Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho Free Trade Agreements Benefit
The documents are extremely complex and lengthy. Negotiations are kept largely secret, and include input designed to consolidate financial, economic and political power in the hands of a relatively few large corporations. Local and national regulatory powers of governments that restrict corporate power regarding environmental and consumer safety, as well as worker protections, are severely curtailed.
Environmental laws in some countries could be threatened by the lack of them in others creating incentives for companies to move operations to countries that are cheaper to produce in as a result of the lack of environmental regulations. This sets up a situation where there is a race to the bottom in terms of worker and environmental conditions and protections that encourages profit at the expense of the safety, welfare and well-being of the vast majority of people in all of the countries involved. Laws and practices detrimental to the environment tend to be viewed as externalities not affecting the corporate bottom line when regulations are not in place to prevent or forcefully discourage them. Everyone except the few that are profiting as a result pays a heavy price in terms of their health and safety.
Likewise, lax labor regulation, including areas such as wages, benefits and worker safety, may and do vary widely among the countries involved in the negotiations. Examples abound of large corporations contracting labor to produce items to be sold in developed countries such as the US at wages and under working conditions that most of us here find appalling. Sweatshops in countries such as China and Bangladesh have been in the news often in recent months and years. Major retailers and producers of consumer electronics are just two of the most prevalent abusers in this regard. We must act as responsible and conscientious consumers by pressuring them to do better, but removing what few restrictions exist to their abhorrent business practices is not the preferred solution. We are all responsible for what goes into the products we purchase, including the working and living conditions of those who make them.
Financial regulations such as some of those included in the Dodd-Frank financial reforms may be overridden and/or eliminated by provisions of the treaties relating to the international financial services industry. Some may be subjected to legal action in international courts enforcing the treaties and rendered meaningless, thus defeating the purpose of enacting them in the first place leaving us vulnerable to a replay of the financial crisis that decimated our economy at the end of the Bush administration. Financial regulations need to be strengthened, not weakened, as illustrated what happened to the world economy during the most recent recession. We have seen that usually those who end up paying for the mistakes made by the large financial corporations are not the same as those who actually make them. They play and we pay.
Environmental laws in some countries could be threatened by the lack of them in others creating incentives for companies to move operations to countries that are cheaper to produce in as a result of the lack of environmental regulations. This sets up a situation where there is a race to the bottom in terms of worker and environmental conditions and protections that encourages profit at the expense of the safety, welfare and well-being of the vast majority of people in all of the countries involved. Laws and practices detrimental to the environment tend to be viewed as externalities not affecting the corporate bottom line when regulations are not in place to prevent or forcefully discourage them. Everyone except the few that are profiting as a result pays a heavy price in terms of their health and safety.
Likewise, lax labor regulation, including areas such as wages, benefits and worker safety, may and do vary widely among the countries involved in the negotiations. Examples abound of large corporations contracting labor to produce items to be sold in developed countries such as the US at wages and under working conditions that most of us here find appalling. Sweatshops in countries such as China and Bangladesh have been in the news often in recent months and years. Major retailers and producers of consumer electronics are just two of the most prevalent abusers in this regard. We must act as responsible and conscientious consumers by pressuring them to do better, but removing what few restrictions exist to their abhorrent business practices is not the preferred solution. We are all responsible for what goes into the products we purchase, including the working and living conditions of those who make them.
Financial regulations such as some of those included in the Dodd-Frank financial reforms may be overridden and/or eliminated by provisions of the treaties relating to the international financial services industry. Some may be subjected to legal action in international courts enforcing the treaties and rendered meaningless, thus defeating the purpose of enacting them in the first place leaving us vulnerable to a replay of the financial crisis that decimated our economy at the end of the Bush administration. Financial regulations need to be strengthened, not weakened, as illustrated what happened to the world economy during the most recent recession. We have seen that usually those who end up paying for the mistakes made by the large financial corporations are not the same as those who actually make them. They play and we pay.
THE REST:
http://rcooley123.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/who-free-trade-agreements-benefit/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 660 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who Free Trade Agreements Benefit (Original Post)
Triana
Nov 2014
OP
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)1. Doesn't Have to Be That Way
Environmental laws in some countries could be threatened by the lack of them in others creating incentives for companies to move operations to countries that are cheaper to produce in as a result of the lack of environmental regulations. This sets up a situation where there is a race to the bottom in terms of worker and environmental conditions and protections that encourages profit at the expense of the safety, welfare and well-being of the vast majority of people in all of the countries involved.
Protection for workers and the environment should be part of the agreements, and be a mechanism for moving these standards UP, not down.
Of course, if they were actually doing that with the TPP, they would not have to keep the negotiations secret.
pampango
(24,692 posts)2. Good point. The 31-country European trade area has enforceable high labor and environmental standards.
The only way that we can get labor and human rights and environmental standards to be a part of international trade is to get them into binding, enforceable agreements as they have done in Europe. No country achieves this by unilateral action.
It does not appear to me, from what has been leaked so far, that this is part of the TPP.