It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will GOP Congress 'Affirm' Legitimacy of State-Owned Businesses?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article about the not-so-heard-of-lately Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

It seems there might be some language that strongly suggests State/Government ownership of businesses is in play.

And the U.S. is involved.

Maybe this is why we are seeing lots of "Socialist" talk in the 2016 election Campaigns?

Read the whole article and see if this is confirmed.

No wonder Obama is pressing like crazy for this deal of the Century !!!!

Do Governments own Corporations? or do Corporations own Governments? Or is there even a difference?


TPP Text


Could be some creeping Fabian Socialism


Will GOP Congress 'Affirm' Legitimacy of State-Owned Businesses?


.........
An entire section of Obama's deal — Chapter 17 — is dedicated to defining the nature and status of the state-owned enterprises that will operate within the "free trade" zone Obama says he is creating.

It says that the term "state-owned enterprise means an enterprise: (a) that is principally engaged in commercial activities; and (b) in which a Party [1 of the 12 governments]: (i) directly owns more than 50 percent of the share capital; (ii) controls, through ownership interests, the exercise of more than 50 percent of the voting rights; or (iii) holds the power to appoint a majority of members of the board of directors or any other equivalent management body."


Chapter 17 further says: "Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from: (a) establishing or maintaining a state enterprise or a state-owned enterprise; or (b) designating a monopoly."

That means anyone hoping to establish state-owned enterprises in the United States can relax: The Trans-Pacific Partnership permits it.


Fabian Socialism / Marxist-Corporatism !!!




edit on Feb-03-2016 by xuenchen because: added TPP text link




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Why do you think people are saying the two most important things we are voting about this election is TPP and immigration. Both will absolutely sink our country.

Although I must say that that is not the only thing wrong with TPP.
edit on 3-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
many chinese companies are joint owned with the gov't. we've been dealing with them for years. I am wondering if this doesn't allow countries to have such arrangements and still be part of the accord, but I don't think it forces any company to allow their gov't to have such arrangements. Not having those arrangements in the US has I believe kind of been a handicap to us... I can't help wonder if this is more of an attempt by the US to negate some of the drawbacks for not having these arrangements with out corps. I haven't read the trade agreement of much about it, and I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if this is what it says although it wouldn't surprise me if in a few decades, as automation replaces more and more workers, we wouldn't find ourselves heading that way.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
here's the TPP from the government website....

TPP Text




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Didn't my dad spend four years of his life devoted to defeating this kind of a system back in 1940?
Arent we fighting a Cold war and several hot ones by proxy with another such system?
Did I miss the Memo?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


many chinese companies are joint owned with the gov't.

Like IBM's former PC division sold to the Chinese. It's called Lenovo. Here's the Wikipedia's information about certain PC security issues from last year.

-dex



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I'm also wondering why the TPP isn't a major debate among the candidates for president?




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

www.flushthetpp.org...

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.breitbart.com...

www.truthdig.com...

All links worth reading if people want to know what is wrong with TPP, and easier than trying to sift through the agreement.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

Good links.

Thank You




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Not a one. If one is 'generous' in that assessment, one could assume that those that are against it are being real, REAL careful in exposing their intent.


Naww, that's too generous. Who is going to bite the hand that feeds them, that allowed them to achieve that lofty position?

None of the above.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
This particular concern is rather ridiculous, don't you think?

What has been quoted seems to be a definition of what the TPP agreement recognizes as a government owned enterprise. How does a definition make it more likely or less likely for American government owned enterprises to operate in the United States.

Certainly, the TPP must acknowledge these enterprises, how can it not? How does recognizing that government owned enterprises exist change anything what-so-ever about the state of play in the United States? It is an existential fact that government owned enterprises exist, both in the United States and in the partner nations - all of them.

Of course, government owned enterprises can take unfair advantage and behave in uncompetitive ways. The TPP must have rules to remedy this situation. How can the TPP set rules for a government owned enterprise to operate fairly if it doesn't define what it means by a government owned enterprise?

In case you didn't know, the US does have a few government owned businesses that may (or may not) benefit from the TPP. The Post Office for example, or AMTRAK. I don't see the PO benefiting, but AMTRAK might.

Many of the other TPP partners have significant government owned enterprises. Their economies are in various stages of maturity and have various levels of engagement between business and government. You know China has a lot of government owned or controlled business, but they have a lot of absolutely private business too.

Here is another example from one of the TPP partner nations. Australia is almost pure American style capitalism. But just as America has taken control of AMTRAK because the private economy cannot/will not run it for the benefit of the national economy, it has embarked on a 'nation building' project to completely upgrade the national communications network by establishing a government owned enterprise called the 'National Broadband Network Company'. NBN Co. is charged with upgrading the entire network across the entire country. While the private networks have done a pretty good (albeit rather inconsistent) in the major population centers, rural Australia has been completely left behind. Probably, NBNCo will eventually be privatized. But for now, private enterprise cannot and/or will not perform the upgrades required to ensure that all of Australia can participate in the global economy of the future. NBNCo will undoubtedly benefit from the TPP.

The USA has similar issues, with large parts of the population completely 'blacked out' from access to any kind of mobile phone coverage, or limited to the choice of one carrier with a severely crippled service, or slow or non-existant broadband access. This limits the mobility and flexibility of business and workers, and denies companies and individuals the right to participate in the economy and society in general. That is a perversion of capitalism, and the government SHOULD move to remedy that situation, whether by a wholly owned enterprise, or granting concessions to provide subsidized services.

The United States has ALWAYS had government owned enterprises. The is nothing to "affirm" about the legitimacy of that fact. There is especially nothing to affirm about the legitimacy of government owned enterprises in the TPP partner nations - that 'legitimacy' has nothing what-so-ever to do with the US.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I'm also wondering why the TPP isn't a major debate among the candidates for president?



I don't think anyone actually understands it, I sure don't.

I just know that free trade necessarily doesn't come in the form of legislation, only repealing laws that prevent it.
edit on 3-2-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Sooner or later they will write the laws in such convolution that anything can be done. And then changed.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

If cognative dissonance could take physical form...

WTF first you want to insist that Socialism under any sub group is Statist. That people like Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Occupy Wallstreet, DSA blah blah blah are Marxist which you equate to Stalin and Mao. Then you want assert that the Tpp is our fault that it's what we want. How do you think it is that you know one goddamn little detail about it?

The people you label dirty, evil, take care of me, give me free stuff we don't care if it costs freedom or if Hitler (not socialist btw) reincarnates and is the one to hand it out, Socialist... are the ones who got their hands on it, risking the full wrath of the US government, risked leaking it, risked downloading it, risked disseminating it, protesting it and even us lowbies here on ATS have been trying to tell you about it for years. You want to blame us? Put us as the target for your latest circle jerk?

No. I think you can guess where I suggest you shove it.

By the way GOP Congress passed it.
edit on 2/4/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bandersnatch




Didn't my dad spend four years of his life devoted to defeating this kind of a system back in 1940?


Nope



Arent we fighting a Cold war and several hot ones by proxy with another such system?


Nope



Did I miss the Memo?


Don't think so.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join