21–30 of 66 posts
This article [1] linked from the OP contains the following fact: the pro-TPP lobby spent $135 million in the second quarter of 2015. I mean, I know lobbying costs money, but where can that much money possibly go? [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-trade-tpp-lobby...
Let me guess... corruption?
A relevant example where this could be a good thing; I'd love for tech businesses in London to be as easy to invest in for Silicon Valley investors as local tech companies - this would be amazing for investors, London startup scene etc. - maybe it would require a special sort of company and also an easy way to move a company to CA if needed.
There are loads of things in TTIP to hate but the above example would be a better use of these bureaucrats time and something that would be easy to pass and help lots of businesses grow!
Why this needs to be done as one giant agreement seems crazy... A relevant example where this could be a good thing; I'd love for tech businesses in London to be as easy to invest in for Silicon Valley investors as local tech companies - this would be amazing for investors, London startup scene etc. - maybe it would require a special sort of company and also an easy way to move a company to CA if needed. There are lo…
If you want to circumvent debate and controversy, get all your buddies together and write up an omnibus agreement or bill. Bundling different ideas together makes it hard to talk about it, let alone debate it.
"Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies."
and
"For instance, we track the specific promises made by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government data showing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico."
and
"The data also show how post-NAFTA trade and investment trends have contributed to middle-class pay cuts, which in turn contributed to growing income inequality;"
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-m...
This too was being touted as a great free trade agreement for the US and its economy and the exact opposite happened. I can only assume the outcome for the TPP will be similar.
This article [1] linked from the OP contains the following fact: the pro-TPP lobby spent $135 million in the second quarter of 2015. I mean, I know lobbying costs money, but where can that much money possibly go? [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-trade-tpp-lobby...
Thanks for posting this story. I shared it on Stumbleupon (where apparently it hadn't been prior) along with the petition and signed it. I'm a card carrying EFF member but I don't read the site every day.
The lengths they've gone to to hide this is proportional to how bad it will be for the general public.
To get the viewpoint of people championing this agreement, I recommend reading this article by the Economist[1] where they say "for all its flaws, the biggest trade deal in years is good news for the world" [1] - http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21659716... For the record, I think the TPP is pernicious for all the reasons pointed out by the EFF.
I'm confused by this statement in the article you linked, and I've heard it before: > the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is the most important free-trade agreement in years How does "29 chapters of dense rules and hundreds of tariff lines " == "free trade"? Free trade is meant to be open, without restriction, and free. Some of the conditions being reported are anything but.
For example, free trade in mayonnaise. That should just mean that anyone can import/export mayonnaise right? Well, no. Mayonnaise is food so there's certain health standards and facility inspection regimes. And you and I have different ones now they need to be harmonized. Also, what is Mayonnaise anyway? We need to harmonize our labeling requirements. Also. is your country producing subsidized eggs (major ingredient in mayo)? Well now we need to add a line to our contract that eliminates those subsidies.
The lists of this kind of stuff goes on and on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused by this statement in the article you linked, and I've heard it before: > the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is the most important free-trade agreement in years How does "29 chapters of dense rules and hundreds of tariff lines " == "free trade"? Free trade is meant to be open, without restriction, and free. Some of the conditions being reported are anything but.
"Free Trade" is like "Frictionless Wheel". It's trivially easy to talk about and is simple in theory, but in practice they both involve a lot of messy engineering. For example, free trade in mayonnaise. That should just mean that anyone can import/export mayonnaise right? Well, no. Mayonnaise is food so there's certain health standards and facility inspection regimes. And you and I have different ones now they need t…
Hum... No. Not at all. A company is perfectly capable of making mayo for different health requirements.
There are a few cases where harmonization is needed (mostly between small and poor countries), but overall "harmonizing" laws is just a propaganda presentation of giving exorbitant benefits for an external company that is bribing your government.
Our representatives are representing us behind closed doors at a luxury hotel!
Is the fact that the talks are in a "Luxury Hotel" pertinent? The article doesn't explain how. Would the EFF be happier if the the "Secret TPP Talks Continue at a Reasonably Priced Motel as the Deal Grows More Controversial" Clearly the EFF doesn't like the process; but this phrasing is a cheap shot that distracts from the very important message. It's also one they've used a few times. https://www.eff.org/search/site…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-11/paulson-ba... http://www.miningfacts.org/Blog/Mining-News/Canadian-Miner-P...
Basically a Canadian company will most likely sue the Romanian government for refusing to allow an open pit gold mine. They won't do this in a Romanian court.
Just like we saw with Greece, sovereign nations are no longer all that sovereign. Treaties like TPP, and TTIP will further remove decision making capabilities from sovereign states. It's kinda crazy.
This article [1] linked from the OP contains the following fact: the pro-TPP lobby spent $135 million in the second quarter of 2015. I mean, I know lobbying costs money, but where can that much money possibly go? [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-trade-tpp-lobby...
Read the Reuters article carefully: that's all the money spent by all the members of the "US Business Coalition for TPP" on all lobbying , it's in the same order of magnitude as it was prior to TPP, and even the surge in spending now isn't all TPP. For instance, Boeing doubled their lobbying --- to lobby against the proposed elimination of the Export-Import Bank.