Has anyone heard about this? I've heard next to nothing about it.
According to the news source, it would be the largest trade agreement in world history, which would further cement corporate power over once sovereign nations around the world.
Originally posted by whodey http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/obamas-secret-treaty-important-step-toward-one-world-economic-system/#fur92ktMXtkqvMiM.99
Has anyone heard about this? I've heard next to nothing about it.
According to the news source, it would be the largest trade agreement in world history, which would further cement corporate power over once sovereign nations around the world.
OMG THE PACIFIC TRADE ROUTE SUPPOSED TO BE SPAIN'S
Originally posted by whodey http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/obamas-secret-treaty-important-step-toward-one-world-economic-system/#fur92ktMXtkqvMiM.99
Has anyone heard about this? I've heard next to nothing about it.
According to the news source, it would be the largest trade agreement in world history, which would further cement corporate power over once sovereign nations around the world.
I'll take Right Wing-nut Conspiracy Theories for $200, Alex.
The only reason stories like this exist is to keep your attention off what the right is doing.
Originally posted by Suzianne I'll take Right Wing-nut Conspiracy Theories for $200, Alex.
The only reason stories like this exist is to keep your attention off what the right is doing.
You should read some of this stuff. Much as it pains me to admit it Whodey is right. Both the Transpacific agreement and TTIP have content which will constrain innovation and protect the rich around the world. If you regard yourself as left of centre, hey left of Genghis Khan, then you should oppose this.
Originally posted by whodey Has anyone heard about this?
Yes whodey, lots of people have heard about this "secret" trade agreement that has been extensively discussed in mainstream media as well as on this very forum.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Yes whodey, lots of people have heard about this "secret" trade agreement that has been extensively discussed in mainstream media as well as on this very forum.
So being the collectivist that you are, do you give it a thumbs up or down?
Originally posted by whodey So being the collectivist that you are, do you give it a thumbs up or down?
The content of the proposed treaty is, as far as I understand, not fully public, so I cannot form an opinion on it. I'm sure it has aspects I agree with and aspects I disagree with. Was there a specific policy proposal you wanted to discuss?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra The content of the proposed treaty is, as far as I understand, not fully public, so I cannot form an opinion on it. I'm sure it has aspects I agree with and aspects I disagree with. Was there a specific policy proposal you wanted to discuss?
And it seems that members of Congress are equally in the dark.
From the article:
"Even though Congress is not being allowed to see what is in the treaty, Barack Obama wants Congress to give him fast track negotiating authority. What that means is that Congress would essentially trust Obama to negotiate a good treaty for us. Congress could vote the treaty up or down, but would not be able to amend or filibuster it."
I suppose people like sh would say that this makes Obama a "moderate" since this empowers corporatism and then Obama turns around and empowers a centralized government in some form or fashion, like the net neutrality. From this vantage point, it is as if somehow Obama vacillated from left to right. However, if you look at Obama as a mere collectivist, all of his policies and actions are consistent. The goal is centralization, with the engine being world wide corporatism.
Originally posted by whodey I suppose people like sh would say that this makes Obama a "moderate" since this empowers corporatism and then Obama turns around and empowers a centralized government in some form or fashion, like the net neutrality. From this vantage point, it is as if somehow Obama vacillated from left to right. However, if you look at Obama as a mere collectivist, all o ...[text shortened]... tions are consistent. The goal is centralization, with the engine being world wide corporatism.
Funny, people you would call "liberal collectivists" have been fighting these type of trade deals for decades. Google "Battle in Seattle" for further info.
Originally posted by no1marauder Funny, people you would call "liberal collectivists" have been fighting these type of trade deals for decades. Google "Battle in Seattle" for further info.
Sure, those on the left fight corporate power and those on the right fight government power. In the end, they both fight two sides of the same coin and both lose little by little.
Over time we "progress" towards the collectivists utopia with no opposition party in sight.
Originally posted by no1marauder Funny, people you would call "liberal collectivists" have been fighting these type of trade deals for decades. Google "Battle in Seattle" for further info.
Originally posted by DeepThought You should read some of this stuff. Much as it pains me to admit it Whodey is right. Both the Transpacific agreement and TTIP have content which will constrain innovation and protect the rich around the world. If you regard yourself as left of centre, hey left of Genghis Khan, then you should oppose this.
According to some analyses, it is a neoliberal thing, which is quite different from US liberalism.
"Neoliberalism is the resurgence of ideas associated with economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s,[1][2][3] whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[4][5][6][7] The usage and definition of the term have changed over time.[8]" (Wikipedia)
Originally posted by whodey Sure, those on the left fight corporate power and those on the right fight government power. In the end, they both fight two sides of the same coin and both lose little by little.
Over time we "progress" towards the collectivists utopia with no opposition party in sight.
Right wingers seek to enhance corporate power (even giving them "rights" like freedom of religion) because they are tools created and maintained by the wealthy. The defining feature of right wing ideology has always been that a few should be entitled to rule and dominate the rest. Right wingers wish to restrict government power in the US because it is based on democratic principles and gives the People a theoretical chance to check the power of the wealthy. Of course, that turns out to be quite difficult in practice but the possibility remains so limiting the power of government to do anything that might interfere with the power of the wealthy is the right wing's #1 priority. They are less interested in limiting government power in other things like enforcing a dominant culture's morals and/or values.
Trans Pacific Trade agreement.
14 Nov '14 15:07
Back to Top