The Case Against Ratifying the Trans Pacific Partnership (michaelgeist.ca) 177
An anonymous reader writes: For the past two and a half months, Canadian law professor Michael
Geist has been writing a daily series on the trouble with the
Trans Pacific Partnership. The 50 part series wrapped up today with
the
case against ratifying the TPP. While the focus is on
Canadian issues, the series hits on problems that all 12 countries
face: unbalanced intellectual property rules, privacy risks, dangers
to the Internet and technology, cultural and health regulation, and
investor-state settlement rules that could cost countries billions
of dollars.
We need to kill nafta 2.0 (Score:2)
We need to kill nafta 2.0 as the first one killed a lot of jobs and with the investor-state settlement rules even more can be cut.
Re: (Score:1)
The only way crap like this will be stopped is if we replace our entire government. A revolt of the masses is unlikely, so send a message to the bureaucrats by NOT voting for ANY incumbent of ANY party. Once we get rid of enough "professional politicians" things should start to change.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a lot of good reasons to be against NAFTA and TPP, but making statements of opinion as if they were fact does more for the opposing argument than it does to support your own. The fact is, NAFTA created some US jobs and killed some others. Whether the balance was a net gain or a net loss is widely debated by economists, with no conclusive evidence from either side.
TFA does a pretty good job of summarizing why TPP favors and protects corporate interests over the interests of everyone else though. Ev
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was mostly the USA that won that, with Canada coming in a distant second. Mexico's economy is now worse off post NAFTA, but that isn't because of NAFTA, rather it's because what new jobs they gained were lost to China shortly afterwards. Though they'd probably be even worse off had it not been for NAFTA.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to kill nafta 2.0 as the first one killed a lot of jobs
NAFTA was a treaty between America, Canada, and Mexico. The citizens of ALL THREE countries believe that they got shafted, and all the benefits went to the other two. Logically, at least two of them must be wrong. Most economists believe that all three are wrong, and NAFTA was a net benefit to all participants.
Today, Mexican tortillas are made with America corn (maize). How can a Mexican peasant with a hoe possibly compete with an combine in Iowa that can cut a 30 foot swathe through a field? So poor Me
Re: (Score:2)
The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness? That might result in a higher GDP, but without any gains for the farmers/workers. This is the sort of economic mobility that a lot of people are noticing. I don't know if the data supports this view, but it is certainly the perception.
Re: (Score:2)
The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness?
I already know that's false without even having to look it up. You can't own land (or any other real property for that matter) in Mexico unless you're a Mexican citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness?
I already know that's false without even having to look it up. You can't own land (or any other real property for that matter) in Mexico unless you're a Mexican citizen.
And a multinational agribusiness can't be owned by a Mexican citizen?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, after two seconds of google searching:
Alternatively the purchase of non-residential property can be achieved through a Mexican corporation which, under certain conditions, can be 100% foreign-owned.
Re: (Score:2)
It is easy to see the losers from free trade. America has no more textile mills, and those jobs are gone. But I work for a tech company and 70% of our revenue comes from foreign customers. For most tech companies, that is typical. So, if you are a nerd, one of the jobs created from free trade is likely YOUR job.
History as teacher (Score:5, Insightful)
After WTO, NAFTA, et al, I'd say its safe to assume that TPP is designed and built to expedite the globalist race to the bottom, to the detriment of everyone but the oligarchs and their bootlickers.
Re:History as teacher (Score:5, Interesting)
Wage trends in China [tradingeconomics.com] indicate the "race to the bottom" is actually a race to the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:History as teacher (Score:4, Informative)
Which "lower wage countries"? I'll link their wage trends. Which direction do you think the trend line will go?
Re: (Score:2)
The Southern African country of Lesotho now has a large number of Chinese garment factories [equaltimes.org], because of the country's no-tariff status in North America (and, I think, Europe).
Re: (Score:2)
Wage trends in China [tradingeconomics.com] indicate the "race to the bottom" is actually a race to the middle.
No, it's a race to as low as tolerably practical. Overlay that graph on the growth of South African / South American manufacturing due to their even lower rates and you'll see they aren't winning anything, infact they are losing business as margins get ever tighter and consumers fall over themselves to buy the latest and greatest shit for a little as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Wage trends in China [tradingeconomics.com] indicate the "race to the bottom" is actually a race to the middle.
It's a race to the lowest common denominator which is higher than the very poorest have but way, way, way lower than we want our children to have to compete with.
Low labor cost countries tend to have no labor protection, unsafe working conditions, borderline (or outright) slavery working conditions, zero benefits whatsoever and get paid jack shit anyway it's a losing proposition for anyone but the richest who benefit from globally lower resource rates and arguably the very poorest who had nothing to start w
Re: (Score:2)
On a global scale, the middle is really close to the bottom - from your perspective.
To put this into words, you recollect the railing against the 1%? The global 1% is about $32,000 USD/year. Yup... Seeing as you're here on Slashdot, you're almost certainly well within the middle income levels or significantly higher.
What's amusing is all the finger pointing and blaming and partisan gibberish that goes on with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I remember a TED talk about some Swedish economics professor who was examining the widely held belief that everybody seems to have that the whole world is always getting poorer, and he found it to not be the case at all, rather quite the opposite. The problem is that people tend to measure wealth in terms of income, and income is a terrible way of measuring wealth because it doesn't show actual purchasing power, and further it confuses the difference between money and wealth (there's quite a differe
Re: (Score:2)
To put it into perspective...
Reach in your pocket and pull out your smart phone. Do a little math. Go back 25 years. Apply the math needed to own (not access, but own) that much compute power. Now adjust it for inflation.
Do the same thing with your automobile, house - including furnishings, education, gadgets, entertainment, and more...
I get a kick out of the people who decry us as having less than the previous generation and being unduly burdened by it.
I know, I know... It goes against the narrative and we
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, we actually DO have less. We may have fancier computer toys, but food, housing, etc. are a lot more expensive/hour worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare the housing's R value, the quality of materials in it, the design, the tools used to build it, the specs it meets, the wiring, the outlets, the electrical panel, the plumbing, etc... You really don't have less unless you wanted to, some localized fluctuations come into play but in those areas you have more externally and those things also cost money/resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on where you live, all these items may be a rounding error in the total cost, with the land prices dominating everything else. But, yes, let's compare the quality of materials. Tell me, what new house has solid hardwood floors (and not laminates that will need replacement in a few years)? My 60-year old house
Re: (Score:2)
My house was a huge bargain and is huge. I'll show you some neat pictures when I get home in the spring, if you want. I spent a lot on it but I got a lot of house - and I've got gazillions of acres - at a steel and the house is largely made out of materials that came from the land. My house will still be here in 200 years. It's actually passive solar, I designed it myself. It's what's known as a box or envelope (sometimes double-envelope would be the preferred term) and is powered mostly by solar and wind.
Y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See my other response. Note: It is a novella. If you want to see where I'm coming from, read all of it. If you just wanna argue then the bolded sections or none of it at all are what I'd suggest. 'Tis up to you but I figured I'd try to explain my statement a bit more completely for you. Doing so is not easy and I'm not the most articulate. So, try to read it with that in mind. Or, if you prefer, just rant and rave and fight. I'm okay with either and don't have much of a preference where some folks are conce
Re: (Score:3)
I did read your response and you have clearly done well for yourself. I have also done well. As an immigrant who moved from a low housing cost area to a high housing cost area, I was very lucky to be able to buy a house when I did. Without buying this house, my finances now would be quite difficult.
However, your and my experience are not relevant. I doubt that they are typical, but more importantly, the issue should be put to graduates coming out of university now. Are they better off than in the past? I th
Re: (Score:2)
If you use Switzerland's poverty line figures (about $25000 for a single person) to make your comparison then even more of China (an a large number of Americans for that matter) would be considered impoverished.
Re: (Score:2)
What "free trade" has done is to cheapen the mediocre and enrich the cream of crop, or at least the owners of the cream of the crop.
For example, there are only so many people who can be tested in the position of CEO because there are only so many CEO positions. Being a "vice CEO" is not a good enough test or "training".
The few who have success or show promise are then highly sought-after, and their compensation package is bid way up. It's high-end case of it takes experience to get experience. Only so many
Only racists don't like TPP (Score:4, Funny)
Look, that racist Hitler-Trump doesn't like TPP, so you are automagically a racist (like Bernie Sanders) if you don't like it.
Don't be a racist, do what Obama would do, support TPP.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry. None of these arguments matter. Nothing that the public wants matters either. Washington insiders are still firmly in control. A Hillary win will guarantee Washington insider control through 2020. No one outside Washington and the billionaire social circles has mattered for a long time. Expect that to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was exactly the US attitude as we sat back and watched Germany and Japan conquer their neighbors. The government managed to ship a vast quantity of military equipment to our allies, but we just refused to engage until Pearl Harbor. Then we had much larger problems to solve. The cost in lives was far higher than it would have been had we gotten involved ASAP. And no, not just the cost in lives of those dirty foreigners you clearly have no care for, but for actual Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the most popular opinion around here.
"Why are you still here in Europe?"
"Because if we aren't then you bomb yourselves into rubble every couple of generations and then ask us to pay for the cleanup."
That flies about as well as a lead balloon, regardless of its merits.
Re: (Score:2)
allow them to dominate the Far East
MFN status for China in the 1990s is why were facing the expansion of a Chinese military power today. I don't see a real path to countering this now; the die is cast and TPP won't create a meaningful counter to China. Game over; thanks for playing.
But sure, let's do it anyway. Let's eliminate the last impediments to capital movement around the planet. Apple needs some new place to take their profits since it seems Europe is on to them in Ireland. At some point the Chinese might decide to stop living
Re: (Score:2)
Well...that might not be the case...they are having some MAJOR economical problems over there, that they are madly trying to cover up to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
And if you don't support Hillary, you're a sexist. And if you openly oppose Hillary, you're guilty of harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying of which.
There are some easily recognized problems with the "two party" conspiracy system in US politics that brings us things like TPP, but, like an optical illusion, a should-be-obvious solution escapes a disproportionately large percentage of the (voting) citizenry.
Problem 1: The attitude and idea of "There are two parties, we have to pick the less evil/corrupt person from between the two parties." Thus guaran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Trump, as vile as he is, should not be silenced by mob action no matter how disgusting his views ... he should be countered by intelligent speech that decries and exposes his bigotry, not forced to cancel appearances. Way to play into his hands, Bernie supporters),
What evidence is there that the anti-Trump protesters were Bernie supporters?
From what I see on all the discussion boards, the Bernie supporters are most concerned and angry about Hillary, not Trump. Heck, a bunch of Bernie supporters have even
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I believe Hillary supports the TPP, while Sanders may not. So if Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote Democrat, but if it's Hillary I'll pick some other party. Probably the Greens, but perhaps the Libertarian (I haven't read their platform this time around...I like SOME Libertarian positions). Not that either has a chance, but I couldn't stomach voting for a TPP supporter.
Were there any benefits? (Score:2)
Is there anything actually good about the TPP?
Re:Were there any benefits? (Score:4, Informative)
It helps the multinational corporations. If you mean benefits to you and me then no.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is possibly the most insightful comment ever posted to slashdot, if people actually understood why it is so.
America's hidden aristocracy has learned from the British aristocracy that it is better to stay behind the scenes wielding influence and concealing power than to be a known target that can be criticized and accused.
The TPP marks the dying days of democratic process. I've spent some weeks trying to get my head around it's 6000 pages. I found the anti-corruption provisions of the TPP were complet
Re:Were there any benefits? (Score:4, Interesting)
The first is that most of the NAFTA comparisons aren't exactly accurate, in that a free trade agreement with a significantly less developed nation has more downsides than one with a similarly advanced nation. For instance, when people complain about NAFTA, they're complaining about Mexico, not Canada. The USA had a free trade agreement with Canada that predated NAFTA, and it's really never been an issue. TPP includes several nations that are similarly advanced, and with whom free trade will likely be entirely beneficial, such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. (Canada is part of the TPP, but the USA already has a free trade agreement with them). Of the less developed nations, we already have a free trade agreement with the most impactful (Mexico).
Probably the biggest upside would be cementing an anti-China (or at least counterweight to China) trade bloc in the Asia Pacific region. A lot of people talk about China or outsourcing to China, but China's not a part of this deal, nor is it presently in consideration to do so, as it's not even on the list of potential second-wave candidates (South Korea, Indonesia, Colombia, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand). It also includes a number of key U.S. allies in the region, and could ideally bolster those economies vis a vis China.
It also opens those countries' markets to more U.products, and reduces a lot of the trade barriers that contribute to the existing trade deficit, such as Japan's agricultural import restrictions, for one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it *does* decrease the power of the Federal government. Of course, it only does that to the benefit of powerful corporations (or companies), but at least it's a decrease. That's a good precedent.
Is the author still alive? (Score:1)
You can't contradict the wealthy and powerful and stay alive long.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you still alive? If so, that kinda disproves your point.
Here, let's test that theory.
Fuck the ruling elite. Specifically, fuck them in the ass with a rusty pitchfork - specifically the psychopathic among them. They are bastards and this TPP is an abomination to liberty. They, and their ilk, can suck my left nut and this sort of maligned treaty makes me want to actively work to thwart this. In fact, I think I'll make an added effort to confound them - I have a few dollars and, if bothered, I can keep thi
One reason needed (Score:5, Informative)
TPP is a secret agreement, developed by parties who are financially biased to make such an agreement, without any discourse or dialogue outside of interested parties.
The lies of NAFTA, having been exposed as lies, have much to do with why this is being done in secret. NAFTA was not developed by party, it was developed in much the same way. Except that people were able to question the alleged benefits before ratification. The so called "naysayers" who warned about not just NAFTA, but many other treaties and Acts have been proven right far too often.
I certainly appreciate the attorney's 50 days/reasons and the detail he goes into. I just don't think it's necessary for at least the US, who needs Congressional approval for a treaty. (I don't know Canada's laws, perhaps they have similar.) Any member of Congress that approves this "treaty" should be impeached, jailed, banished, or some other nice form of punishment for treason.
Still no need for secrecy (Score:2)
Yes all of those were criticized but they still passed. I don't know why it has to be done in secret because even if it's done in the open nobody can do anything about it, people don't get to vote on these things
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada, the government can just sign a treaty though sometimes they're polite and ask Parliament to ratify it. Parliament still needs to pass any laws that go with the treaty.
It doesn't really matter though as our new government is on record of being in favour of it and all free trade and the public consultations they've promised can't do anything anyways. And of course the government has a majority in Parliament, with the party always voting as a block and the opposition also in favour so only the socia
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Parliament a part of the government? I ask not because I am certain you're wrong but I don't really know what Canada's government is set up like and what they use for references.
Sadly, I should - except I don't have to and it would probably just infuriate me. I'm Canadian by grace of heritage - I'm Micmac, First Nation. I am a US Citizen and I live in the US. I do not vote nor participate in Canadian politics even though I am eligible to do so. At the same time, you'll note that I have never, not one
Re: (Score:2)
The simplified version, we elect the House of Commons, the part of Parliament with most of the power, much like you elect the House of Representatives. Whichever party can get the confidence of Parliament, basically enough votes to pass a budget, forms the government.
Laws are passed by Parliament, much the same as Congress, but whichever party forms the government appoints the Prime Minister and cabinet, who can pass orders in council, which are similar to Presidential executive orders to run things.
The gov
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I just wanted to make sure. Kinda, mostly, like Australia and the UK. That's what I'd understood but wasn't entirely sure. The verbiage is... odd to me. In my head they're the "majority power." Or, shall we say, close enough. Don't worry, I watch your politics and am probably as baffled as you are when you see US politics. Well, not quite that bad but you understand. I hope.
I did, technically, have the ability to regurgitate the generalities about the government but that was learned in a hurry and w
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the TPP has provisions for open borders? I've actually read (but not completed) the giant friggen' document that NZ was kind enough to upload and share via the 'net. Don't read it... You probably won't understand it (not intended as a slight - I've not got the foggiest about what they speak of in a few places and I've researched others) and it will just piss you off in the parts you do understand.
See, I figured if I want to bitch about it then I should know what I'm talking about, or at least
Re: (Score:2)
> Only the desire for favoritism can justify the reelection of corrupt politicians.
Stupidity. You forgot stupidity. Unfortunate that it is, it is justification. It's a bit perverse but I take some pleasure in being able to say that I first voted in the presidential elections in 1978 and I have only once voted for the candidate that won. My one vote for a winning candidate turned out to be pretty stupid. I regret that. I voted for Clinton's second term - it seemed the logical thing to do. It turns out tha
Re: (Score:2)
Since only two candidates generally have a valid chance of winning, the alternative being worse is also a valid reason to vote for someone. It's not one that *I* accept, as in that case I'll vote for a minority party, but it's a valid reason.
Biggest problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no agreement (or bill) should be longer than can be read in an hour, if it is it should be broken down into smaller chunks. also the people should have the right to read any agreement (or bill) for a period of no less than 90 days before it is voted on
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with this with one provision added: I'm sure there will be emergencies where "wait 90 days for everyone to read the bill" would not be an option. So there can be Emergency Bill Passage which doesn't require the 90 day wait. However, there would be two added provisions: 1) The text of the emergency bill - along with all open Congress discussions about it - must be uplo
Re: (Score:2)
What's the benefit? I mean for any average citizen. I'm not aware of any...and I'm aware of a LOT of drawbacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, oh why, is the root TLD (32bit.com) to your homepage a bulk mailing software company?
Email marketing is a process that is extremely intricate. It boasts of various aspects. As a matter of fact, the more expansive an email marketing campaign is the more complicated and hard to manage it is going to be. Looking at the needs of various businesses operating on the internet, we have created an email marketing compendium perfectly suited for all types of businesses and campaigns.
Err... Were they something else? 'Cause your subdomain doesn't work. Were they some sort of free hosting company or something? I seriously can't imagine someone displaying a link, of any kind, to a bulk-mailer on Slashdot.
I know this is OT but this is the only way to make sure you've actually noticed this and are doing so knowingly. I can't possibly imagine a time when you'd want to associate yourself with that particu
I wasn't aware there was an argument for it.. (Score:2, Insightful)
... At least not one that anyone would honestly express outside of the back room and off the record.
The thing is a joke. Trash it and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying something for a long time and, slowly but surely, it's coming to the point where it is reaching fruition - which is not a good thing and does not even stroke my ego...
"Welcome to America, can I take your order please?"
As a lark, I just Googled that. They find three mentions, two on Slashdot, and one by someone on a site for crazy people. (No, really...) Their quote seems to predate the two it found for me but, if you'll accept my word, I've been saying this for years.
Let's try to put this i
Re: (Score:2)
There is no political right or left anymore. Its a false dichotomy. Its marxists versus everyone else in the west these days.
No one is advocating for kings and queens and no one is seriously talking about putting the church in charge of everything and no one is seriously talking about repealing democratic rule. Conflating non-marxists with the right is a trap. Don't fall into it.
Anyone non-marxist is labeled right these days. That's all right means at this point. Not marxist.
So lets just stop beating around
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how one interprets expecting little to nothing from the average elected official on the right while expecting the left to demonstrate their touted intellectualism is antagonistic towards them. They made their claims and portrayed their image. Do it.
I expect the right to be Bible thumping, nationalistic, greedy, primal capitalists, who are self-centered and motivated by self-interest. They perform as I expect and, for the most part, as they portray themselves. I see far less hypocrisy on the rig
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I acknowledge that they do but do you expect more from a retard than you do from someone that claims they're a genius? I'm not seeing why this is too complicated for you to understand. At this point, I'm going to assume it's willful on your part. I've a limited number of posts per day and if you've other questions you're free to await another time but it should be fairly easy to understand. I've not written this with any great complexity or used any big words. I think you might be just writing to be arg
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy... both sides only are rational when it serves their interests. The left is just as prone to be crazy and erratic when that serves its ideology.
The real lesson is that people follow their interests.
At this point however, there really isn't a left or right...
Its basically just Marxists versus everyone else at this point. Otherwise why have evangelicals and libertarians on the same side?
Claiming the left is all virtue, unicorns, and rainbows isn't credible. The marxists gave us Stalin, Mao, Ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain why we need the TPP in the first place and I'll tell you what we need to move on to.
I would argue it was a solution in search of a problem.
US trade policy is probably best negocated on a country by country basis rather than creating these giant bills. The problem is that countries are not going to agree to the same stuff. And big packages create lowest common denominator situations.
It also robs us of our ability to reward countries that are behaving themselves while also robbing ourselves of the abi
Re: (Score:2)
The costs of what? Diplomats? That's a zero sum game... we're going to have those guys regardless.
As to the term of the agreement, if the agreement works out to everyone's interest and the terms were held in the prior time period then one could expect a renewal of the contract term after term after term. Think about it like any place you go to buy something on a regular basis where the price is right and quality is right. You're coming back. You'll keep coming back. You like the deal.
And that's the point. I
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not giving up on anything. I think its easier to negotiate individually and that the deals will be more contextually reasonable on that basis.
Ever heard of a demand loan? Its a loan that has a term which ends whenever the lender demands their money back. When you deposit money in the bank you've actually made a demand loan to the bank. Short term agreements are not unfavorable always. It depends. If everyone trusts everyone and there is a high likelihood that the agreement will sustain into the future t
Re: (Score:2)
You're not gaining efficiency by consolidation. The same number of people are going to be working for you regardless. So you're presenting a false dichotomy where in there is savings one one side and not on the other. Both are the same in terms of costs. So that's a fallacious claim on your part that you're saving money. You can't say I'm giving up something that does not exist.
As to what is addressed or not addressed in a given discussion or agreement, that would be specific to that agreement and thus a ge
Re: (Score:2)
... Okay, who does the negotiations and why would this not be a zero sum game?
Such negotiations would be handled by the state department, the commerce department, and inevitably unpaid lobbyists.
To be cheaper you'd have to make the argument that we'd hire fewer or pay the existing diplomatic or commerce department staff less. I don't see that as a credible position. Possible? Anything is possible. It isn't likely enough to credit it. You want to call that giving up... I call it being realistic.
As to why you
Re: (Score:2)
The efficiency of negotiations assumes your labors as diplomats are expensive in the scheme of things. They're not.
What is more, we'd hire as many of you regardless of which way you negotiated it. So the entire effort and focus on your part is a nonsense.
Rather than going for CHEAPNESS you should instead go for QUALITY especially since your attempts to lower cost are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things and the merits of BETTER deals vastly outstrips the non-existent and again... irrelevant savings of
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't a supposition because the negociations would be handled primarily by diplomats that were assigned to those countries anyway. Since countries would have individually assigned diplomats regardless there would be no relevant reduction in staff.
Our diplomats do more than trade deals. They are in each of these countries all the time to represent US interests in any issue that might come up including trade. A unified trade deal would not change the need for having people in each country that are speci
Re: (Score:2)
As to existing diplomats that are engaging with countries on a day to day basis being involved in negotiations that are handled in detail on that basis... they are involved. Why would I not involve them? They're in a better position to know what is going on than most people would be.
What is more, you're very carefully ignoring the fact that this is precisely how these arrangements were handled in the past. You keep trying to undermine my position by saying such and such a thing wouldn't work or is unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
Its hard to objectively separate a positive and reasonable regulation from an abusive power grab.
I am not saying you can't... I'm just saying it is difficult.
Like with SOPA and and PIPA (Score:3, Interesting)
There needs to be massive outcry from Google to stop this. As well as Street Demonstrations.
It's a Golden Shower (Score:2)
Small wonder that his was secret until now (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is a Canadian perspective, but it's instructive to see how others see us. The whole point of TPP seems to be to ratify US corporate monopolies that have up to now only been enforced within the US. If TPP is ratified, all of the signatory countries get US-style intellectual property oppression, US-style high pharma prices, and a surveillance state to replaces Internet freedom.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"all of the signatory countries get US-style intellectual property oppression, US-style high pharma prices, and a surveillance state to replaces Internet freedom."
There'as a reason for that.
The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Br
The Toilet Paper Partnership (Score:2)
Where the giga-rich wipe their asses with the rest of us!
US Congressional Action - FYI (Score:2)
Earlier this year, I wrote to my Senators and Congressman to urge them to vote against it. Senator Klobuchar told me that it probably wasn't going to come up for consideration until November, and at that time she would be [vague statement]. US citizens: don't get too burned out in the Presidential race to forget to apply a little pressure in Congress at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Given my Senators (Democratic?) pressure would be worthless. I've written, but I know better than to expect it to have any effect. I believe that my Representative, who I've also written to, is already opposed, but what good does that do.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are all the corporate backers: (Score:5, Informative)
You'll see a lot of familiar names. [tppcoalition.org]
Here is how much each senator was paid by each backer for fast tracking. [scribd.com]
Here's a Hillary specific one about donations to her campaign, since it came up early in the search.
The first 2 charts I found linked in this excellent Guardian story. [theguardian.com]
Some key excerpts:
Re:Sorry geist... (Score:4, Interesting)
the first truly global power
Only if we ignore the Chinese, Mongolians, and English. At various times in their history, they too were the dominate global powers of their day (with the Mongolians dominant to the point that they had two significant military defeats on the battlefield over a half century period). And the English both at their peak and currently have the ability to globally project military power.
What kept these powers from being being Brzezinski's first "truly global power"? The same sort of institutional and infrastructural limitations that will keep the US from being the first "truly global power" too.
For example, if the Mongolian empire could have kept its shit together for a couple of centuries, we'll all be speaking some derivative of Mongolian now. But they couldn't. They didn't have the infrastructure, technology, or culture to maintain such a vast empire for more than a human lifespan.
While the US is in a good position now, it's just not that powerful a position. It's relatively weak economically and militarily. The EU, China, and Japan are close enough economically that the US just can't throw its weight around in trade treaties. Similarly, Russia and China are close enough militarily that the US can't throw around its weight that way. Both the EU and Japan can build their militaries as well to be credible counters too.
Then there's the institutional obstacles. Even if we ignore the considerable public opposition to empire-building, we still have a rather corrupt and profoundly inefficient military procurement system. In a world where future global military adventures will be fought and frequently won with technology and where even small wars cost a lot for the US, this is a lethal flaw which I think will knock the US out of superpower status sooner or later.
There's also the incompetence of many of the political leaders of the US. For example, between Presidents G. W. Bush and Obama, the US almost lost Iraq to ISIS. If that had happened, I believe the US would have effectively lost superpower status since a lot of the hegemony that the US maintains is based on relationships and credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
the first truly global power
Only if we ignore the Chinese, Mongolians, and English.
I was going to make pretty much the same point. I would also include Spain (and possibly the French, though on the fence there) along with the UK, and I question your inclusion of the Mongolians and the Chinese (while they have had extraordinarily large empires, I would not call them "global" since neither one (as far as I know) had any presence in the western hemisphere). But regardless of the minutiae, the point remains that the US is decidedly NOT the first global power.
Re: (Score:3)
while they have had extraordinarily large empires, I would not call them "global" since neither one (as far as I know) had any presence in the western hemisphere
What was there in the Western hemisphere worth having a presence over? And there certainly wasn't a military power over in the New World capable of giving a small Mongolian army a challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
What was there in the Western hemisphere worth having a presence over? And there certainly wasn't a military power over in the New World capable of giving a small Mongolian army a challenge.
The point is immaterial. You can't be a "global" power if you don't even know half the globe exists. If you're going down that rabbit hole, there are more empires you can add to the list (at least Rome, probably the Dutch) and it's starting to become a fairly meaningless definition.
As far as "what was there worth having?" ask the Spanish--they found one or two things worth keeping.
Re: (Score:2)
And Persian and Macedonian.
Empire is irrelevant under the TPP (Score:2)
The TPP is an expression of American Empire for American Corporate citizens. Human citizens do not factor much in the parts of the TPP I have read (I only managed roughly 1000 pages) where law is referred to as "nullification", "obstruction" and "impediment". I can't see it being good for any nation that signs, even the US. While I was reading it, I found it was overwhelming in its reach.
What I think we are seeing can be best described as "extra-national corporate hedgemony" where nationality isn't as impo
Re: (Score:2)
"(the US)... it's just not that powerful a position. It's relatively weak economically and militarily"
The USA spends more militarily than the next 12 countries combined and several times more than all the rest of the list combined, whilst having an economy smaller than china or the combined EU and a mindset that economic growth is infinite (it isn't. Even single digit percentage growth is impossible to maintain across 100 years. Economies always hit limits and all economists who came up with the fundamental
Re: (Score:3)
I think in Obama's case, he didn't want commit and embroil American ground forces in yet another middle east adventure considering how poorly the last one went. In the end, the strategy of funding and training allies to fight in a proxy has proved to be the right thing to do with ground forces slowly taking ground away from ISIS. American fighting ISIS would make excellent propaganda material to get more fighters. Fighting other muslims is not going to be a attractive.
Obama did anyway. A slow grind like this favors the guerrillas. Eventually they'll evolve to become a greater threat. It also opened up the path to Russian interference in Syria.
That said it is regrettable the kind of things that has happened to places under ISIS power and I wish there was something more than we can do about it a despotic army laying waste to all around them and committing human right atrocity in the name of God.
There was. Simply not entirely leaving would have been one such thing. The US didn't need to leave a huge presence.
Re:Hillary! followers already covering for her (Score:4, Insightful)