SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Public Citizen reports via Common Dreams
[The decision on December 7 by the] World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against the U.S. country-of-origin meat labels (COOL) that consumers rely on to make informed choices about their food, provides a glaring example of how trade agreements can undermine U.S. public interest policies, [said Public Citizen]. How the Obama administration responds to the WTO ruling will have a significant impact on its efforts to build congressional and public support for the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
In his May 2015 speech at Nike headquarters, President Barack Obama said that critics' warnings that the TPP could "undermine American regulation--food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations" was "just not true". [Obama] said: "They're making this stuff up. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws."
"Today's ruling makes clear that trade agreements can--and do--threaten even the most favored U.S. consumer protections", said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "We hope that President Obama stands by his claim that 'no trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws', but in fact rolling back U.S. consumer and environmental safeguards has been exactly what past presidents have done after previous retrograde trade pact rulings."
In response to previous WTO rulings, the United States has rolled back U.S. Clean Air Act regulations on gasoline cleanliness rules successfully challenged by Venezuela and Mexico and Endangered Species Act rules relating to shrimping techniques that kill sea turtles after a successful challenge by Malaysia and other nations. The U.S. also altered auto fuel efficiency (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards that were successfully challenged by the European Union. After the final WTO ruling against the policy in May, Obama's Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also contradicted Obama's claim, announcing: "Congress has got to fix this problem. They either have to repeal or modify and amend it."
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:29PM
I'm not a citizen of the WTO. I say "fuck 'em". Hell, if my government were to ask, I would be willing to plant some terroristic bombs in the WTO offices. Presumptuous bastards, telling us how we are to conduct business.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Thursday December 10 2015, @04:42PM
I'm not a citizen of the WTO. I say "fuck 'em". Hell, if my government were to ask, I would be willing to plant some terroristic bombs in the WTO offices. Presumptuous bastards, telling us how we are to conduct business.
So .... what separates you from ISIL now?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday December 10 2015, @04:56PM
Not that I agree with, condone, or encourage that sort of action, but in this case the difference is that it would be better for pretty much everyone on the planet (with the obvious exception of the WTO).
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:42PM
No, it wouldn't.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:48PM
That is a matter of opinion. To date, I've not seen how the WTO benefits any common citizens. Oh, there is a LOT of benefit for corporations, but for common citizens, nada.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:54PM
Well the libertarians will tell us how what's good for a corporation is good for everyone, but no, I'm sure the WTO is terrible
However using violence is not the answer. Some "righteous" causes have used violence in the past - Nelson Mandella, the IRA, ISIS. Sometimes they get their way, sometimes they don't.
But violence is wrong. Sneak attacks
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:57PM
...
sneak attacks are wrong. Attacking someone because you don't like their business practice? That's OK is it?
If the majority of your country does not like the WTO, then simply ban your country from dealing with it. You're a sovereign state, act like one. Sure there are consequences, other country may not trade with you, but that's their choice.
The reality is that the same corporations who control the US media and government also control the WTO, and the WTO is good for them. As is distracting people by feeding Donald Trump.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:59PM
I mentioned that in my comment. It doesn't change that the WTO doesn't do any good for individuals. As the GP mentioned, they're quite beneficial for corporations.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:10PM
You said
it would be better for pretty much everyone on the planet
Sneak attacks are not better for "pretty much everyone on the planet", no matter who the target, and espeically when there's a non-violent way of dealing with it.
Even ignoring the moral losses, the reality of the fallout of this would be it would be worse for everyone on the planet - just like isis, al-quadea, ira and christian terrorism leads to our rights being curtailed. It would be worse for pretty much everyone on the planet.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:20PM
I think you're misreading my comment; I'm explicitly not advocating violence.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:42PM
OP: if my government were to ask, I would be willing to plant some terroristic bombs in the WTO offices
You: Not that I agree with, condone, or encourage that sort of action, but in this case the difference is that it would be better for pretty much everyone on the planet
Me: It would not be of benefit for anyone on the planet
1) As a society we die a little b resorting to violence
2) As individuals we suffer as this violence plays right into the hands of those that would control us
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:00PM
But, violence is it's own reward. You don't have to wait the rest of your life to see if you're rewarded in the next lifetime, or if you're reincarnated as a cockroach.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:46PM
Gubbermint, of course. "if my government were to ask" Ya see, gubbermint consists of real people. Unlike Daesh, with their imaginary moon god and psychopathic prophet. And, you'll notice that I stipulated that gubbermint has to ask me to perform this dastardly deed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:15PM
He's doing it for a non-religious reason?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @04:44PM
Hehe, own dog bites. You made it happen, now you bend over.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:25PM
...I would be willing to plant some terroristic bombs in the WTO offices.
Rather amusing, considering your sig.