Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

publicpolicy.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#141

Post by tzs »

typon wrote: post #6

Its always funny when people naively forget that Google, Apple, etc. are megacorps, not some startup ventures. They are the man. This endorsement doesn't surprise me one bit.

Its also always funny when people forget that in 7 of the 9 TPP countries a majority of the ordinary citizens are in favor of it, and in the two where it does not have majority support those in favor handily outnumber those opposed (US 49% in favor, 29% opposed and Malaysia 38% in favor, 18% opposed) [1], and so think that this is some megacorp thing being forced on an unwilling populace.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/americans-fa...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#142

Post by rory096 »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #91
tremon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because we don't know enough about the actual text to make a substantial argument. All we have are leaked drafts. And by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry. Do you know how many consumer advocacy groups are included in the negotiation process for TPP? I gather it's zero. Given the process is specifically intended to keep out consumers, why should we believ…

Not true. Full text had been available since November. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've never bothered reading anything on the subject except other anti-TPP FUD.

Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#143

Post by nostromo »

harry8 wrote: post #104
guelo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

Hillary reads the same to me, I must say. I have no idea what she genuinely believes.

But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do.

There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#144

Post by iLoch »

mozumder wrote: post #119
guelo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.

lol you actually believe a Republican would be against free trade? There's a reason he ran as a Republican in the first place.

Trump wants corporations to stay in the US. TPP allows corporations to sue the US for loss of profits in other countries IIRC, so that would mean TPP is indeed against Trump's interests.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#145

Post by iLoch »

harry8 wrote: post #104
guelo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

I'm assuming you know him well personally, otherwise how could you make such a statement earnestly.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#146

Post by daveguy »

nostromo wrote: post #143
harry8 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

Hillary reads the same to me, I must say. I have no idea what she genuinely believes. But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do. There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.

I wish Elizabeth Warren had run. She is a prime example of a sane down to earth person turning down the position everyone else lusts after.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#147

Post by e40 »

Qwertious wrote: post #64
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also interesting: All current Presidential candidates have come out against the TPP. Presumably Obama is pressuring Google to help him push it through before he no longer has a say in the matter. If he can get it through, it's going to be very hard to repeal, but if he doesn't get it through, our next President, whoever that is, will do their best to block it.

Why do you assume the next president won't do a backflip and support it once they're in? Politicians break promises, and break opinions a whole lot more.

They will. Certainly the two current presumptive nominees will.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#148

Post by vidarh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #120
_delirium wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrict…

> The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal) The TPP would not, in US law terms, be a treaty, but a regular federal statute.

The point is that something that is included as part and parcel of a treaty may involve breaking the treaty and suffering all kinds of other consequences.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#149

Post by StevePerkins »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #57
davb wrote: post #21

This endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-consumer, pro-corporation. I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the process) lacks the…

Also interesting: All current Presidential candidates have come out against the TPP. Presumably Obama is pressuring Google to help him push it through before he no longer has a say in the matter. If he can get it through, it's going to be very hard to repeal, but if he doesn't get it through, our next President, whoever that is, will do their best to block it.

Has Johnson (+) said anything about the TPP yet? I would assume that Libertarians lean toward "free" trade deals.

(+) He's been polling in double-digits for weeks now, three points shy of the threshold for getting in the debates. That's a "current candidate" in my book.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#150

Post by tptacek »

izacus wrote: post #133
tptacek wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's true, why does your local legislature (I don't know where you are) enable the treaty in domestic law?

It doesn't. I'm not sure why that would affect this debate at all?

If your local legislature doesn't enable the treaty, you aren't bound by it: it isn't a part of your law. A trade treaty is essentially a promise to pass a set of laws.
Post reply on HN