-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trans-Pacific Parnership
- Thread starter Jeremy Mason
- Start date
Alceste
Vagabond
Yeah, it's true. It's one of those things that makes me glad I'm not having kids. We're stampeding back to serfdom and arbitrary rule by the unaccountable rich. Heck, we're pretty much there already.
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
From the article:
The exclusion of China is glaringly obvious. China is the largest trade partner of most countries in the group, so I don't see the economic sense of cutting them out. I suspect that this is yet another attempt by the Obama administration to isolate China. All this fishing for markets and alliances makes me think of the "Race for Africa" in the late 1800s. That episode ended with World War I. Will the current race end with World War III? Probably -- and I say this, no matter who allies themselves with whom. If there is any benefit to anyone either way, it will probably be to the top 5% -- and not for long, at that.
Ironically, it is calamity and war that create an atmosphere conducive to economic equality. The more peace in the world, the more the economic machinery hums, the fewer barriers to trade, the more money passes through the hands of the few. That's just the way it is.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
From the article:
The exclusion of China is glaringly obvious. China is the largest trade partner of most countries in the group, so I don't see the economic sense of cutting them out. I suspect that this is yet another attempt by the Obama administration to isolate China. All this fishing for markets and alliances makes me think of the "Race for Africa" in the late 1800s. That episode ended with World War I. Will the current race end with World War III? Probably -- and I say this, no matter who allies themselves with whom. If there is any benefit to anyone either way, it will probably be to the top 5% -- and not for long, at that.
Ironically, it is calamity and war that create an atmosphere conducive to economic equality. The more peace in the world, the more the economic machinery hums, the fewer barriers to trade, the more money passes through the hands of the few. That's just the way it is.
This isn't an Obama initiative and it's not about geopolitics. It's an agreement crafted by and for corporations and lobbyists to help them make more money by bypassing various national laws that interfere with their profits. Like laws protecting labour and the environment. It's been in the works for longer than Obama's been president, I think.
Alceste
Vagabond
The wiki is pretty comprehensive:
Trans-Pacific Partnership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trans-Pacific Partnership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alceste
Vagabond
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Only until Americans are willing to work for third world wages.
It wouldn't be so bad if we didn't pay three times as much as the rest of the world for most goods and services.
Alceste
Vagabond
Actually, everything is cheaper in the US than Canada, Australia or New Zealand. We're gonna be even more screwed than you are.
I can't wait until the likes of BP can start suing governments for violating a secret treaty by enforcing labour or environmental protection laws. Won't that be awesome? Oh, and it will be great when all the signatory countries have to comply with intellectual property and patent rules that were written by the US pharmaceutical industry and the MPAA and never subjected to public scrutiny or parliamentary debate.
Woo hoo. The future looks so very bright.
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
Hi, Metis
Yes, I remember; so you are not alone (and neither am I!). I voted for Ross, because I heard the great "suck". I was unemployed at the time, with a college degree. At that time, the favorite bogeyman was Mexico, and now it's China.
It's all about geopolitics. The economics of it is straightforward: We build highways and container ports, then complain that people use them to sell us cheap goods. Local economies can't keep up with the competition, because we are now competing not with our neighbors, but with the leanest, meanest producers the world has to offer; and we don't want to get lean and mean. None of this says we should be favoring Japan over China in trade: That's a political decision. Leaders like Obama need a bogeyman, so they have an excuse to grow government bigger and bigger, and more and more intrusive. Whoever succeeds him, be he Democrat, Republican or American Independent (Perot's old party, for you young'ns) will continue the same policies for the same reasons.
Talk about "big business" is misleading. The biggest business in the US, by a HUGE margin is and has for year been the US Government. Just look at your own pay stub, and see where the money goes. It doesn't go to Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil or Apple. It goes first to Federal and State governments, then to your bank, then to the insurance industry. Wal-Mart, Exxon and Apple then compete for a share of what's left; while Big Government doles out your money to a bloated bureaucracy and to Lockheed Martin; your insurance company pays your medical bills, and your bank pays someone like you who used them to sell their home to you; and a bit to the Canadians and Mexicans who built your car (all the while the bank is skimming a handsome share off the top for itself). The President and his cronies, meanwhile, have life made in the shade with book royalties, Nobel Prizes, free golf and jet fare, nice clothes for their wives, and a generally jolly bag of kudus. After retirement, they can look forward to lucrative careers as corporate lawyers and professors, or generally as tuxedo-donning lip movers.
It's a beautiful day out where I live. I think I'll go out and feed the hummingbirds. I see a recent change in your religious label. Drop me a personal post on that, if you wish.
Shalom shalom
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Big government" is neither intrinsically good nor bad, and the size of government needs to be variable, depending on what needs to be done. Personally, I would much rather have the "big government" that my cousins have in Sweden than the more proportionally limited government that we have here in the States.
Alceste
Vagabond
Exactly. Agreements like the TPP establish a whole new political paradigm: NO government for corporations, and a great big honking government for the rest of us, whose primary function is to impose the demands of our corporate overlords regardless of what is in our own best interest. No taxes or tariffs for corporations or financiers while the rest of us are forced to pick up the slack.
What I want is a government that is just big enough to defend the public interest by protecting us from the worst excesses of sociopathic profit-motivated entities. A government just large enough to implement and enforce labour and environmental regulations and deliver the public services to which we have become accustomed. Roads, schools, fire departments, health care, and a social safety net for those who slip through the cracks.
To me, the notion of our democratically elected governments negotiating binding agreements in total secrecy with corporate interests and ramrodding the result through with no public debate is a total obscenity.
Thank heavens for wikileaks. Without them, we would know nothing at all. Because of them, we can at least view the chapters on environmental protection and intellectual property. (Both pretty obnoxious, IMO).
Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - IP Chapter
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not to overplay the "Sweden card", is that there are a couple of the things I also like that they do have is what are called "sunshine laws" accompanied by the oversight and suggestions of a nonpartisan (hopefully) ombudsman. Many subsidy and some other bills are passed with limitations on time, but as the end due date gets closer, they are open publicly for review (they used to be put on tables in times past-- thus why "sunshine" was used in the labeling-- but now it's done on computer), and an ombudsman makes suggestions based on his/her research of the matter. Before parliamentary voting, people would have a chance to voice suggestions for changes, no changes, or total elimination of the bill.
Alceste
Vagabond
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
[youtube]Rkgx1C_S6ls[/youtube]
Giant Sucking Sound - Ross Perot 1992 Presidential Debate.flv - YouTube
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Alceste
Vagabond
I too refuse to have children. Welcome to Thunder Dome.
I couldn't bear watching my children grow up as serfs when I can still (vaguely) remember what democracy was like, and what it was like to have a middle class. Add global warming and peak oil into the equation and it's totally out of the question.
If you like dystopian fiction, check out Paolo Bacigalupi - Shipbreaker. That's as insightful a peek into our impending future as 1984 was at the time, IMO.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Alceste
Vagabond
Awesome. I'm always in the mood for a good book. Thanks!
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
It's called National Socialism. It's been tried before. Heil Ombudsman!