TPP: A pact designed to increase the wealth and power of crony capitalists

[marmar]

(Truthout) The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) stands at the top of the Obama administration’s trade agenda. The argument from its supporters is that this agreement is part of the never ending quest for freer trade. The evidence from what we know of this still secret pact is that the TPP has little to do with free trade. It can more accurately be described as a pact designed to increase the wealth and power of crony capitalists.

At this point, with few exceptions formal trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, are not very large. If lowering or eliminating the formal barriers that remain were the main agenda of this pact, there would be relatively little interest. Rather, the purpose of the pact is to use an international trade agreement to create a regulatory structure that is much more favorable to corporate interests than they would be able to get through the domestic political process in the United States and in the other countries in the pact.

The gap between free trade and the agenda of the TPP is clearest in the case of prescription drugs. The U.S. drug companies have a major seat at the negotiating table. They will be trying to craft rules that increase the strength of patent and related protections. The explicit purpose is to raise (as in not lower) the price of drugs in the countries signing the TPP.

Note that this goal is the opposite of what we would expect in an agreement designed to promote free trade. Instead of having drug companies at the table, we might envision that we would have representatives of consumer groups who would try to negotiate rules that could ensure safe drugs at lower prices. Instead of using a “trade” agreement to try to push drug prices in other countries up, we could actually use trade to bring the price of drugs in the United States down to the levels seen elsewhere. ...................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/news/item/19663-the-trans-pacific-partnership-a-trade-agreement-for-protectionists

[djean111]

1. Will render a lot of our laws and regulations moot.

Sadly, a lot of people won't understand that, and a few will even attempt to sell it as a good thing.

[marmar]

4. There was a DU thread the other day in which several posters ..........

........ tried to coat this pig in lipstick.

[MisterP]

9. "it's called ObamaTrade because OBAMA TRADES" "we need more success stories--it's just a matter of

perception"

[LuvNewcastle]

3. Thank God we have a liberal in the White House!

[solarhydrocan]

5. SoS Hillary Clinton comments on the Trans Pacific Partnership

"will promote security, prosperity and universal values... foster trust and accountability..."

[LuvNewcastle]

8. So if Obama doesn't get it passed, Hillary will.

[cali]

6. Not about trade. The TPP is largely not about tariffs or other trade issues

[LuvNewcastle]

7. Looks like some rough trade to me.

[leftstreet]

10. DURec

[pampango]

11. "The world has benefited from the opening of trade over the last four decades. But this opening has

been selective so that, at least in the United States, most of the gains have gone to those at the top.

We could also look to have freer trade in doctors. The doctors’ lobbies have erected numerous barriers to keep qualified foreign physicians from practicing in the United States. There are enormous potential gains from eliminating these barriers. If we got the pay of doctors in the United States in line with doctors’ pay in other wealthy countries, the savings would be close to $1 trillion over the next decade. That comes to around $7,000 per household.

It is striking that we openly make deals to bring in foreign nurses to lower the pay of nurses in the United States, but can never even discuss doing the same with doctors. The potential benefits to the United States from importing doctors are certainly much larger than for importing nurses.

In fact the potential gains from bringing in foreign physicians are so large that we could tax a portion of the earnings of foreign doctors to repay their home countries, and allow them to educate 2-3 doctors for every one that comes to the United States. This would ensure that everyone benefits from freer trade in physicians’ services. The lack of interest in this sort of free trade likely has something to do with the fact that doctors make up a large chunk of the richest one percent.

I had not thought of doctors as 1%ers limiting foreign competition to preserve their status but as skilled professionals protecting themselves from foreign competition as others might seek to do.

The idea of a fee to compensate their home countries and train replacements would prevent a brain drain, as well.