it reminds me of the Seven Cities of Gold myth, waving jobs in front of poor countries if they can only tender the lowest bids.

Hillary would never do that to US if it was within her power to stop, she would find some way to stop it even if that wasn't allowed.

Bill would have never signed an agreement that did that in 1994.

They have invested 20 years in the General Agreement on Trade in Services and its repeatedly stalled on the services/Mode Four issue. (But the media always leaves it out because of its oft-alleged "sensitivity" here)

After their Cabinet minister representative came home from Nairobi "empty handed" a few weeks ago, one really huge poor country was supposedly really angry.

The country that makes half the drugs taken in the US, which makes the hated GENERIC drugs that the US really wants to stop. The most populous nation in the world. The nation whose center-right neoliberal govenment, which has been compared to both Obama and Clinton, that got rid of its right to education last year "for the WTO" so they could join the services deal (which really means FOR US), "commodifying" higher education. (eliminating free education right which was Constitutional)

They are by all accounts (even Hillary's and Obama's, in speeches given to gatherings of top leaders there) helping us solve our increasingly numerous "labour crisis".

(Don't jump to conclusions on the excess deaths amenable to improved access to health care.)

Did they make a deal. Behind closed doors?

I don't think they would tell Cuts-geneva.org or even South Centre. Nor has Third World Network seemed to pick up on it.

IATP.org has a recent story on the WTO solar ruling described below.

Most foreign countries though do seem to get the Obama habit of messaging this way. Because it seems its common in authoritarian countries to message by proxy.

To announce the still pending deal, they used Obama's world famous clueless Americans-safe signalling technique, WTO issued a ruling, a few weeks ago, that explains the framing.

To make it even clearer, USTR announced it, saying it was a coded message.

What do you think?

I don't remember the early beginnings, at least what you're talking about.

Having the debate about privatizing everything now. We all should look back in our memories to 1993-1994. The URAA, etc. No more welfare or public programs, etc.


I distinctly remember hearing it discussed on Pacifica once.

I try to watch some BBC World News in the morning, and follow up on DU posts, but with a disabled kid and an ailing MIL to care for, my reading time is limited. Thanks for the starter.

I think most voters aren't going to be familiar with all of the mechanics and tradeoffs on these deals. Lots of us are barely keeping our heads above water in news and information, and I never would have thought to read India Times, etc. For most people the issue becomes personal when they hear they need to retrain, but not before training their foreign counterparts as they prep for unemployment.

Highly recommended

of Coolidge and Hoover who had adopted high tariffs. FDR lowered those tariffs with a series of bilateral trade agreements then near the end of WWII proposed an international trade organization that would govern trading rules to prevent countries from reverting back to high tariffs and make trade easier. FDR wanted to make trade 'freer'.

http://www.iatp.org/blog/201602/obama-undermines-climate-efforts-in-solar-trade-dispute

Now the whole New Deal pretty much is irreversibly off limits to WTO members (like us) or will be soon. This started 20 years ago but its only coming to fruition now with all the delays in negotiations they have had over Mode Four and other North-South issues.. this issue is not quite the same but the message should be loud and clear, the NewDeal type stimulus is now off the table.

Its a whole new world for government procurement they are creating, smaller companies that can't globalize will miss out on millions of possible contracts from liberalisation of former public sector service sectors. With our high labor costs the US firms will likely make extensive use of automation to keep costs down. The need to have the lowest qualified bid to win the work likely will drive a boom in automation or international subcontracting.

as well. Free trade is killing us.

Fast Trak though, they think that's just the ticket to get the Doha Round and Mode Four wrapped up. This time they mean BUSINESS. After 20 years of false starts.

The developing countries are getting ready.

in healthcare, teaching, IT and soon, energy.

Who would have known, that the national healthcare plan would become impossibly expensive because of adverse selection after five years just like all those states did?

WHO, would have known?

(SCHIP! Cobra, the States Flatline paper? none of them say flat out that "Obamacare" wouldbecome too expensive afer five years. Why the word "Obamacare" hadnt even been made up in 2008 when the States Flatline paper was published.


And Nancy Pelosis said after all, that we had to pass the seven foot tall bill to see what was in it.

How many people have been helped, and how many discouraged from getting curative care by cost?

Excess deaths excess schmeaths. We're all math challenged here in Amurica! International laws Helsinki Declarations, Nuremberg Code. what does 350 million informed consents MEAN?

MATH is HARD!

Hillary is friends with Henry Kissinger. Whose name is even in my spell checker. (which I should use more)

with other countries?

Should each country unilaterally establish its own definition of 'fair', decide on its own when another country has violated that standard then determine the penalty (tariff, quota, etc.) that it will impose? Or can the standards, dispute resolution and penalty determination and enforcement be negotiated with other countries?

This is the WTO's guide on how to read a service sector..

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/guide1_e.htm
However, that applies to the 1995 WTO services agreement, the one being put together now in Geneva has an important difference, defined as "negative list" - which means its scope, which is defined the same was as GATS - but in reverse in terms of horizontal commitments- instead of opt in its opt out.. in other words, all service sectors and modes of supply start out committed and must be excluded by a carve out.

So, suppose a country wants to preserve some area, a good example is "audiovisual services" which the EU wants to preserve the right to control and hire domestically, country by country, financing protected national film industries, they have had to carve it out.

Otherwise, you could have the winning bidders from some other country become entitled to make a history of French films. They could not control who won.

to overrule the old ones that do not enforce fair trade or renegotiate the terms of existing ones to make this happen.

which they have been gearing up to help us address.. the negotiations stretch back 20 years..

When people around the world think of the WTO they think of Bill Clinton, even though he was never DG of the WTO, and as far as I know no American ever has been (which is kind of strange, actually)

and sellout of our manufacturing base would be hilarious
if it wasn't so sad

This person has made the TPP a highlight of his admin

This person mocked and ridiculed Ross Perot for pointing out the obvious- people were too deluded to note the importance of it- too much kool-aid



It took a D to pass NAFTA (if an R did it the D's would have been outraged)
That's why a D is going for broke with the TPP, the TTIP and TISA

It's a big circus and we're all in it
Please stop by the new Dwarf tossing attraction

That is what the big issue.

Free Trade only benefits the one percenters. Fair Trade benefits everyone (will maybe not everyone, but most people will).