Income Inequality

[mustafur]

@mustafur

You keep bringing up thinking that corporations shouldn't have a voice in politics. I have to ask, do you feel the same about labor unions and social groups?

As long as Money isn't involved I don't care who is involved in politics.

 

[squadops]

Apart from all those people who were property, of course, and the miserable standard of living for those who didn't enjoy prosperity. You're talking out of your hat. People aren't a paragraph in a textbook.

Slavery aside(it's over) what makes America great is the opportunity to pursue what you will in any facet you wish, it's becoming harder to reach your dreams due to things like cronyism and democracy. What @A2K78 is saying is correct, of course with time our standard of living has risen a great deal, I can promise you that's not a result of an overbearing government, which is actually making us go backwards at the moment.

 

[Biggles]

I know you honestly believe in the north's virtuous intentions but you would be incorrect in doing so.

I'm not sure why you think I believe this as I have never stated anything like that. You have an unerring instinct for grasping the wrong end of the stick, squadops.

The 19th century was never a work in progress. Sure they didn't have the opportunity to enjoy the standard of living and technology of today but what made the people of that century much better than today was they lived at time when the reach of government was well contained and as a result enjoyed many personal freedoms, this oppose to today where the size, scope and reach and have gotten way out of control...the end result... many social and economic problems.

Please feel free to explain to explain how the situation of the four million slaves (about 50% of the population in many of the southern states) was "much better than today".

Please also explain exactly how the "many social and economic problems" of today are worse than the social and economic problems of slavery & the consequent civil war that claimed over 600,000 lives & devastated much of the country.

While you're at it, please explain how millions of children, "when the reach of government was well contained" were able to enjoy "many personal freedoms" such as:

"working long hours in dangerous factory conditions for very little money. They could be paid lower wages, were more tractable and easily managed than adults, and were very difficult for unions to organize. By 1900, in southern cotton mills, 25 percent of the employees were below the age of fifteen, with half of these children below age twelve.
The horrendous conditions of work for many child laborers brought the issue to public attention.

During the period from 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement of this period. But the gaps that remained, particularly in the southern states, led to a decision to work for a federal child labor law. Congress passed such laws in 1916 and 1918, but the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional."

Ah yes ... the good old (libertarian fantasy) days!

 

[Danoff]

@Biggles

How you lump that in as somehow libertarian is beyond me.

 

[squadops]

I'm not sure why you think I believe this as I have never stated anything like that. You have an unerring instinct for grasping the wrong end of the stick, squadops.

Maybe I have the wrong person, if you were not claiming the war to be only about slavery and not anything else, if you were the one claiming the southerners fought for the wrong reasons, among other things then I apologize. However if you do feel the war was justified to end slavery then you would believe in their vertue.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Slavery aside(it's over) what makes America great is the opportunity to pursue what you will in any facet you wish, it's becoming harder to reach your dreams due to things like cronyism and democracy. What @A2K78 is saying is correct, of course with time our standard of living has risen a great deal, I can promise you that's not a result of an overbearing government, which is actually making us go backwards at the moment.

@A2K78 said "what made people back then better", you seem to be defending a point he wasn't apparently making.

Maybe I have the wrong person, if you were not claiming the war to be only about slavery and not anything else, if you were the one claiming the southerners fought for the wrong reasons, among other things then I apologize. However if you do feel the war was justified to end slavery then you would believe in their vertue.

At least you're demonstrating your position can evolve - originally you claimed the war had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[mustafur]

Democracy lays the foundations of freedom that make innovation possible. It's not a coincidence that most of the major discoveries, innovations, technological achievements, medical advancement and just about everything worthwhile in the last century came from democracies. Russia had public healthcare and it also had breadlines. If that's your cup of tea, enjoy it.

What about the Islamic Golden age?

 

[squadops]

@A2K78 said "what made people back then better", you seem to be defending a point he wasn't apparently making.

Didn't read what you just quoted? I'm not sure it made people better but I do know it was a better system that allowed people to pursue what they would and succeed at it.

At least you're demonstrating your position can evolve - originally you claimed the war had nothing to do with slavery.

How did you get there, by thinking I believed what Biggles does? I'll stick to it then, the war wasn't about slavery. You could go back to the right thread and see all the things I've had to say about it, no need for me to do it again here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Didn't read what you just quoted? I'm not sure it made people better but I do know it was a better system that allowed people to pursue what they would and succeed at it.

So I guess the same reply would work for you; what about the Americans who were the personal property of other Americans? How was the system better for them? You can't cherry-pick "some" Americans in such a generalisation.

I'll stick to it then, the war wasn't about slavery.

Inconsistent.

 

[squadops]

So I guess the same reply would work for you; what about the Americans who were the personal property of other Americans? How was the system better for them? You can't cherry-pick "some" Americans in such a generalisation.

It wasn't and I'm not cherry-picking. We should have let Lincoln deport them, rather than shoot each other up. Keep picking on that one bit, I'm speaking our government, sure at the time slave weren't considered men, we've been all around and around that point. So what? We corrected it, that doesn't mean all of our law needed to be trampled in the process.

Inconsistent.

Quite the opposite, the war was not about slavery, how many times do I have to say that? How many Northerners do you think really cared about slaves rights? They might have cared about financial implications but not enough of them to wage that sort of war. The same can be said for the south, how many owned slaves or condoned slavery?

Why you guys want to keep speaking of slavery in this thread is beyond me, it was the most income inequality possible, it's also been over for a very very long time. Let it go already before we start speaking of kicking ourselves out of the country and turning it back over to the indians ffs.

 

[FoolKiller]

As long as Money isn't involved I don't care who is involved in politics.

So, I shouldn't be able to support my favored candidate in any way other than word of mouth?

How are they supposed to get their message out?

What if I want to pay for an ad to support them unofficially? Is that OK? Can I put on a rally? Can a group/organization?

Basically, you need to be a bit more specific on the money involved point. Depending on how you define that, you could mean anything from no donations to the campaign all the way to blocking free political speech.

 

[Danoff]

What improved it & eventually improved all the other Western countries was democracy - the ability of average citizens... to exercise some control over their lives through the measures... progressive income taxes....

I want to do another round on this one. I do love how "progressive income taxes" just become an end in and of themselves. As though that's automatically "progress" (it does say "progressive" after all).

"Higher taxes for the wealthy? Oh yea, I'm for that."

It's as though the money could be burned or buried or shot into space and it would make no difference, the goal of punishing the rich was achieved. It doesn't matter if people lose their jobs as long as that rich guy paid 20 times his fair share. It doesn't matter if it disincentivizes the driving forces in our economy as long as Mr. Moneybags gets a spanking. It doesn't matter if it ever helps another human being as long as it hurts the human beings I think should be hurt. If that's not the stand then progressive income taxes would need to be seen at a minimum as a necessary evil. Not a righteous goal on its own.

It's also absolutely classic how we dovetail into talk about progressive income taxes by saying that it's a measure of exercising control over your own life. It's exactly the opposite of that, it's exercising control over someone else's life. Why is it that folks who claim to be the champions of prosperity for all can only ever see punching a portion of society to do it? Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about the well being of others are the ones who, instead of advocating for people to take control of their own lives, proclaim that it is impossible without trampling some other portion of society?

If you're really for prosperity, you don't knee-jerk against it when you see it. If you really want people to be wealthy, you have to not hate and want to punish the wealthy people of the world. You want rich people in your country, it's far better than the alternative - having no rich people in your country. Disproportionate taxation is a violation of equal protection under the law. It distorts representative government, and basically creates cronyism among the populous. Far from helping anyone, it sews the seeds of class warfare, government bloating, and economic strife.

 

[Tornado]

You could go back to the right thread and see all the things I've had to say about it, no need for me to do it again here.

Would that be this thread? Because there you were shown a bunch of casus belli written down by the states in question asserting pretty much the exact opposite of what you keep claiming, and you went strangely silent after that,


There certainly seems to be little point in bumping that thread back up if you're going to assert the same things in different threads anyway.

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

I want to do another round on this one. I do love how "progressive income taxes" just become an end in and of themselves. As though that's automatically "progress" (it does say "progressive" after all).

"Higher taxes for the wealthy? Oh yea, I'm for that."

It's as though the money could be burned or buried or shot into space and it would make no difference, the goal of punishing the rich was achieved. It doesn't matter if people lose their jobs as long as that rich guy paid 20 times his fair share. It doesn't matter if it disincentivizes the driving forces in our economy as long as Mr. Moneybags gets a spanking. It doesn't matter if it ever helps another human being as long as it hurts the human beings I think should be hurt. If that's not the stand then progressive income taxes would need to be seen at a minimum as a necessary evil. Not a righteous goal on its own.

It's also absolutely classic how we dovetail into talk about progressive income taxes by saying that it's a measure of exercising control over your own life. It's exactly the opposite of that, it's exercising control over someone else's life. Why is it that folks who claim to be the champions of prosperity for all can only ever see punching a portion of society to do it? Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about the well being of others are the ones who, instead of advocating for people to take control of their own lives, proclaim that it is impossible without trampling some other portion of society?

If you're really for prosperity, you don't knee-jerk against it when you see it. If you really want people to be wealthy, you have to not hate and want to punish the wealthy people of the world. You want rich people in your country, it's far better than the alternative - having no rich people in your country. Disproportionate taxation is a violation of equal protection under the law. It distorts representative government, and basically creates cronyism among the populous. Far from helping anyone, it sews the seeds of class warfare, government bloating, and economic strife.

 

[GTsail]

*** We should have let Lincoln deport them, rather than shoot each other up. Keep picking on that one bit, I'm speaking our government, sure at the time slave weren't considered men, we've been all around and around that point.

"We" should have done nothing of the sort

What kind of 19th century "freedom" are you extending to our African American citizens?

Deportation is not freedom

Why you guys want to keep speaking of slavery in this thread is beyond me, it was the most income inequality possible, it's also been over for a very very long time. Let it go already before we start speaking of kicking ourselves out of the country and turning it back over to the Indians

The reason slavery continues to be mentioned is because you and @A2K78 extoll the virtues of the US in the 19th century and as previously mentioned by others in this thread, the US can't be considered "virtuous" in the 19th century because of the taint of slavery. Many aspects of the US can be considered "virtuous" but not all. Even you mention Indians, so I can only assume that you might take issue with some aspect of the Country's treatment of our American Indians.

The 19th century was never a work in progress.*****

I disagree

Can you remind me how many women served in the US Congress during the 19th century?

I seem to remember that one-half of the country couldn't vote during the 19th century. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution wasn't passed until 1920.

Do you consider the 19th Amendment progress or was it a step backwards?

 

[squadops]

extoll the virtues of the US in the 19th century

I can only speak for myself in saying I was speaking of the law, it seems to me there are many claims of how democracy and socialist systems invading our law has somehow brought us to greatness. I'm saying our true law is what brings greatness. Real simple.

And sorry, I was being sarcastic about Lincoln, of course we should not have deported them, we should not have gone to war over it either. A soft hand is usually in order.

There certainly seems to be little point in bumping that thread back up if you're going to assert the same things in different threads anyway.

I was trying to steer it back to the right place as I don't want to talk about it in this thread, couldn't see that eh?

 

[huskeR32]

I was trying to steer it back to the right place as I don't want to talk about it in this thread, couldn't see that eh?

If you really want to get that conversation going again, why not respond to this four-month-old post?

 

[squadops]

I don't want to, I responded to parts of it that were brought up here and also questioned why it was brought up.

You spend more time criticizing how I communicate than you actually communicate yourself.

 

[Biggles]

@Biggles
How you lump that in as somehow libertarian is beyond me.

In all fairness I don't consider that point of view "libertarian" myself, or at least it shouldn't be. However, I do frequently hear/read professed libertarians advancing that point of view and A2K78 made exactly that point.

I can only speak for myself in saying I was speaking of the law, it seems to me there are many claims of how democracy and socialist systems invading our law has somehow brought us to greatness. I'm saying our true law is what brings greatness. Real simple.

I'm not sure what historical knowledge you have, but what's real simple is that it was the "true law" ie. the US Supreme Court in the Dredd Scott decision (1857) that reconfirmed the legitimacy of slavery in perpetuity & set the US on a path to civil war.

Slavery, while being the most obvious way in which things weren't "better" in the US in the 19th century, is far from being the only example (and also please recognize the reality that even after slavery was abolished, blacks in the Us remained third class citizens for another 100 years).

Another of the examples I mentioned was the treatment of children. Yes, in the 19th century children were "free" to enter into a "contract" with a capitalist employer & subjected to appalling working conditions in order to earn a small amount of money, while the employer, by employing children, was able to make even greater profits. This was a manifestly unequal relationship, with almost all the power on the side of the employer. Eventually, laws were passed in the US (as in other industrialized countries) to protect children from these kind of "contracts". Instead, public money was made available through taxation to provide public education for all children rather than allowing them to become "free" to be exploited by adults. The freedom of both parties - children & employers - was restricted by government in order to produce wider benefits for society as a whole.

All this aside, anyone who thinks that the operation of government itself was "better" in the 19th century really needs to read something about the actual situation in 19th century political life. Graft & corruption were endemic to the system, as well as political violence & intimidation. I don't have time to go into the details of this, I just offer this brief excerpt from a Wikipedia entry:


The Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States, from the 1890s to 1920s.[1] The main objective of the Progressive movement was eliminating corruption in government. The movement primarily targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office a further means of direct democracywould be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (Trust Busting) and corporations through antitrust laws. These antitrust laws were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors.

 

[squadops]

I think of the Dredd Scott decision as a necessary evil at the time, even Jefferson owning slaves knew it was wrong but he felt it necessary at the time.

I still believe in a child's right to work, of course over time we bettered the conditions in all areas of life, just as you would expect to happen.

And that would be exactly what I've been saying, you are quoting things that happened post civil war, why? Because the war wasn't about slavery rather about power and corruption, lending a hand to a much to powerful federal government and stripping the states of their rights. easy as pie for me to understand but you disagree and I know why, perhaps after the war it was necessary to have these 'social' deals you speak of, but if the war didn't happen? well...

...........

the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force

 

[TenEightyOne]

I still believe in a child's right to work, of course over time we bettered the conditions in all areas of life, just as you would expect to happen.

You also believe that children can be property though. Kudos for including "bulwarks" though

 

[Ibonibo]

But I'll ask again, what bearing does a CEO's salary have on your life? It doesn't come at your expense, not in any way.

Oh a huge one in fact.

Let's go with an exemple.

Winterkorn. Ex-VW-CEO. Everybody knows what hot waters they are in...

They guy earns now as pension, a wooping 29 million per year. That's more than his salary and bonus.

How does that affect me?

Well because he can pay lawyers, audits, and consulting firms, his pension will be "invested" in foundations, sicav,... and what not, drasticly reducing the amount of tax on his income.
That reduction he gets is missing in the household of the goverment. Who pays the difference, normal tax payers, who can't pay an army of ties to get good deals.
Also hard to explain in a few months when VW will kick out employees because money.
Or how the counsil of VW still wants their million in bonuses even though VW is in so deep waters, that they actually could break the company as it is... Who will pay if those bonuses are paid? The employees that will get fired.



Let's go with an other exemple, this time a company

Let's go nuclear. You know who is realible if a Nuclear plant fails? The company that earned millions with it and got subventions from goverment (aka our tax money)?
Nah, nobody. Resulting in the goverment needing to pay for damages (aka our tax money)

Also, P&G, Amazon, Skype,.... all in Luxemburg, paying 1% tax due to rulings, where normal tax would be 28% that every butcher needs to pay. Yeah totally fair. Especially for the US as they are all US companies....

And Luxemburg, Panama, Swiss, Lichtenstein are not alone, everyone needs to get of their high horses. GErmany has Ludwigshafen, US has Delaware, ....


Or how normal citizen only get the pension of their highest rated job, but politicians stack their pensions (plus all the deductions). Totally fair.


Tomorrow Greenpeace will release a new leak on the TTIP. And it has potential. Every fear Europeans had of demolishing their hard earned rights are all proven to be justified. (Food safety proven before commercialisation, gone, instead US standard : first commercialisation, if hazard, it's pulled)
What has this to do with the thread. "Rich"/Companies influencing politics, furthering the gap.

I could get why very rich people are defending this schemes. But a normal person. I just don't get it. We are abolishing the middle class and nobody cares...

We could fill the next 100 pages on this thread alone with exemples of stuff like this.

After all the financial leaks, anyone still thinking our world of income, taxation and redistribution is fair.... Seriously?


And everyone having visited only a economic 101 course understands that the model we are in has nothing to do with good old capitalism anymore. We are in the Hypercapitalism that slowly creeped it's way in.

We can not grow every year 10%. Their are natural and logical limits, but the world we live in, we just forget about them, can our grandkids cure the mess we made...

I played in this game for about 2 year in a big global consulting firm as one of my first jobs (Panama Letter Box companies are just the tip of the iceberg). The stuff I saw made my sick everyday, till the moment I don't wanted to be part of a system anymore that profits from everyone just for the good of a few.

I now work in a family company, earn only a % of what I did before. But I am happy and can live with myself, knowing, we provide work and stability for 30 families that can live of that.

 

[squadops]

@TenEightyOne It is not contradictory however, as long as I am held liable for my children's actions I have the final say as to anything they might be engaged in. Now of course they do have some rights, just not all rights. It's not a bad system we have other than the fact of forced indoctrination eeeeergh, education

I'd like to add something for Biggles, what sort of man would not only accept but welcome social welfare? I'll tell you what kind, one that has been castrated by an overpowering government to begin with.

 

[Danoff]

Oh a huge one in fact.

Let's go with an exemple.

Winterkorn. Ex-VW-CEO. Everybody knows what hot waters they are in...

Are they in hot water because of the CEO? (I literally don't know, but I assume that it was deeper in the company than that)

They guy earns now as pension, a wooping 29 million per year. That's more than his salary and bonus.

Maybe VW shouldn't have signed that contract. I guess that's what they felt that had to do to get the best CEO they could get... and I bet they're thinking that was a mistake at this point. Mistakes are made.

How does that affect me?

Well because he can pay lawyers, audits, and consulting firms, his pension will be "invested" in foundations, sicav,... and what not, drasticly reducing the amount of tax on his income.
That reduction he gets is missing in the household of the goverment.

So he complies with the tax code, same as anyone else, and you think the reduction is stole from...

Who pays the difference, normal tax payers, who can't pay an army of ties to get good deals.

...stolen from the taxpayers. I pay $600 per year to have someone make sure I get all of my deductions. How is your example different than mine? Did I steal that money from the "normal" tax payers because I shouldn't have complied with the tax code to pay as little as possible? Isn't that what everyone does?

Also hard to explain in a few months when VW will kick out employees because money.

The CEO's salary was decided independently of the janitors' salary (and everyone in between). And having layoffs due to a massive loss in profits while ousting the CEO is only an example of the other way around - the CEO's job being tied to overall company production. He's being kicked because they have to lay people off due to lost profits. Not the other way around.

Or how the counsil of VW still wants their million in bonuses even though VW is in so deep waters, that they actually could break the company as it is... Who will pay if those bonuses are paid? The employees that will get fired.

How exactly? Does VW fire them and also take back their old paychecks?

Let's go with an other exemple, this time a company

Let's go nuclear. You know who is realible if a Nuclear plant fails? The company that earned millions with it and got subventions from goverment (aka our tax money)?
Nah, nobody. Resulting in the goverment needing to pay for damages (aka our tax money)

So government is the problem?

Also, P&G, Amazon, Skype,.... all in Luxemburg, paying 1% tax due to rulings, where normal tax would be 28% that every butcher needs to pay. Yeah totally fair. Especially for the US as they are all US companies....

They still pay full US tax on US sales, as previously explained.

And Luxemburg, Panama, Swiss, Lichtenstein are not alone, everyone needs to get of their high horses. GErmany has Ludwigshafen, US has Delaware, ....

Yea, Delaware is marginally better than everywhere else. There will always be a state offering the lowest add-on taxes.

Or how normal citizen only get the pension of their highest rated job, but politicians stack their pensions (plus all the deductions). Totally fair.

Government is the problem?

Tomorrow Greenpeace will release a new leak on the TTIP. And it has potential. Every fear Europeans had of demolishing their hard earned rights are all proven to be justified. (Food safety proven before commercialisation, gone, instead US standard : first commercialisation, if hazard, it's pulled)
What has this to do with the thread. "Rich"/Companies influencing politics, furthering the gap.

Government is the problem?

And everyone having visited only a economic 101 course understands that the model we are in has nothing to do with good old capitalism anymore. We are in the Hypercapitalism that slowly creeped it's way in.

Hypercapitalism, that's like... extra capitalism right?

We can not grow every year 10%. Their are natural and logical limits, but the world we live in, we just forget about them, can our grandkids cure the mess we made...

The main mess future generations will pay is for government debt.

I now work in a family company, earn only a % of what I did before. But I am happy and can live with myself, knowing, we provide work and stability for 30 families that can live of that.

Somehow when it becomes 30,000 families it's not noble anymore.

 

[squadops]

Good post, even though I hate all the micro quoting

Somehow when it becomes 30,000 families it's not noble anymore.

Interesting point, I am in strong favor of small business and even go so far to say government incentive programs and competitive clauses are a good thing.

There is something about smaller scale community that I happen to enjoy. We do have a huge chunk of resources used for regulatory economics, not all of it is a good thing but it's one area you and I would differ I think.

 

[Biggles]

I think of the Dredd Scott decision as a necessary evil at the time

What on earth does that even mean? "Necessary ... at the time" for what reason? "Necessary" for whom?

even Jefferson owning slaves knew it was wrong but he felt it necessary at the time.

Again "necessary" for what/whom?

How can you call appalling, systematic human rights abuses "necessary evils".

I'm saying our true law is what brings greatness. Real simple.

How do laws (like the Dredd Scott decision) that sanction systematic human rights bring "greatness"?

 

[squadops]

Necessary for the Whole of the U.S., necessary in order to compete in the marketplace with cotton and tobacco being our only real exports to obtain gold. It helped bring us to our industrial age when it was no longer necessary. You seem to think I like the idea for some reason, I don't but it enabled us to get a foothold.

Now you know I'm not talking about that law in particular but ok I'll still answer. There are many great things that came about through slavery, great doesn't have to mean equal or fair it means great. Are the pyramids great? I don't know but the U.S. is great and we did what we had to do to get there.

We could have simply dropped slavery over time without the war and also without empowering the crony overbearing federal government that came as a result. That way we would never had needed your social ideals at all, not that we do anyway.

 

[Ibonibo]

So government is the problem?






Government is the problem?



Government is the problem?



Hypercapitalism, that's like... extra capitalism right?



The main mess future generations will pay is for government debt.



Somehow when it becomes 30,000 families it's not noble anymore.

You come a lot with goverment... but the decicison goverment takes are not influenced by companies , lobbies and consulting firms?

Laws are not studied, modified and created by consulting firms, and creeping their way into goverments?

Hyper capitalism, extra capitalism, call it what you want. I am all for capitalism which had it's own limits. When you take those limits away

How can one deny income inequality on large scale, when we have income inequailty between genders for the same job, same qualification.


On the 30000 job quote.
When person X sits in his NY office and starts betting on the price of raw food materials. Yeah that company is less noble.
2008 ten thousands of people died in africa because food prices exploded.
Not because food was rare.
No because it became a asset one could play with on stock exchange just as everything else. And to keep the price high, we burn the left overs.
Resulting in the death of ten thousand due to hunger.

Call it all you want, i call that personal profit through misery of others


And as said yesterday here some of the leaked TTIP:

Overview of Leaked TTIP Chapters and Papers

Greenpeace is not in possession of the full text of EU and US TTIP proposals, but the leaked 13 chapters indicate human health and environmental protections will be seriously undermined if negotiations continue on the current path. Also leaked was a 14th paper, called “Tactical State of Play (March 2016)” which contains the EU views of the results of the 12th negotiation round and shows interesting differences to the “official” version (Public Report) of the paper.

EU Regulations, such as REACH, for chemicals, which incorporate the precautionary principle, and regulatory processes to remove the most hazardous chemicals from the market would be weakened and jeopardized by a risk assessment approach favoured by the US chemical industry where the aim is to improve management of hazardous substances without removing them from the market.

In the chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary protection measures, proposals by the US delegation refers to „products of modern agricultural technology“, which clearly indicates their pressure to get ride of trade barriers for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), as the proposal also refers to the Global Low Level Presence Initiative, which addresses contamination of agricultural products by GMOs.

Other concerning provisions would allow corporations or other actors to have unprecedented access to (and interference with) regulator's deliberative processes on both sides of the Atlantic and in the case of disputes, allow the complaining party to choose the forum for resolving the dispute, which will undoubtedly result in “forum shopping“ to produce a result to the complainant's liking.

Although trade negotiations are nominally conducted behind closed doors to prevent undue influence by outside parties, the leaked documents make clear in several instances that negotiators (both EU and US) consult with industry and trade associations before arriving at their positions. In the “Tactical State of Play“ document (which describes the state of negotiations) the US delegation notifies its EU counterpart that the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration has solicited the views of the American Chemistry Council (ACC, a trade association), as to whether a section of the treaty on chemical hazard data is acceptable to industry. Another note in the same section says the ACC is urging the US Environmental Protection Agency to rely on study summaries, rather than full data sets, when promulgating regulations. On the EU side, the delegation notes that its position on alcoholic spirits is “based on the joint position of EU and US industries“.

National Treatment and Market Access for Goods – no analysis

Agriculture – This chapter outlines the ways in which the EU and US support agriculture in their respective areas. Far from agreement, the two parties’ philosophy on agriculture are in opposition and further, Parties cannot agree on the means to resolve these differences. The EU wants the agreement to state that nothing will restrain the Parties from taking measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the promotion and protection of public health, safety, environment, public morals, even cultural diversity. The US, in contrast, considers such measures “trade distorting“ and advocates for lower standards of protection.

Cross Border Trade in Services – no analysis

Telecom – no analysis

Government Procurement – no analysis

Customs and Trade Facilitation – no analysis

EU-US Tariff Offers – no analysis

Regulatory Cooperation - The chapter aims at making EU and US regulations equal, irrespective of the issue at stake. The provisions discussed in the chapter clarify that stricter regulations, whether in the EU or the US, will be scrutinized and, eventually, revised. The attempt to reconcile different regulatory systems has fundamental consequences on domestic policymaking. Provisions aiming to increase the involvement of the private sector in regulatory policymaking will most benefit well-resourced business lobbies.

Technical Barriers to Trade – Although an agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) already exists as part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement, the TTIP TBT negotiations underway would allow industry unprecedented access to the regulatory processes (such as the labelling of hazardous products) of each member state.

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures - “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures“ refers to efforts to protect food safety and plant and animal health. The US delegation is proposing a new section for this chapter, „Science and Risk“. Under this scenario, regulations protective of human, animal and the environment would be required to provide scientific evidence to support its position, but in order to collect such evidence, humans, plants and animals would first have to be exposed – on a wide scale – to potentially hazardous products. The EU's REACH regulation, by contrast, places the burden of proof on the manufacturer to demonstrate that its product is not harmful before it is allowed into the marketplace (the “no data, no market” principle).

Competition – no analysis

Small and Medium Enterprise – no analysis

State Owned Enterprise – no analysis

Dispute Settlement - Dispute Settlement between the parties of TTIP, not to be mixed up with Investor to State Dispute Settlement, is often promoted as a method of enforcing environmental, labour or social commitments of parties to FTAs, but the leaked chapter shows this will be unlikely under TTIP. Rather than set high regulatory standards, in its current form the proposed dispute settlement mechanism in TTIP would constitute a significant step back when it comes to environmental protection. Where state to state disputes involve measures taken to protect the environment, the dispute settlement mechanism provides no guarantee that environmental concerns will be given adequate weight. Provisions on the appointment and expertise of arbitrators, access to technical advice and especially intervention by civil society or affected groups, show significant deficiencies and fall short of the EU's stated objectives, the provisions in the WTO system or even the controversial TPP agreement.

Tactical State of Play - This chapter gives insights into areas of agreement and disagreement between the Parties. It is an analysis of what the EU thinks about the current state of the negotiations and therefore is important background to interpret the leaked negotiation text. On key issues such as chemicals or agriculture negotiators either put forward industry proposals or are unwilling to agree to changes without consulting with their industry first. The EU’s official Public Report – March 2016 on The Twelfth Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has one minor mention of industry input whereas the leaked document repeatedly talks about the need for further consultations with industry or explicitly states how industry input has been considered.

Yeah that is totally goverment only. Not a bit of lobbing and companies profiting from the society.

 

[Danoff]

You come a lot with goverment... but the decicison goverment takes are not influenced by companies , lobbies and consulting firms?

Look, some people are not nice. There are murderers and thieves and scumbags of all sorts out there. Government's job is to make sure that they can't violate your rights. When the government starts allowing laws that are made to benefit those people, whose fault is it? The failure is not capitalism in that case, the failure is government. Just to be clear, cronyism is a failure of government.

Hyper capitalism, extra capitalism, call it what you want. I am all for capitalism which had it's own limits. When you take those limits away

Since it's your term, define hypercapitalism for me.

How can one deny income inequality on large scale, when we have income inequailty between genders for the same job, same qualification.

I'm not denying the incomes are unequal. I'm saying unequal income is good and necessary and there's nothing wrong with it. The "distribution" of wealth does not need to be even for everyone to prosper.

On the 30000 job quote.
When person X sits in his NY office and starts betting on the price of raw food materials. Yeah that company is less noble.

Does it matter if it's a farmer in Kansas who is deciding what to plant on a particular 20 acres of land? If you don't think farmers bet on the price of food, you're completely wrong. They forecast food prices to decide what will be most profitable to harvest.

2008 ten thousands of people died in africa because food prices exploded.

Africa has so many problems. About 99.99% of Africa's problems are the little dictators and warlords instead of a representative government structure that protects rights.

Call it all you want, i call that personal profit through misery of others

I call it a failure of the various African nations' lack of government.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You come a lot with goverment... but the decicison goverment takes are not influenced by companies , lobbies and consulting firms?

Laws are not studied, modified and created by consulting firms, and creeping their way into goverments?

Hyper capitalism, extra capitalism, call it what you want. I am all for capitalism which had it's own limits. When you take those limits away

What are the limits you propose?

How can one deny income inequality on large scale, when we have income inequailty between genders for the same job, same qualification.

Can you provide us some examples of widespread inequality between men and women working the same job with the same experience and qualifications? I say widespread because isolated cases will not be hard to find in a country with 1/3 of a billion people.

On the 30000 job quote.
When person X sits in his NY office and starts betting on the price of raw food materials. Yeah that company is less noble.
2008 ten thousands of people died in africa because food prices exploded.
Not because food was rare.
No because it became a asset one could play with on stock exchange just as everything else. And to keep the price high, we burn the left overs.
Resulting in the death of ten thousand due to hunger.

So what's your solution to the horrible tragedy of starvation in some parts of the world? What do you propose to do about the mass corruption that plagues poor countries and often prevents aid from getting to those who need it most and ends up in the pockets of tinpot dictators?