Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It • Hacker News Board

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#11

Post by ktxt » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

ryporter wrote: post #4

The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal, and I don't find their arguments about the other aspects to be convincing. For the economic benefits, they use the same form of argument that global warming skeptics and creationists do, observing that there exists people who disagree with the general consensus. The fact that they can name one researcher on both sides of the issue does not imply that we should d…

It is a fact that the TPP is an early stage of a process that is a threat to clasical liberalism-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages

And people like to criticize the Koch Brothers and George Soros, but how many policy promoting non phrofits does David Rockefeller have? Dozens?

What if Rockefeller's personal political philosophies are flawed? Him and the Foreign Policy Establishment have uniformly defined globalization as Balassa's theory of economic integration.

The TPP is the 2nd or 3rd stage of a 7 stage process. It is very dangerous, if you believe in natural rights and human freedom.

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#12

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

ryporter wrote: post #10

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal So ? A chain is as strong as it's weakest link. If one aspect of the deal is unacceptable then there is no point in discussing the rest, you can reject the whole deal.

I don't understand your use of the chain analogy. The TPP is wide-ranging agreement. How are the economic benefits of reduced tariffs eliminated by another aspect of the deal, such as copyrights?

Imagine there is an agreement that does two things: a) eliminates some tariffs and b) murders all children under the age of 12.

If (a) is good and (b) is not related to or necessary for (a) then clearly we should do (a) and not (b), and an agreement that ties them together for no reason is flawed and should be voted down so we can come back and vote on the separate issues separately.

If (b) is related to and necessary for (a) then clearly (a) isn't worth (b) and we should vote down the whole agreement.

Notice that in both cases we should vote down the whole agreement.

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#13

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

ryporter wrote: post #4

The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal, and I don't find their arguments about the other aspects to be convincing. For the economic benefits, they use the same form of argument that global warming skeptics and creationists do, observing that there exists people who disagree with the general consensus. The fact that they can name one researcher on both sides of the issue does not imply that we should d…

[deleted]

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#14

Post by vinay427 » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

ryporter wrote: post #4

The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal, and I don't find their arguments about the other aspects to be convincing. For the economic benefits, they use the same form of argument that global warming skeptics and creationists do, observing that there exists people who disagree with the general consensus. The fact that they can name one researcher on both sides of the issue does not imply that we should d…

There are many other controversial aspects of the bill, such as extensive copyright protections and reduced access to generic medicines, both of which were forced in through US pressure. To me it sounds like the agreement is designed primarily to benefit large American corporations.

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#15

Post by emergentcypher » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

lumberjack wrote: post #5

ryporter wrote: post #4

The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal, and I don't find their arguments about the other aspects to be convincing. For the economic benefits, they use the same form of argument that global warming skeptics and creationists do, observing that there exists people who disagree with the general consensus. The fact that they can name one researcher on both sides of the issue does not imply that we should d…

Reducing tariffs is not in vogue anymore. Trump is getting lots of support for his proposal to reinstate many tariffs. >Furthermore, we can't realistically ask for the parties to go back to the negotiating table to try to improve the deal. This one was 10 years in the making, which is depressing, but does mean that it's basically this deal or nothing. But they told us that negotiating it in secrecy does not matter as…

The point is that we did not have an opportunity to influence the negotiations and therefore the text of the treaty. We instead are presented almost with a fait accompli that we must either accept or reject altogether.

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#16

Post by ryporter » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #12

ryporter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your use of the chain analogy. The TPP is wide-ranging agreement. How are the economic benefits of reduced tariffs eliminated by another aspect of the deal, such as copyrights?

Imagine there is an agreement that does two things: a) eliminates some tariffs and b) murders all children under the age of 12. If (a) is good and (b) is not related to or necessary for (a) then clearly we should do (a) and not (b), and an agreement that ties them together for no reason is flawed and should be voted down so we can come back and vote on the separate issues separately. If (b) is related to and necessar…

You didn't argue for why the chain analogy applies here. You just argued that we should reject the entire agreement if one part is so egregiously bad that it outweighs the others, which is obviously true. Why does the "weakest link" analogy apply to the actual TPP, which, as far I know, does not call for the murder of any children at all.

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#17

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

ryporter wrote: post #16

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine there is an agreement that does two things: a) eliminates some tariffs and b) murders all children under the age of 12. If (a) is good and (b) is not related to or necessary for (a) then clearly we should do (a) and not (b), and an agreement that ties them together for no reason is flawed and should be voted down so we can come back and vote on the separate issues separately. If (b) is related to and necessar…

You didn't argue for why the chain analogy applies here. You just argued that we should reject the entire agreement if one part is so egregiously bad that it outweighs the others, which is obviously true. Why does the "weakest link" analogy apply to the actual TPP, which, as far I know, does not call for the murder of any children at all.

[deleted]

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#18

Post by work-on-828 » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

Kristine1975 wrote: post #9

nefitty wrote: post #2

TPP is obscured by a wall of confusion and disinformation. As a tax payer of the United States (or any other country involved), what do you think the takeaway is? As in, how should I, a concerned citizen, approach this topic at the bar or the dinner table?

Ignore it. You can't change the outcome anyway :-|

Just like a popular uproar couldn't prevent SOPA from passing.

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#19

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

ryporter wrote: post #16

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine there is an agreement that does two things: a) eliminates some tariffs and b) murders all children under the age of 12. If (a) is good and (b) is not related to or necessary for (a) then clearly we should do (a) and not (b), and an agreement that ties them together for no reason is flawed and should be voted down so we can come back and vote on the separate issues separately. If (b) is related to and necessar…

You didn't argue for why the chain analogy applies here. You just argued that we should reject the entire agreement if one part is so egregiously bad that it outweighs the others, which is obviously true. Why does the "weakest link" analogy apply to the actual TPP, which, as far I know, does not call for the murder of any children at all.

The agreement is supposed to be a chain. The things in it are supposed to be related in some way, otherwise why are they together? Dumping many completely unrelated things into the same agreement so that things that should not pass have to be passed in order to do things people want is the thing so egregiously bad that it outweighs everything else. It's a chain with a link so weak it doesn't even exist.

Otherwise you could take an agreement which is net +1000, add absolute garbage to it until it's net +0.5 and then argue that we should still pass it because the net result is still positive. Which, compared to the alternative of throwing away the net +0.5 agreement and insisting on the net +1000 agreement, is net -999.5.

Re: Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It

#20

Post by wfo » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

nefitty wrote: post #2

TPP is obscured by a wall of confusion and disinformation. As a tax payer of the United States (or any other country involved), what do you think the takeaway is? As in, how should I, a concerned citizen, approach this topic at the bar or the dinner table?

It's a question about the right to self-determination, which is not technical or confusing. It expands and enshrines the right of corporate attorneys to take countries to court and modify their laws to suit corporate interests. If the people of the US want to pass a law, should the constitution and government of the US decide if it sticks? Or a group of corporate lawyers at a multinational corporation in a third party business-friendly kangaroo court? If your answer is the first one, then the TPP is morally unacceptable, full stop, no more discussion needed.