HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Baobab » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next »

Baobab

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:12 AM
Number of posts: 4,667

Journal Archives

Hillary Clinton's State department pushed Water Privatization despite its horrible track record

https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/press-statement/clinton%E2%80%99s-corporate-water-initiative-contrary-development-aims


Clinton’s corporate water initiative contrary to development aims
March 23, 2012
Public Water Works!



To mark World Water Day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the creation of the U.S. Water Partnership (USWP) to share knowledge and solutions with other countries to improve drinking water delivery and sanitation globally. An important aim of the USWP is to address the obstacles to reversing today’s water crisis as laid out in a National Intelligence Council (NIC) report this week. Yet, the USWP, at its core, ignores the most valuable findings of the report, as well as the most obvious lessons of the American experience with water – public water works.

This is to say, from 1801 to date, public, democratically-accountable water systems funded by the public have been the backbone of economic development and public health. More than 80 percent of Americans receive water from public water systems today. And, in a poll conducted by Lake Research for Corporate Accountability International this week, more than 70 percent of people in the U.S. said they trust local governments to provide water over private corporations.

Why? The experience with water privatization has largely been a negative one, with costly, high-profile failures like those of New Orleans and Atlanta still fresh for so many Americans. On the flipside of the coin, the experience with public water systems has generally been a positive one so much so that it has become easy to take for granted the reliable flow of tap water into almost every home in the country.

The NIC report similarly critiques privatization, cautioning against “transferring ownership of water resources to private companies without proper local governance structures.” The report also highlights that government water utilities “can provide excellent services and generate sufficient revenue to sustain their water infrastructure.”

Yet despite the report’s findings, a wealth of information on the past failings of privatization, and the success of public water systems in the U.S., Secretary Clinton has chosen to focus the State Department’s resources on a so-called “public-private partnership” (PPP). Make no mistake, PPPs are just water privatization by another name. The term was, in fact, coined by the water industry to avoid the stigma attached to the term “water privatization.”

The USWP, like similar initiatives at the World Bank, puts the private water industry in the driver’s seat in global water governance. Corporations like Coca-Cola are core partners in the USWP, giving them undeserved access to government officials, and undue influence in informing the advice and the solutions proposed to other nations under the auspices of the U.S. government.

And, rest assured, Coke and other corporate partners will not hesitate to act in their self-interest – an interest that should not be confused with what’s best for U.S. taxpayers or other countries in expanding water services. The first public health and corporate accountability treaty – the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – offers an important precedent here that the State Department should heed: governance is not a partnership between democratically-elected leaders and special interests, but a means of governing the behaviors of special interests in service of the public good.

After all, Coke’s track record, for one, paints an all-too-clear picture of what private sector involvement in water delivery results in. According to its own internal audit, Coke has been responsible for running groundwater levels dangerously low in some of India’s most drought prone regions, prioritizing its plant’s operations over community need. It’s also spent the last two decades bottling tap water for profit – continuing even to bottle in its hometown of Atlanta while residents were asked to ration. Is this the type of entity we want representing the U.S. to the world? The type of entity we will allow to use the people’s State Department as tool for its own promotion?

In choosing to give private corporations a prominent role influencing and creating solutions to the global water crisis Clinton is sending a mixed message to the global community. On the one hand: “our country effectively relies on public solutions to provide water to the public.” On the other: “ corporate involvement in setting water policy and managing water systems, despite its manifold failings, is right for you.” What countries will take from this is: “the U.S. is really more interested in promoting the commercial interests of U.S.-based corporate water interests than reversing the water crisis.” True or not, the conflicts of interest inherent in the USWP undermine its aims.

Corporate Accountability International believes Secretary Clinton is right to identify the urgency of the water crisis and the role it plays in security both nationally and globally. But the USWP, as currently constructed, is the wrong approach in this time of great need. We are calling on Secretary Clinton to demonstrate true leadership in tackling the global water crisis by reexamining the composition of the USWP and, ultimately, quitting the promotion of PPPs altogether. Similarly, Secretary Clinton should urge the World Bank to stop its promotion and direct investment in water privatization by whatever name.

The best health care mess explanation article I've ever read, by far.

Link here

GATS-Facing the Facts -Timely info on the 1995 Free Trade Agreement, completion of it coming soon

http://www.citizen.org/documents/GATS-facing-the-facts-final.pdf (and other pubs on the same Canadian NGO's site, which are I think the clearest and most accessible writing on the web about trade deals)


Yes, they really have been negotiating it for 20 years! It keeps falling apart over the controversial public services. Developing countries dont want to give up public healthcare and education and follow the successful US models! But that is what GATS requires!

There is little wiggle room, as we of all people should know.

"Progressive liberalisation" as the entire scheme is called, is being sold to them as a sort of ElDorado, a glittering city of gold and jobs in the developed world, right over the next hill.

They just have to behave like us and give up the crutch of 20h century burdened, obsolete social services like the successful Americans have! Privatization is the ONLY future possible!

It has to be made irreversible, of course. By giving corporations entitlements to policy staying the same forever. (similar kind of legal case in this case, ISDS - in Slovakia - blocking single payer! )

See how the new FTAs all refer back to the original 1995 deal to block new public services and threaten the continued existence of public education in the EU and USA.

Another example India is just joining GATS now, a condition of which is giving up their right to education.

You can read lots of articles on that in the Indian press a discussion we never had here when GATS was being negotiated here at the beginning in the early 1990s.

Groups like the All India Students Association have held huge demonstrations battling the neoliberal Modi government, citing a return to the caste system where only those of hig caste could afford a good education. But the WTO which we signed in 1995, demands that education be opened for international trade and progressively (irreversibly) privatized and globalized.

Basically, its a trade, they give up new public health care and a national right to education, they and their employees get access to bid on contracts via government goods and services procurement e-portals and the private market in places like the US just as if they were a domestic company.

That is called "National Treatment" and "Most Favored Nation" or "MFN" (see http://www.iatp.org/files/MFN_and_the_GATS.htm )


Male elephant knocks down house that blocks off water supply, hears baby crying, stops, saves baby

This is the story I thought of when I saw the picture of Trump jr. holding up the dismembered elephant trunk when he was "on safari"..

https://www.google.com/search?q=tusker+saves+baby

When will we pass laws that protect the most intelligent animals - as if they were people?

And their habitat.

The reason I think Bernie is being kept out of media coverage actually goes back 20+ years

In the 1990s, the enactment of several intentionally convoluted and difficult to understand trade deals committed the US to the pushing of a global agenda that excludes (as far as I can tell) all (!) of Bernie Sanders platform issues from even being possible, and puts them on the table as bait to use to get other countries to agree to policy changes which we want, such as abolishing their own public services systems and things like constitutional rights to quality health care and education, and replacing them with the allagedly 'successful' US privatized health care and education system. In exchange, the developed countries are being asked to make deeper concessions on trade, and put more on the table, such as so called Mode Four concessions, (jobs) in new trade deals - particularly one that's almost completed the Trade in Services Agreement" which uses a 'negative list" to include all service sectors and "modes of supply" (such as Mode Four) by default, unless a service sector is explicitly"carved out" - in advance, in the "service schedule" filed with the agreement when it is signed, which could be any day now..

So, teams of Americans who represent the public need to be attempting to get these 'carve outs' into these service sectors in the scheduling agreements, now!

This deal is very similar to the 1994 General Agreement on Trade in Services which we signed in 1995, so one can get some idea of the issues involved by looking at the Indian press over the last year, for example, they had to give up the right to free education. In exchange they likely will be able to gain a lot of help from the services liberalisation - it will make it much easier for Indian staffing firms to do business here and elsewhere. They can offer very inexpensive staffing services which likely will be very controversial but unable to change at that point, forever. Obviously New Deal tye stimulus will then become impossible because spending money on infrastructure wont result in the level of local hiring that would have occurrred before the changes which are occurring, which began in 1994 but which stalled repeatedly (The Doha Development Agenda was in part about this but the foreign media made a great effort to keep the jobs part out of the media coverage and the US press does not say a peep about this already. The US media blackout on everything related to these deals is likely the root cause of the lack of coverage of the Bernie Sanders campaign because so many of the planks in his platform are proposed as if the GATS and WTO did not exist!

Which makes it a potential hook that the media fears to cover because no doubt they are afraid talking about single payer would lead to questions about GATS, WTO and TiSA (as well as TTIP and TPP)

This roadblock to serious discssion of these important issues should be the #1 issue for Sanders supporters.. but so far hasn't been seen at all because of efforts by both party leaderships, media, and others I am sure to prevent discussion of it at all. But the crazy ideology behind this, and the existing and pending almost completed secret deals are the real cause of almost all of our crazy, unworkable policies. For example, they are why health care is stuck, and can never get better, as doing that in any way other than globalizing and crapifying health care (which would maintain the high profits and class structure) would violate these deals ideology.

So to get the media blockade on Sanders ended this set of facts has to become known, first. Of course the entire 2007-2009 events were arguably invalidated as far as being a debate without any discussion of this core issue.

----------The impact of services liberalisation on US workers will likely be devastating as wages will be undercut very greatly by the subcontracting firms low wages_________

In countries that don't have really strong unions, such as the US what that will mean to a service sector like K12 education or higher education will be a massive increase in subcontracting by international firms down to the local level, with "disciplines on domestic regulations" which will make us make that transition to globalized competitive bidding for contracts happen on a massive scale. What that means is that millions of Americans will gradually be replaced by much lower paid replacements from developing countries, many of them have advanced educations, and will work for much much less. Since they are temps, its not immigration. We have to adjust whatever rules or laws stand in the way so they are "no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service" In exchange many huge US multinational corporations will be able to open branches and factories in other countries in the developing world and be treated as if they are a local company, by law. That is called "National Treatment" Also, more other countries corporations will have to be treated as well as we treat any other country. "Most Favored Nation" Additionally, companies from poorer countries (LDCs) will have extra rights such as the right to discriminate against firms from non-LDC countries to some extent by adopting a slower timetable for the 'progressive liberalisation' (one way irreversible privatization) of their public services.
Thank you.

here is the preamble to a obscure document released by the EU that outlines TiSA. Note that the preambles to all these agreements are non-binding ad sometimes deceptive- Only the actual text is binding..

--------------------


6891/13 ADD 1 DC/asz 2 -

DG C 1 RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED EN (Declassified last year in Brussels, 10 March 2015)
(OR. en) 6891/13 - ADD 1 DCL 1 - WTO 53 - SERVICES 11 - FDI 4 - OC 96 (location in WTO document hierarchy)

Draft Directives for the negotiation of a plurilateral agreement on trade in services


A. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT
On substance, the agreement should achieve essentially the same objectives as set out in the Council
Conclusions of October 1999 (12092/99 WTO 131), i.e. the agreement should be comprehensive,
ambitious, should aim at reducing existing imbalances and be fully consistent with World Trade
Organisation (WTO) rights and obligations, notably with regard to the WTO General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS). The negotiations should be conducted and concluded with due regard to
rights and obligations under the WTO, taking into account the elements for political guidance of the
8th WTO Ministerial Conference by respecting the principles of transparency and inclusiveness.

In detail, the agreement should seek to bind, in general, the autonomous level of liberalisation of the
parties and provide for opportunities through negotiations for improved market access. The
agreement should also be comprehensive and comply with the requirements of GATS Article V in
terms of sectoral and mode of supply coverage. New and enhanced regulatory disciplines based on
proposals by the parties should be developed during the negotiations.

The agreement should take account of the fact that not all WTO-members are participating in the
negotiations. To prevent an automatic and unconditional multilateralisation of the agreement based
on the effect of the most-favoured-nation principle laid down in GATS Article II:1, the plurilateral
services agreement needs to fulfil the conditions of an Economic Integration Agreement pursuant to
GATS Article V, i.e. have a substantial sectoral coverage and provide for the elimination of existing
discriminatory measures and/or the prohibition of new or more discriminatory measures. The
agreement shall be built on the GATS to ensure a smooth future incorporation of the plurilateral
services agreement into the GATS and it shall incorporate GATS core articles. The agreement shall
provide for market access (GATS Article XVI) for services sectors in the same way as
commitments are undertaken, under GATS. It could go beyond GATS by providing for a horizontal
discipline for national treatment (GATS Article XVII) that would be applied in principle to all

sectors and modes of supply, subject to exemptions. In line with the Council Conclusions of 1999,
by applying this horizontal formula subject to exemptions, the negotiations would be more efficient
and would maximise the results. The agreement should have an overall architecture conducive to its
future multilateralisation and set out the mechanisms and conditions of accession and future
multilateralisation. To ensure that the parties observe mutually agreed rules and commitments, the
agreement shall include an effective dispute settlement mechanism. Due regard shall be given to the
dispute settlement mechanism provided for in the WTO Agreement. The European Union will
ensure that the Union and its Member States maintain the possibility to preserve and develop their
capacity to define and implement cultural and audiovisual policies for the purposes of preserving
their cultural diversity. The high quality of the EU's public utilities should be preserved in
accordance with the TFEU and in particular Protocol N° 26 on Services of General Interest, and
taking into account the EU's commitments in this area, including the GATS.

How we lost the ability to have any more New Deals

Recently, a Presidential Candidate put forward the proposition that the US government could stimulate (which?) economic activity by spending lots of money. In the past the US government was able to use infrastructure projects to create domestic jobs for its own citizens. Of course that was true in the 30s and its unambiguous that the United States and other WTO Members can still stimulate the entire global economy by spending lots of money on services.

However, that money likely will soon go to the lowest qualified bidding firms, and its possible that low bidders may hail from all around the world, and purchasers of services may not be allowed to discriminate by country. Winners may not be in the US, thanks to GATS and the pending TiSA, soon there will no longer be a linkage between government spending and job creation. Unfortunately, the neoliberals failed to tell Americans about GATS which leaves many gaps in Americans ability to understand the global services economy, for example on health care.

These changes are irreversible and they make free affordable health care and education FTA illegal . Would somebody please tell America!

Why did my explanation of why HRC is against free education stop getting comments in 5 minutes?

in General Discussion (Primaries).

I offered up definitive, authoritative proof.

In this thread I'll explain why Hillary Clinton is against free college education in 15 seconds.

The answer is really well illustrated right now using the Internet. Can I ask all of you to take a look at a debate going on right now in India about the commodification of education and India's accession to the WTO. Part of that accession is that India is being asked by the US and other WTO members to sign the WTO "General Agreement on Trade in Services" or GATS, which Bill Clinton signed in December 1994.

You will find if you do a little Googling that signing on to the WTO GATS is alleged to require that Indians give up their constitutional right to public education.

And there is your answer. During the Clinton Administration this horrible trade deal that signs away our ability to vote for and have public services like education, health care and dozens of other important rights was signed but the nation was never told this. The same issue is also the cause of our health care insanity. Our future began to be blocked then in 1994 by this secretive deal hidden in plain sight by a code of silence.

And its still being hidden by an unwritten code of silence today. That's your answer. There is no other answer. The plan is to eventually trade jobs for market access, so they want the public sector to be privatized because procurement can then be forced through a system to globalize it, awarding thse jobs to the lowest qualified bidder firm wherever they are. So no more New Deals to create jobs, those jobs are likely to go wherever skills are highest combined with wages are lowest. To make sure that the process doest favor any one country, they have been working now for decades on "Disciplines on Domestic Regulation". One name for this global scheme is "progressive liberalisation". But its really a global privatization or "disinvestment" scheme as they call it in India. I hope this makes sense to people.

Please ask any questions if you have them. I can't promise to know the answer.

There are four modes of supply in GATS. The process I just described involves trading Mode Four - (Movement of Natural Persons) for Mode Three.


EDIT-- added the following statement

----------------------

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.sflb.ashx



The European University Association (EUA) represents over 850 universities in 47
countries, as well as 33 national rectors’ conferences. It is the voice of universities in the
European Higher Education Area and a full consultative member of the Bologna Process. It
is in regular dialogue with the EU institutions and is a forceful and respected advocate in
the full range of higher education (HE) policy fields:

research, knowledge transfer, innovation and regional development
internationalisation, mobility and recognition
governance and funding
institutional capacity building and quality assurance

EUA and its members are fully committed to the cause of international development. They
work with peer organisations in other global regions, notably Africa, Asia, Latin and North
America, promoting the production and exchange of cultural and scientific knowledge and
the sharing of democratic and pluralist values.

EUA holds strongly to the view that HE is a public responsibility, dedicated to supporting
personal fulfilment and social cohesion, as well as to contributing to the satisfaction of
labour market needs. It believes in extending the benefits of HE to as many individuals as
possible, on a lifelong basis, without discrimination on grounds of gender, ethnicity,
disability, sexuality, religion, or the ability to pay.

In this regard, a number of trade agreements currently being negotiated give cause for
concern. They are:

the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and
Canada, which is nearing completion;
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which brings together
the EU and the USA;
and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), involving 23 countries and including
the EU EUA has closely followed the TTIP and TiSA negotiations1, as a participant in the European
Commission’s Civil Society Dialogue. Both sets of talks have potentially significant
implications for HE institutions, as well as for regional and national systems within the EU
and the European Economic Area.

TTIP seeks to eliminate non-tariff barriers to the trade of manufactured and agricultural
goods, boosting growth and stimulating job creation. Service sectors feature equally
prominently. TTIP nevertheless goes far beyond the scope of a traditional trade agreement.
It aims at maximising regulatory cooperation between the two largest internal markets in
the world – the EU and the US – and at opening up a single public procurement and
investment space.

TiSA is a plurilateral negotiation: it involves only some of the World Trade Organisation’s
(WTO) members. The EU hopes that in the course of time it will evolve into a multilateral
agreement embracing all WTO member countries. Its focus is solely on services, of which
the EU and the US are the largest global providers.

Both TTIP and TiSA have a strategic motivation. They are designed to set precedents in the
management of global trade, compensating for the perceived failure of the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA) and pre-empting initiatives which might be taken by other
global economic powers.

Both potentially cover HE, adult education (AE), and ‘other’ educational services. In TTIP,
negotiations proceed according to the principle of the negative list, in which all negotiable
items are tabled at the outset, with only rare exclusions. The scope of TiSA is the same as
that of the 1995 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).


In the light of information currently available (published and leaked documents, official
briefings, statements by governments and the European Commission) on the ongoing trade
agreement negotiations, EUA notes that:

1. Negotiators regularly offer reassurances that public services will be protected. However,
the GATS definition of a ‘public’ service is not adequate for purpose where higher education
is concerned. HE is not administered by the exercise of government authority in the
manner of defence, justice and police; it is not automatically excluded from trade
negotiations. Moreover, HE fails to satisfy the GATS criteria which allow exemption for
services supplied ‘neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more
service suppliers’. Many HE systems include both public and private providers and many
public institutions depend on a mix of public and private funding. Such hybridity at system
and institutional levels means that trade negotiations such as TTIP and TiSA cannot be
conducted with legal certainty and clarity.

2. The definitions of ‘higher’, ‘adult’ and ‘other’ educational services are also problematic.
The UN’s Central Products Classification code (CPC), which is used in trade negotiations,
gives ‘no explanatory note’ for HE. ‘Other’ is defined in a manner more appropriate to
‘higher’2. The clearest definition is reserved for ‘adult’3, notwithstanding which, the
European Commission has been obliged to canvass Member States to ascertain in what AE
actually consists.



3. The ability of elected national and regional authorities to determine the nature of their
HE provision is cast into doubt by some of the key features of TiSA and, by extension, of
TTIP. The mechanisms of ‘standstill’, ‘ratchet’ and ‘future-proofing’ significantly limit the
scope of legislative action once agreements have been signed. They require that the level
of service liberalisation can never be reduced, that any change can operate only in the
direction of further liberalisation, and that all services to be developed in the future fall
automatically within the scope of the agreements.

4. This particular issue is clouded by the uncertainty surrounding the extent to which the
EU is mandated to negotiate on trade in general, in which it has exclusive competence, and
on education, in which it has only complementary competence. In TiSA, the EU has lodged
a reservation identical to the one it lodged previously in GATS, whereby it ‘reserves the
right to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to publicly-funded education services.’
This, the European Commission believes, offers full reassurance that Member States retain
the right to discriminate in favour of publicly-funded HE. The Commission is reluctant to
consider the possibility that education might be exempted from the scope of trade
negotiations, as the audio-visual sector has been and as many stakeholders believe health
services should be.

5. The domestic policy scope enjoyed by national and regional authorities is further
threatened by the investor state dispute mechanism (ISDS) which is included in TTIP,
although not in TiSA. ISDS gives private corporations the right to sue public authorities
whenever they feel that local legislation impinges on their ability to generate ‘legitimate’
profits. This feature of TTIP is particularly controversial and has drawn 149,000 responses
to a consultation launched by DG Trade.

6. Current trade negotiations have the potential to impinge not only on the learning and
teaching mission of universities, but also on other aspects of HE, such as research and
development, data collection and data flows, intellectual property, e-commerce, and the
recognition of professional qualifications. However, the detail of the negotiations is
shrouded in secrecy and it is impossible for the HE sector to discover the extent to which
its operating environment might change.


EUA accordingly declares that:

A HE benefits individuals, society and the world at large in ways that are not easily
quantifiable. It is a public responsibility to which all citizens have right of access and not a
commodity to be transacted by commercial interests on a for-profit basis. It should not be
subject to international trade regimes.

B Moreover, HE should not be transacted within a framework that puts the systems of
developing countries at risk from corporate ventures located outside their borders.
Developing countries must retain the autonomy to determine how their universities
should participate in the growth of international HE.

C The internationalisation of HE has proceeded at considerable pace in recent years.
Collaborative research, joint curriculum development, staff and student mobility, open and
distance learning have all flourished, on a not-for-profit basis and outside the scope of
trade agreements. A greater degree of global governance is desirable, but it should develop
on the model of the UNESCO-supported academic recognition frameworks, designed and
implemented with full participation by appropriate sectoral bodies.


D Intellectual property rights are inevitably at issue in trade agreements. It is essential
that TTIP and TiSA protect both individuals’ rights to privacy and universities’ codes of
conduct in respect of the openness of scientific collaboration, particularly with regard to
the international transfer and secondary processing of data.

E The global HE context is rapidly evolving. There is an urgent need for the categories of
‘public’, ‘private’, ‘higher, ‘adult’ and ‘other’ to be redefined on the basis of stakeholder
consensus. Knowledge import- and export markets clearly exist and must be regulated to
the benefit of all, but ISDS, standstill, ratchet and future-proofing have no place in this
process.

F The inclusion of items of ‘other education services’ in trade agreements must be
undertaken on a positive list basis, following full consultation with appropriate sectoral
bodies at European level, together with extensive ex ante impact assessment.
G In every other respect, the EU should not make commitments in the categories of HE and
AE. It should make absolutely clear to its negotiating partners that elected Member State
governments reserve the right to determine the character of their HE and AE systems.



EUA President and elected Board members
• Prof. Maria Helena Nazaré, University of Aveiro (EUA President), Portugal
• Prof. David Drewry, University of Hull (EUA Vice-President), United Kingdom
• Prof. Lauritz B. Holm-Nielsen, Aarhus University (EUA Vice-President), Denmark
• Prof. Gülay Doğu Barbarosoğlu, Bogazici University, Turkey
• Prof. Esther Giménez-Salinas, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain
• Prof. Vaclav Hampl, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
• Prof. Kristín Ingólfsdóttir, University of Iceland, Iceland
• Prof. Stefano Paleari, University of Bergamo, Italy
• Prof. Margret Wintermantel, DAAD, Germany
EUA Council: Europe’s national university associations represented by their Presidents
• Universities Austria
• Rectors' Conference, French Community of Belgium
• Flemish Interuniversity Council
• Croatian Rectors' Conference
• Cyprus Rectors' Conference
• Czech Rectors' Conference
• Universities Denmark
• Estonian Rectors' Conference
• Universities Finland
• Conference of University Presidents (France)
• German Rectors’ Conference
• Greek Rectors' Conference
• Conference of Rectors of Roman Pontifical Universities
• Hungarian Rectors' Conference
• Rectors’ Conference of Iceland
• Irish Universities Association
• Conference of Italian University Rectors
• Latvian Rectors’ Council

• Lithuanian Universities Rectors' Conference
• University of Luxembourg
• Association of Universities in the Netherlands
• Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions
• Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland
• Council of Rectors of Portuguese Universities
• Romanian Council of Rectors
• Serbian Rectors’ Conference
• Slovak Rectors’ Conference
• Slovenian Rectors´ Conference
• Spanish Rectors’ Conference
• Association of Swedish Higher Education
• Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities
• The Council of Higher Education (Turkey)
• Universities UK

Bernie Supporters should NOT demobilize-they should organize to fight the trade deals because..

Whether he wins or loses -Bernie Supporters should plan to NOT demobilize- Instead they should organize to fight the 3 horrible PENDING FTAS (TTIP, TISA, TPP, all of which overlap and are designed to be confusing, THEY ALL ARE POISON TO THE FUTURE AND HEIR PASSAGE WILL BLOCK BERNIE SANDERS ENTIRE PLATFORM FROM ABOVE MAKING OUR DEMOCRACY INTO AN EVER WORSENING FAKE)


(There is also the long stalled DOHA DEVELOPMENT AGENDA or "DOHA ROUND", which is part of the WTO, and additional and existing WTO deals in the pipeline and proposed, like the so called Trade Facilitation Agreement for Services - proposed by India which is certain to target "overpaid" US jobs- for low wage international subcontracting. Also the WTO Government Procuremen Agreement could radically change how workers are hired - leading to large shifts that could leave US workers unemployed and unable to find work without leaving the country, and millions others with no hopes of ever getting an entry level job because of others who will have much lower costs and be here on temporary, non-immigrant L1 or similar visas to do work for their corporate employers at wages which may be completely out of our ability to know or control) The teaching, nursing, construction, IT and many other trades, as well as wages nationally could be heavily impacted by these 'temporary, non-immigrant' contracts awarded internationally to the lowest qualified bidder.. Bernie supporters wont have any PLATFORM that works if they pass, Bernie will be powerless to do what he wants to do and instead will be stuck with overseeing very horrible changes which other people set up to attack the nation's security and strip people of all they have worth taking.. many of which things are intangibles and not enforceble rights now and they are promised to others in fact, behind our backs, in these trade deals. Also they are manipulating us with fake "crises" which they likely are goin to try to use to justify extremely bad policy mistakes. Read about NPS. As long as NPDs are in charge they will do that kind of thing as that is what they do. Its what William Black calls a "control fraud". Another term is "captured state" As in captured country, where all its institutions are captured. We have a global captured state.

Why should Americans care about "trade" deals? Because they hijack democracy, forever (they don't expire.)


Bad trade deals make single payer health care impossible by systematically blocking the things which comprise it.

Bad trade deals will block virtually every single kind of New Deal economic stimulus, they will block any increase in free public education, they will block any green jobs programs hat create jobs here in the US, they will funnel all government spending through things like the WTO or CAFTA procurement and e-tendering (bidding) systems which will mean that low wage subcontractors from the other side of the world will bid on, win and take over the work building public works, construction, energy until those fields are completely automated (and even then they may run them) because THEY will have gotten the free education and THEY will be the ones who WTO rues justify paying more because WTO rules require awards be by "objective criteria" and explicitly forbid hiring subcontracting firms based on country of origin, except in cases where is allowed and THEN they allow discrimination ONLY in favor of less developed countries, and the US being rich is deemed to have grown out of the need for subsidies and regulations (like minimum wage laws and innumerable other regulations that are framed as trade barriers by neoliberalism) and rules of every kind. Only the less developed countries are being allowed to keep (not start new) public :state owned enterprises" and "monopolies" like public education and health care. Every change they make must only be privatization This "programme" is broadly called "progressive liberalisation". So - for Bernie to win, everybody needs to become much more knowledgeable about these deals and especially HOW THIS ALL, what is arguably the biggest and most important change in the world in the last 20 years, has been systematically omitted from US media stories. For example, Bernie Sanders is being omitted because he challenges this takeover implicitly by prtending its not there and suggesting we do the things most of which were blocked during the Clinton Administration by GATS, NAFTA, and the establishment of the WTO. This is why the announcement of the US winning the solar energy case with India the other day might be seen as a not so subtle message to the neoliberal community outside of the US that the WTO remains in control and that Bernie's suggestions of a return to NewDeal style policies wont ever happen, quite the opposite, the huge amount of churning of housing created by the TTIP energy deal wil create green jobs that Indian firms are likely to get, because they are the qualified low bidders - not having to pay US wages. See, its an attack on a way of life thats been living on borrowed time while these trade deals were quietly prepared and readied for their attack on the middle class.

This statement is about the TiSA TTIP impact on free public education- it threatens its very existence.

This video is about TiSA, the trade in services agreement.



Don't be misled by her casual sort of incredulous delivery, Sanya Reid Smith is an expert on world trade and she is speaking at the WTO summer session, the only time representatives of the real non lobbyist world are allowed in (it being Europe, and summer many/most of the representatives to the WTO are probably on month long vacations with their families)

Note she describes the new and radically aggressive "negative list" - a complete departure from GATS - the Mode Four (international temping jobs) part of which had never successfully taken off under GATS and in the US remains little known. Because of the sensitive nature of the issue, trading other peoples jobs for markets. That's what is really the most important thing CARVE OUTS FOR ANYTHING LIKE HEALTH CARE NEED TO GO INTO TISA NOW OR "ALL SERVICE SECTIONS AND MODES OF SUPPLY" will be included..

What are "modes of supply" what is the "Fourth Mode of Supply"? Americans and other peoples jobs turned into bargaining chips, that what.

See

I especially urge people to look at the press in India about the WTO GATS accession and its attacks on free public higher education. Its easier to find than US media just search on GATS, WTO, India, education. Its all in English and it also hints at the trading of jobs for markets aspects of the big deals, the part you never ever read about in the US.

These videos came up right now when I searched but I have not watched them yet..out of many picked at random from Indian YouTube







We signed this agreement in 1995 but there was never even a single meaningful discussion about what we would lose in the US. Instead the nation was diverted with mindless health care discussion which was wasting energy with solutions which at that time we already suspected would not work. Now we know beyond doubt they do not work, BTW. So whats happening now is especially evil.



Health care, education, affordable energy, water every single thing in Bernie's platform now is arguably UNDER ATTACK by the MANY pending trade deals a- continuation of the attack begun in existing ones and their truly anti-people policies that created them which are literally trying to take over the economic aspects of the future, emasculating governments to only being rubber stamps that oversee an ever worstening ever privatizing never improving set of conditions, which politicians wont be able to discuss the real causes of, (because they will have to admit they lied virtually about everything of importance for their entire term) instead they will have to lie and pretend to argue and probably many will become alcoholics, etc. We will never get a single good political leader again, we will only get crooks and would be crooks and soon to become crooks.. These deals effectively lock the future world into policies that will make it FTA-illegal - and therefore impossible for good things to happen to people, because they will be bound to take some market from some corporation, even clean air will likely eventually have to be bought so legislation to require clean air will then have to compensate the clean air corporation for lost customers, Laws that remove criminal penalties for one thing will have to criminalize something else that imprisons as many or more people (in the privatized prisons, which will have figured how to collect huge sums for people who otherwise would not be economically important, by criminalizing them!) This is the nightmare world of CHURNING.. You see, real wealth creation takes creativity it takes a willingness to invest in SOCIETY without an immediate pay back. Most politicians are narcissists which means they have an affective disorder characterized by delusional thinking. But they are the most compelling liars around, (See Joanna Ashmuns web site on NPD)

Normal people develop their empathy for others at around age six. NPD people for some reason have that process interrupted, often its by stress. (this is the best argument I know of for having a state structure which protects families from extreme overty, no matter what the economic situation is- However the NPDs actually want to force a race to the bottom because its more profitable taking advantage of powerless people when they are down. That's the dark side of their "market based reform"-Most of us believe that wages should be sustainable, and not ONLY based on "supply and demand". That is a key difference, they do.

In a world where science can make almost anything possible, its unwise to let crooks take the maximum possible advantage of the poor who fall off the edge of the economic cliff, because more and more people will as the technologies emerge faster and the subsequent unpredictability increases exponentially over time. By being a good neighbor and friend to other BUT NOT BY SACRFICING THE WEAKEST AMONG US, we can make good relationships with the world. Instead they are trying to forge alliances between the corrupt against the people of both developed and develping worlds in a divide and conquer strategy. Both on the national and international scale. Read this essay (and others on the same and similar sites). to see how they do that. Its a bit old but it describes key concepts that are all still in use and as such its useful.

Read this essay about health care too if you havent already.

Its something NPDs dont understand and feel threatened by because creativity means real change and its disruptive. Free trade is really slave trade, its a way of enslaving the planet to a money is everything future when in fact, the argument for money running everything is becoming less and less compelling as we become closer to a world where virtually nobody would have to do unpleasant jobs because machines will for less, and so jobs will be likely done more because people like them, for other reasons than money. That is the future. The money has been good, its not going awy but we have to resist this attempt to lock us into a straightjacket made by people who arguably have lost - who lack the common sense to lead. Their endless drama and emergencies justifying this or that are a contrived and dishonest scheme to trick us into things which make the future dangerous for all of us Best to learn about and see through and expose this and it will teach us- only that will teach us to recognize it when we see it and back away.

and instead will isolate and destroy families and people and turn the world into a much different place than it could be. It could be a paradise of learning and growth for all of us because of the extra time people will have because of automation, or it could become a nightmare for us all and perhaps even lead to our extinction within the next century - That is I feel at least a 50% probability if these things are allowed to happen, and the way its happening is because of ignorance. I would like to ask people to do two thing. One is to go to the many web sites I am going to list which are all around the world and read up on these trade deals and make your own opinions of them. Our knowledge is being prevented from happening by an organized media blockade. So surf elsewhere where you will find more info, and make friends there.

Web sites and Organizations:


policyalternatives.ca

citizen.org

bilaterals.org

corporateeuropeobservatory

ourworldisnotforsale (or ownfs )

twnside.my

ttip2016.eu

tni.org

Is it okay if I post a link to a letter from the UK that might be very informative about what

is going on in the media and just - well, it speaks for itself. Lets all grow wiser together.

We wonder why Bernie gets treated the way he does by US media, right.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/john-hilary/on-ttip-and-nhs-they-are-trying-to-bamboozle-us

Let me know if you want more, I don't want to spam

Some background. John Hilary is the director of War on Want in the UK and a leading activist in the SAVE THE NHS movement. Save it against what? US!

Read it!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next »