|
Grouchio posted:...Heightened restrictions on free expression, and artistic freedom, bullshit enforcements? So did you ever stop to notice that literally none of that is present in it? Who told you it was? Neurolimal posted:It's kind of creepy how TPP proponents are only concerned with what impacts the US in the bill. Status update: making the rest of the world as corporate-friendly as america is not a good thing. Please describe how the TPP makes that happen. Please remember to also consider existing binding treaties to the parties involved. Oh wait, you can't, because it doesn't!
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:...Heightened restrictions on free expression, and artistic freedom, bullshit enforcements? Can you cite the specific TPP provisions that you're referring to here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's kind of creepy how TPP proponents are only concerned with what impacts the US in the bill. Status update: making the rest of the world as corporate-friendly as america is not a good thing. It's kind of creepy how you didn't read a post that was trying to justify why Wikipedia would do a blackout (presumably to the English version).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's kind of creepy how TPP proponents are only concerned with what impacts the US in the bill. Status update: making the rest of the world as corporate-friendly as america is not a good thing. No one really understands American copyright law, why should I believe anyone here is an expert in Indian copyright law?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:No one really understands American copyright law, why should I believe anyone here is an expert in Indian copyright law? Some of us get paid to understand IP laws in various countries, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Some of us get paid to understand IP laws in various countries, actually. as if people needed more reasons to ignore this thread and its proponents, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:as if people needed more reasons to ignore this thread and its proponents, lol Hmm, yes, lol indeed. Lol indeed, my good man. So do you get paid to understand IP law, Kalman?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
IP law is bad. If it's over a page long it shouldn't exist. Suck it up, lawyerailures 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 23:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Boon posted:Hmm, yes, lol indeed. Lol indeed, my good man. I do! (Mostly by people being accused of violating it.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 00:17
|
|
Kalman posted:I do! (Mostly by people being accused of violating it.) Do they pay you in counterfeit Vuittons lmao.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:No one really understands American copyright law, why should I believe anyone here is an expert in Indian copyright law? India ain't involved with this, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Singapore's copyright laws make the DMCA look quaint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
sharing is caning
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
I like how Something Awful doesn't care about this until it might affect their anime fansubs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeGURqfslXQ&t=705s My big fear with the TPP has been an expansion and entrenchment of the existing IP system rather than moving toward a system that encourages technology to be 'public'/open source. But as with many of these trade treaties it seems the ongoing 'cultural revolution' of globalization, the real challenge, is going unaddressed. Even now Europe might abandon free continental travel because they never went all the way and committed to a United States-like federation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
McDowell posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeGURqfslXQ&t=705s Globalisation is scary both for 1950s conservatives and for 1970s leftists, which describes a shocking proportion of 2015 conservatives and leftists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Globalisation is scary both for 1950s conservatives and for 1970s leftists, which describes a shocking proportion of 2015 conservatives and leftists. It's also pretty scary for the poor
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:It's also pretty scary for the poor Which poor people? It's benefited most of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Indeed - the inflation adjusted PPP annual income for sub-saharan Africa went from $742 in 1993 to $762 in 2008!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Indeed - the inflation adjusted PPP annual income for sub-saharan Africa went from $742 in 1993 to $762 in 2008! Now let's see the statistics for Asia
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
China did pretty well, going from $2k to nearly $6k
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
growth in the protectionist, illiberal state with heavy state interference in the economy isn't really any sort of advertisement for the merits of economic neoliberalism
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which poor people? It's benefited most of them. yeah man NAFTA did wonders for Mexican labour
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:growth in the protectionist, illiberal state with heavy state interference in the economy isn't really any sort of advertisement for the merits of economic neoliberalism Neoliberalism and globalization are completely separate things. If the question is "have [hundreds of millions of] poor Chinese benefited from globalization" the answer is an easy yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neoliberalism and globalization are completely separate things. Hundreds of millions? Not 15?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:Hundreds of millions? Not 15? Yes, hundreds of millions of very poor Chinese people benefitted from globalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, hundreds of millions of very poor Chinese people benefitted from globalization. We literally have the smallest percentage of the global population living in poverty now than at any other point in human history, because of globalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
If you consider globalization as a process that started when Columbus introduced Europe to the Americas then we have all benefited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Except possibly the Americans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neoliberalism and globalization are completely separate things. Okay, in the real world the globalization that has occurred has been of a predominantly neoliberal character. The TPP, which is the topic of this thread, is a globalizing neoliberal trade deal. In order to make China a success story of globalization you're going to have to change the definition of globalization to 'has foreign trade', which is basically meaningless e_angst posted:We literally have the smallest percentage of the global population living in poverty now than at any other point in human history, because of globalization. no, because of economic growth. the effect of neoliberal globalization on growth is still probably positive, but they're not the same thing icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Globalization as a stepping stone to developing internal demand for goods in poor countries is one thing, but this view of it is one only grudgingly admitted to. Furthermore, the vision of neoliberals sees a vampiric drain of any possible investment capital accumulations beyond very small scales in those countries, leaving them perpetually subjugated economically. This, of course, is obscured with a declaration that multinationals are meritocracies, which derives from their total lack of any experience with such companies from an internal perspective.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Globalization as a stepping stone to developing internal demand for goods in poor countries is one thing, but this view of it is one only grudgingly admitted to. Furthermore, the vision of neoliberals sees a vampiric drain of any possible investment capital accumulations beyond very small scales in those countries, leaving them perpetually subjugated economically. This, of course, is obscured with a declaration that multinationals are meritocracies, which derives from their total lack of any experience with such companies from an internal perspective. It's also a comical failure at doing that, at least in the standard East Asian export-oriented examples
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, in the real world the globalization that has occurred has been of a predominantly neoliberal character. The TPP, which is the topic of this thread, is a globalizing neoliberal trade deal. In order to make China a success story of globalization you're going to have to change the definition of globalization to 'has foreign trade', which is basically meaningless You're getting it backwards. China is a success story of globalization without question. The harder part is divvying up the credit between the liberal and not so liberal components of that success.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:19
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's also a comical failure at doing that, at least in the standard East Asian export-oriented examples Do you have any good sources to recommend on this?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You're getting it backwards. China is a success story of globalization without question. The harder part is divvying up the credit between the liberal and not so liberal components of that success. Please define 'globalization' in a more specific way than 'foreign trade'. Because otherwise it's almost meaningless. Nobody is opposed to foreign trade unless you're the USSR doing it for ideological reasons Effectronica posted:Do you have any good sources to recommend on this? Not any serious ones , no. Just a general observation that the domestic economic strength of Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, etc, are not very good despite being more or less best case scenario examples for export/foreign trade-oriented growth
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Please define 'globalization' in a more specific way than 'foreign trade'. Because otherwise it's almost meaningless. Nobody is opposed to foreign trade unless you're the USSR doing it for ideological reasons International trade is a defining characteristic of globalization and any nation whose economy is based on trade is part of it. The word globalization carries large amount of baggage but it's a description. Worldwide socialist revolution resulting in similar exchange of goods, culture and ideas would be called globalization. quote:Not any serious ones , no. Just a general observation that the domestic economic strength of Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, etc, are not very good despite being more or less best case scenario examples for export/foreign trade-oriented growth The domestic economic strength of Japan, S Korea and Taiwan is fantastic by worldwide standards. The worst on the list, S Korea, is 30 out of 200 nations on GDP PPP above New Zealand... asdf32 fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:53
|
|
asdf32 posted:International trade is a defining characteristic of globalization and any nation whose economy is based on trade is part of it. In which case "globalization" is meaningless and people should stop using it, because "international trade as a major part of the economy" describes the Sumerian temples and city-states.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:In which case "globalization" is meaningless and people should stop using it, because "international trade as a major part of the economy" describes the Sumerian temples and city-states. International trade and exchange in general has increased by orders of magnitude in terms of quantity and distance in the last century and notably in the last 40 years or since containerization and decent long distance telephone became widespread. It's absolutely a useful definition and one of the defining trends of our generation. Saying it's meaningless is like saying the same of "industrialization" or "capitalism".
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:30
|
|
asdf32 posted:International trade and exchange in general has increased by orders of magnitude in terms of quantity and distance in the last century and notably in the last 40 years or since containerization and decent long distance telephone became widespread. Okay, it's been a while and I'd forgotten you were a loving idiot who instinctually dodges being held down to mere mortal contrivances like "definitions" and "consistency". I doubt I can do this for more than one post, but I'm going to do it with spirit: THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR PREVIOUS POST. YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY WRITTEN AS THOUGH "GLOBALIZATION" REFERRED TO TRADING GENERALLY RATHER THAN ANYTHING SPECIFIC. THEN WHEN SOMEONE POINTS OUT HOW STUPID THAT IS YOU IMMEDIATELY ADOPT A SPECIFIC DEFINITION THAT WILL ONLY LAST UNTIL THE PERSON WHO'S ARGUING GIVES UP IN DESPAIR. THEN YOU GO BACK TO THE GENERAL DEFINITION. YOU ARE A CONTEMPTIBLE LITTLE EARTHWORM. gently caress YOU!
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, it's been a while and I'd forgotten you were a loving idiot who instinctually dodges being held down to mere mortal contrivances like "definitions" and "consistency". I doubt I can do this for more than one post, but I'm going to do it with spirit: The post leading off with "international trade" was me being generous to you for comparing trade in an era pre-dating even decent ocean-going sailing vessels with modern globalization. As an aside the reference to the telephone wasn't invoking exchange of ideas but primarily referencing its necessity for efficiently managing global supply networks. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:52
|
|