. In some ways he is also the Anti Fox which allows for occasional deception guised as criticism. Do not be fooled, do not provide this coward oxygen, do not watch his show or be fooled by the subservient frail woman who is allowed to make faces at Joe's propaganda script.

Excellent description. I kinda think they might have him in there to keep those who may be leaning Democrat from totally making the switch to the light side. He's just another one of their clowns.

I can't stand Joe, and I wouldn't watch his show if you paid me. I would feel sorry for my teevee, if I made it broadcast that garbage.

At times I see O'Really's little bro.

Sean Hannity ' freakin' clone. Can't tell them apart.

who consistently vote against their own best interests, hate the black man in the white house and are part of the 47% that voted for romsh.. are partly responsible for allowing our MSM to end up in corporate hands who have shills and scum like he, mika, oreally and others of their ilk in radio and television to spew their ideological poison. Thank god for maddow, o'donnell and bashir. Oh sorry right wing decapitated bashir and no one could stop it. Very sad to me the lack of a real cohesive progressive liberal movement in this country. At least as cohesive as the RW in this country.

I hope as Christie and his minions carry over lies into Court and there are multiple convictions, someday there is a movie for this drama so people can understand what has happened. As one who was around for Watergate and read extensively this story is more fascinating pure greed with mob overtones. It will be over when either the convicted start writing books how they have been born again or get a gig on Fox News.

I would have said Loathsome Joe's real job is to fool viewers into believing those corporate Dems are actually "liberal". His masters would like to disguise the fact that there is no "left" of any consequence in American politics anymore - it's only center right, right, and extreme right. I really do believe that's Joe's real purpose.