Slashdot Mirror


Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Is Reached

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times reports that negotiators have finally reached agreement over the Trans-Pacific Partnership from the U.S. and 11 other nations. The TPP has been in development for eight years, and has the potential to dramatically strengthen U.S. economic ties to east Asia. Though the negotiations have been done in secret, the full text of the agreement should be published within a month. Congress (and the legislative houses of the other participating countries) will have 90 days to review it and decide whether to ratify it. The TPP has been criticized in tech circles for how it regards intellectual property and facilitates website blocking, among other issues.

Proponents will also have to answer broader questions about whether it stifles competition, how it treats individuals versus large corporations, as if it creates environmental problems. To give you an idea of how complex it is: "The Office of the United States Trade Representative said the partnership eventually would end more than 18,000 tariffs that the participating countries have placed on United States exports, including autos, machinery, information technology and consumer goods, chemicals and agricultural products ranging from avocados in California to wheat, pork and beef from the Plains states."

278 comments

  1. Finally by Demotheses · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm so excited by this. I love surprises.

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doomed

    2. Re:Finally by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 5, Informative

      The agreement also would overhaul special tribunals that handle trade disputes between businesses and participating nations.

      Probably something like ISDS. That should hardly be a surprise. It is the new colonialism: it gives companies the possibility to plunder foreign nations, but with an army of lawyers instead of an army of thugs.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re:Finally by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I'll narrow it down. You're going to get raped. So, you have 'surprise sex' coming but who knows when? I've not yet seen one good thing reported about this. Not one...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Finally by Demotheses · · Score: 1

      Well hopefully then this deal will give us access to cheaper lubricant because we're going to need it.

    5. Re:Finally by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Informative

      The agreement also would overhaul special tribunals that handle trade disputes between businesses and participating nations.

      Probably something like ISDS. That should hardly be a surprise. It is the new colonialism: it gives companies the possibility to plunder foreign nations, but with an army of lawyers instead of an army of thugs.

      Actually, they have plenty of thugs, too. They just prefer to use the lawyers so everything looks "clean".

    6. Re:Finally by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Failure to buy Brand X (lead included) Lubricant will result in your beings sued because the company failed to make a profit by your choosing to not buy it. Surprise sex for everyone!!! I'm hoping they whip me and call me names first. I'll pay extra for that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you a large multinational?

      No? Bend over.

    8. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've not yet seen one good thing reported about this. Not one...

      Are you one of those people who claims not to believe anything he reads in the paper?

    9. Re:Finally by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Umm... No? Can you show me anything good that has been published about this? I've not seen one good thing published about this. Not one.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Finally by ajzimm3rman · · Score: 0

      Plunder. Colonialism. Free trade does no such thing. I suggest you read Economic Facts & Fallacies. http://www.amazon.com/Economic...

    11. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know they changed the definition of poverty right? aka they baked the analysis to make it say what they wanted.

    12. Re:Finally by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The Bank uses an updated international poverty line of US $1.90 a day

      Can't be many places where you can live off of $1.90 a day without hardship.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will, but it will be laced with radioactive lead.

    14. Re:Finally by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      ISDS != free trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    15. Re: Finally by Asha2004 · · Score: 2

      The idea of letting a arbitration committee in a foreign country (in this case the US) supersede the judicial system of a democratic nation which has evolved over more than a century is to absurd to contemplate. Corporate lobby is making it (ISDS) happen though. Europe is next.

    16. Re: Finally by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that companies can sue the US when they pass laws that stop the company from making enough money. It's not a one way street. Much of the agreement is pushing what America, or at least the American companies, wants out onto the other countries. Things such as copyright reform and the pharmaceuticals deal.

    17. Re:Finally by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The Globe and Mail in Canada has been singing the praises of the deal and how it's going to open doors, benefits of free trade, and it's the beginning of the end of supply management for the agriculture industry. But it's all generic stuff and they can't give specifics because nobody can see the specifics.

      They aren't even trying to hide their bias. There was an article about what economists think about the agreement. They had three economists interviewed and all three couldn't contain their enthusiasm for TPP. Not one bad thing to say about it.

    18. Re:Finally by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's kind of my point. I've seen some articles that praised it but that doesn't mean I've seen them saying anything good about it. I mean, yeah, they might have thought they were saying good things about it but I've not interpreted it that way. "Look, our dog shit is going to come in new colors and you'll love the flavor!"

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re: Finally by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Well if their participation in NAFTA is any indication, the US will happily just ignore the courts when things don't go in their favor, or will slap the plaintiff company in some unrelated area and use that to essentially force a settlement.

      And unfortunately, unless your name is China, there's probably shit all you can do about it. The US is too big of an economic force to ignore and you aren't so they have nearly all of the leverage all of the time (or will manufacture some elsewhere as noted above) and don't seem to have any moral qualms about using it.

    20. Re:Finally by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Ending supply management means our farmers will be fucked and our grocery prices will soar. That's not a "good" thing for anyone except the US who would now be able to undercut our farmers (though likely still at a higher price for goods than our current system.)

      I mean you can throw all the capitalism and "if they can't complete, good riddance" rhetoric at our local farmers that you want.. at the end of the day though, food prices going up is going to be the end result and there's nobody who can just stop eating when it gets too expensive, which is a significant difference from most other purchases when you want to start talking economic theory.

    21. Re: Finally by Altrag · · Score: 1

      *plaintiff country. Wow that took me a long time to notice.

  2. We Are Fucked by crunchy_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the first thing that came to mind. That, and we are really, really fucked .

    1. Re:We Are Fucked by Demotheses · · Score: 0

      Wait... are you trying to suggest that a government would put the interests of big businesses and millionaires before that of the people? Actually.. upon half a second of reflection I have now come to the conclusion that you're right.

    2. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is from the group that ran the Charleston shooting as cover for the Senate giving the President authorization to do the TPP -- I don't think the public had a chance to stop this.

    3. Re:We Are Fucked by crunchy_one · · Score: 4, Funny

      This just goes so far beyond bad, all I can think to do is build a blanket fort and retreat to it with a fifth of JD.

    4. Re:We Are Fucked by Demotheses · · Score: 2, Informative

      They'll be firing tear gas into your blanket fort quicker than you can say "constitution"

    5. Re:We Are Fucked by crunchy_one · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

    6. Re:We Are Fucked by Demotheses · · Score: 0

      Actually it's more of a 'hiss' followed by a hail of bullets

    7. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first thought aswell. I just wish there's more sense with TTIP, but TTP going through is not a good sign.

    8. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The TPP has more to do with strengthening the Japanese economy (in the crapper for 2 decades) and many Southeast asian nations to balance out China's growth and aggressiveness than anything to do with American companies. Sure, American companies are part of the deal, but they're bargaining chips among the US' geopolitics. It strengthens Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, and Singapore and opens up several South- and North- American markets for those counties to trade, places that China has been aggressively expanding into and creating alternatives to Chinese goods.

    9. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just waiting to see if the rumored "companies can sue the government for passing laws that cut into their profits" clause really is in there, then waiting to see how long it takes some asian brothel to sue the US over its anti-sex-tourism laws.

    10. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is all about letting Big Biz (esp Big Pharma) in the USA fuck all the smaller biz into bankruptcy AND letting the US Feds get unfettered access to anything they want.
      The other countries get what out of this exactly?

      The sagebrush is blowing in the wind.

      Soon ann these other counties will look just like identikit USA with a Big Mac whorehouse on every corner etc etc

    11. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're in China, you're probably not fucked.

      China is going to get the shaft and possibly the balls on this one.

      If they sign this treaty, their "Great Firewall" is going to have a TPP-shaped hole in it. Instantly. And the Google will come pouring in, unrestricted, and under the guise of something China thinks they can control. But they'll have to ask the US for permission to control it, and the US is going to say "No. We don't quash free speech unless we disagree with it. Deal with it."

      And then China will feel the ballsauce in its colon and know that TPP was a bad bargain.

    12. Re:We Are Fucked by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Wait... are you trying to suggest that a government would put the interests of big businesses and millionaires before that of the people?

      Actually.. upon half a second of reflection I have now come to the conclusion that you're right.

      please say you didn't just type that with a straight face?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    13. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, it has to do with the US bullying other countries while they can. Some of the provisions are silly. Leaks have indicated lots of little provisions that screw the small guy. It's about opening markets to sellers. What's the alternative to Chinese goods? Would you like a Korean phone, made in China, an American phone, made in China? Or a Chinese phone made in China? The best value is the Xiaomi or Oppo, Chinese companies manufacturing in China.

      It'll do more to get Australian retailers sued for not giving US products (made in China) preferential treatment over Chinese products (made in China).

      I expect that there'll be a few token suits filed the first few years, then the member countries will do things the US way, as satellite nations to the dictator nation, to avoid lawsuits.

      It'll also mean that the next Kim Dotcom will not be able to live in one of the member countries.

    14. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: We are totally fucked.

    15. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately that was my plan for the afternoon anyway.

    16. Re:We Are Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia did it for lower tarrifs so we can export more coal and cows.

  3. Good buy jobs and cheap drugs by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    Good buy jobs and cheap drugs.

    Time for some to thing about plan B aka prison for your doctor (mainly USA only) also free room and board.

    1. Re:Good buy jobs and cheap drugs by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Good buy jobs and cheap drugs.

      Did you mean 'bye'?

    2. Re:Good buy jobs and cheap drugs by Jaazaniah · · Score: 1

      Not free with the commercial prison industrial complex, they charge you, pile on interest during your sentence, and even sue states that aren't sending enough prisoners their way. Sound familiar? It better, because now they can argue that the prisons have precedent if this thing passes to sue the states over profit margins. Anyone not calling into their reps and demanding a fight over threat of voting the incumbent out should be shot.

  4. What Could Possibly Go Wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly don't know. No. Really. I don't know.

    1. Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I honestly don't know. No. Really. I don't know.

      The same thing that has gone wrong with every single trade pact that the US government has ever negotiated: a few get enriched, the rest of us get fewer jobs. Do try to keep up.

    2. Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? by Art+Challenor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and the first clue should have been "negotiated in secret". This is almost all the bad IP parts of the bills the Congress has been trying to pass but couldn't because of the public scrutiny (see SOPA, CISPA, etc.). Now they just get to vote "yes" on a "jobs" bill. The only remaining question is can they do it without drooling at the prospect of the campaign finance monies they'll get for doing the bidding of their handlers.

    3. Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? by Jamu · · Score: 1

      My friends are honest and open.
      My enemies are deceitful and secretive.

      --
      Who ordered that?
  5. Congratulations by BlindRobin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are now ever so much more than a mere consumer you are now officially a commodity.

  6. America is racist! by CajunArson · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you racists had just voted for Obama, we wouldn't have had two more terms of that Bush Administration and none of this would have ever happened!

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:America is racist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weak. Go back to troll school.

  7. Diablo 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless it involves Diablo 2, I don't want to hear about any stinking cows.

    1. Re:Diablo 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. I kinda like the cow injection that Diablo's Hellfire expansion introduced:

      "Moo"
      "I said Moo"
      "Look, I'm a cow, ok?"

  8. Does this mean we'll finally get to see it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd like to know how much it does/doesn't suck before assuming our elected representatives haven't completely sold us out, as is probably the case. Reducing tariffs sounds like a great idea, until you realize it's the people at the top that almost always benefit and all the workers already at the bottom get to compete with other countries that are even further down, economically-speaking.

  9. And we STILL can't read it by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its full 30-chapter text will not be available for perhaps a month

    Doubtlessly to be released to public 24 hours before the Congressional vote...

    If the reason for keeping it secret is that the negotiators didn't want to be swayed by day-to-day changing public opinion, what reason not to release the text immediately? It's not as if they have to print it all out; I'm sure there's many a web-designer who could whip up a site with the content of the treaty in less than a day.

    Hell, stick it in a TXT file and dump it on an FTP site somewhere. Nominally this agreement is for the betterment of all involved countries; there is no reason not to make the information available immediately.

    Unless... say, you don't think the negotiators weren't working in the best interests of the citizens they are supposed to represent, do you?

    1. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? 30 days? Is there a deal or not? If so, then why don't we ordinary citizens get to see it? Any pretense for keeping it secret during negotiations has ended. Who the heck is in charge here? Do "ordinary" people have a say through their representatives or not?

    2. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Demotheses · · Score: 0

      pshhh! don't be ridiculous, a government official couldn't possibly be corrupt! Nixon will be turning in his grave

    3. Re:And we STILL can't read it by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      It's not as if they have to print it all out; I'm sure there's many a web-designer who could whip up a site with the content of the treaty in less than a day.

      They don't HAVE to, but they opted to. It's not their fault you didn't find the one unlinked web page on some random government server to request your hard copy with 30-day lead time requirement. But it was available to be requested.

    4. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do "ordinary" people have a say through their representatives or not?

      Jesus, have you been living under a rock for the last few decades?

    5. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's because Canada is in the middle of an election, and if the details get out before then, the ruling Conservatives will be completely wiped off the face of the earth.

      It will gut most of Canada's government-run businesses, including our health care system.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    6. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It gives the players involved time to setup any sort of spin, distraction, press release, leak, or other propaganda to snub the expected protests.

      If you pay attention you can see it in action. Shortly before the Iran deal was announced there were a bunch of stories about amazing bunker buster bombs, which were nothing new, but magically were on the second pages of assorted news sites. Once the deal was announced it was clear to me that it was all nicely orchestrated to either pressure Iran into accepting or else, or to snub those that would argue we would be toothless on the enforcement side (likely both).

      So watch the news cycle carefully for the next 30 days. Friendly "journalists" will be getting special access and you can expect a lot of stories based on that access that will paint things in a positive light. You will see a lot of selling and spinning in the affected countries. By time the full text comes out and the analysis comes out it will be fighting an uphill battle to re-ignite outrage that has already been tamped down.

    7. Re:And we STILL can't read it by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At least Nixon knew when the jig was up and still had enough sense of shame to step down when he was busted. When modern presidents wantonly ignore the law AND get caught they claim is some !$MYPARTY conspiracy to discredit them and carry on.

      We would lucky to have a president with half the integrity or Richard Nixon again.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will be fucking lucky if congress gets to see it 24 hours before a congressional vote.

    9. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Zalbik · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doubtlessly to be released to public 24 hours before the Congressional vote...

      With apologies to the late Douglas Adams:

      Congressman: "But the treaty was on display to the public!"
      Disgruntled Voter: “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it.”

      Congressman: “That’s the display department.”
      Disgruntled Voter: “With a flashlight.”

      Congressman: “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
      Disgruntled Voter: “So had the stairs.”

      Congressman: “But look, you found the treaty, didn’t you?”
      Disgruntled Voter: “Yes, yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

    10. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...except the other Parties will go with whatever the US Congress decides because the US is our largest trade partner by a long shot and whatever they do we follow suit.

    11. Re:And we STILL can't read it by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Beware of the leopard.

    12. Re:And we STILL can't read it by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Doubtlessly to be released to public 24 hours before the Congressional vote"

      That would actually an improvement. Last I heard it was going to remain secret after ratification.

    13. Re:And we STILL can't read it by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      We would lucky to have a president with half the integrity or Richard Nixon again.

      if that isn't a sad commentary I don't know what is.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    14. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can only hope wikileaks or someone similar gets hold of the leaked final draft and releases it soon enough to let the outrage beat the spin machine. The IP sections of this shitheap alone are fucking horrifying, much less whatever stuff we don't know about yet.

    15. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Some, like extending copyright 20 years to match the (overlong) US standard, is suboptimal but not the end of the world.

      I wonder if there are provisions to extend safe harbor to companies that respond quickly to copyright violation claims, rather than just allowing immediate lawsuits. That has massively benefitted the US. I don't know if this is in there though.

      I do see blocking and some other crap which might not pass constitutional test due to freedom of speech. The exact relationship between treaties and the constituion is not fully resolved, with some believing a properly approved treaty could, say, abridge freedom of speech. If so, said treaty should be soundly rejected.

      Logically, a treaty would be above national and state laws, but below the constitution. So any law conflicts with a treaty, the treaty wins, but if the treaty conflicts with the constitution, the constitution wins. That is not how some of those covetous if power want it though.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:And we STILL can't read it by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Also, it is not how it actually works in T.R.W.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    17. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because they need to produce a "text" form of the agreement. Right now all they have is lists of dollar amounts from their lobbyists.

    18. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      I wish I could up-vote this beyond the "5" you already have.

      This deserves at least an 11.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    19. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It will gut most of Canada's government-run businesses

      Can you imagine life without the CBC, LCBO, and Canada Post? END OF THE FUCKING WORLD I TELL YOU!

      Ok, one of those is just for my province.

      >including our health care system.

      Oh, I am absolutely certain there's a specific chapter that is titled "Complete destruction of Canada with a Nuclear Device". I mean, hey, if you're going to go retard, go full retard!

    20. Re:And we STILL can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if a treaty conflicts with another treaty?

    21. Re:And we STILL can't read it by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      Do "ordinary" people have a say through their representatives or not?

      Yes! For your convenience, the amount of say you have is quantified by small, numbered, green pieces of paper.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    22. Re:And we STILL can't read it by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you think the news stories in the newspapers you read were put there to put pressure on Iran?? Is that what you're saying?

    23. Re:And we STILL can't read it by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Harper already extended copyright in his last budget.

      http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

    24. Re:And we STILL can't read it by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      To any fellow Canadians out there. If you are in a close riding and want to vote to try and prevent the Conservative candidate from winning but the best person to do so isn't with your preferred party then voting for the best person will no longer hurt your preferred party. In 2011 the Harper government brought into law the removal of the per vote funding of the political parties to be phased out over four years. So in previous elections if you didn't vote for your preferred party they lost out on funding. This is no longer the case. Strategic voting is now an option.

      And remember, ignore what the polls are saying. It's important to get out and vote. If the polls are saying that the Conservative candidate is losing in your riding too many people may think that they will lose and not bother to vote. Polls are made up of a random sampling of the people in the district, not the people that are bothered enough to go and actually vote. The Conservatives are very good at getting their supporters to the polling stations.

    25. Re:And we STILL can't read it by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention that if you go to the VoteTogether website you can see if you are in a riding that is closely fought. They are also doing polls of specific ridings and trying to get pledges for people to vote for the person most likely to beat the Conservative candidate in that riding.

  10. Canada by Kinthelt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's an election going on here. Whether or not Canada signs is depends greatly upon which party wins. Right now, it's pretty much a (nationwide) three-way tie. But that doesn't mean an even sharing of the seats in parliament, as the NDP are expected to "waste" a lot of votes in Quebec, so it's actually a much closer race between the Liberals and incumbent Conservatives.

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    1. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to Wikileaks, the State Owned Enterprises section of this agreement was to basically green light the selling of the CBC and Canada Post and allow for suits against crown corporations for interfering in the market. Do we have the final text of this section?

    2. Re:Canada by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's not a tie. That's just the media trying to keep peoples' interest. Harper will win.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Canada by Goglu · · Score: 2

      Whether or not Canada signs is depends greatly upon which party wins.

      No matter which party wins, it will be signed. Libs, NDP or Conservatives will all bow down to banks and big money.

    4. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    5. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's for sure, for us the main player we are watching is the US Congress, we'll go with their flow no matter what party is in power

      Not looking forward to the downstream ramifications of this, it's going to be NAFTA all over again, except on a much bigger scale. Any trade deal that starts with a $4 Billion bailout for dairy/chicken farmers ... probably not good.

      Whatever's left over from our measly manufacturing center going to Mexico from NAFTA, the rest will be dancing off to South Korea (which, we have another bigger trade deal with coming soon anyway).

      I guess invest in west coast real estate and energy/commodities (screw you eastern provinces)

    6. Re:Canada by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Patience... It will be provided on the 19th or 20th...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Canada by Beerdood · · Score: 2

      No, they won't all bow down to banks and corporate interests. This isn't Republicans vs Democrats in the US.

      The Conservatives support the TPP, that's obvious. The NDP does NOT - not sure where you get the idea they're bought by corporations. In the recent provincial election in Alberta, the top 70 corporate donations went to one of the two right wing parties (PC, Wildrose). NDP was the only party to claim they'd raise corporate taxes. Granted, that's at the provincial level but the party ideology doesn't differ that much at the federal level.

      It's unlikely that the Conservatives or NDP will win a majority government at the federal level, so the TPP being enforced will mostly depend on the stance the liberal party takes. Right now, Trudeau's not giving a solid answer on the TPP, just stating "will need to evaluate it". The pessimist in me thinks they're probably going to support it (but they don't want to publicly take a stance yet - and to be fair the dealings are highly secretive so that's a fair statement to make). But it's really up in the air as to whether it'll be passed.

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    8. Re:Canada by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      It also outsources auto manufacturing and means Canadians won't be allowed to know the Country of Origin of their meat, chicken, milk, eggs, butter, or chalk substitute pretending to be milk.

      Or Americans.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:Canada by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      How is that possible? We need to know that in the cases of contaminated food.

    10. Re:Canada by codemachine · · Score: 2

      I'd be surprised if the Liberals don't support it in the end, but it may depend what happens in other countries.

      If the alternatives are to sign on and have a 12 partner TPP, or not sign on and be excluded from an 11 partner TPP, I think Canada will sign on. Now that the agreement is final, rather than still in negotiations, it is a take it or leave it situation. The argument of not wanting to be left out will likely be enough to sway the vote.

      If it faces trouble in other nations, then the Liberals might be able to hedge their bets a bit longer.

    11. Re:Canada by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but the other country and their countries, under TPP, can sue you for anything that restrains their trade, like environmental, health, or safety.

      Those get in the way of their profits.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    12. Re:Canada by axis_omega · · Score: 1

      What do you mean waste votes in Quebec ? I'm from Quebec. The Quebec did not vote for the current Conservative party BTW. And are they really accelerating the trade deal because they know that Canada wouldn't sign the treaty if they knew the content beforehand ? That would be incredible...

      --
      It's funny how I make sense to others and not myself...
    13. Re:Canada by davecb · · Score: 1

      If enough countries (Canada, Mexico, etc) find out they've been shafted, the ratification will drag on, and on and on, to eventually be dropped for lack of interest.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    14. Re:Canada by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      The US already dropped that for meat at the behest of Canadian farmers, they felt demand in the US for their products was suffering due to the label. Ironic, because I would intentionally seek out Canadian beef, and I can't have been the only one. Now no one will be able to tell the difference.

    15. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      TPP = opening our markets to 600M people working for a median wage less than $2/hr, including Vietnam which alone is 90M people paid a median wage of $0.70/hr.

      No amount of "productivity" or "competitiveness" will keep your $22/hr Canadian job against people working for $0.70/hr.

      Harper has passed 23 trade deals which have not increased Canada's exports at all, while increasing imports (eg: SKorea had a 4:1 trade advantage with Canada, since Harper's new deal with them their advantage has increased to 7:1). He's been wrong 23 times in a row, why believe the TPP would be any better?

    16. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that possible? We need to know that in the cases of contaminated food.

      Any laws against contaminated food will impact the importing companies' bottom line, and will be grounds for suing the country trying to block the contaminated food.

    17. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So an end to sovereignty. Canada will be little more than a neighbourhood. Are we still allowed to spell it that way?

    18. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't know and trust your foodchain then you're doing it wrong. Eat local or eat mystery ingredients. Most don't care what shit they cram down their foodholes anyway, seen Monsanto's profits lately? Or Pepsi, or any food giant?

    19. Re:Canada by Formalin · · Score: 1

      Basically if you have 1/3rd of the popular vote, country wide, ideally you would use this to get barely top of the vote in as many ridings as possible, and win them. (34% - 33% - 33% would be ideal for 3 ways, or 51% in a two way race).

      In quebec last election, many ridings won landslide, 80% or whatever. so half the vote is 'wasted', in that they'd have won regardless. If the 30% was distributed to some other riding, it could mean more seats.

      If that makes sense.

      The same works in reverse though. When cons win in rural alberta with 80% vote, most of that is wasted too. they only needed 1/4 of those people to vote to win. but those votes still apply to _national_ average of 30% or whatever everyone is polling at right now. So if all three have 1/3rd support, the party that wins the most ridings by small margin will likely have more seats, as the vote is distributed well.

    20. Re:Canada by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      "Waste" in the sense that an overwhelming majority in Quebec means that even if they get 1/3 of the total votes, they won't get 1/3 of the seats, because they are under-represented elsewhere.

      Remember, in an election, you don't want to win 80-20, because that usually means you lost somewhere else 20-80. You want your supporters evenly distributed, so you win as many ridings as possible with 50%+1. Of course votes aren't transferable, and we don't have gerrymandering like in many US states, but that's the logic.

    21. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like I'll be going to the local farms and abattoirs in my province and buying the meat/dairy/eggs directly from them rather than giving another cent to these assholes running this corporate shitshow. Might as well start growing my own vegetables as well.

    22. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he planning to rig the election again?

    23. Re:Canada by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I can guess the Country of Origin of their Americans.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    24. Re:Canada by tom229 · · Score: 1

      You're right, this FUD probably will decide it but I naively hope the public will know better. We need to get back to the reality of economics governed by demand, and away from this supply-side, free market zealot's wet dream of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The reality is: Canada has resources. The world needs resources. We won't be "frozen" out of anything. Despite what Harper tells you.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    25. Re:Canada by tom229 · · Score: 1

      "Waste"; as in the left vote is divided 3 ways (NDP, Liberal, Green). It's not specifically a fault of Quebec, but more of first past the post voting. FPP always trends to a 2 party system for this reason exactly. Quebec should get on board with the rest of the country and help us get rid of our mutual enemy: the Conservatives. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the country doesn't vote conservative. This is true for both the popular vote and for the representative vote. However, the Conservatives still keep getting elected because the opposition vote is divided along razor thing lines between (largely) two very similar parties.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    26. Re:Canada by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      No, we'll probably get sued since the "u" will cut into profit by using extra ink.

  11. ITT by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    any one for reclaiming their government from the corporations and plutocrats that have corrupted it to their purposes?

    or are we all just going to sit around whining about government, full stop, no further thought on the topic

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:ITT by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How would you suggest going about doing that?

      It sounds nice, but it isn't as simple as you make it sound.

    2. Re:ITT by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there is a mistaken notion that you have to devise a perfect solution to the problem before improving the problem

      for example: we have laws against rape and murder. that doesn't stop all rape and murder, but no one is arguing that, just because we can't stop all rape and murder, we shouldn't have any laws against them. but we do have morons arguing that because we can't magically stop all corruption, we shouldn't try to minimize it

      the point is to simply minimize the problem. the simple fact is that many nations do better than the usa in regards to controlling corruption and plutocrat interest. with very simple changes (simple in construct, i didn't say simple to achieve). for example: we pass laws that cut down on the election cycle funding by corporations and plutocrats. i'd argue the most destructive event against the usa, in it's entire history, worse than 9/11, worse than pearl harbor, even worse than the civil war, is the 2010 citizens' united decision. let's start by reversing that

      a lot of whining at this point about how that's hard. because the right thing is hard to do is an argument against doing it? anything worth doing in this world is hard by definition. if it were easy, it would already be done. this is just lazy whiners

      elect people that would promise to reverse citizen's united. i'm not saying it's going to happen in 2016. but every day people grow angrier and more aware of the problem. look at the interest in trump and sanders. these "protest votes" would usually fade by now in previous cycles. but people are really getting mad. at some point, a tipping point will be reached. this problem isn't going away, and is getting worse. not enough people are paying attention right now. but more and more are every day

      really our biggest enemy is acceptance and cynicism. there's always people with bad intent in this world. they always need to be defeated. but instead of rolling up our sleeves and doing that, the perplexing and maddening thing is people who roll over and accept being robbed, and then rationalize their victimhood with cynicism. this is our real enemy: willing slaves

      you will see this mentality in many comments in this thread and other threads on the topic of corruption and government. those people are the real reason we have our problems

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:ITT by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I have a solution that will really DO SOMETHING about this nonsense:

      Next election, I'm going to vote for Democrats or Republicans. If everyone else has the courage to join me in this, I think it should solve all our problems.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:ITT by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      1. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils still doesn't change the fact that there are still 2 evils.

      2. First Past the Goal Post is the bigger problem.

    5. Re:ITT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It sounds nice, but it isn't as simple as you make it sound."

      They fear us, that's why the NSA and the TPP are trying to lock down everything, they are trying to strip us of our rights and control us and the information channels we communicate on because they are at their weakest.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4usbR_kKCDs

      They are getting rid of state sovereignty with trade agreements and basically constructing kangaroo courts for the corporate world.

      Wikileaks

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&feature=youtu.be

      They also are using it to try to lockdown the internet because they fear us politically waking up...

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA/others and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

      Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/

      http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

      http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

      US distribution of wealth

      https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

      Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

    6. Re:ITT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the love of god, stop voting for the "lesser evil!" It should be 100% clear by now that it will just continue to get more and more evil!

      Long term we could use IRV, or approval voting, or liquid democracy. But for now, just take time to think about who you actually agree with the most, not who you think might be likely to win or who your friends support.

    7. Re:ITT by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Whoooosh.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:ITT by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      3. The unhelpful belief that your guy has to WIN in order to get your voice heard is an equally serious problem. It is a mindset that makes people avoid third parties.

      Yes, it is true; if you vote for a candidate and he doesn't get into office, it is less likely that your issues are going to be immediately dealt with. It is equally possible that the major-party candidate who is politically closest to your choice may also lose the election.

      But here's the thing: the major political parties are aware of this danger too. Third-party candidates can cost them votes, or even an election. That's why they will do anything to shut them out of the process. Currently, the main way they do this is by convincing everyone that voting third-party is "throwing your vote away". But they will also COMPROMISE their policies if it will get them back the voters who would otherwise vote third-party. If enough people start voting for ultra left-wing candidates, you can bet the Democrats are going to swing further left (and vice versa for Republicans) in order to win back the support of their constituents. Voting third-party threatens the status quo; more than anything it sends a message to the old guard about the people's dissatisfaction with their performance.

      Voting isn't about getting your guy to win; it is about making your voice heard. Shout loud enough (e.g., get enough people to vote for) for a particular policy and the politicians will listen. It might not happen in the current election but you can bet it will in the next. An election should not be a popularity contest; it is a referendum of the will of the people.

      Shake things up; vote third party.

    9. Re:ITT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How would you "elect people that would promise to reverse Citizens United"? You don't get to vote for the Supreme Court, and nobody else has the authority to override that decision.

      What you're calling for is a change to the constitution. What, exactly, would that amendment read?

      You do know that anyone can propose a constitutional amendment, right? You can draft one right now and start the process of lobbying to get it onto Congress's agenda. But the first step, the very first step before you can do anything at all, is to write down what you want it to say. Exact words. If you can't even do that, then you're just blowing off steam.

    10. Re:ITT by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Do you see the emoticon in the parent's post?

      Neither do I.

    11. Re:ITT by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      moron, congress can simply pass a law which contradicts the 2010 decision

      this is not shariah law where the supreme court's rulings carry biblical weight. it's checks and balances. the supremes clearly fucked up, and their decision should be rendered moot

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    12. Re:ITT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree, I also think there's an urgent need to get harper out of that office ASAFP at almost any cost.

    13. Re:ITT by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      moron, congress can simply pass a law which contradicts the 2010 decision

      this is not shariah law where the supreme court's rulings carry biblical weight. it's checks and balances. the supremes clearly fucked up, and their decision should be rendered moot

      Constitutional decisions are decisions that cannot be overruled by an act of Congress. You can sometimes legislate around them (which is legal), and in theory you can make a contradictory law not subject to judicial review by SCOTUS (which may or may not provoke a constitutional crisis), but the real answer if you can't legislate around the ruling is you change the Constitution.

    14. Re:ITT by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Your main beef is with corporate contributions? Why? Because your guy didn't win last time? You're right; corporate contributions are a big problem and nearly all first world countries limit them in one way or another, but your delusion is that you would actually have a choice independent of that. In a two party system, you have no choice, and the puppet you put in the big chair has no teeth; regardless. If you want real change you need election reform. In fact, in order of importance we need: monetary reform, election reform, civil rights reform.

      Monetary reform: We current have, and will continue to have, no power when the mechanism that controls all wealth lies, solely, in private interests. Fractional reserve banking, while it has social merits, is the single biggest problem in the western world today. Without reform we are destined, mathematically, for massive economic collapses. It's naive to assume our elected representatives can have any influence over the life blood of our economy when all of it's interest is in private corporations.

      Election reform: As discussed above: FPP ultimately degrades into a false choice between two artificially different talking heads. Because it's always more attractive to vote for the guy you think will beat the guy you hate the most, you get a two party system divided largely on controversial social issues. There's alternative methods that more proportionately represent the population and have been tried with success like Mixed-member proportional representation.

      Civil rights reform: There's an obvious erosion of civil rights underway in all developed nations. Resolving this problem is not possible without resolving the above.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    15. Re:ITT by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Your main beef is with corporate contributions? Why? Because your guy didn't win last time? You're right; corporate contributions are a big problem and nearly all first world countries limit them in one way or another, but your delusion is that you would actually have a choice independent of that. In a two party system, you have no choice, and the puppet you put in the big chair has no teeth; regardless. If you want real change you need election reform. In fact, in order of importance we need: monetary reform, election reform, civil rights reform.

      Monetary reform: We current have, and will continue to have, no power when the mechanism that controls all wealth lies, solely, in private interests. Fractional reserve banking, while it has social merits, is the single biggest problem in the western world today. Without reform we are destined, mathematically, for massive economic collapses. It's naive to assume our elected representatives can have any influence over the life blood of our economy when all of it's interest is in private corporations.

      Election reform: As discussed above: FPP ultimately degrades into a false choice between two artificially different talking heads. Because it's always more attractive to vote for the guy you think will beat the guy you hate the most, you get a two party system divided largely on controversial social issues. There's alternative methods that more proportionately represent the population and have been tried with success like Mixed-member proportional representation [wikipedia.org].

      Civil rights reform: There's an obvious erosion of civil rights underway in all developed nations. Resolving this problem is not possible without resolving the above.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    16. Re:ITT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or are we all just going to sit around whining about government, full stop, no further thought on the topic"

      Here's a bit of inspiration, from former national security advisor of the United states Zbigniew Brzezinski

      https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=404

    17. Re:ITT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "really our biggest enemy is acceptance and cynicism. "

      Indeed, they are at their weakest by their own words.

      Here's a bit of inspiration, from former national security advisor of the United states Zbigniew Brzezinski

      https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=404

    18. Re:ITT by dave420 · · Score: 1

      But... but... 2nd amendment! You said it yourself the other day. You can't have it both ways.

    19. Re:ITT by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      So... you're saying basically that subtlety is not your strong suit? Thanks for confirming what most of us figured out already.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    20. Re:ITT by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      You can sometimes legislate around them (which is legal), and in theory you can make a contradictory law not subject to judicial review by SCOTUS

      thank you for repeating what i said

      you can attack the problem from another direction and render the supreme's decision moot

      why do you feel a need to disagree with me when you agree with me? the point of arguing is to make a point, not to just argue for no fucking reason

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    21. Re:ITT by Altrag · · Score: 1

      the right thing is hard to do is an argument against doing it

      No, but being actually incapable of doing the right thing is a good argument for whining loud enough that maybe somebody with the power to do it will hear you.

      elect people that would promise to reverse citizen's united

      And which people are those? If nobody on the ballot makes such a promise, you're going to have a hard time voting for them. See my previous point.

      really our biggest enemy is acceptance and cynicism

      I agree with that, but accepting that you can't change something and accepting that you can't change it on your own are two different things. And the only way you're going to get help is by yelling loud enough for someone else to hear you.

      Also keep in mind that it doesn't take 300million people to make a change. It takes one person with the courage and more importantly, the charisma, to get 300million people to say "me too!" There aren't a whole lot of people who can fill that role, but you really only need one or two to make change happen.

      you will see this mentality in many comments in this thread and other threads

      And which jurisdiction are you on the ballot for? I'm all for you spouting off and trying to make your point, but you should maybe dial back the call-outs unless you're literally doing this yourself.. looks a bit hypocritical otherwise! (And if you are doing this yourself then power to you! Should drop your name and electoral area and try to collect a few extra votes!)

  12. Pfft. by xenotransplant · · Score: 1

    Secret meetings, money changing hands, power shifting from the people and representatives to a few rich men. This sounds like the America that I learned about in highschool.

    1. Re:Pfft. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      /Oblg. /sarcasm America has the best government money can buy!

  13. Great. now we can vote the damn thing down by swschrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and, might I add, vote the damn thing down without amendments. otherwise, all job types will meet an H1B type competition.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  14. Well I didn't vote for it by BringMyShuttle · · Score: 1

    I hope now the bureaucrats and big companies have passed it they will now show it to politicans and peasants affected by it? Democracy my butt.

  15. vote trump he will kill this by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    vote trump he will kill this

    1. Re:vote trump he will kill this by Livius · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump as US President.

      Or...

      Feudal vassalage under the TPP.

      That's going to require some thought.

    2. Re:vote trump he will kill this by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Is there a 'death' option? I suppose 'cake' is RIGHT OUT D:

    3. Re:vote trump he will kill this by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 4, Informative

      You meant this as a joke but there are only three candidates who have strongly come out against this: Trump, Sanders, and Paul. Of those only Sanders and Trump are polling strongly. For the economic interests of myself and especially my children I would gladly vote for either Trump or Sanders. Or Paul if by some miracle he gets pass the primaries. Want more "free trade" - vote Clinton II or Bush III

    4. Re:vote trump he will kill this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun thought, but there's a plenty good chance that we'd get a Clinton III running for office after all of this.

    5. Re:vote trump he will kill this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cthulhu 2016.

      Why choose the lesser evil?

    6. Re:vote trump he will kill this by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2

      I agree. I have family who have voted Republican all their lives. I tell them how bad TPP is sometimes I think they imagine that it couldn't possibly be that bad. I tell them that if the Republican candidate is some establishment crony like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, Sanders' opposition to TPP alone makes it worthwhile to vote for him, even if you disagree with him on other issues. The response is always: "but, but, SOCIALISM!"

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  16. Fast Track by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course those morons passed fast track for this TREATY, which it is.

    So no matter what nasty surprises are found in it, if anyone actually gets to see it, changing them will next to impossible.

    Someone should sue and charge that this is, in fact, a Treaty and subject to the provisions of the Constitution regarding treaties.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Fast Track by steveg · · Score: 2

      One of the wonderful things about a treaty is that it bypasses piddling issues like whether it's Constitutional. If a treaty is signed that violates the Constitution (free speech? What is free speech?) then it's still enforceable. On Americans.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  17. Fuck the apathetic voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... who elected the politicians who let this happen.

    1. Re:Fuck the apathetic voters by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      ... who elected the politicians who let this happen.

      Not the American people.. if you go by election results for the last 15 or so years...

    2. Re:Fuck the apathetic voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he promised the most transparent government ever?

    3. Re:Fuck the apathetic voters by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Even if you believe in the elections, the American people didn't (nor did the Canadian people for our side of things, nor I assume most of the other countries.)

      Almost all of the people in the TPP talks have been corporate lobbyists and appointed trade ministers.

      The elected politicians come into play now, over the next few months, as the countries decide whether or not to ratify it. Of course at this point its an all-or-nothing choice (elected officials aren't allowed to negotiate! They might do something stupid like try to push for their citizen's rights!)

      So the agreement needs to have just enough goodies thrown at each country to overcome the nasties and bam -- you have an agreement that nobody really likes but have been convinced that its somehow worth suffering.

      And I'd be willing to bet the "goodies" will be written in fairly simple, direct tone (by legal document standards at least) while the "nasties" will be written in a long, wordy, obfuscated tone with the hope that the politicians will blank out in the midst of reading them and overlook them.

      I just hope the text is revealed to the public (not just the voting politicians) early enough for groups like Openmedia, the EFF, industry groups, etc to be able to take a good long look at it and break it down for us laypeople. The several-years-out-of-date leaked versions of the documents were decent and well-covered but they're well.. long out of date and who knows what's changed since then.

      Being an internet nerd I'm particularly interested in the IP stuff but that was apparently some of the last stuff to get finalized so who knows what it looks like by this point (other than the general assumption that it will screw everyone who isn't a significant member of the RIAA/MPAA or equivalent lobbyist groups in other nations/industries.)

  18. Canadian Dairy by ArcticBunny · · Score: 0

    Great, Finally I might be able to get European dairy products for a decent cost in Canada. Right now our dairy prices are off the charts compared to the US and Europe.

    1. Re:Canadian Dairy by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Of course it's more expensive. Unlike the US and Europe, we do not directly subsidize our dairy producers.
      Also Canadian milk tastes much better.

    2. Re:Canadian Dairy by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      By the way, it's the trans-pacific deal. Not the Canada-EU deal. EU is not part of the deal.

    3. Re:Canadian Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are jut pissing in the wind with that wish.
      All this deal will do will be to get Crap US Cheese into countires that wisely reject it. The same goes for Growth Enhanced Beef and GM foods in general

      All stuff that is legaly and rightly banned in other counties will now get preferential treatment.

      We DON'T WANT your US CRAP FOOD OK!

    4. Re: Canadian Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Canadian dairy is most certainly rife with protectionism. "Cow medallions" are similar to taxi medallions, with the same problems of corruption. It is illegal to sell milk and cheese without the blessings of the existing producers. Raw milk is dumped down the drain rather than "cheapen" the market. In the end, Canadians pay twice as much due to lack of competition.

    5. Re:Canadian Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want it, then don't buy it. I think you'll find many of your compatriots do want it.

    6. Re:Canadian Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also Canadian milk tastes much better.

      I've been to Canada several times and I wasn't very fond of the milk. Like in the US, the 'fresh' (pasteurised) milk tastes a bit like UHT milk, as though it was pasteurised too long or too hot.

    7. Re:Canadian Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to be ignorant as fuck. The deal doesn't include Europe. It's people like you that have gotten us into this awful Conservative mess.

    8. Re:Canadian Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's more expensive. Unlike the US and Europe, we do not directly subsidize our dairy producers.

      The cost of dairy products in Canada has very little to do with subsidies and everything to do with tariffs, which indirectly subsidise domestic dairy producers through reduced competition. The fact that the assistance is indirect makes no difference to the economic incidence of the costs (consumers) and the benefits (producers).

      If Canada would bring its agricultural protection down to Australian, NZ or even US levels, the government could save billions of dollars a year.

    9. Re:Canadian Dairy by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Just cow's milk?

      I found goat cheese in Canada was very cheap compared to Australia, during my travels in 2013. Send it my way!

    10. Re:Canadian Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Health Canada determined that monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone is something we don't want in our milk. Of course harper fired them. I'll take safe milk over cheap milk any day.

  19. Sickening. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To avoid the tariffs on exporting agriculture, keep the food here, and use it to feed some of the 4 million homeless people. That would be something that a government that cares about it's people would do.

  20. Wake up in your own bed, but not in the U.S. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    That's right, one day you'll wake up and not be in your own country any more because now we'll be in the TPP.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  21. Tech circles vs slashdot by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    Sure, in tech circles the TPP is criticized for technical reasons. Here on slashdot, however, the main argument boils down to "Obama supports TPP, and Obama is evil, so TPP is evil". It could be a bill to give flags to orphans and it would still be unpopular here if Obama was supporting it.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, I don't oppose TTP because of Obama. I oppose it because it is a secret deal, pre approved by the powers that be, and enough (D) and (R) supported it to make it bi-partisan. If you support it, not knowing anything other than it was "Obama says it will be good" then you are the real fool. I bet you'd oppose it if GWB supported it (all other things considered).

      The fact is, the whole (D) good (R) bad (Or visa versa) is really getting old. And do not pretend the (D) don't do the very same thing. Blindly following your party is for Sheeple.

      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Flavianoep · · Score: 0

      People in Slashdot think this treaty is evil because they don't know what is in it.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    3. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      The fact is, the whole (D) good (R) bad (Or visa versa) is really getting old. And do not pretend the (D) don't do the very same thing. Blindly following your party is for Sheeple.

      I never claimed that the democrats are better in any meaningful way. In fact, if you look at my comment and JE history here you'll find I criticize Obama quite regularly.

      Rather, my point is that slashdot is overwhelmingly conservative. Anyone who does not adhere to the conservative agenda is labelled a "socialist" (generally by people who have no clue what socialism actually entails). I haven't decided yet if I like the TPP or not - particularly as we haven't know the full details of the deal yet - but most slashdot members decided long ago simply because they heard it was something that Obama wanted.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Livius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, people in Slashdot think this treaty is evil because what is in it has been deliberately concealed by people with a history of being untrustworthy.

    5. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      slashdot is overwhelmingly conservative.

      If anything Slashdot is Libertarian. Pro Liberal social policies, pro conservative fiscal policies, with a fair amount of independent thought.

      But I could understand liberals thinking /. is conservative, and conservatives seeing it more liberal.

      But case in point, there are both liberals and conservatives that both support or reject it. Bernie Sanders isn't really conservative, but opposes TPP vehemently. As does Trump. Strange bed fellows indeed.

      http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather, my point is that slashdot is overwhelmingly conservative.

      Well, that's one explanation for the endless global warming propaganda that infests this shithole.

    7. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I haven't decided yet if I like the TPP or not - particularly as we haven't know the full details

      That is people problem though. FASTTRACK essential means our elected representatives HAVE decided they like, and they largely haven't seen the full details either! More than that the smaller group of officials actually negotiating the thing did not let larger group look at it except under insane conditions where they could not even take notes.

      It does not matter if its a good law or not, they way its being enacted amounts to a total subversion of how our system of representative democracy was supposed to work. That should be enough reason to oppose the thing on its own. We need to send the message we demand sunshine in the legislative process!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      If anything Slashdot is Libertarian.

      Only in that a large number of slashdot members are paullowers, who like to call themselves "libertarian".

      Pro Liberal social policies

      You're joking, right? We routinely see front page articles telling us that we should all own more guns. We routinely see discussions dominated by people shouting fact-free nonsense about abortion. We often see front page articles about how evil public schools are.

      pro conservative fiscal policies

      That part I agree with.

      with a fair amount of independent thought.

      10-15 years ago there was plenty of independent thought here. Now thought itself has become rare.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    9. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <damn_registrars_answer_to_everything>
      You are all against TPP because Obama's black.
      </damn_registrars_answer_to_everything>

      Stupid twat.

    10. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      You're joking, right? We routinely see front page articles telling us that we should all own more guns. We routinely see discussions dominated by people shouting fact-free nonsense about abortion. We often see front page articles about how evil public schools are.

      oddly enough the libertarian party supports gun ownership and gun rights.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    11. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking we need to send a petition to the other signatories stating that consent has been withdrawn and so no American signatory is authorized. That is, that the treaty cannot be properly signed.

    12. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Of course they do. The Libertarian Party is just where Ron Paullowers go to find out who they should vote for. Unsurprisingly the answer is always "whoever is on the GOP ticket".

      More to the point though, the poster claimed that slashdot users have "liberal social values", which they simply do not.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    13. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Guns are an exception. And Liberals don't really oppose guns, they just oppose commoners having them. They are all for guns when it suits them (police, military, elites with body guards etc.

      Here's the deal, I'll give up my guns just as soon as the government gives up theirs. Not a moment before.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Thanks for fixing that for me!

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    15. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Oh please, enough rhetoric already.

      Why don't you actually educate yourself

      US has negotiated in secret with 600 private corporations. Only 5 chapters are about trade, the rest aren't. Public companies suing counties over public health measures? Gee, what could go wrong!?

      This country was founded upon no taxation without representation -- meaning an _open_ government.

      Governments and business who negotiate in secret are cowards. Chances are they have self-interests that don't serve the public good.

      /sarcasm I only we could read ALL of it so we ALL can collectively decide if this is good for the nation or not. Yet this politicians just want everyone to lube up and take it with empty promises of "Trust us." Gee, where have we heard THAT before.

    16. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by fnj · · Score: 1

      Governments and business who negotiate in secret are cowards.

      The problem is that participating in a government, and running a corporation, are both activities that are highly attractive to avil, amoral psychopaths. The fact that they are seen as engaging in cowardly practices is secondary to the fact that they are psychopaths.

    17. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      But I won't give up my mill and lathe.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree wholeheartedly. The Corporation did a fantastic analysis identifying them as psychopaths.

      The problem is, what is everyone else doing about it? :-(

    19. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here on slashdot, however, the main argument boils down to "Obama supports TPP, and Obama is evil, so TPP is evil".

      I have not noticed any specific bias against Obama here on slashdot. In general many Americans appear to be disappointingly unpatriotic with regards to your current president, at least those that get vocal on media and social web sites, which is essentially saying that they don't believe in the democratic process which got your current leader voted into his position. Still, not a notably stronger dislike for Obama here on this site.

    20. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Sure, in tech circles the TPP is criticized for technical reasons. Here on slashdot, however, the main argument boils down to "Obama supports TPP, and Obama is evil, so TPP is evil".

      Actually, Nobody made that argument. You've made this up from whole cloth.

    21. Re:Tech circles vs slashdot by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I dont hate the TPP because its supported by Obama or by Tony Abbot or Malcolm Turnbul or whoever. I hate the TPP because its been negotiated in secret and because per the leaks and info has a lot of bad stuff (on copyright, censorship/site blocking and whatever else) but it doesn't do a thing in areas where action is needed. Like getting rid of the high tariffs and protection that the US, Canada, Japan and others impose on Australian agricultural exports (beef, sugar, dairy etc). Or doing more on the issue of counterfeiting and bootlegging (to be fair on that, China isn't in the TPP and most of the worlds knockoff products come from China)

  22. Answer? by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Proponents will also have to answer

    You can give China MFN status one day in the name of "human rights" theater and then lecture Americans about the importance of environmental protection the next, and no one anywhere blinks an eye. Exactly when are proponents going to have to answer to anyone, about anything? Elites have been trading US prosperity for various and sundry bad overseas agendas since forever and none of them have ever paid the least price.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  23. I'm all for trade deals by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    However how can a deal between rich countries such as Japan, Australia and the USA be reciprocal with countries like Vietnam were wages are low?

    1. Re:I'm all for trade deals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easy! By bringing wages in Japan, Australia and the USA down to Vietnam levels.

      Well Plato said democracy only works with educated and informed voters. The problem is most voters are shit-brained morons who should have never been given the right to vote, because this is what happens. If you voted Democrat or Republican, you made this happen, SO FUCK YOU!

    2. Re:I'm all for trade deals by Dracos · · Score: 1

      Corporations everywhere need a place to get cheap labor so they can keep profits up. Watch over the next decade as China starts building factories in Africa.

    3. Re:I'm all for trade deals by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Next decade?

      They are building them now.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:I'm all for trade deals by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Corporations everywhere need a place to get cheap labor so they can keep profits up. Watch over the next decade as China starts building factories in Africa.

      Why next decade? They are already doing it (Ethiopia is booming with work right now.)

    5. Re:I'm all for trade deals by fnj · · Score: 1

      By bringing wages in Japan, Australia and the USA down to Vietnam levels.

      Yes. But not consumer costs. So the aforementioned will be not just reduced to Vietnam conditions, but the people will be wiped out. You can't live on a wage of 10 cents an hour if a cup of coffee costs you $5.

      Well Plato said democracy only works with educated and informed voters. The problem is most voters are shit-brained morons who should have never been given the right to vote, because this is what happens. If you voted Democrat or Republican, you made this happen, SO FUCK YOU!

      Well put. However, the unrealistic optimist will simply say that shows they are still not well enough educated and informed. The problem is in thinking that education and information are enough. You also need morality and rationality. And those cannot be taught. And it would be impractical as well as unwise to try to devise a voter IQ and morals test to weed out the riffraff. It's like Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Potter Stewart's official concurrence in a case decision: "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

      The poor guy later said "In a way I regret having said what I said about obscenity—that's going to be on my tombstone."

      One can fantasize about a one-day coup in which a Junta declares the Democrat and Republican parties irretrievably corrupt and treasonous institutions, bans them with extreme prejudice, throws everyone who is a member out of national office and bans them from all future participation, and calls an immediate Election of National Salvation, and following the election turns back control after taking no other action whatever.

    6. Re:I'm all for trade deals by fnj · · Score: 1

      Why not wait just a short while until all the jobs in the U.S. with wages above the slave level are wiped out; then build their factories in the U.S. where labor is going to be even cheaper.

    7. Re:I'm all for trade deals by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And they will lose their ass, same as the last dozen groups that tried.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:I'm all for trade deals by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      You can't live on a wage of 10 cents an hour if a cup of coffee costs you $5.

      It might be time to open a coffee shop in Vietnam! :)

    9. Re:I'm all for trade deals by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Not likely to happen.

      What typically happens is that instead of reducing everyone's wages to a competitive level, you just lay off or outsource a bunch of people and the ones that remain keep their normal wages (with probably a higher workload to compensate but that's another story.)

      So what you generally get is higher unemployment rather than lower wages. Of course the average still goes down, but any specific wage typically doesn't (well maybe a little bit, but certainly not the drastic decline needed to match the offshore country.)

      Especially true when minimum wages exist (ie: most places in the developed world) and companies are simply not legally allowed to drop the wages below a certain point for any labor they can't offshore.

      Look at Detroit if you want to see this in action, where the auto industry bailed to Mexico a few decades ago. The city still hasn't even come close to recovering. But the people who are employed aren't earning that much less than other places around the country. Just that a lot of people (a quick Googling showed nearly 25%!) aren't employed.

  24. On the Wings of Eagles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should'a elected Perot when you had the chance, suckers!

  25. hmmm by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    The US government can rarely agree on any one subject and this secret treaty has everything including the proverbial kitchen sink (made in Taiwan) in it.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  26. You seem to be misinformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TPP does not include China

  27. Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While the media was running stories on the Charleston church shootings, the Senate gave/renewed the ability for the President to enter into and agree the TPP on their behalf.

    It's already done.

  28. I'm curious by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone here ever met anyone who is in favor of the Trans Pacific Partnership?

    I mean, I've met people who don't know what it is, but I have yet to meet someone who's all, "Yes! We need this Trans Pacific Partnership to make my life better."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some Chinese I met think the TPP will be the opportunity of poking the China bubble, forcing the economy to crash, hence removing the last similitude of legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party's one-party authoritarian rule. They're all for it.

      But one can easily see the countless logical holes in this line of pipedre^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reasoning. In slashdotspeak, it's like

      1) TPP
      2) ...?
      3) Liberty!

    2. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not know any multi-billionaire corporate tycoons. They love this plan.

    3. Re:I'm curious by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Some Chinese I met think the TPP will be the opportunity of poking the China bubble, forcing the economy to crash, hence removing the last similitude of legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party's one-party authoritarian rule. They're all for it.

      But one can easily see the countless logical holes in this line of pipedre^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reasoning. In slashdotspeak, it's like

      1) TPP
      2) ...?
      3) Liberty!

      More like

      1) TPP, crash of Chinese economy, billions of Chinese with nothing to lose
      2) ???
      3) 3rd world war

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:I'm curious by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I am for removing government regulations from everything, so I am for this deal whenever any form of government power is reduced.

      Corporations are your government. The TPP makes their power stronger, while doing nothing at all to lessen "regulation"..

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only paid shills speak well of it. Seriously who can trust a government that admits to manipulating social media? Ministry of Truth indeed!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpVUYGcgtjw

    6. Re:I'm curious by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      You are confused as to what a government is. A government has the 'legal authority' to steal from me, to kidnap me and to murder me. No corporation has the legal authority to do that.

      1) See, "Academi"

      2) See "Prisons, Privatized"

      A government uses mob power that it buys with promises to the mob at the expense of the people who are actually paying for all these promises.

      3) See, "Koch Brothers".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:I'm curious by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Koch Brothers? The people who are paying the taxes that the mob lives off of.

      Sadly, no.

      http://subsidytracker.goodjobs...

      The Koch Brothers have received more than $200,000,000.00 in federal subsidies since 2000.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  29. Supersedes NAFTA by rockabilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since Canada, USA and Mexico are all involved in this deal, this will replace NAFTA. To get a better idea of how this will affect you, just look at what NAFTA did.

  30. 8 Years to negotiate? by Plumber,+Programmer, · · Score: 2

    Then surely, as our nation would be a party to the treaty, we need 8 years to examine it and determine if we should sign it.

  31. Stronger IP protections by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    Stronger IP protections are generally being welcomed by the creative types I know. I haven't heard much about the rest of the treaty and neither has anyone else so I'm a little puzzled as to what all the chicken littling is about.

    1. Re:Stronger IP protections by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stronger IP protections are generally being welcomed by the creative types I know.

      "Stronger IP protections" are not for the "creative types you know". They're for the ownership types you know. And for the government types you know. Whistleblower protections would disappear and so would anything like fair use. It's the DMCA on a global scale. You comfortable with global enforcement?

      The countries signing the TPP are not ones that generally violate IP protections, anyway.

      https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Stronger IP protections by sjames · · Score: 1

      If someone covers your eyes, puts a pen in your hand, guides it to the contract and says sign here, there is every reason to believe it's a bad idea.

    3. Re:Stronger IP protections by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Stronger IP protections are generally being welcomed by the creative types I know.

      "Stronger IP protections" are not for the "creative types you know". They're for the ownership types you know.

      I've no idea why you think the two are mutually exclusive. Indie authors and musicians for example are sharply on the rise, in terms of cinema while the blockbusters will forever remain in the hands of corporations there's a lot of decent quality amateur stuff coming out. Everything you write, you have immediate copyright protections on, that's how easy it is to take advantage of stronger copyright law.

      I'll put it to you like this - with stronger and longer recent IP protections recently, have you noticed a decrease or an increase in creative output?

      With that said I'd oppose criminalising non-profit copyright infringements or attempts to eat into existing fair use standards.

    4. Re:Stronger IP protections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not global DMCA, that would have some good points amongst the bad. It's Global SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, and a Mickey Mouse extension act all rolled into one. And don't forget the pharmaceutical company protectionism that comes at a cost to your health, because you won't be able to afford drugs anymore.

    5. Re:Stronger IP protections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little puzzled as to what all the chicken littling is about.

      Well, how about the fact that it has been negotiated in secret?

    6. Re:Stronger IP protections by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I'll put it to you like this - with stronger and longer recent IP protections recently, have you noticed a decrease or an increase in creative output?

      "Creative output"? No change whatsoever.

      Indie authors and musicians are not "sharply on the rise". There's just a new word, "indie", invented to make it seem like it was something that didn't happen until millennials invented "being creative while making hardly any money". And to think that stronger and longer IP protections is the reason behind the rise of indie artists is just dumb. Do you really believe some kid making music with ProTools in his bedroom cares about whether or not his grandchildren are going to share in the profits?

      The people who say "stronger and longer IP protections is good for creativity" are almost universally people who have never done anything creative.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Stronger IP protections by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      "Creative output"? No change whatsoever.

      Well that doesn't reflect my experience at all, but we're comparing what people find interesting so it becomes a battle of the anecdotes. In terms of fantasy, paranormal, or science fiction I feel I've far more and better options than twenty or even ten years ago.

      Indie authors and musicians are not "sharply on the rise".

      A swing and a miss. I believe the author of "The Martian" was an indie. Self publishing is taking off in a big way - but don't take my word for it, google it yourself.

      And to think that stronger and longer IP protections is the reason behind the rise of indie artists is just dumb.

      Not just small independent artists but large corporations also, stronger protections make creative work more valuable (this can't be disputed) and encourage higher quality. I mean who wants to put in a lot of time and effort if some nimrod is just going to filch it. However they apply to ALL creative work, not just whatever is put forth by Sony.

      The people who say "stronger and longer IP protections is good for creativity" are almost universally people who have never done anything creative.

      Funny, I was just thinking that people who say "stronger and longer IP protections strangle creativity" are almost universally people who not only have never done anything creative but who probably freeload off the people who do the creative work.

      What you're increasingly desperately trying to do is frame this in terms of cigar-smoking capitalist Snidely Whiplashes lording it over poor toiling peasants who don't own the means of production, except they actually do. Welcome to the 21st century, marxism is worse than useless here.

      Obviously this doesn't mean I support the entire treaty, at least until I see it.

    8. Re:Stronger IP protections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indie authors and musicians are not "sharply on the rise". There's just a new word, "indie", invented to make it seem like it was something that didn't happen until millennials invented "being creative while making hardly any money". And to think that stronger and longer IP protections is the reason behind the rise of indie artists is just dumb. Do you really believe some kid making music with ProTools in his bedroom cares about whether or not his grandchildren are going to share in the profits?

      The people who say "stronger and longer IP protections is good for creativity" are almost universally people who have never done anything creative.

      Even if it is on the rise, it's more a matter of correlation, not causation. Cheaper media creation and distribution technology (which was happening well before the Internet became mainstream) made it easier for indie artists to create without corporate support. It also made it easier to copy and distribute copyrighted material. That is what caused longer and stronger "IP protections."

    9. Re:Stronger IP protections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who say "stronger and longer IP protections is good for creativity" are almost universally people who have never done anything creative.

      Exactly. Creating creative works is not like building a steel mill. You don't do it so maybe you'll see a net profit in 30 years time and be rolling in it 50 years from now. People do creative works because they want money now, or at least in the next couple of years. Copyright terms much longer than 10 or 15 years have almost no effect on creators. None of the software I wrote 15 years ago is still for sale or making me a dime, and likewise the music and movies that were made 15 years ago, the only ones that are making any significant revenue today are the ones that made an explosive revenue when they first came out.

      Chopping off that tail and putting it back in the public domain where it rightly belongs would benefit society much more than any artist or creative type stands to benefit.

    10. Re:Stronger IP protections by Altrag · · Score: 1

      the two are mutually exclusive

      History.

      Everything you write, you have immediate copyright protections on

      Until you sign a deal with a publishing company. An "independent" publishing company is just one that have the clout of the big guys. It means the author/artist can potentially get a less lop-sided deal, but at the end of the day their copyright is still being signed over to a company and no longer owned by themselves.

      And if you go truly independent (as in, publish your own work,) and you find a copyright infringement.. you now have to somehow come up with the time (and potentially money) to fight for it.

      Remember that most of the big companies like Youtube have fast-track takedown policy for "trusted" publishers but an individual trying to get something taken down has a hell of a lot more trouble.

      And of course those "trusted" publishers aren't above abusing the fuck out of their power to take down things that they either don't own the copyright to or is being used under a fair use exclusion -- because its also a PITA for an individual to get something reinstated once its been taken down.

      have you noticed a decrease or an increase in creative output

      Definitely an increase, but I'd say that has far more to do with the rise of internet distribution channels than it does to do with stricter copyright laws. Artists tend to make art and want people to see/hear it regardless of anything else. Sure they'd love to make a living from it but many if not most of them would still produce new works without financial incentive. Internet distribution means they now have an opportunity to distribute that work to a wider audience but again, a lot would do so regardless of whether or not they make money from it (and even with the stronger copyrights, there's a lot of people who post Youtube videos and fanfics and whatever other creative endeavors without any expectation of compensation. They just do it because they love it.)

      Basically at the end of the day the problem isn't with the text of the laws -- taken at face value they're a benefit to all artists. The problem is enforcement and in particular the fact that the people who are in most need of stronger protections are the people who can least afford to have them enforced.

      Its great for your musician buddy to think anyone who steals his work is going to jail now that copyright infringement is a criminal offense.. its quite another for him to make that happen when someone does steal his work.

      So we end up with a law that's only really beneficial to artists on paper and not in reality, while at the same time effectively criminalizing a large percentage of the population. The only winners are the large companies that can actually afford to enforce their copyrights. Which they always could do but now they have a bigger stick.

    11. Re:Stronger IP protections by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Until you sign a deal with a publishing company.

      Many more people are self publishing nowadays than ever before. Seriously, they represent a significant percentage of the total publishing marketplace.

      at the end of the day their copyright is still being signed over to a company and no longer owned by themselves.

      That's not how copyright works unless they were creating work for hire. They still own it, they may sign an exclusive license but there's considerable legal debate over whether or not copyrights can be transferred or even made public at all, hence the existence of things like creative commons.

      And if you go truly independent (as in, publish your own work,) and you find a copyright infringement.. you now have to somehow come up with the time (and potentially money) to fight for it.

      Fortunately stronger legal protections as embodied by the DMCA make it relatively easy to have infringing works taken down immediately. If it looks like they were making money from your work, then sue them.

      Remember that most of the big companies like Youtube have fast-track takedown policy for "trusted" publishers but an individual trying to get something taken down has a hell of a lot more trouble.

      Nonsense, you may be thinking of the automated Content ID tool which draws on a library of copyrighted works for automatic comparison, but when a DMCA notice is sent infringing works get taken down.

      Definitely an increase, but I'd say that has far more to do with the rise of internet distribution channels than it does to do with stricter copyright laws.

      No doubt a contributing factor along with ubiquitous and cheap tools of creation but we can say at minimum that stronger protections haven't noticeably hindered creative output. For a graphic example of borderline illegal work check the booming mockbuster industry, which pretty much knocks any arguments about the suppression of derivative works on the head.

      Sure they'd love to make a living from it but many if not most of them would still produce new works without financial incentive. Internet distribution means they now have an opportunity to distribute that work to a wider audience but again, a lot would do so regardless of whether or not they make money from it (and even with the stronger copyrights, there's a lot of people who post Youtube videos and fanfics and whatever other creative endeavors without any expectation of compensation. They just do it because they love it.)

      Whatever gets you through the night, I suppose. Contrary to the opinion of people who've overwhelmingly never created anything in their lives, most artists who've put a lot of time and effort into their work get pretty riled when someone starts sharing their for-profit work for free. If they released something deliberately intending that it should be used as a business card that's a different matter, and of course someone who put in less effort is going to care less, but otherwise it's the surest way to piss someone off.

      So we end up with a law that's only really beneficial to artists on paper and not in reality, while at the same time effectively criminalizing a large percentage of the population.

      You've constructed a framework of half-truths, imagined circumstances and worst case scenarios in an effort to justify the masses taking advantage of the work of the few, which is precisely why we have laws. I'm not in favour of industry overreach like mass lawsuits or criminalising non-profit sharing, civil penalties are plenty, but really if you don't plan on infringing anyone's copyrights I dont see why you'd oppose stronger protections.

    12. Re:Stronger IP protections by Altrag · · Score: 1

      whether or not copyrights can be transferred or even made public at all

      Perhaps, but all of the big publishers (and presumably the smaller ones) are certainly acting like they own the copyrights. It'd be nice for such a debate to fall in the favor of artists but I'm not holding my breath until I see it written into law.
      I guess many of the contracts are probably written up as "exclusive, indefinite, unlimited, transferable, other lawyery words" usage rather than a true sale, but the effect is the same -- the artist is not allowed to use or re-license his copyright anywhere else even if you want to claim he still "owns" it.

      you may be thinking of the automated Content ID tool

      Yep

      when a DMCA notice is sent infringing works get taken down

      The "when" aspect is the tricky one. I'm sure Youtube and whoever will rapidly take things down (as they're legally obliged to do) once the claim has been received.. but jumping through the hoops to get it to them and how long it takes them to process the claims.. hopefully I've only heard the horror stories and it mostly goes smoother than that..

      mockbuster industry, which pretty much knocks any arguments about the suppression of derivative works

      Again, I'll believe it when I see it challenged legally. There's a huge difference between "not worth enforcing my copyright" and "my copyright is unenforceable." I'm going to guess pretty much all of these fall under the first category since its not worth risking a definitive judgement on the second category (fair use and all) for the kind of piddly dollar amounts mockbusters generally make. If one of those manages to become super famous and rakes in enough $bigmillions for Sony or Disney or whoever to go after them then we might get a solid answer. Until then though, I wouldn't say their mere existence in itself necessarily means much.

      most artists who've put a lot of time and effort into their work get pretty riled when someone starts sharing their for-profit work for free

      As well they should. I never claimed they liked it. I just claimed that many of them would still continue creating regardless (perhaps at a lower output for the few who can currently fully live off their art and would otherwise need to get a side job, but still.) There's a very large distinction between those points. Hell a lot of artists already create works with no expectation of financial reward because even with strong laws, there's just not always money in doing what you love.

      Don't get me wrong.. I'm absolutely for protecting artists and their works. I'm just not convinced that the heavily corporately-leaning DMCA and similar laws is the best way to do so. I'm sure there's some good parts of the DMCA (that nobody talks about because who bitches about things they like?) but the bad parts are.. not always in the artists favor, or even aiming for the wider benefit to society. Of course IANAL so I can judge based on 2nd hand information put out by people who are smarter than me but I've never seen a whole lot of praise for the DMCA, except that coming from the MPAA, RIAA and similar corporate behemoths.

  32. Individual tax payers get the shaft again by nickmalthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until 1913, customs duties (tariffs) and excise taxes were the primary sources of federal revenue. This was by design of the Constitutional framers. In 1913 the income tax was introduced and coincidentally or not the federal reserve corporation was also established. Provided that globalists corporations shift their tax liability to the most corrupt or more politely business friendly tax haven the funding of the US government falls almost exclusively on the shoulders of the middle class who can afford to pay taxes.

    Do not like any provision in this agreement? Tough luck, your elective representatives have no power to enact any change.

    This agreement is yet another boon for multinational corporations who own politicians and another step towards global totalitarian government.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
    1. Re:Individual tax payers get the shaft again by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      In 1913 the income tax was introduced

      I believe the Federal income tax made its appearance during the Civil War.

    2. Re:Individual tax payers get the shaft again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only temporarily. A constitutional amendment had to be passed to bring us the permanent income tax, though the parent neglects to mention that alcohol excise taxes were quite significant in all that.

  33. Only 90 days? by t0mek · · Score: 1

    We all know that debugging is 3 times more difficult than writing so the Congress should get at least 24 years now to review and debug the TPP.

    1. Re:Only 90 days? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I encourage a constitutional amendment expiring all laws after 5 years unless renewed explicitely. This is the exact reason, to force Congress to evaluate how it is going.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  34. Canada has already rejected it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The outgoing Communist Party of Canada (CPC) made the deal AFTER the election writ was dropped.

    The incoming NDP and Liberals have already announced they will walk away from the TPP.

    Dead trade deal.

    By the way, this will cost the US 500,000 jobs. Are you sure it's "such a good deal"?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Canada has already rejected it by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      The outgoing Communist Party of Canada (CPC) made the deal AFTER the election writ was dropped.

      The incoming NDP and Liberals have already announced they will walk away from the TPP.

      Dead trade deal.

      By the way, this will cost the US 500,000 jobs. Are you sure it's "such a good deal"?

      You mean Conservative party as it real fiscal conservatism instead of that Republican crap you have in the US. The NDP are communists and the Liberals are socialist.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Canada has already rejected it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Wrong. CPC acts for their Communist masters in China, not for Canada.

      I see you have never grown up in Canada, and believe the non-translateable labels of "socialist" "communist" etc. Parties, other than the Greens, don't really translate to US versions. For example, in BC the Liberals are the most conservative party, and are run by the right of center Social Credit Party remnants.

      I went to school (Capilano University, SFU, etc) with these people.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  35. Re:Great. now we can vote the damn thing down by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    especially lawyers. they're in the "outsourcing" group too.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  36. Re:Great. now we can vote the damn thing down by morgauxo · · Score: 2

    Maybe that would get more attention on the problem.

  37. In favor by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2

    I'm in favor of TPP, and of trade agreements generally. Consider the case of NAFTA, as an example that is less broad in scope and yet similarly reviled. We can now look at it in a bit of an historical perspective.

    The populist arguments against NAFTA have generally been that it "enriches corporations, at the expense of American jobs". While it eased Canadian-US trade somewhat, the most visible effect of NAFTA was that US-Mexican trade was eased to the point that hundreds of maquiladoras (manufacturing facilities) sprung up close to the US border. Among other changes, Mexico has now become a top-10 exporter of automobiles.

    The maquiladoras have enhanced the lives of many millions of Mexicans. Meanwhile, it had a mixed effect on the USA, in particular pressuring hundreds of thousands of US autoworkers. Benefits to the US were much more diffuse than the lost autoworker jobs, leading many people to conclude those benefits were negligible. That's a common policy-maker's problem, where a special-interest group (here, US autoworkers) holds policy or public opinion hostage to its interests because the incremental advantage of good policy is, while larger in aggregate, thinly spread among a large constituency. It's quite recognizable in, for example, the activities of the sugar lobby on influencing congressional lawmakers.

    Such lobbies, by the way, are a big reason trade agreements must be negotiated privately, keeping details hidden from the public. Otherwise, special interest groups end up completely destroying the process while negotiations are underway. Remember, sugar tariffs are very good for the sugar lobby.

    While I appreciate patriotism, I personally feel that we should be trying to make life better for humanity in general, rather than greedily holding onto wealth in the USA. Taking at face value the Wharton study quoted above, the USA was able to enrich Mexicans at zero cost to itself. From that point of view, similar trade agreements are nearly a moral imperative!

    Coming back to TPP, it has some leaked aspects that I think are truly terrible, such as the intellectual freedom troubles. Those criticisms I consider reasonable, and I can appreciate why that would cause an informed and intelligent person to oppose the TPP. On the other hand, a kind of knee-jerk hatred to trade agreements in general appears to drive much of the opposition, and I think of those anti-trade arguments as having no moral standing, just like the ones put forth by the sugar lobby.

    On balance, then, I think the benefits to human happiness worldwide from even an agreement with flawed and overly-broad terms will outweigh the serious problems, but I can see how intellectual freedom considerations might make you feel otherwise.

    1. Re:In favor by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      I'm in favor of TPP, and of trade agreements generally.

      Great to hear your in favor of a deal you haven't read.

      On the other hand, a kind of knee-jerk hatred to trade agreements in general appears to drive much of the opposition, and I think of those anti-trade arguments as having no moral standing, just like the ones put forth by the sugar lobby.

      Knee-jerk hatred, knee-jerk acceptance whats the difference?

      While I appreciate patriotism,

      Patriotism is stupid.

      I personally feel that we should be trying to make life better for humanity in general, rather than greedily holding onto wealth in the USA.

      Globalization like capitalism only works when coupled with serious efforts to manage losers. In the absence of a serious will to do so blanket statements about moral imperatives favoring any and all trade deals simply because more trade = more good fall flat.

    2. Re:In favor by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      While I appreciate patriotism, I personally feel that we should be trying to make life better for humanity in general, rather than greedily holding onto wealth in the USA.

      So write a check.

      Taking at face value the Wharton study quoted above

      A business school thinks what's good for corporations is good for humanity? What a surprise.

      Coming back to TPP, it has some leaked aspects that I think are truly terrible, such as the intellectual freedom troubles. Those criticisms I consider reasonable, and I can appreciate why that would cause an informed and intelligent person to oppose the TPP. On the other hand, a kind of knee-jerk hatred to trade agreements in general appears to drive much of the opposition, and I think of those anti-trade arguments as having no moral standing, just like the ones put forth by the sugar lobby.

      That's like saying, "I can appreciate people being against cancer, but I just do not understand the opposition to disease in general."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: In favor by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I hope you sing the same song when it is you that is out of a job for the benefit of a foreigner. Who cares if Americans have to stoop as low as third worlders for a meager wage? As long as it's not you doing the stopping, it's just fine, isn't it? After all, now those who are not your countrymen can make $0.70 instead of $0.35 a day!

    4. Re:In favor by Altrag · · Score: 1

      it has some leaked aspects that I think are truly terrible, such as the intellectual freedom troubles

      This is why "trade" agreements are reviled by default these days. They have a couple of chapters regarding trade and a dozen chapters dedicated to screwing country's national laws.

      Basically every "trade" agreement since the DMCA came to be in the US has included a chapter essentially trying to force DMCA-like rules on other countries (even trade agreements that the US isn't a part of such as the Canada-EU CETA!)

      And that's just IP. There are other issues such as dismantling environmental protections that get similar treatment but aren't really related to "trade" beyond "screwing you over makes me more money without pissing off my own citizens!"

      Start making trade agreements about trade again and people will start respecting them again.

    5. Re:In favor by GlobalEcho · · Score: 1

      it has some leaked aspects that I think are truly terrible, such as the intellectual freedom troubles

      This is why "trade" agreements are reviled by default these days. They have a couple of chapters regarding trade and a dozen chapters dedicated to screwing country's national laws.

      While I agree with you that it's a valid reason to revile trade agreements by default, I perceive the revulsion to be comprised of more protectionist, beggar-thy-neighbor sentiment, mixed with ugly patriotism. See "Squiddie" above, the guy who thinks doubling (!) the daily wages of benighted bastards in a poor country isn't worth the risks to American workers.

      Start making trade agreements about trade again and people will start respecting them again.

      Not as optimistic on that score as you are. Cheers.

  38. Libertarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the end of the traditional nations. The governments of the states/empires already lost their independence in many areas where the IMF has a say. The few countries that resisted IMF influence are countries like North-Korea. North-Korea is such a shitty place, not because of their communist regime, but because nobody may trade with them. The best weapon against an authoritarian regime like North-Korea was to trade with them, to create a middle class that could educate themselves and change the country from within. But no, they were kept as an example to show the rest of the world what would happen if your government didn't bend over and get raped by the IMF.

    These new trade agreements will make the world even smaller. It is absolutely free trade, and no government can regulate products or introduce tariffs or even subsidize their own economy. For Europeans for example, that means that the people can not longer vote against genetic manipulated food. The traditional governments become powerless, unfortunately that doesn't mean that they will disappear. The people won't have to expect any services from the government in the future, but the governments (controlled by the handful of elites pulling the strings) still expect the people to pay the interests on the huge debts created in the past.

    It is almost a Christian tragedy. Everyone is born as a sinner because a imaginary mother of all had eaten from a forbidden fruit. Now everyone is born with a huge dept. Now many people have lost faith, religion is just replaced by economy, but the same nonsense applies to both.

    For me it is no surprise that both Islamophobia and Islam extremism is on the rise. People don't have anything to fall back on. God is dead. Free markets is not for everyone. The state is powerless. Pop culture idols are only attractive for a few. Why would you want to be part of this society where only a few will be rich and where the American dream is just a dream that can't be fulfilled anymore. Why not join a militaristic movement and belong to a group that does care for you and that you can identify with? One for all, all for one. For some people these kind of movements are easier to identify with than some black brother rapping about his hoes...

    It has been going on for a while. Gangs are formed by people who lost confidence in society and who didn't get any opportunity, but in the gangs they can live a good live, albeit short. These kind of organizations can only grow in our new libertarian world where there is no visible leader. There is only the invisible hand that isn't good or just, but feels cruel, discouraging and hateful. God is dead, long live the new God that is free markets.

    This libertarianism will lead to many totalitarian organizations, even states. It's okay to come up for the right of gays and lesbians and to come up for the right of woman to have a career. It's okay to plan your family and stick with 1 or 2 children.
    But the societies where women are nothing more but mens property and breeding machines will out breed all civilized societies. They will overrun the civilized world. It already started in Europe with the many immigrants. It are only a 'few' at the moment, but more will come, and the amount is rising. It are mostly male who once they get their citizenship will reunite their family with 2 woman, 12 children and 6 parents. Within a few decades we will be overrun before we even know what happened, just like it happened before in the Roman Empire. We are at the end of the 2000 years cycle anyway. The prophecies about the end of the world are not literal ends of the world, but are just collapsed societies that enter into a middle age after a height in civilization, a cycle that repeats itself roughly every 2000 years.
     

  39. Re:Trans pacific deals are for Cows by khelms · · Score: 2

    Did you swallow your kid's See 'N Say?

  40. NAFTA is a disaster by Piata · · Score: 5, Informative

    Canada has been completely screwed over by NAFTA. If we try to enact any kind of environmental protection, a US company sues Canada for millions. It creates a situation where if Canada wants to reduce the amount of water, lumber or other natural resources exported, or more tightly control the extraction of those resources, US companies can succesfully sue Canada for increased costs or lost profit.

    NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals

    It's great that poor countries can see increased growth from this, but the reality is large trade agreements often make a few people companies/people richer while reducing a country's sovreignty and the quality of life of the average joe.

  41. Eliminating tariffs by ajzimm3rman · · Score: 0

    Will lower prices for everyone. Consumers will benefit. Trade will increase. More jobs will be created. Free trade is beneficial. Protectionism has been proven wrong, time and time again.

    1. Re:Eliminating tariffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot if you believe that line of horseshit. Either that, or your "in on it" with the corporate criminals behind this. The only protectionism going on here is profits of giant corps who wrote this travesty. They want to do an end-run around sovereign laws, and any politician who votes in favour of this thing is going to go into the books as a traitor and will be remembered when it's time to clean this treasonous farce up.

  42. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    This is the first thing that came to mind. That, and we are really, really fucked .

    We are fucked... where "we" represent those that still want to do "business" (operate/work/get paid) as usual. This is the time when all of us need to aggressively find ways to adapt, and prosper at best (and not getting squashed at worst.)

    Think of all the folks who are still crying for their jobs to come back from China, even though that has been happening for 3 decades (I mean, how many decades do people from a 1st word industrial nation need to adapt)?

    Though I feel sympathy for them, I know I do not want to be in that type of crowd when the shittsunamiapocalypse comes - crying for things to go back the way they were.

    The TPP is (or was) the light of an incoming train, an inevitable chicxulub that we have been seeing approaching for 3 decades. Learn new skills, be more nimble, aim to supplement your income in any way possible (legally of course), be thrifty, read some basic business books, learn a new language, etc, etc, etc.

    It will not be nice, but it is reality. Better to deal with it than to cry momma feeling sorry for ourselves.

  43. Now begins the useless review period. by sethstorm · · Score: 2

    Now we get to see the perfunctory "review period" in action - complete with prebuilt talking points.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  44. Vote for Sanders? by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sanders opposes and has opposed Citzens United, Corporate Financing of Election, the TPP, and the Iraq war since the beginning. He has never accepted corporate money in his entire career and isn't now that he's running for president.

    AFAIK he is the only candidate with a long political record who's speeches are in line with his actions. You could vote for him or, you know, talk about the cynacism of the two party system and how political change is impossible.

    I do know one thing. Cynacism is obedience to the plutocracy. Sure, it talks differently, but it functions exactly the same way.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Vote for Sanders? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      well said

      i was going to mention sanders, but i wanted to soft pedal it

      there's still a knee jerk reaction to the word "socialism" in the usa that is something out of 1950s era joe mccarthy red scare hysteria

      even though actual socialism: germany, denmark, canada, etc., simply means affordable healthcare and higher education. socialist countries are richer, happier, and freer than the usa (yes, freer: their representatives aren't purchased by plutocrats)

      but if you say "socialism" to a moron of the american variety, they think communism. gulags and long lines for toilet paper

      this is how you keep slaves: bury them in ignorant propaganda

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Vote for Sanders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]but i wanted to soft pedal it

      Peddle, as in selling something.

    3. Re:Vote for Sanders? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      spelling/ punctuation/ grammar nazis are useless topic derailing turds as it is, but you've reached a special level of turdliness: the desire to exert an authority you don't possess about crap no one cares about... AND you are wrong

      http://www.merriam-webster.com...

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  45. The TPP explained... by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

    Although a little lengthy, I found this to be an interesting assessment of the TPP:

    http://economixcomix.com/home/...

  46. Why did Asia agree to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You only need half a brain to realize it will soften your markets and weaken your control over it, and allow U.S corporations to control a larger and larger amount of it. You've just sold your population and your markets to U.S corporations.

  47. littleness by Max_W · · Score: 1

    There is the WTO, the World Trade Organization. The World.

  48. The EU is working out so well... by tanstaaf1 · · Score: 1

    We should hurry, hurry, hurry to create the EUSA. But notice the E is in FRONT of the USA. Regardless of who is nominally in charge of this Frankenstein we can be sure of at least three things: (1) Eastern Asia will always and ultimately be in front. (2) Government will become enormously bigger, and the political class and their Masters will be the real beneficiaries. (3) There will be -- as we continue to see in the EU -- horrific, unfolding consequences; and a lot of both wealth and freedom transfer. (4) Anyone who knows anything about history should know the name of this tune: "You can check out any time you'd like. But you can never leave." Look to the EU and the USA, itself, for the reality of these sorts of "voluntary" agreements. -- I think it's time we get rid of elected representatives entirely and go to direct vote on everything. Three benefits: (1) It would utterly thwart the special interests. (2) It would develop a strong, informed citizenry. (3) It would dramatically, dramatically reduce the accretion of incomprehensible laws and regulations the citizens don't understand, often don't even know exist, which are NOT worth their cost or aren't worth any cost at all. I suspect under such a system we wouldn't have 1/10th the wars, would have better infrastructure, and would generally have a much brighter future.

  49. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by Squiddie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You must be delusional. You're competing agains thrid world labor. The only way to compete with that is to live and work in third world conditions. Enjoy being a serf.

  50. You have one last hope by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Well Slashdot, the Republicans that so many of you despise, are your last line of defense against the rod that is about to be rammed into you...

    Lest some of you still harbor some iodide supposition this agreement will be desirable in any way, just look at the updates to DRM

    Since Hollywood hates Republicans even more than most Slashdot readers, you'd think blocking this would be a no brainer. But many are swayed by money...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You have one last hope by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well Slashdot, the Republicans that so many of you despise, are your last line of defense against the rod that is about to be rammed into you...

      I'm surprised you think there are two sides of politics remaining, they are the left and right wing of the same party and this agreement purely increasing control over the populous. Ask yourself who wants this. When trade agreements override a nations sovereignty this ceases to be a political issue and becomes a structural issue of democracy.

      We are all getting rammed...

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  51. Re:Trans pacific deals are for Cows by GrandCow · · Score: 1

    Is this some meme I'm missing? I've seen almost the same comment in multiple threads.

    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
  52. Where's Anonymous when you need them? by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    There's a desperate need for a public service hacking and document dump to occur.

  53. Marketing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Brazil, commentators on radio are saying that it's a huge opportunity missed for the country, that we should focus less in South American agreements and more on international ones. Never mind the fact that such radios belong to groups with stations that promote American music -- and only American music. The chance of hearing music in French or Italian is tiny.

    Someone more enlightened at least mentioned that we aren't in this agreement perhaps because we're next to the Atlantic, not the Pacific...

    I wonder if they are now exploring other channels with paid shills: no longer just written forums but also radio, perhaps chats, too...

    Don't be naive about it: there will be a war to be waged on radio, TV, etc. For each interview where someone really explains how bad this is, there will be a lot of "media inserts" with comments like how it is great, or what opportunity we're missing. When things go wrong in the future, people will say, "but nobody forced you to sign it, isn't it?"

  54. Treaties shoudl not be negotiated in secret. by plazman30 · · Score: 1

    Treaties shoudl not be negotiated in secret. EVER. If the public doesn't have the right to know what it's the treaty, then the stuff in the treaty is obviously against the public's best interest. And Congress only has 90 days to debate or it automatically ratifies? I hope to God Rand Paul filibusters this.

  55. If there's one thing you can be sure of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's that given the timelines, and the secrecy of the negotiations, that most citizens will never get a decent understanding of the issues involved. Instead our politicians will adopt a position and the natural voting tendencies of the citizens will line them up behind their usual candidate.

    It seems a little too convenient, like the treaty approval process was created to do exactly this. Oh sure, the political mavens out there will find their information and satisfy themselves one way or another. But the average citizen? I really doubt that they will find themselves adequately informed, whenever and however their decision point arrives.

    Our international trade agreements wind up changing the country in profound ways. Whole industries migrate to other jurisdictions and we are taking it on faith that these industrial changes are net positive, or that they don't have negative personal impacts. The leverage these agreements give to capital owners alone deserves a whole round of debates.

  56. The TPP isn't a free trade agreement .. by nickweller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The TPP isn't a free trade agreement. What it does do is give corporations pre-eminence over nation states and the right to sue in secret courts, if the states are deemed to have adversely affect the earnings of the said corporations. Similarly to how Canada was sued under NAFTA by a private company for trying to build a second bridge over the Detroit River. Canada's chief crime being the attempt at protecting the environment and the health of Canadians. So we can all stop the pretence that our governments actually represent the interests of the citizens.

    Why you should care about the TPP

  57. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are trade deals done in secret? Who are they supposed to be hiding from?

  58. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is about making people a disposable commodity. The only new thing you should bother learning is how to live in poverty.

  59. Re:Trans pacific deals are for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon to be BGH-enhanced cows... MOOOONSANTO!

  60. yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We get the government we deserve...

  61. roman_mir = dick_cheney, human trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you get gutted ASAP so I can play jumprope with your intestines !

  62. 90 days by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    And they want to release it in a *a month or so*. So at roughly 80 or so pages (in the Intellectual Property section) can we expect a 2400 page document with 60 days to read it, so 40 pages a day after a full time job, commute and so on. So that's the expected input from the populous who will be affected by this trade agreement.

    So essentially, sign this contract before you understand it. That's worldwide democracy right there. Talk about a Faustian Bargain.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  63. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    You must be delusional. You're competing agains thrid world labor. The only way to compete with that is to live and work in third world conditions. Enjoy being a serf.

    Oh for fuck's sake, haven't we been competing with third world workers for 2.5 decades now? Those among us that are nimble and are always learning new things, trying to stay ahead are still living well. And when push come to shove, one would always have a choice to work in a 2nd-world country as a professional and still live a relatively comfortable life.

    People like you act like if this 3rd-world competition is something new. And this makes me wonder what kind of work you do, or under what rock you have been living.

  64. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    This is about making people a disposable commodity. The only new thing you should bother learning is how to live in poverty.

    Cry me a fucking river. Is that new to you, that we are commodities? That shit is 3 decades old (when we shift from "Personnel Department" to "Human Resources". And living in poverty? If you are a manual worker with no skills to offer beyond pulling a lever, then yes, poverty awaits you. So, don't be a manual worker with no skills to offer.

    It is that fuckign simple, and for the last three decades, there have been people who have successfully made the transition. Others, well, they are still clamoring for their jobs to come back from China (with you tagging along apparently.)

  65. Secret Negiotiatins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really think Obama can be trusted with ANY negotiation? Look at the Iran deal. Unfreeze BILLIONS of Iranian capital just to have them essentially police themselves? My god, he's an idiot of the highest order. Besides we do know a lot about the TPP.

    US Citizens personal information is shared with EVERY partner in the TPP. There is no opt-out. So now you can have your identity legally stolen in dozens of countries. Foreign countries will also be able to track what you do whether you're in the US or not. There is a concerted push to ban encryption, or at least build in back doors, amongst the partner countries.

    This was way more than a trade deal, it was a way to tighten the stranglehold governments have other their own and other citizens.

    Obama has done more to destroy America that even I thought possible. His name will be mentioned in history along with Hitler and Pol Pot.

  66. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by Squiddie · · Score: 1

    Oh for fuck's sake, haven't we been competing with third world workers for 2.5 decades now?

    Yes, and losing. Our industry is falling apart and unemployment is through the roof.

    Those among us that are nimble and are always learning new things, trying to stay ahead are still living well. And when push come to shove, one would always have a choice to work in a 2nd-world country as a professional and still live a relatively comfortable life.

    So I guess, you have no problem with young workers being replaced with H1B, or you yourself eventually being replaced. After all, your degradation in standard of living is only slight, right? People like you always have no problem with outsourcing as long as it doesn't affect you, but you're giving the entire country away.

    People like you act like if this 3rd-world competition is something new. And this makes me wonder what kind of work you do, or under what rock you have been living.

    It's the tightening of thumb screws on the American worker. Not everyone can be an engineer, and not everyone can be an indispensable engineer. This is the nature of the game. No, third-world competition is not new, but it should end because it hasn't done any good.

  67. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Oh for fuck's sake, haven't we been competing with third world workers for 2.5 decades now?

    Yes, and losing. Our industry is falling apart and unemployment is through the roof.

    Then welcome to humanity. This has been going on in other countries. And people cope. And adapt. And in many cases, actually thrive.

    Those among us that are nimble and are always learning new things, trying to stay ahead are still living well. And when push come to shove, one would always have a choice to work in a 2nd-world country as a professional and still live a relatively comfortable life.

    So I guess, you have no problem with young workers being replaced with H1B, or you yourself eventually being replaced.

    Of course I do have a problem. But I just don't bitch about it saying "we are fucked". No matter how you cut it, we are a million times better than some poor bastard drinking polluted water in Somalia. We have venues with which to cope, skills with which to adapt. We have options. Not necessarily the options we want, but they are there.

    We might be in a pickle, but we are not fucked.

    After all, your degradation in standard of living is only slight, right?

    No slight. I'm actually trying to see if I can find a gig on the side to make ends meet. My benefits are getting smaller. Health coverage is ridiculously unpredictable, so with 2 small children, we pretty much have to assume we have 4K less of income a year, at least, just in case. And so on and so on.

    But we are not fucked. We can always adapt somehow. This is what happens to the likes of you who have never truly seen poverty. Oh, degradation of living, we are fucked. Give me a break.

    People like you always have no problem with outsourcing as long as it doesn't affect you, but you're giving the entire country away.

    I work in software. It affects me. For 20 years of professional life, 2/3 of it I've had to deal with temp jobs and contracting gigs without benefits because outsourcing and the shift of perm hiring to contracting. It affects me. But I don't bitch about it. I adapt.

    People like you act like if this 3rd-world competition is something new. And this makes me wonder what kind of work you do, or under what rock you have been living.

    It's the tightening of thumb screws on the American worker. Not everyone can be an engineer, and not everyone can be an indispensable engineer. This is the nature of the game. No, third-world competition is not new, but it should end because it hasn't done any good.

    Not everyone can be an engineer, true, but not everyone can expect to get a job back in a conveyor line just pushing a lever to mold a piece of plastic either. People adapt. I've seen it. Shit, my first job 25 years ago was in a factory in LA, just the exact type of factory that went to China. I worked my way flipping burgers and driving forklifts. It took me 8 years to get my BS in CS, all the while learning a new language and being 110lbs because I barely had enough to eat three meals 2-3 days a week.

    What's the excuse for everyone else? I know people who lost their factory jobs, and adapted. Bought a lawnmower and started clipping people's grass, and from there, little by little, built up a landscaping company.

    I've known a person from a 3rd world country that came as a refugee, she could barely read and write, and needed a calculator for anything above addition. And yet, she worked her ass off, 70 hours a week doing deliveries for florists till the point she had her own business.

    What's the fucking excuse to those people who 30 years later are still carrying signs blaming the Chinese and illegals? We are not fucked unless we want to.

  68. Blueprint for future Trade Deals by gordguide · · Score: 1

    The TPP covers enough of the current Global Economy (some of South America, Some of Asia, North America) so that it serves as a blueprint for future Trade Treaties between the current signatories and future signatories. It's important to get the deal crafted in such a way that anyone who wants to join in the future has to basically take on the same compromises and advantages. And make no mistake; other nations will want to join in the future.

    If you don't get this deal done, you run the risk that future trade deals compromise your position further than maybe your country feels is reasonable. One thing that is almost certain is that the current signatories are looking at a weakening economic position in the future; by signing and crafting now, they negotiate from a position of strength that probably will not exist to the same extent in the future.

    It might not be ideal for all the current signatories, but at least now we know where the advantages and disadvantages will lie, and current treaty nations can adjust accordingly so that they are in a position to take advantage in the future, with rules the future signatories will have to agree to.

  69. Re:We Are Fucked (we'll, depends.) by SirLordGodfrey · · Score: 1

    Well, I never liked clean air, safe (relative to the job - mining will always be more dangerous than an office job, but the danger can still be reduced to an extent) work conditions/environments, child labor laws, or the ability to have more free time than the average gilded age worker, anyway.

    --
    "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."