such a wide open nothing question.

They are very much worth reading.

... not a speed reader here. Way too much info for a quick answer here. Let's see: 1st one is Forum 17, 2nd one is Forum 22. WTO trade docs.

this will make it possible for the poor countries to sell services, oftentimes they have high skill workers, with advanced degrees and they will be getting access to other WTO countries services markets because procurement is being liberalized, whenever any government money is being spent, the logic goes that the government should not be undermining corporations by trying to monopolize that money, which is a large chunk of the economy. The contract will be put up for bidding in an e-procurement system that is part of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement.

What are services? Everything you cannot drop on your foot.

Which services wont be privatized? Ones where no money is involved at all, like politicians themselves. Services "service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" are exempt. In practice that exemption is very very narrow-


a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers

So we may see some huge changes in some quasi-governmental workplaces. But it will be very good for some countries with poor people who have good educations who up until now have been prevented from competing with the workers in the developed countries for work.

... proof's in the pudding. Me personally? Don't trust trade agreements. Negotiated behind doors. Written in legalese I don't understand unless I'm a paralegal, which I am not. Does it take jobs out of the USA? Or is this a trade agreement amongst Asian countries themselves? If this is a test of my trade or legal intelligence/expertise, then there you go, I flunk. Frankly, it sounds like allot of manipulating of the masses. The details are what always bring these big plans to a screeching halt years later.

Sorry, Baobab.
I'm usually very interested in what you bring to DU, but don't have much for you on this on.

>... proof's in the pudding.

Proof of what? the existence of these deals? Google WTO GATS "Mode Four" or 'TISA" "movement of natural persons" or "TTIP" "Government Procurement Agreement" Procurement is still not a sure thing in TTIP. if it goes in it will put the EU and the US in the same market as far as government procurement of goods and some services. (infrastructure construction, likely) You can find very little info on TTIP outsde of places like wikileaks, where there is probably less than there is for TPP and TiSA TiSA is likely to be the worst one for jobs. WTO GATS is the oldest of them, its the original one and it was signed in 1994, TiSA is supposed to eventually be merged with GATS.




> Me personally? Don't trust trade agreements. Negotiated behind doors. Written in legalese I don't understand unless I'm a paralegal, which I am not.

Well, you're right to feel that way because they are a war against all of us and irreversible, and they are likely to radically change our futures.

>Does it take jobs out of the USA?

basically it allows an ever growing number of purchasers (this rocess cannot be reversed once started) to get the "benefits" of outsourcing here in the US. Its assumed that there will be winners and losers and that the losers are us. thats understood. Everybody involved in this has kept it quiet for that reason. -

>Or is this a trade agreement amongst Asian countries themselves?

There is one of those too RCEP- but i am not talking about that.

>If this is a test of my trade or legal intelligence/expertise, then there you go, I flunk. Frankly, it sounds like allot of manipulating of the masses.

Frankly, once the deal is moving, the masses will no longer be in the loop. It wont concern them, they cant vote it away, its a one way process. people may go to their Congresspeople and Senators and President and nobody will stop them nor will they tell them that there is nothing they can do there. they are happy to provide promises of hope and change and everything, but it wil be like one of those buttons at the crosswalk you press that does nothing. Read my sig for some info on healthcare in that contest.

>The details are what always bring these big plans to a screeching halt years later.

Has never happened. plus the cost of buying our freedom - we would have to compensate corporations for lost expected profits- would bankrupt the country.

>Sorry, Baobab. I'm usually very interested in what you bring to DU, but don't have much for you on this on.

Something is wrong in this picture.

...there IS something wrong with this picture. My life is NOT theirs to manipulate and control, thank you. Or perhaps it is and I'm living in a dreamword? Are we all living in la-la land if we think we control our own lives?

Please tell me what you see that's wrong in this picture.

nt

... Different kind of "haven" Baobab. Yeah... I'll be living off my investments....
in H_E_A_V_E_N.

as if you didn't think these changes would have any effect on us.

lower wages across the quasi government sector- basically everything that uses tax money, and then that will give these global firms a presence here so they can start doing other kinds of work.. But its likely to be a disaster for most Americans (those who dont own businesses) and it ill lead to the crapification and destruction of accountability in health care and education and likely also IT- and there wont be entry level jobs, most Americsan will be forced to accept much lower wages i suspect because the lure of high profits is huge-


(NOTE- I am against this change, but in the interests of not ranting about it and how big of a mess this is going to be I am explaining it as if I agreed with it, I dont)


it will be bad for workers in the developed countries, (such as workers in the United States) but the total profits will be higher. Which is how its being justified-

There may be a race to the bottom on wages.

Basically, the people who have large enough businesses to hire subcontractors might get a huge increase in profitability. (by replacing their workforce with these subcontractors) Its hard to say how far it will go but the huge amount of energy thats gone into these trade agreements, bth new and the negotiations for GATS which go back 20 years- to 1994-

Imagine the huge increase in profits in businesses that currently employ professionals with high wages that are above global norms.

This is how they will build new infrastructure. They will have to globalize, even if they are promising that government spending will create jobs in the US, it will, but the entities that will perform those jobs is up to whoever is the lowest qualified bidders.

For a deeper understanding of how migration could equalize the price of labour in two trading
countries, consider figure one (from Senior Nello, 2005:145): There are two countries, Home
and Foreign. The total quantity of labour in the two countries is shown by the distance OhOf.
Before a fully free migration is allowed the distribution of labor is OhL in Home and OfL in
Foreign. The marginal product of labour is higher in Home than in foreign because the
capital/labor ratio is higher in Home. This is shown in the figure by the higher position of the
MPLh curve compared to the MPLf curve. Because of this the wage is higher in Home, at Wh
compared with the wage in Foreign at Wf. In short: Home symbolizes a developed country with
high automatization and high wages and Foreign a less developed country with abundant supply
of labour, low automatization and low wages. If migration is fully free between the two
countries and the workers are identical workers will migrate from Foreign to Home in pursuit of
higher wages. The migration will finally result in an equalized capital/labor ratio in the two
countries and thus equal marginal products of labor and equal wages, illustrated in the figure by
the wage level W' which could be seen as the world market price of labor as the world only
consists of the two countries Home and Foreign. The migration is illustrated in the figure by the
distance LL' which is the amount of workers that will move from Foreign to Home so that the
new distribution of labour becomes OhL' in Home and L'Of in Foreign.

Wages will thus decrease in Home and increase in Foreign resulting in a loss for the indigenous
workers in Home illustrated in the figure by the area a but a gain for the capital owners of the
areas a+b. In Foreign the workers get an increased income of areas c+d+e while the capital
owners lose areas d+e. The result in total is a net gain for the two countries by areas b+c which
is a gain resulting from higher efficiency in the use of the total resources of the two countries.
This simplified model of reality shows not only that there is a net gain but also that the
migration has clear redistributional effects, something that will be discussed below

TPP and TTIP.

My opinion of Obama has been forever changed since he started trying to sell that crap.

We had to give up public services, like affordable healthcare, remember?

No, you don't?