Gyroscopic Investing

I guess liberalism is dead.  Everyone please move to the right, now!

[quote=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/holy-cow ... 36677.html]Obama the CEO, by contrast, sounds almost like a supply-sider arguing that boosting exports for big companies will generate wealth and opportunity that will trickle down, eventually, to American workers. “Wages are higher for firms that are accessing international markets,” he said. “And even the large firms like Boeing have hundreds, maybe thousands, of suppliers all across the country, many of them small- and medium-sized businesses who benefit and who are able to hire more workers because they have access to these new markets.”[/quote]

Obama by his actions, including before being president, has demonstrated that he ain't a big fan of capitalism.  He does have a very good track record of saying one thing and doing something else however.  So it seems very likely that whatever he is proposing, it has provisions which increase gov't control, size of gov't, etc etc. 

Benko wrote: Obama by his actions, including before being president, has demonstrated that he ain't a big fan of capitalism.  He does have a very good track record of saying one thing and doing something else however. 

I especially like the last sentence above. Let's wait and see what he does when he's out of office to see how big a fan of capitalism he is. My guess is he will cash in big time from having been president of the United States but he could prove me wrong. I give the odds of that at around 3%. Based on what I've seen  I predict he will grow more Clintonesque in his ex-presidency and become very rich giving high paid speeches to the rich railing against the rich.

The fact that Obama is suddenly acting like a supply side capitalist indicates that he must have a personal pot of proverbial gold waiting for him when this passes and he leaves office.

Very cool!

[quote=https://ca.news.yahoo.com/wikileaks-off ... 02514.html]Whistleblower website WikiLeaks offered a $100,000 bounty for copies of a Pacific trade pact that is a central plank of President Barack Obama's diplomatic pivot to Asia on Tuesday.

WikiLeaks, which has published leaked chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiating text before, started a drive to crowdsource money for the reward, just as U.S. unions launched a new push to make the text public.

"The transparency clock has run out on the TPP. No more secrecy. No more excuses. Let's open the TPP once and for all," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a statement. [/quote]

"You have to pass it to see what's in it."

Democrats confooose me.  They rebuffed der CEO, Obamapuff.  But why would they be against a worker support program (WSP) for workers displaced by trade agreements such as the TPP?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/13/usa-trade-idUSL1N0YZ01520150613 wrote:The worker aid program, which expires in September, drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no." The overall vote was 302-126 against.

Both measures are included in one bill and both need to be approved before the legislation can clear the House.

Wouldn't it have been less politically risky to vote yay on the WSP and nay on the FTA?

I think they were against it because they knew it was a ploy to get them to accept the broader trade agreement that they didn't like; they didn't take the bait, essentially.

Pointedstick wrote: I think they were against it because they knew it was a ploy to get them to accept the broader trade agreement that they didn't like; they didn't take the bait, essentially.

Why would the Trojans turn down a free horse?

dragoncar wrote: Why would the Trojans turn down a free horse?

MachineGhost wrote: Democrats confooose me.  They rebuffed der CEO, Obamapuff.  But why would they be against a worker support program (WSP) for workers displaced by trade agreements such as the TPP?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/13/usa-trade-idUSL1N0YZ01520150613 wrote:The worker aid program, which expires in September, drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no." The overall vote was 302-126 against.

Both measures are included in one bill and both need to be approved before the legislation can clear the House.

Wouldn't it have been less politically risky to vote yay on the WSP and nay on the FTA?

The unions own the Democrats. Their Pac money is what they need and crave. The unions don't care much for free trade or even capitalism.

Reub wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Democrats confooose me.  They rebuffed der CEO, Obamapuff.  But why would they be against a worker support program (WSP) for workers displaced by trade agreements such as the TPP?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/13/usa-trade-idUSL1N0YZ01520150613 wrote:The worker aid program, which expires in September, drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no." The overall vote was 302-126 against.

Both measures are included in one bill and both need to be approved before the legislation can clear the House.

Wouldn't it have been less politically risky to vote yay on the WSP and nay on the FTA?

The unions own the Democrats. Their Pac money is what they need and crave. The unions don't care much for free trade or even capitalism.

I initially thought he wrote Pac Maney, which made me think of this:

Reub wrote:
The unions own the Democrats. Their Pac money is what they need and crave. The unions don't care much for free trade or even capitalism.

Reub,

I understand your point, but if the unions really had that much control over democrats, would the unions really want an infinite amount of illegals into the country?

Benko wrote:

Reub wrote:
The unions own the Democrats. Their Pac money is what they need and crave. The unions don't care much for free trade or even capitalism.

Reub,

I understand your point, but if the unions really had that much control over democrats, would the unions really want an infinite amount of illegals into the country?

Yes, to vote Democrat. That doesn't mean that they will let them into the unions, of course.

What a great strategy that was, Democrats!  The FTA has passed.  Maybe next time you ought to vote for what you want and vote for what you don't want?  Idiots.

I hear a giant sucking sound....

[quote=http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/05/ ... trade.html] The more controversial of the two agreements is the TPP which excludes China and sets up a robust trade agreement between North America and some of China's nearest neighbors. A big issue is the exact language and details of the agreement are being kept secret by the Obama administration. Summaries indicate the agreement will affect tariffs, workers' wages, intellectual property, and environmental regulations in the US and 11 Asia-Pacific countries. Some people view the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), currently being pushed by the Obama administration and its corporate allies as a blatant attack on labor, farmers, food safety, public health and even national sovereignty. Part of the problem is the details of the deal have been kept largely secret and other than what’s been leaked we have no access to its contents. Even members of Congress don’t know much with only, “cleared advisers,” mostly corporate lawyers, having full access because the TPP is way too important to its sponsors to allow little details like congressional or public input to get in its way.

Making all this more controversial is the beliefs held by many Americans that bad trade deals with low wage countries have contributed to our current economic woes. When Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, came out strongly against these agreements Obama said the Massachusetts senator was “absolutely wrong” and accused her of speculating about the contents of the emerging 12-nation trade deal for personal gain. Many people see Obama's criticism of Elizabeth Warren as not only disrespectful but as disingenuous. His statement did little to quell the controversy, instead it seemed to throw fuel on the fire. It should be pointed out that just because the President says someone is wrong on an issue does not make it true. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the TPP “Nafta on steroids”  Senator Warren and those concerned that a trade agreement with low wage nations will not be a great job creator for America have history on their side.

Economist Dean Baker said, “This really is a deal that’s being negotiated by corporations for corporations, and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental.” It is difficult to say why Obama sees this as a big plus, but it’s worth noting that in 2008, as a presidential candidate, he said, “I voted against Cafta, never supported Nafta, and will not support Nafta-style trade agreements in the future.” Historically, trade laws are geared to enrich the “mother” country and was often used to build a nation. Following World War II free trade arguably benefited the economies of the countries involved. But the new laws, starting with 1994’s North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), recognized that capital is now mobile, it moves about the world and owes allegiance to shareholders rather than loyalty to any one country.

Those supporting the TPP, claim it will be a boon for America when it reduces tariff barriers to vast Asian markets and strengthens protection for intellectual property a strong plus for America.  Moreover, the overall gain is more than just economics. In our competition with China for influence in the region, they reason it would anchor our relations with Pacific Rim nations keeping them out of China's orbit. Even if a Republican controlled Senate gives the administration the authority that it wants to negotiate trade agreements other countries may not fall in line. Some players may not feel they gain by changing the status quo.  Both Japanese and EU trade negotiators have their own issues and are facing their own domestic constraints. Japan has yet to fully embraced TPP and Abe is unlikely to make the politically unpopular decision do so any time soon. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has split negotiating authority between his Trade Commissioner and Commission Vice President in an effort to placate Europeans worried about the proposed investor-state dispute settlement in TTIP. [/quote]