TPP, TTIP, CETA & Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements.
There is absolutely no ethical reason for hyping a mountain of corporate ‘arrangements’ to screw the harmless, lil’ guy by espousing the legitimate benefits of reducing tariffs & referring to the arrangements as ‘trade’ treaties?
The fact of the matter is the TPP, TTIP, CETA & other Global Treaties/”Arrangements’ are not about how much trade, but, who the signatory corporations prefer to trade with & how to ‘Vichy’ their profits while ‘undermining’ the AIIB, et al. And, if one understands the basic economic law that
there is only a finite amount of global value & that it does not grow, or, shrink, it just moves around, then, one might be able to understand that the TTIP, CETA & the other Global Treaties/’Arrangements’ are the means for just such moves; they are just attempts to move the value of the signatory nations to the (‘global’) corporations that are presently located in these nations. These ‘moves’ only make economic sense if the value that is moved to the global corporations is at the expense of the non-shareholders (via ‘their’ governments), whether the non-shareholders are citizens of the signatory nations, or, not.
And, while the aforementioned reorganization will cause an increase in employment in some sectors of the signatory Global Corporations it will be off-set by:
1) the devaluation of the operational costs as jobs move to the signatory nations with the lowest cost of employment,
2) the decrease of jobs in other sectors which will be lost entirely to non-signatory nations which have un competitively low wages.
Other ‘secret’ cost shifts from the corporations to the harmless, individual tax payers include:
1) the systematic move from one corporation suing another corporation, to both corporations suing the harmless taxpayers in secret (‘Death-Star’) Tribunals; but, with no defense, nor, appeals for the harmless taxpayers (see; ‘The MERKEL Letter’*),
2) the prohibition of governments to sue the signatory corporations; ie. what was previously (prior to the treaties) illegal, &/or, unethical is now ‘legal’ in the new jurisdiction of the cyber Tribunals (the U.S., et al, Corporations that have craved for Tort Reform are getting Tort Abolishment),
3) the provisions to make more secret add-ons at later dates with no public consultations,
4) et al.
To help pay for the harmless taxpayers ‘guilty transgressions’ against Global Corporations in Canada, Prime Minister Harper has recently cut the funding for health care by $36 billion dollars. Not only do these funds reward the Global Corporations (to pay for present-future punitive developmental costs, penalties, etc.), but, it gives the Corporations the funds to purchase national health care systems of Canada & the other signatory corporate states whose health care functions are being deliberately exacerbated in anticipation of the secret intent of the Treaties/’Arrangements’; acquisition of national health care & pharmaceutical systems. Other public services are similarly being made vulnerable in preparation for corporate take-overs. Surprisingly, the Canadian province of Saskatchewan seems to be particularly resilient to the pressures from Corporate Canada & its Global Corporate Associates, at least for now.
However, where the real money is to be made in the secret
Treaties/’Arrangements’ is not in the ‘three card Monte’ (ie. Zero net effect) trade area of the treaties, but, in the moves in finance. Perhaps the most significant move here is from a system that is barely accountable in open courts, such as:
1) the money laundering of HSBC, et al, on behalf of drug & terrorist groups,
2) Enron’s unregulated (fraud, insider trading**, etc.) manipulation of electrical power-services,
3) the unregulated & fraud induced (Chase bank; ‘fine before no crime, nor, time’, et al) melt-down of Wall St. in the 2008 (the ‘tactical probe’ before the ‘invasion’ of the Global Treaties/’Arrangements’)
4) et al,
to a system of secret tribunal ‘arrangements’. In other words, the illegal practices that were barely detectable due to the deliberate underfunding of the regulators
the political interference of the investigations by the Dept. of Justice (U.S.),
will enable the practices of HSBC, Enron, Chase, et al, to not only live on but, expand exponentially & internationally.
The advocates of the Global corporate economy can warmly point out that the lil’ guy will no longer have to pay for the costs of the governments regulating, policing, investigating, prosecuting & incarcerating (?) financial felonies & misdemeanors as these duties will fall under the new cyber-jurisdiction.
This ‘cost savings’ begs the questions:
1) what are the various different ways that these costs savings can be made contractually binding in an agreed upon reduction of taxes of the harmless taxpayers,
2) what constitutes a ’good corporate citizen’ in the post treaty ratification world
3) how many pieces of legislation have Corporate Canada & its Global Associates encouraged, sponsored, &/or, paid a consideration to have passed in anticipation of suing the harmless individual taxpayers for windfall profits after the Treaties/’Arrangements’ have been ratified &
4) et al?
And, finally, it may be regrettable that nowhere in the discussion of the flurry of Global Treaties/’Arrangements’ has there been any mention about what will be the destabilizing consequences for the signatories due to;
1) the deliberate deprivation of information (particularly, Canada, re; The W.A.D. Accord & its Compensation) that is increasing the unrealistic expectations of the other signatories, potential signatories, et al,
2) the signatories making geopolitical side deals with non-members which have the appearance of being at the expense of the other corporations of the treaty signatories
3) et al?
FULL Article, see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
For more on ‘The MERKEL Letter’, see; ‘The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter’; To Sue, or, Be Sued’ ; excerpts from
‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada; The SHAREHOLDERS and corporates Canada, America, the EU, the Trans Pacific nations, et al v. the (harmless) non shareholders of the Canada, both; Native & non-Native.
For more on Insider Trading, see; ‘INSIDER TRADING; TPPartnership, CETA & C-CITreaty TRIBUNALS Need to be SECRET;
Corporate Canada fears China may Blow "Arrangements" between Can. Lobbyists' Clients & Parties' Executives (re; The W.A.D. Accord*)?’
Also see; TPP, TTIP, CETA, Global Treaties/’Arrangements’ & Sovereignty
For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the TTIP, the CET Agreement, TPP, C-CI Treaty, et al, and The WAD Accord
& List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 friends who will share it with 10 others...
I agree... "must focus their attention now on their own party as it is most probably full of scoundrels already." And as it has been since the days of Babylon.
The world is full of scoundrels who put self-interest above patriotism, and America, unfortunately, is no exception. Scoundrels looking to gorge themselves at the public trough, having no real convictions, will join the dominant political party of the day, paying lip service to the party line, just to get elected and re-elected.
It is true that Democrats suffered the most when they were in the ascendancy, but the shoe is on the other foot now. Republicans, who won elected offices on promises of ending corruption, must focus their attention now on their own party as it is most probably full of scoundrels already.
Wait, I just figured it out! The definition of "is." It's, Democrats do it, too!
Just with their pants down.
President Clinton was caught with his pants down. In the Oval Office not less. To get some he has to hassle a college kid. What a Stud! Crappy lair though. Just what is the definition of is?
According to the Republican propaganda machine, Democrats are wrong at best and evil at worst. The Republican Party encourages citizens to reject Democratic Party politics and vote Republican as the best way to put an end to Democratic shenanigans. Yet, whenever Republicans are caught with their pants down, their first line of defense is to bawl, "Democrats do it, too!"
10 to 1 Mr. Hightower believes Democrats do not do the same thing.
I see Cory was there.
It’s sad to know that our government spends money on war. Instead of making peace and spending money on important and noble things they spend money to proceed and to support war. Also US help other countries to keep wars going, that’s for sure. I wonder how much money they spend for that. And I think that this amount would be enough to fix student loan problem or other important debt. We have very tough economic situation now in the US and there are a lot of problems much more important than a war. Serena from http://www.cashadvanceloanstore.com/
There's nothing left to buy in my area. Land is BY FAR the best asset. It's real. An acre is always an acre, and there are many many ways to make income from land.
They aren't making anymore.
(i agree with your point -- only the rich will own farmland in the not too distant future -
a different world is coming, that's for sure. excellent article!)
USPS is one of few things the US got right. But our Republican so called friends are hard at work to make it look bad and eventually disassemble it. All things that help regular people run small business without paying a share to a bid corporations are not welcome. Afterall you know that popular, selfish question everyone asks nowadays, whats in it for me?
Mr. Wyman, you ask happyfew, "What prompted you to refer to 'the black guy' and not use name or title?" Obviously, he is presenting the point of view of the racists. Perhaps it would have been clearer had he put the entire phrase in quotes, but he does not even bother to capitalize letters where appropriate (and he may have a broken shift key).
"That is one form of racism." Indeed. That only goes to show he got it right.
However, we all know that real racists do not use the term "black" because that would be too respectful. Racists would use the n-word.
happyfew: you state "clueless redneck racists.... " (INSERT GENERALIZATIONS HERE) then end with "the black guy in the white house".
Speaking of clueless! What prompted you to refer to "the black guy" and not use name or title? That is one form of racism. Then you got "white" into the other half of the reference! Freudian?
Hightower himself has a vision problem when he blames a large group of people for every "problem" implying the other large group have the answers but the other group just wants to be meanies.
To be paid to write in generalizations and be paid again and again! Who is the idiot with the checkbook??
That other large group must not have the answers after all or they are "clueless" about communicating or hearing. Everyone is open to workable solutions not cockamamie fantasies. Reality is that their proposals are just not sound and they know it. Instead of being proved wrong they convince their myopic followers it is the other group being stubborn so their "brilliance" goes by the wayside. Better than their idiocy being exposed by enacting their proposals and they know it.
To blindly follow party lines is as foolish as arguing them or believing in any politician. Congress can come back in September...2015...
To fail over and over is perhaps time to reassess the methodology or approach and stop blaming the "other side". You or I will never get everything we want. Accept that fact. The person in the White House cannot do much, thankfully. They can irritate everyone on earth quite easily though.
Can you guess what political party I am registered as?
teabagger old fart racists and clueless redneck racists make up a major part of the repubican base. you can't argue that point because you see and hear in this very village every day. what is amusing is that they continue to vote against their best interests and then blame the black guy in the white house...
I am glad you agree the birther stuff is nonsense, but you miss the point. How is it that "nonsense" managed to get so much traction in the media and among people who otherwise show a great deal of common sense?
I never said the Republicans were themselves "overtly racist." I said they fan the flames of racism. Several Republican representatives have expressed doubt about the president's birth, or say they just do not know. That is fanning the flames.
You neglected to address the issue of Speaker Boehner's culpability. Before you ask me to provide more examples of Republican flirtation with racism, deal with what is already on the table.
The racism is palpable? Can you provide specific incidences where conservative legislators made overtly racial comments about Obama and/or his cohorts? Can you explain how black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ben Carson, etc. can be racist in their scathing assessments? Agreed that the "birther" stuff was nonsense, but while there are many that voted against him because of his skin, just as many voted FOR him for the same reason; is that not also racist?
On the contrary, Mr. Faltz, the racism is palpable; the criticism is a pack of vicious, racist lies, which are obvious to all but the most brainwashed.
The main feature of racism is that it is irrational. Take, for example, the birth certificate nonsense. No matter how many times the President released his birth certificate, racists refused to believe it, because they are irrational.
The Republican Party, so far as I know, did not start this brush fire, but here is how they fan the flames: House Speaker John Boehner said he believed the President is an American and he believed the birth certificate is genuine but it is not his duty or responsibility to correct the misconceptions of the citizenry! That is Obama's job.
Which is like saying, "I saw someone in the National Forest drop his cigarette in the brush without stamping it out. I could have walked over and stamped it out myself, but that is not my job. That is the Forestry Service's job."
As far as I am concerned Boehner is not himself a racist, but he and his cohorts are flirting with treason.
"the president deserves the highest of honors" - For?...
"Republicans continue to fan the flames of racism""- No, that would be liberals; it's all they have left to defend valid criticism of the man with. I thought you'd be somehow about such nonsense, but I guess when his failures are so complete and unavoidable, even those with something to say abandon reason for desperate, last ditch efforts; good luck hitching your wagon to THAT star for the next 2 1/2 years!
Kevin, the reasons for--and potential for success of--impeachment proceedings are debateable, but this course of action should not be pursued for two reasons:
1) His incompetence and abysmal failures while in office (the economy, imploding ACA, foreign policy blunders...) are obvious to all but the most myopically devoted, and coupled with the ever-increasing litany of scandals (F&F, the NSA, the IRS, Benghazi, the VA, our southern border, etc.) his popularity is a thousand fathoms underwater and his "legacy" forever besmirched; so why would you want to make a martyr out of him? His record will be his undoing, and hopefully the electorate will be a bit more discretionary about who they elect in the future: choosing qualifications over charisma and results over rhetoric (but some never learn; witness how popular Hillary currently is *sigh*).
2) Two words: President Biden
On the contrary, Mr. Groenhagen, the president deserves the highest of honors, not impeachment, but the corrupt Republicans continue to fan the flames of racism and beat the drums of paranoia. Furthermore, the "people themselves" did "take the initiative" to elect him to office twice in spite of all the lies and propaganda you and your ilk could publish. All of this plotting of his impeachment is the last desperate attempt of the corrupt Republican Party to circumvent the will of the people and deprive us of our choice.
The last time I looked, this country was governed by a Constitution written by our Founding Fathers, not by the "Second Treatise of Government." I do not believe that John Locke, brilliant as he may have been, had any direct hand in the authoring of our Constitution, and no unconstitutional process you may contemplate can be justified by citing his work. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether or not any statute violates the principles of John Locke, nor clarified any paragraph of the "Second Treatise" to ensure it was correctly applied.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation