Trans Pacific Partnership – You’ll Need to Pass it to Learn What’s In It!

Seems as if the errors of the past have become the standard to keep in DC as we discover the growing numbers of Congressmen (not unlike their brethren in the Senate) who are preparing for a pro-TPP vote without having bothered to read the agreement (those who’ve openly confessed: Rep  M. Walters (R-Ca), Rep P. Sessions (R-Tx), Rep S. Scalise (R-La). And quite possibly Rep K McCarthy (R-Ca) a Rep J. Boehner (R-Oh) both of whom who’ve refused to answer the did-you-read-the-proposed legislation question).

True, you need a secure escort to enter the enclave where the holy document is preserved as open dissemination of the pending-a-vote legislation’s details is strictly on a need-to-know basis. Strange don’t you think that a document conveying so much authority to a President and having significant influence on the American public is being protected from public oversight. The claim being that the U.S. must keep its individual negotiations, allegedly with and from each of its 15 potential trading partners prying eyes, secure so as to preserve its (U.S.) authoritative advantage.

What a load of pig dung; how weak must a potential trading partner be if they are not interested in competing interest and this includes the U.S.? The U.S. Administration claims that “we” need the TPP to preserve the U.S. competitive advantage of China while at the same time states that it is actively negotiating with China whom they claim wants to be a TPP partner. Again, how weak must a trading partner be (China in this instance) if they’re willing to be subsumed by an agreement whose architects openly claim places them, ostensibly, in an advantaged position?

TPP talking points claims that trade agreements produce 1 in 5 jobs here in the U.S. and that 95 percent of the consumers are outside of the U.S. as the key reasons for why the U.S. must take the lead on trade negotiations so as to preserve it economic preeminence. However, with only a minor dose of considered thought necessary, one can clearly see, if only, that these two talking points are implicitly contradictory and here’s why: If 95 percent of the consumers are, indeed, outside of the U.S. and Domestic Production of fungible output (exportable product) is a mere 13 percent of U.S. GDP one is then forced to accept that the U.S. is not, at all, in an export advantage in any trade agreement. Particularly where domestic economic benefit is concerned which then exposes that the so called 1 in 5 jobs created by trade agreements are not, at all, productive and contributory to a domestic economic advantage specifically were trade is concerned.

This observation is supported by facts: 71 percent of the U.S. economy is in consumer spending (mind you, not in productive “tradable” output) with approximately 68 percent of that spending (excluding spending on domestic food products, housing and energy) goes toward imported consumer products and foreign supported services (off-shore). In short, the only thing that the last 30 years of trade agreement exhibit is a drop in domestic incomes, wealth and economic capacity.

Here’s what the TPP is doing:

(1) Consolidating Western banking control in the Asian perimeter.

(2) Consolidating economic-security, in the Asian perimeter, of Western-based Multi-Nationals who are now realizing that China’s operating metaphor offers no economic security for their investments in China.

(3) Encircle China with a consolidated military presence to oppose China’s expanding presence in the Asian perimeter chiefly in the S. China Seas.

(4) Use the TPP as a cover for reestablishing a military presence in the Philippines (Subic Bay/Clark Airfield/Oyster Bay, Brooke’s Point and/or Batanes) which the U.S. surrendered back to the P.I. in the early 1990’s.

Convoluted interests, to say the least, however not a one of which holds or substantively contains true economic hope for the American household and as such the lower chambers of Congress (the “House”) must never “thumbs-up” this most wretched form of depravity. However, there is a greater question which still remains: What is the American public willing to do? Are you going to remain a key component of the Governments adaptive ruse which I refer to as the “Grubber-Method” where the lack of transparency feeds the growing ranks of the uninformed public into a political-economic advantage you have no part in?

Well, at this point, the uninformed component of the plan is no longer your defense; now you know what’s taking place in your name that many an elected Congressional figure hasn’t even begun to consider their play in an ever-adapting lie!

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in Poli-Econ, Poli-Philos and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.