Bloomberg: Trans Pacific Partnership Is “Corporatist Power Grab"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Dec 24, 2013.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    “As Democratic And Transparent As A One-Party State,” Shrouded In “Big Brother-Like Secrecy”

    The U.S. Trade Representative – the federal agency responsible for negotiating trade treaties – has said that the details of the Trans Pacific Partnership are classified due to “national security”.

    A Congressman who has seen the text of the treaty says:
    There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret … this agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.
    It will increase the cost of borrowing, make prescription drugs more expensive, destroy privacy, harm food safety, and – yes - literally act to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and the other nations which sign the bill.

    To give an idea of what would happen to American law if TPP passes, just look at Equador …

    It’s courts awarded billions against Chevron for trashing huge swaths of rainforest. But then a private arbitration panel simply ignored the country’s court system.

    If TPP passes, American courts will be sidelined as well. (Conservatives might want to read this and this.)

    William Pesek writes at Bloomberg:

    CONTINUE . . .
     
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    InfoWars, CRG and a handful of other conspiracy nuts have grossly misrepresented this as being Bloomberg's opinion of the trade agreement being a "corporatist power grab." It isn't Bloomberg's opinion. It is the opinion of William Pesek, who is an op-ed contributor, not one Bloomberg's editorial board, not the standard-bearer for Bloomberg op-ed.

    That said, the trade agreement is, indeed, a stinky pile of dung and should be scrapped. But to claim a responsible journalistic organ has used the hair-brained term "corporatist power grab" to describe it is irresponsible.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I don't think it's any more irresponsible than claiming we have to bomb other nations to bits because they might maybe could possibly someday be a threat in the future with little to no proof.

    Nor do I think the information and commentary from infowars is any less credible than the fear based programing coming from a giant multinational media corporation funded by the Saudi Royal family and we all know which giant multinational media corporation funded by the Saudi Royal family I'm talking about, don't we?

    What you suggest be the "politically correct" term for a naked power grab by giant multinational corporations?

    [​IMG] Y'all live long and prosper now ya hear?
     
    #3 poncho, Dec 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...