It's a power grab by specific industries and several governments, not 'the corporations' as an amorphous concept. Mischaracterizing the shittiness of TPP to score rhetorical points for favored politics is a sorry trick, and it lends an air of intellectual dishonesty to a very important topic.

I don't know about you, but I don't expect anything more from alternet.

I wish people understood that hyperbole weakens their position.

It's an example of the seen vs. the unseen. What they see when they do this is lots and lots of clicks and lots of attention on social media, and that's interpreted as a win. What they don't see is all the more mature and informed people being swayed in the other direction since they understand that hyperbole signifies a lack of deeper comprehension.

> I wish people understood that hyperbole weakens their position.

Depends on the audience. Hyperbole won't convince anyone who fundamentally disagrees with you; you need a reasoned argument for that. But hyperbole can work wonders on people already slightly inclined towards your position but not yet acting on it.

I'm inclined to be suspicious of things like the TPP, but the hyperbole I see actually makes me wonder if it's a lot more benign.

Of course there's a deeper underlying reason in my case: I am very deeply cynical about "activists" regardless of their political bent. Left, right, up, down, doesn't matter-- I've long observed that activists are True Believers for whom the victory of a pet ideology is more important than truth or reality. It really is equal opportunity: I am about as skeptical of Greenpeace's latest claim as I am of the religious right's recent "abortion doctors are selling chopped up fetus parts" outrage.

I will take you seriously if you have a genuine grievance. Otherwise I see third party activism (moral outrage tourism?) today as largely a form of entertainment. It's something people do to feel morally superior and self-righteous or to be part of a "scene."

It's questionable if their target audience are mature and informed people. Those people are usually harder to manipulate and extract money from.

TPP is designed to formalize the reality that corporations tell governments what to do, not the other way round. Why else would governments sign away control of their own economy to secret tribunals appointed by the self same corporations.

Countries can withdraw from the treaty.

As a practical matter the forces that led them to negotiate it in the first place will tend to prevent that from happening, but control simply is not being signed away.

But why would they? They are ruled by the very same upper classes and large corporations that rule all other countries... And their ideology is that of the "competition" (that is, supported and subsidized by the state) and profits at all costs.

They make their own class everywhere, no matter their nationality.

To me, a phrase like "sign away control" implies a limited ability to change course. But the treaty requires the ongoing consent of each country.

As a citizen of the US with a certain employment profile, I believe that the TPP mostly benefits me. Which doesn't mean I support it, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think much of the criticism of the process is fair, but I think a lot of people are also looking past the broader motivations of it (bringing countries towards the US before they go towards China).

Actually, I live in one of the countries that "benefit" from this treaty, and people here think the same as you: it benefits the US, some of the US people, and US corporations, not the people of this country.

You see, I don't see people in Chile wanting tighter IP/patent/copyright law, people in Chile also don't want to give their sovereignity to a random foreign court (like it happens with, say, Argentina)... but quite the contrary. Except, of course, for those who make money off these laws and treaties, because, for them, the TPP is most probably a winning bet. Why wouldn't them want to sue their own government to profit even more? Why would, then, they avoid treaties that force their own government to follow the rules of a foreign country that is so admired and beloved by rich people (and wannabes, too) like the US?

Even if all this is true, the fact that it contains no references to sections of the TPP that one can independently verify makes the entire article useless.

At what point can we call these attempts to undermine government power an attack? Modern war uses economic weapons, which can sometimes be more effective (and less expensive) than the more traditional invasion or blockade.

Consider the "tea"/wingnut faction in the GOP (I think they're gone full doublespeak and now call themselves the "freedom caucus"?) We have people cheering over government shutdowns and explicit claims that dysfunction of government is the goal ("It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”[1], "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."[2]). AT what point does that become "making war"?

I'm totally fine with people that want to argue even absurd points within the system. Attempting to replace that system with something else - such as the ISDS - is another matter entirely. Consider any sizable power of your choice (corporate, foreign government, or anything else). If they hired people to try and subvert the legitimate functioning of our government, would you recognize it? Or would you consider it the usual corruption we call "lobbying". No empire lasts forever, and the American empire is is more precarious than we like to admit.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-cusp-of-shutdown-...

[2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

Do these look like "economic weapons" to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...

http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-u...

I share the sentiment of many of the responses, that this article doesn't really say anything.

However, I've heard bits or pieces about this ISDS mechanism during previous articles about the TPP. Does anyone have reference to a good (balanced) analysis of the TPP in references to the international disputes, and what it actually might imply?

Does it actually make it easier for corporations to challenge laws that might be put in place by countries?

Public Citizen has published a detailed history and analysis of investor-state disputes. They are opposed to the TPP, but at least the issues are summarized by trade lawyers and not only journalists. Their summary page includes statements by members of the U.S. Congress.

http://www.citizen.org/investorcases

It's the Trade federation all over again!

I will not condone a course of action that will lead us to war!

I can't help but reflect that if democracy functioned properly, TPP would never have got this far. When and how do we bring out the pitchforks?

One means of resistance may be cryptographically secured supply chains, wherein consumers may vote with their wallets to embargo bad actors either at the corporate or national level. OK, so that's hard to achieve with physical goods without a significant cost blowout (or even with one), but it could be a strategy. Any others?