You want to see an example of a huge distraction manufactured to lend cover?

[bielek]

The Senate voted yesterday to pass fast-track trade authority for the TPP and TTIP. This means that those horrendous "trade deals" will almost certainly pass and be signed. But chances are you don't even know this because...


FLAG!

[Autistic Star Children]

Amen.

[albrecht]

The Senate voted yesterday to pass fast-track trade authority for the TPP and TTIP. This means that those horrendous "trade deals" will almost certainly pass and be signed. But chances are you don't even know this because...


FLAG!

Yeah, though I'm wondering if I can sue the US government, Ebay, and Amazon, for not letting me sell my Dukes of Hazzard General Lee model and circa late 80's Hank Jr Confederate Flag on Ebay? With prices shooting up for such things due to bans, especially. Under the secretive TPP, once it passes, isn't my personal business being unfairly discriminated against by local laws and companies since those in Vietnam can still make and sell various "flag" merchandise? Can some unelected internation tribal please find for me for some millions, after punitative measures are included, in their secretive judgement?

[Eddie Coyle]

   The Confederate Flag will be allowed back once China complains about having that product taken away from their sweatshops. "You ban nothing without Beijing permission, round eye! We make more. Cheap!!"

[albrecht]

   The Confederate Flag will be allowed back once China complains about having that product taken away from their sweatshops. "You ban nothing without Beijing permission, round eye! We make more. Cheap!!"

As far as I know, as of yet, the Confederate Flag(s) are still allowed to fly and be sold. It is only the Battle Flag of Army of N. Virginia has been banned in various outlets and online marketplaces (but will hopefully be available again once the secretive TPP is enacted, much to this character Obama's surprise.) Interesting that places still allow ISIS, various NAZI, commie, Hamas, etc flags and items to be sold.....

[136 or 142]

The Senate voted yesterday to pass fast-track trade authority for the TPP and TTIP. This means that those horrendous "trade deals" will almost certainly pass and be signed. But chances are you don't even know this because...

I don't know if you're being serious about this or not.  I don't believe there was any connection if for no other reason than the political leaders expected fast track authority to pass the first time around.


The reason this isn't a bigger issue is because either
1.Most people don't care about trade issues
2.Most journalists don't care about trade issues and believe most of their readers are too stupid to understand them.
3.Most journalists are too stupid to understand trade issues and only know 'free trade = good" that seems to be the generally held view of nearly all journalists. 


Back in the 1990s the view of free trade being entirely positive was known as the "Washington Consensus."


If you are going to want to stop this deal (and I like most people have no view on it either way, if for no other reason, than like all people but the corporate lobbyists, I have no idea what is in the deal) you will need to highlight that most of this deal will likely involve specific items that have nothing to do with 'free trade' but are a complex set of rules that will most likely benefit corporations at the expense of governments and possibly corporations at the expense of consumers on some issues (again though, we don't know what the final agreement will be) and you will need a much more credible spokesperson than Ross "I'm going to get under the hood" Perot was last time this issue was subject to a major debate.

[136 or 142]

If anyone cares, these are pretty much all my views on 'free trade' that I originally posted on another discussion board:

1.While I like Ricardo support free trade in principal, these modern trade agreements have little to actually do with free trade.
Given that, the NDP is entirely sensible for not offering up support or opposition to this specific deal until they've actually read it (if it is ever even finalized.)

2.While many trade economists agree with Ricardo, there are actually many trade economists who question many of his assumptions, just as there are many behavioral economists who question the basic economics tenet of the 'rational person.'
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-01-30/economists-rethink-free-trade


As this article shows a little, many of Ricardo's assumptions were extremely simplistic and don't possibly hold up under real world situations:
Joseph Stiglitz (nobel prize winning trade economist):


"Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline’s early years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.


The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors…to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high level of unemployment…there can’t be such complacency."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-york-times-lets-economic-pundit-disappear-tpps-economist-critics/5445870

I personally continue to, on balance, support free trade in principle, if, for no other reason, than I read a brief comment a couple years ago from left leaning economics professor Stephen Gordon, that he and a number of other economists did research looking into the validity of 'comparative advantage' a few years ago in light of some of the questions about it from the likes of Stiglitz, and found that the theory still mostly held up.
That said, I believe further discussion and debate on the topic would be a positive, if for no other than two reasons:
1.It may move simple minded journalists from their near universal belief that the 'Washington Consensus' should still hold.
2.More importantly, different economists making different assumptions than Professor Gordon and his group likely made may reach different conclusions.

I also agree with the conclusions of longtime Washington political analyst Mark Shields that "the benefits of free trade have been enormously oversold while the costs of free trade have been greatly underplayed" even while I disagree with him that free trade has been the cause of much of the large decline in the U.S manufacturing sector.


For instance, in the example given here, Ivison claims that somebody told him that the U.S having a free trade agreement with South Korea while Canada didn't cost Canada $1.5 billion. Even if what Ivison was told is true (and I note he just choose to believe it seemingly without looking into it, but see my comment on simple minded journalists) that makes up a grand total of 0.1% of Canada's GDP. The benefits of free trade being enormously oversold seems to me to be entirely true.

In regards to the political question of whether opposing TPP would hurt Mulcair. If Mulcair opposes the TPP because investor (re corporate) protections that allow them to sue governments for having laws that prevent those corporations from 'maximizing profits' in quasi judicial tribunals that can't be appealed to national courts as there are rumors right now this deal will include, my guess is the arrogant chattering class will be just as surprised by the support from many Canadians (if not a majority) Mulcair will get in opposing TPP as they were surprised by the level of support (if not *yet* a majority) Mulcair received in opposing Bill C51.

[Juan]

I've been on various forums and blog sites with comments, etc. for a long time.  I've noticed a trend.  A new person comes along and makes a couple of comments on the subject of the site.  Then that person veers off and begins commenting on political stuff.  Soon the person is commenting only on poltical stuff. After reading that person's posts for awhile, it becomes clear that the person always advocates the position of a major political party.  We know that political parties hire people to post on the internet. 

My question is - do these people get to choose what site they post on, or are the sites assigned.

[136 or 142]

As if on cue, here is an excellent brief segment on how behavioral economics is questioning the standard tenant of 'rational person.'


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economists-think-differently-humans/