|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
"All we know (based on leaks) is (1) it establishes an independent tribunal that can force nations to pay global corporations any lost profits due to that nation’s health, safety, environmental, labor, or securities regulations, (2) extends patent protections for U.S. pharmaceutical companies, and (3) makes it easier for American companies to outsource jobs abroad. If such details were made public, American support for it would plunge." Robert Reich
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … over-deal/
So we have no idea if any of those points are true, just that someone wants us to think they are.
But I fail to understand the objection to extending protection for US patents to other countries. The result should be falling drug prices in the US as foreign sales could then be used to support the enormous R&D to make those drugs.
If you don't believe what Robert Reich has had revealed to him about the TPP, What is in it and can you enlighten us please? Mind you no one who has seen the details of the agreement is in denial of his claims.
By extending the patents for pharmaceuticals past their expiration is against the whole patent process Congress intended. As you know patents are granted to those who need protection against their ideas being stolen and developed without their getting compensation for their effort. That is why they are given twenty to twenty two years in some cases to exploit their idea. This was done so that technology could not stifle the inventive process as well. If someone held a patent indefinitely there would be no reason to invent anything more nor allow a basis by which new technology could be established. By extending pharmaceutical patents the pharmaceutical companies exploit beyond their recouping their costs and profits and make generic drugs impossible to happen.
Sorry - it is still a secret negotiation. If you want information (real information, not the posturing of someone with an axe to grind) go to the source, sit in on the meetings and steal a copy of the documentation being used in that meeting. Maybe wikileaks could help you out there?
If merely extending drug patents, forcing US citizens to continue paying for drugs used world wide, is indeed what is in the pact it would not be a good thing. On the other hand, It's hard to understand why foreign governments would care one way or the other, and why such a thing would be in a global pact. Those patents aren't being honored overseas anyway, which is a major reason drug costs (for new drugs) are so high in the US - the people here are covering all the costs of development instead of spreading it to anyone using the drugs.
I have yet to hear Robert Reich report anything less than truthful information even when it goes against his opinion. You have to ask yourself why is it a secret? The last time we had a secretive deal passed was the ACA.
The whole reason to extend the patents in the pharmaceutical industry is to be able to extend their profits in the US. We are their biggest market. The generics in the foreign markets are not their concern as it has been going on for some time.
Then let Robert Reich reveal his sources and provide proof rather than vague, unsubstantiated rumors from a third party.
That doesn't explain why foreign countries would wish to expand profits of a US company. I repeat; why would such a thing be in the TPP? Why would any but a single signatory be concerned at all?
No one who has read the TPP is permitted under threat of prosecution to reveal what is in it. If you think Reich is making something up then what is YOUR proof in light of the extreme secrecy that is overshadowing it. You are defending something that you cannot read, debate or understand. That is by design. Again I ask, why the secrecy if it is so good for all of us.
"Few people, even within the negotiating countries' governments, have access to the full text of the draft agreement and the public, who it will affect most, have none at all. Hundreds of large corporations, however, have been given access to portions of the text, generating a powerful lobby to effect changes on behalf of these groups." 
"Expert policy analysis, published by WikiLeaks today, shows that the Annex appears to be designed to cripple New Zealand's strong public healthcare programme and to inhibit the adoption of similar programmes in developing countries. The Annex will also tie the hands of the US Congress in its ability to pursue reforms of the Medicare programme." 
Nobody is just interested in expanding the profits of US company. They are interested in dominating the worlds GDP at a staggering 40%. Are you that blinded by this capitalists end run around our freedoms?
No, no, no. The onus is on Reich (or you as you are posting the claims) to show that they are true. Not on me to show they are false.
So what evidence is there that the statements are true? Anyone at all can make statements, but to be accepted as factual they need some backup - what is the backup? That you personally have never caught someone I never heard of in a lie? That hardly seems sufficient to believe that countries all over the world are interested in forcing laws that provide more income to US companies.
That's much like the "experts" at WikiLeaks saying the annex "appears" to be designed for a specific purpose, without a shred of evidence to back the statement. Not only are there no "experts" there, they don't even provide the raw data for anyone else to draw conclusions from!
Finally, what is this nonsense that I'm "defending" something neither of us as read? I don't "defend" anything - I merely comment on the claims from other people that claim to know what is in it without having read it either! You're the one making claims about something you know nothing about (because, apparently, you believe someone else that hasn't read it either) - not I!
Wilderness, the witholding of information from the general public is grounds for suspicion in and of itself. Regardless of what is being hidden being good or bad, I am going go lean toward the negative when the advocates seem to have something to hide
Would you then find it advantageous to inform the country of every give and take, every negotiation, every compromise made in the discussion stage between countries? I would find that to be madness and would think that nothing would ever get done as the media of every country vilified every other nation that didn't agree with them. No negotiation would happen at all as those at the table did nothing but present and accept only those things that were advantageous to their own country (and thus placate the people and the media).
In a way this is like a military war; give all the plans to the opponent and you will surely lose. Allow the general citizenry to make all the calls and the same thing will happen. You want something you can live with, a compromise between all members, you will do it in secret and present the finished product to the people for acceptance. You will NOT invite either media or individuals to the negotiation itself. Either allow our negotiators to do their job or give it up as a bad situation all around, because a committee composed of every media outlet plus 350 million "negotiators" will never accomplish anything.
all. Hundreds of large corporations, however, have been given access to portions of the text,
Wilderness, why are all large corporations given a heads up? I guess that I can't complain, the GOP upset me with its badgering the President about the substance of his deal with Iran before it was even consummated. They were trying to undermine the President's efforts, most of us just want to know what it is corporations are allowed to be privy to, that must be kept from the general public
Are these "hundreds of corporations" being used as a resource? Advice to politicians that know nothing of commerce? Or given intimate knowledge of what negotiations are going on? Were I a politician negotiating a commercial trade treaty I can think of no better place to get information, hints and advice. Certainly taken with a grain of salt and with the knowledge that every bit will be aimed at increasing that companies profit line, but better than listening to someone that hates every corporation in the country or that would have the US pretend it doesn't need the rest of the world!
And yes, undermining any effort at a world agreement is exactly what is going on, by short sighted people that think we are not already heavily involved in a world economy (and usually at the bottom end, with our normal insistence on ethics in the transaction).
Thank you again for proving your unwavering sell out to the oligarchy that runs this country. Agreeing with the idea that having hundreds of Corporations in on setting up irreversible trade deals to only profit them is where you were always headed with this. We shall see where your new world commerce is going as there are many who have swallowed the Koolade as you have.
Who would you have giving advice? Obama, who thinks the country has unlimited funding for anything he wants? That is on record as saying he has a better use for wealth than the owners do and will try to get whatever he can?
Or the lady that decided Obama was going to give her a car because she existed? A welfare mama that thinks the country owes her a fine living, filled with luxuries? An economics teacher at some liberal arts college without a hint of real life experience, and that views socialism as the Eden at the end of the tunnel?
Or the men running companies in the real world - companies that provide jobs for Americans and have proven they can make a profit?
Who would you put into your "cabinet" of advisors?
Your continued support of a corporate bought and run country typically ignores the devastation to the middle class that their policies promote. Millions of jobs have been sacrificed so their agenda can be realized. I don't support anybody getting something for nothing but I also don't believe the two are connected in your assumption. You continue to think that the corporations are our link to jobs while they continually seek overseas remedies to hiring domestic labor. Small business is still the mainstay of American jobs while corporations are doing all they can to avoid hiring Americans. This agreement is just another nail in the coffin.
It is fascinating to see the workings of the mind made up and closed to reason. The sudden shift to other topics, the unfounded accusations, etc. say a lot about your desire to discuss. The question, completely ignored in favor of an rant designed to insult and little more, has a lot to say in and of itself.
Now what was your suggestion again for the type of person/training to advise negotiators in a world wide trade pact? That was the question, you know, not my imaginary allegiance to corporations or even where the majority of Americans find work.
"Now what was your suggestion again for the type of person/training to advise negotiators in a world wide trade pact?"
I made no suggestion as your astute reply infers. My suggestion was that people who directly benefit at the expense of others are not the best negotiators nor should be included. For some odd reason you feel greed, that is what the corporations proffer, should be the authority to gage a deal by.
"That was the question, you know, not my imaginary allegiance to corporations or even where the majority of Americans find work."
We have discussed this many times before and you have a said,
"Or the men running companies in the real world - companies that provide jobs for Americans and have proven they can make a profit?".
How have I misconstrued that? You clearly think the corporations have a better understanding of what to do for profits and not what is best for American workers.
You also underestimate who is employing the majority of Americans and what their demise could mean.:
"large businesses only employ about 38 percent of the private sector workforce while small businesses employ 53 percent of the workforce. In fact, over 99 percent of employing organizations are small businesses and more than 95 percent of these businesses have fewer than 10 employees. The reality is that most Americans are employed by a very small business that has little in common with the tiny sliver of the business demographic represented by corporate America. " 
As the corporate model of globalism takes more and more of the jobs away and ships them overseas, unemployment or lesser paying jobs have reduced the middle class, it's earnings and its ability to thrive. The statistics don't lie and yet you continue putting forth this farce of corporate globalism's benefits to the average US Citizen. The only one's that got rich were the one's at the top. All your other nonsense about Baby's Mamas and the welfare state is only a result of the failed globalism that has caused the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristie-a … 66118.html
You're still putting words in my mouth, for I not only did not suggest that corporate representatives should do the negotiation, I very clearly stated that their advice has to be tempered - that it will nearly always come from a standpoint of what is best for a specific corporation. Negotiators need advice, and the only place to get such advice as to how a particular phrase or rule would affect business in America is from those doing that business - listen, then, filter it through what is good for America and what is good for only a specific corporation, and negotiate from that standpoint.
Sure, a small majority of people work for small business (3% over half) - and of that number a great many are doing work needed by big corporations. Bookkeeping. Janitorial. Sub-contracting construction or maintenance. Providing materials and/or parts. Take away the big corps (or damage them severely) and all of those jobs go with them...or did you "forget" that minor detail? Bottom line is that corporate America is writing the checks those people live off of.
Which has little to do with listening to proven profit earners when it comes time to negotiate a trade deal with other countries, except that it is necessary, no matter how much you hate corporations, to keep them healthy and profitable.
Rhamson, you just can't live in a dream world, where all corporations are evil entities that deserve no profits or where the US doesn't need the products/services of the rest of the world. You don't have to like it (I don't), but the truth is that we need both corporations AND international trade. That we DO live in an increasingly global market. That in order to maintain our own economy it is necessary to deal with both corporations AND foreign trade. Pretending otherwise can only lead to total failure of our economy and society. We either learn to fit into the world or go down; it is to our great advantage to do the best we can at setting that globalization up in a manner that best satisfies our needs, and that means using all knowledge and experience we have, even from those hated corporations. It also means to leave the negotiators alone to do their job and quit demanding day-by-day reports on what is being worked on, considered or even approved.
There is no dream world here. If it were a negotiation that had input and inspection available from all then I would agree with you. Yes we are in a global economy and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the countries involved do not suffer due to it. Keeping corporations healthy and viable? What dream world are you living in? Corporate profits are doing better than they ever have while the country suffers the affects of a gambling drunk Wall Street orgy of excessive casino spending while we the taxpayer are still on the hook to clean their mess up. When a million people lose their jobs to an agreement such as NAFTA red flags go up and with even more secrecy than that is being exercised then it is an all out alarm. Look what happened to the ACA when it's secrecy was revealed as we have to pass it to see what is in it. That my friend is not a negotiation, it is bribery. That is also shoving it down our throats. Obama got his secrecy and what measures are going to be exercised when Congress gets to vote on it? A rubber stamp.
And the answer is a 350,000,000 person negotiating committee? Or throwing the profit centers of the country to the wolves in the hopes they will collapse?
I don't think so.
Thank you for the honesty. Your reference to even considering the people in this case with its equally disdainful comment confirms the control you wish the elite to maintain. This is not their country alone. And they don't have a market on the logic applied to it's running. They are there to represent us, all 350,000,000 of us. The elitists (top government officials and their handlers) have proven through all of their trade agreements that they do not know what is best for the rest of us. The proof is what you see everyday. They have proven, however, what is best for them.
You are making claims against something no one can prove because of it's secrecy. Secrecy is the key element in that. You need irrefutable proof that something is not amidst when you are denied any information? Those who have sources and with impeccable reputations who make claims against it are not sufficient to perk your interest that something stinks? Or are you so gullible to think Obama and your government is looking out for your best interests when they will not share a shred of the agreement? How do you feel about the fact that hundreds of companies are privy to the information about the pact and yet you cannot see what it is your country is committing too?
I need present proof of nothing; only those making claims need present any proof of the claim. Which is not being done - instead you and others simply swallow the claim whole, not even bothering to dissect it for "reasonablemess".
When someone makes a wild claim that does not make any sense (other nations wish to increase profits of US pharma companies, for instance) it isn't deserving of interest in an of itself. Not without evidence to support it, it isn't.
How do I feel about not being privy to the pact? I find it incredible that anyone would expect the citizenry of the nation to not only understand it and the necessity of specific sections, but would expect the citizenry to agree with anything they didn't like. That's why we hire politicians - to do the work we don't want to do (as well as because a committee of 350 million individuals will never agree on a single issue). Would you have wished a country wide vote, maybe with a 3/4 majority required, to enter the European fight in WWII? Or in Kuwait? Whether to build another nuclear carrier? To even fund a simple moon mission? As a group, the individuals of this country are neither knowledgeable enough or smart enough to make decisions for a nation. As an example, we can see that when they scream bloody murder about the details of a secret bill neither they nor anyone reporting on it has even read.
I see in an earlier post about welfare mommas, your right wing bias and resentment is showing like a slip. You trust all these corporate entities, well I don't. Yeah, they will make a profit alright at the expense of the taxpayer. So who is looking out for me, they certainly are not.? Surely you don't buy into Mickey and Donald's Disney presentation as to how the "free enterprise system works'
What - you don't believe there are any "welfare mama's" out there, putting out babies without fathers in order to gain more welfare or that they wouldn't be happy to advise on anything that even might affect their "income"? Even a hardline lefty isn't that naive!
"Yeah, they will make a profit alright at the expense of the taxpayer."
May I also quote my own post? " Certainly taken with a grain of salt and with the knowledge that every bit will be aimed at increasing that companies profit line...". It's being called realistic, living in the real world instead of a pretend, make believe world where anyone trained in liberal economics is also a business professional and has the best interests of the country at heart. We agree here, which is why I said what I did.
But you never answered the question of who would you suggest for an advisor. Got a class, or type, of person/training in mind? Do you see yourself as knowledgeable enough in economics and business and foreign relations to know what is good for the country and what is not? Do you feel that you could negotiate, without any harm whatsoever to the US, an international trade deal between dozens of countries, all with differing demands and all more concerned about their own economy than ours?
No? Then why do you wish intimate knowledge of the negotiations in progress rather than the best result the professionals could arrive at? And why be upset that the people the trade is aimed at, those most intimately concerned with it, have a smidgen of advance notice of at least what might be being discussed?
But I also believe in Corporate welfare, and they 'milk' for quite a bit too. You even criticize Obama who is promoting the damned thing.
So the liberal economist doesn't have the best interests of the country at heart.? So, I am suppose to believe in America's paternalistic corporate and finance industry.?
As for an adviser, academia, labor leaders, people that are in the game to provide a balanced view and advice, outside of the capitalist and profit motive which the rightwinger always assumes is automatically good for the country.. Well, I have seen otherwise in the last few years. More voices and oversite, rather than one group, why can't this be looked at from different perspectives and retain secrecy among participants? With the magnitude of the program and its reach across the economy, that is not asking much.
THAT is realistic and living in the real world.
But I don't believe in corporate welfare. Protection from imports that do not face the same demands as they do, yes, but that's not welfare - it's leveling the playing field. Chinese imports, for instance, that do not have the human rights, environmental or other social demands we put on our companies should also carry a hefty excise tax. But basically, if a company can't make it on a level playing field on it's own, let someone else do the job rather than feed it profits from the tax base.
No, the liberal economist does not have the best interests of the country in mind. They have the needs of the poor in mind, without regard to the long term viability of the countries economy. The socialist bent of the liberal assumes a pie-in-the-sky scenario, an eden that does not exist anywhere in humanity, and it dooms their glorious plans of a "progressive", "enlightened" population. The goals are noble and wonderful, but unworkable in the real world.
A great list of advisors...but you left out anyone that understands what a business needs to continue operations and make a profit. Anyone with proven experience in running a business, and that has to be a priority in any international trade deal. Try to provide for the US citizen while ignoring the needs of the businesses that feed him and you very quickly run up against that liberal problem of unrealistic goals. Either keep our businesses profitable or we will become the next third world country, and all the dreams of equality, fairness and the good life for all quickly go down the drain hole. Should you doubt this, take a good look at Greece, or some of the other EU nations, that took from business and gave to the "working man" until the businesses could not compete in the world market. Now that the loans from other countries is drying up, so is Greece - TAANSTAFL, no matter how much we would like to think different.
But absolutely the thing needs to be looked at from a variety of different directions. I like the inclusion of labor leaders (although I personally find them to be no better or different than corporate CEO's, their input is still valuable), and even academia should be included from both sides (or all sides in that field).
So yes, it could be coming from different perspectives and still remain secret. Of course, I haven't seen any information that it isn't; just a scream when corporate America is included as if that is the only group included. I very highly doubt that to be true - I do trust that there are a few honest people in the mix that demand other input than that one source. It is secret, though, and that means that the wikileaks type of person will not give information (leading economists participating, perhaps) that doesn't give a highly emotional impact and that can be spun into something evil.
I wonder when I will get to have my say on how I feel about American corporations dictating how I pay for and receive my health care?
No time soon - we have gone the way of the Brits, with a bureaucrat somewhere doing that.
In reply to your earlier comments,
I don't think of corporate welfare as adjusting for balance of trade issues. I speak of other areas that are not related to this.
How are the best interests of the poor diametrically opposed to the best interests of the country? Why do they have to be different? The conservative bent is that that what is good for the corporation's profitability is good for everyone, and that is just as big a fallacy as what you have mentioned. What is workable is to make sure that we don't repeat the problems we had with NAFTA. While I can't have an Eden, I am certainly not going to settle for Hell in its place without a fight.
As for the Corporations and their profit motives, are they not already included as prime participants? My only point is that I don't want their voices to be the only ones. I am ok with academia from across the ideological spectrum, Labor leaders, yes. I want people that can make judgment beyond being blinded by the lure of profit. The pursuit of the "bottom line" may not be in the interest of the man in the street, the worker or consumer. I need balance in these negotiations to give me that sense of credibility.
I haven't heard information that other entities are involved besides the corporate ones, making that part of this would serve to calm the concerns of many of us.
I assumed you spoke of corporate welfare as something other than leveling the playing field. I just mentioned it because it is NOT welfare, but it is about the only corporate "welfare" I would accept.
Both the interests of the poor AND those of the corporations are in the interests of the country...to a point. Both lines have been crossed. But the poor - put too much of your production into supporting and caring for those that do NOT produce and the economy will fail (same thing for putting too much in the hands of a few producers will do the same). The far left never understands this (or cares, for that matter) but it is of supreme importance to the younger among us and to our children. There isn't a person in this country that needs live any worse than my (happy) family did when I was young, and that is taking the "interests of the poor" way too far.
Yes, I'm assuming that the corporation is a participant, however low, in the TPP talks. Not as a negotiating matter, but as an influence on our negotiator. And that is as it should be - that agreement can make or break them.
Labor leaders - IMO they are just as blinded by greed as corporations. They do not have the interests of the man in the street, or the worker they represent, at heart any more than a corporate CEO does. IMHO. Still, they should be represented, just as corporations should, as they have knowledge and experience from the other side of the fence. Just as you say, balance is what counts, which means corporate America has a place there, too.
You haven't heard information - neither have I. IF the people screaming about corporate influence have that information, would you expect them to share it with you? I wouldn't - in their own nasty way they are no better than the evil corporations and you should never expect the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from them either. They have an axe to grind just as the CEO does and I expect them to grind it for all they're worth, without giving any information that might make people actually think about what they're hearing. Their goal is an angry and scared populace, not an informed or thinking one.
As for paragraph 1, we are in agreement.
Paragraph 2, why do we assume that academia is working exclusively for interests of the poor? I believe that the corporate structure and financial markets are oriented toward the interests of rich and very wealthy and that is not me. While everybody seems to believe that the poor are not productive, I don't see any reason to open them up to exploitation either. What about the middle class, working class who is speaking for them? While these academicians may not have turned a profit, their knowledge of economics and the big picture should not be ignored. Dont you think that a Milton Freidman or a Robert Reich type could contribute to the discussion?
What is too much production effort caring for those that do not produce, how do you translate that?
Paragraph 3, I concur.
Many of us on the left want to see labor and the effect of these policies on working people considered so regardless, Labor leaders of this stripe should be at the table if just to counteract the greed of the corporations.
Paragraph 5, What you say may be true, but I want everybody involved rather than having one group with a single interest as the only voice. That is my prime point. I may have something to be angry and scared about if this one group has sole influence and we get involved in something that hurt more people than it helps because it was not properly considered from all angles. Then, fear and anger will be justified.
Then we're on the side side with the possible exception of liberal economic policies and the political/economic stance of academia. For the second, should you disagree that the system is very liberal, you need to visit/use a university campus. The vast majority of the social (as opposed to science) classes will, I think, quickly disabuse you of any notion that universities are a bastion of conservatism.
Guess I didn't make myself clear on the production thing: if too many of the fruits of the countries production are given away for free, with nothing in return, it will crash the economic system. Few people are happy to work for free or low wages; when we demand that to much of those wages (resulting in low take home pay) be used to support people that will not support themselves the result is a lack of competent work force. Too many leave the work force to live off the largesse of others and it will certainly crash the economy - will turn it into another Greece.
I will grant you the university is probably more liberal than conservative, it is supposed to be a place of open inquiry, the ideas of conservatism, herald of the status quo and traditionalism does not play well.
It is not like it has been planned, who wants to go to Bob Jones University with an inquiring and questioning attitude? No universities are not bastions of conservatism and there is reason for this and it has not been contrived by liberals.
These countries are not operating in a vacuum with each having to account to its populations for outcome of this agreement within their respective societies, not just the US. There variying degrees of social welfare/vs capitalism in the other member states. They have to work out that balance within their own environment. I still have difficulty understanding how the scenario that you paint can actually happen and how it is a threat? The foundation of any successful accord cannot be based on the exploitation of labor, that will sink its prospects from the very beginning.
Of course they are all different. But they all want the same thing; exports and money flowing into their country. They all want an advantage from this agreement. That's why there is a negotiation in process, after all.
And they all have the same problem - any tiny portion of any agreement that does not benefit their country will be attacked if it is allowed (doubly so for any sentence that causes the most minute harm). Which is why it is secret - if those in charge allowed every member of every country to voice their opinion nothing would be done. Again, doubly so if the media is allowed a voice, with their massive power to spin and inflame.
But "exploitation of labor"? Is there any more nonsensical phrase than that? After all, labor is always exploited...to the exact same extent that business is. It's called a "wage", not exploitation, and (barring slavery) both agree to it with very few exceptions.
No, what you really mean is that if laborers aren't paid what they think they should be it will sink any prospects. News flash: no employee is paid what they think they are worth, and few are paid less that what the employer thinks they are worth. That labor will complain is a foregone conclusion, just as that employers will complain. Expect that to happen.
Paragraph 2 I can't to the political system in other country, but if they are similar to us here, they should have a balance of representatives at the table, and not the decisions made solely by the money grubbers. I am not talking about 'everyone' but broad representation and that is not the same. The media helps keep people honest, but conservatives see the press as more an enemy, understandable.
True to your conservative roots, it is always about the employer and corporation that takes precedent over the worker. Labor is not exploited if it is compensated fairly. That is possible, you know. Remember that sucking sound in the nineties, the sound of a vacuum where all American jobs were sent overseas? That was NAFTA.
These things regarding labor rates should be some of the material being discussed in negotiations and not summarily decided the gold plated few. Both will complain, but I want both to have representatives providing a voice for this agreement.
Yes, all countries should have a balanced team. Not at the table - leave that to one person, but on the team.
No, media does not keep people honest - the media, like everyone else, has an agenda, an axe to grind, and isn't interested in the whole truth. They only report what supports their agenda. Understandable that R's see it as an enemy; the majority of media outlets are liberal and their agenda is to defame, not report on, conservative thought. Greed overrides honesty, just as in most other corporate activity.
"Labor is not exploited if it is compensated fairly." With the term "fairly" as defined by you rather than any actual value set by the free market. I know that. Just as you feel able to set labor rates world wide, again without regard to value rendered. It's the liberal way, and the greatest argument I have with liberals. That they think they are competent to determine the price of work without knowing anything about actual value given. That and the ever-growing list of charity required of taxpayers, anyway.
The liberal media is always the rights rallying cry, Is it any more rational than my seeing the corporate structure as corrupt and rightwing/conservative leaning?
I don't trust your vaunted 'free market', only rigid government regulation and oversight over that process will gain my acceptance. But again I am lefty and don't trust the wealthy to do nothing more than to enrich themselves and impoverish the rest of us at the same stroke.
Fair enough - at the core I am an (economic) rightie and find the idea that private contracts must have pricing set by a bureaucracy to be odious indeed. Government should be kept as small as possible, not as large as we can make it. I have an innate belief in the value and strength of people - that they are competent to run their own lives without interference from government...or from the left politicians that will always insist they are naught but children in desperate need of the politicians guidance and control.
For while the far right would institute rigid religious and moral control if they could, the left continues to exert increasing economic control of citizens. One is as wrong as the other, and an unwitting economic slave is as much slave as any other.
"don't trust the wealthy to do nothing more than to enrich themselves and impoverish the rest of us at the same stroke."
I agree with this but for the implied impoverishment of the rest of us. I don't think the rich cognitively think to impoverish us, I think they don't care if it does.
When the introduction of the minimum wage was being discussed one of the more liberal high court judges said that he was in favour of the minimum wage but why introduce it as low as £5 an hour? There was surely nobody in the country that was being paid so little any more!
For information at the time the MW was actually introduced there were still jobs being advertised at £2 an hour.
I didn't say that, but I agree with it as a whole (there are a few ethical holdouts). And I also agree that it is not intentional - that they simply don't care. They don't care any more than the laborer cares what an increase in his wage will do to the company or the welfare recipient cares what his will do to the country.
It's called greed, and it is alive and well at all income levels.
"They don't care any more than the laborer cares what an increase in his wage will do to the company or the welfare recipient cares what his will do to the country."
This could be a true statement if not for the constant reduction in taxes to the rich who have sold us the lies of new jobs as it's affect. Legislation that allows the rich to circumvent the virtuous cycle of the economy by bleeding the country of good paying jobs and the ever increasing movement of money to the top as a result. It is all a symbiotic phenomena. The difference is that it is being interrupted for the benefit of those at the top. Small business that is the mainstay of the countries workforce is being strangled out of existence by the cheap overseas labor that the TPP will complete for the benefit of who? The time for telling people to just go and get a different job to replace the one they lost to these agreements has come to a saturation point.
An (imagined) "constant" reduction in taxes for the rich means that they care for the poor??? Or that the poor cares what their charity does to the country?????
You'll have to make that connection a LOT clearer before I could agree with it.
There is no imaginary reduction in taxes for the rich. From the 1950's to present day the reduction of taxes to the corporations is monumental. The loopholes afforded personal income and investment income is also well documented.
Whatever the poor cares for charity I can't comment on as it makes no sense in the conversation.
No, but there is no constant reduction in taxes for them. But if their taxes are reduced, why should a thinking person be angry? They already pay far more than their share.
But you said it would be true (that the rich care no more than the poor what the results of their greed is) except that they get tax breaks. I didn't follow your comment at all - how does getting tax breaks (whether real or imagined) mean that they care about the little person OR that the charity recipient cares about the country? You lost me there.
"No, but there is no constant reduction in taxes for them. But if their taxes are reduced, why should a thinking person be angry? They already pay far more than their share."
I don't know where you have been but maybe this will help."Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s" .
"But you said it would be true (that the rich care no more than the poor what the results of their greed is) except that they get tax breaks."
I thought it was quite clear that the middle class and poor are never the consideration of the rich when it comes to the greed the top earners are willing to pursue.
 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin … conomy.pdf
Are you then claiming that because tax rates 75 years apart are not the same that there is a steady decline [i]with no rises or bumps[i]? That there were no increases in 75 years in any part of the tax law concerning the rich? That IS what you claimed - do you wish to re-think that statement?
Yes, you said that the rich don't care. Then you said that the comment that they don't care any more than the poor do would be true only if the rich got a tax break. Do I need to quote your reply to that effect?
I think you may be catching on here. Is it the documentation you have seen or your perception of it that confuses you. If it is a time element of 75 years that gives you pause take a look at the decline of society since this started as well.
I would like you to find the quote that holds up your understanding of the rich and poor's views on the subject you are stuck on.
I think we've hit this one long enough; you are not going to try and defend the statement that the rich have received nothing but tax cuts since the 50's, which was what I questioned.
If you doubt that the rich don't care about the poor, you shouldn't have said it. If you doubt that the "entitlement crowd" don't care about the effect on the country you need to talk to them.
No answer to the provided text or questions nor a quote to directly address the accusation. Typical.
Yep! No links for an opinion. Exactly the same as you provided for the opinion that the rich don't care about the poor.
All pretty typical isn't it? Others must provide links proving their opinion, while your opinions are automatically true. Or were you referring to the comment that there was at least one tax increase to the rich in those 50 years? With hundreds available, I'm sure you can find one of them as easily as I can.
See the big bump in the 90's? Where top tax rates went up about 33%, and where, if you input 1,000,000 per year income, the effective rate does the same? Is that a decrease in taxes paid by the rich? If not, quite whining that the rich have had a continual tax decrease since the 50's.
"It doesn’t take into account credits or deductions you may be eligible for, nor does it reflect changes to your eligibility for tax breaks over the past century."
Did you miss this part or are you just overlooking it.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary though the tax break rates expired.  Note that this applies to the rich who have had it legislated to be such by their stoolies in Congress.
 http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/ec … index.html
I think your opinions are what is ruling your understanding the situation and not mine. Typical
Got it. Warren Buffet pays 100 times the tax burden his secretary does and that proves that there has been a continual decline in the taxes the rich pay. I understand.
And the graph cannot take into account every possible tax credit for every possible individual all in one graph and therefore that shows the rich have never had a tax increase in 65 years. Although their top rate and effective rate have both done so. Got it, just as I get that there has never been a new tax applied to specific circumstances for some of those with a high income.
And I think you made an indefensible statement (that is also patently untrue) and cannot back off of it for some reason.
No sir you cannot accept the distinction is all there is to this. Tax rates plummet from 90% to 15% in 70 years and you call that an opinion. Add to that the deductions in banking, interest liabilities and capital gains adjustments and you think the rate has gone up. Make the distinction man and stop with the theatrics. Typical
But I never said anything of the sort. Tax rates (which actually has little to do with how much tax is paid) have decreased considerably since the 50's. No argument.
The argument is, and has been, that there is been a continual decline in taxes on the rich. Having made the error of saying that, you seem to conveniently disregard it every time it is brought to your attention, pretending that because two dates have differing rates means that the first derivative has never been positive in the same time span. It wasn't true when you said it, it isn't true now, and all the pretending in the world won't make it true.
Typical, isn't it?
"But I never said anything of the sort. Tax rates (which actually has little to do with how much tax is paid) have decreased considerably since the 50's. No argument."
Thank you for making the distinction. Yes the tax rates change up and then are reduced yet shifted to another tact to make sure there is no loss in tax revenues to the governments take. But the continual changes in the tax code assure that the rich continue to pay less tax that the rest of us. If you wish to argue aggregates then go ahead. I will make that distinction as well.
" the rich continue to pay less tax that the rest of us."
You know that to be patently untrue - the rich pay far, far more (per person, of course) than the poor or middle class do. Very often the entire wealth plus income of the poor or middle class citizen won't cover the tax bill for the rich for a single year. Particularly the poor - the net flow of cash+product is toward the citizen, not the government. A negative "tax", then.
The rich pay a higher amount but a lesser percentage. There is no room for error in that.
Good! You not only recognize but accept that your statement that "...rich continue to pay less tax that the rest of us." was not true. Now can you show data that proves the rich have had a lower effective federal income tax rate (not top or marginal rate, but effective rate) every year since 1950? Why not work with, say, an income of 1,000,000 and try to show that the effective rate after all deductions went down 65 consecutive years? And while you're at it, try to show that that effective rate has, since 1950, been lower than someone earning, say, $40,000 with 3 dependents (household of 4). Don't forget to deduct the entitlements received from the taxes paid for this one - taking with one hand while giving back with the other doesn't count. Only the net transfer does.
I have given you many examples. You wish to categorize it into a small segment that can only prove it one way. Warren Buffet says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. He said it not me.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/ec … index.html
It is also memorialized here. This study only goes back to the late seventies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-fa … -30-years/
Not aware of any British corporations putting power on our government to allow them to prosecute foreign governments!
As extreme right wing as the UK is now we still have some way to go to be as far right as the USA.
Not aware of any US companies doing it either, just unsupported claims from rabble rousers that refuse to give sources (and even those do not say it is corporations doing it). There is a difference between claim and truth, you know.
We have at least the remains of democracy in the UK.
We have freedom of information act which still allows us to find out what is going on sometimes.
There is a difference between truth and the fantasy that all is well with the world and that no corporations would willingly drive us into the ground in search of higher profits.
Much the same here - only the remnants of democracy. For which the people are to blame. A freedom of information act, which works...sometimes.
And corporations that WILL drive the country into the ground in search of profits. There are a few around that actually do have some ethics, but most are all about greed...same as their customers.
by Sharon Stajda11 days ago
This past week President Trump laid out his new plan to decrease prescription drug prices for American's. Drug prices have been skyrocketing for many years, it's about time Government got involved, and fought back...
by janesix4 years ago
Due to Obamacare, I am now on Medicaid, along with thousands of other newly eligible adults in my state. For the last three or four years, the large pharmaceutical company that makes my medication had a program where...
by Don W4 years ago
In many of the threads in the politics forum, the government seems to be the target for a lot of people's frustration. Why isn't the focus on the corporations that have steadily usurped influence away from ordinary...
by A Thousand Words4 years ago
There's no one to step on/take advantage of anymore?Capitalism is defined as:- free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by...
by DancingRedFeather7 years ago
Rumour has it the swine flu was purposely instigated by drug company to make money..I wouldn't be surprised as the HIV was given to black homosexuals rumour has it by Germans in the jungle under pretext of a experiment...
by Georgiakevin8 years ago
Pick up any magazine and notice how many advertisements there are for drugs. Watch television and notice how many advertisements there are for various drugs. Go to any drug store and notice how many over the counter...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.