Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
126. I agree that the reason we, the US do not compete well or work together well with the international
Sat May 30, 2015, 04:49 PM
May 2015

trade community, is that we do not have the social infrastructure and safety net to respond and retool to the lost jobs and the changes that globalization requires.

But I have a more serious objection to global trade.

The corporate form of business organization is useful. It encourages efficient investment, allowing capital to flow into useful purposes and be used well to develop new products and services for the benefit of our society.

But corporations are not organized democratically. Corporations are autocratic, dictatorial institutions by nature. They are specifically and clearly organized in order to limit the social responsibility, even the potential indebtedness in case of failure of the corporation to its creditors. They can be useful means of development for democratic societies as long as the corporations are regulated by and answer to the democratic will as expressed in government. But corporations are by definition, by organization, by law, structures that avoid or limit responsibility.

In addition, human beings are limited by nationality (dual nationality, maybe even triple nationality is possible but people are still limited by national affiliation and their geographical location) while corporations today are often multinational.

Thus individual human beings who are limited and defined by geographical and national limits and who form governments, hopefully in a democratic fashion are now living in a world in which corporations, irresponsible (by design), undemocratic (by definition) and in need of regulation are organized as multinationals, huge multinationals with large amounts of capital and an irresistible drive to dominate, to compete, to govern selfishly and recklessly, irresponsibly and to get what the corporation wants in spite of the needs of people and nations.

And these corporations, which could and do serve an essential role in our society, are because of and via our trade agreements overwhelming our democratic institutions and replacing them with the autocratic, dictatorial institutions of corporations.

And that i view as an insurmountable drawback to the trade agreements and the ISDS courts.

Corporations are not perhaps intentionally conspiring to take over the world via these trade agreements. But that will be the result of the trade agreements.

I do not think that it is possible to have international regulation of these huge corporations that is compatible with democracy and the local law-making, local rule, local government that is necessary if democratic institutions are to thrive.

China, a Communist dictatorship, has found a way to deal compatibly with the corporate investment model. But it is still not a democracy. It is a nation ruled by one party, the Communist Party. interestingly although not surprisingly because of its huge population, it is the biggest exporting nation in the world.

It is proof that international trade is no impediment to dictatorship.

The US, a democracy for well over 200 years, on the other hand has a large trade deficit, has seen its steel sector, and other industrial sectors such as furniture production, etc. nearly shut down. We are unable to compete.

The corporate model is a dictatorship. If we value democracy, we need to protect it at all costs, even by entering into one-on-one trade agreements with other countries rather than these multi-national trade agreements through which the corporations, which are not limited by geographical location or national affiliation, outmaneuver us and destroy us and our democratic ways of life.

I note that even Germany which, with its amazingly effective training and retraining system (I've lived there and know it well) which its wonderfully efficient and skilled labor force, with its long tradition of labor guilds and now unions and good relationships between employers and employees, is under pressure from corporations that want to force it to accept nuclear power that it does not want.

So, I oppose these corporate-dominated, sociopath, supernationa, undemocratic trade deals including but not limited to the TPP.

I'm not going to be impatient waiting for one. arcane1 May 2015 #1
Suppose Hillary didn't want to step all over upaloopa May 2015 #2
No candidate can win on platform alone. morningfog May 2015 #3
Since she's no longer part of Obama's administration The Velveteen Ocelot May 2015 #5
Well, I here what you're saying, but... PatrickforO May 2015 #8
She didn't have a problem stepping on President Obama's foreign policy decisions. frylock May 2015 #11
What about stepping all over workers all over the place? TheNutcracker May 2015 #86
Perhaps she has one but does not wish to express it KamaAina May 2015 #4
You hit the nail on the head. JDPriestly May 2015 #101
It's kabuki theater. AtomicKitten May 2015 #6
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Scuba May 2015 #111
+10000000 woo me with science May 2015 #118
She's going to tick off SOMEONE, no matter WHICH side she comes down on. Buns_of_Fire May 2015 #7
Profiles in Polling? MFrohike May 2015 #25
She can't triangulate out of a circle. Nt HooptieWagon May 2015 #36
Thus the catch-22. She has to say something now, or be accused of wafling. eloydude May 2015 #46
She's hoping to hide all of her opinions except the really innocuous ones Doctor_J May 2015 #9
That does seem to be the strategy, all right Art_from_Ark May 2015 #14
Being a citizen means less to most politicians these days than being a shareholder. nt raouldukelives May 2015 #112
Because the money she's raising is from people who have a stake in its passage. ibegurpard May 2015 #10
Everyone who knows about the TPP has an opinion. Autumn May 2015 #12
Pretty sure she does have an opinion, she just doesn't want to say it. DanTex May 2015 #13
A dangerous one - it is an immediate issue, and she has to say SOMETHING now.. eloydude May 2015 #48
Answer: there isn't a TPP to have an opinion on... brooklynite May 2015 #15
What a pantload Art_from_Ark May 2015 #20
There IS a TPA to have an opinion on, but she's been silent on that, too. Jim Lane May 2015 #24
Yeah, there's trade authority that every President since FDR has had Recursion May 2015 #63
If Clinton thinks the TPA bill is no big deal and should be approved, let her SAY so. Jim Lane May 2015 #73
Bluntly, activists in our party are going insane for no reason and it's hard for her to respond to Recursion May 2015 #76
Thanks, I see where our difference is. Jim Lane May 2015 #91
The problem with the XL pipeline is where it goes -- through really important farmland that JDPriestly May 2015 #102
No, you're just wrong there. Sorry, but you're blaming the wrong countries Recursion May 2015 #104
We need to get out of NAFTA in order to get out of the ISDS court. JDPriestly May 2015 #107
China, India, and Bangladesh all have a "lesser" form of MFN Recursion May 2015 #109
We should end any agreement that allows corporations to sue any sovereign state in any JDPriestly May 2015 #115
Leaving NAFTA would leave us in the US/Canada FTA which preexisted NAFTA? If we drop out of that too pampango May 2015 #113
We should go back to unilateral trade agreements until we get our balance of payments system JDPriestly May 2015 #114
You do want to go back to the Coolidge/Hoover days? No WTO, no trade agreements, pampango May 2015 #117
I know A LOT about arbitration. It can be great for disputes between equals, such as two JDPriestly May 2015 #120
Europe has its problems. What country or continent does not? But they have the best income equality pampango May 2015 #123
We will never "go back" to the environment that existed at the time of Coolidge and Hoover. JDPriestly May 2015 #121
If we do what you suggest we would be well on our way. There was not GATT/WTO. There were no pampango May 2015 #124
Sorry. I post an answer and then realize that is it is not complete. JDPriestly May 2015 #122
FDR would have thought the US would be what modern Germany is. Highly-paid workers, strong unions, pampango May 2015 #125
I agree that the reason we, the US do not compete well or work together well with the international JDPriestly May 2015 #126
Obama is for it. Warren and Sanders oppose it. Hillary? Eh, she'll tell you after its too late. morningfog May 2015 #40
What difference does it make if she's for it or against it? woolldog May 2015 #16
It makes a hell of a lot of difference to me Art_from_Ark May 2015 #23
you're not thinking this through. woolldog May 2015 #37
I am thinking this through Art_from_Ark May 2015 #42
How? Recursion May 2015 #96
I will explain that later on, in an OP Art_from_Ark May 2015 #97
I look forward to it! Recursion May 2015 #98
It will hurt our economy. JDPriestly May 2015 #103
NAFTA didn't. Why would TPP? (nt) Recursion May 2015 #105
NAFTA has severely harmed our economy. JDPriestly May 2015 #106
You aren't making an argument Recursion May 2015 #108
We losgt manufacturing and jobs to Mexico in particular. JDPriestly May 2015 #116
Makes a big difference to me. 840high May 2015 #67
Is this serious? MFrohike May 2015 #27
serious as a heart attack woolldog May 2015 #38
I hate to break it to you - The nomination process isn't American Idol eloydude May 2015 #54
Horseshit MFrohike May 2015 #61
That's a nice anecdote. woolldog May 2015 #69
There's where we differ MFrohike May 2015 #72
I hate to break it to you. There is a contested primary. morningfog May 2015 #41
TPP has a provision that Malaysia hates - restricting sex trade eloydude May 2015 #52
You're against restricting the Malaysian sex trade because Malaysian citizens want it to continue? Recursion May 2015 #77
No. I'm for TPP being dumped eloydude May 2015 #80
So you prefer our current free trade agreement with Malaysia? Recursion May 2015 #81
I look forward to the debates !! nt m-lekktor May 2015 #17
I won't support a TPP that is secret and JEB May 2015 #18
Great! Once there's a TPP you'll be able to read it like everybody else Recursion May 2015 #83
By then it will be a take it or leave it. JEB May 2015 #87
If they don't want it they can vote against it. Not that hard. Recursion May 2015 #88
She charges more than $17,000 and it takes longer for the larger checks to clear? peecoolyour May 2015 #19
kinda like Seinfeld was a show about nothing Motown_Johnny May 2015 #21
I have serious doubts it will be enough for the primaries. hifiguy May 2015 #32
Nobody will be able to get away with vague "move the country forward" platitudes this time around. arcane1 May 2015 #35
Indeed, if Clinton comes out arrogantly and condescending eloydude May 2015 #55
Yeah, the voters over and over have signalled their preference for wonky issues-driven campaigns Recursion May 2015 #82
She supports the trade agreement. She just doesn't want to say so yet. DisgustipatedinCA May 2015 #22
My, my, guess some does not receive the news. Thinkingabout May 2015 #26
The people at Goldman haven't come up hifiguy May 2015 #28
Don't worry Art_from_Ark May 2015 #29
Chined in the basement, I am sure. nt hifiguy May 2015 #31
Way I'm hearing it, they have to hire another 200 more... eloydude May 2015 #57
And then more advisors to advise those advisors, and then... Art_from_Ark May 2015 #100
Quiet, please ! She's listening. libdem4life May 2015 #30
She's waiting to evolve in the most politically expedient direction. Like she did on her IWR vote. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #33
It is a matter of economics. edgineered May 2015 #34
The TPP is not finished, but she should come out for TPA and lobby House Democrats to get on board. tritsofme May 2015 #39
Why should House Democrats "get on board"? Art_from_Ark May 2015 #43
Nobody has an opinion on the TPP. Not one single person. Recursion May 2015 #44
That is incorrect Art_from_Ark May 2015 #45
There is no "the document" for them to read. Recursion May 2015 #47
Oh, for crying out loud Art_from_Ark May 2015 #49
That does happen, yes. More importantly most paragraphs will have 7 or 8 versions running around Recursion May 2015 #51
Yeah, lowest-common denominator consensus Art_from_Ark May 2015 #53
If it goes with the framework of the current bilateral agreements Recursion May 2015 #58
Seeing that the current TPP "proposal" has Malaysia pissed and Japanese citizens suing Japan eloydude May 2015 #59
The Malaysian government also pissed off a lot of Malaysians by breaking up a slave ring Recursion May 2015 #62
Right.. eloydude May 2015 #64
Well, we disagree about the impact of NAFTA Recursion May 2015 #68
What's your opinion on Windows 10? Or OS X 10.11? Ubuntu 16.04? (nt) Recursion May 2015 #50
Well being a beta tester for TM99 May 2015 #56
Not really; I have a Windows 10 Beta ISO too Recursion May 2015 #60
You are still missing the point. TM99 May 2015 #65
As far as that goes, as I said in #76 Recursion May 2015 #79
Batshit crazy? TM99 May 2015 #89
If I were raising money for a liberal organization I'd probably come out against it too Recursion May 2015 #90
Why are you even here? TM99 May 2015 #92
Because I'm a liberal Democrat. I've given labor and money to multiple D campaigns Recursion May 2015 #93
So party over principles. TM99 May 2015 #94
My principles won't do a damn thing for the environment, the poor, women, LGBTs, minorities ... Recursion May 2015 #95
This is veering off topic TM99 May 2015 #99
Well it is logical to side step forming a concrete position on this issue right now during her underahedgerow May 2015 #66
My guess is she is trying to take the temperature of the electorate BainsBane May 2015 #70
This is Clinton Politics 101....Check the wind, then set sail Joe the Revelator May 2015 #71
She has an opinion that includes objectives any agreement presented to Congress must meet for her Hoyt May 2015 #74
I don't see it as enormously important bhikkhu May 2015 #75
I don't know, trade has done wonders to reduce global inequality Recursion May 2015 #78
Trade pacts haven't had such a big impact on trade bhikkhu May 2015 #84
I'll agree that trade agreements' effects get overstated Recursion May 2015 #85
She helped negotiate it and said she supported it. Now, thanks to polling, her thinking has merrily May 2015 #110
kick woo me with science May 2015 #119
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Forget the DU created iss...»Reply #126