As a tool for encapsulating China, in practical terms, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a paper-tiger and China has long-proven itself selective as to its devotion to international law; for the Chicoms piracy is a practice not a prohibition. As a consumer of U.S. Jobs, TPP is no immediate threat. The U.S. Governments suspension of domestic job creation was previously accomplished thru the implementation of the GATT/WTO, NAFTA & CAFTA Treaties.
There are however, two critical objections. One being the Treaty’s Claims/Dispute mechanism and the other is in the area of Intellectual Property. The TPP addressed the Claims/Dispute resolution in a rather draconian approach; the creation and implementation of its own court for arbitrating dispute against companies of participating Nations. Member Nations would be bound to suspend domestic authority over claims-made to the jurisdiction of the TPP appointed tribunal and on this issue alone we found this feature to be an unacceptable breach of a State’s, and its Citizenry’s, sovereign right to directly seek judicial recourse.
Going forward, on economic terms, there is the question of Intellectual Property(IP). Whether in or out of a Trade Agreement this is an area of great concern and though TPP had promising attributes (in the area of IP protections) the specifics of its enforcement powers remain ambiguous. Billions upon billions in economic value are lost each year due to piracy and if these losses are to be suspended a robust mechanism of enforcement is an absolute necessity and more appropriately dealt with thru International facilities such as the U.N. and adjudicated both thru Domestic and International Courts. Either way, so long as U.S. Companies continue to translate their IP/Ideas thru the manufacturing resources of the Asia Perimeter or, for that matter, any perimeter outside the U.S., there will be no generative motive driving a spike in job-creation here in the U.S.
In the end, with so little going for it (TPP), one struggles to explain why so much effort was applied to creating a Treaty that offers so-little-to-no economic benefit to Americans. Over the last 30 years the U.S. has engaged in a rush to implement various treaties (the proponents of which proffer as necessary to insure the U.S. remains competitive in the arena of global trade) whose impact are measured in terms of economic decline and severely diminished economic capacity. In turn, this has forced increased government dependency accompanied by the expected explosion in debt-load as the Government struggles to substitute spending for the lost economic activity.
I ask that you review the economic landscape of the U.S. and ask yourself one simple question: How are these Trade Agreements working for you and your household? These multi-lateral Trade Agreements are done for one reason and one reason only: An overfed block of Elite, working at your expense, to secure their interests against the risk of having to prove themselves viable in a free-market environment. Remember, Capitalists loathe the efficiencies of free-market competition and will do anything to preserve themselves against the proofing-threat of competition; they are, in point of fact, fascists.
Step back and take a look at these trade agreements and their results and ask yourself the following two questions:
(1) Was there any component of the Trade Agreements that could not be achieved individually (thru Bilateral Agreement)?
(2) Considering the post-Treaty economic outcome, who’s benefited most by these Trade Agreements?
The growth in the concentration of wealth is not the problem. The problem is that you’ve unknowingly supported the removal of your hand from this pool of generated-wealth and not a one dared sport a pink cap to march in protest. Apparently forced economic depravity fails to rise to the level of the fashionably relevant. In a true market-centric based economic environment solidifying beneficial trade agreements is a make-sense process for normalizing bilateral economic events, but only so long as the benefits are mutually advantageous.
Broad or so-called Comprehensive Trade Arrangement, despite the claim of raising the level playing field, have proven to be a tool for the diminution of State Sovereignty, economic and social stability and political allegiance; the Member State becomes subservient to the Alliance while the Citizenry absorbs the burden.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder