Slate

I rediscovered Slate the other day. It is an online magazine originally launched by Microsoft in 1996. I grew weary of its content in the late 90's, but I accidentally jumped to it through a link from Yahoo the other day and I read the article that prompted my Star Trek post.

After reading an article at Slate.com (note: some content herein is quoted from that article by Matthew Yglesias) we are paying attention to what is happening at the summit this week with Obama and the leaders of European Union. They are on the brink of "standardizing" regulations in order for multi-national mega-corporations to make even more profits. 

"No matter what analysis you read to the contrary about how this will benefit you and me, let it be known that is "bull shit. These political animals are once again helping corporations earn hundreds of millions of more dollars by allowing them to market only one set of products that will fit every Nation's guidelines.

Negotiators in trade agreements become lobbyists for their respective countries'

entrenched business interests rather than stewards of their citizens' interests. And that's especially likely to happen when normal people tune out. 

Think about how much money it costs a company like Ford that builds vehicles for countries in the EU with so-so emission standards to have separate assembly lines to finish vehicles that meet California's high emissions standards.

The current way regulations are set "trade block by trade block" isn't a barrier to trade as much as a restriction on profits and monopolies. Yes, for smaller firms, the cost of research, planning, staffing, engineering, etc. to meet different standards is often more expensive than it's worth. But it reminds me of the Federation's "Prime Directive": America, Germany, and Britain, et. al. are trying to apply their influence on societies and economies that have not evolved on their own, to satisfy their billionaire cronies. 

In Obama's State of the Union address this year he mentioned his support for this controversial TTIP that human rights groups say will impede access to medicines and degrade labor standards.

The US is so large that a single set of rules can apply across a very large market. The European Union is a more recent innovation, but its core economic achievement has been the creation of a U.S. style integrated marketplace. TTIP (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) could bridge the two, creating a single set of standards for a marketplace covering half the world's GDP.

It is happening, and no matter how dull it sounds, it's going to be a really big deal. TTIP would be the biggest trade pact of all time. It creates a trading bloc from California to Romania, encompassing almost half the world's total economic output. It would also reach into public policy areas people don't think of as pertaining to trade. 

TTIP would rework virtually every federal regulatory scheme, providing opportunities for huge new economic efficiencies but also for dramatic levels of malfeasance if, for example, banks use it as a pretext to undermine post-crisis financial regulations.

America could adopt European-style lax rules about bank capital while Europe is pushed to embrace American-style light regulation of hedge funds. The EU is eager to change rules that prevent European airlines from flying on U.S. routes. Injecting that kind of competition might reduce the recent trend toward higher airfares. But it could also push one or more American airlines back into the cycle of bankruptcy and job losses.

Right now, both the FDA and its European counterpart insist on inspecting pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. That's sensible, but does any given plant really need to be inspected by both agencies, or could they work out terms for a mutual recognition agreement in which a thumbs-up from the FDA would be good enough to sell a product in Europe?"

Are you listening? 

BTW .... we recently realized that SILENT has the same letters as LISTEN ........hmmm