|
Thunder Moose posted:I would like to hear D&D's thoughts on the bill: its possible merits, detriments, and progress (or lack thereof) Hmm I wonder what D&D's position on free trade is.
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Probably affects the U.S.'s negotiating posture since the rest of the world knows we have a terrible history wrt ratifying treaties, and that our Congress barely functions This is exactly why. Nobody is willing to agree to anything if there's a risk that the agreement will be modified in Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:edit: and here we see the state of D&D. Earnest posters come in looking for an interesting discussion to be chased out by pedantic poo poo-stirrers who can't even be assed to voice their own opinions. And by that I mean people who realized long ago its much easier to tear someone else's argument down than erect a solid one themselves. Cowards, basically. 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. Mhm, yes, mhm, tell me more about the sorry state of D&D dialogue.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
The best argument for the TPP is that China needs to be contained and TPP is part of such.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:The containment argument never made much sense to me. The idea as I understand it is that an FTA that excludes China would divert the members' trade away from China and toward each other - strengthening all the other parties while weakening China. But of the twelve countries negotiating the TPP, seven of them already have free trade agreements with China, an eighth has been negotiated but not come into force yet, and a ninth is being negotiated right now. So if those nine countries see benefits, then some of those will spill over into China. And many of the TPP parties already have free trade agreements and other diplomatic ties with each other - is another FTA going to have that much effect on US trade with Canada and Mexico? Or bring us diplomatically closer to Japan or Australia? A) The Chinese economy is already doubling down on nationalism because their economy is starting to show signs of being hosed. This idea that China will become more assertive unless they're accommodated is false, they've become progressively more assertive over the past decade despite being accommodated constantly. The idea that the TPP would somehow cause the Chinese to retaliate and therefore we shouldn't pass it is not only immoral (an authoritarian country should not be dictating US trade policy) but also false, because they're already "retaliating." B) The point of the legislation isn't to "hurt" China, it's to counterbalance China. Like you said, a lot of those countries already have free trade agreements with China and have China as their largest trading partner. The problem is that China is an authoritarian country with revisionist, regional ambitions that has shown in the past they aren't above using their economic status as a bludgeon to get their smaller neighbours to do what they want. The TPP essentially robs China of this option because the world's largest economy, along with all the other large/advanced economies of the Pacific, becomes a viable alternative. China's ability to block imports/exports, raise tariffs, etc. becomes impotent when the countries that it might be bullying can simply turn to Japan or the US instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:This is pretty Yeah I mean, China, America, what's the difference?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 21:28
|
|
given what has been leaked.
|
Mr Chips posted:Got a non-paywalled article? I'm keen to know if Australians kiss goodbye the PBS, non-insane pharma patents, plain packaging for ciggies and so on From what I understand the US caved on almost everything Australia wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
"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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Alejandro Sanchez posted:So do some of you actually support this AIDS agreement or do you actually have faith that our leaders are trying to do what's best for their citizens lol May as well not have any government ever then. I'm a libertarian now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Even if you believe that the leaked documents are 100% legit why would you also believe that nothing has changed over the course of years? What were those extra years of negotiations for if the leaked documents are representative of the final agreement?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:What reason do we have to believe all the globally disastrous leaked policies have been removed? For one thing, what details we have now on Oct 6 2015 look different from what was supposedly leaked.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:When the people have thirty days to ignore a year of pro-deal hype, interpret the legalese, and convince others of the damage the deal will cause (likely without the assistance of any news organization), then yes. I do believe that the will of the people is being subverted. It may or may not be an i tentional subversion and it may have historical precedent, but I still consider it terrible. So how does one ensure that everyone "gets it" so the will of the people isn't being subverted? Aside from the obvious "once everyone agrees with my position"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:In a transparent setup, the questionable amendment would be observed by watchgroups, interpreted into easy to comprehend explanations, and protest/outrage would be channeled through protest groups to influence the representatives. It is up to the representative to decide if the outrage is small enough to ignore or large enough to take notice. If this happens then the representative opposes the amendment or recants it before it earns a permanent place in the deal. What about issues that are controversial where there are always going to be not-insignificant groups that might be opposed to such a deal, issues such as, say, trade, where someone always loses?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Then the negotiated deal doesn't go through, because an enormous portion of the public that the representative has chosen not to ignore opposes it. Congratulations you've successfully created a system where literally nothing happens ever because there is always going to be opposition to any given issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If the people choose to never behead themselves to amuse stockholders, then that is their choice and it should be respected. I hope you apply this same logic to keeping Jim Crow around because lots of people opposed removing it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If such an enormous group of citizens were to oppose the global End Racism And Also Lower The Minimum Wage Bill that representatives had to take notice, then sure. There was such a massive group of citizens opposing the civil rights act that it altered the political trajectory of the USA for the next 50 years and counting. It sounds to me like you're cherrypicking what circumstances your proposed system would be applicable to so that opposition is only empowered on a specific issue that you oppose.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:Great news, the government of Japan has released a summary of the TPP, and someone translated it The White House Trade Representative also posted a summary: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Wikileaks also claims to have a copy of the final IP section of the agreement. It's wikileaks so grain of salt. https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/09/wikileaks-releases-tpp-intellectual-property-rights-chapter I'm not sure why The Guardian is reporting that because it would be illegal for him to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
That entire article is weird, in fact. A paragraph devoted to the claim that the TPP would allow countries to prohibit trials if they would be embarassing to the government followed by one sentence that says "oh btw the TPP says that local whistleblowing laws take priority so this section isnt even applicable to countries that aren't already doing this"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The way I'm reading it they're going to let Congress look it over for a month but not the general public. It could just be an error though I suppose. Either way, with all the awful crap being leaked I'm pretty comfortable being on team "no" until I see reason to do otherwise. I'm reading the wikileaks text right now and the sections that the article is alarmed about are: 13. Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution and 2. Subject to Paragraph 3, Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties for one or more of the following: (a) the unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system; (b) the unauthorized, willful misappropriation of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system; or (c) the fraudulent disclosure, or alternatively, the unauthorized and willful disclosure of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system. 3. With respect to the acts referred to in Paragraph 2, a Party may, where appropriate, limit the availability of such criminal procedures, or limit the level of penalties available, to one or more of the following cases: (a) the acts are for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain; (b) the acts are related to a product or service in national or international commerce; (c) the acts are intended to injure the owner of such trade secret; (d) the acts are directed by or for the benefit of or in association with a foreign economic entity; or (e) the acts are detrimental to a Party's economic interests, international relations, or national defense or national security1 Which only seem to be terrible if you're Wikileaks and/or a news outlet that has a special relationship with Wikileaks ie. The Guardian.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Aren't these already law in most of the countries involved? Yeah most governments already have a "not allowed to leak classified material" law on the books.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
tekz posted:EFF article slamming the TPP: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared This looks a lot like "the TPP is bad because it doesn't revoke laws on the US books that we don't like and also make them illegal for all treaty signatories." The parts you linked and bolded even say that the treaty contains provisions for local governments to bypass DRM but because they aren't "mandatory" the treaty is bad. Apart from that it looks like a lot of buzzwords and demagoguery.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
So uhhh the full text is out. Apparently Vietnam agreed to US labor laws including the freedom to unionize and strike. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/international/trans-pacific-trade-deal-tpp-vietnam-labor-rights.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
With all the handwringing about it I'm surprised the thread isn't more active with the full text release.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Along the lines of Vietnamese concession to improve labor standards, there's an enforceable requirement to give access to telco services and interconnect on RAND terms. What does this mean?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Short version: some basic net neutrality provisions are enshrined in the treaty language. This is both cool and good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Obama won't get his treaty. Really hope this clears things up. Uhh with fast track it's almost definitely going to be passed. Obama's most difficult fight wrt TPP was back in May. Based on what I've seen the deal in its full form is hardly the sloppy corporate blowjob that the detractors claimed it would be, although that wasn't really hard considering its detractors were being literally apocalyptic about the whole thing for the past couple years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
So the full text has been out for a while and nobody's mind has been changed in either direction. So this will probably pass then huh?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Not if either Clinton or Sanders wins the election next year. Or if Wikipedia tries a blackout. Why would wikipedia blackout over the TPP? And Clinton won't kill the TPP if she wins.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
tekz posted:What's the current status of TPP ratification in the various signatory countries? Waiting for the lame duck session in Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 20:32
|
|