Is Bernie's Trade Policy More Extreme Then Trump's? Yes.

[TomCADem]

Bernie Sanders has attacked his Democratic rivals for supporting trade with China:

Bernie Sanders slams Joe Biden for downplaying China’s economic threat to the US
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/sanders-slams-bidens-china-trade-stance-in-2020-democratic-primary.html

Indeed, Bernie Sanders is one of the few candidates who have attacked Trump for not being more aggressive in his trade war with China:

Bernie Sanders unveils trade platform challenging Trump’s China policy
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/29/bernie-sanders-challenges-donald-trumps-china-trade-policy.html

Thus, given that Bernie has attacked Trump for not being sufficiently aggressive with China, what would Bernie do beyond threatening tarriffs? Would Bernie declare an embargo on Chinese trade to amplify Trump's demand that U.S. companies and consumers find alternative sources of goods? Also, isn't trade the other side of the coin of diplomacy? How can you push for diplomatic peace while engaging in a protectionist trade war?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/business/china-tariffs-trade-war/index.html

Beijing (CNN)The US-China trade war ratcheted up yet again on Friday, with Beijing unveiling a new round of retaliatory tariffs on about $75 billion worth of US goods.

China will place additional tariffs of 5% or 10% on US imports starting on September 1st, according to a statement posted by China's Finance Ministry.

The Ministry also announced plans to resume tariffs on US imports of automobiles and automobile parts. The tariffs would be 25% for vehicles or 5% on parts, and would take effect on December 15th. The new tariffs will target 5,078 products, including soybeans, coffee, whiskey, seafood and crude oil.

Last week, China said it would take countermeasures after the United States announced it would impose 10% tariffs on Chinese imports worth $300 billion.

[comradebillyboy]

1. I could never support Bernie's positions on immigration or trade.

I suspect he's an isolationist as well.

[TomCADem]

10. It Is Telling That No Bernie Supporter Is Defending Bernie's Trade Policy

This is notable that we are in an escalating trade war with China and Bernie's only statements on the subject are to attack Trump and Biden for not being even tougher!

You have threads on Bernie and even fringe candidates like Tulsi Gabbard being kicked, yet in the middle of an escalating trade war with China no one wants to talk about let alone defend what was once Bernie's signature issue: Opposition to Trade Agreements with China.

Heck, Bernie should be on the forefront of taking credit for Trumps's tariffs. Tariffs on steel? That was Bernie's signature proposal when he was campaigning in PA.

It would be nice if we had a substantive response from Bernie or his supporters on the current trade war. However, I guess if Bernie was asked the question, he would probably just yell fake news and say it is a conspiracy by Jeff Bezos.

[riverine]

2. They're both terrible.

By now it should be obvious to everyone that President Obama had it right with the TPP.

But populist winds were blowing hard in 2016 and many candidates made the mistake of opposing Obama.

[Cha]

4. Some will never admit President Obama

was right about that. I stood with Obama at the time while many were claiming how horrible it was 'cause BS said so.

I had a feeling President Obama who tried to get the best deal for us knew what he was talking about.

[BannonsLiver]

5. Yes, the TPP was a punching bag for the purity crowd in 2016

Not a one of them knew what the hell they were talking about on that particular issue.

[Cha]

6. Big Fat Fundraiser!

[betsuni]

9. So true.

[OrwellwasRight]

14. Really?

Have you read this?

https://aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/LAC%20Report--Final%2012-2-15%20As%20Adopted.pdf

I don't think it was written by people who didn't know "what the hell they were talking about".

Get back to me when you've read it and can explain why it is good, progressive policy to create a private justice system for foreign investors.

[BannonsLiver]

15. Yes, really.

[OrwellwasRight]

16. Glad you read the 50+ page report so quickly.

And addressed my question about private justice for foreign investors so specifically. Bonus points for your keen understanding of the auto regional value content and the China leakage. Moreover for the expert way that disproved Professor Jeronim Capaldo's quantitative analysis of the role between the TPP's rules and growing inequality. I'm impressed. (No, I'm not. Not really.)

[TomCADem]

24. Donald Trump: I will appeal to Bernie Sanders supporters regarding China

You know. For two folks who you say have vastly different trade policies, they sure seem to like to use the same talking points over and over again. Indeed, at times, even they acknowledge that they are taking the same trade and foreign policy positions on China.

Or, is your point that maybe they do have the same trade policy, but Trump is motivated by hate and Bernie is motivated by love, which makes all the difference? Still, they both still seem like two very angry old men who are really angry at the Chinese.

Bernie Sanders: No to Chinese Trade

Senator Bernie Sanders: Why Are We Trading With China?

Donald Trump: I will appeal to Bernie Sanders supporters

Trump tweets 'order' for American companies to find alternative to China

Bernie Sanders: Solution in North Korea is to lean on China

Bernie Sanders praises Trump's meetings with Kim Jong Un

[OrwellwasRight]

30. To Repeat,

The differences are explained here: https://aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/LAC%20Report%20NAFTA%20Final%20Final%20PDF.pdf

[TomCADem]

37. In Those Video Clips, Bernie Seemed to Be Ripping off Trump...

...and visa versa. It is all nice that you can find some fine print to select audience that suggests that Bernie has some secret trade agenda that is different from Trump, but when making their case to the people, the video proof shows that the use the very same rhetoric.

I am sure that on the Trump website, you might find some white papers that purports to describe Trump's policies in a somewhat cohesive manner, but what he actually says tends to be given more weight. In contrast, it seems like you are saying ignore Bernie's inconvenient, but pay attention to this white paper.

[Cha]

34. 2nd the Really.

[TomCADem]

18. Here's The Question. Can You Explain Bernie's Position Yourself?

And reconcile it with Trump's? I think this is the key. It is easy to throw up a link or say that so and so vouches for him, but do you understand it yourself. How is Bernie's trade policy not a double down on Trump's policy?

I would love to see someone be able explain this simply with a specific description of how Bernie and Trump's trade policies differ.

For example, one of Bernie's key proposals in 2016 was imposing steel tariffs. Trump did that. The interesting thing is that Bernie then complained that he would have exempted Canada, one of the the biggest steel exporters to the US from such tariffs even though Trump's tariffs were supported by steel workers.

[OrwellwasRight]

19. I didn't throw up a link to say so and so vouches for him.

I threw up a link to explain why the TPP was bad pro-corporate, anti-worker policy. The problem is that you expect trade policy to be simple like "tariffs bad." Well, it's not, and if you took the time to read anything about trade deeper than "tariffs bad" you'd know this and understand why links are necessary.

Yes, China overproduces steel and prices it predatorily, so yes, confronting China on steel was a good thing to do. Most Dems and many Republicans agree with Trump on that. And Canada is our closest trading partner and ally, so no you don't tariff them even though the US imports more Chinese steel through Canada than it does directly from China. So what do you do? Before you implement your tariffs, you get Canada (and the EU and Japan by the way) to implement the same outward facing tariffs on China (and a few other steel over producers, btw, including Korea, Vietnam and Turkey), so we are all acting in a coordinated fashion and reducing the leakage of Chinese steel going through intermediaries.

How do I reconcile Bernie's trade plans with Trump's? I don't. Why should I? Bernies plans are progressive and Trump's are xenophobic. They are aren't reconcilable. Bernie's plans are about taking our trade agreements out of the hands on corporations. About stopping the practice of using them to limit financial services regulations and food safety standards. About turning labor and environmental fluff into meaningful rules that aren't just theoretically enforceable but actually enforced. It is about taking globalization back from a tool to oppress workers globally into a tool that ensures that workers globally can join together to stand up and fight for better wages and benefits.

The fallacy is that trade agreements are about reducing tariffs. They mostly aren't. Tariffs are miniscule worldwide and there is not much growth left to be gained by further reducing them. Even Krugman says this. Try reading a trade deal -- any one. 9https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements_ You'll see they are mostly about telling governments how they must and how they cannot regulate. And the vast majority of these rules are not about instituting human rights minimums, they are about locking in corporate privilege for Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Ag and, now, with the new NAFTA, Big Tech.

If you want to understand more, I suggest reading more. You can't master complex trade policy with a two sentence DU post. Here's a place to start.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM04/20190326/109127/HHRG-116-WM04-Wstate-DrakeC-20190326.pdf

[TomCADem]

20. So, the difference is that we call Trump's Trade Policy Progressive?

How do I reconcile Bernie's trade plans with Trump's? I don't. Why should I? Bernies plans are progressive and Trump's are xenophobic

I am not sure how that makes Trump's policies better? For example, steel tariffs. Both Bernie and Trump have supported them. Yet, the difference is that we call Bernie's policies "progressive"?

Also, are you sure Bernie is not also xenophobic? For example, prior to the 2016 election, Bernie was a big proponent of steel tariffs to protect US steel workers. Bernie made no mention of any exceptions. Yet, when Trump imposed them, and folks discovered that Canada exported more steel to the U.S., then China and Mexico combined, Bernie suddenly announced that we should exempt Canada, apparently because Canada is white. Otherwise, how does exempt the biggest steel exporter from steel tariffs protect U.S. steel workers?

I get that it easy to use buzzwords and call the same Trump/Bernie trade policy "progressive," "pro-worker", etc. but when drop the labels, they are very similar, with the only difference being that Bernie is suggesting that he would double down on Trump's trade policies. But I guess if we call the same policies "progressive," then it is okay.

https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/jul/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-he-and-bernie-sanders-are-very-s/

Politifact: Donald Trump says he and Bernie Sanders are 'very similar' on trade. Mostly True.

Finally, since when has been anti-trade agreement been "progessive" or Democratic? The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff bill was pushed by Herbert Hoover, a business backed Republican. FDR rolled back tariffs and opened trade.

[OrwellwasRight]

21. You write a long rebuttal for someone who never read the original post, much less the links

in the post.

THEIR POLICIES ARE NOT THE SAME AND IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE LABELS. YOU HAVE TO READ THE POLICIES SO THAT YOU CAN ANALYZE AND THEN CATEGORIZE THEM.

1) Steel

As I already stated and you ignored:

Yes, China overproduces steel and prices it predatorily, so yes, confronting China on steel was a good thing to do. Most Dems and many Republicans agree with Trump on that. And Canada is our closest trading partner and ally, so no you don't tariff them even though the US imports more Chinese steel through Canada than it does directly from China. So what do you do? Before you implement your tariffs, you get Canada (and the EU and Japan by the way) to implement the same outward facing tariffs on China (and a few other steel over producers, btw, including Korea, Vietnam and Turkey), so we are all acting in a coordinated fashion and reducing the leakage of Chinese steel going through intermediaries.

First of all "tariffs" in and of themselves are not xenophobic. Obama used them: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-steel-dumping-20140712-story.html

Second of all: Trump is xenophobic. But his policies are not the same as Bernie's: to use small words, Bernie would not go it alone. He would work with friendly countries, known as allies, to confront unfair trade. How is that "progressive" It is progressive because it is not trying to build walls around America. It is trying to work with countries also being screwed by China (and the corporations who do business there) to stop the race to the bottom.

Another thing progressives would fight for that Xenophobes would not: labor rights for China's workers. https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/

2) Labor/Environment

As I already sated and you ignored:

Bernie would

turn[ ] labor and environmental fluff into meaningful rules that aren't just theoretically enforceable but actually enforced.

This is progressive because progressives believe that workers in countries we trade with should be able to organize unions and be safe on the job. The also believe that US corporations should not go to other countries and pollute their water and air and poison people.

Trump labor and environment: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/NAFTA-environment-statement.pdf; https://aflcio.org/2019/4/24/usitc-report-backs-need-fix-new-nafta-add-real-enforcement; https://aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/LAC%20Report%20NAFTA%20Final%20Final%20PDF.pdf

Bernie labor and environment: https://berniesanders.com/issues/fight-for-fair-trade-and-workers/

3)Food Safety & Financial Regulations

As I already sated and you ignored:

It is about taking globalization back from a tool to oppress workers globally into a tool that ensures that workers globally can join together to stand up and fight for better wages and benefits.

Trump's policies undermine food safety: https://www.iatp.org/blog/201908/new-nafta-limits-labeling-food-and-workplace-chemicals

Trump policies limit the way we can regulate banks and banking data: https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/International-Trade/USA/Arent-Fox-LLP/New-NAFTA-implications-on-US-financial-services-industry

Bernie's policies would not do that. Progressives believe on controlling the banking sector and keeping children from being poisoned by food, ergo, Bernie's policies are PROGRESSIVE. https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/; https://berniesanders.com/issues/fight-for-fair-trade-and-workers/

Truly I am sad for you if you don't know that labor rights and Wall Street regulations are progressive and that anti-labor rights and banking deregulation aren't.

I can research for you, summarize for you, and repeat for you, but I can't read for you. Either you want this information in these links because you want to learn something, or you want to keep making bizarre statements like

we call Trump's Trade Policy Progressive?

When you have actually read through the links and discovered that trade agreements are very little about tariffs, I'd be happy to chat. But beating my head against the wall in my spare time because you are stuck in Mike Froman talking points based on basic econ? No, not my idea of fun. Bye!

[TomCADem]

23. I Apologize. Let me give an example. Health Care

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2019, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie Sanders supports single payer, Medicare for all. Do you see what I did? I described a specific policy proposal. I did not need to have a bunch of links. I did not even have to use a buzzword such as "progressive."

Now, watch this:

Donald Trump does not support single payer, Medicare for all. I could even expand and say that Donald Trump appears to support a return to the health care system we had before the ACA, which Trump is doing his best to dismantle. Once again, I did not have to include links or throw in buzzwords like "corporatist" or "globalist." Likewise, I did not even have to say Trump is a racist to make my point that Trump does not support single payer.

Now, do you do this? Here is what you write:

Second of all: Trump is xenophobic. But his policies are not the same as Bernie's: to use small words, Bernie would not go it alone. He would work with friendly countries, known as allies, to confront unfair trade. How is that "progressive" It is progressive because it is not trying to build walls around America. It is trying to work with countries also being screwed by China (and the corporations who do business there) to stop the race to the bottom.

Well, that's nice. That is a lot of aspirational fluff, but what does that actually translate to? Or, is Bernie's trade agenda so obscure that even his own supporters can't really can't describe specific policy proposals? Using the example of health care, can you describe a policy in your own words a Bernie trade program and compare it to Trump's? Instead, you duck the issue and talk about the environment.

Let's try this. Do you Bernie would lower or increase the tariffs that Trump imposed on China? How's that? Can you answer this?

[OrwellwasRight]

31. As stated ion post #21

THEIR POLICIES ARE NOT THE SAME AND IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE LABELS. YOU HAVE TO READ THE POLICIES SO THAT YOU CAN ANALYZE AND THEN CATEGORIZE THEM.

1) Steel

As I already stated and you ignored:

Yes, China overproduces steel and prices it predatorily, so yes, confronting China on steel was a good thing to do. Most Dems and many Republicans agree with Trump on that. And Canada is our closest trading partner and ally, so no you don't tariff them even though the US imports more Chinese steel through Canada than it does directly from China. So what do you do? Before you implement your tariffs, you get Canada (and the EU and Japan by the way) to implement the same outward facing tariffs on China (and a few other steel over producers, btw, including Korea, Vietnam and Turkey), so we are all acting in a coordinated fashion and reducing the leakage of Chinese steel going through intermediaries.


First of all "tariffs" in and of themselves are not xenophobic. Obama used them: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-steel-dumping-20140712-story.html

Second of all: Trump is xenophobic. But his policies are not the same as Bernie's: to use small words, Bernie would not go it alone. He would work with friendly countries, known as allies, to confront unfair trade. How is that "progressive" It is progressive because it is not trying to build walls around America. It is trying to work with countries also being screwed by China (and the corporations who do business there) to stop the race to the bottom.

Another thing progressives would fight for that Xenophobes would not: labor rights for China's workers. https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/

2) Labor/Environment

As I already sated and you ignored:

Bernie would
turn[ ] labor and environmental fluff into meaningful rules that aren't just theoretically enforceable but actually enforced.


This is progressive because progressives believe that workers in countries we trade with should be able to organize unions and be safe on the job. The also believe that US corporations should not go to other countries and pollute their water and air and poison people.

Trump labor and environment: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/NAFTA-environment-statement.pdf; https://aflcio.org/2019/4/24/usitc-report-backs-need-fix-new-nafta-add-real-enforcement; https://aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/LAC%20Report%20NAFTA%20Final%20Final%20PDF.pdf

Bernie labor and environment: https://berniesanders.com/issues/fight-for-fair-trade-and-workers/

3)Food Safety & Financial Regulations

As I already sated and you ignored:


It is about taking globalization back from a tool to oppress workers globally into a tool that ensures that workers globally can join together to stand up and fight for better wages and benefits.


Trump's policies undermine food safety: https://www.iatp.org/blog/201908/new-nafta-limits-labeling-food-and-workplace-chemicals

Trump policies limit the way we can regulate banks and banking data: https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/International-Trade/USA/Arent-Fox-LLP/New-NAFTA-implications-on-US-financial-services-industry

Bernie's policies would not do that. Progressives believe on controlling the banking sector and keeping children from being poisoned by food, ergo, Bernie's policies are PROGRESSIVE. https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/; https://berniesanders.com/issues/fight-for-fair-trade-and-workers/

Truly I am sad for you if you don't know that labor rights and Wall Street regulations are progressive and that anti-labor rights and banking deregulation aren't.

I can research for you, summarize for you, and repeat for you, but I can't read for you. Either you want this information in these links because you want to learn something, or you want to keep making bizarre statements like

we call Trump's Trade Policy Progressive?


When you have actually read through the links and discovered that trade agreements are very little about tariffs, I'd be happy to chat. But beating my head against the wall in my spare time because you are stuck in Mike Froman talking points based on basic econ? No, not my idea of fun. Bye!

[TomCADem]

33. Bernie Sanders: 'Of course' I would use tariffs as President

Last edited Sun Aug 25, 2019, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

What you wrote contradicts what Bernie has proposed and it does not even make sense:

You wrote:

Yes, China overproduces steel and prices it predatorily, so yes, confronting China on steel was a good thing to do. Most Dems and many Republicans agree with Trump on that. And Canada is our closest trading partner and ally, so no you don't tariff them even though the US imports more Chinese steel through Canada than it does directly from China. So what do you do? Before you implement your tariffs, you get Canada (and the EU and Japan by the way) to implement the same outward facing tariffs on China (and a few other steel over producers, btw, including Korea, Vietnam and Turkey), so we are all acting in a coordinated fashion and reducing the leakage of Chinese steel going through intermediaries.

First, that does not make sense. Why would Canada impose tariffs on Chinese steel when they are a net exporter of steel? Second, why Korea? Korea has even higher living expenses than the U.S. Have you been to South Korea. They are not some third world country undercutting the U.S. on labor costs. Or, is it just xenophobia? Third, as for Japan, Bernie has also attacked Japan, opposed TPP, and proposed placing tariffs on Japanese steel:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/31/bernie-sanders-pledges-rewrite-disastrous-trade-deals/82473012/

Along with NAFTA, Sanders said he also would rewrite CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, and the Korean Free Trade Agreement.

He didn’t specify what changes he would make but said U.S. workers shouldn't be forced to compete against people making “pennies an hour.” He also criticized deals that lead corporations to move to countries such as China where there are “virtually no environmental standards” compared to the U.S.

“That is not fair competition,” he said.

His campaign says Sanders also would impose countervailing tariffs on imports from China and Japan “until they stop dumping steel into the United States and stop manipulating their currencies.”

What you suggest directly contradicts what Bernie Sanders has proposed. Indeed, Bernie himself really can't distinguish himself from Trump except to say that, "of course," he would impose tariffs on China, but he would do so "rationally." Of course, since he has also attacked Trump this year for not being tough enough on China, says nothing. Perhaps Bernie should have used your language and just said he would follow Trump's policies in a "progressive," manner rather than a "rational" manner.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/bernie-sanders-tariffs-trade-war-sotu-cnntv/index.html

Washington (CNN)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he would use tariffs as a negotiating tool if he wins the White House but slammed President Donald Trump's latest maneuvering in his trade war with China.

"What the President is doing is totally irrational and it is destabilizing the entire world economy," the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview that aired on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday. "You do not make trade policy by announcing today that you're going to raise tariffs by X percent and the next day by Y percent, by attacking the person you appointed as head of the Federal Reserve as an enemy of the American people."

When asked by CNN's Brianna Keilar if he would use tariffs to cut a deal with China during his own presidency, Sanders said that he would.

"Yeah of course, it is used in a rational way within the context of a broad, sensible trade policy. It is one tool that is available," he said. "You're looking at somebody, by the way, who helped lead the effort against permanent normal trade relations with China and (North American Free Trade Agreement)."

[OrwellwasRight]

39. Of course other countries would put tariffs on Chinese steel

They too are being harmed by China's overproduction. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are net steel exporters to the US. It has to do with confronting practices that are unfair and that drive your producers out of business that would be able to stay in business if facing fair competition. The difference it, as I explained previously, do you work with your allies to collectively confront China or do you put tariffs on your allies and thereby harm them?

PS I never said Bernie would not use tariffs. Tariffs should be a last resort, but they are a legitimate tool of trade policy.

Obama imposed tire tariffs here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32808731/ns/business-world_business/t/obama-imposes-tariffs-chinese-tires/#.XWyI3i2ZNQI

He imposed steel and solar tariffs as described here: https://www.prosperousamerica.org/obama_tariffs_preceded_trump_tariffs

Bush II also imposed steel tariffs: https://www.deseret.com/2003/12/5/19799539/bush-yields-to-wto-lifts-tariffs-on-steel

The point is this is a long standing global problem. Although previous presidents of both parties tried to do something, they ultimately didn't have a plan (as Trump doesn't).

The best way to stand up to China is to act in concert with allies, not to use unilateral action. As he explained in the quote you quoted, he has a plan to reform trade, not to end it. That's progressive.

[riverine]

28. Please, not that ISDS fearmongering crap again

a private justice system for foreign investors.

The trade dispute panel cannot supersede US law, has been around on all trade deals for decades, and rules only on trade disputes.

The US has never lost a case.

Pure fearmongering by Sen Warren. So much so that President Obama compared her to Sarah Palin. Yes, SARAH PALIN.

[OrwellwasRight]

29. Wow -- try reading...

A) No trade panel can automatically change any US or other county's laws. And no one who knows what they are talking about would claim that it could. So your big "defense" against ISDS is a red herring. What trade panels CAN and DO do, is force a government to either pay a penalty to a foreign company in the case of ISDS or face tariffs in the case of the WTO. The US has changed its law a number of times due to trade panel decisions, primarily at the WTO, and including while Obama was president.

Examples:

Country of Origin Labeling (the US repealed its law): https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/21/quashing-consumers-right-to-know-congress-repeals-country-of-origin-labeling-for-beef-and-pork/#3084913b36e5 (note that the article is from Forbes, a pro-business magazine)

Dolphin-safe tuna labeling (the article explains that the US changes tuna labeling regulations at least twice to respond to WTO cases -- this dispute has a longer history and additional amendments, but I'm not going to do all your homework for you): https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/26/525701964/wto-says-mexico-can-seek-millions-from-u-s-in-dolphin-safe-tuna-dispute

B) Unlike at the WTO, where sovereign governments bring and defend cases, under ISDS, only private investors (people or corporations) can bring cases and sovereign governments can only be defendants. ISDS does not in fact cover trade disputes. It covers "investment disputes" which are different. Claims can include a traditional direct expropriation claim (like the Fifth Amendment, which is weird because foreign firms can already sue for such claims in federal and state courts), but they can also include indirect expropriation claims, wherein an investor claims that a law or regulation is "tantamount to" an expropriation, and claims that an investor was not treated with a "minimum standard of treatment", a vague standard that has been used to blackmail many developing countries to undo their laws, undo criminal convictions, and withdraw environmental regulations. ISDS is bad. You can believe the propaganda for it, or you can do some research and find out what it really is and why it is such a bad idea.

Here are some places to start:

William Greider in The Nation, explaining all the way back in 2001 how ISDS is an extension of the right-wing concept of regulatory takings: https://www.thenation.com/article/right-and-us-trade-law-invalidating-20th-century/

Transnational Institute, a seminal 2012 report detailing how a small group of international lawyers both representative parties and act as "neutral" arbitrators in ISDS arbitrations, thereby both creating international investment law and then representing clients who seek to profit from the new rules: https://www.tni.org/en/briefing/profiting-injustice

The Four-Part BuzzFeed series by Chris Hamby that was a finalist for the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in international reporting that focused on four aspects of ISDS:

-how it helps executives convicted of crimes escape punishment
-how just a threat of an ISDS case can intimidate countries, especially developing countries, into caving in and giving corporations what they want
-how big banks take advantage of the ISDS system; and
-how the US almost lost a case and freaked out all those who support the system

Here is a link to part one of the series: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/super-court
Here is a link to the Pulitzer nomination: https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/chris-hamby-buzzfeed-news

Here is Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stigliz saying ISDS is bad idea for developing countries): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/08/trade-agreements-developing-countries-joseph-stiglitz (it's so ironic how those who label labor unions "anti-development" when they challenge the pro-corporate trade rules, fail to mention how the shitty ISDS, drug exclusivity guarantees, and failure to enforce labor provisions are extremely anti-development; they also fail to mention that the labor unions of Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Mexico, the United States, Canada, and Malaysia--a mix of developed and developing countries--all united to challenge the TPP)

Here is a law review article explaining the difference between investor rules and enforcement mechanism and labor rules and enforcement mechanisms in US trade deals and questioning why investors get such favorable treatment: https://www.academia.edu/38011167/DISPARATE_TREATMENT_FOR_PROPERTY_AND_LABOR_RIGHTS_IN_U.S._TRADE_AGREEMENTS

Here is a chart showing how the number of ISDS has exploded in the last decade, which implies the US winning streak is unlikely to last: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/news/hub/1611/20190528-fact-sheet-surge-in-isds-cases-continues-in-2018

Although, as UNCTAD data show, most cases are brought by investors from developed countries against developing countries (challenging environmental protections is not pro-development), developed countries lose their fair share too, proving that the cases are not about countries that have unreliable justice systems.

Among the top 10 most sued countries are Canada, Spain, and the Czech Republic. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement
US firms have brought the greatest number of cases (174), with "Dutch" companies (which are usually not Dutch but simply get a PO Box there to take advantage of Dutch investment treaties) a distant second with 108 cases.

The following countries have either never approved an ISDS treaty or have renounced ISDS treaties they have been a part of: South Africa, Namibia, Tanzania, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Angola, Botswana, Comoros, DR Congo, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Zambia, Zimbabwe (in other words, the SADC countries) https://www.tralac.org/blog/article/13787-investor-state-dispute-settlement-in-africa-and-the-afcfta-investment-protocol.html

In addition, New Zealand says it won't approve ISDS in the future: http://afia.asia/2018/01/nz-renounces-isds-deja-vu/

In 2011, Australia's Productivity Commission recommended that Australia "seek to avoid" ISDS in future trade deals: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/isds-the-devil-in-the-trade-deal/6634538

Finally, is a piece explaining that it cost Australia millions of dollars to successfully defend its tobacco regulations against Philip Morris under ISDS, so even when countries when, they lose: http://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-surprising-cost-of-defeating-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging-114279


So, I'm not sure why your only concern about ISDS is whether the US has ever lost a case. There are bigger issues here. But I guess alll these countries, authors, and respected thinkers--even those who wrote and acted before she entered the Senate--fell for Senator Warren's fearmongering? Huh. Weird.

[riverine]

36. I LOVE all that protection for us Americans!

I like the fact that real neutral trade experts decide cases.

As an investor I don't want some tinhorn dictator barging in on trade disputes.

thanks

[OrwellwasRight]

38. Wow. You read exactly none of the links did you?

I'm not impressed with opinions based on a refusal to the learn the facts.

ISDS does not protect "us Americans." It "protects" only those who investor overseas, i.e., the 1%. The investors who win cases don't have to, and don't, share the proceeds with U.S. taxpayers. Moreover, as described in the Pulitzer-prize nominated series written by a Pulitzer price winning author that I linked to. it actually puts U.S. investors on the offense more than the defense.

ISDS cases are not decided by "real neutrals," as explained in the study I linked to above by the Transnational Institute and Corporate Europe Observatory.

And I guess you are calling Canada and Spain, who are in the top ten of countries sued, "tin horn dictatorships"? Interesting. But not factual.

So much for Bernie and other progressives as the ones who want to use to trade for "selfish reasons." Huh.

Fun talking to you. I suggest before you argue again about ISDS further, you go to those links and learn some facts about it so you can have a more informed opinion. There might be an argument to be made for it, but it is certainly not one based on denial of the facts.

[TomCADem]

7. Bernie's Trade and Foreign Policy Are Contradictory

ON the one hand, he pushes an even more belligerent and isolationist trade policy than Trump, yet he insists that he would be push diplomacy and multilateral arrangements as part of his foreign policy. How does that make sense? How can he separate trade and foreign policy when they are two sides of the same coin.

For example, all these economic sanctions in the foreign policy are based on trade penalties.

[Vegas Roller]

13. Practically everything he does is contradictory

It is to garner votes from people who don't want details but just slogans.

[Cha]

35. ..

[betsuni]

8. +1

[yardwork]

25. Uninformed knee jerk reactions and insidious propaganda got us in this fix.

[yaesu]

3. Bernies is long term, something that US companies can plan for, build out US production for

tRump's only last until he gets the boot, no US company will invest on that, damages the consumer, throws the market into turmoil

[Vegas Roller]

12. Every business will be leary of investing if BS is elected

They wouldn't know when their business will be "seized."

[Vegas Roller]

11. Every one of BS's policies is extreme

so extreme that his policies are not even in the ballpark.

It excites some people I suppose even though they know deep down inside that none of those will ever materialize.

[betsuni]

17. K&R

[Cha]

22. Kick for exposure.

[keithbvadu2]

26. Bernie is another self-important Ralph Nader.

Bernie is another self-important Ralph Nader.

[Hoyt]

27. Don't care for Sanders or Warren on these issues. Plus their criticism of Obama and

global trade helped elect trump.

This populism — or as Warren calls it, “Economic Patriotism” — will hurt other countries and could well initiate economic, military, cyber, etc., responses.

[Thekaspervote]

32. This!