Reading the original NYT editorial, I donât read it as an endorsement.
A Pacific Trade Deal is 6 paragraphs explaining what the Obama administration says theyâre trying to achieve and some of the difficulties of making treaties in general. The last paragraph says that a good treaty would be good, but doesnât go into specifics.
I see nothing in there that suggests the NYT has seen the treaty, and they donât appear to want to report on speculation like the article.
I do agree that we need Congress to actually read this treaty and maybe, just maybe, act in the public interest for once, but I do not see pro-treaty bias in this Times editorial.
âOfficials from the United States and 11 other countries bordering the Pacific are trying to complete a trade agreement by the end of the year that could help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies. But hard bargaining lies ahead.â
Thatâs the first sentence of the NYT editorial. Not sure how you can read that as not an endorsement.
The fact is the NYT has little idea whatâs in this (non)trade deal, just like the American people. From what we know, it has very little to do with trade, and a lot to do with destroying the sovereignty of the signatory nations. Allowing corporations to sue for âlost expected profitsâ when a nation refuses to be pillaged is utter insanity, and is neoliberalismâs final fantasy wish come true.
That Obama is pushing so hard to pass this is the final nail in the coffin of his legacy as anything other than a plutocratâs bag man.
Itâs amazing how little publicity this thing has gotten. Kudos to the groups like Third World Network that are fighting it in the trenches every day.
If itâs good for business then itâs good for the economy, and that means JOBS!
I hope it goes through for one.
âŚbecause every kind of business helps Americans. No business was ever unethical. No business ever preyed upon the weak. No business ever offshored American jobs.
Oh, and JOBS is good, never mind the details. Poverty-level wages are something we should all be grateful for. And when American jobs go to Myanmar, this helps Americans in some way. Well, at least it helps the top officers of multinational corporations - and really, what else matters?
Are you high? Câmon, tell me.
You, um, do realize that what you call âjobsâ are what businesses call âpayroll expensesâ and regard as a necessary evil to be reduced so far as possible?
Far as I can tell, itâs for real. Iâm not high, for the record.
Milo? Milo Minderbinder? Is that you? After all these years, is that really you?
I see the trolls are eating well today.
âCouldâ conveys lot of information. Iâm not sure how you can read the entire editorial and come away with the impression that the NYT is endorsing any of the specific policies that may or may not be in the TPP. Yes, they do seem support the signing of some sort of trade agreement, but they acknowledge at the outset that âhard bargaining lies ahead.â
They also write: âBecause of the broad scope of these talks, negotiators are grappling with many difficult issues. We have expressed concerns about a controversial American proposal that could limit the ability of the Trans-Pacific countries to regulate the sale of tobacco products.â Not sure how you read this as an endorsement of the treaty as proposed by the US.
Unfortunately this troll has made a home here and has wandered into multiple topics âŚ
Yes, thatâs the point of trade treaties. That could have been the first line on a Wikipedia article about trade treaties.
What are you? A communist? Itâs that sort of leftist foolishness thatâs destroying what was a great country. Good God. Social programs for everyone. The State will provide. How can you be so blind?
So whereâs the Edward Snowden to blow the whistle on the TPP negotiation secrets? And what newspaper will he/she leak them to, since itâs obviously not going to be the NY Times?
You know that calling someone a communist, a socialist, a leftist, or a liberal on this site isnât much of an insult, right? If I recall correctly, Coryâs parents are Marxists. I bet most people who comment here would put themselves in one of the previously mentioned groups. A good chunk of the rest might call themselves libertarians. Trade deals like the TPP are about allowing capital to move more freely while keeping labour in place.
Heâs trolling. Got me good, too!
OK, good for jobs means you support it, right?
What if itâs bad for jobs?
Exactly. Remember how NAFTA was going to produce hundreds of thousands of US jobs? These are the claims made by âfree tradeâ (read: managed trade to protect powerful market players) every time, just like they make humanitarian claims every time we drop bombs on people.
No one who can think for themselves buys any of this crap anymore, but it doesnât matter: the government is firmly controlled by the plutocracy. Our democracy, imperfect as it was, no longer exists. Expect a huge crash within the next 3 years. Its inevitable.
