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

191–200 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#191

Post by iofj »

sremani wrote: post #179
webkike wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Hillary's views are well aligned with a typical leftist agenda. I don't see her passing pro gun or anti abortion laws for example.

The Clintons are always associated with DLC (Democratic Leadership Council?), a centrist organization. Remember Bill Clinton is for all intents and purposes a Southern Democrat, so he is a close to a blue dog democratic president. Hillary Clinton luckily chose to be Senator of NY (which is a cold political move, esp. when you account for political polarization), she has moved to the Left when tides are that way. Hill…

I guess that means, Clinton = TPP comes into full force, regardless of what she says now. Would you agree ?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#192

Post by mozumder »

jedberg wrote: post #151
mozumder wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He did that because he had to pick a party. He could have just as easily run as a Democrat and used the same tactics with different talking points. He doesn't really alight with either party. But he's most certainly anti-free-trade. All of his business and money is in the US (mostly in real estate). It's in his best interest to artificially prop up US industry by shutting down inbound trade.

He became a Republican because he is a corporatist.

It is Republican orthodoxy to be against consumer and labor rights.

He has absolutely no interest in abandoning the TPP, since, as a Republican, he is in favor of exporting US jobs.

When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#193

Post by MawNicker »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #186
fixermark wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't fathom why this question has been downvoted. It's a reasonable question, and one I share. It's a large and complicated document; there's plenty of room for bad ideas, and plenty of room for good. The real question is, "Would we rather have nothing?" Because the existing ecosystem of loosely-affiliated nation-by-nation policies is a sh-tshow.

The total number of down votes I've gotten is crazy. HN sucks when you don't agree with the hivemind. It's frustrating.

The most discouraging pattern is down-votes on reasonable comments without any feedback whatsoever. Before a person can down-vote they should be required to leave a response OR to up-vote an existing response.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#194

Post by anonbanker »

pbarnes_1 wrote: post #65
anonbanker wrote: post #35

if Trump wins, there will be no TPP, at least if he sticks to his campaign promises. We all accidentally get a gift if he makes it to the Oval Office.

"if he sticks to his campaign promises" Hahahahahahaha.

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust a politician to keep his promises. He's just the best shot against the TPP we have, it seems (I trust Clinton less than Trump, and nobody votes libertarian).

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#195

Post by snowwrestler »

Fej wrote: post #102
tootie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing anti-sovereignty. ISDS only allows foreign entities to sue for breach of a law voted on by our own Congress inasmuch as it effects them.

Why not just use the US courts, then?

That is what companies do in the U.S.

ISDS is in the treaty to encourage foreign direct investment in developing nations, which often do not have well-functioning, independent and fair courts the way the U.S. does.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#196

Post by rory096 »

iofj wrote: post #190
rory096 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's a deal negotiated between twelve parties with different interests. The public/Congress get ample opportunity to review the completed deal and decide if it's worthwhile, just not access to the minute details of the negotiating process. That protects the treaty from being torpedoed by demagogues stirring up public outrage and drawing arbitrary red lines in order to gain unfair leverage over other parties. It a…

So what you're saying is that this law is really being kept secret for our own advantage ? Politicians can't be held responsible for their actions because they benefit us ? Can't have public influence over the deal because that would "torpedo" it ? Maybe you should move to Russia or China, and have all your deals and laws done like this. And they give the same argument you're giving : "it's for your own good". And I…

But it's not secret. Read it.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#197

Post by waterhouse »

StevePerkins wrote: post #149
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.

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.

Libertarians lean towards free trade, but just because a treaty has "free trade" in its name doesn't mean they will believe it is a step towards free trade.

https://mises.org/library/we-need-actual-free-trade-not-tpp

https://mises.org/blog/tpp-and-trade-rhetoric

I am pleased to report that Johnson seems to agree with them in this respect: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/off-message-transcript...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#198

Post by narrowrail »

nullnilvoid wrote: post #16
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #3

Of course they do. They were probably involved in drafting it.

Julian Assange and Edward Snowden second that. The extent Google is tied to Obama administration is astonishing.

I am sorry, but hours-old accts commenting on highly controversial threads, spouting poorly cited 'almost conspiracies' doesn't seem helpful. I may be completely off, but that is how I feel; this is something that has become far too common on HN. Am I in my own world on this?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#199

Post by rayiner »

mozumder wrote: post #192
jedberg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did that because he had to pick a party. He could have just as easily run as a Democrat and used the same tactics with different talking points. He doesn't really alight with either party. But he's most certainly anti-free-trade. All of his business and money is in the US (mostly in real estate). It's in his best interest to artificially prop up US industry by shutting down inbound trade.

He became a Republican because he is a corporatist. It is Republican orthodoxy to be against consumer and labor rights. He has absolutely no interest in abandoning the TPP, since, as a Republican, he is in favor of exporting US jobs. When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_..…

Trump may be a liar, but it's probably a miscalculation to think he has greater loyalty to the Republican Party than to himself.

Trump is a real estate guy. His business is intrinsically tied to the US. He can't outsource hotel construction jobs to China. That makes being anti-globalization an easy path for him.

Moreover, more capital sloshing around in the US instead of going overseas means lower interest rates for construction loans.

Post reply on HN