14

Why's The TPP Secret? "Trans-Pacific Partnership: Not About Free Trade"

Posted by Zenphamy 10 years ago to Government
27 comments | Share | Flag

Does Objectivist society need their government to make secret deals with other countries?

"Oddly, the same Republicans who won't trust Obama to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran are ready to write him a blank check on the TPP. They're fine with letting him reconfigure a huge chunk of the global economy. Why? Because TPP has a "free trade" façade around its much deeper market intrusions.

Think about this. If free trade between nations were really the objective, would we need document libraries and secret deals? Of course not. The agreement would only have to be a few pages long. "The governments of country x, y, and z agree not to impose tariffs or otherwise hinder trade between themselves."

Free trade is simple. TPP is anything but simple. Therefore, TPP is not free trade."

But we can trust those in our government, right? They'll take care of us.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course we want more information. And that IS the point.
    There are no specifics BECAUSE it's a secret deal, and there is no way to justify that.
    We, the public, just can't possibly understand the complexity so we shouldn't have the information. It's in our best interest that we are treated like mushrooms. They are from the corporatocracy and they are here to help us. Sure. A pack of wolves deciding which of us sheep to have for dinner first.

    "Think about this. If free trade between nations were really the objective, would we need document libraries and secret deals? Of course not. The agreement would only have to be a few pages long. "The governments of country x, y, and z agree not to impose tariffs or otherwise hinder trade between themselves."

    Where is the "Snowden" with the real details?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years ago
    I appreciate the argument but there were no specifics in the article. What sorts of things do they think are being argued? Only let company x trade or give companies a and b a special break on any taxes? I'd like more information.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo