I’ve watched this five times and I’m still looking for the funny bit.
I don’t think someone with progressive views on immigration would use Ross Perot as their mouthpiece, since he was pretty vocal in his opposition to immigration and critical of NAFTA’s TN visas. To his mind NAFTA was the worst of both worlds, as not only did it allow for outsourcing jobs to Mexico, but that outsourcing wouldn’t keep all the Mexicans in Mexico.
1 Like
Now guess who are the people behind the TPP. This video makes it sound like foreign countries want this to sell stuff to the US, but it’s actually the other way around: US companies not wanting to be bound by foreign laws, and getting reimbursed for laws that are meant to restrict the worst corporate abuses.
1 Like
I think you’ve got neoliberalism wrong here, which supports freer markets not only in goods and capital, but labor as well.
Furthermore, the idea that Mexico hasn’t benefitted get kind of shaky considering that Mexico’s GDP per capita has grown tremendously in the time since, and seems to be one of the notable factors leading the trend toward falling illegal immigration.
so, ‘ross perot’ coming out against preferential treatment and undisclosed arrangements by the federal government. mildly humorous
Unfortunately for all of us if the TPP goes into effect, what Spocko said about the international tribunals is spot on - TPP would empower foreign corporations (including US firms that use foreign subsidiaries) to skirt US law and courts and demand compensation before intl tribunals for any govt action or policy that they claim undermines their new privileges in the agt and that undermines their expected future profits. Go here http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=5411&frcrld=1 to read more about it and to see the leaked text of the TPP’s investment chapter. The text is quite clear, this is not speculative. It is the same as the “investor-state dispute resolution” (ISDR) that was in NAFTA, but greatly expanded re what sorts of policies can be attacked. And, there is no domestic court review of the tribunal rulings on the merits. Three private sector attorneys meeting in secret would be empowered to decide if an investor’s expectations were undermined, among other totally speculative standards and order payment. Not only is there no outside appeal, but there is no internal appeal. This regime, which operates under the World Bank’s ICSID or UN UNCITRAL rules (the corp decides which to use), permits only what are called “annulment” claims for gross conflict of interest or other serious tribunal misconduct. (Tho when Argentina tried to get the huge payment ordered to Vivendi annulled over a reversal of a water privatization - because one of the 3 attorney serving as tribunalists in the case wa son the board of a bank that was a major shareholder in Vivendi, the annulment was rejected…) You can see more about this whole ISDR problem in TPP here http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2013/01/07/brewing-storm-over-isdr-clouds-trans-pacific-partnership-talks-part-i/
1 Like
Spocko is also correct on the food issue. The technical term for that requirement to accept the food that meets the other countries’ standards, not our is “equivalence.” We know that this is in TPP because the SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) chapter (food standards) is one of those that had its rules completed some months ago. If you want to see technically how this works (and amendment in a trade agt’s implementing legislation to US meat and poultry laws that used to require only meat produced under conditions EQUAL to US standards got replaced with the equivalence standard for several dozen countries thanks to past “trade” agreements, check out his study. http://www.citizen.org/documents/PCfoodsafety.pdf
1 Like
Finally, on Fast Track: the main thing to understand is that UNTIL Nixon cooked up Fast Track, US trade negotiators were simply not authorized to set terms on non-tariff matters in trade negotiations. Fast Track allowed a form of “diplomatic legislating” with trade negotiators empowered to rewrite domestic laws on intellectual property, food and product standards, service sector regulation and more. The first chapter of TPP will include the same boilerplate found in WTO and past FTA: countries shall ensure the conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures" with the attached chapters. All existing and future U.S. laws must conform to the non-tariff policy constraints set forth in the “trade” agreement. Failure to do subjects a country to trade sanctions - and in the FTAs and TPP (tho not WTO) attack in the investor tribunals.
Fast Track also allowed a president to sign and entering a “trade” agreement changing wide swaths of domestic non-trade policy before Congress voted with a guarantee that the agt and legislation to implement all changes to existing US law to conform it to the agt would get votes in the H and S w/in 90 says with no amendments allowed to the legislation or agt and only 20 hours debate max in either chamber. The WH got to write the implementing bill, with no committee amendments (no mark ups) and submit it directly for a vote. (This is the ONLY bill the WH can actually write.) All sorts of unrelated stuff gets super-glued in to try to get the votes to pass the agt. A veritable legislative laxative that is bad for the U.S. Constitution… GOP who like the corporate Trojan horse aspect of these agts often oppose Fast Track as trashing a key check and balance and giving the WH too much power. It took Bush two years to get a GOP House to pass Fast Track in 2002 by one vote…
Fast Track has only ever been used 16 times since Nixon sent the first bill establishing it to Congress in 73. Not surprisingly, since everyone woke up to the diplomatic legislating business, Fast Track has become unpopular on both sides of the aisle. It has only been in effect 5 of the 18 years (bush’s 2002-2007 Fast Track) since the WTO vote (which came after NAFTA) Clinton’s Fast Track ask was voted down on the H floor in 1998 - 171 Dem no and 71 GOP no.
And, just to counter the line from the folks saying Spocko got it all wrong on how domestic law gets stomped by these agts: some other low lights, besides the meat and poultry laws getting rewritten via “trade agt”
- WTO expanded the US patent term from 17 to 20 years - we consumer groups had stopped PhRMAs efforts to get this expansion from Congress, so they back-doored it in WTO
- WTO required a change to immigration law - we have to provide 65K H1b visas - as this was a U.S. commitment in the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services
- A waiver was implemented for Buy American procurement laws for all of the U.S. FTA partners and several dozen WTO countries
1 Like
This doesn’t mean Spocko is correct, since there has to be a finding that the food inspections systems of other countries are “equivalent” in order for their products to be admitted without additional US inspections. In the report you link to it notes that only 5 countries are deemed US equivalents for poultry-importation purposes. Spocko, consistent with his anti-China fear mongering, instead says this: [quote=“Spocko, post:8, topic:16451”]
So say for example that you are a shrimper in Louisiana and Vietnam starts shipping more shrimp to the US under the TPP. Under the TPP food safety guidelines, as long as the Shrimp meet VIETNAM’s food safety regulations the US has to accept it as safe. Now China can use a Vietnamese companies as cut out to ship farmed shrimp via Vietnam, and we all know how great China’s food safety regs are.
[/quote]
Now, it seems pretty unlikely that either Vietnam or China will be deemed “equivalent” for seafood purposes, especially since “we all know how great China’s food safety regs are.”
Are there so few real problems with the TPP that he has to manufacture highly unlikley scenarios? It’s a great way to have your argument marginalized by those that are not already converted.
The problems people are identifying with TPP are very real, including this problem with being required to accept imported food that does not meet US safety standards. So, while you seem to be trying a dog whistle move there, suggesting that there must be nothing wrong with TPP because critics are making stuff up, in fact there is a library of analysis and documentation of serious problems - based on leaked texts, warning issues by negotiators, and the relevant terms of past FTA that we have been informed serve as the model fir various of the TPP’s 29 chapters. congressional. If you would like to actually challenge any of that analysis, I would be interested - but given how many people know how bad TPP is, trying to change the topic is not gonna work at this point…
Just for instance, the report to which I linked is a decade old. I linked to it to explain the notion of equivalence - a 2003 report does not reflect the fill list of countries that have been deemed to have equivalent food systems now, but rather how systematically that vague standard could facilitate imports that do not meet US safety standards.
Whatever your political agenda is, on the merits you are wrong. In fact, China has recently obtained an equivalent designation. Yes, the receiving country has to make an equivalence determination, but the sending country can challenge that decision. China challenged the U.S. decision NOT to allow its imports in as equivalent at the WTO - and the U.S. lost the case. To avoid trade sanctions via the WTO, the Obama administration then issued a new equivalence determination and pounded on Congress to fund its implementation. And BTW, being concerned about imports of food from a country that has regular, deadly food safety scandals is not anti-China fear mongering.
1 Like
If you don’t like accusations of fear mongering, then support your claims. And I wasn’t saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about importing food from China; I said that Spocko’s senario was far-fetched and manufactured for the purpose fear mongering. You say that China has received an equivalent designation, but you don’t say for what and you don’t provide any evidence or support for your claim. If I’m wrong on the merits (what merits? what claims have I made? where have I said that there are not problems with the TPP?), show me where I’m wrong and back up your claims. If you find it difficult to provide support, why should I believe what you’re saying?
Also, you might be aware that those Chinese who can afford to like to buy foreign food products and shop from larger stores like Wal-Mart or Carrefour, in large part because of food safety and supply-chain concerns. In the highly unlikely event that food products like baby formula, cooking oil, preserved fruit, etc. become designated as equivalent to US-produced products, I think it very likely that US consumers will vote with their wallets and chose US-produced goods.[quote=“LoriW, post:50, topic:16451”]
The problems people are identifying with TPP are very real, including this problem with being required to accept imported food that does not meet US safety standards. So, while you seem to be trying a dog whistle move there, [. . .] trying to change the topic is not gonna work at this point.
[/quote]
As I basically said above, there are enough problems with the TPP that making rather dubious claims like this is pretty stupid: it ensures that you are only likely to be preaching to the converted, and will not carry much weight with those who are undecided. Extreme and unbelievable claims also have the risk of compromising the believability of of more accurate and legitimately worrying claims. Is pointing this out trying to change the topic? I don’t think so. Is Mr. Doctorow trying to change the topic when he complains that the TPP will massively increase IP protections, even though this video says it will strip IP protection from things made in the USA?
Unfortunately, the scenario Spocko raised is not far fetched. It has happened with equivalence for chicken from China. All you needed to do was google… And, you might also recall, re. you idea that consumers can just choose to buy American that in 2012 the WTO ruled against the U.S. Country of Origin meat labeling system - ie the policy that would LET US consumers have the info to choose. BTW, on IP, why rely on some video when you can look at the actual TPP text that leaked a month ago and SEE for yourself the myriad ways in which both patent and copyright rights would be extended through the backdoor of TPP.
Having googled for you…
-
USDA’s equivalence determination for cooked chicken from China Is here.http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/news-releases-statements-transcripts/news-release-archives-by-year/archive/2013/faq-china-08302013
-
Here is about the WTO ruling saying the US cannot withhold equivalence for Chinese chickenhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/29/trade-chicken-idUSLDE68S1PZ20100929
-
Here is react USDA’s report to Congress that it is about to find equivalence for raw chicken.
(CBSNewYork) WASHINGTON – NY Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer blasted the Obama administration Sunday for taking steps toward allowing Chinese chicken to be exported to the United States, despite China’s [poor] food safety record.
As WCBS 880’s Jim Smith reported Sunday, Schumer said first, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) only allowed chickens that had been processed in China to be sold in the U.S. Now, he said the USDA plans to green-light poultry raised and slaughtered in China.
A USDA report to Congress revealed that the Department is considering granting the Chinese slaughter system “equivalence” to the U.S. food safety standards, which would allow chickens raised and processed in China to be sold in the U.S.
Other steps are required before China’s system would be deemed equivalent. But Schumer said that the report caused “major concern” that USDA is moving in that direction.
“It is shocking that given China’s poor track record with regard to food-safety, the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] is taking moving towards allowing China to raise, slaughter and process chicken to be eaten in the U.S.,” said Schumer.
He called on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reconsider the effort.
The move by the USDA, which was revealed secretly to Congress, would undermine the agency’s mission of “guaranteeing American consumers a safe food supply,” he said.
Schumer first raised the alarm about Chinese chicken in September, when the USDA proposed allowing American-raised chicken to be shipped to China for processing and then exported back to the U.S.
China has been the location for a…list of food scandals…
“The United States Department of Agriculture is taking steps away from guaranteeing American consumers a safe food supply,” Schumer said Sunday, citing China’s poor food safety track record. “China has a terrible record on health safety, and chickens are one of the things that need the most care and inspections,” he said.
“(This) has nothing to do with health or safety, but it has to do with diplomacy,” he said. “Enough is enough.”
The USDA denied Schumer’s allegations. ”Poultry slaughtered in China is not allowed to be imported to the United States” at this time, the agency said.
Schumer called the plan a huge change in policy, and a big mistake. A step closer to final approval, Schumer said the USDA report to Congress indicated aspects of the Chinese slaughter system to be equivalent to that of the U.S.
“Why is the USDA doing it?” he said. “We just don’t know.”
In response to Schumer’s comments, the USDA said it is legally obligated to review requests from countries waiting to export, but it has not finalized its audit of China.
As to whether the Chinese poultry slaughter system is equivalent to that of the U.S., the USDA said categorically that it is not.
“USDA has not found China’s poultry slaughter system to be equivalent and therefore poultry slaughtered in China is not allowed to be imported to the United States,” the agency said in a statement. “The U.S. food supply is among the safest in the world, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service is dedicated to maintaining that status.”
1 Like
True, but that doesn’t change the fact that being against NAFTA and pro-immigrant’s / human rights is not in conflict at all and in fact is a pretty standard progressive stance. So your argument in that respect didn’t really make sense.
The U.S. and Western World is run by neoliberals that embrace wealth and capital crossing borders with ease, but not humans. Give me a break. Please.
Mexico’s growth is shit compared to other developing countries. NAFTA created tons of desperate immigrants. Get real…
[quote=“LoriW, post:52, topic:16451”]
Unfortunately, the scenario Spocko raised is not far fetched. It has happened with equivalence for chicken from China. All you needed to do was google… And, you might also recall, re. you idea that consumers can just choose to buy American that in 2012 the WTO ruled against the U.S. Country of Origin meat labeling system - ie the policy that would LET US consumers have the info to choose. [/quote]
It hasn’t happened with chicken. China is allowed to import cooked chicken products, and only from chickens that were raised in the US and/or Canada. This is nothing similar to Spocko’s raw-Chinese-prawns-through-Vietnam scenario, not least because there was a definite and deliberate process that had to be followed before the equivalence was declared (which we can clearly see in your USDA link).
If food safety does become a large enough concern, companies will find ways to publicize the country of origin of their products, even if not on the packaging itself. Labeling restrictions may not be optimal, but there are also legitimate arguments for them.
No. What this says is that there was no scientific basis for withholding equivalence. If there are/were legitimate safety concerns, equivalence can be withheld. For example, if there are legitimate safety concerns regarding Chinese-raised and/or raw chickens, the US can and almost certainly will withhold equivalence.
Right. I don’t think we should be relying on this video at all, especially since none of the information is sourced. But even when the original documents are available, as they are with the IP provisions, summaries and editorials are still helpful, though sources with both reputational and institutional integrity are preferred.
Also, you might want to note that there are pretty easy to use buttons you can use when commenting to do things like respond to people, to quote them, to insert links, and to edit your posts.
Comparing Mexico’s growth with other developing countries particularly in S.A. is pointless, because you specifically claimed that Mexico was suffering due to NAFTA, something pretty unfounded and ignoring the actual growth in prosperity Mexico has experienced in that period of time. And as cited in my first post, the increasingly optimistic outlook in Mexico has had an effect on illegal immigration. This isn’t to deny the effect of US economy. However, the trend preceded the crash of 2008, and continues.
Furthermore, your characterizing of neoliberalism as opposing free movement of labor simply seems unfounded.
1 Like
Sad. I don’t care how important the message - The vocal work, audio in general, and bad animation made the video pretty unbearable.
If I wasn’t a Vulcan that would have hurt my feelings.
1 Like
Does a neoliberal care if his profits are made in factories in China using cheap labour or factories in the US using cheap labour? Probably not. Does he want cheap labour in industries, such as service, that cannot be outsourced? Probably. Does he himself enjoy the ability to freely move and work in different countries? Probably.
I’m actually curious why the progressives you describe would be in favour of free migration but not free trade agreements or capital flows. What do they think are the logical consequences of this kind of policy, and how realistic do they see it as being?
Really? Have any sources? I mean, just Google “Mexico GDP growth” and you get a chart showing pretty decent growth in comparison to Brazil. And here’s a comparison I found in a report titled “Understanding Mexico’s Economic Underperformance,” which shows that while Mexico underperformed globally, it performed better than most of Latin America:
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
