Home | About | Donate

Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Is Latest Threat to Our Democracy


#1

Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Is Latest Threat to Our Democracy

John Buell

Conservatives warn us that deficit spending will turn the U.S. into a fiscal basket case, like Greece. No longer truly independent, Greece is ruled by the IMF, the ECB, and the European Commission. What conservatives seldom point out is that membership in the Eurozone cost Greece control of its own currency, and thus the ability to combat recessions bound to occur in most capitalist economies. It thus becomes a prey to any corporatist experiment the troika implements.


#2

Well described: "...latest threat to our democracy." There'll be more, that's for sure. Turns out that most politicians (especially seditious Republicans) don't actually care about democracy, even though it sure looks that way when they wear flag pins.


#3

President Crock Obama, Liar and Traitor!


#5

"The unstated goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to undermine efforts to reduce economic inequality or compensate victims of environmental damage.

There is also another goal hidden in plain sight: the character of massive transnational corporate power is based on completely isolating the people at the origins of resources and raw materials from the consuming market - otherwise known as people of other societies.

This glaring aspect is the poison in the pill. It is becoming increasingly impossible to swallow slick sales of cheap goods. Why? Because people are becoming aware that human rights abuses especially of indigenous and traditional peoples the system is trying to force to "assimilate" to an abusive system with a history of genocide, ethnocide and ecological destruction and making war on anyone who does not allow these forces to extract whatever their whim of the moment is, couched in 'economic realities' that are totally different for 99% of the world's peoples.

WHY would anyone want to 'assimilate' into a system that is known to be a parasite on its own peoples?

The cleverness of the divide and conquer disease is in itself a deadly illness. People are seeing enough of the toxic loose ends poisoning virtually every thing, market and concept it touches, and what can't be seen is apparently so toxic that rebellion is very real in many places and a very real possibility all the others.

The good that continues to exist n the world is DESPITE the troops and tropes of an exceptionalistic blindness of stunning arrogance.


#6

Remember The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, passed in the final year of the Clinton Administration. The period at at the end of an Administration is often fraught with exit perils. Grand Bargain anyone?


#8

Corporate control over the state is one of the textbook definitions of fascism. That is what we have in the U.S. Democracy is long gone. The few families that own the central banks and their corporations also own the media, polls, voting machines, government, military/intelligence/police operations, and more. TPP is simply the final nail in the coffin, which would formalize corporate sovereignty over nation-states.

See coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-view-from-top-of-power-pyramid.html


#9

Adam Smith believed that markets were natural and would evolve
spontaneously. Today’s corporate conservatives, the so- called
neoliberals, take a less naïve view. Ardent supporters of markets, they
believe strong governments are needed to foster and sustain these.

I'm not really a scholar on the history of economic thinking, but I was struck by how much these sentences are at odds with what I learned in Economics 101 a half century ago.

My own understanding from Econ 101 is that Adam Smith and David Ricardo talked not so much about markets in general as they did about free markets and that they recognized that a free market was an idealized theoretical notion, not something that would likely ever exist in the real world. For a market to be a free market, there had to be total freedom for a buyer or seller to enter the market - and in particular this would mean that there could be no monopolies. And I was taught that as a practical matter this could never happen in a natural way. Rather, for a free market to exist there had to be government oversight to ensure that monopolies would not develop, as they surely would develop if left to their own nature.

However, in that idealized hypothetical situation of a free market, the magic hand of the free market would ensure that prices would magically adjust to balance supply with demand. My understanding is that Adam Smith made only one reference in The Wealth of Nations to the magic hand of the market and this very limited magic was all that he claimed it would do.

In contrast, the mantra of today's economic thinking seems to have been that government is irrelevant - that it needs to take a hands-off approach to the economy and our giant monopoly corporation do whatever they want. This would appear to be a total reversal from the position of the classical economists who favored free markets - as defined then - where large centers of economic power were prohibited. It appears that this magical reversal occurred by the linguistic trick of altering the meaning of a free market. The modern economists didn't so much put words into the mouth of Adam Smith; instead, they changed the very meaning of his words.