For a variety of reasons blogging here will be sparse and sporadic for a while. Today I just want to point anyone who stops by here to Dean Baker's excellent post about a recent Times editorial endorsing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, that is currently being negotiated in secret. All indications are that the result will be the evisceration of environmental protection laws and of financial regulations, along with other measures designed to hasten the flow of money to the .01%. Despite all the evidence, the Times sees it differently, but as Baker points out, there is no evidence for the Times rosy view:
The result [of negotiations dominated by banks, drug companies and oil companies ] is likely to be a deal where corporations will use the trade agreement to block restrictions on their behavior that might otherwise be imposed by democratically elected governments. For example, the financial industry might use the deal to prohibit Dodd-Frank type restrictions that prevent the sort of abuses that led to the financial crisis. The oil and gas industries might use the deal to prohibit environmental restrictions on fracking. And the pharmaceutical industry might push for stronger patent-type protections. These will raise the price of drugs (like a tax) and slow economic growth.
Bizarrely, the NYT editorialized in favor of the the TPP, concluding its piece:
“A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks.”
Yes, boys and girls, Goldman Sachs, Exxon-Mobil and Pfizer will put together a deal that does all these things. This is serious?
via Beat the Press
One must wonder what is going on here. I can believe that the Times editorial writer would actually believe that the deal is designed to lower duties and trade barriers, even though that's not really the case. After all it's called a free trade agreement, and if you're lazy, have not an ounce of healthy skepticism (isn't the press supposed to be skeptical?), and have done no research into the issue then you might just draw that conclusion based solely on the fact that it's being called a “free trade” agreement. Such a person might be forgiven for not realizing that it is, in fact, a deal designed to preserve, protect and enhance corporate profits. But how could even our hypothetical lazy Times editorialist be so uninformed as to believe that this trade agreement, or any trade agreement would “strengthen labor and environmental protections”. What previous trade agreement has ever strengthened labor protections, unless you believe that destroying unions and destroying American jobs strengthens labor protections. You really need to be a fantasist to make an assertion like that. So the question arises, is the Times deluded, or is it shamelessly propagandizing for corporate interests.
Post a Comment