Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
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.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
It helps the multinational corporations. If you mean benefits to you and me then no.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
There needs to be massive outcry from Google to stop this. As well as Street Demonstrations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
looks like you are not yet old enough to vote anyway
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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:
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.
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.