Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

[specsaregood]

And you support Barack Obama and Rand Paul over Ron Paul and Rand Paul. I'll take Ron Paul and (last year's) Rand Paul.

Maybe I missed the reference, can you cite for me where this year's Sen. Paul is different from last years Sen. Paul on this subject?

 

[jmdrake]

krugman on TPP for reference

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0




Krugman's essential point is that supporting TPP is pandering to Hollywood, Big-Pharma, etal. interests in global "legal monopolies" on intellectual property. It has very little to do with tariff reduction.

He also concedes to "Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions"; which is my primary concern. I do NOT believe Foreign Corporations should have ANY legal recourse in "International Law" against our government beyond diplomatic negotiations, or domestic court proceedings.

After reading this it sounds like Krugman is being more libertarian than some RPFers on this issue.

 

[jmdrake]

Maybe I missed the reference, can you cite for me where this year's Sen. Paul is different from last years Sen. Paul on this subject?

I posted that yesterday and you commented. If your point is that Rand is vague enough each time that anyone can read into it whatever, then fine. That said his emphasis last year was on slowing things down by denying fast track approval. His emphasis this year is on Obama making "negotiating this" a priority. Well...fast track authority would make this treaty a priority for Obama. (After all, you don't get "fast track" approval from Congress and then sit on it.)

Anyway, my main point is that the idea put forward by Traditional Conservative that somehow if you are against the TPP you are "progressive" just because some progressives are against the TPP is idiotic. As someone else just pointed out, Krugman really isn't all that against the TPP. He's just shown some mild skepticism of it. So if anything, Rand is siding with Krugman.

 

[CaptUSA]

After reading this it sounds like Krugman is being more libertarian than some RPFers on this issue.

Seems like you might need to check your premises. All the economic socialists are against this thing. Krugman always disguises his one-world socialist central-planning in "love of the free market".

This has to make you laugh:

I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away.

 

[specsaregood]

I posted that yesterday and you commented. If your point is that Rand is vague enough each time that anyone can read into it whatever, then fine. That said his emphasis last year was on slowing things down by denying fast track approval. His emphasis this year is on Obama making "negotiating this" a priority. Well...fast track authority would make this treaty a priority for Obama. (After all, you don't get "fast track" approval from Congress and then sit on it.)

Actually I reread that WND article this morning and there isn't a single quote or statement from Randal on the subject of this treaty. I doubt he would approve fast track, and I disagree with the implication that making something a priority means giving it fast track authority.

 

[Deborah K]

There were several people on this thread promoting a Pat Buchanan article where he used protectionist rhetoric. I've also seen comments from a lot of people here that trade agreements cost Americans jobs. That's a protectionist argument and an argument against free trade.

But don't you see? It's "free trade" according to the multinational corporations at the expense of our sovereignty? How does that make the individual the winner?

 

[presence]

One of the most fundamental questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction


ISDS gives international tribunals supreme "Jurisdiction" over international trade disputes; the only parties with standing before the tribunal are the complaintant corporation and the defending nation.


Without ISDS Federal, State, and Local courts retain "Jurisdiction" over international trade disputes; any party with interest has standing. Complaintant corporations can also pursue consular action.

 

[Deborah K]

Seems like you might need to check your premises. All the economic socialists are against this thing. Krugman always disguises his one-world socialist central-planning in "love of the free market".

This has to make you laugh:

I cringe at the thought of agreeing with Krugman on anything. But is it, or is it not true that this would take authority away from congress and our court system, and put it into the hands of an international court system which would circumvent our sovereignty?

 

[jmdrake]

Seems like you might need to check your premises. All the economic socialists are against this thing. Krugman always disguises his one-world socialist central-planning in "love of the free market".

This has to make you laugh:

Seems like you need to check what I actually wrote and respond to my actual point. The particular points Krugman was making against the TPP, that it expands government imposed copyright protection to be international, is a typical libertarian talking point. That said Krugman is no more "against" the TPP than Rand (apparently) is.

 

[specsaregood]

I cringe at the thought of agreeing with Krugman on anything. But is it, or is it not true that this would take authority away from congress and our court system, and put it into the hands of an international court system which would circumvent our sovereignty?

Just for the sake of debate, anytime you have an agreement between two parties, you want to have a neutral 3rd party to sit as judge/mediator if there is a dispute over the agreement, yes? Where else should a dispute over an international agreement be judged than an international court system?

 

[jmdrake]

Actually I reread that WND article this morning and there isn't a single quote or statement from Randal on the subject of this treaty. I doubt he would approve fast track, and I disagree with the implication that making something a priority means giving it fast track authority.

Well if you want to be snarky about it, there isn't a single quote in either article about Rand being for or against it. That hasn't stopped people like Traditional Conservative from concluding that TPP must be a good thing because Rand is "for" it and Krugman is "against" it. We already know Ron Paul is against these kinds of deals. And you read what I wrote backwards. Granting something fasttrack authority makes the negotiation a priority. I said it that way on purpose to be 100% accurate. That you saw the "implication" that wasn't obviously there is itself telling. If stating the bare facts leads to someone seeing the implications......

 

[jmdrake]

Just for the sake of debate, anytime you have an agreement between two parties, you want to have a neutral 3rd party to sit as judge/mediator if there is a dispute over the agreement, yes? Where else should a dispute over an international agreement be judged than an international court system?

This is a "muh roads" argument taking to the absurd extreme. "Who else is going to build muh roads but the federal government?" There have been trade agreements as long as there has been trade. Agreements last as long as they are mutually beneficial to both parties. If we lowered tariffs on goods to Japan, and Japan turned around and raised them on us, we could simply turn back around and raise tariffs again.

 

[CaptUSA]

I cringe at the thought of agreeing with Krugman on anything. But is it, or is it not true that this would take authority away from congress and our court system, and put it into the hands of an international court system which would circumvent our sovereignty?

I'm still trying to determine this. Obviously, the case could be made that sovereignty would be circumvented, but I'm not sure of the extent. I've been reading on this lately and I'm having a hard time finding out the truth outside of the liberal think tanks and Keynesian economists that are pushing an agenda. If the authority is to oversee the managing of imposing tariffs (which seems to be the only authority I can find), then that is a function of the ensuring compliance to the treaty. I don't see how this extends into other realms (although, I see where some people are making that claim.) The IAEA is a third party arbiter in relation to nuclear treaties - I think you could make the same case that we have surrendered our sovereignty to that body.

Understandably, I could be wrong on this because things are still in negotiations and the details are not public, but I think there may be some demagoguery going on.

 

[specsaregood]

Well if you want to be snarky about it, there isn't a single quote in either article about Rand being for or against it. That hasn't stopped people like Traditional Conservative from concluding that TPP must be a good thing because Rand is "for" it and Krugman is "against" it. We already know Ron Paul is against these kinds of deals. And you read what I wrote backwards. Granting something fasttrack authority makes the negotiation a priority. I said it that way on purpose to be 100% accurate. That you saw the "implication" that wasn't obviously there is itself telling. If stating the bare facts leads to someone seeing the implications......

No attempt to be snarky, I just happened to reread the article this morning and was shocked to find that it was completely misleading as it used Randal in the headline but absolutely zero content or positions from the Senator himself. I think we call all safely assume that Randal is for free trade in principle, just as his father is.

The question remains and hasn't been defined anywhere that I have seen whether he thinks managed trade agreements such as the TPP are worth it. This whole thread and article as usual jump to conclusions as to his position where as you said he is "vague".

Based on Randals past history, I think the WND article is probably correct in that he will want to force the agreement to go through the house and senate and be open for debate and amendments and require a 2/3 vote for approval. And I suspect he will have some amendments that will attempt to rectify many of the national sovereignty issues his father objected to. As to how he will vote IF those suspected amendments are rejected, I don't think is clear.

My main problem is people always seem to jump to conclusions as to the Senator's motives and positions and many here seem to default to the worst.

 

[specsaregood]

This is a "muh roads" argument taking to the absurd extreme. "Who else is going to build muh roads but the federal government?" There have been trade agreements as long as there has been trade. Agreements last as long as they are mutually beneficial to both parties. If we lowered tariffs on goods to Japan, and Japan turned around and raised them on us, we could simply turn back around and raise tariffs again.

That is certainly an alternative. But isn't it pretty standard for contracts to specify a course of action if there are disagreements? mediation, arbitration, courts? Rather than just agree or dissolution?

 

[CaptUSA]

This is a "muh roads" argument taking to the absurd extreme. "Who else is going to build muh roads but the federal government?" There have been trade agreements as long as there has been trade. Agreements last as long as they are mutually beneficial to both parties. If we lowered tariffs on goods to Japan, and Japan turned around and raised them on us, we could simply turn back around and raise tariffs again.

Poor analogy aside, this would be a multi-faceted agreement among many parties. You may not recognize a tariff is being imposed until an importer or exporter brings the issue up. There are all kinds of de facto tariffs that impede trade. Without an arbiter to decide if a tariff provision has been violated, the entire agreement would be null as soon as one party made a claim of a breach. "You violated the terms, the deal is off" Which would create many trickle down effects to all of the other parties of the agreement. So why have an agreement at all if there wasn't a body to remedy it.

Listen, I'm a free trader. I'd like every country in the world to promise to allow open trade with every other country. But that's not reality. There are still too many people who believe protectionism is a good thing.

I'm open to learn more about the implications of the TPP. I feel like I may still be missing some things.

 

[jmdrake]

That is certainly an alternative. But isn't it pretty standard for contracts to specify a course of action if there are disagreements? mediation, arbitration, courts? Rather than just agree or dissolution?

Are we talking from a libertarian standpoint, a U.S. legal standpoint, or an international standpoint? From a U.S. legal standpoint, we all recognize that the gubmint (the guys with the guns) are the "sovereigns". So there's always the possibility of one person who feels the other side has breached the contract to go to the guys with the guns to get them to enforce it. Agreeing ahead of time to a third party mediator simply means relinquishing the right to appeal to a higher authority. In the case of international trade, where both parties are sovereign, what right to appeal to a higher authority is one country giving up in order to go to a third party mediator?

The way things have worked up until this point is that such cases are herd in each countries respective courts. Sure the court could be biased, but courts have an incentive not to be biased against foreign corporations less the overall trade regime breaks down. So it behooves the U.S. government to only strike trade deals with trustworthy partners. But shouldn't that be what we do anyway?

 

[jmdrake]

Poor analogy aside, this would be a multi-faceted agreement among many parties. You may not recognize a tariff is being imposed until an importer or exporter brings the issue up. There are all kinds of de facto tariffs that impede trade. Without an arbiter to decide if a tariff provision has been violated, the entire agreement would be null as soon as one party made a claim of a breach. "You violated the terms, the deal is off" Which would create many trickle down effects to all of the other parties of the agreement. So why have an agreement at all if there wasn't a body to remedy it.

Listen, I'm a free trader. I'd like every country in the world to promise to allow open trade with every other country. But that's not reality. There are still too many people who believe protectionism is a good thing.

I'm open to learn more about the implications of the TPP. I feel like I may still be missing some things.

Right. And you've just explained why multinational trade deals in general are a bad thing. They almost require giving up national sovereignty. Bilateral trade deals do not.

 

[CaptUSA]

So it behooves the U.S. government to only strike trade deals with trustworthy partners. But shouldn't that be what we do anyway?

I understand your point, but this would not be a bilateral agreement.

 

[CaptUSA]

Right. And you've just explained why multinational trade deals in general are a bad thing. They almost require giving up national sovereignty. Bilateral trade deals do not.

Oh, I see... Your problem with this is that you think we should strike independent deals with each nation?