Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-SHAFTA dept.

Zero Hedge reports

[May 12], in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote--short of the required 60 supporters--blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who "say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda."

The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 "yes" votes in the chamber.

According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.

Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.

[...]Why is Obama scrambling to ram the TPP bill through Congress as fast as possible?

[...]This enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

[Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)] would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws--and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers--without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here's how it would work:

Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators [read: corporate-friendly tribunal]. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions--and even billions--of dollars in damages.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:25AM

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:25AM (#182796)

    No, he's right and you're wrong.
    Chinese monetary policy is exactly why Chinese exports are still cheap. Also the US government tries to lean on the Chinese to get them to re-value their currency to make US goods more competitive.
    The Chinese tell them to shove it. (But politely, because diplomacy).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:45PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:45PM (#182951) Journal

    Chinese monetary policy is exactly why Chinese exports are still cheap.

    No, cheap Chinese industry along with cheap shipping infrastructure are why Chinese exports are cheap. I find it typically delusional that one can ignore the efficiency of the largest industrial power in the world and just say without a shred of evidence that it is just monetary policy.

    Also the US government tries to lean on the Chinese to get them to re-value their currency to make US goods more competitive.

    Which is one of the dumber foreign policy things the US does.

    • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday May 15 2015, @01:41AM

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday May 15 2015, @01:41AM (#183201)
      No evidence? Seriously? http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Yuan.htm [about.com] It really doesn't matter how "efficient" your manufacturing is if you're paying all your costs in an overvalued currency. The Yuan or RMB is undervalued.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 15 2015, @03:37AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 15 2015, @03:37AM (#183224) Journal
        Yes, no evidence.

        It really doesn't matter how "efficient" your manufacturing is if you're paying all your costs in an overvalued currency.

        Because the numerical value of a cost will never go up with an overvalued currency? For an obvious counterexample, Chinese wages have gone up even adjusting for the inflation of the Yuan and Renminbli currencies.