Archive | August, 2016

National Sovereignty is dead! Part 6: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): “Investor -State Dispute Settlement”

30 Aug

The “Investor -State Dispute Settlement” part of the TPP is what is currently being considered. It formalizes the stuff that was described in the John Oliver Video. I would draw your attention to the fact that most of the claims come from Developed countries. I would be that most of those come from the USA…so the USA is forcing developing countries (eg. an independent Puerto Rico) to abide by what profits its corporations most. Forcing them to do it by global treaty! Thus, what is the value of National sovereignty then?

20118687023 2bd5254821 b

isds_infographics_online.pdf

ISDS trends 2014 2

7c0358 99d5e55f30aa47d591e41e3bcd5f98a8

Tags: , , ,

National Sovereignty is dead! Part 5

28 Aug

Gente,
I think I should illustrate why I think National Sovereignty is dead. John Oliver in his sketch about tobacco should been seen in this case less for the tobacco issue and more for the corporate control issue. He lays out how corporations can supersede national governments as part of their move towards eroding the powers of nation states.

Watch….

Green crossing

13 Aug

img_9964

National Sovereignty is dead! Part 4

8 Aug

Well, mi gente, here is some more feedback as part of my “National Sovereignty is dead!” series. This time my exchange is with “Since 1898” a rather thoughtful person with whom I’ve had several conversations on the topic….

—————————-

JFM:
Tell me what you think of my arguments on my blog pepitothinking.com

“Since 1898”:
I think your arguments are true, but ultimately I think a segment of the Puerto Rican population want to feel emotional about this. They are longing for a kind of Fanonian catharsis from this humiliating almost 120 year relationship with the US. I think there’s an argument to take up with Spain, who was there 408 years and abandoned the place. The people didn’t have their chance for a cathartic historical moment. They don’t want to hear about globalization, because the Puerto Rican people can not engage and experience what it’s like to be in the globalized market without the help of a large colonial and imperial power. How do we go from the zone of non being to the zone of being? That determines true decolonization. Another Fanonian concept. I think the decolozation process can happen even if PR were to be ceded to another foreign power today. In other words, if the national language in PR were to change to Chinese, that would not hinder our decolonial process within the context of Spain, the US or what may or may not come…Including statehood. The people want a big “fuck you” moment. 🙂

JFM:
Well, while I get the emotional stuff, in the end, its only relevance is how much it prevents rational thought. Well, as far as I can see, we are in a zone of being defined as living breathing humans that go about our daily lives. So you must be using this phrase as some sort of political metaphor tying being to some abstract notion of self-determination. If that’s the case, almost all of humanity is in a zone of non-being.

Brotha my point is that the global 1% has taken the game to a new level….they don’t need or want nation states any more. The sad truth is that the big fuck you moment might never happen. We have to be ready to accept it. Usually, the rebels don’t blow up the death star in this movie. Reality, in my opinion, is not just a crowd pleasing narrative. The fucking Trump supporters want a big fuck you moment for all the shit they’ve eaten and where is that taking us?

We abandon reason to our peril. Catastrophe is the final resting ground of the emotion path.

“Since 1898”:
I agree. I see your point completely. You made a good point about the religious pov. Rationality and reason is kicked to the side in favor of religious thinking. Most people there and here are waiting for the messiah to come. Rational thinking is an sin for most religious people’s Scientific thinking is out the window.

JFM:
My experience says ….nice to have emotion in the car, but I ain’t giving him the wheel.

National Sovereignty is dead! Part 3

8 Aug

As part of my “National Sovereignty is dead!” series, I wanted to share some feedback to my writings.

To do so, I present to you an exchange I had with someone who had recently read my latest blog posts. To protect the innocent, what I am at liberty to say is that this person is a regular, brilliant, creative, erudite patron of Camaradas who we’ll call Modesto Guerrero. The conversation started off with a bit of chatter and then M.G. got down to business….

—————————————

M.G.:
But what do you suggest instead of independence?

JFM:
That is part of the point…there are no good alternatives at this point in history
No one has them,

M.G.:
So… we’re screwed…?

JFM:
They are being born in the minds of activists and thinkers of how to ensure well-being when the state is a shriveled husk
We just gotta think hard!
Future generations depend on us!!

M.G.:
If independence is not the answer, and neither is statehood nor commonwealth, what exactly are you suggesting?

JFM:
I am not suggesting anything…that’s the thing. NO human has the golden path. Its being worked out around the world as I type

JFM:
All manner of fuckedupness happening there

JFM:
Hey, in the absence of a plan, a plan is THE plan.

JFM:
The left has nothing concrete to offer yet.

M.G.:
In lieu of golden paths, suggest some silver paths (I’ll take a bronze or leaden path). It’s frustrating to espouse that there is no answer.

JFM:
Fuck, give me dirt but a path

M.G.:
How productive is it to remind us that the situation is fucked without even the slightest semblance of a plan?

M.G.:
It’s disheartening.

JFM:
The thing is that in order to get the right answer, you have to ask the right question. People have been assuming that they have an answer. But its a 19-20th Century question. Yu’ll never get the right answer if you ask the wrong question.
I am proposing that we ask the right question.
That is my point
If its sad, boo hoo. Then think.

M.G.:
You don’t offer a replacement question.

JFM:
I’d rather deal with a disheartening reality, than a heartening fantasy. First one you got a chance, second will bite your ass in a big way anyhow.

Not yet, this is the set-up.

M.G.:
You have a question.

JFM:
C’mon, the set-up is implicit.
[OK] Kinda…how do you assure a populations well being in the absence of an effective state?
Might not be right…I like everybody else am sussing out possible questions.
However, you do see my point that the direction that the global 1% is taking us (in which the USA is like THE major player) is redefining the game? They are getting rid of effective states. You see my point right?

M.G.:
What is your definition of “effective” here?
And has there ever been a truly “effective” state anywhere?

JFM:
housing, jobs, healthcare education, basically delivering on the universal declaration of human rights
Some more, some less. Some good in some areas, not so good in others. Scandinavian countries have many good qualities.
Try Netherlands
Costa Rica has no army. Big plus!!

M.G.:
But trying to find a truly “effective” state in your wording is like trying to find the meaning of the word “utopia” (“nowhere”).

JFM:
please acknowledge if you get my point.

JFM:
No. Its like if the UDHR is a ten-point list, you want them 5 and up not 4 or down
4 and down.
A State that has 7 is better than 4.
We want more checks than less. Its measurable, there are many metrics.

M.G.:
But if you are suggesting that Puerto Rico not be independent (because it cannot do so at the moment), how can it ever get out from its current predicament? How can it become this effective state you are suggesting?

JFM:
How can countries measure the well-being of their citizens?
Watch this video from TED@BCG Berlin, a TED-curated event featuring a diverse group of speakers from across the BCG community.
https://www.ted.com/watch/ted-institute/ted-bcg/how-can-countries-measure-the-well-being-of-their-citizens

JFM:
I’m suggesting that independence is not an answer.

M.G.:
But what is, in place of independence? At least as we have known it.

JFM:
The whole frame of the political status is wrong. The whole thing of State, commonwealth, nation is wrong. We have to think out of that box.
NO HUMAN HAS AN ANSWER
Sad but true. The 1% is currently beating us.

M.G.:
Who currently thinks out of that box? You are postulating a paradigm heretofore never considered.

JFM:
They are ahead of the game, we have to think and think and think and be creative
I’m sure other people have thought about it…they get no traction because most folks are trapped in the box
In my view, you have to understand my argument to see that lots and lots of thinking is “in the box”.
All I can do right now is say we need the right question and try to formulate it. The right question will lead to the right answer.
Sorry that I can’t be the PR national Daddy, but I’m a kid like the rest of us.

M.G.:
Yes, but what’s outside the box in this scenario. An analogy would be to say that we live in this solar system. You posit that we think outside the solar system.

JFM:
Hey, some people think the destiny of humanity lies in the stars

M.G.:
Before we send boricuas into space en masse, this should perhaps have a better scenario than nothing works and come up with a totally new way that no one has ever thought up before.

JFM:
Here’s where emotions come in. If you can’t uplift, comfort, reassure people, then they frequently prefer fantasy. Understandable, but one thing my father’s death showed me is that reality wins in the end.

JFM:
You’re getting upset esteemed colleague, I get it. But we have to move past upset and do the work of figuring things out. The world isn’t here for our amusement and pleasure only, it offers lots of not cool stuff no matter how much we don’t like it.

M.G.:
I am not even remotely getting upset. I just don’t see the feasibility of expressing that all options are wrong and that you are suggesting that a whole new question should be asked, and then not have any semblance of a question formulated.
It takes you, the person suggesting this paradigm shift, conveniently off the hook.
I am confused as to why would you bring it up and then not even theorize or have a suggestion on what to do next.

JFM:
ok. You seemed a bit perturbed. Yeah, the question is like GIANT. I”m not fucking Einstein. IF I had the answer, I’d be fucking the head of the UN or something.
I’m just a Bx kid trying to make sure I ain’t poor when I’m old.

M.G.:
First off, you are aware that communication of this sort is often cold and impersonal. Please don’t assume you know what I am feeling based on the words I am writing.
And you are way more than your average Bronx kid. (Rafael can vouch for that as well.)

JFM:
My apologies. As you pointed out, I buy TP from Costco

M.G.:
Actually I believe I said that when you shit, you wipe your ass just like everyone else. (Pardon the crude, colloquial nature of my words.)

JFM:
My point exactly, I am but paraphrasing your insightful words

M.G.:
But it also sounds like you are not even looking for an answer. Just passing the buck elsewhere.
It would seem to an outside eye that you are obfuscating the entire issue.
(Which I don’t think you are doing.)
Q: What is better, independence or remaining a colony?
A: Broccoli.

JFM:
Why I bring it up? Its my responsibility to put my best thinking to a problem. It’s like in science, you don’t have all the answers to the questions you pose. You just got to stick with it.
BUT if you ask the wrong question, guaranteed you’ll get the wrong answer

M.G.:
How are you so sure that you have the right question?

JFM:
I’m not. I just know what the wrong question is. At least in my opinion.

M.G.:
Okay.

JFM:
How would you feel if I posted our dialog on my blog? I think it’s great!

M.G.:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

JFM:
You make me think and sharpen my wits. Anyhow more later as I gotta do some work. Let me know.

M.G.:
Thumbs Up Sign

National Sovereignty is dead! Part 2

5 Aug

My fellow progressive Boricuas,

As the argument I make is a bitter pill to swallow, I need to present additional supporting evidence so that you will consider the facts more and your emotions less.

———
Caveat: I am assuming that my fellow progressive Boricuas operate primarily based on reason and rationality and hence swayed by the best available evidence. Emotion is at best a back seat driver that annoyingly doesn’t give good directions, but your glad to have their company. That said, the job of a responsible colleague is to present a case. The case is not so much on emotion but again, the best available evidence. I assume this evidence will be evaluated on its merits and considered with the possible outcome of changing opinions if the preponderance of evidence is convincing.

HOWEVER, if on the other hand, no amount of evidence will sway you, please close your browser window as I am not speaking to you. If evidence is not part of your mental toolkit, then you are what I would describe as an unreasonable person. You are more religious-minded, closed to reason, rationality and evidence and no amount of persuading will impact your thoughts. Rather like current day Trump supporters I would argue …impervious to facts.

Yes, Yes, I know…. you may claim to make your decisions based on reason while you foam at the mouth at me, but deep down, past the raging tormenta of emotions roiling at the surface, you know you’re not listening and you know intimately whatever emotional reason you have that is driving you like Ben Hur on his chariot.

Sorry I have to say this, but I’ve been around the block enough to know my audience. I have to set the standard of this discussion. Don’t like the heat, kitchen door is to the right. Cuidate mucho.

————

Caveat’s aside, I present to you the words of one of the paragons or USA progressivism today, a widely loved and much respected woman who leads the charge on many issues of importance to progressives.

In her opinion piece “The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose” by the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren on February 25, 2015, she says as follows…

“The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

I would argue that Sen. Warren is making a very similar argument as K.Wall in the previous article I cited. Economic globalization is adversely affecting national sovereignty.

An important point to make is not only is globalization affecting small developing countries and pseudo-countries (like PR), but it is doing the same thing on ALL countries!! EVEN G8 countries like the US and UK!!!

I would imagine that the degree of impact on countries is a gradient…the smaller the GDP, the higher the impact on sovereignty. Before globalization, sovereignty was more protected by GDP, after globalization, less. I’ve included a crude graph to show the relationship. I may have the scale wrong (this ain’t my area), but its more or less in the ball park I’d argue.

Curve

So as I see it folks… self determination, usually considered a prerequisite for securing the well being of a people, is being eroded for all human population groups! The smaller the group, the quicker the erosion. With the economic crisis and Zika, Borinken is getting smaller literally everyday!!

We have to find another MTAE than National Sovereignty. Towards that end, I’d suggest we look closely at the thinking of the global justice, anti-TPP etc. movements as in that cauldron is probably the best place a tasty answer will be served.

Tags: , , ,

Independentistas! To get your attention, here’s my message …. I know it hurts, but National Sovereignty is dead!

4 Aug

My fellow progressive Boricuas,

I’ve been promoting an idea that is not popular. However, I think it is based on the actual current global situation. I will continue to say more about it, but here is the message…..In the 21st Century, national sovereignty, the goal of european and american colonies starting in the 18th till the 20th century is dead. It is dead as a robust means to the end of the well being of a population.

I know its hard to accept, but sometimes the world just doesn’t go along with what you think. Independentismo is a 19th and 20th century idea. It is advocacy of a particular means to the end of the well-being of the Puerto Rican people. It has the longevity that it has had because of the relative similarity to the situation of other people’s. It also has currency, because its better than nothing. In my opinion, this century has not evolved for people’s around the world a new effective means to this end in the era of globalization. Basically, to riff on the golden rule of the Toxic Avengers, in the absence of a plan, the old plan is THE plan.

This old means-to-an-end, which I will henceforth refer to as MTAE, has many benefits. You have a relatively long tradition of heroic independence struggles especially in Latin America. Great emotional uplift. You have defiance against tyranny, sacrifice etc. All that really pumps up the emotional juices. Since humans are, borrowing a phrase from Peter Watts, “…feeling machines that sometimes think”, all this works well with a segment of the population.

However, the evolution of the global order has rendered those emotions sterile. I think people suspect this deep down, but want to have something to believe in in this increasingly fucked up world.

So why are these noble sentiments sterile? They just don’t mean much anymore. Why? Because, as far as the evidence indicates, national sovereignty doesn’t mean what it used to and probably never will again.

To quote a paper I’ve read recently….

“More explicitly, economic globalization, in its most recent form, has been limiting the capacity of states to determine their own policy outcomes in three main ways: through trade and economic integration; financial markets; and the competition for employment. Due to the increasing pressure of international competition in trade markets as well as the increased mobility of capital and multi-national corporations, states are incentivized to cut labour costs, to reduce the price of goods and services, reduce taxation to make their domestic market more competitive, and to decrease the size and scope of the welfare state. ….”

She goes on to ask the question which just underscores that, as hard as it may be to swallow, as depressing as it may be, there are no good answers! I would remind you that she is writing here about the UK!!

“If the state no-longer has the capacity to provide the economic and social rights its citizens demand, the question is, what or who will?”

http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/17/08/2012/end-welfare-state-how-globalization-affecting-state-sovereignty-0

So here’s my message….We can still be Boricuas who love ourselves and our people, but we have to take stock of reality as it is now. The reality is that the world has changed and our methods haven’t. The old MTAE isn’t reliable any more in these changed circumstances. We still have the problem of finding a reliable MTAE, but its harder now. That’s all.

Tags: