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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:34 |
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I haven't seen much discussion of the fact that the State Department human trafficking report upgraded the status of Malaysia not because their human trafficking situation actually improved but because language in the TPA said that they had to. They were classified as Tier 3 and after language was inserted saying that the TPP can't include Tier 3 countries and all of a sudden they're now Tier 2. Just because people were underrepresented doesn't mean that policies deliberately harmful to them were placed into the treaty, nor are the interests of elites totally divorced from those of the average person. Furthermore, the foreign-policy goals could easily outweigh the economic goals of free-marketers, such as the desire to reduce the share of Chinese imports among the signatories being better for the people of most of the nations involved than the negatives.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
I really think that you'd have to take the deal as a whole to be able to determine the overall impact. Taking a component in isolation doesn't have a lot to say about the overall treaty. So, does something that tightens copyright and IP laws exist as a sop to a treaty that heavily benefits the poorer negotiators, or specifically to keep the deal sweet on the American end, or is it representative of the treaty being a dicta from the USA? You can't know without looking at the deal as a whole. Similarly, if the net result of TPP is enhanced development opportunities for poorer countries, that can easily outweigh the effects of liberalization on employment and wages. So secrecy until a deal is worked out is beneficial to meaningful public opinion on the bill. There's a separate discussion to be had about whether the jargon of diplomacy, the "legalese" is pointlessly obscurantist or not, but that's a tad bit away from the main thrust.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
There's some really good reasons why the TPP would be favorable to poorer countries, which most people ignore in favor of raw, naive cynicism. Like, are we seriously engaging in the vulgar Marxoteenism where everything is done by Snidely Whiplash and Dick Dastardly for the purposes of loving people over and accumulating wealth?
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
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
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah that's not correct. There's also the fact that America is not the arbiter of when the document gets released regardless: Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all English speaking countries who are also party to it and likely to release it in English. And the other 8 countries will likely release it in their languages. Just from what I read of the Japanese notes, there are a few things, like the relaxation of foreign currency reserve requirements and the liberalization of automotive markets in SE Asia, which are fairly iffy. Not what most people care about, of course.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 03:08
|
|
tekz posted:EFF article slamming the TPP: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared You do understand that the US is also bound by the treaty, so rewriting large parts of US law would sink the treaty in Congress? I mean, it'd be great if we could use the TPP to spear Disney, the RIAA, et al, through the heart, but it's simply out of bounds at the moment.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Now, it would be good if we had a Congress that was willing to stand up to the rent-seeking assholes of the entertainment industry and use this to bulldoze better IP laws through. But we don't, so allowing signatory nations to basically keep their laws without mandating changes to American laws is about the best outcome.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 04:32
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
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: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
|
|
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
|
|
asdf32 posted: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. What I would like you to do, at this point, is look over your posts on the previous page, quote them all in the same post, and provide a definition of "globalization" that is consistent across all of them. Since this will not happen, I suppose I'm just going to have to pretend that you were struck dead by God after making this post, because discussion is clearly impossible.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 04:59
|
|
asdf32 posted:Alternatively you could google "globalization" and either marvel at how my posting is consistent with it or clarify how it's not. Let's all shed some tears for asdf32, struck down by the Lord for saying 100% and 1000% were "practically equal".
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:34 |
|
Boon posted:Maybe you should do that then since itd actually advance your argument if you were able to, you know, show something to back your argument? Well, since asdf32, RIP, responded to me pointing out that he used "globalization" to refer to trade generally (doing this implicitly and explicitly) by ignoring it, there's not much point in writing it at tedious length unless I were aware this would aid understanding, because I have basically zero desire to treat this as debate rather than discussion. In fact, given that he gave a definition of "globalization" that didn't say poo poo about containerization and then pretended he had made containerization part of that definition a post or so later, it seems as though he's a liar plain and simple, or else incredibly loving stupid, to the point of any conversation being an uphill struggle.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:58
|
|