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

Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#21

Post by gorhill »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #11
gorhill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elected government officials from democratic countries Such secrecy is incompatible with democracy, why refer to some of the countries participating in this as "democratic"?

You'r right. In a Democracy a secret trade deal could never happen because in a Democracy everything is decided on by its citizens, not elected officials. However in the United States these decisions are not made by citizens but by elected officials voted in by citizens. Hence the United States is not a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

> elected officials voted in by citizens

You can play with words as much as you want, the substance here is that citizens are purposely kept uninformed, and without information there is no such thing as informed consent, a core principle of democracy regardless of the technical details.

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#22

Post by mathattack »

rosser wrote: post #12
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #3

Secret agreements are automatically suspect but this seems like more of the same rather than a change in direction. This is partly a result of the move to multi-lateral trade talks (bad idea but when WTO rounds take a decade it's not unexpected), and partly inertia - there is little common agreement on how to prevent the next crash, so without a better idea we seem to follow the inverse of Einsteins quip - "the defin…

...like the main media organisations should have already got their investigatory acts together and made wiki leaks irrelevant. On the whole, the "main media organizations" are an entrenched part of the system they'd need to be reporting on in order to do that job. That's a pretty major "biting the hand that feeds them" sort of impediment.

There's also not a market for things that are hard to explain like multilateral trade agreements.

It's much easier to shout, "It was Bush's fault!" or "But what about Benghazi?"

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#23

Post by bediger4000 »

tzs wrote: post #17
bediger4000 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WHy do you say "must have secrets"? What part of "democracy" (or even "representative democracy", a republic perhaps) axiomatically requires secrets of any sort? Trade agreement negotiations almost axiomatically do not require secrets. If they're "negotiations" then everything ends up coming out in the wash, eh?

Without secrecy concerning the details during negotiation, it would be very very hard to make trade agreements. Negotiation involves a lot of give and take. If that was all public, then as soon as our negotiators conceded on, say, some term that was going to help our automobile industry in order to gain some term that will help our garment industry, there would be a huge outcry from the automobile industry, and soon…

But as instantiated, the secrecy that the US Trade Reprentative uses and imposes is not this kind of secrecy at all. At least as near as those of us outside the TPP/ACTA negotiations can tell. The treaties do not become public until after they're negotiated and signed.

From leaked documents, it appears that inside the negotiations, there's really not the kind of secrecy you're imagining. Every part to ACTA, for example, just marked it up as they thought it should be, and then there was a lot of something (not public) to get to a final draft. That's not keeping a maximum (or minimum) position secret in order to gain advantage, that's just deciding how much of something can be foisted upon the global public without causing a revolution.

From my standpoint, the secrecy we get is of no use to anyone but corporate fat cats and insiders.

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#24

Post by justsee »

javert wrote: post #16
justsee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But... International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation) which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear to think it is. > These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have inter…

You are conflating two different and commonly-used meanings of the word "regulation." In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These are laws under which the government initiates force against market participants to try to force a desired outcome. Proper laws merely protect individual sovereignty. For example, you c…

> In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty.

Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct."

The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but isn't (even fairly) common parlance.

A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'.

Your definition also implies that governmental rules that protect individual sovereignty (or don't impact upon it) are not the 'regulation' you protest against, and a clearer term for that would simply be 'good regulation'.

There are obviously regulations which protect individual sovereignty: environmental laws stopping anyone or any entity dumping toxic waste which impacts on the health and well-being of those individuals is but one of many obvious examples.

So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and you are against bad regulations, but you choose to call them simply 'regulations' which is rather confusing.

You also conclude: 'Thus, regulatory laws are wrong'.

Better to use the clearer, more correct statement 'Thus, bad regulatory laws are wrong'. Very uncontroversial and agreeable.

I think it could actually be argued that redefining a term like 'regulation' as you are doing is actually harmful to individual sovereignty. The common meaning of 'regulation' also covers regulation that is protective of individual sovereignty, and trying to promulgate a pejorative sense of the term merely enables moochers and looters to further hijack the term to weaken those regulations which protect individual sovereignty.

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#25

Post by judk »

nadaviv wrote: post #20
leorocky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in this instance they're only secret while under negotiation, when congress votes on it, it will be open.

"the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force"

The draft or the ratified version?

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#26

Post by BrandonMarc »

nadaviv wrote: post #20
leorocky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in this instance they're only secret while under negotiation, when congress votes on it, it will be open.

"the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force"

This. Wish i could upvote 10x. When the negotiations are secret, it's one thing. When the agreement itself is secret for longer than a (usa) president's term, that's another.

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#27

Post by judk »

bediger4000 wrote: post #23
tzs wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without secrecy concerning the details during negotiation, it would be very very hard to make trade agreements. Negotiation involves a lot of give and take. If that was all public, then as soon as our negotiators conceded on, say, some term that was going to help our automobile industry in order to gain some term that will help our garment industry, there would be a huge outcry from the automobile industry, and soon…

But as instantiated, the secrecy that the US Trade Reprentative uses and imposes is not this kind of secrecy at all. At least as near as those of us outside the TPP/ACTA negotiations can tell. The treaties do not become public until after they're negotiated and signed. From leaked documents, it appears that inside the negotiations, there's really not the kind of secrecy you're imagining. Every part to ACTA, for examp…

Why would the global revolutionaries decode to stay home if they have to wait an extra few months to see the treaty?

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#28

Post by BrandonMarc »

javert wrote: post #2

> proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. But... > The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Without regulation, there would be thousands…

Sloppy thinking ... supporting the status quo through confusion ... yep, sounds like the media doing the job they're told to do.

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#29

Post by nitrogen »

justsee wrote: post #14
javert wrote: post #2

> proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. But... > The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Without regulation, there would be thousands…

> But... International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation) which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear to think it is. > These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have inter…

Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade, and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies).

Has this been demonstrated conclusively? It seems like international trade probably would have come before international law.

Re: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex

#30

Post by javert »

justsee wrote: post #24
javert wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating two different and commonly-used meanings of the word "regulation." In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These are laws under which the government initiates force against market participants to try to force a desired outcome. Proper laws merely protect individual sovereignty. For example, you c…

> In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct." The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but isn't (even fairly) common parlance. A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'. Your definition also implies…

My usage is absolutely common parlance.

For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation."

Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position.

Post reply on HN