I hope your collective Monday is going well! The weather out here in Massachusetts is just fantastic. Summer! Archives here.


The Senate is going to vote this week on whether to give President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and there’s a lot of red-meat demagoguery at play. One of the main pro-deal tactics, for example, has been to paint TPP opponents as economics illiterates who don’t understand the value of free trade. This is actually true in some cases: you can see Richard Trumka every day in front of the cameras claiming NAFTA destroyed American manufacturing. (Which, no. Economists agree that NAFTA was on the whole a good thing, that actually globalization and the rise of China drove out big chunks of American manufacturing, and that NAFTA diverted some of those lost jobs into Mexico, where they are now part of an integrated and growing North American industrial cluster.) But these straw-man arguments detract from the far more important points that serious critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren (or just Elizabeth, apparently), are making.

I support free trade agreements. As I indicated above, I think the evidence for their success in improving production efficiency and raising living standards is incontrovertible. However, the Trans-Pacific Partnership isn’t really a “free-trade” agreement the way we typically think about it. The big work of tariff reduction is already done: as Paul Krugman writes, “… there just isn’t much more protectionism to eliminate. Average U.S. tariff rates have fallen by two-thirds since 1960. The most recent report on American import restraints by the International Trade Commission puts their total cost at less than 0.01 percent of G.D.P.” Accordingly, the Peterson Institute estimates that the value of the TPP’s trade provisions will amount to $77 billion dollars in 2025, which sounds like a lot but is less than a half a percent increase in incomes.

So what’s in the deal, then?

And that’s kind of the big question. Because we don’t really know what’s in the deal. It’s being negotiated in complete secrecy by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (captured, naturally), along with a legion of corporate lobbyists and a couple token union reps. The drafts are kept under lock and key and classified as state secrets. The elected representatives of the people of the United States, Senators and House members, get to see them, but only within the Office of the Trade Representative. They may not bring advisers or staffers and they may not take notes. Prior to viewing the draft, they must relinquish their cell phones. They may not bring any documents out to submit to experts for analysis. Seem weird? It is. This is extremely unusual. As the New York Times writes, “The level of secrecy employed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative is not typical of how most international agreements are negotiated. It’s not even how our negotiating partners say they want to operate.”

What does this process typically look like? Well, for comparison, the European Union is also negotiating a trade agreement with the US, the TTIP. To be as transparent as possible, it publishes its drafts on the internet, along with summaries and negotiating texts. Right here.

To say this is problematic is an understatement. I believe the lack of transparency alone is reason enough to oppose fast-track authorization. But why the secrecy? As it turns out, there are other issues. There have been a few high-profile leaks of TPP sections. They are disturbing. To be clear, not end-of-the-world, democracy-now-over disturbing, but disturbing nonetheless.

Take the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses, leaked by WikiLeaks in March. Under an ISDS regime, “companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations” (NYT). Or in other words, “ISDS clauses enable foreign corporations to sue a host country for laws or policies, or even court decisions, they find inconvenient and objectionable.” How does this work? Check out Australia, where Phillip Morris is suing the government (under a similar ISDS agreement) for “damages” after the introduction of a law forcing cigarettes to be sold in plain green packaging.

TPP supporters say the U.S. has already signed on to dozens of accords with ISDS clauses, including NAFTA. But TPP is new ground; it’s an agreement with wealthy countries like Japan and Australia with massive, sophisticated corporations. There will be many new challenges, and the US will lose some of them. Not to mention the tiny countries like Brunei that will suddenly be open to suits by companies that exceed them in GDP. Laws passed by democratic means by duly elected representatives will be struck down by extrajudicial tribunals from unelected international bodies to serve corporate interests. That is troublesome.

There are other things. Significant escalations in IP law that “would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate” (Electronic Frontier Foundation). Massive mandatory copyright extensions (70 years after death of author!) for Hollywood. Brutal restrictions on the development of generic drugs that will put medicine out of financial reach for the developing world. (Is that good for the United States? Or anyone besides Big Pharma?) TPP supporters will argue that there are sections for labor protections, too. But unlike the other chapters, those sections are toothless. There was similar language in 2005’s CAFTA agreement, and in 2008 the AFL-CIO filed suit that trade unionists were being murdered in Guatemala. The Guardian writes that “seven years later, a dispute settlement panel has not yet heard that case.”

And that’s just stuff that’s leaked. I imagine there’s plenty more, but again, we can’t see the drafts.

Free trade is a good thing. But, as Paul Krugman writes, “this is not a trade agreement. It’s about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharma companies and firms that want to sue governments.” I want a deal that will lower remaining tariff barriers and reduce key non-tariff barriers that currently impede the exportation of services, but I also want a deal that will prevent the massacres of union organizers in developing countries. And provide for environmental protections. And not allow tobacco companies to sue my government for passing a law. And I want a deal to pass before China swoops in with a competing one.

But all that is politics. Above everything else, I want a deal negotiated in the open, with input from the men and women I elect. That’s how democracy works. If you agree, I encourage you to go to this website and tell your representatives. I did, and it took me thirty seconds.

In other news, Jeb Bush wishes he could invade Iraq all over again, George Zimmerman continues to make friends and influence people, the only way to get Texas kids to read is for teachers to eat live worms, the bee crisis deepens, Louisiana suffers ‘neath the cold grip of the Great Pox, oh, weird, the homicidal dictator didn’t gift us all his chemical weapons, and hey, maybe the NSA will stop reading our emails!


  1. Seymour Hersh, “The Killing of Osama Bin Laden”in the London Review of Books.

Holy-shit story completely contradicting the Obama administrations’s account of the OBL raid. Pakistan was keeping him prisoner and a walk-in source, not years of CIA intelligence work, led to the discovery. Relies on a single unnamed source so difficult to confirm, but the NYT and a Pakistani journalist partially corroborate. Also read this interview in Slate with the clearly asshole Hersh. Lots of hit-jobs on this piece and Hersh coming, but the broader story seems plausible to me.

  1. Harrison Scott Key, “My Dad Tried to Kill Me with an Alligator” for Outside Magazine.

Reminiscences from a childhood in the Mississippi swamps. Lovely in the way that true stories are, messy and confused and kind of distantly sad.

  1. David Simon, “Zero tolerance is exactly what it sounds like” on his blog.

Simon responds to the legion of lefty trolls attacking him for telling people not to riot with a huge missive crossing through history, political analysis, sociology, media criticism, and the big question, What Happens Next. This is angry and brilliant and fascinating.

  1. Tariq Panja, Andrew Martin, and Vernon Silver, “A League of His Own” for Bloomberg.

Engaging attack piece on FIFA chairman/supervillain Sepp Blatter.

  1. Ronen Bergman, “Operation Red Falcon” for Atavist.

OK, so I know you guys have jobs and Significant Others and other things to keep you occupied, and this is 10,000 words long, but it is 10,000 words of one of the wildest true spy stories I’ve ever read. One of the best and best-connected journalists in Israel writes about the rise and fall of a legendary Mossad spy, and his recruitment and handling of Israel’s most valuable intelligence source in the Arab world.


1. Doc Watson picks “Black Mountain Rag” with Jack Lawrence back in 1992.

Totally blind, 75 years old, and absolutely burning through this song. RIP.

2. Courtesy of Mr. Mark Kosieradzki of Minneapolis, Minnesota, St. Paul and the Broken Bones busting ass with “Call Me”on Letterman.

3. The War on Drugs, “Burning” for Pitchfork live at Primavera Sound in Barcelona.

4. Megafaun sings “Volunteers” live in studio for which I guess is a thing.

Great lazy summer song.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s