tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post3784377560634733072..comments2024-01-17T00:45:37.075-08:00Comments on Bud Meyers: Hillary Clinton: The Economic Populist (and TPP)Bud Meyershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-89696183504431035422015-06-17T11:11:43.270-07:002015-06-17T11:11:43.270-07:00Here is Roosevelt Institute Senior Economist Adam ...Here is Roosevelt Institute Senior Economist Adam Hersh's testimony before the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific as part of a hearing on "China's Rise: The Strategic Impact of Its Economic and Military Growth" ---<br /><br />"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has less to do with freeing trade, creating jobs, raising wages, or rebalancing geo-politics than it does with rewriting the rules of global trade and investment to favor big businesses at the expense of almost everyone else in society. These rules do not embody economic principles of open competition so much as the preferences of industry lobbyists that had the best seats at the U.S. Trade Representative’s table. The outcome is an agreement that fails to address America’s economic needs and geostrategic goals. Problems with current U.S. model for trade policy do not end with TPP. A multitude of agreements are underway under the same basic template (TTIP and TISA). I will make two points today:<br /><br />1. The most fundamental element of national security is a strong national economy, and TPP would weaken our economic base.<br />2. TPP fails the geostrategic rationale for checking China’s rise.<br /><br />[Read the details here]<br />http://www.nextnewdeal.net/statement-congress-tpp-would-weaken-us-economy-and-fail-check-chinas-rise<br /><br />From his conclusion: "Getting to a deal that serves more than the narrow interests of powerful corporations, their CEOs and shareholders will require Americans be willing to walk away from the agreement we have now."<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-66402411698706300322015-06-16T20:56:29.850-07:002015-06-16T20:56:29.850-07:00Bait and Switch?
House GOP poised to pursue a sta...Bait and Switch?<br /><br />House GOP poised to pursue a standalone fast-track bill without aid for workers.<br /><br />http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/house-gop-tpa-vote-trade-vote-119056.html<br /><br />Republican leaders planned a vote Tuesday afternoon that would allow House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring trade assistance back to the floor for another vote sometime before the end of July.<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/trade-adjustment-assistance_n_7595150.html<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-13660190573315009802015-06-16T11:55:46.775-07:002015-06-16T11:55:46.775-07:00In total $198 million was given to Representatives...In total $198 million was given to Representatives for a YES vote to pass fast track (TPA) — whereas only $23 million was given to stop fact track. Still, fast track had passed with a mere 2 votes (219-211) when only 218 were needed to pass.<br /><br />http://economyincrisis.org/content/almost-200-million-donated-to-representatives-to-buy-yea-votes-to-pass-tpa<br /><br /> John Boehner (R-OH) received $5.3 million for a “yea” vote and was the highest paid legislator.<br /> Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) received $2.4 million for his “yea” vote.<br /> Paul Ryan (R-WI) received $2.4 million for a “yea” vote and came in at the third highest paid legislator.<br /> Pat Tiberi (R-OH) follows Paul Ryan, coming in the fourth spot having received $1.6 million for his “yea” vote.<br /><br />We also have Democratic heroes...<br /><br /> Joe Crowley (D-NY) received 1.3 million for a “yea” vote and only $72,550 for a “nay” vote and he still voted against it.<br /> Patrick Murphy (D-FL) received 1.1 million for a “yea” vote and only $213,360 for a “nay” vote and still voted against it.<br /> Richard Neal D(MA) received $1.1 million for a “yea” vote and a mere $47,625 for a “nay” vote and still voted against it.<br /><br />And we have Republican heroes...<br /><br /> Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) received $541,746 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay” vote and he still voted “nay!”<br /> Andy Harris (R-MD) received $254,803 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay” vote and he still voted “nay”.<br /> Thomas Massie (R-KY) received $250,328 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay” vote and he still voted “nay.”<br /> Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) received $180,832 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay vote” and she still voted “nay.”<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-71043993063853157022015-06-15T12:13:37.303-07:002015-06-15T12:13:37.303-07:00As people have gotten to know about these trade ag...As people have gotten to know about these trade agreements, their opposition has grown stronger.<br /><br />Ralph Nader summarized a lot of the problems when he wrote “10 Reasons The TPP Is Not A Progressive Trade Agreement“. <br /><br />http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/09/10-reasons-tpp-not-progressive-trade-agreement<br /><br />WikiLeaks added fuel to the fire by publishing documents on two agreements. On the TPP, the leaked text showed Big Pharma using TPP against global health and specifically targeting Medicare.<br /><br />https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/page-1.html<br /><br />In a fact sheet distributed in response to the revelations, Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines Program said the text raises critical questions.<br /><br />http://www.citizen.org/documents/memo-burning-questions.pdf<br /><br />The other leak was of the much less well known Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). TiSA is the largest treaty, involving 50 nations and “services” that include private services like financial services; public services like the Postal Service and education; hybrid public-private services like health care and individual services like accounting, which make up 80% of the US economy. <br /><br />https://wikileaks.org/tisa/<br /><br />These trade agreements are made worse by their secrecy and the Fast Track law.<br /><br />According to Oxfam, the richest 1% are on pace to control more global wealth than the rest of the 99% combined by 2016 — and it doesn’t show any signs of stopping.<br /><br />https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/wealth-having-it-all-and-wanting-more<br /><br />One billionaire sees the wealth gap fueling social unrest, and said tension between the rich and poor is set to escalate as robots and artificial intelligence fuel mass unemployment: “We cannot have 0.1 percent of 0.1 percent taking all the spoils. It’s unfair and it is not sustainable.”<br /><br />http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-08/billionaire-cartier-owner-sees-wealth-gap-fueling-social-unrest<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-77757618728987113522015-06-15T11:56:58.281-07:002015-06-15T11:56:58.281-07:00JOBS LOST --- From Economy in Crisis:
"Sinc...JOBS LOST --- From Economy in Crisis: <br /><br />"Since the end of the Cold War, China has decimated our economy, stripping the U.S. of manufacturing jobs through unfair practices that favor their economy while devastating ours. They manipulate their currency, making their exports cheaper and leading Americans to turn from American-made goods to foreign ones. This has given us a trade deficit of approximately $1.7 trillion with China over the last 5 years alone. They use the dollars they accumulate to buy American firms, then ship the jobs back to China to keep the wealth-producing assets there. China’s trade war has cost the U.S. 2.8 million jobs over the last decade."<br /><br />http://economyincrisis.org/content/36291<br /><br />But many more jobs were lost if you go back to PNTR with China in 2000 and WTO in 2001, and then also add the lost multiplier effect. So try at least 3.2 million jobs lost to China.<br /><br />http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/outsourcing-to-china-cost-us-32-million-jobs-since-2001<br /><br />But total lost jobs are millions more. Offshoring to Asian countries goes back to the end of the Vietnam War. And that's not counting jobs lost to India, Mexico, Canada --- and other Asian countries like Vietnam.<br /><br />Forbes said ZERO jobs were lost to China:<br /><br />http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/15/the-number-of-us-jobs-lost-to-the-china-trade-is-around-and-about-zero/<br /><br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-81725229250747463772015-06-15T11:17:19.802-07:002015-06-15T11:17:19.802-07:00UPDATE -------------------------------------------...UPDATE --------------------------------------------------<br /><br />At the Washington Post Larry Summers says that losing the Asian TPP trade agreement "would strengthen the hands of companies overseas at the expense of U.S. firms. Ultimately, having a world in which U.S. companies systematically lose ground to foreign rivals would not work out to the advantage of American workers."<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rescuing-the-free-trade-deals/2015/06/14/f10d82c2-1119-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html<br /><br />Questions for Larry Summers:<br /><br />1) Have past trade agreements worked primarily to the advantage of American workers?<br /><br />2) Can anyone name just EXACTLY who these foreign rivals are that Larry Summers speaks of?<br /><br />3) Can anyone tells us just EXACTLY how U.S. companies are currently struggling to compete against foreign companies?<br /><br />4) Aren't most of these companies (who want TPP) mostly "multi-national" corporations — and sometimes have people from several different countries sitting on their board of directors?<br /><br />5) No Many times don't these corporate executives also sit simultaneously on other board of directors for other multi-national corporations, and may be competing against themselves? <br /><br />6) With all the mergers and acquisitions, couldn't these companies also be competing against their own subsidiaries, rather than some mythical foreign rival?<br /><br />Larry Summers also says that the current global economy "has supported the greatest economic progress in the history of the world in emerging markets and is working spectacularly well for capital and a cosmopolitan elite that moves easily around the world. But being pressed down everywhere are middle-classes who lack the wherewithal to take advantage of new global markets and do not want to compete with low-cost foreign labor. Our challenge now is less to increase globalization than to make the globalization we have work for our citizens."<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.com