<story><title>The NY Times endorsed a secretive trade agreement that the public can’t read</title><url>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/08/the-new-york-times-endorsed-a-secretive-trade-agreement-that-the-public-cant-read/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>jellicle</author><text>Two random comments:&lt;p&gt;First, the NYT is engaging in the standard Brooksian&amp;#x2F;Friedmanist technique of supporting something with apparent qualifications, but actually engaging in unconditional support.  That is, using the Iraq War as an example:&lt;p&gt;- I support the Iraq War, if it is done this way (describe reservations)&lt;p&gt;- The Iraq War is not done that way in the slightest&lt;p&gt;- Given the above, I support the Iraq War&lt;p&gt;The NYT supports TPP with qualifications; the TPP will not have those attributes; given the above, the NYT will absolutely support the TPP.  It&amp;#x27;s a way to deflect criticism - if anyone criticizes your support, you just point to your expressed reservations.&lt;p&gt;Second, free trade has proven to be not good for the bulk of the public.  Most HN commenters, having been immersed in right-wing economics, have the belief that it is somehow scientifically proven that free trade is beneficial for all, but that&amp;#x27;s not actually what the science says.  The results of decades of &amp;quot;free trade&amp;quot; agreements have been to overrule local decision-making; they are profoundly anti-democratic.  They&amp;#x27;ve resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the bulk of the population to a very few, very wealthy individuals.  Free trade agreements are a substantial cause for the fact that most workers in the United States are making less money now than they were 30 years ago, even though their productivity has gone up massively in the meantime.&lt;p&gt;If an action X takes away $1 from each of nine people, and gives $15 to the tenth person, the total benefit for society in dollars is theoretically positive (-$9, +$15) but nine out of ten people have been harmed by it, and it&amp;#x27;s not clear that the real benefit is positive at all, because of the declining marginal utility of money.  That&amp;#x27;s pretty much what &amp;quot;free trade&amp;quot; represents.  Add in the anti-democratic aspects and it&amp;#x27;s clear to me that modern &amp;quot;free trade&amp;quot; agreements, negotiated in secret between the Aspen corporate elite, are something that should be roundly opposed.</text></comment>
<story><title>The NY Times endorsed a secretive trade agreement that the public can’t read</title><url>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/08/the-new-york-times-endorsed-a-secretive-trade-agreement-that-the-public-cant-read/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>jkldotio</author><text>Executives using treaties to alter domestic law is going to be one of the defining issues of the 21st century. One take on the problem was starkly put in antifederalist #75 in 1788 by a person using the name Hampden (who had been a figure in the English civil wars, of which the American revolution in some ways was an extention). Well worth taking two minutes of your time to read.[1]&lt;p&gt;The stakes are highest in the EU at the moment as it is made of treaties and there are significant forces who see that process as an illegitimate way to make a federation. The time frame there is 5-10 years where besides the &amp;#x27;muddle through&amp;#x27; we often see in Europe, which is very possible, an implosion of the whole thing, a federation or both are all possibilities with massive consequences due to the inherent logic of monetary union. Unfortunately contemporary television and print journalism is not well calibrated to exploring these issues.&lt;p&gt;[1]&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thevrwc.org/antifederalist/antiFederalist75.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thevrwc.org&amp;#x2F;antifederalist&amp;#x2F;antiFederalist75.html&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>