RSS
The Three Industries That Love The TPP: Hollywood, Big Pharma & Wall St.
from the also:-three-big-funders-of-politicians dept
Tons of people seem (quite rightly) concerned about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. As we pointed out last week after the final text was finally, released, the agreement has a lot of really big problems. But if you want to understand just how bad the agreement is, perhaps you should just look at the industries that like it. Vox notes that Big Pharma and Hollywood love the agreement while The Intercept notes that Wall Street loves it.
It should be noted that, actually, Big Pharma is apparently a bit disappointed that the TPP doesn't go far enough in locking up exclusivity for biologics.
That said, talk about three of the most hated industries around: Hollywood, Big Pharma and Wall Street. But, more importantly, talk about three of the most protectionist, anti-free trade industries around. We've been repeating over and over again that the TPP is not a free trade deal and this should be more confirmation. Hollywood, Big Pharma and Wall Street are probably three of the biggest industries to rely heavily on government regulations as a way to limit competition, limit innovation and to use that exclusivity to artificially increase prices at the expense of the public.
And they like the deal.
That's because it's not a free trade deal at all. It's not about "taking away" barriers to trade, it's about building bigger barriers in the form of protectionism to protect big, legacy industries from innovation and competition. Of course, it's no surprise that Hollywood, Big Pharma and Wall Street are also three of the most powerful lobbying industries in Washington DC, because when you can no longer innovate, and you rely on government protectionism, you focus your efforts on "political entrepreneurship" -- better known as getting the government to protect you from real entrepreneurship. So, no wonder the USTR went this direction. They only hear from these kinds of industries, and the end result is a fake free trade agreement that is designed to do the exact opposite. It's designed to build up barriers to protect old, stodgy industries who have relied on protection from competition from decades, and don't want to see that dissolve against foreign competition.
It should be noted that, actually, Big Pharma is apparently a bit disappointed that the TPP doesn't go far enough in locking up exclusivity for biologics.
That said, talk about three of the most hated industries around: Hollywood, Big Pharma and Wall Street. But, more importantly, talk about three of the most protectionist, anti-free trade industries around. We've been repeating over and over again that the TPP is not a free trade deal and this should be more confirmation. Hollywood, Big Pharma and Wall Street are probably three of the biggest industries to rely heavily on government regulations as a way to limit competition, limit innovation and to use that exclusivity to artificially increase prices at the expense of the public.
And they like the deal.
That's because it's not a free trade deal at all. It's not about "taking away" barriers to trade, it's about building bigger barriers in the form of protectionism to protect big, legacy industries from innovation and competition. Of course, it's no surprise that Hollywood, Big Pharma and Wall Street are also three of the most powerful lobbying industries in Washington DC, because when you can no longer innovate, and you rely on government protectionism, you focus your efforts on "political entrepreneurship" -- better known as getting the government to protect you from real entrepreneurship. So, no wonder the USTR went this direction. They only hear from these kinds of industries, and the end result is a fake free trade agreement that is designed to do the exact opposite. It's designed to build up barriers to protect old, stodgy industries who have relied on protection from competition from decades, and don't want to see that dissolve against foreign competition.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Quick
Sadly Even Obama is bought and paid for, so much for that hope and change buddy!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Quick
Hillary will either change her mind by the time she gets in office (or hope that the bill has passed by then so that she can claim she has no more say in the matter) or she will find another similar bill to support.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"Oh, the corporations are so benevolent. These philanthropists only have your best interest in mind and they know what's best for you. You just have to trust them and to trust your elected and appointed officials to represent you in secrecy with industry interests invited because you voted for the elected ones. Just faithfully trust that the secrecy is in your own best interests and that elected and appointed officials with the industry interests responsible for negotiating the terms were only thinking about the public and that the current terms are best because government and industry knows best".
A would be parody if it weren't for the fact that shills have made similar arguments before.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Quick
My personal hope is that with this 90 day window to a vote underway, the Sanders campaign/movement will mobilize opposition and that will boost his poll numbers. Clinton is feigning oppo to this deal but would never actively mobilize against it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
IT's not a good treaty, by any stretch fo the imagination. But the TPP makes it explicit in the text that companies who sue and lose are liable for punitive damages and costs. Moreover, the only way an ISDS dispute can be given any leeway is if there's a preponderance of evidence that suggests actual, provable discriminatory practices going on.
Once again - it's not a good treaty, by any stretch, and I believe that the benefits are way overblown. But all that means, is that we should be attacking on the actual negative parts (such as the locking up of patented research data, not just the patents).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"The TPP is 6000 pages in length. Given the time allotted by law to review and debate the treaty, it simply is not possible for anyone to fully digest the material in order to meaningfully consider the treaty's effects. Therefore, you must vote against it. To do otherwise would be to allow the passage of something that you could not possibly have fully understood, and a person who would do that is not worthy of re-election."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Note that I, personally, am not in favour of TPP or its European cousins.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Australian
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Australian
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Small wonder as it was modelled after Massachusett's healthcare laws, also known as Romneycare.
So yes, denouncing TPP as Obamatrade or Hillarytrade to Republicans and, uh, Trumptrade (?) to Democrats is likely much more effective than arguing with the ugly facts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Quick
Or are libs finally waking up and realizing that the Dems are corporate puppets too, only with far worse fiscal, foreign and social policies?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Quick
Democrats:, "Yes but equally!"
This has happened before in American history. Nothing is going to change until there is some trust busting. It isn't that your issue (whatever it is) isn't important. It is that your issue isn't even part of the debate. (regardless of the lipservice).
Reinstating Glass Steagall is the FIRST step. Writing a similar regulatory package separating telecom carriers from content providers is the second step. There are other similarly innocuous regulations that would free up new markets, and allow the middle class to recover. After that we can get back to bickering over abortion and guns and other diversionary issues.
It doesn't matter what party your in. There is only one candidate for POTUS who is even hinting at going in this direction.
And for those of you who need a sign from God, take this one: Apparently a Jewish carpenter CAN get elected to the Senate.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
no no no.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Quick
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Money-less Economy (MLE)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment