... that the TPP is not about the 99% is to look at who is for it.

And by 'US firms', he means companies whose executives and shareholders are often US citizens, but whose employees are, for the most part, made up of cheaper foreign labour.

already had huge increases in exports overseas.

Self-regulation for usa dairys and the takeover of Americas public lands with cattle that graze for a couple dollars lease a month(and a federal gov that fixes up the ruined land for corps 'free') = massive profits.

That includes beef from not only the US, but Canada, Australia, and China as well.

Free trade agreements are often declarations of open season on small farmers.

areas is zoned to prevent local small farms from even starting again.

October 2014

snip*William K.BLACK: So we actually have a discussion of regulation, which is quite amazing, because there hasn't been much of any serious discussion of regulation. It's in the context of this silly thing about Larry Summers and Janet Yellen and such.

But I--caused me to look back at Larry Summers, not in terms of what he did in terms of deregulation, but what was his explanation for why he did it, what's his theory, in other words, of regulation. And it comes down to brilliance versus, in his phrase, idiots.

And, of course, the classic example that he gave was in creating the regulatory black hole known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which he was all in favor of. And this is to remove all regulatory authority over these complex financial derivatives.

What's his rationale? His rationale was that both sides to the contract, both typically corporations, were financially sophisticated. And because both corporations were financially sophisticated, fraud couldn't occur.

And so what he's missed, of course, is that corporations don't make decisions and they don't implement decisions--people do. And the officers could be quite sophisticated, and they could be ripping off the corporation and the firm, which is precisely what we saw all through this crisis.

So in the first level, Summers has forgotten that it's not a question of intelligence; it's the fact that the only people that can protect the corporation from loss are the very senior officers who are looting the corporation. So he missed it, I argue, on that whole concept of intelligence.

But he goes beyond that. He explains why he didn't believe in modern finance. And this is something that he got some credit for, indeed should get some credit for, because, after all, the UChicago folks were even crazier. They had this this view of markets of always self-correcting and always being on the direction towards perfection. And Larry Summers' position was that that was wrong. But if you look back at why, he actually said it this starkly in a meeting: there are idiots. In other words, markets would be efficient but for idiots. And, again, this misses the entire concept of fraud by sophisticated CEOs. So it's consistent with his general view that IQ is what all of this is about.

And his final example is that he wants the regulators, the financial regulators to be given the equivalent, if you think of them as doctors, of only bone saws, things, you know, that are really rough and ready, no precision, certainly no scalpels, and certainly no laser surgery, because regulators aren't very bright, whereas the industry is really bright and therefore will always be ahead of the regulators--except that's that's not true. It certainly wasn't true in the savings and loan debacle, where the markets got it wrong consistently. It certainly wasn't correct in the Enron era, where they got it wrong consistently. And it wasn't correct in this one. Indeed, there's testimony in front of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that the Federal Reserve economists--and these are guys who really wanted the markets to be smarter than the regulators--did a study, and they couldn't find a single example. There's also testimony from the head of the office of the comptroller of the currency, another guy who didn't believe in regulation, who said, well, the only guys in our shop that got it right were the little guys, the examiners, who, of course, are closest to the facts.

So Summers, with this really arrogant view that intelligence is everything and that regulators can't be very bright, consumers can't be very bright, and that the industry is composed of all geniuses, has missed every fundamental dynamic of what's critical to regulation, what's critical to enforcement, and what's critical to preventing crimes.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10679

"So Summers, with this really arrogant view that intelligence is everything and that regulators can't be very bright, consumers can't be very bright, and that the industry is composed of all geniuses, has missed every fundamental dynamic of what's critical to regulation, what's critical to enforcement, and what's critical to preventing crimes."

a WH administration?

Although many on Wall Street would possibly leave the country upon said announcement. lol

If this is such an important agreement, let me see it, let's discuss it and then let's have Congress vote.

Why keep something you say is so very, very important to my future security, secret?

Odd that YOU can know what is so important for my security, but won't allow me the same information. Why? Do you think me stupid and unable to understand a complex document? I'll bet I can keep up with you.

Maybe the answer is simple. The TPP is a big crock of lies and deceit that is good for you and NOT for me, my family or my friends. Enough of my friends are already unemployed thanks to you and Bill and NAFTA, I doubt we really need your Toilet Paper Proposition on top of it.


On a different note. Thank you so much to all the Reps that voted down TAA last week. We won't forget you.

To those that voted for this stinking pile, we will remember you, too, and act accordingly.

Here's the list of Reps that voted FOR TAA and thus TPP: Ashford, Bass, Bera, Beyer, Blumenauer, Bonamici, Carney, Clyburn, Connolly, Cooper, Costa, Cuellar, Davis, Delaney, DelBene, Eshoo, Farr, Foster, Heck (WA), Himes, Hoyer (really? Wow!), Israel, Johnson (E.B.), Kilmer, Kind, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), Meeks, O'Rourke, Perlmutter, Peters, Pilis, Price (NC), Quigley, Rice (NY), Richmond, Schrader, Sewell (AL), Smith (WA), Wasserman Schultz (she really needs to go).

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml

Obama economic adviser, misogynist Harvard president, adviser to Hillary Clinton, all-round scumbag.

...with a rusty chainsaw. You know the rest.

It's actually quite intelligent and broad-minded, talking about both the benefits and risks of FTAs, the fact that we need to ensure that middle classes don't get left behind, that supporting other international institutions like the IMF and UN is just as important as free trade.

But any sort of nuance understanding of the policy issues that this country faces is anathema to reflexive Hillary/Obama-bashers.

this one entirely because of the way it was formatted on my tablet.

Your snark is almost as limp as your commentary on the article. Summers overwrought predictions on what will happen if this legislation doesn't pass, baldly conflicts with his sharp criticism of contemporary ftas and the process by which they're forged. His piece lacks intellectual consistency.

But do continue with your ill informed, one dimensional partisan cheerleading, danny.

nuance policy discussion. Obviously.

Here is my fear. Congress and the Senate have already approved the TPP moving forward. That is a done deal.

Now, congressional Republicans are refusing to authorize assistance to American workers who lose their jobs because of the TPP. Republicans are gambling on Obama moving forward with TPP and fuck the workers. Democrats are gambling on Obama NOT moving forward with TPP without that assistance.

Given Obama's record to date on letting Republicans get their way, and his going to the mat on the TPP, who do you think just made the better bet?

Also, was there a time limit on the TPP authorization? If not and this lingers past the next election, should a Republican get the White House, the TPP will definitely move forward without the TAA and fuck the wokers.

TPA only passed the Senate because of TAA. Democrats in the Senate only relented on the filibuster because of TAA. So no TAA is a dead-end.

Republican Senators only voted for TAA because of the Medicare cuts. Take out the Medicare cuts that stopped the bill in the House, and Republicans would keep the filibuster going in the Senate.

I hope the House and Senate Dems figure this out, as they'll certainly read his op-ed.

corporate dick? Supply side economics doesn't work unless your a multinational corporation.