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

TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

ourfuture.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#11

Post by dimino »

laser wrote: post #4
dimino wrote: post #2

There's a lot of abstract "this deal is bad!" stuff, but what, specific, are the issues with TPP? What reason does the president have for wanting to pass it? I generally find him to be a reasonable person, so I don't think he's just being "evil" or whatever.

My understanding of it is that standardizing trade law and eliminating a wide range of nationalistic trade policies allows for greater operational efficiency, lower average cost of goods, etc. as systems closer to free markets tend to. The problems are 1. Massive disparities in wealth put the less-skilled in wealthy countries at greater risk of being made irrelevant/pushed towards global market rate (which is below m…

Thanks for the links (I won't likely read the EFF's take, as I am staunchly against the way the EFF writes its articles), but this feels like a rabbit hole. Cory Doctorow links to an article that links to an article that eventually gets to a World Bank report, claiming that 772k jobs will be lost "Because of the TPP" and that the GDP of developed nations will decrease by .52% for the US and .12% for Japan.

The Tufts analysis, however, is merely a response to another report done by the World Bank claiming, "The model simulations suggest that, by 2030, the TPP will raise member country GDP by 0.4-10 percent, and by 1.1 percent, on a GDP-weighted average basis."

So now you've got the World Bank arguing with economists, Cory Doctorow only linking some of the results of those reports, and this mysterious job loss (where the hell do those jobs go, exactly?) various economists disagreeing with one another...

How the hell do people extract an overarching viewpoint from all this noise? The biggest concern for me is the IP stuff, but I can't tell if this, too, is fearmongering (I go to jail because I cosplayed Darth Vader?? There's simply no way that's how it works, I don't care what the agreement says).

Also the loss of sovereignty seems scary. It'd be terrible of Phillip Morris could sue the US Government for the cigarette labeling, like they did in Uruguay.

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#12

Post by dimino »

gnodar wrote: post #9
dimino wrote: post #2

There's a lot of abstract "this deal is bad!" stuff, but what, specific, are the issues with TPP? What reason does the president have for wanting to pass it? I generally find him to be a reasonable person, so I don't think he's just being "evil" or whatever.

There's a lot of controversy regarding the specific contents of the TPP, but for me personally, I am against the cloud of secrecy that it (along with most trade agreements) was developed under. It took WikiLeaks to even let the public know of its existence. And after that they refused to let members of congress (our elected officials) from even reviewing the document except for selected sections, under the watchful e…

I just don't buy this argument, that a trade deal can't be negotiated in secret. The public's control over its government in the US is exclusively through its election system, and the idea that the public "has a right to debate the deal" is, to me, utter nonsense.

You elect officials who you trust to appoint other officials who will negotiate with the US's best interest in mind. If the deal goes through, you elect different people who you trust will fix the laws you don't agree with.

"The people" never have a say in any legislation, not directly, and there are countless meetings that take place on Capitol Hill which aren't open to the public.

We don't have a "democracy" as you describe it, and for very good reason. Populism is reactionary and predatory. It would be very harmful to minorities if we did live in a system where the most popular decisions were the ones that got made. Remember prop 8 in California, or more recently brexit?

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#13

Post by Finnucane »

dimino wrote: post #2

There's a lot of abstract "this deal is bad!" stuff, but what, specific, are the issues with TPP? What reason does the president have for wanting to pass it? I generally find him to be a reasonable person, so I don't think he's just being "evil" or whatever.

Here is a fairly detailed explanation of how the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism works, an analysis of how similar provisions in NAFTA have been used, and why this is bad for democracy.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/upload...

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#14

Post by walterbell »

Finnucane wrote: post #13
dimino wrote: post #2

There's a lot of abstract "this deal is bad!" stuff, but what, specific, are the issues with TPP? What reason does the president have for wanting to pass it? I generally find him to be a reasonable person, so I don't think he's just being "evil" or whatever.

Here is a fairly detailed explanation of how the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism works, an analysis of how similar provisions in NAFTA have been used, and why this is bad for democracy. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/upload...

See also http://isdscorporateattacks.org

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#15

Post by Melk »

dimino wrote: post #12
gnodar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of controversy regarding the specific contents of the TPP, but for me personally, I am against the cloud of secrecy that it (along with most trade agreements) was developed under. It took WikiLeaks to even let the public know of its existence. And after that they refused to let members of congress (our elected officials) from even reviewing the document except for selected sections, under the watchful e…

I just don't buy this argument, that a trade deal can't be negotiated in secret. The public's control over its government in the US is exclusively through its election system, and the idea that the public "has a right to debate the deal" is, to me, utter nonsense. You elect officials who you trust to appoint other officials who will negotiate with the US's best interest in mind. If the deal goes through, you elect di…

You just gave the cookie cutter answer without reading the comment you replied to. Some members of Congress were denied access to the agreement during the negotiations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secr...

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#16

Post by Melk »

wkrause wrote: post #10
fhrjchcjdnc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been a very strong empirical correlation between free trade deals and subsequent negative economic fallout for average US citizens. In addition to what the others have said, this is another such free trade deal, but even larger than any other that has come before it.

Could you share a link(s) to the study that establishes a strong negative correlation between trade deals and the average American? I think the closest thing to a concensus among economists is that free trade produces some winners and losers, but on the whole, it improves overall welfare.

Could you share a link that shows the consensus is that on the whole free trade deals improve overall welfare.

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#17

Post by ilostmykeys »

gnodar wrote: post #9
dimino wrote: post #2

There's a lot of abstract "this deal is bad!" stuff, but what, specific, are the issues with TPP? What reason does the president have for wanting to pass it? I generally find him to be a reasonable person, so I don't think he's just being "evil" or whatever.

There's a lot of controversy regarding the specific contents of the TPP, but for me personally, I am against the cloud of secrecy that it (along with most trade agreements) was developed under. It took WikiLeaks to even let the public know of its existence. And after that they refused to let members of congress (our elected officials) from even reviewing the document except for selected sections, under the watchful e…

For as long as we have money (or crypto currencies or whatever the Spice may be) the world will always drive toward domination of those with money over those without. Governments can no longer protect the average person from being dominated by corporations and their interests.

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#18

Post by divbit »

dimino wrote: post #12
gnodar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of controversy regarding the specific contents of the TPP, but for me personally, I am against the cloud of secrecy that it (along with most trade agreements) was developed under. It took WikiLeaks to even let the public know of its existence. And after that they refused to let members of congress (our elected officials) from even reviewing the document except for selected sections, under the watchful e…

I just don't buy this argument, that a trade deal can't be negotiated in secret. The public's control over its government in the US is exclusively through its election system, and the idea that the public "has a right to debate the deal" is, to me, utter nonsense. You elect officials who you trust to appoint other officials who will negotiate with the US's best interest in mind. If the deal goes through, you elect di…

> "The people" never have a say in any legislation, not directly,

I "think" that the existence of ballot initiatives (and especially direct initiatives) directly contradicts this. For a real life example of ballot initiatives in action: http://singlepayerhealthcarenow.com/2015/12/27/single-payer-...

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#19

Post by brownbat »

gnodar wrote: post #9
dimino wrote: post #2

There's a lot of abstract "this deal is bad!" stuff, but what, specific, are the issues with TPP? What reason does the president have for wanting to pass it? I generally find him to be a reasonable person, so I don't think he's just being "evil" or whatever.

There's a lot of controversy regarding the specific contents of the TPP, but for me personally, I am against the cloud of secrecy that it (along with most trade agreements) was developed under. It took WikiLeaks to even let the public know of its existence. And after that they refused to let members of congress (our elected officials) from even reviewing the document except for selected sections, under the watchful e…

> It took WikiLeaks to even let the public know of its existence.

A trade deal was openly proposed in 2008.[0] Wikileaks did not leak specific provisions until 2013.

I think it's reasonable to expect democratic accountability, which requires transparency in some part of the process.

That's compatible though with allowing a period of time where negotiators are allowed to work on drafts in private. Since legislators and the public are allowed to see the proposed agreement before ratification, I'm not as worried about the secrecy issue.

There was even an openly publicized notice and comment period where citizens were encouraged to weigh in on the draft with any concerns by writing directly to USTR.[1]

There are a lot of aspects of TPP I don't agree with, but the process wasn't quite as cloak and dagger as some have suggested.

[0] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...

[1] http://www.flushthetpp.org/your-chance-to-officially-tell-th...

Re: TPP Is Still Very Much Alive

#20

Post by CamperBob2 »

sremani wrote: post #8

Here is the case for TPP, https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/case-tp...

Interesting:

   Given this record, TPP critics are at a loss to cite an 
   outrageous ISDS award against the United States—because 
   there are none. In fact, the United States has prevailed 
   in all 13 ISDS cases brought against it by foreign 
   firms. Instead, critics speculate that future cases 
   might seek compensation for foreign corporate losses 
   arguably incurred on account of environmental, safety, 
   or financial regulation. This speculation is flatly 
   contradicted by explicit language in past US agreements 
   that explicitly recognizes the proper role of fair 
   regulation. Similar language is sure to appear in the 
   TPP.
What does he mean, "sure to appear?" Hasn't he read the thing?

If not, why is he advocating for it?

Post reply on HN