Originally posted by Cold Beverages
Sorry to double post but just saw this -
It appears that Trump extracted a concession from Paul Ryan.
"Ryan: TPP doesn't have support for House vote this year"
It appears that Trump extracted a concession from Paul Ryan.
"Ryan: TPP doesn't have support for House vote this year"
As far as the TPP (and other trade deals, including NAFTA)) goes, I am in favor of international trade - countless economists have touted that enhanced trade not only lifts incomes (= education, technology, living standards, etc.) in participating countries through trade and investment but also countries realize commonaities in trade which helps facilitate conflict resolution; The protectionist platform about raising or implementing tariffs will simply mean that many imported items will cost Americans that much more. Instead of being able to buy imported TV's for $300 they will cost $450. And if you want to buy an American -made TV, because of wage and environmental costs, that same TV will cost $2000.
However, if you really want to get worked up, for those of you who have not read the TPP (or other trade deals) you might take a look at what is called the ISDS (Investor - State Dispute Settlement). Essentially, the ISDS says that a company can sue a governemnt for lost profits:
Example: Germany has decided to do away with its nuclear power industry (including dismantling existing plants) after Fukushima, A Swedish company, Vattenfall, that produces and sells components for nuclera plants is sueing Germany for hundreds of millions of dollars for profits it would have otherwise realized over the next 20 years.
Example: a Canadian (US/Canadian) mining company, Pacific Rim, is suing the government of El Salvador because El Salvador, concerned about envirnomental impact of chemicals (which are used extensively in mining), is witholding permits. An initial award against El Salvador equals the equivalent of 50% of the annual Salvadorean annual environment and national resources budget.
Example: Lone Pine Resources (a USA company), is suing the Canadian government for $250 million over Quebec’s moratorium on natural gas fracking, which applies equally to foreign and domestic companies. Lone Pine argues it was not consulted before the ban nor compensated for its wasted investment or loss of potential revenue.
A country like Canada having to fork over millions may or may not not seem like a big deal but there are countless smaller countries that can ill-afford these kinds of judgements, expecially when the lawsuit is brought counter to the larger public service interests being defended.
Example: If a Vietnamese restaurant company opens a chain of restaurants in Calif and at the time the min wage is $8/hr, and then Calif raises the minimum wage to $15, the Vietnamese copany can sue the [US] government for 'lost' profits.
Amazingly, the USA has not been the target of many ISDS lawsuits yet.
Even more interesting is the fact that ISDS has been part of international trade deals for about 50 years. The initial intent after WWII was to encourage foreign investment in countries whose stability was questionable (i.e. fear that in-country assets could be nationalized) so the ISDS was intended to encourage foreign investments by providing a comfort level. It is only in the last few years that companies are starting to focus on employing the ISDS. In fact, is is a niche and growing industry within the legal community.
----------
"Investor-State Dispute Settlement", Elstel, n.d., https://www.elstel.org/ISDS.html.en
"ISDS Cases", The Next Turn, n.d., http://thenextturn.com/isds-cases/
Mertins-Kirkwood, M., "A Losing Proposition The Failure of Canadian ISDS Policy at Home and Abroad", Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Aug 2015, https://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...roposition.pdf
Provost, C. and Kennad, M., "The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries", The Guardian, June 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/business...tes-ttip-icsid
Perez-Rocha, M., "When Corporations Sue Governments", NY Times, Dec 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/op...vernments.html
Comment