Isn't that what a responsible democratic government like the US government should be doing?

Think about it before you answer.

The AFL-CIO complained for 5 years about 60+ murders of union activists while the corporate shills in the USTR position did NOTHING and other than issue a warning they still have done NOTHING.

CAFTA has done nothing to protect human beings and neither will the corporate give away called the TPP.

In this day and age there needs to be REAL legislation crafted in PUBLIC that PROTECTS people not just corporations and their profits.....

And it still shouldn't be the AFL-CIO's responsibility to fight all over the globe for human and worker's rights.

A true democracy should champion laws that protects workers and human rights. Just laws would not just protect corporations and their profits but also those of the people.

So, if you divide 7 by 2, the modulo is 1. If you divide 11 by 3, the modulo is 2.

My point was that the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" have hurt minorities incredibly, but putting those aside things have mostly been getting better.

7 is 1 modulo 2, but I would say that in that operation 1 is the remainder, not the modulo. The modulus is 2; my understanding is that "modulo" is the operation rather than any of the argument.

The nearest colloquial equivalent I can think of is probably "apart from".

going to enforce any law that does that because it is not in their interest. It was asked up thread if we wanted to ban importation from all countries that break these laws. That may be the only option. And yes we may need to go without our coffee, our bananas, and maybe even our medications.

This is one of the reasons I have insisted that items like medications should be seen as a national security issue and made here in the USA.

Mexico actuallly allows legitimate organization now, which they didn't before NAFTA.

Aren't these "trade agreements" largely about eliminating that drag on profitability?

An FTA sets up an international tribunal that is authorized to hear any disputes.

We don't have that with China or Bangladesh; any disputes are determined by their own courts.

People complain, "but sovereignty!". I don't care. The WTO will be more sympathetic to workers than a Bangladeshi court will.

Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2015, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Can't they get FIFA?



Local labor and environmental laws can slow the profit maximization of multinationals, thus slowing the rate of stock valuation--clearly an unacceptable situation to investors and CEOs. "Call the lawyers!"

Are privately appointed dispute tribunals any better than the FISA court? Or FIFA? I'll bet Jack Warner will be more than happy to help them circumvent those awful local laws.

they accountable to anyone? Who then has sovereignty? Multi-national corporations?

WTO - aren't they one of the international groups that are featured in disaster capitalism? Their bottom line is profit. To hell with the people.

Although we don’t yet know whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will give America’s workers a trade agreement that benefits them, what is known is cause for great concern. For example, with regard to labor rights, the outline reads, “TPP countries are discussing elements for a labor chapter that include commitments on labor rights protection and mechanisms to ensure cooperation, coordination and dialogue on labor issues of mutual concern,” but fails to mention International Labor Organization core labor standards or even whether the labor provisions will be enforceable. The TPP must not go back on the progress made in recent years. That’s why the AFL-CIO has been fighting hard for a strong labor chapter that ensures workers in any TPP country, including Vietnam, can exercise basic rights such as freedom of association and collective bargaining.

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP/Labor-Rights

It's too focused on US interests. For me to support it it will need to boost foreign agriculture more.

Labor provisions are, unions have been locked out of the negotiations, and the afl cio doesn't think the labor regs are going to be sufficient.

So why make this argument?

These are other countries which we don't control. Even if we want them to do things we can't make them.

... "surrender to the fascists, because even if you don't, they are going to screw you anyway."

Nice.

How Republican-like.

People want what is best for the economy and simply do not agree with you that the results are as you say they will be. Why are people not allowed to debate that? Without name calling?

Republicans WILL pass an FTA as soon as they can, and most likely without any labor or environmental standards.

Geebus cripes, another crap 3 letter POS hiding the fascist agenda?

... there are no ENFORCABLE labor or environmental standards in the Corporate Control Giveaway otherwise known as TPP.

Save it for the really gullible prols, this one KNOWS better.

TPP is the Corporate Giveaway's acronym.

There is NO ENFORCEMENT of any environmental standards or labor standards in the TPP, merely "suggestions," DELIBERATELY.

Prove me wrong. I fucking dare you.

... "environmental and labor standards" YOU claimed were in the TPP.

Till then, you are just flat fucking wrong, wrong, wrong.

Post it, I dare you again.

Suddenly silent, I see.

Ya got nothin'.

Which 'T' in TPP stands for trade?

"help" other countries.

I learned about what she was talking about in that book from African students who were in the USA going to college in the 70s. These organizations you seem to like took their countries from being able to feed themselves on small family farms to huge corporate farms that use the land to produce crops for export to people like us. Peanuts come to mind. The banks borrowed them huge amounts of money and then turned around and destroy their economy so that they have no choices.

was that clearly the Democratic party needs to move to the right. I shit you not.

The fascist agenda comes thru quite clearly.

are now taking the position that disagreeing with you on economic issues is surrendering to the fascists?

is to tariff them into the ground until it either becomes not-viable for American companies to do business in Bangladesh or until they bring their environmental/safety/labor standards up to US snuff.

In a nutshell, I have noticed the difference between us...you believe in diplomacy and treaties. My foreign policy is more Clausewitian...minus the overreliance on guns and combat. Nobody likes combat. Even Sun Tzu argued it should be avoided in favor of other means of coercion and politic. I believe if you're in a position to be a global hegemon that everybody else leans on to play Superman, you should have least get the perk of being allowed to use it to coerce other nations to mutual best interests from time-to-time.

Bangladesh subjected to heavy tariffs would be clamoring for an FTA on nearly any non-punitive terms to get out from under such tariffs.

It's not my view, but you are actually standing up for where your argument leads.

Yet I am the "corporate propagandist". Interesting.

don't mean anything?

I am beginning to see trade agreements as something people do not really understand or realize other people don't and think they can use it to divide by making up alarmist claims about them.

We survived NAFTA and had a good economy until Bush cut taxes and created the housing bubble and overspent on the military. Trade agreements have nothing to do with it.

Maybe open your eyes to anything happening outside the country it was always going to benefit most.

Mexico is a NAFTA signatory, and look what happened there.

I think I did say "we." And those are the terms being thrown about with regard to the TPP.

The NAFTA alarmist rhetoric was that Mexico would get all the jobs.

that in order to support these corporate lobbyist trade agreements one must be firmly believing in "trickle down" economics?

secret agreement negotiated by global corporations and neoliberal governments with no input from labor will be good for working people.

Obviously written and designed by and for corporations so for a working person to support this give away of power and attendant wealth to corporations one would have to be under the delusion that "trickle down" actually works.

It may be that the significant number of people who support these (insert silly perjoratives of choice here if you really must) trade agreements but don't believe in trickle-down economics are wrong.

But it's very straightforward to check that they exist.