What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Will GOP Congress 'Affirm' Legitimacy of State-Owned Businesses?

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,860
Points
2,040
what the hell? while the media distracts people with tales of Trump, blaa blaa blaaa and other worthless nonsense this going on behind our BACKS.

snip:
Will GOP Congress 'Affirm' Legitimacy of State-Owned Businesses?
By Terence P. Jeffrey | February 3, 2016 | 4:14 AM EST


In October, President Barack Obama said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership his administration had just finished negotiating "reflects America's values."

In November, in an official notice to Congress, he called it "a free trade agreement."

Yet the deal itself expressly affirms government-ownership of industry.

The deal's preamble states that the "Parties to this Agreement" resolve to: "Establish a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to liberalise trade and investment ..."

So, how exactly are the 12 nations that are the parties — Brunei, Canada, the United States, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam — going to work to integrate their economies to liberalize trade and investment?

In the same preamble, these 12 would-be "free trade" partners resolve to: "Affirm that state-owned enterprises can play a legitimate role in the diverse economies of the Parties, while recognising that the provision of unfair advantages to state-owned enterprises undermines fair and open trade and investment, and resolve to establish rules for state-owned enterprises that promote a level playing field with privately owned businesses, transparency and sound business practices ..."

Thus, in the name of "American values" and "free trade," Obama has cut a multinational deal that promotes the integration of the U.S. economy with the economies of other nations while seeking to provide a level playing field for both privately owned and government-owned businesses.

An entire section of Obama's deal — Chapter 17 — is dedicated to defining the nature and status of the state-owned enterprises that will operate within the "free trade" zone Obama says he is creating.


It says that the term "state-owned enterprise means an enterprise: (a) that is principally engaged in commercial activities; and (b) in which a Party [1 of the 12 governments]: (i) directly owns more than 50 percent of the share capital; (ii) controls, through ownership interests, the exercise of more than 50 percent of the voting rights; or (iii) holds the power to appoint a majority of members of the board of directors or any other equivalent management body."

Chapter 17 further says: "Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from: (a) establishing or maintaining a state enterprise or a state-owned enterprise; or (b) designating a monopoly."

That means anyone hoping to establish state-owned enterprises in the United States can relax: The Trans-Pacific Partnership permits it.

It also means the Vietnamese and Malaysians can relax.

Vietnam, says the State Department, "is an authoritarian state ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of Vietnam."

"Malaysia and Vietnam," says a Congressional Research Service report published in January, "also stand out among the TPP countries without existing U.S. FTAs [free trade agreements], given the rapid growth in U.S. trade with the two nations over the past three decades and substantial presence of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that will be affected by the TPP's SOE provisions."

The Constitution of the United States does not give the president the power to make a significant deal with a foreign government — let alone 11 foreign governments — on his own authority.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 says: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

But last summer, the Republican-controlled Congress enacted legislation giving President Obama so-called "fast-track" authority to negotiate trade deals. Under that legislation, Obama only needs a simple majority in both houses to approve his state-owned-enterprise-affirming 12-nation "free-trade" deal.

ALL of it here:
Will GOP Congress 'Affirm' Legitimacy of State-Owned Businesses?
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,463
Points
2,165
Here is the lie: "Obama has cut a multinational deal that promotes the integration of the U.S. economy with the economies of other nations while seeking to provide a level playing field for both privately owned and government-owned businesses."

American private sector will not be integrated "with the economies of other nations".
 

bullwinkle

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
5,446
Reaction score
757
Points
245
what the hell? while the media distracts people with tales of Trump, blaa blaa blaaa and other worthless nonsense this going on behind our BACKS.

snip:
Will GOP Congress 'Affirm' Legitimacy of State-Owned Businesses?
By Terence P. Jeffrey | February 3, 2016 | 4:14 AM EST


In October, President Barack Obama said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership his administration had just finished negotiating "reflects America's values."

In November, in an official notice to Congress, he called it "a free trade agreement."

Yet the deal itself expressly affirms government-ownership of industry.

The deal's preamble states that the "Parties to this Agreement" resolve to: "Establish a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to liberalise trade and investment ..."

So, how exactly are the 12 nations that are the parties — Brunei, Canada, the United States, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam — going to work to integrate their economies to liberalize trade and investment?

In the same preamble, these 12 would-be "free trade" partners resolve to: "Affirm that state-owned enterprises can play a legitimate role in the diverse economies of the Parties, while recognising that the provision of unfair advantages to state-owned enterprises undermines fair and open trade and investment, and resolve to establish rules for state-owned enterprises that promote a level playing field with privately owned businesses, transparency and sound business practices ..."

Thus, in the name of "American values" and "free trade," Obama has cut a multinational deal that promotes the integration of the U.S. economy with the economies of other nations while seeking to provide a level playing field for both privately owned and government-owned businesses.

An entire section of Obama's deal — Chapter 17 — is dedicated to defining the nature and status of the state-owned enterprises that will operate within the "free trade" zone Obama says he is creating.


It says that the term "state-owned enterprise means an enterprise: (a) that is principally engaged in commercial activities; and (b) in which a Party [1 of the 12 governments]: (i) directly owns more than 50 percent of the share capital; (ii) controls, through ownership interests, the exercise of more than 50 percent of the voting rights; or (iii) holds the power to appoint a majority of members of the board of directors or any other equivalent management body."

Chapter 17 further says: "Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from: (a) establishing or maintaining a state enterprise or a state-owned enterprise; or (b) designating a monopoly."

That means anyone hoping to establish state-owned enterprises in the United States can relax: The Trans-Pacific Partnership permits it.

It also means the Vietnamese and Malaysians can relax.

Vietnam, says the State Department, "is an authoritarian state ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of Vietnam."

"Malaysia and Vietnam," says a Congressional Research Service report published in January, "also stand out among the TPP countries without existing U.S. FTAs [free trade agreements], given the rapid growth in U.S. trade with the two nations over the past three decades and substantial presence of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that will be affected by the TPP's SOE provisions."

The Constitution of the United States does not give the president the power to make a significant deal with a foreign government — let alone 11 foreign governments — on his own authority.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 says: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

But last summer, the Republican-controlled Congress enacted legislation giving President Obama so-called "fast-track" authority to negotiate trade deals. Under that legislation, Obama only needs a simple majority in both houses to approve his state-owned-enterprise-affirming 12-nation "free-trade" deal.

ALL of it here:
Will GOP Congress 'Affirm' Legitimacy of State-Owned Businesses?
Stephanie, if A Republican were president, would you be upset about this 'fast track' the present majority of Congress approved, and made sure the Prez needed both houses to carry out?
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
38,055
Reaction score
5,861
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
State Owned Enterprises or Entities (SOE) are an issue, but not all SOE's are the same. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a SOE, and only the extreme libertarian folks have any issue with the improvements to human lives that brought, and there weren't private companies lining up to bring electricity to a rural and poor area. Conversely, China's dumping of solar energy collectors has had an anti-competitive effect.

If anyone is really interested in the topic of the TPP on market affects of SOE ...

Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and rulemaking to regulate state-owned enterprises | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$260.01
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top