|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't see what's impractical about doing it in 30 days, let alone the apparent actual 120 days, if there really is things so bad in it to be worth rejecting the whole thing? I seem to remember for example the protests for that one internet bill getting together in like a week (of course it was actually defeated because of corporate lobbying by those that opposed it for hurting their business model) international agreements in general are often enormous and hugely technical documents put together very carefully to obscure any ill effects they might have for constituent populations. the coalition that will reflexively favour trade agreements in particular is generally going to be significantly advantaged over the opposition in any event, since they will, in addition to their presumed material and institutional advantage, know the ins and outs of the document better and in advance, having written it. essentially, those in favour may reasonably be expected to have a head start anyway - the longer the actual process of deliberation is, the less this advantage counts. i am aware that there's a movement opposing this treaty - what i'm saying is, i don't see how this is a bad thing like you're implying (or at least, this is how i read your posts), regardless of the intellectual rigour of some adherents of said movement. if it is necessary, surely it's better to have an established infrastructure and ideological basis for it as early as possible?
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ok three months is better than one. i don't think the point is defeated, though - building a movement to counter something like this takes time, and if you're going to wait until the finished draft is out you're severely minimising your chances of accomplishing anything. the reason i'm saying this is because, as i mentioned, it does not seem unreasonable to have an ideological skepticism to free-trade agreements based on historical precedent and some kind of power-analysis about who's doing the negotiations. what i'm driving at is that the game is rigged, and so taking shortcuts through ideology to try and even the odds a little strikes me as, well, perfectly reasonable. The good news for you is that lots of other people also share your priori assumptions so the groundwprk has already been laid and the text of the deal doesn't matter too much anyway. As an aside it's interesting how your assumptions require you to assume a power imbalance between rich and poor countries but to automatically trust that the interests of rich workers lines up with everyone else [its a curse of marxism to classify people thi way]. It's just as likely that rich workers will try to mobilize to screw poor workers as it is for capital to do the same. That's exactly what first world anti-trade movements typically represent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:international agreements in general are often enormous and hugely technical documents put together very carefully to obscure any ill effects they might have for constituent populations. the coalition that will reflexively favour trade agreements in particular is generally going to be significantly advantaged over the opposition in any event, since they will, in addition to their presumed material and institutional advantage, know the ins and outs of the document better and in advance, having written it. essentially, those in favour may reasonably be expected to have a head start anyway - the longer the actual process of deliberation is, the less this advantage counts. Sure, but on the other hand, presumably there are a bunch of people eager to dive into it and get to work on interpreting it as soon as the thing is available. Frankly, the concern that it can't be done in a week, let alone a month, seems outdated - if this was still 1965 I would be way more in favor of an extended period. The movement that already 100% opposes it on the basis of negative knowledge is still foolish, regardless of what hypothetical benefits it may result in. However, there's always going to be bunch of people who oppose anything, so it's not like there's ever a risk of losing that "infrastructure".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The good news for you is that lots of other people also share your priori assumptions so the groundwprk has already been laid and the text of the deal doesn't matter too much anyway. i honestly don't understand why you feel obliged to butt into a discussion to which you are neither welcome nor competent to participate, but i will not turn this into yet another "people in varying degrees of frustration try and fail to explain basic concepts to asdf32" thread Nintendo Kid posted:Sure, but on the other hand, presumably there are a bunch of people eager to dive into it and get to work on interpreting it as soon as the thing is available. Frankly, the concern that it can't be done in a week, let alone a month, seems outdated - if this was still 1965 I would be way more in favor of an extended period. i feel like you're being too caught up in what people are articulating as opposed to what they're trying to say (be this conscious or not) - which is that "free trade agreements in the recent past have a shady history" + "we need to get going ASAP" + "the proponents have a head start [due to secrecy]". taking rhetoric on face value is an analytical weakness imo, and i think that this is what you're doing right now
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i feel like you're being too caught up in what people are articulating as opposed to what they're trying to say (be this conscious or not) - which is that "free trade agreements in the recent past have a shady history" + "we need to get going ASAP" + "the proponents have a head start [due to secrecy]". taking rhetoric on face value is an analytical weakness imo, and i think that this is what you're doing right now Personally I believe all the real damage has already been done as far as extracting jobs from the wealthy countries, and the only country that truly stands to lose out with regard to TPP is China, since it is after all an anti-China pact. I mean what, was it just not having Vietnam in a favorable trade position preventing a factory from going overseas? Was Conglomco Inc just waiting for favorable terms with New Zealand to move their plant there? The biggest change likely seems to be lowering restrictions on the Japanese automotive industry directly exporting from Japan, but are they really willing to sacrifice all the capital they spent for facilities in US/Canada/Mexico to take advantage? I'm not sure that they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Personally I believe all the real damage has already been done as far as extracting jobs from the wealthy countries, and the only country that truly stands to lose out with regard to TPP is China, since it is after all an anti-China pact. I mean what, was it just not having Vietnam in a favorable trade position preventing a factory from going overseas? Was Conglomco Inc just waiting for favorable terms with New Zealand to move their plant there? it seems to me that at this point you are doing what you yourself said was not to be done, i.e. speculating as to the specific content of the trade agreement before it has been published and using this to argue about it - if we go down this road, drug copyright reform or w/e like the Commonwealthers were worried about does not seem to be an impossibility, nor does the sort of supernational trade arbitration or competition laws that's been used to scare people with TTIP in particular of course, it's not given, because we don't know, and i am perfectly comfortable with discussing from those premises
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i honestly don't understand why you feel obliged to butt into a discussion to which you are neither welcome nor competent to participate, but i will not turn this into yet another "people in varying degrees of frustration try and fail to explain basic concepts to asdf32" thread So you're wondering why after sharing your priori assumptions about trade in a trade thread somone is challenging you on those assumptions and some of the other things you said about trade. Ok! Also, like I already said, although we like to pretend these debates hinge on facts, they don't. They hinge on ideology and deeper underlying assumptions. Hence the discussion of exactly that. Which you helped start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
The corporate court/ISDS provisions are sufficiently noxious that the bill could include provisions for all people everywhere to get free puppies and high-paying jobs for life and still be inexcusable. If you're broadly in favor of the world's legal system looking more like loving Shadowrun then your human and civil rights should be violated vigorously and often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:The corporate court/ISDS provisions are sufficiently noxious that the bill could include provisions for all people everywhere to get free puppies and high-paying jobs for life and still be inexcusable. If you're broadly in favor of the world's legal system looking more like loving Shadowrun then your human and civil rights should be violated vigorously and often. Pssssst. ISDS provisions exist already and haven't turned the world into shadowrun. Also the reason it exists is because you SHOULD be able to sue governments and that's not necessarily true everywhere. The uproar over them is dumb (yes, that includes Warren's screed) because all it amounts to is a worldwide implementation of the concept of regulatory takings, which is generally a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Being suspicious of the TPP on the grounds that it's a free-trade treaty is perfectly reasonable. Automatically believing unverified leaks from a negotiation process is not. Ignoring the differences of context between the TPP and NAFTA or the Eurozone is also somewhat vulgar as far as Marxism goes, because the most likely geopolitical aspirations of the TPP mean that it should favor the poor countries the US is trying to pull away from China, which would realistically outweigh the Golden Straitjacket poo poo, unless we assume that all the countries are of one mind.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Pssssst. ISDS provisions exist already and haven't turned the world into shadowrun. Also the reason it exists is because you SHOULD be able to sue governments and that's not necessarily true everywhere. The uproar over them is dumb (yes, that includes Warren's screed) because all it amounts to is a worldwide implementation of the concept of regulatory takings, which is generally a good thing. What is your opinion on these two cases? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...nt-9807478.html http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/06/house-votes-to-repeal-country-of-origin-labeling-for-meat/ Of course in the US case the lawmakers were eager and willing to bow to their corporate masters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
I'm sure the reason this treaty has been so carefully crafted and cleverly hidden has nothing to do with anybody's secret agenda. It's also reassuring that as a treaty, it can't really be dismantled or cast aside. Let's give it a fair hearing. I'm sure it was only kept secret from us for so long because it's too important to trust to your average citizen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
So what sorts of things can the government do in secret since apparently they aren't allowed to negotiate with foreign powers in secret now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
phasmid posted:I'm sure the reason this treaty has been so carefully crafted and cleverly hidden has nothing to do with anybody's secret agenda. It's also reassuring that as a treaty, it can't really be dismantled or cast aside. Let's give it a fair hearing. I'm sure it was only kept secret from us for so long because it's too important to trust to your average citizen. Are the infowars comment boards redirecting here? Fojar38 posted:So what sorts of things can the government do in secret since apparently they aren't allowed to negotiate with foreign powers in secret now? Let's hope the answer is something given that most things the government does are secret before becoming completely public (if they ever become public like this treaty will) and representative democracy and government as we know it would come to an end if this wasn't true. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:What is your opinion on these two cases? In response to my pointing out that ISDS provisions exist and are fine, you pointed to: 1) A dispute filed as a test case, meaning they're relatively less likely to win, which hasn't even come close to a decision. (FWIW, they should lose on the warning size portion but win on the trademark portion - barring the use of marks for a specific product is exactly the kind of issue ISDS are designed for.) 2) A case where the challenger lost. Not exactly a ringing rebuttal to "they exist and are basically fine."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
It sounds like "corporate courts" is a massive scare tactic by ignorant people, similar to how CDNs were called "fast lanes to the internet" back during the net neutrality panic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Pssssst. ISDS provisions exist already and haven't turned the world into shadowrun. Also the reason it exists is because you SHOULD be able to sue governments and that's not necessarily true everywhere. The uproar over them is dumb (yes, that includes Warren's screed) because all it amounts to is a worldwide implementation of the concept of regulatory takings, which is generally a good thing. Yeah you should be able to sue governments in boring old regular court. Corporations should by definition be the government's bitch when countries decide to outlaw things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 14:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
computer parts posted:It sounds like "corporate courts" is a massive scare tactic by ignorant people, similar to how CDNs were called "fast lanes to the internet" back during the net neutrality panic. "Death panels" phasmid posted:I'm sure the reason this treaty has been so carefully crafted and cleverly hidden has nothing to do with anybody's secret agenda. It's also reassuring that as a treaty, it can't really be dismantled or cast aside. Let's give it a fair hearing. I'm sure it was only kept secret from us for so long because it's too important to trust to your average citizen. Call it aristocratic or what you will, but I just don't think I or anyone else not in Fight club have a right to be given access to on ongoing international negotiations, especially since the negotiating power is specifically delineated to the executive branch which is decidedly not beholden to public opinion. Requiring negotiations to be open to public scrutiny is as absurd to me as requiring Department of Defense plans to be open to public scrutiny. Nice in theory, absurd in reality. Boon fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
phasmid posted:I'm sure the reason this treaty has been so carefully crafted and cleverly hidden has nothing to do with anybody's secret agenda. phasmid posted:It's also reassuring that as a treaty, it can't really be dismantled or cast aside. Let's give it a fair hearing. I'm sure it was only kept secret from us for so long because it's too important to trust to your average citizen. I like your assertion that of course it's going to pass. Are you really not aware that it actually has to be voted on more than 3 months after the text is public?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yeah you should be able to sue governments in boring old regular court. Corporations should by definition be the government's bitch when countries decide to outlaw things. Except it's not about the corporation it's about the law. In the case of a corporation suing over a treaty that's a matter of whether the government is following its own agreement or not. If the U.S. agrees in the TPP to remove tariffs on Japanese cars and then writes a law reinstating them it's in breach of its own prior agreement and Toyota would have grounds to sue (getting reparations for losses if it wins). It's a pretty basic enforcement mechanism actually and one that's been used for decades in other instances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Boon posted:Requiring negotiations to be open to public scrutiny is as absurd to me as requiring Department of Defense plans to be open to public scrutiny. Nice in theory, absurd in reality. How on earth are those two equivalent. Are people going to be at a greater risk of being shot if the public can read trade negotiations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Boon posted:Requiring negotiations to be open to public scrutiny is as absurd to me as requiring Department of Defense plans to be open to public scrutiny. Nice in theory, absurd in reality. Wait what's wrong with this. We tried trusting the executive branch and the DoD and they went to war with the wrong country without even bothering to fabricate evidence to substantiate their claims of imaginary WMDs, it was a huge boondoggle that killed thousands of people and wasted trillions of dollars, so clearly giving them discretion and secrecy was a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Taitale posted:How on earth are those two equivalent. Because transparency doesn't benefit people in either case. You can't plan war publicly and you can't negotiate treaties publicly either withought seriously weakening your position at the least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:Call it aristocratic or what you will, but I just don't think I or anyone else not in Fight club have a right to be given access to on ongoing international negotiations, especially since the negotiating power is specifically delineated to the executive branch which is decidedly not beholden to public opinion. This isn't a war, lives are not in jeopardy, revealing what our representatives are pushing for provides far more benefits to the represented than any potential damage that could be done. Trade is not something that you have to leave to the "big boys" (when they arent gambling on bubbles and endorsing austerity against the advice of economists). It concerns workers as a whole and we deserve to be aware of what is happening to our rights. Fojar38 posted:So what sorts of things can the government do in secret since apparently they aren't allowed to negotiate with foreign powers in secret now? Anything that may jeopardize human lives and otherwise does not concern or affect the representes people; the government is well within its rights to reserve information regarding spies, espionage, double-agents, etc., so long as it is not committed on the represented (in which case the people seserve to know why and how, if not the specifics) and the information is provided once it is no longer crucial and will not harm lives. asdf32 posted:Except it's not about the corporation it's about the law. In the case of a corporation suing over a treaty that's a matter of whether the government is following its own agreement or not. If the corporate courts only concerned the enforcement of trade law then it would be understandable. The wording used was along the lines of "harm/inhibit growth". This is too vague a purpose to establish a court with jurisdiction over countries for. The lawsuit in Egypt over the grotesque crime of raising the minimum wage is a good example of this. As well, as Elizabeth Warren elaborated on, the pool of judges and lawyers that will be used in this court are by their nature tainted and biased towards the corporations involved in the system. asdf32 posted:Because transparency doesn't benefit people in either case. Trade is not War. Trade concerns the public. Trade affects the public. Trade deals can compromise the publics' rights. The people deserve to know what will be impacting them. The only way this line of thought is either A) You genuinely believe the public is unworthy of protecting themselves, and should expect lobbyist-guided officials to handle their wellbeing without public oversight or B) this is indeed a war, on the public, and subject to the laws and methods of war. In which case your defense of the elite's actions clearly displays which side you belong to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
At what point do we drop protectionist trade policies like those in the auto industry when foreign manufacturers can to a better job for a cheaper price? edit: I just bought a subaru so why am I still paying a tariff to protect a local brand whose product sucks and costs more? These policies subsidize companies at my expense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This isn't a war, lives are not in jeopardy, revealing what our representatives are pushing for provides far more benefits to the represented than any potential damage that could be done. And you will. Unfortunately, you're not entitled to know what's being done as it's being done and I don't know why you think you are. You want to know, that doesn't mean you have a right to know. quote:Anything that may jeopardize human lives and otherwise does not concern or affect the representes people; the government is well within its rights to reserve information regarding spies, espionage, double-agents, etc., so long as it is not committed on the represented (in which case the people seserve to know why and how, if not the specifics) and the information is provided once it is no longer crucial and will not harm lives. This seems like an awfully arbitrary line of thinking that you literally just formulated on the spot. quote:Trade is not War. Trade concerns the public. Trade affects the public. Trade deals can compromise the publics' rights. The people deserve to know what will be impacting them. How does war not concern or affect the public? Because since Vietnam it has literally not impacted you personally? War historically has affected the public more than any other action that the government can take in international affairs and your statement is ridiculous on it's face. I'd go with some sort of formulation of A where, yes, I deeply believe that the public is unable to look out for it's own best interests. It's why we have laws and regulations on everything from financial markets to how fast you can drive your car and what you can consume while doing it. This is not to say that an individual cannot do so, but the population as a whole is rather fractious and I don't think that's really even an argument. To my mind, we have a defined legal process for how we conduct affairs of government. In our political process, we are represented by our elected officials, if we do not trust our elected officials to negotiate on our behalf, then the problem doesn't lie with the legal process of government, but with how we elect our officials. The executive is vested with authority to negotiate international deals which the Congress will review. Both of these hold true in the case of the TPP. Nowhere in our system does it mean that you get to personally review and approve the dealings but you do have protections for the press! We probably won't agree though, so this shouldn't continue as we're kind of beyond the point anyway. Boon fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:At what point do we drop protectionist trade policies like those in the auto industry when foreign manufacturers can to a better job for a cheaper price? Your Subaru was probably built in Indiana if you bought it in the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Boon posted:And you will. Unfortunately, you're not entitled to know what's being done as it's being done and I don't know why you think you are. You want to know, that doesn't mean you have a right to know. Who determines entitlement? If the people want to know what their representatives are trading of theirs away and willing to protest this what makes you think "entitlement" acts as a Killing Word against this? quote:This seems like an awfully arbitrary line of thinking that you literally just formulated on the spot. It's an opinion. A stance. I assume from the lack of real retort that you have no direct reason to object to it. quote:How does war not concern or affect the public? Because since Vietnam it has literally not impacted you personally? War historically has affected the public more than any other action that the government can take in international affairs and your statement is ridiculous on it's face. It's a typically temporary effect when it comes to invasion, and since the abolishment of the draft voluntary. Do not feign outrage where it is unnecessary; i believe the people deserve to know who and why their representative's wish to go to war, and have a say in the matter. quote:I'd go with some sort of formulation of A where, yes, I deeply believe that the public is unable to look out for it's own best interests. It's why we have laws and regulations on everything from financial markets to how fast you can drive your car and what you can consume while doing it. This is not to say that an individual cannot do so, but the population as a whole is rather fractious and I don't think that's really even an argument. The people as a whole contains members who can interpret and explain issues requiring skilled knowledge. By nature of being a member of the underclass they have little reason to work against their (the public)'s interests, and no matter how you feel about the publics' intelligence they still deserve to be given as much opportunity to influence their government as possible. You cannot trust upper class citizens, influenced by the elite via an established fourth chamber of bribery, to work in the publics influence behind closed doors. Those regulations were introduced by representatives elected into their position, and maintained by continuing to elect representatives in favor of keeping the regulation. The majority of the regulation does not consist of binding agreements that last for 25 years and are expected to be presented, interpreted, explained, motivated, popularized, and protested/supported directly from scratch in the span of three months. The proccess is long because it's an outstandingly important decision. It deserves more consideration than your wait at the DMV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
I would say the law determines entitlement in this regard.Neurolimal posted:The people as a whole contains members who can interpret and explain issues requiring skilled knowledge. By nature of being a member of the underclass they have little reason to work against their (the public)'s interests, and no matter how you feel about the publics' intelligence they still deserve to be given as much opportunity to influence their government as possible. You cannot trust upper class citizens, influenced by the elite via an established fourth chamber of bribery, to work in the publics influence behind closed doors. This is the part where I think we diverge. I look at our society today and see many members who have the required skilled knowledge to interpret and explain complex problems on various issues but have had no significant impact on the population in a years or decades long span. Our public cannot come to consensus agreement that global warming is a direct threat to the US, what makes you think they're inclined to come to some consensus agreement over a more complex questions with far more variables? The problem, in my mind, is that what's in the best interest of the United States as a whole in the long-term, is not necessarily in the best interest of it's people in the short-term. Boon fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Boon posted:I would say the law determines entitlement in this regard. How can you be both progressive and completely bound ideologically by the law? The law is not inherently just, this is the basic for a large array of leftist issues, including police reform. quote:This is the part where I think we diverge. I look at our society today and see many members who have the required skilled knowledge to interpret and explain complex problems on various issues but have had no significant impact on the population in a years or decades long span. Our public cannot come to consensus agreement that global warming is a direct threat to the US, what makes you think they're inclined to come to some consensus agreement over a more complex questions with far more variables? Social and environmental issues will always struggle against generational gaps. Global Warming and envirknmental damage has been universally accepted as truth. Where things falter is discussion on if it will be a problem in the long-term. Elite interests have put forth massive media campaigns to push forth simultaneously that Global Warming is not a concern, and that current methods are already green or productive towards stopping global warming. In spite of this setback half of america is still convinced global warming is a problem. The progress made so far is a testament to the power of the public and hard-working intellectuals among the public. quote:The problem, in my mind, is that what's in the best interest of the United States as a whole in the long-term, is not necessarily in the best interest of it's people in the short-term. Lobbyist action in the past decade, the banking crisis, the housing bubble, austerity, and the dismantlememt of social security and government healthcare is a strong argument that no, the elites with their fingers in this deal most assuredly do not give an inkling of a poo poo about the long-term good of America and its people. You're blinding yourself with liberal exceptionalism, stroking your balls while the rich lean over your back and whisper sweet nothings to you. You are a part of the public, and you will not be laughing with the stockholders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
How aware of the effects of previous harmonizing treaties are the posters in this thread? By harmonizing I mean, international treaties (self or non-self executing) that bring the regulations of groups of nations in line with each other possibly even in a way that might allow for the avoiding of a national regulation entirely by allowing a business to simply opt for the rules of the international treaty. I'll be more specific. If you export or import hazardous material to / from the United States the marking, securing, placarding, stowage, segregation, etc is governed by 49 CFR. All one has to do to use the IMDG code instead is to declare that the goods are being exported (or imported) under the IMDG code. Does that matter? Not a god drat bit. The differences are incredibly minor (I could get very specific with examples, but gently caress that, you don't want me to talk about combustible liquids, the packing groups of explosives, or minor deviations in what requires a technical name). The international rules are better written, easier to use, and lets face it based largely on the same drat things 49 CFR was . Some one else called international treaty language dense and obfuscating. Code Federal Regulation makes international treaty / international body language look plainly written and straight forward. I don't think we'll notice in ten years any of the harmonizing of regulations the TPP brings in. But, I mean here in the US. Pretty sure it'll be noticed in many of the other nations involved. That to me means the real question is will this harm labor in the US? That question is determined by if labor is a scarce or abundant factor of production here relative to the other nations in the agreement. I think that we have a very different labor situation than when NAFTA happened. But who the gently caress really knows. I mean, we'll probably know after the fact when we see what happens with trade as a result. I'm looking forward to reading the thing. Hoping it's not poo poo. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How can you be both progressive and completely bound ideologically by the law? The law is not inherently just, this is the basic for a large array of leftist issues, including police reform. Because there isn't a pledge of fealty that comes with progressiveness and policy isn't set on a 2-D scale where all positions are the same. Progressiveness also doesn't mean revolutionary and there is no timeline inherent to it. I agree with you and have had many frustrating and passionate arguments with conservative friends that the law is not inherently just. That doesn't mean that the rule of law is unjust. quote:Social and environmental issues will always struggle against generational gaps. Global Warming and envirknmental damage has been universally accepted as truth. Where things falter is discussion on if it will be a problem in the long-term. Elite interests have put forth massive media campaigns to push forth simultaneously that Global Warming is not a concern, and that current methods are already green or productive towards stopping global warming. In spite of this setback half of america is still convinced global warming is a problem. Why are environmental and social issues significantly different than economic issues and why are elite interests any less powerful in this realm? Right now the global monetary system is in one hell of a rough spot and the answers as laid out by experts are not exactly palatable to the public (despite long-term ramifications). Still, experts have very little actual sway. In general, Paul Krugman could argue himself blue in the face and Robert Reich could immolate himself on live TV and the public would still cling to their beliefs of whatever. Your argument isn't a strong one for open negotiations. quote:Lobbyist action in the past decade, the banking crisis, the housing bubble, austerity, and the dismantlememt of social security and government healthcare is a strong argument that no, the elites with their fingers in this deal most assuredly do not give an inkling of a poo poo about the long-term good of America and its people. I won't disagree that the US is in a sorry state of oligarchy, but I also do not think that this is significantly different than much of the US' history of governance (and which has not been necessarily bad). Historically, it's been the elite in America, not the masses, acting in enlightened self-interest that have moved America forward. However, I DO think that we're in a position where even if the elite wanted to act in enlightened self-interest (debatable), that populism would prevent it. I am of the belief that populism is not a good thing even when it favors my interest because it so often ignores the reality of a situation. I think of it like a fundamental disagreement that Keynes had with classical and Austrian economists, that their ideas ignored the reality and replaced it with a moral theory. Boon fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Threads like this are disturbing because you can see a lot of the same rhetoric being used when the deal is up for a vote. "Concentration of power in too few hands and no oversight is a bad thing. Corporations have no accountability and shouldn't be allowed to write laws." "Heh. Thanks for sharing your views, Infowars."  Talking like this drains vitality from the discussion and makes it really difficult to take you seriously. Also, mocking legitimate concerns is unsympathetic and dumb. Boon posted:Call it aristocratic or what you will, but I just don't think I or anyone else not in Fight club have a right to be given access to on ongoing international negotiations, especially since the negotiating power is specifically delineated to the executive branch which is decidedly not beholden to public opinion. The executive branch should not have dictatorial power. The president commands the military, but the administration running the White House does and should have very limited lawmaking ability. So there's plenty of room for public opinion, plenty for dissent. Boon posted:I am of the belief that populism is not a good thing even when it favors my interest because it so often ignores the reality of a situation. I think of it like a fundamental disagreement that Keynes had with classical and Austrian economists, that their ideas ignored the reality and replaced it with a moral theory. Not trying to say that a great majority of people always knows what's best - and I won't try to argue the finer points. At the moment, populism is at a fever pitch because the "aristocracy" doesn't give a gently caress about ordinary people. Their apparent willingness to listen is merely a survival instinct. If they could, they'd rob people until everyone lived in a tiny apartment and made just enough money to pay rent and buy food. That's just one reason why this kind secrecy is dangerous. And to those saying that the deal won't change much, I'd like to know then why it's such a hot-button issue for you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Great news, the government of Japan has released a summary of the TPP, and someone translated it http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/full-translation-of-japanese-governments-summary-of-the-tpp.html maybe now people can stop arguing about what it may or may not contain and start looking into what it actually contains
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding what this is saying in realspeak. A lot of sources (including EFF) are claiming this is saying that the TPP is going to allow private entities to enforce copyright violations (As opposed to the state [courts]). Others are saying this isnt true, and some people in comments are claiming that we are already at this point and there is private enforcement of copyrights going on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This isn't a war, lives are not in jeopardy, revealing what our representatives are pushing for provides far more benefits to the represented than any potential damage that could be done. So what? You think the U.S. negotiated a clause that lets foreign companies sue the federal government if they're having a bad quarter? Of course it's about the law. Profits come into play when considering reparation. The Egypt case is about a clause saying that the company is owed compensation if costs go up and is claiming the wage change invokes that clause. It's asking for those repairations. It can't and isn't trying to invalidate the wage increase itself. Negotiations are competitive and while not zero sum individual clauses have winners and losers. There is gamesmanship to getting the most out of a negotiation which requires not tipping your entire hand to everyone. So that's not even about keeping things from your public, it's about keeping things from the other negotiating parties. Edit: Washington Post posted:Take the oft-made accusation, repeated by Ms. Warren and others, that a French firm used the provision to sue Egypt “because Egypt raised its minimum wage.” Actually, Veolia of France, a waste management company, invoked ISDS to enforce a contract with the government of Alexandria, Egypt, that it says required compensation if costs increased; the company maintains that the wage increases triggered this provision. Incidentally, Veolia was working with Alexandria on a World Bank-supported project to reduce greenhouse gases, not some corporate plot to exploit the people. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
I guess it would help if anyone would clarify what "private enforcement of copyrights" means. Typically the state doesn't go out and hunt down copyright violators, instead private entities go out and search for "totally legit Versace" auctions or a guy downloading the latest movie unlicensed on their own. Sure sounds like that decades standing thing is private enforcement to me? Hell, go to most major cities and you can see dudes selling clearly pirated/counterfeit goods on the street, and a cop will only bother them if their table is blocking the sidewalk or street. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
mitztronic posted:https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf I just read this; I have no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
I'm honestly not sure this chapter contains any provisions that American IP law doesn't already comply with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Amarkov posted:I'm honestly not sure this chapter contains any provisions that American IP law doesn't already comply with. Yes, broadly speaking that sums up the whole treaty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:05
|
|