posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:46 PM
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
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.