Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Huge International
Corporations are becoming powerful and wealthy enough to break the
backs of national governments. When a corporation is able to defeat a
government, that government is no longer of any use to its people.
And the vacuum left by the defeated government will be filled by the
International Corporate Empire(ICE). Just who is in control of the
United States Military? Do you really believe it is under the control
of our elected President, or our congress? The military in this
nation is under the control of the American Corporate Empire(ACE). It
is doing the bidding of ACE, often against the best interests of the
American People. My opinion is not a happy one. I firmly believe
that we have already lost our nation. We are under the control of the
much talked about Industrial/Military Complex. We should have taken
president Eisenhower's warning. Then we might have had the chance of
wresting control away from the Corporate Powers. But now? We are so
divided among ourselves, so full of misdirection and misinformation,
that we are turning on one another. The outcome of this Corporate war
may have already been determined. What appears to be happening now is
simply the stamping out of the little pockets of resistance.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/24/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Stiglitz writes: "The United States and the world are engaged in a great
> debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called 'free-trade
> agreements'; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to
> corporate interests, largely in the US and the European Union."
>
> Activists project messages about the Trans-Pacific Partnership onto the
> exterior of the Grand American Hotel in Salt Lake City. (photo: Jerrick
> Romero/Backbone Campaign/Flickr)
>
>
> How Trade Agreements Amount to a Secret Corporate Takeover
> By Joseph Stiglitz, Reader Supported News
> 23 May 15
>
> The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new
> trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called "free-trade agreements"; in
> fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests,
> largely in the US and the European Union. Today, such deals are more often
> referred to as "partnerships,"as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
> But
> they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms.
> Fortunately, America's "partners" are becoming increasingly resistant.
> It is not hard to see why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing
> investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes
> to countries' legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or
> accountability through democratic institutions.
> Perhaps the most invidious - and most dishonest - part of such agreements
> concerns investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected
> against the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that
> is not what these provisions are about. There have been very few
> expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect
> themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee
> Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide
> similar
> insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in the TPP,
> even though many of its "partners" have property protections and judicial
> systems that are as good as its own.
> The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental,
> safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America's own
> economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation
> for any reduction in their future expected profits resulting from
> regulatory
> changes.
> This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris is suing Uruguay
> and Australia for requiring warning labels on cigarettes. Admittedly, both
> countries went a little further than the US, mandating the inclusion of
> graphic images showing the consequences of cigarette smoking.
> The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris
> is
> demanding to be compensated for lost profits.
> In the future, if we discover that some other product causes health
> problems
> (think of asbestos), rather than facing lawsuits for the costs imposed on
> us, the manufacturer could sue governments for restraining them from
> killing
> more people. The same thing could happen if our governments impose more
> stringent regulations to protect us from the impact of greenhouse-gas
> emissions.
> When I chaired President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers,
> anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called
> "regulatory takings." They knew that once enacted, regulations would be
> brought to a halt, simply because government could not afford to pay the
> compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative,
> both
> in the courts and in the US Congress.
> But now the same groups are attempting an end run around democratic
> processes by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of
> which
> are being kept largely secret from the public (but not from the
> corporations
> that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and from talking to
> government officials who seem more committed to democratic processes, that
> we know what is happening.
> Fundamental to America's system of government is an impartial public
> judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on
> principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal
> unfavorable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new
> agreements
> call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration.
> Moreover,
> this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example,
> arbitrators may be a "judge" in one case and an advocate in a related case.
> The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael
> Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself
> against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others
> cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments - on labor and
> environmental standards, for example - citizens, unions, and civil-society
> groups have no recourse.
> If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates
> basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading US legal
> experts,
> including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to
> President
> Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these
> agreements are.
> American supporters of such agreements point out that the US has been sued
> only a few times so far, and has not lost a case. Corporations, however,
> are
> just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage.
> And high-priced corporate lawyers in the US, Europe, and Japan will likely
> outmatch the underpaid government lawyers attempting to defend the public
> interest. Worse still, corporations in advanced countries can create
> subsidiaries in member countries through which to invest back home, and
> then
> sue, giving them a new channel to bloc regulations.
> If there were a need for better property protection, and if this private,
> expensive dispute-resolution mechanism were superior to a public judiciary,
> we should be changing the law not just for well-heeled foreign companies,
> but also for our own citizens and small businesses. But there has been no
> suggestion that this is the case.
> Rules and regulations determine the kind of economy and society in which
> people live. They affect relative bargaining power, with important
> implications for inequality, a growing problem around the world. The
> question is whether we should allow rich corporations to use provisions
> hidden in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we will live in the
> twenty-first century. I hope citizens in the US, Europe, and the Pacific
> answer with a resounding no.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Activists project messages about the Trans-Pacific Partnership onto the
> exterior of the Grand American Hotel in Salt Lake City. (photo: Jerrick
> Romero/Backbone Campaign/Flickr)
> http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
> How Trade Agreements Amount to a Secret Corporate Takeover
> By Joseph Stiglitz, Reader Supported News
> 23 May 15
> he United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new
> trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called "free-trade agreements"; in
> fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests,
> largely in the US and the European Union. Today, such deals are more often
> referred to as "partnerships,"as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
> But
> they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms.
> Fortunately, America's "partners" are becoming increasingly resistant.
> It is not hard to see why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing
> investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes
> to countries' legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or
> accountability through democratic institutions.
> Perhaps the most invidious - and most dishonest - part of such agreements
> concerns investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected
> against the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that
> is not what these provisions are about. There have been very few
> expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect
> themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee
> Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide
> similar
> insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in the TPP,
> even though many of its "partners" have property protections and judicial
> systems that are as good as its own.
> The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental,
> safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America's own
> economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation
> for any reduction in their future expected profits resulting from
> regulatory
> changes.
> This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris is suing Uruguay
> and Australia for requiring warning labels on cigarettes. Admittedly, both
> countries went a little further than the US, mandating the inclusion of
> graphic images showing the consequences of cigarette smoking.
> The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris
> is
> demanding to be compensated for lost profits.
> In the future, if we discover that some other product causes health
> problems
> (think of asbestos), rather than facing lawsuits for the costs imposed on
> us, the manufacturer could sue governments for restraining them from
> killing
> more people. The same thing could happen if our governments impose more
> stringent regulations to protect us from the impact of greenhouse-gas
> emissions.
> When I chaired President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers,
> anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called
> "regulatory takings." They knew that once enacted, regulations would be
> brought to a halt, simply because government could not afford to pay the
> compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative,
> both
> in the courts and in the US Congress.
> But now the same groups are attempting an end run around democratic
> processes by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of
> which
> are being kept largely secret from the public (but not from the
> corporations
> that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and from talking to
> government officials who seem more committed to democratic processes, that
> we know what is happening.
> Fundamental to America's system of government is an impartial public
> judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on
> principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal
> unfavorable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new
> agreements
> call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration.
> Moreover,
> this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example,
> arbitrators may be a "judge" in one case and an advocate in a related case.
> The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael
> Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself
> against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others
> cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments - on labor and
> environmental standards, for example - citizens, unions, and civil-society
> groups have no recourse.
> If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates
> basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading US legal
> experts,
> including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to
> President
> Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these
> agreements are.
> American supporters of such agreements point out that the US has been sued
> only a few times so far, and has not lost a case. Corporations, however,
> are
> just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage.
> And high-priced corporate lawyers in the US, Europe, and Japan will likely
> outmatch the underpaid government lawyers attempting to defend the public
> interest. Worse still, corporations in advanced countries can create
> subsidiaries in member countries through which to invest back home, and
> then
> sue, giving them a new channel to bloc regulations.
> If there were a need for better property protection, and if this private,
> expensive dispute-resolution mechanism were superior to a public judiciary,
> we should be changing the law not just for well-heeled foreign companies,
> but also for our own citizens and small businesses. But there has been no
> suggestion that this is the case.
> Rules and regulations determine the kind of economy and society in which
> people live. They affect relative bargaining power, with important
> implications for inequality, a growing problem around the world. The
> question is whether we should allow rich corporations to use provisions
> hidden in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we will live in the
> twenty-first century. I hope citizens in the US, Europe, and the Pacific
> answer with a resounding no.
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
No comments:
Post a Comment