|
rudatron posted:Everything that's leaked about TTP has shown it to be a massive overreach of corporate power - nations basically cede some of their own sovereignty to corporate interests. In particular, the ISDS would allow corporations to bypass courts and get massive payouts with any legislation they don't like, in special tribunals stacked with people they want. The fact that the administration is so desperate to keep it secret probably means that true, so in a just world everyone supporting it would be charged with treason. Companies really love stuff like this given all the horrible environmental and labor crimes they got away with overseas like Bhopal disaster. On the flip side it would allow foreign companies to go after the US side law for things such as regulating drug costs. The fact that Obama seems to desperate to fast track the bill and keepings on whining about all the great jobs it will create is all you need to know about it.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:16 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:39 |
|
computer parts posted:Audit the Fed They already do.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:20 |
|
CommieGIR posted:They already do. Did. To my knowledge there was only ever the one audit post the recession. At least when it comes to outside audits.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:29 |
|
Broken Machine posted:I am against it, largely for reasons already mentioned. This is fantastic, thanks Broken Machine for this.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 18:21 |
|
I imagine that passing the bill is probably better, for my stocks.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 18:41 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I imagine that passing the bill is probably better, for my stocks. Yeah things like free trade provide a huge benefit for a corporation but not much benefit for local workers. It also screws people over on both sides, US jobs go overseas while Mexican farmers have a hard time competing against the cheaper US corn.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:11 |
|
This isn't a free trade bill. It will have very little impact on tariffs or other barriers to trade and it will massively strengthen intellectual property rights, meaning it actually calls upon governments to enforce greater restrictions on how people trade.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:14 |
|
etalian posted:Yeah things like free trade provide a huge benefit for a corporation but not much benefit for local workers. Yes, this sounds good for my portfolio. quote:It also screws people over on both sides, US jobs go overseas while Mexican farmers have a hard time competing against the cheaper US corn. In economics we call this "creative destruction."
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:28 |
|
VH4Ever posted:I guess I'm instantly suspicious of any legislation that is so shrouded in secrecy a congressperson has to go to a secure location to read it and cannot take notes or document anything that's in the bill. And then you have both Obama and Boehner, who seemingly agree on nothing, both chiding the House today for voting no. It smells to high heaven, and it's the same big business establishment crony douchebags who all seem to want to pass it.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:54 |
|
cheese posted:If I could empty quote this I would. There is ZERO reason to believe that a super secret trade deal would do anything other than massively benefit mega sized multinational corporations and gently caress over billions of people around the globe. I, too, have no understanding of how large international negotiations take place and think that every aspect of the negotiation should be subject to scrutiny by at least 300 million people. That's the way it's always been done right?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:57 |
|
Basically whatever "national" industries have the biggest pull within a negotiating nation is going to come out ahead and the smaller industries/sectors are going to be "sacrificed" to appease the other party (the US). So for example theJapanese car makers will get a good deal while the Japanese farmers are going to get hosed over. Or for the other trade treaty on the other side of the globe I imagine the European Ethanol producers will get screwed while the European Biodiesel industry might just come out ahead compared to the comparably smaller US one. I'm sure Economists will hail this as "efficiency", but not so fun when you are in the industry getting hosed over and your university of rice farming degree don't carry over to the Car industry or whatever.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:58 |
Fojar38 posted:I, too, have no understanding of how large international negotiations take place and think that every aspect of the negotiation should be subject to scrutiny by at least 300 million people. That's the way it's always been done right? This isn't a diplomatic matter, it's pure business. The government regulates large scale business matters all the time (monopolies, etc), what's so special about the TPP?
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 20:11 |
|
Fojar38 posted:I, too, have no understanding of how large international negotiations take place and think that every aspect of the negotiation should be subject to scrutiny by at least 300 million people. That's the way it's always been done right?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 20:21 |
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:This isn't a diplomatic matter, it's pure business. Uhh, a trade agreement involving 12 countries isn't a diplomatic matter how? cheese posted:Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal. It isn't subject to scrutiny by your elected officials except for how it is? I mean yes, you can make the argument that you can't understand the full impact of it without being able to take notes or compare it to previous trade legislation, but saying that it isn't subject to scrutiny by elected members of Congress is false. Congresspeople have gone in and looked at the agreement and come out of it with different interpretations of it so there's obviously enough for them to be able to form a general opinion on it.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 20:49 |
|
cheese posted:Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal. You are, actually. They will have open access to the agreed upon text to determine if the U.S. would like to sign on to the deal as a whole, but (as a condition of the negotiations) they don't have open access to the text while it's being negotiated. You realize that the "TPP" votes have been, essentially, on whether or not the President can present the negotiated deal to Congress as an unamendable package for an up or down vote, right? Like, no one is voting right now on the actual contents of the deal except in the most general sense (the kind that briefings and limited access provides in plenty.). Voting yes on TPA and TAA is a precondition to an eventual vote on the negotiated text; it is no way actual approval of the negotiated text. All Obama/USTR are trying to do right now is make sure that they can negotiate with other people without having to worry about various Senators offering amendments to gently caress up the deal, because that's the only way anyone else is going to be willing to negotiate with the U.S. Part of the necessary preconditions for that are secrecy. And constitutionally, this is loving fine. The Senate may advise and consent on treaties. That is the same language as used with respect to nominations. Senators don't get to propose nominees - they take the nominees and (don't) vote on them. Similarly, the Senate takes a treaty and can approve or reject it. Constitutionally, they have no role in negotiations and a Senate-amended treaty still has to be approved by both the President and the other signatories to the treaty. This is simply the negotiating parties signaling, in advance, that they will reject all amendments in order to simplify the negotiations.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:52 |
|
Yeah I'm sure there's nothing at all to worry about an up or down vote with the GOP controlling both houses. Surely they'll stop it if it ends up being a massive giveaway to multinational corporations with nothing at all to benefit anyone else whatsoever .
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 23:28 |
|
You have a great deal to worry about, but not necessarily procedurally.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 23:50 |
|
MaxxBot posted:Yeah I'm sure there's nothing at all to worry about an up or down vote with the GOP controlling both houses. Surely they'll stop it if it ends up being a massive giveaway to multinational corporations with nothing at all to benefit anyone else whatsoever . The chance of it failing is actually greater because it's an Obama thing.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 00:07 |
|
Holy poo poo this thread is like watching The Five - lots of really strong opinions and almost no real data.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 00:11 |
|
Boon posted:almost no real data. Crux of the issue.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 00:15 |
|
cheese posted:Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal. This is fox news grade ignorance of the process. Constitutionally the executive branch gets to do lots of things without continuous congressional oversight. But unlike many of those other things, this actually has to pass through them after becoming completely public.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 01:27 |
|
Yes, clearly it's all well and good that most legislators have very limited access to this bill whereas industry lobbyists are allowed to write large portions of it. Anyone who questions this process is simply ignorant.quote:Revealed Emails Show How Industry Lobbyists Basically Wrote The TPP quote:Confidential USTR Emails Show Close Industry Involvement In TPP Negotiations
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 01:53 |
|
computer parts posted:The chance of it failing is actually greater because it's an Obama thing. Acceptable disagreement in politics ends where major corporations/monied interests have their power grabs challenged, then it simply becomes a 'bipartisan' issue. This is a bill that undermines democracy and grants private industries huge powers, so naturally it's gonna pass without any public debate at all.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 02:32 |
|
rudatron posted:No it isn't, because all the industries that wrote it are gonna whip them into line. Which wouldn't happen in a Democratic controlled Congress?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 02:41 |
|
I'm not sure "This agreement helps some corporations" is a sufficient reason to oppose it, since that argument applies to every free trade agreement ever made.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 02:45 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not sure "This agreement helps some corporations" is a sufficient reason to oppose it, since that argument applies to every free trade agreement ever made. This agreement helps some corporations whose interests seem to be opposed to mine as a working class, US citizen. We're already struggling in this country to bring wages back up to livable levels; a complicated multinational agreement with absolute sovereignty over even our domestic courts does not seem to further this agenda, nor benefit the working class. Similar agreements, with similar promises, have failed to make good on their claims to benefit working class Americans, and this agreement is being couched in the same language, with the same promises being made. So, even without knowing what's specifically in the bill, an understanding of history tells me that when the government tries to put together an enormous international treaty, takes the advise of private interested parties while shunning public scrutiny, and promises economic prosperity for all, I should be skeptical if not immediately opposed to the agreement.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:04 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:So, even without knowing what's specifically in the bill, an understanding of history tells me that when the government tries to put together an enormous international treaty, takes the advise of private interested parties while shunning public scrutiny, and promises economic prosperity for all, I should be skeptical if not immediately opposed to the agreement. Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:06 |
|
computer parts posted:Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public? The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all. But at least we knew. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:13 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all. Rude.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:14 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all. Excellent defense of your position.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:14 |
|
Fojar38 posted:Excellent defense of your position. Thanks, arguing with pedantic idiots seemed to be a waste of time, so calling out someone who's zeroing into the one point people continuously err over (the secrecy) and derailing the thread incessantly seemed to be the right call.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:17 |
|
Yeah. It's almost like this forum was called Debate and Discussion or something.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:18 |
|
Boon posted:Yeah. It's almost like this forum was called Debate and Discussion or something. Fine, we'll play the game. computer parts posted:Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public? None. This is a strawman argument. I never said that treaties "have ever or should ever be conducted completely in public." Well, that was fun, thanks everyone!
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:23 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:
You said this one shuns public scrutiny. Aren't all treaties at some point shunning public scrutiny?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:24 |
|
computer parts posted:You said this one shuns public scrutiny. Aren't all treaties at some point shunning public scrutiny? To varying degrees, yes. And your point is? Also, still a straw man as my personal dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency is a completely separate issue from my supposedly thinking "all treaties must be conducted completely in public." - a statement I do not agree with. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jun 14, 2015 |
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:25 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:To varying degrees, yes. And your point is? What makes you think this one shuns public scrutiny more than normal? I assume it must, otherwise you wouldn't put it (shunning public scrutiny) as a reason for distrusting the treaty.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:26 |
|
computer parts posted:What makes you think this one shuns public scrutiny more than normal? Its actually the first part of the sentence that upsets me most, not this trivial poorly phrased tack on at the tend! Its access. There is access to this treaty, its just that the people who most successfully represent and defend me don't seem to have access, while the people who seem to be doing everything they can to lower my standard of living do. Also, one can discuss the contents and intentions of a treaty without giving up specific information within it. In addition, there is often illegal/illicit sharing of treaty information, a practice I approve of, even though its "against the rules." edit: The point is, the whole "secrecy" thing wouldn't matter if there were people in the negotiations the public believed would look after our interests. Instead, its a complete lack of these people that has everyone worried. "But what about the government!? They look after our interests," a moron was heard asking. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 14, 2015 |
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:30 |
|
Helsing posted:Yes, clearly it's all well and good that most legislators have very limited access to this bill whereas industry lobbyists are allowed to write large portions of it. Anyone who questions this process is simply ignorant. Correct. People that imply this is new or unusual are ignorant of how international treaties are typically negotiated (not publicly). So can we put that one to bed yet? I'd like to see better critism than this. This same thing could said of domestic regulations. The industries are getting access to snippets here, not the whole thing (which, again, is eventually going to be public).
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:34 |
|
computer parts posted:Which wouldn't happen in a Democratic controlled Congress? computer parts posted:What makes you think this one shuns public scrutiny more than normal?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:37 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:39 |
|
rudatron posted:Why are industry lobbyists getting access to, and getting their input sought over, a trade deal were secrecy is, for some reason, vitally important? Everything that's leaked over it (see - the wikileaks stuff) casts some serious doubts that it is in the public interest. Bingo, no one cares if its secret as long as there are people there looking out for you and protecting you. Its almost like people are using the word "secrecy" as a stand in for the complicated idea "preferred access."
|
# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:42 |