Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by crdoconnor » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 4:18 AM UTC

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…

>Minor thought : this leak is still a pretty big deal. But it feels like wikileaks is the wrong place for this - like the main media organisations should have already got their investigatory acts together and made wiki leaks irrelevant.

Wall Street and the mainstream media go hand in hand. That is why this would never have been leaked by them, and why they won't give it anything except the most cursory reporting now it is leaked.

If you're waiting for them to get their investigatory acts together you'll be waiting forever. Wikileaks exists because they refuse to.

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

#32

Post by mercurial » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:41 AM UTC

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…

My understanding that part of what caused the housing bubble crisis in the US was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act by Bill Clinton. Besides, I suppose that governments, if they took their responsibility, could break up large, "too big to fail", banks, in the same way that Bell was.

I'm not sure why you think that an industry with so many instances of irresponsibility and dishonesty is fit to essentially govern itself more through deregulation.

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

#33

Post by beedogs » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 6:13 AM UTC

mercurial wrote: post #32

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…

My understanding that part of what caused the housing bubble crisis in the US was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act by Bill Clinton. Besides, I suppose that governments, if they took their responsibility, could break up large, "too big to fail", banks, in the same way that Bell was. I'm not sure why you think that an industry with so many instances of irresponsibility and dishonesty is fit to essentially govern it…

GLB was signed by Clinton, but it was sent to his desk with a veto-proof majority. Destroying the American banking system was a bipartisan effort in stupidity.

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

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 7:26 AM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #22

rosser wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?"

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

Financial institutions, macro-oriented asset managers and companies with multinational supply chains and long-term assets are each affected by these dynamics. Gaining intelligence on the nature and implications of trade negotiations is huge business.

I spent a good amount of time, as a trader, trying to anticipate how sundry domestic political variables constrained international actors, thereby predicting the odds of various trade structures arising from a forum (or of a forum even materialising in the first place).

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

#35

Post by leorocky » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 7:27 AM UTC

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"

I'll believe this is true when I hear it from a second, accountable and reputable source.

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

#36

Post by justsee » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 7:33 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #30

justsee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> My usage is absolutely common parlance.

Maybe in your particular social or intellectual circles, but not in common parlance. This is obvious by comparing the dictionary definition with your definition: the former is general and widely understood, while the later is values-laden and requires an appreciation of a particular philosophical position.

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

They are by definition regulations. If you read the definition of regulation, you would have to agree they are regulations.

> 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.

They specifically acknowledge and address your points around individual sovereignty - your assertions to the contrary indicate you haven't properly read what I wrote.

I called out an example of a 'good regulation' by your definition - an environmental law - to show how regulations can support individual sovereignty.

Leaving this point unanswered is what discredits your position. However it's clear to me this contortion around the meaning of 'regulation' is something impossible to honestly defend.

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

#37

Post by lifeisstillgood » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 8:04 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #31

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…

>Minor thought : this leak is still a pretty big deal. But it feels like wikileaks is the wrong place for this - like the main media organisations should have already got their investigatory acts together and made wiki leaks irrelevant. Wall Street and the mainstream media go hand in hand. That is why this would never have been leaked by them, and why they won't give it anything except the most cursory reporting now…

I think there are very few conspiracies, just confluences of self-interests. Newspapers are dying, but their original need - to publish what was originally hidden, to shine a light on government, still exists and seems to be well served by the Wikileaks core of true anonymity - and so faced with destruction I would expect some newspapers to morph into Wikileaks with a two hundred year track record.

I am seeing this in WaPo and Guardian and maybe al-jazera

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

#38

Post by maaku » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 8:29 AM UTC

leorocky wrote: post #19

greenyoda wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Democracies can have secrets, and in fact must if they want to achieve their interests." I can see how certain things can be justifiably kept secret in a democracy, like matters related to national security (military, intelligence, etc.). But secrecy in business and financial regulation is just corruption. Especially when the interests in question are those of private businesses and may not be in the best interests…

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

However these are rushed through is mere days, without any time for public review.

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

#39

Post by harywilke » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 8:36 AM UTC

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…

The U.S. constitution was written in secrecy for much the same reason.

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

#40

Post by twoodfin » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 8:39 AM UTC

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"

It's the draft that will be secret, not the final agreement.

I don't understand why this is so confusing: It's much easier for negotiators to propose a series of concessions and trade-offs in private, knowing that they'll only face political heat for those that actually make it into the final agreement.