n/t

Telling us that's what good for the 1% is good for us and to get the fuck off our unicorns!?

and other intellectual property is a good thing.

generic drugs thereby costing patients way more and a big wind fall for the drug giants.

issue than a trade issue.

documents, takes precedence over sovereign rules.

Be specific as to what you think would happen.

It's not the Trans Pacific Partnership TREATY or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment TREATY

Why are they not treaties? So the District of Criminals can get around the requirements for a treaty

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional free-trade agreement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a proposed free trade agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership


Just like NAFTA was an AGREEMENT not a TREATY
The North American Free Trade Agreement

This is not difficult, unless one makes it so

Requires congressional approval, period.

It is not technically a treaty that requires 2/3rds approval, but it does require congressional action, under "congressional-executive agreements."

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

As the Wikipedia page notes, actual 2/3rds treaties are rather rare.

You'll get an up and down vote in some lame duck congress passing it.

Hopefully we'll protest it like SOPA, but given how apathetic we are becoming, it's unlikely.

you with your knowledge ... they with their speculative opinions?

Apparently, many not only don't know how trade agreements work; but don't understand that, in negotiations, drafts are just that ... drafts, to be negotiated. {Again, sigh}

alllowed to write Trade AGreements for the people of the US while their Representatives are DENIED access to what they are writing???

And why would anyone defend this, especially here on DU?

THERE IS NO AGREEMENT.

Question: Do you know what happens when/if the trade "partners" come to terms? Congress gets to review it and ratify it ... or not.

I still don't understand why is it so important to see/know anything other than what's in the final agreement?

Thanks, now I've heard everything. Iow, we don't need no elected Reps. We have Corps to write our Legislation, including Foreign Corps. Who would never, ever allow any conflict of interest to influence what they write.

And then we simply use Congress to 'ratify' legislation written by Corps who promise them big donations to stay in their jobs or NOT if they refuse to sign on the dotted line.

I guess I completely misunderstood the role of Congress.

I have been under the 'false' impression that the US Congress writes US Legislation. That they have public discussions about legislation they are planning to implement so the public is fully informed of what they are doing in our name.

Then they vote for different parts of the legislation, there is some compromise etc until finally a bill containing legislation that has been judged and agreed to by CONGRESS, is best for the AMERICAN PEOPLE is placed on the floor.

All along the PEOPLE KNOW what is being discussed by THEIR REPS so they are engaged in what is going to seriously affect their lives.

But apparently I was wrong. It is NOT Congress who legislates, it is Corporations and Congress' role now is to simply rubber stamp Corporate Legislation.

Thanks for the civics lesson!

You'll have to forgive me if I remain 'hysterical' as you put it.

That's how agreements like TPP can make an end run around Congress. Suppose a new law against evergreening clears Congress. Drug companies can then sue from an outside legal body and collect settlements from the US government for any resulting lost profits.

Our laws, and the laws of our co-signatories like Australia, will be under pressure to conform to the agreement. Not the other way around.

In fact, ISDR has prompted some Australian lawmakers to call for it's exit from the TPP for that very reason.

Bill to ban investor-state dispute settlements garners support

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/bill-to-ban-investor-state-dispute-settlements-garners-support

passed a law in contravention of the already signed agreement (which has not passed) and that there was actual damage, and therefore, lost profits. It's not based on speculative earnings.

There is no "outside body." If TPP passes, then we will have agreed to its methods of dispute resolution by Congressional action.

the people who elected them. I guess that means the Big Corps who now run this country don't AGREE WITH YOU. They think Congress's only role is to sign THEIR bill, many of them foreign Corporations, into law are not get elected next time.

Now tell us again what we already know and have been demanding for quite some time. YES, Trade Agreements SHOULD be Congress's business. So, why is Congress being refused, over and over again, from seeing this agreement??

I prefer that my leaders carry the torch of Jefferson, supporting small farms and the free exchange of biological resources we inherit from the commons. The TPP and other trade agreements are the leading edge of a vicious modern enclosure movement that steals from farmers past, present, and future.

-app

of the fact that he's the Founding Father to which almost all American patent law can be traced to?

When you are carrying the torch of Jefferson, you are actually advocating for more patents. Heck, Jefferson even had a few.

Last edited Fri Oct 17, 2014, 03:37 PM - Edit history (2)

I am quite familiar with Jefferson's role in early US patent law, but thank you for your concern.



Jefferson's approach to patents is neatly summarized at the Monticello website:

I think you have a very romantic view of Jefferson..after all, he considered people property.

And how is the travel desk he patented a "machine?" Seems his definition was a bit more expansive.

You could be right about Jefferson, though I still choose to believe that he would have sided with small farms over big corporations like Syngenta, BASF, Monsanto, etc. Since he's not around to weigh-in, the point is academic at best.

Regardless, I think that the present application of patent law to biological entities is disastrous, and that the TPP threatens to worsen the matter considerably. With regards to living advocates of a better path, I would cite Vandana Shiva, Jack Kloppenburg, and George Monbiot, to name just a few.

Despite my sarcasm above, I really hope you do read the Linux for Lettuce article I linked above. It describes the problems caused by plant patents very well. We can do better than this, and we definitely deserve to demand better from this Democratic administration.



-app

As were the pro-corporate talking points.

This moment, right before elections, is when our voices matter the most.

I will.

Both parties will want to revolt against the other if this occurs. I bet it's another bankster plan to divide and conquer us.

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

We've let this happen.

Empty houses and a few stragglers. A few gun nuts and the odd throwback to the 60's. Nothing to threaten corporate rule.

attempt at fascist takeover. Are they afraid, naive, or complicit?

will do all their thinking for them. The book "The Authoritarians" spells it out very good.

And stop calling me Alex.

Hitler sent goosestepping patent clerks to go round up copyright violators.

First they came for the patent clerks and I did nothing. Then they went after the copyright violates and I had dinner. But when they came for those torrenting mp3s of Paul McCartney and Bruce Springsteen, I finally stared calling them fascists because it was the best way for me to rationalize theft...

books....but then publishes whole works of other authors on wikileaks.

You seem to bring out the eager-to-show-how-little-i-can-address-the-point crowd!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Seriously.....the hype over this has reached a level of hysteria that defies reason.

the leaked drafts (I am told by the leakers) are really, really bad (I am told by the leakers) ...

Wait ... in negotiations, aren't draft documents, merely the memorialization of negotiating points?

deal for those one the fringe Left who need to make hay about TPP...and it will tighten patent enforcement. Stealing intellectual property might become more difficult.

But yeah...your essential point that these are memorialized negotiation points is borne out by the OP...note that patents on surgical techniques has dropped between drafts.

And further, a "good" trade agreement will include enhanced wage and working conditions and environmental protections ... something that (I read) the U.S. is promoting/insisting on; but is NEVER talked about here.

and environmental protections...they just want to be able to steal intellectual property at will.

who is currently, unavailable.

Once again ... some are willfully being manipulated.

Makes me wonder if people stop to think about what they are reading and have read before lighting their hair on fire.

TPP is evil ... end of discussion.

The fact that it is in negotiations and nothing (little) has been finalized, is immaterial.

Hard to figure what is sarcasm here anymore. The criticism of anything the President does is so far over the top most days.

I should have put the sarcasm thingy.

its mine and the folks whose ODS makes sarcasm detection difficult.

without engaging critical thinking skills.

chance of passing. And, there is no chance it will be fast-tracked.

Truth is, a good trade agreement makes a lot of sense, and America can't sit back and let others come up with an agreement cutting us out. But, it has to be a good agreement.

So, it is worth trying to come up with a good one. In this type of agreement, there is no way for it to be hammered out to be presented to each countries government, with everyone having a direct say. In the end, it will get plenty of consideration when Congress begins reviewing it, holding hearings, playing politics, blaming Obama, etc. I really don't expect anything to pass in the next few years. But, it's good to get everyone upset.

Christ, it's like trying to plan a big wedding by committee (reason my late wife and I went to a Justice of the Peace).

ie, a paternalistic view that the people won't stop it like they did SOPA.

they will blindly support it. Jim Jones would love em.

is the correct answer.

Kick

K&R

Thank you.

[font size=3]We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
[font size=2]
-George Orwell

It is way past time to stop pretending that these corporatists are just another flavor of Democrat or Republican within a still-functioning democratic system.

Their agenda is antidemocratic, from mass surveillance to the criminalization of journalism and protest, to "Kill Lists" and indefinite detention, to secret laws and secret courts, to propaganda machines, to these "trade agreements" that trash democratic protections and hand power over human beings to corporations.

These people are a menace to democracy.

The clue that Krugman is spouting nonsense is his claim that "trade among these players is already fairly free...".

When a huge American corporation manufactures most of its products in China, such that it buys a majority of the output of several Chinese companies, that American corporation effectively controls the economic existence of all those suppliers.

Its Chinese suppliers HAVE to obey the American corporation's demands as to product quality and price, among other business decisions, or lose profitability, and possibly go out of business.

In short, the American corporation already controls this trade. It can also prevent the Chinese corporation from finding new customers by threatening to cancel trade with that Chinese manufacturer should that Chinese company attempt to sell to another company doing business in the U.S.

In other words, the huge American corporation totally controls its markets to prevent competition. TPP would lock up governments' ability to intervene on behalf of national companies to prevent anti-competitive practices by the large corporations.

Think of the TPP as doing for manufacturing companies what repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act did for the banks and Wall Street.

I am not much impressed with any of the big-name economists including Krugman. I learned to decipher their doublespeak many years ago when I earned my degree in economics.

"Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions."

Supra-national arbitration panels would render decisions against national governments if they pass laws that impinge on a company's earnings. If a country like Brazil, for example, were a party to an agreement like this, the capital controls it used earlier this year in response to headlong capital flight would be a violation of the agreement. Goldman, Morgan, and all the rest would be able to seek redress against Brazil, not in its own courts, but in an unelected tribunal of dubious legitimacy. Someone might be able to accept that certain crimes, like genocide, should be tried as offenses against humanity in a supra-national tribunal, but a bunch of hot money speculators losing a few bucks because a sovereign, elected government tried to defend its economy?

As for Nobel Laureates in economics, I am compelled to note that both Hayek and Friedman could claim the same. Krugman has his moments, but it's useful to remember that his prize came from his shilling for virtually unrestricted free trade. He's not exactly a neutral observer on issues like this.

for keeping an eye on potential sources of dissent, to engage in propaganda and message control, and to sustain the illusion of vigorous democracy.

Anyone who was here before 2008 and paid close attention over time was able to observe the wholly unnatural influx/expansion of pro-corporate personas and the increasing relentlessness of the corporate messaging here.

The Third Way keeps telling us we're not being oppressed, because we're still able to type opinions on the internet, but that's an absurd measure of whether or not oppression is happening. In fact, we're seeing a systematic assault by corporate politicians on every single avenue Americans have traditionally relied upon in order to defend ourselves from corporate abuse and usurpation of our Constitutional protections.

I wrote a pretty long post about this:

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)

And the right wingers on network news are for it, so basically nobody hears about it.

It's easy not to notice, but Canada has been run for the last 8 years by a far-right neocon named Stephen Harper, who is every bit as conservative as Bush, though he has to pursue his agenda more slowly and more covertly than Bush.

That's because 2/3 of the country dislike him and his policies, never voted for him, but we split our votes between three parties, thus allowing Harper to rule based on support from just over a third of the voters.

Canada is a political mess right now. Until Harper is defeated, don't expect anything from our government, other than support for everything corporatist and right wing.

I admit voting twice for Obama - I worked to elect him in 2008 but in 2012...well it's that "fool me once....." saying that Dubya deliciously mangled. But he was FDR compared to the candidate version of Randolph Duke. And that's the problem with the two party monopoly, we need multiple parties and IRV.

the right-wing parties tend to take control and are hard to shake off. In the case of Japan, for example, there are currently 6 or 7 different recognized political parties, yet the right-of-center LDP has held the reins of government for all but 4 years or so since 1955! The right-wing parties tend to be more cohesive, while the left-wing parties tend to splinter off more easily.

do this to us?

He will leave the WH in a few years and there is a lecture circuit paved with gold out there.

People will already pay through the nose to have him as a speaker. He doesn't need TPP to do that.

There is a reason greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. It knows no bounds. All major parties involved in TPP will get their fill if it passes whether they need it or not.

It's still Congress' responsibility but fast-tracking negotiations means that 535 other 'cooks' don't get a chance to screw it all up from the start.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

It is still -and always will be- the responsibility of Congress to read and understand what they are voting on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

below have it too good and we need to be punished. Enter the flaming pile of shit known as TPP.

The pop music and movies they make are hardly worth stealing. No one is stealing them except maybe the Chinese who can sell it within their own market. Most people I know just download their crap because its new just long enough to see or hear it before its deleted in exchange for hard drive space for the next ones. Almost no one is stealing, then reselling, their crap. Basically, this law will create criminals where none existed before. Maybe they can appoint a "Patent Czar," since Czars are their answer for everything.

Christ, when a politician in Iceland suggested it a year or so ago, the paroxysms of ecstasy some experienced were downright volcanic.

The U.S. is not interested in fair trade agreements.

The U.S. believes in monopolies and control over the markets.

The U.S. is not concerned with the needs of its citizens, or the needs of citizens in other countries.

The U.S. does not follow international laws.

The U.S. represents the needs of Wall Street and corporations.

The U.S. is a rogue nation that uses its military for 'its national interests'.

couldn't trump US law...

Oh wait, it can't. Remember how we told Republicans how stupid they were about the UN Arms Trade Treaty? Same fucking thing.

Once ratified, treaties become US law. Congress may need to pass new laws to fully implement the treaty, but once that's done, the treaty itself sits co-equal with federal law. So, a ratified treaty that contradicts existing federal law would take precedence over the existing federal law because last in time usually wins when federal laws (or their equivalents) contradict.

Once again, going back to the UN Gun trade resolution, Repubs where up in arms that it would repeal the 2nd amendment, when in actuality, no treaty can do that. Same here. The TPP cannot trump the constitution. But don't let that stop hair flambe.

Your original post said US law, so I went with that. No treaty can contradict the constitution, but it's always useful to remember that we live under a moronic belief that the court is the only arbiter of the constitution (a power definitely not delegated to the court by the document itself). As long as people continue to consider the court the final word on the constitution, it will continue to mean what a majority of its justices say it means.

Obama wants a fast track law and the house already has a bill. If we lose the Senate their first order of business is going to be pushing it through.