Here's another prominent economist weighing in on why he objects to the Trans Pacific Partnership as well as it's European counterpart the TTIP (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partneship)
Like so many others, he has singled out the ISDS, Investor State Dispute System as his major objection. Professor Sachs directly takes on the standard arguments promoters of the pact have been saying: ISDS systems are old news, they have been in place for years, nothing to see here, we rarely lose them, they don't effect a country's internal ability to regulate or legislate, yada yada yada.
Sound familiar? We've heard all of those points made right here when diaries discuss the TPP and the central objection to the ISDS system - that the arbitration in the dispute system can overturn or upend or suppress regulatory controls. President Obama has pooh-poohed the idea while Elizabeth Warren has been adamant about the potential threat, specifically she has highlighted possible assaults to Dodd-Frank financial oversight.
Without further ado, here are Franks comments from his own column in the Huffington Post: Why Fast Track Is A Dangerous Gift To Corporate Lobbies
ISDS's main supporters--basically trade associations, law firms, and some powerful companies--say that ISDS is nothing new, that it has been included in many hundreds of investment treaties over the past several decades. Indeed, it has been, but companies (and their lawyers) have only become aware of it relatively recently. In 1995, only a handful of ISDS cases had been filed; as of the end of 2014, there had been more than 600 known claims (since most arbitration can be conducted in secrecy, there may have been many more claims).
The alarming evidence from recent cases shows that investors are using ISDS to contest a virtually unlimited range of government actions including tobacco regulation, measures relating to taxation, environmental regulation, water and electricity tariffs, health insurance regulation, and health and safety restrictions on pharmaceutical imports, among others.
Okay, NOW will you believe the people who think the ISDS is nothing we want in our trade agreements? Sachs mentions that country to country arbitration as practiced under the WTO are a better option.
Aside from the ISDS, Sach also briefly mentions the concerns about Pharma using the TPP to expand drug patents in order to "continue gouging consumers" with high drug costs and then expounds on how these agreements are written by lobbyists behind closed doors in order to promote business' interest as opposed to public interest.
He says "Fast track is a way to jam these lousy provisions down the public's throat, without a proper public airing of the issues."
Well, no waffling there about how he feels! Thank you Dr, Sachs for weighing into an important debate while there is still time to sway public opinion and to influence our politicians. You set a fine example for those who have chosen to remain silent to date.