People do not want to invest in a market that they feel will cheat them. And when certain hedge funds and the very wealthy make profits in terms of the percentage of the money they invest that are far greater than the profits as percentages of the invested money of ordinary and small investors, then we must question whether everyone is playing by the same rules.

They aren't.

The game is rigged. We need fair rules that apply to all investors. Inside information should not be traded on. And we need some way to make sure that it is not traded on. That's one example. The most obvious one.

And no conflicts of interest should be permitted between an investment company and its clients.

YES globalization will help bring around new middle classes...just so the 1% can destroy them too. America is running low on middle class workers. Bottom line is hurting.

Commerce never has the best interests of the state at heart, ever. It might cost money.

Think about it. It is about competition, supply & demand, etc. Businesses -- especially the big ones have significant freedom to move around the world to find the cheap labor (fewer labor laws, environmental regulations, etc) but labor doesn't have similar freedom (not even close) to move around the world to find the better wages & benefits creating this massive imbalance. More free trade means more freedom for businesses to find the cheap labor crippling the Unions bargaining power here as well not to mention the US.

Look at it from the other way. Where is the cheapest labor with the fewest options? Asia & Africa's poor which Arabian Peninsula countries import the cheap labor (Globalization at its finest).

Revealed: Qatar's World Cup 'slaves'

Dozens of Nepalese migrant labourers have died in Qatar in recent weeks and thousands more are enduring appalling labour abuses, a Guardian investigation has found, raising serious questions about Qatar's preparations to host the 2022 World Cup.

This summer, Nepalese workers died at a rate of almost one a day in Qatar, many of them young men who had sudden heart attacks. The investigation found evidence to suggest that thousands of Nepalese, who make up the single largest group of labourers in Qatar, face exploitation and abuses that amount to modern-day slavery, as defined by the International Labour Organisation, during a building binge paving the way for 2022.

The investigation also reveals:
Advertisement

• Evidence of forced labour on a huge World Cup infrastructure project.

• Some Nepalese men have alleged that they have not been paid for months and have had their salaries retained to stop them running away.

• Some workers on other sites say employers routinely confiscate passports and refuse to issue ID cards, in effect reducing them to the status of illegal aliens.

• Some labourers say they have been denied access to free drinking water in the desert heat.

• About 30 Nepalese sought refuge at their embassy in Doha to escape the brutal conditions of their employment.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/revealed-qatars-world-cup-slaves

This kind of labor has no options to find the better jobs, wages, & benefits they are actually often tricked into thinking they are getting a great job working at a fancy hotel in Dubai but are actually going to Iraq.



John Owens didn’t realize how different his job would be from his last 27 years in construction until he signed on with First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting in November 2005. Working as general foreman, he would be overseeing an army of workers building the largest, most expensive and heavily fortified US embassy in the world. Scheduled to open in 2007, the sprawling complex near the Tigris River will equal Vatican City in size.

Not one of the five different US embassy sites he had worked on around the world compared to the mess he describes. Armenia, Bulgaria, Angola, Cameroon and Cambodia all had their share of dictators, violence and economic disruption, but the companies building the embassies were always fair and professional, he says. The Kuwait-based company building the $592-million Baghdad project is the exception. Brutal and inhumane, he says “I’ve never seen a project more fucked up. Every US labor law was broken.”

No Questions Asked

By March 2006, First Kuwaiti’s operation began looking even sketchier to Owens as he boarded a nondescript white jet on his way back to Baghdad following some R&R in Kuwait city. He remembers being surrounded by about 50 First Kuwaiti laborers freshly hired from the Philippines and India. Everyone was holding boarding passes to Dubai – not to Baghdad.

“I thought there was some sort of mix up and I was getting on the wrong plane,” says the 48-year-old Floridian who once worked as a fisherman with his father before moving into the construction business.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14173

Globalization at its finest. Instead of more trade how about some free immigration agreements or free labor agreements "Free labor" I like that.

Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire (/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛr-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French piece and literally translates "let (it/them) do," but in this context usually means "let it be," or "let it go."

(wiki page for Laissez faire -- it appears I'm going to have to make my own editions for whatever links I find)

The "trickle-down" theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
—William Blum[1]

Supply side economics is an economics theory built around the idea that by giving the rich enough money, tax breaks and deregulation, they will be freed from the constraints that allegedly prevent them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people. In turn, by expanding their businesses and employee pools, they will expand and fortify the nation's economic strength. According to John Kenneth Galbraith, the theory dates back to the 1890s when it was called horse and sparrow theory -- i.e., if you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows. Regrettably, it's a pretty inefficient way to feed sparrows. Panic of 1896

<snip>

The term trickle down economics was first coined by comedian Will Rogers, in reference to Hoover administrations handing out money to the wealthy, hoping it would get to the poor during the great depression. Rogers said, "Money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[4] John F Kennedy used the less wrong macroeconomic idiom that "a rising tide lifts all boats”.[5] Jesse Jackson opined in the 1984 democratic national convention that, "Rising tides don't lift all boats, particularly those stuck at the bottom. For the boats stuck at the bottom there's a misery index." Perhaps thirsty from all these money as water metaphors; the Bush family purchased 100,000 acres in the Paraguayan Chaco; giving them access to the Guarani aquifer, one of the largest fresh water reserves in the world.[6]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supply_side_economics

Never mind I found this but a lot of people don't know trickle-down was responsible for the Panic of 1896

Timeline of Trickle-Down Economics: From the Roaring Twenties — to the Great Depression — to the Great Recession — to the Present

In 1921 The Revenue Act of 1921 was passed. Near the end of the first Gilded Age (currently it's the Second Gilded Age) a Republican tax reduction was pushed by then-Secretary of the Treasury (and banker) Andrew Mellon, who had argued that a significant tax reduction was necessary in order to spur economic expansion. (Sound familiar?) Mellon obtained a repeal of the wartime excess profits tax. The top marginal tax rate on wealthy individuals fell from 73 to 58 percent — and the preferential treatment for capital gains was first introduced at a rate of 12.5 percent. This was when Calvin Coolidge was our President (a Republican small-government conservative) who ushered in the Roaring Twenties before Herbert Hoover (another Republican President) was elected, who ushered in the Great Depression.
From 1933 to 1945: FDR - The New Deal and the Glass–Steagall Act (regulating the banks).
From 1963 to 1969: LBJ - The War on Poverty and The Great Society (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)
In 1971 (during Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon's time in office) we had the Powell Memo, which was " a call to arms" for corporations, and was first published on August 23rd.
In 1979, both union membership and manufacturing jobs had peaked (as did the American middle-class). That year Jimmy Carter drastically lowered the capital gains tax rate from 39% to 28%. Some say it was he who really started "Reaganomics".
In 1981 Ronald Reagan further reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%, decreased the top marginal tax rate on wages from 70% to 50% (now at 36.9%) and increased the estate tax exemption — which is currently over $10 million per couple, for those who wish to perpetuate the lazy fortunes of their trust fund babies. (Ronnie later raised the tax on capital gains back to the 28% rate in 1987 to help pay for "Star Wars".)
In 1989 Kodak began outsourcing.
In 1994 Bill Clinton gave us the NAFTA trade agreement = lots of lost jobs.
In 1998 Bill Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%
In 1999 Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, repealing much of the Glass–Steagall Act.
In 2000 Bill Clinton gave us PNTR with China. Since then, our trade deficit has soared — which cost us more than another 3 million lost jobs.
In 2001 we got the Bush tax cuts (that lowered the capital gains tax rate to 15% in 2003) and the U.S. taxpayers got two unfunded wars in return.
In 2005/06 the housing bubble peaked and the market began a slow decline, before later, finally crashing (deregulated banks, financial derivatives, sub-prime mortgages, etc.)
In 2007, just seven months before the Great Recession "officially" began, The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 was passed (It went up to a poverty-level $7.25 an hour as of 2008).
In 2008 (under George W. Bush) federal extended benefits were created for the long-term unemployed. Later that year the credit default swaps (derivatives) and the sub-prime mortgages hit the fan and crashed the stock market. The DOW went from 14,093.08 in October 2007 to 6,626.94 in March 2009. (As of this post, it closed near another all-time record high at 18,047.58)
In 2009 (June) the government told us that the Great Recession was over. But since that time, 11 million more Americans have left the work force; and we still have 9 million more who are counted as "unemployed". Many of the new jobs have been part-time, or low-paying, or temporary, or as “independent contractors”. 65% of college grads end up living with their parents because they can’t find work. Meanwhile, all the economic gains since the recession was " officially" over went to the top one percent.
In 2010 Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts (that were set to expire by January 2011) for two more years as a "compromise" with the GOP to extend federal unemployment benefits (that G.W. Bush first enacted) for one more year. Also during that year, a very weak Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed — and it still hasn't been fully enforced, and it's still under attack (mostly by the GOP, but with too many fake Democrats on board.)

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/timeline-trickle-down-economics-explained-beginners-5686

Truman made the best arguments against it of any President in State of the Union addresses & speeches. Thought it was discredited with public example of the The Great Depression so they renamed it, repackaged it, & resold it during Reagan but it was nothing new. In fact an economist (too lazy to look for the link) wrote a paper critiquing the theory in 1940 published it when Reagan was running for office.

“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” - Harry Truman

Every word is the truth & still is true today, amazing how some things never change after all these years but essentially Warren's argument is correct.

negotiated the FDR-proposed International Trade Organization (ITO) and tried unsuccessfully to get it through a republican-controlled congress.

GATT became effective in 1948 and was the multilateral organization governing international trade until 1995 when it evolved into the WTO (with GATT rules still in place). GATT was intended to be a temporary bridge to govern trade until FDR's ITO could be finalized and adopted.

GATT was viewed as an agreement under the provisions of US Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934, and hence did not require approval of Congress. It was considered a provisional agreement that would be replaced once the ITO became operational to take over its functions.

So GATT began its provisional existence on January 1, 1948, when 23 contracting parties signed the agreement. However, US Congress refused in 1950 to ratify the treaty establishing the ITO.

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/gatt.htm

The ITO:

The original intention was to create a third institution to handle the trade side of international economic cooperation, joining the two “Bretton Woods” institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Over 50 countries participated in negotiations to create an International Trade Organization (ITO) as a specialized agency of the United Nations. The draft ITO Charter was ambitious. It extended beyond world trade disciplines, to include rules on employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investment, and services. The aim was to create the ITO at a UN Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana, Cuba in 1947.

The Havana conference began on 21 November 1947, less than a month after GATT was signed. The ITO Charter was finally agreed in Havana in March 1948, but ratification in some national legislatures proved impossible. The most serious opposition was in the US Congress, even though the US government had been one of the driving forces. In 1950, the United States government announced that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the Havana Charter, and the ITO was effectively dead.

https://www.wto.org/English/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm

You notice the rules on employment restrictive practices.

Warren was making a case on regulation or lack thereof just leads to the rich getting richer & the poor becoming poorer. Today Obama's strongest TPP allies are Republicans who haven't changed since the Hoover administration.

On edit -- the OP was about regulation here argument his 100% correct which can be proven by the Roaring 20's, I wasn't making an argument about TPP one way or the other (I have posted them elsewhere)

to combat progressivism with nothing but derision. Never do I see a post like yours that provides arguments to promote whatever they think they stand for. They, of course, deem themselves on the side of goodness to justify their behavior.

I come to DU to learn about what's going on around us. Try to find the truth and work to make things better. I come here to read posts like yours to help me understand. Thanks for the post. Consider making it an OP so we can bookmark it. And I hope you don't mind if I use parts of it.

The powerful want us to give them our power and that will free them up to make things "safer" for us. I think that's how totalitarianism is sold.

When I use the term I simply mean putting money into the pockets of the top, CEOs, etc.

TPP is especially about that since US foreign policy is primarily about dominating global trade -- everything. Russia & the other guys are merely a check at-this-point but controlling what they can & more if possible.

Essentially, it’s a US-Japan bilateral trade treaty that might complement the US-Japan security treaty.

KUALA LUMPUR: The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) appears essentially to be coming down to a US-Japan bilateral trade treaty that might complement the US-Japan security treaty, according to Forbes in a comment piece.

<snip>

Furthermore, it added, the architects of the post-World War II trade régime sought to de-geo-politicise trade. “It is probably impossible to do so completely. TPP, however, is highly geopolitical and highly geopolitically divisive.”

<snip>

TPP was a really strange mélange of 12 members including five from the Americas (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the US), five from Asia (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam), along with Australia and New Zealand.

Missing are large Asian economies, notably South Korea, India and Indonesia, all three members of the G20.

Also missing of course is China; but that would seem to be deliberate, the economic arsenal of Washington’s (supposedly) strategic pivot to Asia, the fundamental aim of which is to contain China. “Thus TPP is above all a geopolitical ploy with trade as a decoy,” said Forbes.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/04/10/tpp-makes-no-economic-sense/

I shouldn't of phrased my post as "Globalization destroys" above as I don't believe that. For years I have often heard because of we live in a globalized economy we must concede the jobs or Bill Gates ask for more H1B Visas because of "losing talent to the competition in a globalized economy" Opened "Microsoft Vancouver" during Congress negotiations with a warning of what else he'll do if they don't agree. There is so much Bill Gates isn't telling you, like OK what about Green Cards? They offer the same labor rights as citizens IIRC certainly more than H1B. That is just an example anyway.

I can see how that post above could get confused. Increasing free trade & with which countries (I could post a list of "cleared advisers" for the TPP). Like Singapore & Vietnam could hurt Malaysia's manufacturing sector which a US technology firm argued they are "better than China"

Malaysia offers some manufacturing benefits over China

Summary:Global electronics manufacturer Flextronics says Malaysia can be more cost-effective than China with its lower tax and stricter intellectual property protection regimes, but rising wages a potential concern.

Cost-efficiency differences
Despite the common perception of cheaper production costs in China, Shandley pointed out that it can be more cost-effective to consider manufacturing in Malaysia to reach Asian markets for some products.

China's labor costs might be relatively cheaper but Malaysia offers cost savings from other areas, which then leads to a better overall cost of a few cents per unit, he said. "One key reason is the taxes, such as China's value-added tax, which is charged on non-China companies and can be at about 4 percent. That is something which Malaysia doesn't have," he pointed out.

However, manufacturers in Malaysia will have to monitor its rising wage cost level in order to remain competitive. According to Shandley, Flextronics Malaysia has witnessed over 20 percent year-on-year increase in overall wages for both direct and non-direct labor, and this is before the impact of the country's new minimum wage law kicks in.

Two weeks ago, Malaysia introduced a minimum wage aimed at helping the lowest paid workers meet the rising cost of living. The new law would see workers receive a minimum wage of least 800 ringgit to 900 ringgit (US$255 to US$287), and would take effect for most companies in six months' time.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/malaysia-offers-some-manufacturing-benefits-over-china/

This is from 2012 I wonder I'd guess their wages are probably higher now but their last trade deal was bad for them. Malaysians have been protesting recently.

TPPA protest reflects Malaysia’s fall from grace

The most eloquent tirade has been by Dr Mahathir (pic), reflecting the opaqueness by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry in releasing details of the TPPA mooted at the sidelines of APEC 2011.

The country's longest-serving prime minister's arguments reflect how far Malaysia has fallen among its neighbours with uncompetitive businessmen still hankering for protection in an age of open markets and a rising cost of living due to a weak currency.

In his blog post two days ago, Dr Mahathir went at length to talk about the pacts that have not benefitted Malaysia including the Malaysia-Singapore water agreements.

"The first agreement lapsed in 2011 and we did not renegotiate at all. The next agreement will lapse in 2060. So we will be getting 3 sen per 1,000 gallons of raw water when the cost of living has probably gone up many-many times.

"Today, the Singapore dollar is 21/2 times the value of the Malaysian ringgit. At the time of the agreement it was one to one. Are we receiving payment in Singapore dollars or Malaysian ringgit? Or is this a secret also?" he asked.

The question is why has the Singapore dollar strengthened and the ringgit weakened to that extent when both currencies were at parity when the two countries separated in 1965.

Do we still want to be known as a low-cost producing nation when the government is pushing for a high-income economy by 2020? Will we do it at the expense of weakening our ringgit and by looking for low-cost labour and exempting them from minimum wage policies?

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/tppa-protest-reflects-malaysias-fall-from-grace

Singapore is part of TPP who hurt Malaysia's economy last time. Fool me once.... However, I fail to see how any of this translates to more US jobs. I just don't see it.

On edit -- Feel free to use any of my posts, I'm just grabbing it from the internet anyway.

Rec