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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
23. Many other countries (e.g. Japan, South Korea, China) have active partnerships between gov't and
Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:58 PM
Jul 2012

industry. The distinction between corporations and nations is largely arbitrary, in such cases.

See, for example:

Chaebol (from chae: wealth or property + pŏl: faction or clan)[1] refers to a South Korean form of business conglomerate. They are global multinationals owning numerous international enterprises. The term is often used in a context similar to that of the English word "conglomerate". The term was first used in 1984.[1]

There are several dozen large Korean family-controlled corporate groups which fall under this definition. Through aggressive governmental support and finance[citation needed], some have become well-known international brand names, such as Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and SK.

The chaebol has also played a significant role in South Korean politics. In 1988 a member of a chaebol family, Chung Mong-jun, president of Hyundai Heavy Industries, successfully ran for the National Assembly. Other business leaders also were chosen to be members of the National Assembly through proportional representation. Since 2000, Hyundai has played a role in the thawing of North Korean and South Korean relations.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
I see a lot of criticism about the TPP. Blanks Jul 2012 #1
There isn't anything secret about the TPP. The negotiation sessions are announced publicly RB TexLa Jul 2012 #2
Contents of potential agreement are under the radar because they know people will be outraged Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #13
Of course the countries in a trade agreement are subject to an enforcement arm of the pact RB TexLa Jul 2012 #15
They were secret until a whistle-blower leaked them. That is when we found out about them. sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #51
There is no agreement yet. It's negotiations. And there is no reason for them to be public RB TexLa Jul 2012 #61
Even the WTO releases draft negotiating texts Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #62
Executive privilege. The president and his representatives have to be able to negotiate RB TexLa Jul 2012 #63
Corporate input every step of the way is OK though.... n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #101
There is every reason why trade agreements should be discussed openly by CONGRESS, NOT by foreign sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #94
No, Senator Levin's demand is outrageous. The congress will vote on the agreement. They do not RB TexLa Jul 2012 #95
Sen. Levin was absolutely correct to be outraged that foreign etities are busy writing laws for this sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #96
Congress will vote on the final agreement. The president and the executives of the other RB TexLa Jul 2012 #106
'You people'??? You mean Americans who think that Congress is our legislative body, you know, the sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #107
Treaties are also law of the land If the executives of those RB TexLa Jul 2012 #108
Congress was barred from knowing anything about this. If it had not been for a whistle-blower sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #109
Did you also agree with the congress when members said the Attorney General had to hand over RB TexLa Jul 2012 #110
The constitution says 'Advice and Consent'... PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #102
And they will do that when they vote RB TexLa Jul 2012 #105
Ask Senator Wyden. Subcomitee chair on trade. pa28 Jul 2012 #56
The negotiations aren't finished, once they are what will actually be in the agreement will be RB TexLa Jul 2012 #60
Are we just to assume it is "job killing" or at least, try to explain why treestar Jul 2012 #3
Can you name a "free" trade agreement that hasn't been job killing? MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #6
That doesn't explain how treestar Jul 2012 #7
NAFTA: 700,000 US jobs destroyed (and counting) MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #9
Page 3 we have now trade deficits with Mexico treestar Jul 2012 #18
LOL. "You say workers in both countries are WORSE off, while corporations are much richer?" Romulox Jul 2012 #21
How is it not possible is the better question. former9thward Jul 2012 #26
I was poking fun at the poster's (feigned?) incredulity. I agree with your title. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #27
Sorry, I missed the other poster. former9thward Jul 2012 #38
What incredulity? treestar Jul 2012 #67
Is this a joke? Nobody can educate you on basic economics, here. Nor is your lack of understanding Romulox Jul 2012 #69
But then you can't seem to explain it treestar Jul 2012 #73
You have proven to be a waste of time in the past. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #75
You still aren't making your argument. treestar Jul 2012 #77
Nonsense. I'm not going to bother to *disprove* your ill-informed argument; there's no point. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #81
Taxpayer subsidies is the biggest reason, but there are many. Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #36
Excellent post. Romulox Jul 2012 #19
I'm still waking up, but this report does not seem to cover jobs created in Mexico amandabeech Jul 2012 #92
Sen. Obama said in 2008......... Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #11
Did Obama ever explain why? treestar Jul 2012 #20
Don't be obtuse. amandabeech Jul 2012 #91
TPP has been referred to as NAFTA on steroids. Blanks Jul 2012 #22
Pretty simple JonLP24 Jul 2012 #65
If it is moved to Mexico presumably from the US and Canada treestar Jul 2012 #68
Reality, treestar: "Since NAFTA was enacted, U.S. manufacturing employment has fallen by 5 million" Romulox Jul 2012 #70
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc treestar Jul 2012 #72
This information is available to anyone who is even remotely curious. You haven't found it for a Romulox Jul 2012 #76
Then explain it treestar Jul 2012 #78
Nope. Won't be derailed by your ignorance. Make an effort to *READ THE LINKS ALREADY POSTED* to Romulox Jul 2012 #83
What would you do if you were in a real debate? treestar Jul 2012 #99
This is a MESSAGE BOARD. The way we communicate is through the written word. If you won't read, Romulox Jul 2012 #111
This is a PATHETIC way to try to derail, btw--the "feigned" ignorance as a debating tactic. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #112
I mean, there are detailed links *IN THIS VERY THREAD*, and you still pretend your ignorance of the Romulox Jul 2012 #79
Read the links in THIS THREAD yet, oh seeker of knowledge? Romulox Jul 2012 #98
how would we know, since the public & legislators are denied access that's given to corporations? HiPointDem Jul 2012 #33
By the time it gets to Congress it would have to be public treestar Jul 2012 #80
"by the time it gets to congress"... our government is negotiating terms *now*. why is it secret? HiPointDem Jul 2012 #88
Ever hear of the Patriot Act? westerebus Jul 2012 #89
This isn't just about 'job-killing'. It is way worse than that. Have you read what was sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #52
How is that going to come about without the ultimate agreement treestar Jul 2012 #82
Now it cannot. Had it not been for the whistle-blower no one would know about it. sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #87
But how could it become law without going through the usual process? treestar Jul 2012 #100
The media will keep all the dirty details as secret as possible. Elwood P Dowd Jul 2012 #90
Gee. I remember when Democrats supported American workers. Octafish Jul 2012 #4
Gee, my job was shipped out of the country 10 years before NAFTA though NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #8
Sorry to read that. Octafish Jul 2012 #10
Our entire business landscape has changed. progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #28
The automation wave is threatening the UMC now. Octafish Jul 2012 #40
Hilarious kenny blankenship Jul 2012 #46
Did America give up its sovereignty to affect these changes in the past? sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #54
Sorry about your job, but that is not the only issue regarding these 'agreements'. It is way more sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #53
I don't think that foreign corporations, or any corporations, should be planning our future, amandabeech Jul 2012 #93
+1 HiPointDem Jul 2012 #24
You're living in the past, citizen! kenny blankenship Jul 2012 #45
LOL! Octafish Jul 2012 #49
Not dry behind the ears yet. Bought gas at 17 cents a gallon. Then it went to 19. Kids these days! freshwest Jul 2012 #103
Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #5
We already have trade with the trans-pacific nations bhikkhu Jul 2012 #12
One item leaked... Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #14
This is similar to what the WTO "trade court", arbiter of trade disputes bhikkhu Jul 2012 #16
The WTO Trade court is an arbiter of trade disputes between member countries... Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #17
Many other countries (e.g. Japan, South Korea, China) have active partnerships between gov't and Romulox Jul 2012 #23
no, it's not. and there are fewer jobs in the us today than on the day bush took office. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #25
Yes it is - nearly identical in organization and intent bhikkhu Jul 2012 #35
jobs created during us presidential terms: HiPointDem Jul 2012 #37
"free trade" is crap bhikkhu Jul 2012 #39
'regulated' for the benefit of the biggest boys on the block. also crap. 'regulated' for the HiPointDem Jul 2012 #41
That's assuming Obama is a RW corporate shill bhikkhu Jul 2012 #42
Assuming nothing about Obama personally, but about the system. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #43
Ok, assuming then that Obama is incapable of constructing a good trade agreement bhikkhu Jul 2012 #47
i disagree that obama constructed the agreement. i am 4th generation pnw. trade has always HiPointDem Jul 2012 #48
So we agree that trade is not the problem bhikkhu Jul 2012 #50
Thank you, I've been reading the comments here and it seems to me that a few people defending sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #55
Our law cannot be overruled that way treestar Jul 2012 #86
Thanks.. guess I'm going to go vote for Ron Paul now. progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #29
We live in a "democracy". Maybe we can stop this? Romulox Jul 2012 #31
The Rule of Law is always a good place to turn to when corruption rears its ugly head. sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #59
Yeah, ProSense Jul 2012 #30
You seem to see politics as lining up behind Team A or Team B. Many of us want to PLAY for a team. Romulox Jul 2012 #32
No ProSense Jul 2012 #34
Of course there is "evidence to suggest that Obama would support a deal that would lead to jobs" Romulox Jul 2012 #44
So you will soon be starting a Group here on DU called 2016 Progressive Prez, right? JoePhilly Jul 2012 #58
YOU sure as shooting haven't kept your mouth shut these past 4 years. Why should I? Romulox Jul 2012 #66
Didn't tell you to keep your mouth shut. Suggested some one like you start JoePhilly Jul 2012 #71
I haven't relented on this issue since before 2008. Don't dictate my priorities to me. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #84
Why does advice from your corner always-- ALWAYS boil down to "shut-up while our guy is in office"? Marr Jul 2012 #85
If domestic corporations are people I guess foreign corporations are too. pa28 Jul 2012 #57
Take a look at what happens when we do a "free trade" deal..... Cronkite Jul 2012 #64
Not dimes bit of difference. Hotler Jul 2012 #74
Why TPP will not blunt Bain attacks. hay rick Jul 2012 #97
Can you spell "collusion"? woo me with science Jul 2012 #104
Yeah. ananda Jul 2012 #113
Kick. nt woo me with science Jul 2012 #114
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama and Romney Both Bac...»Reply #23