|
Are we still taking the "its secret and thats bad" position? As if trade deals subject to constant referendum by hundreds of millions of people wouldn't effectively die instantly?
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:07 |
|
Fojar38 posted:Are we still taking the "its secret and thats bad" position? As if trade deals subject to constant referendum by hundreds of millions of people wouldn't effectively die instantly? Assuredly, democracy is doomed to failure, and only oligarchy works.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:By frequently you mean "so far once with regards to a provision that had been renegotiated, but is still pretty bad in the overall scheme of the bill"? So 100% of the time so far? quote:Why should we assume that a bill with the stated goal of removing regulation and tariffs which protect domestic workers from a global race to the bottom is good, irregardless of any other known provisions, is good? That's not the stated goal, that's what you assume the goal is. I can't imagine why someone wouldn't take you seriously. quote:So the worst consequences of campaigning now is that you might look silly if everything in the draft has been renegotiated into puppies and rainbows. Meanwhile the worst consequence of waiting until the last month is that you are massively behind in a PR race against an abysmal bill, but I guess you get to maintain your potential personal dignity? Yeah, I like not bloviating about things and being proven completely wrong when actual facts come out, which is why I am a bad D&D poster. And waiting a month isn't going to put you "massively behind in a PR race" even if it winds up being abysmal because hey, turns out that it doesn't matter if the negotiators agreed in principle if Congress turns it down. By shouting about it now based on bad info, you get ignored when good info comes out and you turn out to have been wrong (because you already cried wolf) instead of being taken seriously for providing accurate info.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Assuredly, democracy is doomed to failure, and only oligarchy works. The treaty will be available to the public about a month before it's voted here. That's plenty long enough. Neurolimal posted:a bill with the stated goal of removing regulation and tariffs which protect domestic workers from a global race to the bottom [Citation Needed] Last I checked, the main goal was "make trading with China less appealing/necessary" which has a ton to do with why it's wildly popular in Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:56
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The treaty will be available to the public about a month before it's voted here. That's plenty long enough. I'm referring to the attitude that trade deals can only be conducted when the public is ignorant of what's happening. Obviously, this isn't true for TPP.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Assuredly, democracy is doomed to failure, and only oligarchy works. Democracy is dead because a vote wasn't called before government did thing I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm referring to the attitude that trade deals can only be conducted when the public is ignorant of what's happening. Obviously, this isn't true for TPP. Yeah when you're talking major multilateral trade deals transparency isn't wanted by any of the parties involved until it's nearly complete. Mostly because diplomats and negotiators are picky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
quote:Pretty often? They consider their role primarily to put up leaks as fast as possible, and not to do too much investigation on veracity themselves. As a whole, would you say wikileaks is unreliable and cant be trusted? Have you held this stance on other wikileaks involved leaks? quote:The treaty will be available to the public about a month before it's voted here. That's plenty long enough. Except that's a very insignificant amount of time compared to the time that will be spent declaring the mystery bill a historic moment in-the-making. Nintendo Kid posted:Last I checked, the main goal was "make trading with China less appealing/necessary" which has a ton to do with why it's wildly popular in Vietnam. And how do you make trading with china (country with terrible work protections and rock-bottom unskilled labor wages) less appealing than its neighbors? if IP enforcement, a corporate court, and the removal of regulation and tariffs that allow domestic goods to compete are not likely to be a part of the deal, what will be in the agreement to achieve this goal? Keep in mind that your response should make sense with regards to official statements of those involved in the deal, who boast about how the agreement liberalizes trade and "removes red tape".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:32
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Democracy is dead because a vote wasn't called before government did thing I don't like. You're the guy who said that a truly representative government would be incapable of making trade deals. I know it's because you don't have the brainpower to understand what passes your lips, but that is saying that only oligarchies can function, you moron. Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah when you're talking major multilateral trade deals transparency isn't wanted by any of the parties involved until it's nearly complete. Mostly because diplomats and negotiators are picky. I'd say on a theoretical level it's important that large-scale treaties need to be considered as whole units rather than as single articles, because that's a more accurate picture of what they'll do in practice.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As a whole, would you say wikileaks is unreliable and cant be trusted? Have you held this stance on other wikileaks involved leaks? As a whole yes, just because it is on wikileaks does not mean it can be trusted. You seem to completely misunderstand them, they don't claim to be an authority on what's legit or not. Ok and? How is that thing you made up meant to be an impediment to Joe Average managing to convince Congress to not vote for it? You've got everything completely backwards. It's currently easier to trade with China because of sheer scale more than anything. Many of the other countries involved, we have restrictive trade policies with that make them trading with us (and each other) less attractive than for them to trade with China, or for use to trade with China. Various things agreed to in the thing make it so all 12 countries involved have easier trade relations. It's not about turning Australia into a sweatshop or whatever you seem to think it's about. And keep in mind that two of the countries involved, Canada and Mexico, are obviously already in extremely friendly trade relations with the US, but are not nearly as much with the other 9 countries. Obsessing about it like it's all about the US is part of why you don't understand anything involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm referring to the attitude that trade deals can only be conducted when the public is ignorant of what's happening. Obviously, this isn't true for TPP. Public opinion is worth exactly poo poo and you should feel bad that you think the public at large or our dysfunctional as gently caress Congress should be able to scuttle major international deals before they're even close to final.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Boon posted:Public opinion is worth exactly poo poo and you should feel bad that you think the public at large or our dysfunctional as gently caress Congress should be able to scuttle major international deals before they're even close to final. Yeah, gently caress democracy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:45
|
|
Boon posted:Public opinion is worth exactly poo poo and you should feel bad that you think the public at large or our dysfunctional as gently caress Congress should be able to scuttle major international deals before they're even close to final. On the other hand, bash the fash.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
"Okay so I have it on record that you are proposing reducing tariffs by 60% instead of 65%. Noted, I'll see you in 6 months after we vote on what our counter-proposal will be."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:49
|
|
Fojar38 posted:"Okay so I have it on record that you are proposing reducing tariffs by 60% instead of 65%. Noted, I'll see you in 6 months after we vote on what our counter-proposal will be." Why don't you just emigrate to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Fojar?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah, gently caress democracy! Yeah man, we're totally a democracy and that's the way our government is set up. Oh wait
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why don't you just emigrate to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Fojar? What sorts of actions do you believe a government should be able to take without putting it to a national referendum?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:55
|
|
Boon posted:Yeah man, we're totally a democracy and that's the way our government is set up. Andrew Jackson, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the suffragists- they all put paid to your fantasy world. Fojar38 posted:Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan were also in the negotiations and it was just as opaque for them as for the USA. I guess none of them are democracies either. Could you please try to be a little bit smarter, and recognize that I am talking about the loving implications of the things you are saying, the ideological beliefs that underlie "The public should have no power whatsoever because I'm an authoritarian running dog and should have a bigass nail pounded into each ear," the statements you are making? Effectronica fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As a whole, would you say wikileaks is unreliable and cant be trusted? Have you held this stance on other wikileaks involved leaks? Yes and yes. And justifiably - they've trumpeted all sorts of poo poo in the past by dishonest editing of their releases, and have literally zero desire to exercise any sort of verification or analysis that would lead to understanding what their leaks mean and making sure they're actually leaks. They aren't trustworthy as a source of information. quote:Except that's a very insignificant amount of time compared to the time that will be spent declaring the mystery bill a historic moment in-the-making. Which it could be! Of course the same dynamics apply there - until there are specifics, people tend to take those claims with a grain of salt, and if they're shown to have lied then any valid claims of benefit will be ignored. quote:And how do you make trading with china (country with terrible work protections and rock-bottom unskilled labor wages) less appealing than its neighbors? if IP enforcement, a corporate court, and the removal of regulation and tariffs that allow domestic goods to compete are not likely to be a part of the deal, what will be in the agreement to achieve this goal? Keep in mind that your response should make sense with regards to official statements of those involved in the deal, who boast about how the agreement liberalizes trade and "removes red tape". By keeping tariffs on Chinese goods and incorporating the kind of worker/environmental protections into the deal that appear to be in the final version so that you can have improvements for workers while still having a price advantage over China? I mean, that's sort of the entire point of trade deals - you're creating an in group that gets advantages and using the deal to force norms onto that group. For example, requiring signatories to recognize the right to collective bargaining, which is an improvement for several of the nations involved. As more public info comes out, all of the people who've been screaming that the deal will destroy everything keep looking worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Andrew Jackson, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the suffragists- they all put paid to your fantasy world. He gave a zero effort response and so did I. Can we at least acknowledge that US politics and the public are not capable of handling this kind of discourse and that's not at all unreasonable for negotiators to make an inredibly partisan body privy to a deal, any deal, which will ultimately have winners and losers and long term implications. Its even part of the discussion in this week's economist about US economic hegemon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:02
|
|
Boon posted:He gave a zero effort response and so did I. No, we can't acknowledge that because it's bullshit aristocratism and I won't be having it in this country.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Could you please try to be a little bit smarter, and recognize that I am talking about the loving implications of the things you are saying, the ideological beliefs that underlie "The public should have no power whatsoever because I'm an authoritarian running dog and should have a bigass nail pounded into each ear," the statements you are making? Thinking that trade deal negotiations should be confidential until finalized is literal fascism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Boon posted:He gave a zero effort response and so did I. Nope. Sorry, maybe it is just me but I find the argument that the public isn't capable of handling discourse as deeply troubling. Despite your glibness the US republic is still a democratic system of government (Its why they have a party called the Democratic party for example!) and the idea that legislation needs to be secret because if it is open to the public the public will hate it seems so counter-intuitive to any sort of government by the people that it seems laughable on it's face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:Nope. How much do you agree with the phrase "Audit the Fed"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:16
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Thinking that trade deal negotiations should be confidential until finalized is literal fascism. Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There posted:‘I only said “if”!’ poor Alice pleaded in a piteous tone.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:How much do you agree with the phrase "Audit the Fed"? They violated their mandate by bailing out other national banks. The global oligarchy is completely rotten and there is nothing rational about the financial system. There should be debt jubilees for regular people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're the guy who said that a truly representative government would be incapable of making trade deals. I know it's because you don't have the brainpower to understand what passes your lips, but that is saying that only oligarchies can function, you moron. Or representative democracy where the representatives vote to give the president special power to negotiate the treaty and to limit their own powers to amend it beforing voting up and down on it after it becomes public. Caros posted:Nope. Whoops! It's not secret and you don't understand international negotiations. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
McDowell posted:They violated their mandate by bailing out other national banks. The global oligarchy is completely rotten and there is nothing rational about the financial system. There should be debt jubilees for regular people. They've actually violated it 3 times since 2008, but 90% of Americans of voting age honestly were polled to think the Federal Reserve managed the nations wildlife, so let Trump win & the Fed keep acting as an World Bank SDR. 90% of people don't care, and 99% of people are just happy 4Chan still lets them post while not working double shifts at McDonalds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Our leaders have definitely demonstrated that they'd never ever put the interests of their donors and the people who give them super high paying private sector jobs after leaving office over the good of the public and the country as a whole. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about in this highly secretive treaty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
New Zealand's copyright is going to be extended to 70 years from 50, and patent protection for some biologics will be extended to 8 years from 5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
tekz posted:Our leaders have definitely demonstrated that they'd never ever put the interests of their donors and the people who give them super high paying private sector jobs after leaving office over the good of the public and the country as a whole. Oh look, one minor change and I have a 5 year old post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh look, one minor change and I have a 5 year old post. An actively discussed and publically fought over bill isn't the same thing as a trade treaty where the signatories have gone to extreme lengths to keep public stakeholders out of the discussion. Tpp = obamacare and thats why its good. This forum lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:New Zealand's copyright is going to be extended to 70 years from 50, and patent protection for some biologics will be extended to 8 years from 5. No, patent protection won't be extended (for example, NZ already has a 20 years from filing date term for biologics patents). You're confusing that with data exclusivity, which is different, and it's not actually clear yet if NZ will have to extend past 5 - the agreement definitely sets a 5 year floor but there's some uncertainty as to whether the second option countries can choose (5+3) will effectively be a 5 year or 8 year period, or if the 3 year regulatory review portion really will vary. Data exclusivity essentially guarantees a certain period (eg 5 years) after marketing approval in which biosimilars can't enter using an abbreviated regulatory proceeding (like an ANDA, but slightly different because it's a biologic, not a small chemical). If the drug is off patent during that time frame, a biosimilars maker can still enter if they do the full clinical trials, but can't rely on the data generated by the innovator company until the exclusivity period expires. If the drug is still on patent after the 5 years, you still can't enter without challenging the patent, but you can rely on their testing to show that your drug is safe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, patent protection won't be extended (for example, NZ already has a 20 years from filing date term for biologics patents). You're confusing that with data exclusivity, which is different, and it's not actually clear yet if NZ will have to extend past 5 - the agreement definitely sets a 5 year floor but there's some uncertainty as to whether the second option countries can choose (5+3) will effectively be a 5 year or 8 year period, or if the 3 year regulatory review portion really will vary. That data exclusivity is what I was talking about, along with dairy it's the biggest issue here quote:http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/286235/tpp-fight-continues-after-deal-signed
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Are we still taking the "its secret and thats bad" position? As if trade deals subject to constant referendum by hundreds of millions of people wouldn't effectively die instantly? Eight pages and you're all still fishmeching over this, the least important part of the subject
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:They've actually violated it 3 times since 2008, but 90% of Americans of voting age honestly were polled to think the Federal Reserve managed the nations wildlife, so let Trump win & the Fed keep acting as an World Bank SDR. 90% of people don't care, and 99% of people are just happy 4Chan still lets them post while not working double shifts at McDonalds. And they call me a misanthrope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Obama's legacy hangs in the balance. If this treaty can be stopped, his future is secure and unblemished.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
huh it's almost like the neoliberal centrist wants a legacy of neoliberal centrist policy
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Eight pages and you're all still fishmeching over this, the least important part of the subject And yet it keeps getting brought up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
computer parts posted:And yet it keeps getting brought up. Explaining why trade deals work like this doesn't justify it. The people deserve to know what their temporarily elected representatives are shoving into a bill that wont be up for renewal debate for 25 years. Especially when everyone in this thread (and this forum) will agree that politicians tend to be biased towards the elite due to the lobbyist system. Appealing to law is absurd when the law is insufficient or dysfunctional in the face of current problems. This has been a central belief in multiple progressive movements and protests. I'd argue that half of the people in this thread have used this point in defense of victims of police brutality, but are unwilling to apply it to a scenario as grand and abstract as free trade, especially when the person pushing it has a (D) next to their name. Transparency is good. Secrecy is bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:27
|
|