On Wed, 20 May 2015 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:23:11 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 11:59:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 2:27:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 11:10:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:06:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 4:14:38 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

snip
I'm not sure that our current lawmakers are c=
apable of such discussion.
snip

It's called stool sample legislation -- you have to pass it
to see what's in it. If the TPP is such a good deal why
isn't the complete agreement [no secret protocols] posted on
the web in a searchable format such as pdf?

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

But, but, slow eddy says trust them.

BBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa

jon, even then, you can't really call Bill and Hillary pro- Wall Streeters, because the Clintons were actually in debt after they left the White House. If they are pro-Wall Street, then I don't see why. "Wall Street" rewards certain never came for the Clintons. Otherwise, they'd be worth billions.

This is just a case of people looking for someone to blame; for
nefarious purposes; for conspiratorial excuses for things they don't
understand.

There isn't a serious economist who thinks that free trade is bad.
There isn't a serious international observer who thinks you can
conduct trade negotiations in public. There isn't a serious US
politico who believes you could accomplish trade deals while allowing
Congress to amend already-negotiated agreements. Congress has the
power to approve or disapprove. That's all they need. That's all they
can handle.

When you're negotiating delicate trade agreements with 11 different
countries, all of whom have different economic needs and political
hurdles to jump in order to get a deal through, and Congress comes
along and says "no, you'll have to accept our rules for export
banking, or for documenting inspections, or for central-bank controls
of currency exchange," the trade negotiators would have to take those
things back to the table and negotiate them all over again. Which, of
course, means the deal is then dead.

This isn't a matter of "trusting" anyone with a blank check. It's a
matter of deciding whether you'll sign the check after it's written.
You can sign it, or you can refuse to. That's what fast-tracking is.
That's all it is.

Listening to the anti-trade clowns in Congress, you'd think they don't
know that. But they do know that. What they're counting on is that YOU
don't know that. Because their objective is to play off of your
ignorance for political gain. That's their game.

Well doubtlessly, big labor and the working class is going to side with Senators Warren and Sanders. I mean, that's a given.

Correct. Everyone with an interest will take the side that they think
gives them the greatest short-term gain.


(The democrats are made up of businessmen who want one thing and
working class people who want another. Businessmen who are
democrats - or so-called limousine liberals - are just a little
more working-class friendly, that's all)

The Democratic Party is too diverse to make
that characterization.

Not from a policy standpoint. Only unions (filled with working class people) and Businessmen (who donate to pressure groups) control its policy and priorities. Other groups in the democratic party have negligible effect.

I realize you're not a fan of conservative points of view, but you
might want to share your thoughts with these guys:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...mocratic-party

They say it's divided among four power sources: Big lawyers (tort
lawyers); Big Green environmentalists; Big labor (roughly half of them
are government employees unions, but they have most of the power); and
Big Insiders (personal wealth and foundation grants). Not so much Big
Business per se; they still tend to hang with the Republicans.

The thing is, despite the Examiner's claims, these groups often are at
odds on policy matters. The context in which we're talking about it
here -- the TPP agreement -- doesn't seem to have any big, natural
advocates within the Democratic Party. There aren't enough economists.
g

The other part of the context -- Warren and Sanders -- are unlikely to
be influenced much by any of the special interests. But they appear to
be unrealistic in what they think can be accomplished by fighting TPP.

A trade agreement among those parties, or most of them, is going to
happen. The only question is whether its policy leaders will be the
US, Canada, Japan and Australia; or China.

At this point, it's our choice. Before long, it won't be.

--
Ed Huntress