The Case Against Ratifying the Trans Pacific Partnership (michaelgeist.ca)

An anonymous reader writes: For the past two and a half months, Canadian law professor Michael Geist has been writing a daily series on the trouble with the Trans Pacific Partnership. The 50 part series wrapped up today with the case against ratifying the TPP. While the focus is on Canadian issues, the series hits on problems that all 12 countries face: unbalanced intellectual property rules, privacy risks, dangers to the Internet and technology, cultural and health regulation, and investor-state settlement rules that could cost countries billions of dollars.

Comments

We need to kill nafta 2.0

[Joe_Dragon]

We need to kill nafta 2.0 as the first one killed a lot of jobs and with the investor-state settlement rules even more can be cut.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[Nunya666]

Big Government doesn't care. They have their jobs, and their pockets get lined by Big Business. That's all they care about.

The only way crap like this will be stopped is if we replace our entire government. A revolt of the masses is unlikely, so send a message to the bureaucrats by NOT voting for ANY incumbent of ANY party. Once we get rid of enough "professional politicians" things should start to change.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[mjm1231]

There are a lot of good reasons to be against NAFTA and TPP, but making statements of opinion as if they were fact does more for the opposing argument than it does to support your own. The fact is, NAFTA created some US jobs and killed some others. Whether the balance was a net gain or a net loss is widely debated by economists, with no conclusive evidence from either side.

TFA does a pretty good job of summarizing why TPP favors and protects corporate interests over the interests of everyone else though. Even if it creates more jobs than it destroys, there has to be a better way.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[ShanghaiBill]

We need to kill nafta 2.0 as the first one killed a lot of jobs

NAFTA was a treaty between America, Canada, and Mexico. The citizens of ALL THREE countries believe that they got shafted, and all the benefits went to the other two. Logically, at least two of them must be wrong. Most economists believe that all three are wrong, and NAFTA was a net benefit to all participants.

Today, Mexican tortillas are made with America corn (maize). How can a Mexican peasant with a hoe possibly compete with an combine in Iowa that can cut a 30 foot swathe through a field? So poor Mexican must be the biggest losers from NAFTA, right? That is the way the Mexican see it. Of course, this is nonsense. Mexican cornfields have been converted to mango and avocado orchards, with are much more profitable and create far more jobs than corn. The same is true in America: some jobs are gone, but other jobs have been created.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[mjm1231]

The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness? That might result in a higher GDP, but without any gains for the farmers/workers. This is the sort of economic mobility that a lot of people are noticing. I don't know if the data supports this view, but it is certainly the perception.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[ArmoredDragon]

Actually it was mostly the USA that won that, with Canada coming in a distant second. Mexico's economy is now worse off post NAFTA, but that isn't because of NAFTA, rather it's because what new jobs they gained were lost to China shortly afterwards. Though they'd probably be even worse off had it not been for NAFTA.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[ArmoredDragon]

The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness?

I already know that's false without even having to look it up. You can't own land (or any other real property for that matter) in Mexico unless you're a Mexican citizen.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[ShanghaiBill]

It is easy to see the losers from free trade. America has no more textile mills, and those jobs are gone. But I work for a tech company and 70% of our revenue comes from foreign customers. For most tech companies, that is typical. So, if you are a nerd, one of the jobs created from free trade is likely YOUR job.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[mjm1231]

The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness?

I already know that's false without even having to look it up. You can't own land (or any other real property for that matter) in Mexico unless you're a Mexican citizen.

And a multinational agribusiness can't be owned by a Mexican citizen?

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[mjm1231]

Or, after two seconds of google searching:

Alternatively the purchase of non-residential property can be achieved through a Mexican corporation which, under certain conditions, can be 100% foreign-owned.

Re:We need to kill nafta 2.0

[StillAnonymous]

The tops of multi-national corporations that got to take advantage of wage arbitrage and guaranteed protections were the beneficiaries. Workers and the public got the shaft, big time. Exactly how it will be with TPP, but mulitplied.

History as teacher

[some old guy]

After WTO, NAFTA, et al, I'd say its safe to assume that TPP is designed and built to expedite the globalist race to the bottom, to the detriment of everyone but the oligarchs and their bootlickers.

Re:History as teacher

[Kohath]

Wage trends in China indicate the "race to the bottom" is actually a race to the middle.

Re:History as teacher

[oh_my_080980980]

I guess you are not familiar with actions by US Chamber of Commerce to relocate jobs out of China to lower wage countries...

Re:History as teacher

[Kohath]

Which "lower wage countries"? I'll link their wage trends. Which direction do you think the trend line will go?

Re:History as teacher

[Gramie2]

The Southern African country of Lesotho now has a large number of Chinese garment factories, because of the country's no-tariff status in North America (and, I think, Europe).

Re:History as teacher

[Tablizer]

What "free trade" has done is to cheapen the mediocre and enrich the cream of crop, or at least the owners of the cream of the crop.

For example, there are only so many people who can be tested in the position of CEO because there are only so many CEO positions. Being a "vice CEO" is not a good enough test or "training".

The few who have success or show promise are then highly sought-after, and their compensation package is bid way up. It's high-end case of it takes experience to get experience. Only so many get a chance to show what they can do as CEO, making the pool of good CEO's small, and thus prized.

We see a similar pattern in internationalization of the NBA (pro basketball): big-name stars like Kobe and LeBron James become international stars who bring in revenue from all over the world.

They can leverage their star power and wealth to end up with the best coaches on the best teams with the best role players. (Although, LeBron has chosen to personally help his hometown team of late instead of chase big markets.)

But the low and middle-level players face more international competition, meaning fewer slots for citizens. There may be a few more franchises to work for due to internationalism revenue, but not nearly enough to offset the increased foreign competition.

Thus, the stars and owners get richer and gain leverage, but the rest of the players simply face more international competition for limited slots as international players are recruited. Middle-level USA citizen players are essentially being replaced.

The middle class is thus squeezed and the benefits of internationalization flow to the top.

Re:History as teacher

[KGIII]

On a global scale, the middle is really close to the bottom - from your perspective.

To put this into words, you recollect the railing against the 1%? The global 1% is about $32,000 USD/year. Yup... Seeing as you're here on Slashdot, you're almost certainly well within the middle income levels or significantly higher.

What's amusing is all the finger pointing and blaming and partisan gibberish that goes on with it.

Re:History as teacher

[alvinrod]

It doesn't make any sense to compare the cost of living in the US with the average income in China. When taking into account purchasing power parity, China has a larger economy than the United States and is barely behind the entire EU.

If you use Switzerland's poverty line figures (about $25000 for a single person) to make your comparison then even more of China (an a large number of Americans for that matter) would be considered impoverished.

Re:History as teacher

[thegarbz]

Wage trends in China indicate the "race to the bottom" is actually a race to the middle.

No, it's a race to as low as tolerably practical. Overlay that graph on the growth of South African / South American manufacturing due to their even lower rates and you'll see they aren't winning anything, infact they are losing business as margins get ever tighter and consumers fall over themselves to buy the latest and greatest shit for a little as possible.

Re:History as teacher

[ArmoredDragon]

Exactly.

I remember a TED talk about some Swedish economics professor who was examining the widely held belief that everybody seems to have that the whole world is always getting poorer, and he found it to not be the case at all, rather quite the opposite. The problem is that people tend to measure wealth in terms of income, and income is a terrible way of measuring wealth because it doesn't show actual purchasing power, and further it confuses the difference between money and wealth (there's quite a difference.)

What he used were metrics like how many people can afford airfare halfway across the world at different points in time, how many people can afford how much food at different points in time, how many people could afford a car at different points in history, then for luxury items, etc. What is data clearly showed was that as time has been passing by, even though incomes aren't necessarily increasing, how much nice things people can afford has always been increasing. And this holds true for virtually all of the world's economies, from the very poor to the very rich.

The concept of a "race to the bottom" is a total myth. People who propagate this myth tend to have the notion that when things become cheaper, they become inferior. That just doesn't fit with reality at all. Some people might get paid less, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can afford less, in fact it's usually the opposite because overall they can afford more. Though it's likely that they won't get paid less at all, namely because lower price means more people can afford a given good, which means more sales volume.

If anybody recalls back in the early 80's, there were those 50" projection TVs that only higher income people had (in 2016 dollars those would be about $6,167.53.) Those TV's had absolute shit picture quality compared to $1,000 TVs of the same or larger size that you can obtain today. The newer TVs also last longer (those projection ones barely lasted a few years; not to mention the setup was so damn big and horribly energy inefficient.)

Re:History as teacher

[KGIII]

To put it into perspective...

Reach in your pocket and pull out your smart phone. Do a little math. Go back 25 years. Apply the math needed to own (not access, but own) that much compute power. Now adjust it for inflation.

Do the same thing with your automobile, house - including furnishings, education, gadgets, entertainment, and more...

I get a kick out of the people who decry us as having less than the previous generation and being unduly burdened by it.

I know, I know... It goes against the narrative and we humans are disinclined to be grateful and objective. We're having such a hard time at life yet we always have. We enjoy greater luxuries at lower prices and with greater availability. We cherry-pick our data points like a skeptic picks at climate change dates. We look at a brief period of time, typically post WWII, and choose select points to control the narrative while forgetting the dates prior. We selectively pick (perhaps not even consciously) our memories and beliefs.

We're humans. We're not rational beings, we're rationalizing beings. So it has always been and the future doesn't look to be all that different.

"My father only had to work one job!"
"Your father didn't feel an obligation to buy a supercomputer to carry around in his pocket or a new car every five years."

"My educated was 7 times more expensive than my dad's!"
"Your father didn't attend a school with those physical assets, have to employ those people who felt a need to carry a supercomputer in their pocket and drive a new car every five years, and didn't have access to a logarithmically expanding source of information that needed to be sorted, indexed, and made accessible."

I could go on but I'd be wasting your time and mine. There's no need for me to preach to the choir. Oddly, there are people (I've had this conversation before) who will still try to argue it - and passionately do so. No... You're in great shape, collectively speaking. The sky is not falling, not yet.

To remain topical, this treaty has some very concerning parts in it (I've read a good portion of the copy that NZ put online and will probably finish reading it soon - it's huge and confusing) and it certainly has some very disturbing parts that, from my laymen's view, have great potential for abuse. Right or wrong, the result of this *may* be that it does uplift impoverished people. I think we need to be reminded of that as it is probably why those on the left support it. They've been emoting their way towards this for a long time, regardless of revisionist history, and are happily aided by those who favor increased greed.

Observation: The folks who were not doing well are actually doing better but those at the top seem to be skimming quite a bit off that could probably have gone to better uses. It looks like greater disparity in wealth when you look at it from a middle-class view. From a lower-class view, it looks like an increase in one's own wealth. Most folks see things from their own view and few people take a look at things like the population numbers locally or world-wide.

Sorry(ish) for the novella but that does not easily fit on a bumper sticker and pithy sayings don't convey the content.

Re:History as teacher

[HiThere]

The thing is, we actually DO have less. We may have fancier computer toys, but food, housing, etc. are a lot more expensive/hour worked.

Re:History as teacher

[KGIII]

Compare the housing's R value, the quality of materials in it, the design, the tools used to build it, the specs it meets, the wiring, the outlets, the electrical panel, the plumbing, etc... You really don't have less unless you wanted to, some localized fluctuations come into play but in those areas you have more externally and those things also cost money/resources.

Re:History as teacher

[whoever57]

Do the same thing with medical costs in the USA.

Re:History as teacher

[whoever57]

Compare the housing's R value, the quality of materials in it, the design, the tools used to build it, the specs it meets, the wiring, the outlets, the electrical panel, the plumbing, etc...

Depending on where you live, all these items may be a rounding error in the total cost, with the land prices dominating everything else. But, yes, let's compare the quality of materials. Tell me, what new house has solid hardwood floors (and not laminates that will need replacement in a few years)? My 60-year old house that was built on a budget has solid oak floors. How many modern houses are being built with plastic water pipes (PEX) that won't last as long as the steel used before, or anything like as long as copper pipes?

Yes, some things have got cheaper. Others have become a lot more expensive. You can cherry-pick items and prove either proposition.

Re:History as teacher

[KGIII]

My house was a huge bargain and is huge. I'll show you some neat pictures when I get home in the spring, if you want. I spent a lot on it but I got a lot of house - and I've got gazillions of acres - at a steel and the house is largely made out of materials that came from the land. My house will still be here in 200 years. It's actually passive solar, I designed it myself. It's what's known as a box or envelope (sometimes double-envelope would be the preferred term) and is powered mostly by solar and wind.

You know, I started this and I am obligated to make sure I complete it well enough. This is going to be a novella. You have been warned. I'll bold a bit and you can skip to it or just read it all. It's probably a bit easier if you read it all. If not then, well... You did want to know why I said what I said. It is going to take a minute to explain that.

To make a short story long... More accurately, the house has a mains connection but that's the backup and not the primary. Under normal conditions it doesn't tick over and I push energy out into the grid - even in the winter. The house, while huge, was actually a bargain. I even have (legal) in-ground diesel tanks for a generator. The piping is black iron for some of it, some is technically copper, and the rest is PEX, the framing is post-and-beam. It's on the side of a small mountain about 24 miles outside of Rangeley, Maine. I've given some pretty close co-ordinates if you wanted to find it, it'd probably not be that hard to find if someone wanted to stalk me or something. Meh, I've communicated with you before. If you were going to hunt me down and kill me then you'd have done so already. But it's kind of nice and wasn't really all that expensive.

It may very well have been less expensive (house alone and a portion of the property or the property by acre) than you paid for your property and house. I paid about $200 an acre, all told. I've been buying chunks of old paper-mill property that's all either really hard to reach or was replanted back in 1978 or there abouts for the oldest replants and the newest sections are still being cut. The land pays for itself, now that it has been purchased. It even makes a profit. It's a long story, also written out in older posts, but I suppose I can type it again - if you really want. It'd probably be faster than me finding it in my old posts.

The point is, you discounted a lot of what I said and selected to consider only the choices you either made or, I guess you could say, had to make due to your particular desires outweighed with a need for immediate (or rapid) satisfaction. Me? I got damned lucky but much of what I have would have already been mine had I not sold - just on a smaller scale and it would have taken longer to achieve that. I have an obscene number of acres, really. Why not? It works for me and it pays for itself. On top of that, the public is welcome to use it. It's open to hunting, fishing, ATV use, etc. There are a few caveats and some of it is private but it's mostly open.

I'd already purchased some of the land before I sold my business. It's mildly embarrassing to give specific numbers but there's property at probably about 1/5 the floor space and (counting only 20 acres) was about 100k more expensive than my home (not counting electrical, utility installation, but counting everything that was needed to be habitable and comfortable) would have cost on the *outskirts* of San Fransisco proper. That's without a view but probably a rolling hill-side view, up above the street with the one-ways and everyone walking in front of you - that one, I'd have to look the name up and I'm lazy.

Anyhow, that's some caveats. There's another building on my property, since rehabbed, but was built in 1840. It's a traditional NE farm-house, colonial-plantation mix, with attached barn, summer-kitchen, and horse/carriage stable. I was going to have it torn down but it grew on me. It's a ridiculous money-pit but the guy who built it also built it off the same land, with rough-milled and

Re:History as teacher

[KGIII]

See my other response. Note: It is a novella. If you want to see where I'm coming from, read all of it. If you just wanna argue then the bolded sections or none of it at all are what I'd suggest. 'Tis up to you but I figured I'd try to explain my statement a bit more completely for you. Doing so is not easy and I'm not the most articulate. So, try to read it with that in mind. Or, if you prefer, just rant and rave and fight. I'm okay with either and don't have much of a preference where some folks are concerned. I'm also of an open mind and I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

I could probably pull out some numbers and demonstrate it a little better but compiling a bunch of unbiased numbers isn't easy. I've seen, for example, the number of cancer diagnoses and deaths given without any mention of the increases in detection. I've only seen those accounted for a few times. They're hardly ever adjusted for the increased recording, the margin of error on the older data, and the ease of actual number aggregation isn't usually accounted for either.

It's not all sunshine and roses but it's not that bad, not really. In fact, it's really damned good in many ways. They love pushing stats out like that but few people bother to ask where the data came from and what questions the data actually answered and why it was considered a complete answer. Crime, especially violent crime, has been trending down for decades. Poverty is trending downward. Access to everything from advanced health care to information has skyrocketed. Etc. etc. etc...

I wrote about it in detail in my other post. I am limited on posts so I'll respond to the other one if you want. I've hit the max threshold which is 50 posts/day - even if you max out your karma. (Which I have.) They claim they're going to get rid of that limitation but we'll see. They said that quite some time ago and I've been pretty patient. Then again, it really isn't all that pressing and they're likely rather busy. So, I'll be patient. To be honest, they don't have a very high bar to cross to be better than DICE. I guess I was hoping it'd be a bit speedier.

At any rate - I wanted to make sure that I'd covered it all in that post. I think I got the gist of it. I can go on, if you want. A lot of it is about choices and you're able to make choices, and regularly do, to access things you would have had a hard time accessing if you were a millionaire just 30 years ago.

Re:History as teacher

[whoever57]

I did read your response and you have clearly done well for yourself. I have also done well. As an immigrant who moved from a low housing cost area to a high housing cost area, I was very lucky to be able to buy a house when I did. Without buying this house, my finances now would be quite difficult.

However, your and my experience are not relevant. I doubt that they are typical, but more importantly, the issue should be put to graduates coming out of university now. Are they better off than in the past? I think that there were times that recent graduates were significantly better off.

I still think you are cherry picking items. For example, you say that access to advanced health care is better than it was in the past and I agree with you about this. I also suspect that access to routine healthcare may well be worse than in the past.

Re:History as teacher

[sociocapitalist]

Wage trends in China indicate the "race to the bottom" is actually a race to the middle.

It's a race to the lowest common denominator which is higher than the very poorest have but way, way, way lower than we want our children to have to compete with.

Low labor cost countries tend to have no labor protection, unsafe working conditions, borderline (or outright) slavery working conditions, zero benefits whatsoever and get paid jack shit anyway it's a losing proposition for anyone but the richest who benefit from globally lower resource rates and arguably the very poorest who had nothing to start with.

Only racists don't like TPP

[CajunArson]

Look, that racist Hitler-Trump doesn't like TPP, so you are automagically a racist (like Bernie Sanders) if you don't like it.

Don't be a racist, do what Obama would do, support TPP.

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[Kohath]

Don't worry. None of these arguments matter. Nothing that the public wants matters either. Washington insiders are still firmly in control. A Hillary win will guarantee Washington insider control through 2020. No one outside Washington and the billionaire social circles has mattered for a long time. Expect that to continue.

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[ganjadude]

im content worrying about myself and my country personally.

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[Tailhook]

allow them to dominate the Far East

MFN status for China in the 1990s is why were facing the expansion of a Chinese military power today. I don't see a real path to countering this now; the die is cast and TPP won't create a meaningful counter to China. Game over; thanks for playing.

But sure, let's do it anyway. Let's eliminate the last impediments to capital movement around the planet. Apple needs some new place to take their profits since it seems Europe is on to them in Ireland. At some point the Chinese might decide to stop living in an industrial wasteland so we'll need the rest of Asia for the factories. Keep those iphones affordable!

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[ganjadude]

wooosh people..... .woosh

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[cayenne8]

China is an emerging superpower.

Well...that might not be the case...they are having some MAJOR economical problems over there, that they are madly trying to cover up to the rest of the world.

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[Anonymous Coward]

my country should not be policing the world. simple as that.

Somebody has to, or Europe, Russia, and Japan would still be going at it. American occupation is what kept the peace for 70 years. Neither have ever been at peace for nearly that long throughout their histories. If we truly want the same for the Middle East, we'd better get used to the idea of settling in for the long haul, and though most people can't stomach it, we will have to be just as brutal as we were in the big one to get the process started. Only unconditional surrender will do, just like before.

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[ganjadude]

why do i care (as an american) whats going on in euope russia or japan? unless they get over by our borders i really dont care if they kill each other or make it to mars before we do. its not our responsibility

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[KGIII]

That's not the most popular opinion around here.

"Why are you still here in Europe?"
"Because if we aren't then you bomb yourselves into rubble every couple of generations and then ask us to pay for the cleanup."

That flies about as well as a lead balloon, regardless of its merits.

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[requerdanos]

I suppose Jill Stein or Gary Johnson will probably be on the ballot in November.

Saying of which.

There are some easily recognized problems with the "two party" conspiracy system in US politics that brings us things like TPP, but, like an optical illusion, a should-be-obvious solution escapes a disproportionately large percentage of the (voting) citizenry.

Problem 1: The attitude and idea of "There are two parties, we have to pick the less evil/corrupt person from between the two parties." Thus guaranteeing evil and corruption.

Problem 2 (closely related): The attitude and idea of "Well, of course it's not limited to just two parties, there are several other parties like the Libertarian party, Green party, etc., as well as qualified independent individuals, and I would like to see one of those candidates win, but I don't dare vote for them because everyone will just vote for the less (or more) evil/corrupt republican or democrat anyway and so I would be wasting my vote unless I vote for one of those two." Thus guaranteeing evil and corruption.

See that? Same identical result, just with more highbrow-sounding rhetoric.

The solution, of course, is to vote for the person you WANT to win, not the second most evil/corrupt person, in any given election. To actively avoid voting for, say, the top three most evil and corrupt candidates, ought to do it.

The only way to "waste your vote" is to fail to vote for the person you'd actually like to win a given election.

For what it's worth, I plan to vote for Gary Johnson, because as far as I can tell, he's someone I would actually want to win the election. I think everyone else should do the same, whether they are for Johnson or for whomever. If everyone did this, the problem would probably be gone in a generation or two.

Am I missing something elementary or fundamental here?

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[lgw]

That was exactly the US attitude as we sat back and watched Germany and Japan conquer their neighbors. The government managed to ship a vast quantity of military equipment to our allies, but we just refused to engage until Pearl Harbor. Then we had much larger problems to solve. The cost in lives was far higher than it would have been had we gotten involved ASAP. And no, not just the cost in lives of those dirty foreigners you clearly have no care for, but for actual Americans.

Re:Only racists don't like TPP

[vel-ex-tech]

Normally I'd agree with you. I'll probably show up in November and cast a straight Libertarian ticket. I think Gary Johnson is a really good choice. In a fair system he'd be my first choice, Sanders being 2nd.

You're missing the inevitable consequences of a first-past-the-pole election system. We're always voting for the less worst lizard. I voted for Sanders. I'm not an official member of the Libertarian party any more, so I can't go to that convention (nor could I afford to) to voice my support for Johnson. The choice in November will be Trump or Clinton. Which is the worse lizard? Clinton will win, and then we're all doomed.

I'm saying that my voice doesn't matter. Your voice doesn't matter. All is lost.

Were there any benefits?

[penguinoid]

Is there anything actually good about the TPP?

Re:Were there any benefits?

[CanadianMacFan]

It helps the multinational corporations. If you mean benefits to you and me then no.

Re:Were there any benefits?

[DigiShaman]

Yes, it makes the .001% that much more wealthy. The Earth will soon have no more than 50 dynasties, or Houses. The idea of a government representing sovereignty is nothing more than a facade, an abstract to the Houses that dominate the planet.

Re:Were there any benefits?

[Fire_Wraith]

Not to discount the bad aspects of the TPP (intellectual property BS, etc), but I'll attempt to make a Devil's Advocate pitch for the 'good' side from the US perspective.

The first is that most of the NAFTA comparisons aren't exactly accurate, in that a free trade agreement with a significantly less developed nation has more downsides than one with a similarly advanced nation. For instance, when people complain about NAFTA, they're complaining about Mexico, not Canada. The USA had a free trade agreement with Canada that predated NAFTA, and it's really never been an issue. TPP includes several nations that are similarly advanced, and with whom free trade will likely be entirely beneficial, such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. (Canada is part of the TPP, but the USA already has a free trade agreement with them). Of the less developed nations, we already have a free trade agreement with the most impactful (Mexico).

Probably the biggest upside would be cementing an anti-China (or at least counterweight to China) trade bloc in the Asia Pacific region. A lot of people talk about China or outsourcing to China, but China's not a part of this deal, nor is it presently in consideration to do so, as it's not even on the list of potential second-wave candidates (South Korea, Indonesia, Colombia, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand). It also includes a number of key U.S. allies in the region, and could ideally bolster those economies vis a vis China.

It also opens those countries' markets to more U.products, and reduces a lot of the trade barriers that contribute to the existing trade deficit, such as Japan's agricultural import restrictions, for one.

Re:Were there any benefits?

[HiThere]

Well, it *does* decrease the power of the Federal government. Of course, it only does that to the benefit of powerful corporations (or companies), but at least it's a decrease. That's a good precedent.

Re:Were there any benefits?

[MrKaos]

This is possibly the most insightful comment ever posted to slashdot, if people actually understood why it is so.

America's hidden aristocracy has learned from the British aristocracy that it is better to stay behind the scenes wielding influence and concealing power than to be a known target that can be criticized and accused.

The TPP marks the dying days of democratic process. I've spent some weeks trying to get my head around it's 6000 pages. I found the anti-corruption provisions of the TPP were completely one-sided and directed at the public services of signee nations with no obligations for signee nation to make provisions for corporations offering such corruption.

The TPP has been persistently pushed as an inevitable outcome. I only managed to get through 1000 pages which was enough to realize it's ratification announces the formal end of the democratic process' relevance to westernized nations.

The power elite in US has found the way to embed it's control over the world through a very slow progressive dumbing down of the populous and, careful application of fear combined with nationalism.

Whatever remains of peoples rights will now be converted, wholesale, into capital. This is the consequence of a shallow insular society with no concerns for protecting the democracy and freedom that protect them. Very sad.

One reason needed

[s.petry]

TPP is a secret agreement, developed by parties who are financially biased to make such an agreement, without any discourse or dialogue outside of interested parties.

The lies of NAFTA, having been exposed as lies, have much to do with why this is being done in secret. NAFTA was not developed by party, it was developed in much the same way. Except that people were able to question the alleged benefits before ratification. The so called "naysayers" who warned about not just NAFTA, but many other treaties and Acts have been proven right far too often.

I certainly appreciate the attorney's 50 days/reasons and the detail he goes into. I just don't think it's necessary for at least the US, who needs Congressional approval for a treaty. (I don't know Canada's laws, perhaps they have similar.) Any member of Congress that approves this "treaty" should be impeached, jailed, banished, or some other nice form of punishment for treason.

Re:One reason needed

[dryeo]

In Canada, the government can just sign a treaty though sometimes they're polite and ask Parliament to ratify it. Parliament still needs to pass any laws that go with the treaty.
It doesn't really matter though as our new government is on record of being in favour of it and all free trade and the public consultations they've promised can't do anything anyways. And of course the government has a majority in Parliament, with the party always voting as a block and the opposition also in favour so only the socialists are against it.
Our only hope is that the Americans reject it and that is so unlikely...

Re:One reason needed

[fustakrakich]

Any member of Congress that approves this "treaty" should be impeached, jailed, banished, or some other nice form of punishment for treason.

Voting them out is sufficient. Their reelection is the treason, committed by the voters. Only the desire for favoritism can justify the reelection of corrupt politicians.

Re:One reason needed

[KGIII]

Isn't Parliament a part of the government? I ask not because I am certain you're wrong but I don't really know what Canada's government is set up like and what they use for references.

Sadly, I should - except I don't have to and it would probably just infuriate me. I'm Canadian by grace of heritage - I'm Micmac, First Nation. I am a US Citizen and I live in the US. I do not vote nor participate in Canadian politics even though I am eligible to do so. At the same time, you'll note that I have never, not one time, bitched about the results from any Canadian election nor do I recall ever complaining about their politics - but I used to drink - a lot, and I go to Canada, a lot - so I might have. I do own some property in Canada, including in Nova Scotia, but I do not feel that gives me a right to impose my will (by vote) to those who would be most impacted by those choices than myself.

Which is good, 'cause I don't know shit about the politics except I do pay attention a wee bit but not enough to qualify as having a valid opinion.

Re:One reason needed

[KGIII]

I don't think the TPP has provisions for open borders? I've actually read (but not completed) the giant friggen' document that NZ was kind enough to upload and share via the 'net. Don't read it... You probably won't understand it (not intended as a slight - I've not got the foggiest about what they speak of in a few places and I've researched others) and it will just piss you off in the parts you do understand.

See, I figured if I want to bitch about it then I should know what I'm talking about, or at least have some understanding. I know... I know... Comprehension is overrated. However, I was brought up and have lived this way my whole life and it's something I'm disinclined to change. Yes, it means I'm far less outraged about many things and often caution waiting for the facts but it also means I don't (generally) have to eat crow. Or, like some others, just forget that I was mistaken and pretend it didn't happen and that the outrage, while completely wrong, is still somehow justified when, and if, called on it. It'd be easier, people have short memories.

And, for the record, there are a number of things to be bothered by, both in the process and in the proposal. I'm a huge fan of maintaining as many liberties as is reasonable. I know, I know that too... It's certainly an archaic idea but I'm old... But, this goes against some very basic ideas that people mistakenly refer to as freedom. While freedom and liberties are similar, they are not actually synonymous.

Re:One reason needed

[KGIII]

> Only the desire for favoritism can justify the reelection of corrupt politicians.

Stupidity. You forgot stupidity. Unfortunate that it is, it is justification. It's a bit perverse but I take some pleasure in being able to say that I first voted in the presidential elections in 1978 and I have only once voted for the candidate that won. My one vote for a winning candidate turned out to be pretty stupid. I regret that. I voted for Clinton's second term - it seemed the logical thing to do. It turns out that I'd have been better off, or a more whole person I suppose, if I'd done my usual thing of just throwing my vote away by voting for a third party candidate.

Re:One reason needed

[dryeo]

The simplified version, we elect the House of Commons, the part of Parliament with most of the power, much like you elect the House of Representatives. Whichever party can get the confidence of Parliament, basically enough votes to pass a budget, forms the government.
Laws are passed by Parliament, much the same as Congress, but whichever party forms the government appoints the Prime Minister and cabinet, who can pass orders in council, which are similar to Presidential executive orders to run things.
The government is responsible to Parliament, who are responsible to the people.
Due to party discipline, votes in Parliament are almost always along party lines, which with a majority, translates into a defacto dictatorship until the next election as the party will almost always support the PM, who is the leader of the party. The party can decide to change leaders, which means a different PM but it hardly ever happens here. Australia did do this recently.
If no party has a clear majority, then the parties have to work together and compromise to get a budget passed and usually the government is formed by the party with the most seats. If no party can pass a budget, Parliament gets dissolved and a new election is called, and usually the voters aren't happy and will punish whichever party wouldn't compromise.

Re:One reason needed

[HiThere]

Since only two candidates generally have a valid chance of winning, the alternative being worse is also a valid reason to vote for someone. It's not one that *I* accept, as in that case I'll vote for a minority party, but it's a valid reason.

Re:One reason needed

[KGIII]

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure. Kinda, mostly, like Australia and the UK. That's what I'd understood but wasn't entirely sure. The verbiage is... odd to me. In my head they're the "majority power." Or, shall we say, close enough. Don't worry, I watch your politics and am probably as baffled as you are when you see US politics. Well, not quite that bad but you understand. I hope.

I did, technically, have the ability to regurgitate the generalities about the government but that was learned in a hurry and without much need to retain it. I've often mentioned this - I'm not smart. I seem like it but that's because I test well. I retain it long enough to test and then it gets dumped as new things fill my brain. It's actually not easy for me to retain some things unless I've had use for them and have kept at them - otherwise things flush out really quickly. However, I can read a book or two and appear to be fluent in a subject for a while afterwards, it varies per subject but I'd wager it's generally mostly gone within 6 months. I'd say my brain is broken but they tell me it isn't. Some things might stay a year if I keep using them - it wasn't too bad for schooling. However, actual comprehension is difficult for me - but recitation isn't. I can also write a mean essay on anything.

Ah well...

But that sums it up so thanks. That's how I think of it, at any rate. They're the ones who got the majority and they're kind of the bosses. I believe it's possible to oust them somehow but I do not know the name of the process - but I seem to recall they can be overruled and ousted if necessarily. I've no idea what that looks like. ;-) Like I said, I do not vote in Canadian politics. It is not my right by my view - it is my legal right but I do not take advantage of that right. It's probably best that I do not. I do pay a bit of attention, it's on NPR at times and sometimes I read some online and hear from relatives of happen to talk to someone who is into it, but mostly I just remember names.

I left my house in Maine in late September and have been gone since. The last I knew Harper was on the way out and some guy whose name begins with a T replaced him. He's a liberal but I've been told he's a liar and a hypocrite. That's what the left has been saying, mostly. At least they seem to be left judging by the things they're saying he's reversing or not reversing. I have no idea how right that is. ;-) Is that "good enough" in your view or should I know more? I was trying to figure out who the government was besides those guys, like maybe there was some board higher than they whom I'd forgotten - some group of people.

Biggest problem

[Crowd Computing]

The TPP's biggest problem is that it's too big. The treaty covers too much ground any good part is drowned out by the bad, like fine wine mixed with moonshine. Maybe that's the way the authors intended it, a bait-and-switch, where the putative benefits are trumpeted while the potential harm is played down.

Re:Biggest problem

[ganjadude]

sounds like every bill congress has put forth for 40 years now

no agreement (or bill) should be longer than can be read in an hour, if it is it should be broken down into smaller chunks. also the people should have the right to read any agreement (or bill) for a period of no less than 90 days before it is voted on

Re:Biggest problem

[Jason Levine]

also the people should have the right to read any agreement (or bill) for a period of no less than 90 days before it is voted on

I'd agree with this with one provision added: I'm sure there will be emergencies where "wait 90 days for everyone to read the bill" would not be an option. So there can be Emergency Bill Passage which doesn't require the 90 day wait. However, there would be two added provisions: 1) The text of the emergency bill - along with all open Congress discussions about it - must be uploaded within a week and 2) The bill should expire in 180 days unless an extension is voted on - the text of which would be available for everyone to read at least 90 days before the vote.

Could this be abused? Sure. However, if a program is constantly being supported by emergency votes twice a year, then it would be like a giant neon sign telling people to closely examine this program and its implications.

Re:Biggest problem

[HiThere]

What's the benefit? I mean for any average citizen. I'm not aware of any...and I'm aware of a LOT of drawbacks.

seems like the arguments are pretty concrete.

[nimbius]

ratify the TPP: you have overtly agreed to endorse and promote a system of economic and social inequality predicated on global trade and abusive protectionist copyright. in the coming years you will witness among many windfalls of this endorsement the slow death of your local industries, increasing unemployment, skyrocketing incarceration rates, increased drop-out rates and narcotics dependency in once thriving communities. Your card for arguing stricter drug legislation was spent 30 some years ago at the behest of Washington, and so you have no choice but to champion a legislatively suicidal position --rational albeit-- of addiction treatment, recovery, and community building efforts that will inevitably fail as the TPP works against the interest of entrepeneurs and small business that are and were the lifeblood of the very townships you seek to rescue.

refuse to ratify the TPP: legislative forces will balk, hit pieces will be crafted in the rags you once called independent sources of journalism, and your re-election campaign will find new suffering in opponents with stern short term but absent longterm domestic and foreign policy riding a wave of ephemeral populism. Titans of industry will craft the next TPP and pump cash into their next statesman, and you or your party will need to reiterate, recuse, or condemn your past indiscretions. a distinct lack of heroin overdosed 15 year olds will go duly noted in the annuls of your countries history. somewhere a welder will retire with a meaningful pension and take up either macromet or deck building as a hobby..

Re:seems like the arguments are pretty concrete.

[KGIII]

Why, oh why, is the root TLD (32bit.com) to your homepage a bulk mailing software company?

Email marketing is a process that is extremely intricate. It boasts of various aspects. As a matter of fact, the more expansive an email marketing campaign is the more complicated and hard to manage it is going to be. Looking at the needs of various businesses operating on the internet, we have created an email marketing compendium perfectly suited for all types of businesses and campaigns.

Err... Were they something else? 'Cause your subdomain doesn't work. Were they some sort of free hosting company or something? I seriously can't imagine someone displaying a link, of any kind, to a bulk-mailer on Slashdot.

I know this is OT but this is the only way to make sure you've actually noticed this and are doing so knowingly. I can't possibly imagine a time when you'd want to associate yourself with that particular breed of software so I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here. On the other hand, if you did so intentionally then, by all means, have at it.

I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

... At least not one that anyone would honestly express outside of the back room and off the record.

The thing is a joke. Trash it and move on.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[fustakrakich]

The good parts are in standardization. Everyone works under the same rules, using the same measurements. It's like an interstate commerce clause thing amongst economic empires that transcend political boundaries. The problems are in who sets the standards. The 'victims' have no voice while the rules are being set by the biggest merchants. Our failure to oversee the government will result in its ratification.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Maritz]

The better alternative in this scenario is nothing at all.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[KGIII]

I've been saying something for a long time and, slowly but surely, it's coming to the point where it is reaching fruition - which is not a good thing and does not even stroke my ego...

"Welcome to America, can I take your order please?"

As a lark, I just Googled that. They find three mentions, two on Slashdot, and one by someone on a site for crazy people. (No, really...) Their quote seems to predate the two it found for me but, if you'll accept my word, I've been saying this for years.

Let's try to put this into some perspective...

A lot of people like to blame the political right for the trend to off-shore stuff and to move industry out to cheaper countries. That's revisionist history. See, it was the political left who had the mantra of a rising tide raising all ships. This was some time back, in the 1980s as I recall but maybe a little later. I was discussing this with someone, unfortunately I do not recall the situation or environment, and they actually had the temerity to speculate that we'd see a rise in service industry jobs and that was a good counter to the idea of off-shoring our manufacturing and mass-importation of goods at costs impossible to produce in societies that paid their citizens wages that were acceptable. I was baffled.

My response to them was, and it still stands, this:

"Welcome to America, can I take your order please?"

Now, to touch on the above with the political left and the revisionist history. The left, and their emotional outbursts, were the start of this trend. To which the business owners, now very much on the political right in many cases, said, "Wait, what? You want to let us do what, exactly? Oh, fuck yeah... Hell yeah, let's do some pillaging."

People look as far back as that and say that the fault is on the right. I say, if you give a junkie a rig full of heroin and he shoots up and dies, you share not just culpability but primary culpability and the junkie can be forgiven for being an addict. The political left prepositions themselves as the intellectual elite and holding the moral high ground. Thus, they're held to higher standards, at least by me.

And no, I'm not really on the political right either. I'm just pragmatic. I've not seen you post much lately, hopefully you'll see this.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[KGIII]

I'm not sure how one interprets expecting little to nothing from the average elected official on the right while expecting the left to demonstrate their touted intellectualism is antagonistic towards them. They made their claims and portrayed their image. Do it.

I expect the right to be Bible thumping, nationalistic, greedy, primal capitalists, who are self-centered and motivated by self-interest. They perform as I expect and, for the most part, as they portray themselves. I see far less hypocrisy on the right than I see on the left. I imagine that it's difficult to be objective if you're attached.

You're also reading a whole lot into an analogy, not really a metaphor I don't believe, than intended.

And I'd have no idea why one would look down on those who serve in retail however, I'd not expect that to be a preferred end unless, of course, they were paid reasonable wages.

So yes, as I have said many times, I hold the left to higher standards because I expect better from them. That's a statement more about the right than it is about the left and it would be excellent if they held themselves to higher standards, were more honest with themselves and others, and if those elected would actually do some of that serving thing.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[KGIII]

Oh, I acknowledge that they do but do you expect more from a retard than you do from someone that claims they're a genius? I'm not seeing why this is too complicated for you to understand. At this point, I'm going to assume it's willful on your part. I've a limited number of posts per day and if you've other questions you're free to await another time but it should be fairly easy to understand. I've not written this with any great complexity or used any big words. I think you might be just writing to be argumentative and pretend it's complicated or desiring to read more into an analogy than was intended. If someone uses a car analogy to describe a computer, they are in no way inferring that the computer is a means for transportation.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

False dichotomy... both sides only are rational when it serves their interests. The left is just as prone to be crazy and erratic when that serves its ideology.

The real lesson is that people follow their interests.

At this point however, there really isn't a left or right...

Its basically just Marxists versus everyone else at this point. Otherwise why have evangelicals and libertarians on the same side?

Claiming the left is all virtue, unicorns, and rainbows isn't credible. The marxists gave us Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro, etc... Its hardly the ideology of sweetness and light.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

There is no political right or left anymore. Its a false dichotomy. Its marxists versus everyone else in the west these days.

No one is advocating for kings and queens and no one is seriously talking about putting the church in charge of everything and no one is seriously talking about repealing democratic rule. Conflating non-marxists with the right is a trap. Don't fall into it.

Anyone non-marxist is labeled right these days. That's all right means at this point. Not marxist.

So lets just stop beating around the bush and label things what they mean.

I'm anti marxist... so by the strawmen of the marxists, I'm hard right. But I also believe very strongly in democracy, press freedom, religious liberty, etc etc etc... but apparently I'm right wing... why? Because I'm anti marxist.

So I reject the whole right left dichotomy. Its not meaningful. its marxists versus everyone else. That's it. The marxists have just turned on the private sector unions. They're doing it throughout the US and Europe. The idiots never saw the inevitable betrayal coming. They were told. They didn't believe... now we're beyond "believe me" territory and into "its happening".

That's what this whole "progressive vs leftist" thing is these days. The whole progressive stack... its so funny.

Now we're going to see if the marxists can bribe, extort, and manipulate their way into negating the democratic process entirely. Their plan could work, but if it fails, it should bring about a systemic immunity or resistance to future incursions.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

Its hard to objectively separate a positive and reasonable regulation from an abusive power grab.

I am not saying you can't... I'm just saying it is difficult.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

Explain why we need the TPP in the first place and I'll tell you what we need to move on to.

I would argue it was a solution in search of a problem.

US trade policy is probably best negocated on a country by country basis rather than creating these giant bills. The problem is that countries are not going to agree to the same stuff. And big packages create lowest common denominator situations.

It also robs us of our ability to reward countries that are behaving themselves while also robbing ourselves of the ability to punish other countries.

If Country 1 plays well with us, is honorable, and has held up their ends of bargains... why would i throw them in the same boat as country 2 that doesn't play well, is dishonorable, and has a history of not holding up bargains? The whole point of the TPP is to conflate these countries. And that doesn't serve US trade interests.

A trade agreement that does not serve US trade interests is not in our interest to sign.

So... where would I go from here? To a per nation trade negotiation that extends no more than 5 years and is limited to what is relevant to a trade negotiation. It would be understood that how countries conducted themselves during the previous term of the treaty would influence the terms and nature of the next treaty when it was renewed.

The above seems quite reasonable and sustainable.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

The costs of what? Diplomats? That's a zero sum game... we're going to have those guys regardless.

As to the term of the agreement, if the agreement works out to everyone's interest and the terms were held in the prior time period then one could expect a renewal of the contract term after term after term. Think about it like any place you go to buy something on a regular basis where the price is right and quality is right. You're coming back. You'll keep coming back. You like the deal.

And that's the point. If the deal is good then the term of the deal could literally be daily and it wouldn't really matter because it would be renewed every day. if everyone is happy then there won't be a problem. You only need longer term contracts when someone is going to want to back out for some reason. And they'll only want to do that if it isn't working out for them in some manner. Well, why have a contract that does that at all? Just make it work out. Its not that complicated. You find the things that both nations can agree upon and won't feel bad or uncomfortable about. You agree to that. End of story. The stuff that is squirrely should be handled on a case by case basis and not conflated into a larger agreement.

As to specifics, the specifics would be specific to the nation in question. That is another advantage of doing this on a case by case basis because you can make lots of custom deals. Country X might have an issue with an industry they want protectionist policies for... fine. And country Y might want assurances that some export they're keen on is competitive in the US market. Okay. And we can work out the details of all that on a case by case basis without polluting the whole thing with a "well this needs to work for every possible circumstance at once" sort of solution. That's as arrogant as it is dumb.

It presupposes that someone can make a universal contract that is so perfect in its adaptability and breadth that it can deal with any possible situation as efficiently and coherently as a thousand custom deals. That's arrogant. No one is going to have a deal that good. And thinking that we could is dumb. So its arrogant and dumb at the same time... which is a bad combination.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

I'm not giving up on anything. I think its easier to negotiate individually and that the deals will be more contextually reasonable on that basis.

Ever heard of a demand loan? Its a loan that has a term which ends whenever the lender demands their money back. When you deposit money in the bank you've actually made a demand loan to the bank. Short term agreements are not unfavorable always. It depends. If everyone trusts everyone and there is a high likelihood that the agreement will sustain into the future than what giving a short term out does it keep everyone honest. You fuck the other person in the agreement and they pull out. So you don't do that.

As to specific issues, you're just being pedantic now because I did refer to protectionist issues and I more importantly said that the relevant matters would be specific to the specific country. We're not going to have the same discussion with Japan that we would with India and we're not going to have the same discussion with India that we would with Saudi Arabia... trying to conflate all these different trade situations into a single agreement is foolish. What is more, it creates a problem where it is hard to punish individual countries that are breaking the rules because you have to back out of the entire deal to do it. OR just as bad you surrender your state sovereignty by forbidding a given country including your own from punishing a country that violated a rule unless the other countries also agree that that rule was violated. If the agreements are individual then you don't need anyone else's permission and dealing with one country's misbehavior doesn't queer the entire nation's trade policy.

The TPP is objectively less flexible, less customized, less accountable, and therefore objectively inferior to individual deals unless you have the conceit that you could create a universal deal that encompassed all trade deals with all countries as well as a lot of individual deals. Which as I said is both arrogant and stupid. Which is a lethal combination.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

You're not gaining efficiency by consolidation. The same number of people are going to be working for you regardless. So you're presenting a false dichotomy where in there is savings one one side and not on the other. Both are the same in terms of costs. So that's a fallacious claim on your part that you're saving money. You can't say I'm giving up something that does not exist.

As to what is addressed or not addressed in a given discussion or agreement, that would be specific to that agreement and thus a generalized statement that would cover all agreements would only be so much as "we would agree". That's about as specific as it gets. For some countries you might want to make an agreement that favors the other side for geopoltiical reasons. For other nations you might want an agreement that favors the US economically. For still others you might want something that is neutral. Or you might want something that favors some country in a given industry whilst favoring yours in another. The point is to give yourself flexibility.

As to setting off country X by making an agreement with country Y. Multilateral agreements don't avoid that. Some countries see it as in their strategic interests to be pissy. If you want countries to not be pissy you have to consistently make it not in their interests to do that. An easy way of doing this is to create opportunities that are denied to trade partners that cause problems on a regular basis. You also have to make a point of not rewarding whiny behavior. Set up something reasonable and be very willing for people to walk away from the table if they're not being reasonable. If you are known by everyone else to bend over backwards just to get agreements then it is in the other country's interests to whine and be unreasonable because you'll just cave to pissy behavior. You have to hold your ground once you have something you feel is reasonable. You also have to have very clear policy objectives. Having clear policy objectives that encompass a dozen different countries is not possible. You can't be anything but incoherent in that situation.

I'm not offering country X the same thing as country Y because country X is not country Y. The circumstances will inevitably be different and while I might offer SIMILAR deals they should never be interchangeable.

And I'd just like to stress again... the point is not to miff countries. The point is make reasonable and sustainable deals that profit the US either economically or geopolitically. A miffed country may or may not be in our interests or even relevant one way or the other. What is more, setting a lack of them being miffed as the goal ignores other imperatives that really have to be taken seriously. If them not being miffed means us giving them billions of dollars a year you have to question which matters more... them being miffed or the billions of dollars.

What is more, you can't be everyone's friend. It isn't possible. Some people won't like you. End of story. We need to get over that and strengthen relationships with people that like us while simply insulating ourselves from the damage countries that don't like us will attempt.

I do not expect us to get along with everyone. I'd like to get along but sometimes it isn't possible. And if the price getting along is being a sucker... then fuck that arrangement.

As to your standard of "the only way you can prove individual deals are effective is by me personally doing it"... that isn't reasonable. That is precisely how trade deals used to be conducted by default and they were very profitable. So... I just don't find your criticism on that point to be reasonable given that we have a history and track record with doing deals in precisely that manner and having great success with them.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

... Okay, who does the negotiations and why would this not be a zero sum game?

Such negotiations would be handled by the state department, the commerce department, and inevitably unpaid lobbyists.

To be cheaper you'd have to make the argument that we'd hire fewer or pay the existing diplomatic or commerce department staff less. I don't see that as a credible position. Possible? Anything is possible. It isn't likely enough to credit it. You want to call that giving up... I call it being realistic.

As to why you'll have the same number of people working for you, you assume that these deals negotiated individually take up a huge staff. They don't. Historically they didn't. If you compare the size of the commerce department and state department today to what it was in the past, you can see it was dramatically smaller in the past and yet we did individual deals in the past. This is not to say that if we shift to individual deals that the size of these organizations will shrink, but I don't see how they'll get bigger when they were smaller when they did things this way.

What is more, a big deal is often more complicated and that actually probably consumes more people. Smaller deals are easier and faster.

As to your requests for specifics... this request is tiresome. I made it extremely and excruciatingly and obviously and emphatically and unquestionably clear that any specifics would be specific to the specific country and situation. To ask for a general policy when that was made beyond clear is frankly not a credible question on your part.

It is obvious that I will not offer a general policy because it is my thesis that that is a trick question or a trap. A general response to everyone is not what I think is reasonable. I wouldn't have ONE response to everything. I would have a thousand responses to a thousand different situations.

So if you want a "what would you do" answered, I need a scenario. You need to provide me with a nation you want me to make a deal with and then either allow me to find out what is going on from existing economic/political data or you need to state givens that I can use to calculate a response. A general response sans circumstance is not rational.

What would you do if you were in the forest? Do you have a general response to that? Anything you say could be irrational because you're not going to know the circumstances of you existence in that forest. Which forest are you in for example? Do you have supplies? Is this a vacation, an exploration, a rescue, a hunting trip, are you injured and seeking help... there's no context. And absent that you can't say what you should do. All you know is that you're in "a" forest. That's useless. The forest could be warm or freezing. You could have food or be starving. You could be well equipt or have nothing. There could be dangerous predators or it could be totally safe. The purpose of being there could be anything and is not given in the description of "in a forest". You can't craft policy objectives on that basis.

Its a nonsense question. You need to either give me the freedom to fill in the blanks and then tell you how I'd proceed or you can fill them in for me and I'll tell you how I would proceed. But to leave them unfilled and general and then ask how I'd proceed is a trap that I'm not stepping into and isn't a reasonable question.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

The efficiency of negotiations assumes your labors as diplomats are expensive in the scheme of things. They're not.

What is more, we'd hire as many of you regardless of which way you negotiated it. So the entire effort and focus on your part is a nonsense.

Rather than going for CHEAPNESS you should instead go for QUALITY especially since your attempts to lower cost are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things and the merits of BETTER deals vastly outstrips the non-existent and again... irrelevant savings of having a few fewer diplomats.

I do not mean to sound rude if I am coming off that way... I am merely baffled as to why you're so focused on saving money on negociations when there is no evidence that that has ever mattered.

We are talking about deals that involve TRILLIONS of dollars in trade. The savings of some few millions at most is laughable in that context. What is more, you won't even save that because as I've said... we'll hire the same number of people regardless.

Keep in mind, we have to have diplomats in EACH of these countries either way. So consolidating the talks doesn't avoid those people being employed. its a zero sum game.

You will hire them either way.

As to having a standard practice, no two nations are the same so attempting to have a standard deal to encompass non-standard circumstances is counter productive.

Counter... Productive.

Zero Sum... Game.

Consolidation has only one merit... and it isn't ours. Opposing powers can use join negotiations to force "US" to abide by contracts that we would otherwise not accept on an individual basis. That is to say... on top of the this being counter productive, not saving money, it also exposes us to additional risk with virtually no possibility of any upside what so ever.

its a bad idea. Don't do it.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

No it isn't a supposition because the negociations would be handled primarily by diplomats that were assigned to those countries anyway. Since countries would have individually assigned diplomats regardless there would be no relevant reduction in staff.

Our diplomats do more than trade deals. They are in each of these countries all the time to represent US interests in any issue that might come up including trade. A unified trade deal would not change the need for having people in each country that are specifically assigned to that country. So there would be no reduction in staff.

And again, even if there were, and there wouldn't, the cost saving would be so comically minor that even mentioning it would be a sign of ignorance.

As to standardization being valuable, not in deal making. We are not discussing the manufacturing of screws. There is no value in the standardization of international trade deals.

As to other countries being able to gain power under one circumstance so they can do it regardless... you're conflating intentionally facilitating a negative situation with someone obtaining that negative situation absent facilitation. This is logically invalid. Just because someone might get something if I'm STUPID enough to give them that situation for free on a platter like a fool... doesn't mean that they'd get that same situation regardless.

As to specifics... Canada for example would have very favorable trade deals with limited if any scrutiny of its day by day interactions with our economy. Other countries such as China or Russia or Iran or whatever would have more complicated checks and balances with a built in ability to apply leverage and pressure should there be foul play detected. The specifics would be specific to each nations trade interactions. Russia for example is mostly exchanging raw materials such as oil, lumber, etc. Where as China is mostly dealing in manufactured goods. And then you have Iran which tends to sell more to non-western countries but BUY from western countries things which it can neither buy nor sell from anyone but western countries. Leverage in each case would not be applied the same way because the given nations are interacting completely differently with the United States and our economy. So each country would have leverage applied differently.

Applying economic leverage on Russia is largely a matter of driving down the value or blocking off markets for their goods. Again, this is not something you do when Russia is behaving themselves but if they start getting cute with their interactions you can encourage US exports that compete with their goods to flow into markets they wish to sell in... this will drive down prices. You can also direct such goods into the international market in general which gives greater plausible deniability whilst also obtaining a reduction in their profits. If more extreme action is warranted, then you can start lobbying those markets directly either openly or secretly to switch off Russian products entirely or merely reduce the scale of the purchase.

That's a stick. You can also offer carrots in the form of encouraging Russian technological and industrial exports which is something Russia would very much like to shift to as it would help fund their industry which would be beneficial to the Russian state and economy in several manners.

Re:I wasn't aware there was an argument for it..

[Karmashock]

As to existing diplomats that are engaging with countries on a day to day basis being involved in negotiations that are handled in detail on that basis... they are involved. Why would I not involve them? They're in a better position to know what is going on than most people would be.

What is more, you're very carefully ignoring the fact that this is precisely how these arrangements were handled in the past. You keep trying to undermine my position by saying such and such a thing wouldn't work or is unusual. But this betrays an ignorance of how things were handled in the past and frankly remain handled in most circumstances. What I am proposing "IS" the standard means of coming to an arrangement.

Your solution is "non" standard. Mine is how it is done. These universal agreements are new, untested, non-standard, and generally a stupid idea that will backfire.

As to standardization being popular, no... making money is popular. A custom deal lets people maximize their offer while maximizing their profit because situations will be different.

This is why big deals in business are custom where as small deals are standard. Small deals are standard because they're not worth creating a custom deal for... but once a few million dollars is on the table it becomes worth it to make a custom deal. Trade deals between nations well surpasses that threshold.

Doing a standard deal between nations is foolish and ignorant.

As to your presumption of being in the loop... you can't claim that without substantiation. So that claim is rejected with as much evidence as you used to support it - None.

As to the inevitability of your TPP... Every bad idea always has its supporters claim it is inevitable when they've got nothing left to support themselves. Communists say the same thing when pushed to the wall... they say they're on the right side of history despite losing repeatedly. If you're inevitable then you wouldn't need to defend your position. It would defend itself. It is losing and is unlikely to actually be ratified. So... nice try. You're not inevitable. You've lost. And it isn't a question of losing a battle and winning the war. There is a paradigm shift coming on trade in general. Claiming to have a crystal ball on that is presumptuous.

As to my positions being vague, this is at this point a dishonest complaint on your part since you've offered if anything vaguer comments and I've explained that any response would be specific to a given circumstance. Expecting a complete prospectus from me on something like this would put a disproportionate burden on me to produce something complex while you can just sit there and troll. Your position doesn't pass the laugh test. You be specific and clear or your complaint can only be taken as a rhetorical ploy. You were told REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY that any response would be specific to the specific circumstance. A general policy is contrary to my position since I've been very clear that my point is to not have a general policy. So faulting me for not having clear general policies when my stated thesis is that having a specific general policy is foolish... is a foolish request. Listen. The point is to NOT have a general policy. Did you hear me that time? Because this has to be at least the fifth time I've made that clear to you.

As to objectives I have for the US. To serve US strategic interests. Those will vary from one country to another. Some countries I'll want to make money. Some I'll want to bias trade for the other country or for the US. it will vary. Not all countries are interchangeable. For some countries, it is in our interests to damage their economy. For others, it is in our interests to help those economies. For others it doesn't really matter or our own economy is the most important in that situation. The scale of the trade is relevant. Larger economies will bias my decision making to make money. Where as smaller economies will bias my decision making to do things on a more political basis. However, that depends

Like with SOPA and and PIPA

[Zombie Ryushu]

There needs to be massive outcry from Google to stop this. As well as Street Demonstrations.

Re:Like with SOPA and and PIPA

[fustakrakich]

SOPA and PIPA only failed for lack of subtlety.

Re:Bernies Bigots vs. Trumps Tossers ...

[oh_my_080980980]

I think you mean Trump supporters. Nice to know they'll attach anyone they think *might* be a terrorist...

Re:Sorry geist...

[khallow]

the first truly global power

Only if we ignore the Chinese, Mongolians, and English. At various times in their history, they too were the dominate global powers of their day (with the Mongolians dominant to the point that they had two significant military defeats on the battlefield over a half century period). And the English both at their peak and currently have the ability to globally project military power.

What kept these powers from being being Brzezinski's first "truly global power"? The same sort of institutional and infrastructural limitations that will keep the US from being the first "truly global power" too.

For example, if the Mongolian empire could have kept its shit together for a couple of centuries, we'll all be speaking some derivative of Mongolian now. But they couldn't. They didn't have the infrastructure, technology, or culture to maintain such a vast empire for more than a human lifespan.

While the US is in a good position now, it's just not that powerful a position. It's relatively weak economically and militarily. The EU, China, and Japan are close enough economically that the US just can't throw its weight around in trade treaties. Similarly, Russia and China are close enough militarily that the US can't throw around its weight that way. Both the EU and Japan can build their militaries as well to be credible counters too.

Then there's the institutional obstacles. Even if we ignore the considerable public opposition to empire-building, we still have a rather corrupt and profoundly inefficient military procurement system. In a world where future global military adventures will be fought and frequently won with technology and where even small wars cost a lot for the US, this is a lethal flaw which I think will knock the US out of superpower status sooner or later.

There's also the incompetence of many of the political leaders of the US. For example, between Presidents G. W. Bush and Obama, the US almost lost Iraq to ISIS. If that had happened, I believe the US would have effectively lost superpower status since a lot of the hegemony that the US maintains is based on relationships and credibility.

It's a Golden Shower

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

The 1% get showered with gold, the 99% with Tea PeePee.

Small wonder that his was secret until now

[Applehu Akbar]

This article is a Canadian perspective, but it's instructive to see how others see us. The whole point of TPP seems to be to ratify US corporate monopolies that have up to now only been enforced within the US. If TPP is ratified, all of the signatory countries get US-style intellectual property oppression, US-style high pharma prices, and a surveillance state to replaces Internet freedom.

Re:Small wonder that his was secret until now

[Anonymous Coward]

"all of the signatory countries get US-style intellectual property oppression, US-style high pharma prices, and a surveillance state to replaces Internet freedom."

There'as a reason for that.

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA 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=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

Important:

http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137

The Toilet Paper Partnership

[jenningsthecat]

Where the giga-rich wipe their asses with the rest of us!

Still no need for secrecy

[HalAtWork]

Yes all of those were criticized but they still passed. I don't know why it has to be done in secret because even if it's done in the open nobody can do anything about it, people don't get to vote on these things

Re:Still no need for secrecy

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it's done in secret is that doing it in public generates public interest and in some of the participating countries politicians worry that ratifying an unpopular treaty will lose them the next election. Do it in secret, and it becomes impossible to drum up public interest. Somehow you don't get massive public interest by saying ‘lobbyists are drafting a treaty in secret’ because it's a single story that will be yesterday's news tomorrow. It doesn't really matter how important or shocking it is. To generate interest you need the media to have something new to say about it every day, and when you conduct negotiations in secret, the media simple won't have any material to work with. Then when it finally gets ratified it's a fait accompli and nobody cares because what's the point then?

Re:Hillary! followers already covering for her

[Barsteward]

looks like you are not yet old enough to vote anyway

US Congressional Action - FYI

[david_thornley]

Earlier this year, I wrote to my Senators and Congressman to urge them to vote against it. Senator Klobuchar told me that it probably wasn't going to come up for consideration until November, and at that time she would be [vague statement]. US citizens: don't get too burned out in the Presidential race to forget to apply a little pressure in Congress at that time.

Re:US Congressional Action - FYI

[HiThere]

Given my Senators (Democratic?) pressure would be worthless. I've written, but I know better than to expect it to have any effect. I believe that my Representative, who I've also written to, is already opposed, but what good does that do.

Re:US Congressional Action - FYI

[whoever57]

Perhaps you trust your politicians, but I have been lied to about an issue that affected my business: I was told it wasn't up for discussion for a while, only to have it discussed and a decision made against me before I had a chance to have any input on the decision.

Re:Bernies Bigots vs. Trumps Tossers ...

[Grishnakh]

(Trump, as vile as he is, should not be silenced by mob action no matter how disgusting his views ... he should be countered by intelligent speech that decries and exposes his bigotry, not forced to cancel appearances. Way to play into his hands, Bernie supporters),

What evidence is there that the anti-Trump protesters were Bernie supporters?

From what I see on all the discussion boards, the Bernie supporters are most concerned and angry about Hillary, not Trump. Heck, a bunch of Bernie supporters have even claimed they're going to vote for Trump if Hillary wins the Dem nomination! (Who knows what they'll really do; a bunch of Hillary supporters said the same thing about Obama in 2008 but voted for him anyway.)

I think blaming the Bernie supporters for anti-Trump protests is probably disingenuous. They could be a diverse crowd of supporters of other candidates (or just Dems), or they could be a high concentration of Hillary voters, which is what I suspect personally. Polls show that Bernie has the most appeal across the entire population, and in a fair runoff-type election between all the surviving candidates now (D and R), Bernie would actually win. It's pretty easy to understand why: he's the least hated. Lots of people hate Trump and Hillary, along with the other GOP candidates; Bernie just isn't all that disliked by anyone. Hillary is the Dem who has the most to worry about in a direct race against Trump, so it stands to reason that it's her supporters who are probably most active against Trump.

Here are all the corporate backers:

[waspleg]

You'll see a lot of familiar names.

Here is how much each senator was paid by each backer for fast tracking.

Here's a Hillary specific one about donations to her campaign, since it came up early in the search.

The first 2 charts I found linked in this excellent Guardian story.

Some key excerpts:

Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

- Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 "yea" votes.
- The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.
- The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

Re:Is the author still alive?

[KGIII]

Are you still alive? If so, that kinda disproves your point.

Here, let's test that theory.

Fuck the ruling elite. Specifically, fuck them in the ass with a rusty pitchfork - specifically the psychopathic among them. They are bastards and this TPP is an abomination to liberty. They, and their ilk, can suck my left nut and this sort of maligned treaty makes me want to actively work to thwart this. In fact, I think I'll make an added effort to confound them - I have a few dollars and, if bothered, I can keep this shit in court longer than I've life left to live.

What's a good P2P client that has mostly acceptable (no kiddy/animal porn) content that will enable me to let it run on its own semi-dedicated pipe? I already have a backup connection that does nothing (for the most part) but seed a variety of Linux torrents and has for ages (even before I used Linux exclusively). It's got a lot of headroom so I can stuff a P2P client in there. My ISP is pretty cool and it's DSL so I can use any ISP that wants to service my connection, by law.

It'd be best if it were something where I could throw a few extra network shares up for space and then share stuff I don't have to examine or download personally. Something like distributed chunks of encrypted files would be best - where even if I wanted to examine the drives, I have no way of knowing what's on them unless I actually tried to download the file and it just happened to be something I could notice and trace back to my own activity.

Re:Sorry geist...

[Zak3056]

the first truly global power

Only if we ignore the Chinese, Mongolians, and English.

I was going to make pretty much the same point. I would also include Spain (and possibly the French, though on the fence there) along with the UK, and I question your inclusion of the Mongolians and the Chinese (while they have had extraordinarily large empires, I would not call them "global" since neither one (as far as I know) had any presence in the western hemisphere). But regardless of the minutiae, the point remains that the US is decidedly NOT the first global power.

Re:Sorry geist...

[khallow]

while they have had extraordinarily large empires, I would not call them "global" since neither one (as far as I know) had any presence in the western hemisphere

What was there in the Western hemisphere worth having a presence over? And there certainly wasn't a military power over in the New World capable of giving a small Mongolian army a challenge.

Re:Sorry geist...

[Zak3056]

What was there in the Western hemisphere worth having a presence over? And there certainly wasn't a military power over in the New World capable of giving a small Mongolian army a challenge.

The point is immaterial. You can't be a "global" power if you don't even know half the globe exists. If you're going down that rabbit hole, there are more empires you can add to the list (at least Rome, probably the Dutch) and it's starting to become a fairly meaningless definition.

  As far as "what was there worth having?" ask the Spanish--they found one or two things worth keeping.

Re:Sorry geist...

[khallow]

I think in Obama's case, he didn't want commit and embroil American ground forces in yet another middle east adventure considering how poorly the last one went. In the end, the strategy of funding and training allies to fight in a proxy has proved to be the right thing to do with ground forces slowly taking ground away from ISIS. American fighting ISIS would make excellent propaganda material to get more fighters. Fighting other muslims is not going to be a attractive.

Obama did anyway. A slow grind like this favors the guerrillas. Eventually they'll evolve to become a greater threat. It also opened up the path to Russian interference in Syria.

That said it is regrettable the kind of things that has happened to places under ISIS power and I wish there was something more than we can do about it a despotic army laying waste to all around them and committing human right atrocity in the name of God.

There was. Simply not entirely leaving would have been one such thing. The US didn't need to leave a huge presence.

Re:Sorry geist...

[HiThere]

And Persian and Macedonian.

Re:Bernies Bigots vs. Trumps Tossers ...

[HiThere]

Well, I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I believe Hillary supports the TPP, while Sanders may not. So if Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote Democrat, but if it's Hillary I'll pick some other party. Probably the Greens, but perhaps the Libertarian (I haven't read their platform this time around...I like SOME Libertarian positions). Not that either has a chance, but I couldn't stomach voting for a TPP supporter.

Ignored..

[MorganR]

Not only that, but none of them are saying anything about the GMO takeover of essential oils such as castor oil, argan oil benefits, and black seed oil. Once the reality hits that we're destroying our environment then we'll really see the worth in bickering back and forth in useless topics and ignoring the ones that really matter. And to top it off, Hillary doesn't stand a chance in 2016.

Re:Liberals

[StillAnonymous]

Of course they always keep the promises that will screw you. The ones that will benefit you? Not so much. "Oh, our hands were tied, the other parties kiboshed it, or it was too hard, or something. Uh, excuse me, I've got a meeting with an oligarch, I mean, constituent."

Empire is irrelevant under the TPP

[MrKaos]

The TPP is an expression of American Empire for American Corporate citizens. Human citizens do not factor much in the parts of the TPP I have read (I only managed roughly 1000 pages) where law is referred to as "nullification", "obstruction" and "impediment". I can't see it being good for any nation that signs, even the US. While I was reading it, I found it was overwhelming in its reach.

What I think we are seeing can be best described as "extra-national corporate hedgemony" where nationality isn't as important as having dominance over a nations court system, which is the core of the treaty in the ISDS provisions. The taxpayer is thus co-erced into compensating the company to maintain profit margins for having to obey the law, of which the taxpayer is now *obliged* to do whilst providing a plan as to when the law will be wound back and removed.

There is no concern with common law, which is isolated, only *anything* to do with trade (including labour) where it is framed in such a way that corporate citizens can mold it, with plenty of time to do so. That's in the anti-corruption provisions - which is kind of ironic considering it is making something legal that was illegal.

Empire is irrelevant under the TPP, as is Nationality, more like a Corpocracy driven by a hidden autocracy to whom the wealth is funneled.

Re:Sorry geist...

[stoatwblr]

"(the US)... it's just not that powerful a position. It's relatively weak economically and militarily"

The USA spends more militarily than the next 12 countries combined and several times more than all the rest of the list combined, whilst having an economy smaller than china or the combined EU and a mindset that economic growth is infinite (it isn't. Even single digit percentage growth is impossible to maintain across 100 years. Economies always hit limits and all economists who came up with the fundamental theories acknowledged this even if their disciples haven't)

Letting the military tail wag the political dog is a fast way of tipping the country down the shitter. It happened to the russians (SDI was a success story not for its technology but because it scared the USSR into overspending on its military and then imploding) and it has happened to many empires in the past (the British empire was a success mostly because it avoided war as much as possible(*) and failing to do so (ww1) was what killed it).

(*) At its peak size the british army was smaller than the prussian police force. Trading brings prosperity so the vast majority of the population of colonies weren't inclined to rock the boat very much, vs other empires which needed standing armies simply to force the colonies to remain inside the empire.

The expanding militarism and unsustainable military spend of the USA, coupled with rising mercantilism will eventually result in the edifice collapsing(**). TPP seems to be a way of exporting mercantile policy to the rest of the world, but most of the rest of the world is well aware that mercantilist policies were followed for centuries before finally being abandoned over 200 years ago because of their downsides.

(**) It's hard to build or maintain "essential" infrastructure in a mercantile environment and the lack of maintenance of that infrastructure is starting to show across the entire USA, with money that should be going into education + R&D being diverted to military vanity projects which are unlikely to ever provide any economic or societal benefits.