Even The Atlantic which I found one of the better "mass media" sources rejoices for TPP and lists none of the criticism. I am much afraid all this doesn't reach the masses.
Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
141–150 of 181 posts
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#142When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying. I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting a…
I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the resulting drugs for free. The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U…
The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U.S
Correction -- that should read "benefit to the US companies".
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the resulting drugs for free. The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U…
I live in New Zealand - we've chosen to have socialised medicine - we buy drugs in bulk, for the whole country - it gives the national drug buying agency lots of market power - it doesn't force drug companies to sell to us under cost - but it does pick and choose hich drugs it buys with its limited budget - if they want our business they have to compete with other companies in front of a knowledgable experienced buye…
Wel yeah... US govt has very large buying power to so by simple market economics, the US govt gets as good a deal as... oh wait. Shit. They made it illegal for themselves to negotiate. Oops.
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#144When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying. I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting a…
U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists I made a similar comment a few days ago - what we need is a crowd-funded lobbying platform for everyday people. A kind of Kickstarter for law and policy. If a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people chip in a few dollars to lobby for a change in policy, we can compete with corporations who have bought their way into power. While we're complaining o…
I think a more practical idea is the notion of people running for office that vow to take a public vote for all their decisions through the internet (yes it could be done realistically with public/private key cryptography)
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#145When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying. I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting a…
I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the resulting drugs for free. The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U…
"I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S."
That's quite an interesting interpretation of "without borders".
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
no matter how much you care. if politicians can only run a campaign with millions of dollars, and that amount only come from corporations, and the corporations can see who voted on what it wanted, then the public is largely removed from politics.
It is illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians. 61% of raised funds come from individuals donating up to $2600 each. 23% come from PACs (which themselves may only raise money from individuals, not corporations), and the rest comes from self-funding and political party committees. Edit: These numbers are from 2010 congressional elections. Also it's illegal for federal elections. State elections have the…
Are the 23% from PACs money given directly to campaigns or does it also include independent expenditures?
Additionally, wouldn't it be better to look at expenditures in later elections such as the 2012 presidential election? Using the 2010 data is a bit biased because the Citizens United decision was only ruled on in 2010.
As for your point of donations being illegal for federal elections, it is true that direct donations are regulated, however outside "independent" spending by corporations is not illegal.
Additionally, Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from corporations as long as they use the money for independent expenditures.
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to those conspiracy theorists I mention? Some things that they attribute to NWO and therefore want to fight against are: GMOs, vaccines, (moving away from fossil fuels to) nuclear energy, carbon tax, unified global government. Implementation may be tricky, but if you skip the accusations that They want to depopulate the world using above means, it seems like a bunch of pretty decent ideas for the future.
I agree, there are a lot of things that the hypothetical NWO does that I fully agree with. I stand in full favour of GMOS, Nuclear Energy, Carbon Taxation/Trading, and also a global government (on the condition of it being a good one). However, the extra political power being given to corporations and the reduction of citizen's capacity for political influence is something to stand firmly against. Of course I don't b…
> I agree, there are a lot of things that the hypothetical NWO does that I fully agree with.
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/05/16-us-tr... > Economic modeling estimates that the benefits to the U.S. from the TPP will be $5 billion in 2015, rising to $14 billion in 2025 Yeah, its not worth it. Btw US GDP is ~$16 trillion. This isn't going to move the meter at all. Its primarily about securing foreign IP rights for US companies, Obama's legacy, and strategic influence.
I think the parent meant 10% GDP growth in the other (non-U.S.) countries.
It doesn't do that either.
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an orthogonal point. You could make a similar argument for private land ownership (why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?)
>why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it? He shouldn't. Next question?
My next question would be "what is a persuasive argument against intellectual property for those of us who don't reject the concept of private property altogether?"
Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine. You've confused possession with ownership. If you loan it to someone -- or someone steals it -- you won't find it in your pocket, you won't possess it, but you will still own it. Ownership is a relation created in law. It is different than possession. In fact,…
Spoken like a true gentleman, and you raised a few good points. I still feel that there's a difference between physical property and "intellectual property" - probably because "intellectual property" is mostly licensed. It's the licensing that sets apart "intellectual property" and it's the giant, state support for enforcement of licenses that makes the difference. If we talked about people leasing or renting softwar…
> I still feel that there's a difference between physical property and "intellectual property" - probably because "intellectual property" is mostly licensed.
Conditional, restricted-use-specific licensing of real and tangible personal property is common.