he US and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called free-trade agreements; in fact, they were managedtrade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the EU. Today, such deals are more often referred to as partnerships, as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming increasingly resistant.
Right on, Mr. Stiglitz... and that Obama is shamelessly lying by stating that this trade pact is to PROTECT the Middle Class and create jobs is such complete falsehood as to warrant impeachment... were it not for the fact that he answers to the same deep pocketed interests that financed his Presidential campaigns to the tune of $2billion + dollars.
It's a good thing that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and a few others are speaking openly about what otherwise would be decided, signed, sealed, and delivered behind corporately closed doors all under the fading guise of Democracy and/or transparency in government activity.
As bad DEAL as TPP is I bet in the end the corporations will win...Most of the Democrats that are against it will eventually back it because of all the money that will be showered upon them and they will claim some benefit from voting yes but the bottom line will be $$$ that is the life blood of lawmakers....They should all be fired for gross misconduct and graft and corruption...Selling out citizens in favor of investors...I say fk all investors...If I have to chose freedom or investors then fk investors.
The future of US workers is that due to what is likely to become a global race to the bottom as our current model really shows its age, Americans are very likely to soon be forced into direct competition for the same jobs as others in a global trade in services community. i do not think this is fair to us in the developed countries, nor is it fair to those in developing countries. Both groups would rather stay home and realize their common dreams, (while ending the ever increasing corruption they both are plagued by) however both groups threaten for various reasons the power structure's aspirations of seeing large gains from pitting them against one another as jobs dry up.
The pending TISA trade deal will likely lead to this occurring sooner rather than later.
Here is how it works: (Source Link)
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 i 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.
Actually, in my opinion, Joseph Stiglitz's title here is very good because they are indeed secret corporate agendas hidden from the public by dishonesty. I am attempting to explain this as best as I can although I am in no way an expert. One thing which shines through with the current FTAs is they borrow extensively from their trade deals in the past making referring to those other deals essential. Without doing that for TTIP and TISA by means of their two so called "mandate" documents, which refer extensively to GATS, one would never realize just how agressively the two FTAs try to force an extremist neoliberal future without compassion or adaptability on the world, for the sole benefit of corporations, irreversibly. In short, they are trying to use the lack of understanding of what is perhaps the most dense and arcane area of international law as a method to take over the world by a lawyers trick. Taking advantage of our misplaced trust and fatigue, to hijack away all that is good about government, built up by the now 2700 year old Western tradition of democracy.
The TTIP mandate document is at http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf
The TISA mandate is at http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6891-2013-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf
The problem is that few it seems have done any research on the controversial GATS and why its resurrection is such an attack on the public interest, and so they miss why it is so wrong.