Trans-pacific trade pact is coming to a close - what's in our future?

originally posted by: Majic
At least we can be confident that our futures aren't being decided by secret behind-the-scenes deals without our knowledge.

That would be downright despicable.

Most transparent administration ever. Elections have consequences.

a reply to: deadlyhope

No national govt who is a signatory to the deal will even consider passing any laws at all until it has been OK'd by the big corproations first due to the clauses in the deal about reparations for laws which are harmful to the interests of the international corporate govts, sorry, I meant corporations.

The big corproations have effectively beome the govt by virute of their ability to give or withhold their assent to the law.

Where do the layalties of national govts lie when they agree to these sorts of deals for 'their people.'

Just goes to show none of these deals should be allowed to become law unitl they have been passed by a referundem of the people in the respective country. Any such assent by the pople should have an automatic sunset clause it in that unless its re-ratified in a future referundem, it expires and is no longer in force.

a reply to: deadlyhope

It's great when there are many providers of a product or service, but developing that product takes time lets use medication for an example. It costs an average of $2.6 billion to get a drug to market these days, of which the US government subsidizes about 50%. So a drug company needs to generate $1.3 billion on any medication they can actually sell just to break even. Typically drug patents are for 7 years (can be more or less depending on how long testing goes on). If the illness being treated generates 100,000 cases per year in the US that's 700,000 treatments that need to fund the $1.3 billion expense before we even get into profit margins which means 1,857,000 per person in treatment costs. Any competitor doesn't have that $1.3 billion in expense, it costs a couple million at the most to reverse engineer a drug, and then they can sell at a far lower cost and they will do so. As a result the person who developed the medication will never recoup their investment and will either go out of business or cease to develop new medications.

Patents may be annoying but they have an important function in society. Patents spur innovation by giving the inventor exclusive rights to market their invention for a time. When patent laws are weak what you instead end up with is everyone looking to copy historically successful models and no one looking to take a risk and innovate for themselves.

a reply to: Aazadan

In a true Free Market, for all, there would be no patents.
That is protectionism.

How would you like it if some high skilled workers shelled out thousands of dollars for an education and said noone else can learn it because it will lower their earning potential?

We have all heard to saying, if someone can do your job cheaper, you are overpaid.
If someone can make it cheaper, you are also overpaid.

And I have distance relatives making 7 figures in Big Pharma as saleman, nevermind how much the head honchos make.
They do not want to take a paycut like everyone else in this globalist utopia so they want everyone to prop them up.

Maybe they should shovel more of that money towards research rather than purchasing puppet politicians to do their bidding.

www.opensecrets.org...

Top Lobbying Industries

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $3,146,090,212
Insurance $2,190,651,832
Electric Utilities $2,013,127,133
Electronics Mfg & Equip $1,823,347,451
Business Associations $1,811,811,643
Oil & Gas $1,715,405,541
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $1,416,425,661
Education $1,399,862,870
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $1,310,021,801
Telecom Services $1,271,840,866
Securities & Investment $1,264,774,284
Civil Servants/Public Officials $1,216,181,432
Real Estate $1,215,135,758
Health Professionals $1,189,983,794
Air Transport $1,125,384,003
Misc Issues $929,225,311
Automotive $891,793,138
Defense Aerospace $887,354,553
Health Services/HMOs $863,410,051
TV/Movies/Music $851,379,595

originally posted by: jacobe001
That is protectionism.

We have all heard to saying, if someone can do your job cheaper, you are overpaid.
If someone can make it cheaper, you are also overpaid.

Protectionism is necessary and I'll prove it right now. I don't know your profession but I bet that if I outsourced your job to a member of the lower caste in India or perhaps a place like Somalia I could get a person who would do your job for 1/10 what you do it for and perhaps even less than that. The fact that I can't always do that is a direct result of protectionism.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: jacobe001
That is protectionism.

We have all heard to saying, if someone can do your job cheaper, you are overpaid.
If someone can make it cheaper, you are also overpaid.

Protectionism is necessary and I'll prove it right now. I don't know your profession but I bet that if I outsourced your job to a member of the lower caste in India or perhaps a place like Somalia I could get a person who would do your job for 1/10 what you do it for and perhaps even less than that. The fact that I can't always do that is a direct result of protectionism.

Tell that to the millions of workers that lost their job when the companies moved overseas for greater profits or bribed politicians to bring in H1B Workers in many skilled professions to this country.

They want protections for themselves but none for anyone else and that is what has been taking place for the last 20 years.
The Corporate Fascists that own our government are destroying this country

What's in our future?

Doom....doom
economic and moral Doom!

a reply to: jacobe001

Them being hypocrites has no bearing on the argument. Corporations are legally required to seek the greatest shareholder return. That doesn't mean however that it's not a good idea to practice protectionism, both to protect corporate innovation and to protect our labor force.

In a free market only one group wins, and that's the group living in the area with the most deflated but trusted currency.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jacobe001

Them being hypocrites has no bearing on the argument. Corporations are legally required to seek the greatest shareholder return. That doesn't mean however that it's not a good idea to practice protectionism, both to protect corporate innovation and to protect our labor force.

In a free market only one group wins, and that's the group living in the area with the most deflated but trusted currency.

Yes

Corporations main concern is profits for shareholders and executives
Politicians main concern should be tailoring policies beneficial to all in this country in accordance with the Constitution.

Does the opening in the Preamble below look like something you think Big Business would be concerned about and tailor policies in accordance with it?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In 1970, there were less than 200 corporate and banking lobbying offices in DC
In 2015, there are well over 2000 corporate and banking lobbying offices in DC

Look where we are at now. Record Profits for Corporations and Wall Street and stagnant wages for everyone else.

They have absolutely no business infesting our government when profits is their only concern rather than the Constitutional best interests of this nation.

www.opensecrets.org...

TOP LOBBYING SECTORS

Misc Business $6,475,074,239
Health $6,382,737,984
Finance/Insur/RealEst $6,361,287,751
Communic/Electronics $5,206,690,371
Energy/Nat Resource $4,706,049,338
Other $3,350,694,508
Transportation $3,219,680,597
Ideology/Single-Issue $2,073,159,556
Agribusiness $1,910,858,997
Defense $1,819,714,550
Construction $694,573,137
Labor $629,156,951
Lawyers & Lobbyists $429,259,405

www.opensecrets.org...

REVOLVING DOOR

Here are your politicians and lobbyists

35 out of 40 Goldman Sachs lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
53 out of 61 Citigroup Inc lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
58 out of 69 JPMorgan Chase & Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
20 out of 25 Morgan Stanley lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs


85 out of 114 General Electric lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
36 out of 48 Koch Industries lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
116 out of 141 Comcast Corp lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
76 out of 103 Wal-Mart Stores lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
22 out of 30 Monsanto Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs



69 out of 109 Lockheed Martin lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
40 out of 51 Honeywell International lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
51 out of 67 Raytheon Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
96 out of 133 General Dynamics lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
32 out of 49 Northrop Grumman lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
83 out of 115 Boeing Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs

a reply to: jacobe001

Do you know the best way to stop the revolving door? Stop making them short term appointed positions and instead make them long term cross administration careers.

The revolving door has to do with regulation. The theory goes that those who should regulate an industry are those who have spent a career inside of that industry who know how it works and can enforce needed changes. The problem is that these positions typically last a maximum of 4 years and sometimes even less than that. Which means once a person is no longer a regulator, they have to go back to work in the industry they were regulating. Are banks going to rehire someone who was an opponent during their time as a regulator?

We can only fix this by making the regulation side of the industry a career as well, and that means it needs to exist across multiple administrations. That will end the revolving door, people will pick one side or the other and that's the end of it.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Well, we don't entirely know. Another aca type moment seems to be happening "we have to pass it to know what's in it" it seems to be kept quite secretive, though some rumors do suggest business executives have access to, and helped write said document.

Congress now has months to scrutinize every word of the agreement before passage.

The idea that the initial negotiating team should include all of congress is silly.

The public and congress will have many months to debate whether this should be signed off on, going into a presidential election...so I have no doubt it will be a public discussion.

This deal will get more scrutiny before passage than any previous trade deal in history.

That is just one reason I am not so worried about it.