Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
vancouversun.com
Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#2Exactly. It won't be good for us. The I.P. effects and ability to sue over lost profit have already been devastating in the precedent situations. Same types of elites involved in this legislation. I have less faith in American voters than he does. Hope the situation in Canada makes them break from it and maybe delay/end the whole thing.
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#3>has been one of the most vocal critics of globalization and global inequality.
How can he simultaneously be a critic of globalization AND a critic of global inequality? The one thing "globalization" brings with it is low skilled jobs but relatively better jobs to underdeveloped nations en-masse, if those nations don't squander things, they can parley that into higher economic rungs (as has the US, Japan, China, throughout history.
Yes, wages stagnate in the rich countries but they increase in developing nations. Sometimes you sell goods to emerging markets but typically their PP is too small to matter and healthy local firms can take advantage of the increased local purchasing power to push into neighboring countries.
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#4I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!".
So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the internet? What's the strongest case as to why it's bad and why I should lobby my congressman to push against it?
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#5I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!". So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the inte…
The devil is in detail, a good case for or against can be only presented after we have draft. People are going by assumptions, which may be likely part of the agreement, but assumptions none the less.
note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#6I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!". So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the inte…
Skipping the court system in case of disputes in favor of an arbitrage.
Let's say a country established a law that prohibits smoking. A company conducting business there (selling cigarettes), can complain based on the loss of future income. According to the bilateral agreement, they demand an arbitrage that is performed in secret by a third-party and is binding and final.
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#7I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!". So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the inte…
The devil is in detail, a good case for or against can be only presented after we have draft. People are going by assumptions, which may be likely part of the agreement, but assumptions none the less. note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.
The Asian equivalent to TPP is RCEP, it includes China and India, and has more draconian IP terms than TPP, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-...
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#8I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!". So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the inte…
Investment dispute court is terrible. As an idea it is deeply disturbing to anyone that values national sovereignty.
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#9In the tradition of the Daily Show, a six-minute video on the rules of ISDS courts where (non-tobacco) corporations would be able to sue TPP governments, https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU
Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers
#10>has been one of the most vocal critics of globalization and global inequality. How can he simultaneously be a critic of globalization AND a critic of global inequality? The one thing "globalization" brings with it is low skilled jobs but relatively better jobs to underdeveloped nations en-masse, if those nations don't squander things, they can parley that into higher economic rungs (as has the US, Japan, China, thro…
Because you can globalize inequality, such that a transnational set of very powerful oppressors can use cross-border agreements to make the lives of those disenfranchised on both sides of the border equally miserable, skimming the cream of their surplus and absconding with said fruits of labor to parts beyond the reach or purview of those stolen from, while using against them international laws that are difficult to understand and are powerless to fight?