19 ms·

Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Is Reached

478 points by shill 11y ago

DeBraid 11y ago
tldr: eventually end more than 18,000 tariffs that the participating countries have placed on United States exports - Goods include: autos, machinery, information technology and consumer goods, chemicals and agricultural products ranging from avocados in California to wheat, pork and beef from the Plains states. - establish uniform rules on corporations’ intellectual property, - open the Internet - crack down on wildlife trafficking and environmental abuses
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  Good job summarising the article, but from the leaked documents none of that seems to stand up to scrutiny. Just letting you know you are regurgitating bad info.
tptacek 11y ago
Just a reminder: the TPP, like most trade deals, is negotiated in secret, but ratified in public. The final version of the deal will be published in 30 days, and then Congress gets 90 days to consider before an up-or-down vote. The 90-day thing is a result of Trade Promotion Authority granted by Congress to the administration. This is the "fast track" Congress voted to allow the President. It means the bill can't be filibustered.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  So Congress will publish the full "30 page document" on their website -- and citizens of each country have 90 days to harass their representatives if they disagree w/ the agreement? Sorry to be dense just trying to understand.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    This is an article about the US political process. I don't know enough about the processes of Canada or Australia or Vietnam to comment on them.
    - hellbanner 11y ago
      Thanks. If a reader from those countries is seeing, please chime in!
      - oblio 11y ago
        I doubt the citizens of Vietnam have much say in this whole process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vietnam
      - frandroid 11y ago
        Canada will ratify it. The NDP has come out against it in the last few days but gave itself many escape clauses to support it (it was supporting it until it started tanking in the polls). Their only chance to come in power is through a coalition, and the other two parties support free trade.
    - code_sterling 11y ago
      For Canada, it will depend on which way the election swings.
  - breischl 11y ago
    >>"30 page document" Not quite, it's a "30-chapter text" according to the article. I'd imagine those chapters are quite a bit longer than one page each.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Well, isn't that the entire problem at the US side? Your Congress has 60 days to read and understand several thousand of badly written legalese, and make a decision on it.
  - _-__--- 11y ago
    well, is it that Congress has 90 post-publishing date or are we counting from today?
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      Post-publishing. I'd guess that part of the publishing part is to ensure everyone gets it at the same time. The text might leak before then, but there will be a "formal" delivery of the finished doc, and that will be made public.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    They have 90 days from publication, don't they? At any rate: every member of Congress has a staff with a million dollar annual payroll. Are they going to carefully review the TPP for problems? Of course not. But the negotiation process has nothing to do with that. They'll vote for or against free trade as a valence issue and nothing more. What few surprises we'll get will be a pure result of election year posturing against Obama. As for whether this is a problem, again, I think that boils down to a valence issue. Either you believe that free trade and trade rule harmonization led by the US is a good thing, or you (reasonably) do not. If you don't, then the process we have now is terrible, because that process creates the potential that trade deals will happen. Because of course, if Congress was looped in on TPP negotiation from the outset, with advise-and-consent on each successive draft, there could be no trade deal. This Congress couldn't work out an agreement to fund a pothole repair if the repair was close to a contested district. Remember here we're talking about Congress deciding about laws for other countries, much more so than for their own.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Or, in other words, they'll vote the bill by its title, and won't ever care to know what is in it. (And that is the naive explanation, the cynical one is way worse.) Do you really not think this is a problem? And how will society push Congress to represent its interests if nobody had time to read it either? (And, no, that's not about the US Congress deciding about laws for other countries. Each country on the treaty must accept the bill independently. Each one of those countries has a process for it, that's usually at least as broken as the US one - it's just that I was commenting on the US process.)
- acqq 11y ago
  The fast track background: "The fast track negotiating authority for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster." It "was in effect from 1975 to 1994" "and from 2002 to 2007" "Although it expired for new agreements" "it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011." "In June 2015, TPA passed Congress and was signed by the President." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29
  - walterbell 11y ago
    From http://www.citizen.org/fast-track http://www.citizen.org/fast-track "After dogged, diverse grassroots pressure delivered major blows to Fast Track, proponents used procedural gimmicks to pass Fast Track through Congress by a one-vote margin ... Fast Track has only been used 16 times in the history of our nation, often to enact the most controversial of "trade" pacts, such as NAFTA and the establishment of the WTO. Meanwhile, hundreds of less controversial U.S. trade agreements have been implemented without resort to Fast Track, showing that the extraordinary procedure is not needed to approve trade agreements."
    - tptacek 11y ago
      "Undemocratic", meaning that a tiny minority of legislators can't filibuster the bill preventing the majority from passing it? All fast-track really does is put a timeline to an up-or-down vote for the final treaty. People calling it "undemocratic" are really saying "it's too democratic".
      - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
        It prevents elected representatives from making amendments.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Which are themselves another means that Congressional procedure creates for tiny minorities and influence groups to exert their will against the majority. I don't think straight up-or-down votes are necessarily the best vector for public policy in all cases! I'm not saying that it was unreasonable to oppose fast-track. I'm saying that calling fast-track "undemocratic" is a bogus argument.
- seiji 11y ago
  Also a good review of the implications at http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ The comic is too detailed and too well written to summarize here. Go read it. The TPP is basically why many companies gave up "policing" the Internet about 6-10 years ago. Many of the voracious file sharing lawsuits ($150,000 or $750 per download, which ever is greater) just stopped. They've been waiting for stronger legal teeth. Now they'll have the legal backing of governments to do private corporate takedowns. If we thought the MPAA/RIAA getting local police and federal officers to enforce their policies was bad, there's a lot worse ahead at a larger scale than most people can comprehend (required ISP logging/tracking/takedowns of every URL (retention time? forever), required in-line packet inspection (globally distributed GFW with local policies), etc). Fighting this won't be silly little "sopa nope-a" web blackouts. It'll need full time DC congressional lobbying from our viewpoints. It can be done, but it would take a few million in funding to drive the point home and maybe a few more tens of millions in campaign donations to turn around the right wrong-thinking people.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    This comic is godawful, and it's embarrassing that it keeps coming up on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9982411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9982411
    - seiji 11y ago
      Well, nobody knows the TPP yet. It's not public. The parts that have leaked are pretty bad. The comic mostly argues against a common hybrid republican/libertarian economic branding of "free trade." Free Trade branding ended up being a disguise for reducing labor costs by moving interchangeable capital to places where people work for (and live off of) $1/day instead of $800/day, but people never get the same freedom of movement rights as corporate capital. So, companies reduce costs, but people can't move to cheaper (or even better) places to improve their own costs. As for arguing the comic is godawful, maybe de-escalate your rage meter for a while? It's just an informative comic posted to an online text forum run by a multi-billion dollar funding organization. It's all kinda meaningless overall.
- danbruc 11y ago
  If they would receive an annotated version with the annotations explaining the reasoning that led to each final decision then it might be possible to come up with an objective judgement. But if you have to reverse engineer the reasoning of several countries over several years about numerous topics in 90 days and from hundreds or thousands of pages in a language that hardly resembles your mother tongue...good luck with that.
  - mtanski 11y ago
    Pretty sure that's not how diplomacy works. There's a pretty good podcast on Planet Money how things are negotiated in trade deals.
    - octaveguin 11y ago
      Yep. We don't really envision actual people doing these trade negotiations. This explains it with some humanity. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo... Not to say any of this is in the best interest of the public, it's still nice to get the less talked about perspective.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    Public Citizen put together a legislative timeline for voting on the TPP, which they deem likely to occur in Feb 2016, alongside the US presidential primaries, http://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-vote-calendar-october-2-2015.pdf http://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-vote-calendar-october-2... (pdf). For the new U.S. laws that will be created to implement TPP: "Sec. 106(a)(1)(D)) Thirty days after the president submits to Congress a copy of the final legal text of the TPP, he may submit to Congress an implementing bill for the agreement, an explanation of how the implementing bill would change U.S. laws to conform to the terms of the agreement, a final statement of administrative action proposed to implement the agreement, reports on projected environmental and employment impacts, a plan for implementing and enforcing the agreement and other supporting information. (Sec. 106(a)(1)(E), Sec. 105(d)(1 and 2), and Sec. 105(e))"
- digikata 11y ago
  So are there any upcoming crowd projects to break it down and analyze the text in detail when it comes out?
- kahirsch 11y ago
  > Just a reminder: the TPP, like most trade deals, is negotiated in secret, but ratified in public. The final version of the deal will be published in 30 days, and then Congress gets 90 days to consider before an up-or-down vote. It's a maximum of 90 days after the implementing bill is introduced in Congress. There's no deadline for that bill to be introduced, but the bill can't be introduced until at least 30 days after the final text is submitted.[1] from [2] [1] http://i.imgur.com/k6Je0Dz.png http://i.imgur.com/k6Je0Dz.png [2] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf#page=26 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf#page=26
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  There is an excellent LSE debate podcast on TTIP with the chair of the Uruguary round. I have posted it before, and I will dig out the link, (http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2014/11/20141124t1830vSZT.aspx http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2014/11/20141124t18... ) but listening to the folks who built the WTO and their views on the current rounds is salutary. The gist of the podcast (from memory) - Fair Trade is good for us all - Global trade agreements benefit the poorest the best because if everyone is included, it's rare for the clauses to include "screw those guys over". Small poor countries usually get screwed over because all the effort goes into the big agreements between big trading partners (naturally). Global agreements usually get you the same good deal as Canada gets. - we have mostly solved tariffs on traditional physical goods. The WTO has done a good job on this. It seems a bit self congratulatory. - the TTP and TTIP (Pacific and Atlantic) are best we can do after WTO Doha talks basically collapsed. Global is better. - In general negotiations proceed to move standards upwards - European Chicken farms are fine for me in the UK but apparently the US consumers think we grow our chickens in faeces. As such the standards negotiated usually end up being the higher of the two, not the lower. - TTP and TTIP should never be negotiated in secret. Most of WTO was not and it is a political failure to do so. But the outcomes probably won't change much as frankly it's not that interesting to follow trade negotiations The upshot is the old guard of WTO basically announcing that the politicians set the stall out badly and should reboot, but the general direction is positive, that there should be a general default to take the "highest quality" standard in any negotiation. So please when seeing the phrase "negotiated in secret", see where it sits in the history of WTO negotiations, and pester congress not to kill it off for cheap political points but to pay more attention to their guidelines next time round - and damn well make sure the whole world is included, not half and half solutions.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  The TPP is likely to be a sprawling, enormous mess, 90 days is not nearly enough time to digest it or have a proper debate in congress about it.
- patrickdavey 11y ago
  At least the US has a chance to debate it in parliament. In New Zealand, our cabinet passes it and there is no debate. If there's one thing I don't like the sound of, it's the ISDS clauses..
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  That'a a big problem. It's a huge deal and Congress can either approve the whole thing or reject the whole thing. That puts a lot of pressure on the single representative. It should be voted on in small pieces. The same should have happened with the ACA. There are lots of parts that could be enacted on their own.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    The trickiness (and the whole reason fast track is a thing) is that Japan agreeing on A likely depends on the US agreeing on B (which depends on Vietnam agreeing on C) It's hard to do compromise if the compromise itself isn't voted in. And when you're talking about 12 Nations... OTOH breaking down legislation into smaller chunks to pass is definitely a good idea that isn't applied often enough (see immigration). Though that too can be tricky. For example you can't have the universal healthcare mandate without the preexisting condition refusal ban ( I have cancer and can't get health insurance , and now I'm being taxed??)
- 6t6t6 11y ago
  Will it be ratified in a referendum?
hellbanner 11y ago
Most of this article is quoting what other people said about the TPP, applying labels to supposedly specific provisions eg. 'foo expert calling it "historic"' etc. Smoke and mirrors until we can actually read the thing. Or change it ourselves.
- tptacek 11y ago
  You get to read it, all 30 chapters, most especially the riveting passages about opening dairy markets, in 30 days. You will not have an opportunity to change it, nor will Congress, but the opportunity exists to reject it. It's an all-or-nothing proposition.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Does that have anything to do with selling raw milk? Political fallout would be huge if this thing doesn't go through, right? All players in the game are heavily invested in this passing because without it, years are wasted, so I'm expecting it to pass.
    - tech-no-logical 11y ago
      this, to me, is the scariest part of all these deals (TPP, TTIP, CETA, TiSA etc.) : they seem to be 'too big to fail', so chances are they'll pass simply because parties involved are 'deeply invested', not because they're actually good deals...
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - enriquec 11y ago
        thats generally they're strategy it seems. literally every year, they say "we need more money or we have to shut everything down"
        11y ago
raur 11y ago
"TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens." https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
gerty 11y ago
Does someone know if the treaty has to be ratified by all parties before becoming a law? If it's rejected by Canadian or NZ parliaments, would it still be implemented?
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's a good question. I couldn't easily find a clear answer. Do the other 10 parties just go forward with the deal and exclude the defector?
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    It's certainly quite possible that Canada will defect. We've got an election in 2 weeks and it's a very tight three way race. The traditional "middle" party is running on a very left-leaning platform, so opposition to the TPP is going to be one of the major differentiators between the two left-leaning parties.
    - tectec 11y ago
      It will be really unfortunate if we cannot see the document before the election. I am not sure we can trust the government to give an honest assessment of it.
      - tonyarkles 11y ago
        Yeah, in a situation where the conservatives don't win the coming election, I have no problem imagining the NDP or Libs rejecting it on the basis of it being "a treaty Stephen Harper negotiated in secret" Although, reflecting on the limited number of campaign ads I've heard, this seems to be something that no one is really talking about.
        chongli 11y ago
        No one is talking about it? Just yesterday I attended a whistle-stop tour stump speech by NDP leader Tom Mulcair; he had a LOT to say about the TPP and the NDP's clear intent to oppose it should Harper try to ratify it in secret.
binarray2000 11y ago
R.I.P. democratic free society.
- theklub 11y ago
  do you know something we don't?
  - binarray2000 11y ago
    I don't. No one does (besides people who have negotiated it). AND EXACTLY THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Those who are elected are kept in the dark, too: http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/09/09/german-bundestag-not-happy-about-being-kept-out-of-ttip-reading-room-in-berlin/ http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/09/09/german-bundestag-not-happ... Maybe we the citizens are just plain stupid to understand so we need to be persuaded: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/14292827638/us-embassy-berlin-offering-cold-hard-cash-people-to-create-pro-taftattip-propaganda.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/14292827638/us-em... (Just like we were for Iraq war) One of the examples of the "brave new world": http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe... You want you and your children and grandchildren to live in it? If TTIP is SOOOO great why secrecy, why so many people who don't have financial interest in it are against it? I could write a lot about it...
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      Of course it would be negotiated in secrecy. How else do you expect something to get done? Every political player will get facts out of context and make his rhetoric out of it, sprinkling emotions and indignation to rally up clueless people, in order to build up his image or get a political favor. Now imagine this happening in every country and mass media amplifying it. Negotiators would have NO room to negotiate. Parliaments have to ratify and have appropriate time to get themselves familiar with the matter. Stop drinking the kool aid.
      - 11y ago
raur 11y ago
"TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens." https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
bko 11y ago
I hesitantly applaud such trade deals. I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism of politically favored domestic industries but it is better than the alternative. Interdependence and trade have led to a much safer world and a rising global standard of living for all.
- rangibaby 11y ago
  That was a popular opinion at the beginning of the 20th century too.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    And the world is much, much safer, more stable, and across the entire socioeconomic spectrum wealthier than it was at the beginning of the 20th century, so the snark here is missing its mark.
    - emodendroket 11y ago
      Well if the proposition here is that we have another two world wars before then going on to enjoy still greater prosperity I think maybe I'll pass.
      - blumkvist 11y ago
        The world wars had nothing to do with trade. In fact, this long stability in Europe traces its roots to a free trade agreement the Schuman Declaration, leading to the European Coal and Steel Community, which later becomes the European Union.
        emodendroket 11y ago
        I think you may have missed the point!
        isoos 11y ago
        > The world wars had nothing to do with trade. Future peace may be. An interesting quote from Lee Kuan Yew (From Third World to First, p. 534): "October, 1985. […] During my official visit, I was given the honour of addressing a joint session of the US Congress. […] I spoke on an issue then at the top of the American agenda - protectionism to safeguard jobs and check growing US trade deficits with newly emerging economies of East Asia. In 20 minutes, I described how the issue of free trade was really the question of war or peace for the world. Nations wax and wane. I argued that if a nation on the rise, with an excess of energy, was not allowed to export its goods and services, its only alternative would be to expand and capture territory, incorporate the population and integrate it to make for a bigger economic unit. That was why nations had empire which they controlled as one trading bloc. It was a time-honoured way for growth. The world had moved away from that after the end of World War II in 1945. GATT, the IMF, the World Bank and new rules made possible a prosperous and dynamic Germany in spite of large numbers of Germans returning from the East into a shrunken land area So also with the Japanese, who had to leave Korea, China, Taiwan and Southeast Asia and be packed into a few Japanese islands. The Germans and the Japanese were able to stay within their boundaries and grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars. But if trade in goods and services was blocked, then China would revert to its historical solution of small warring states conquering one another to gain control of more territory and people until they become one colossal continental empire. This tight, logical exposition may have convinced the legislators intellectually, but many found it emotionally difficult to accept."
dbg31415 11y ago
Don't worry, Reddit won't have this on the home page for 4-5 hours.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Ironically, Reddit is our best hope for understanding what's in the deal in time for ratification.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    I love HN and Reddit for this reason, really. It's crowd-sourced insight.
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Here is a discussion of and link to the consequences of this "great deal": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330126
isaacdl 11y ago
Duplicate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10331299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10331299
jmnicolas 11y ago
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership still faces months of debate in Congress[...]" So nothing is reached : my understanding of US politics (which is quite shallow I'll admit) is that the congress majority will vote contrary to anything Obama wants.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  That is, indeed, a pretty shallow understanding. On this issue Obama is essentially allied with a number of Congressional Republicans and in opposition to a number of Congressional Democrats.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Anyone viewing the Republican party as a unified whole is not really paying attention. Some will vote for it, and some will vote against. On trade treaties, some Democrats will defect and vote against regardless of the party of the President.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's true in general but not true in the case of free trade agreements. Obama's opposition is the party of free trade, and also the party of China containment. The fact that Republican opposition voted to fast-track the treaty augurs its support for the final version. This bill is mostly stuff the Republican party wants.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    The sudden flip from "we're against anything Obama supports" to suddenly standing with Obama to support the TPP is highly unusual, and more than a little suspicious.
    - abalos 11y ago
      Often I find that it's not the issues the parties disagree on that I need to worry about, it's those that get passed quickly and quietly through Congress.
mtgx 11y ago
Unless I skipped it, the article doesn't mention anything about the new copyright clauses?
raldi 11y ago
To any NYT employees who may be reading this: It's 2015, and you're still using graphics (like this trade map) in a way that shows up tiny on mobile devices but can't be zoomed in on -- and you've even managed to thwart the usual "tap and hold, then Open Image in New Tab" trick. This is the sort of thing that makes people demand ever-ridiculously-huger smartphones.
- iraphael 11y ago
  It's also part of the reason I don't plan on ever buying their subscription. (The other reason being I disagree with the model and believe in a free open internet)
  - exelius 11y ago
    Don't use your belief in a "free open internet" to justify why you don't pay for content. I believe in a free and open Internet as well, and as such I believe NYT is free to monetize however they want. I don't subscribe because I don't feel that most of their content is that much better than other publications which I already pay for or consume for free. But a "free and open Internet" doesn't mean that all the content is available for free. If nobody pays for news, then the best news we're going to be able to get will be Buzzfeed articles written by a college student for $0.05 a word. That's a sad future.
    - iraphael 11y ago
      I want to ask you a question but I don't want you to take it as sarcasm. It is a genuine question. How is locking content behind paywalls not exactly the same as closing the web? I don't think there will be a point when all content will be available for free, but if paywalls are the norm, then how is that web still considered free and open? I don't have a solution for what would be a perfect model, but I don't think paywalling is the answer. And yes, if news providers have to rely on ads, they will eventually converge into clickbaity buzzfeed. I don't think that is the solution either. I think we still have to find a good balance that works for everyone. But just because ads don't work, doens't mean paywalling works. That's what I meant with my comment above.
Asbostos 11y ago
How on earth is every country going to pass all these laws? Won't it end up broken to bits or with some countries quitting?
belorn 11y ago
Will be interesting to see how much of the leaked chapters is still in there. The old one said to make ISP's more liable for data being transfered through it. Imports of copyrighted goods without the authors permission will be made illegal (and they said barriers to international trade was dead). Copyright Terms will be extended in several countries. DRM protection is extended so that those who "enabl[e] or facilitat[e]" circumvention can be charged even if they do not violate a copyright (fun time for researchers). Last it dictate that generic medicine is destroyed if such happen to be found in a country where a patent cover it (all those who complain about Russia burning smuggled food might find this interesting).
- hiram112 11y ago
  Funny how globalization was going to flatten the world for everyone. Turns out it doesn't actually include the plebs. Capital gets to traverse the world - its factories spewing waste and arbitraging cost of living and currency differences in SE Asia, its profits reported in tax-resorts like Ireland and the Cayman Islands, and its protection guaranteed via the US Military courtesy of the US middle class. But should a lowly citizen try to pull a stunt like importing a medicine from India or purchasing a text book from Hong Kong, well that's against the law.
  - seiji 11y ago
    It isn't free trade without also free immigration. Global free trade without global freedom of movement is just profit rearranging for corporations.
    - sbov 11y ago
      That's not the point. Corporations get to (mostly) benefit from the most favorable aspect of all the governments of the world, all at the same time. Even with global free movement people would not be able to do the same. I cannot live in California, build my house using Chinese labor prices, and be taxed as if I lived in Nevada.
      - 11y ago
ddp 11y ago
Where's Ross Perot when you need him.
- japaget 11y ago
  For the benefit of non-US readers: Ross Perot was a third party candidate for President in 1992 and 1996 who ran on a platform opposing adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    I've rewatched the 92 debates a few times in the last few months, and it's crazy how spot on he was... it's also worth noting that the 92 debates were what scared the two parties into corrupting the debate process, joining together to push out the League of Women Voters and to control the stage to prevent disruptive third-parties from being so publicly anti-establishment.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      He was a pretty good speaker in person. I went to his speech in Fargo to see what he was about. His book the campaign put together was actually pretty well reasoned and a lot more concrete than the other campaigns' materials. My brother joined his party and we got 20% off a hotel room, so I guess hooking up the corporate discounts worked. I cannot really argue with the results, but I didn't much care for EDS and some of their sayings. The whole "eagles fly alone" is factually wrong (watch a video of them eating) and just plain stupid in the context of software development.
      - noir_lord 11y ago
        EDS have had some massive failures here in the UK, they have a pretty terrible reputation (though they can't take all the blame, government is just crap at IT procurement generally).
        11y ago
mcv 11y ago
As much as I am disgusted by the secrecy of these negotiations, the way they seem to be pushed down our throats, and indeed some of the stuff that was leaked (like the ISDS), there does seem to be some good stuff in it: "The worker standards commit all parties to the International Labor Organization’s principles for collective bargaining, a minimum wage and safe workplaces, and against child labor, forced labor and excessive hours." and: "The changes, which also are expected to set a precedent for future trade pacts, respond to widespread criticisms that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement panels favor businesses and interfere with nations’ efforts to pass rules safeguarding public health and safety." Who knows? This might actually have turned into a decent treaty. But only because of all the massive criticism on the bits that leaked through all the secrecy.
- werber 11y ago
  Are there any primary sources about those claims? They sound great, along with the big pharma regulations. But still, I don't trust the NYT enough to fully buy it.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Those are nice concessions, but I rather doubt that they aren't more than offset by other provisions.
  - mcv 11y ago
    I want to see the concessions before I call them "nice". It's good that they listened to criticism, but did they listen enough? The basic idea behind ISDS is to me still a flagrant attack on justice and democracy. The article mentioned tobacco companies are excluded, which is certainly nice. But I'd also like to see everything related to public health excluded. I understand that corporations want to be protected against arbitrary protectionist law changes that disadvantage them, and I'm fine with that. But they don't deserve any protection from laws that intend to protect public health, labour conditions, civil rights, etc.
    - emodendroket 11y ago
cdubzzz 11y ago
USTR summary of the deal: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...
- rspeer 11y ago
  Thank you. Everyone in this thread should be reading this link. Yes, it is a one-sided summary by the agency whose job is to pass TPP. But it is also among the very small amount of up-to-date information we have about the deal. (We all know about the leaks from 2011 and 2013. Those aren't news right now.) This is at least closer to a primary source than the New York Times' glossed-over description of it.
137 11y ago
In general, agreements like this seem to be a threat to classical liberalism. Perhaps this is a simplified view but integration is a 7-stage process that ends with supranational organizations and political unions. Or to be specific, an eventual global government rooted more in EU-style bureaucracy rather than (in theory) American-style classical liberalism. MEP Daniel Hannan elucidated this nicely in a speech regarding the Treaty of Lisbon- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsAmAgn_i8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsAmAgn_i8 Details on the 7 stages and lists of these agreements from the first 2 stages- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multilateral_free_trade_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multilateral_free_trad...
misterbishop 11y ago
From the candidate who said he wanted to "re-negotiate NAFTA". This is a betrayal to American workers, and it's a disaster for the Pacific signatories. The TPP should be treated as a Treaty, requiring 2/3rd in congress. The majority of the agreement has nothing to do with trade.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  I thought it was being treated as a treaty, but that's why they passed TPA (fast-track) so they could curtail congress' power to stop it. What is it being treated as then?
  - misterbishop 11y ago
    Just a trade deal as if it was a new tariff.
kome 11y ago
To put those different "Trade Deal" in their context, wikileaks has made a short but informative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ tl;dr - US is trying to rewrite the rules of world trade because they are scared by mounting BRICS influence over the World Trade Organization.
- debacle 11y ago
  US is not really scared by BRICS at all. They're scared by China, and India maybe, but the other three economies have been pretty handily defused.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    I don't think Russia can be ignored in light of growing relations between Russia and China. Russia and China have different economic strengths and weaknesses that make a Russian/Chinese bloc stronger than the sum of its parts. A large part of US diplomatic work in the Middle East over the past year has been an effort to undercut Russian oil prices so that Russian oil isn't economically viable, with great success. But this is a band-aid. Even with the current US economy, the incentives that the US is providing to i.e. Saudi Arabia to keep oil prices low are tenuous; a dip in the US economy will make it impossible to maintain these incentives even if Saudi Arabia continues to be satisfied with them.
lighthawk 11y ago
> For the first time in a trade agreement there are provisions to help small businesses without the resources of big corporations to deal with trade barriers and red tape. A committee would be created to assist smaller companies. That's awesome. But, if you have that much of a problem, why form a committee to help smaller companies- why not just make it easier for everyone? And what good will a committee really do? Why not just say, "We promise to make trading with foreign entities just that- you won't have to deal with the U.S. government and foreign government at all."
- criddell 11y ago
  Whenever I see "committee" given as the solution to a problem, my mind instantly goes to Gilliam's "Brazil".
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > But, if you have that much of a problem, why form a committee to help smaller companies- why not just make it easier for everyone? How long do we have to try this idiotic idea before we recognize that "making it easier for everyone" only helps big corporations?
  - lighthawk 11y ago
    That's not what I was saying. I was saying that government shouldn't impose so much red tape that small companies need a committee assigned to help them, when it is not known whether that committee will necessarily get them through the red tape as efficiently as a big company that has more resources available.
    - copsarebastards 11y ago
      You can't just talk as if "red tape" is this thing that is just hanging around getting in people's way. Red tape usually exists for one of 2 reasons: 1. Corporations have done something bad that wasn't illegal, so regulation was created to prevent them from doing that. 2. Corporate interests have paid off politicians to make laws that favor them. Ideally we could reduce red tape by cutting out only the laws in category 2, but in practice, corporate interests cut both ways: they screw things up when creating laws and they screw things up when removing laws. Moves to reduce regulation almost always cause more harm than good, letting big corporations go back to doing bad things they were doing before. History is rife with this kind of deregulation: the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example. No move to deregulate that I know of has resulted in a better situation for small business. Deregulatory movements are almost always driven by monopolistic large corporations.
arca_vorago 11y ago
I knew when TPA passed it meant that TPP was nearing completion, they passed TPA (fast-track) because it curtails the power of the congress to stop what I consider to be the unconstitutional TPP. One of the best resources for both documents I have found is the podcast Congressional Dish by Jennifer Briney, who actually takes the time to read the docs and summarize issues. Personally, I think this is a giant leap towards world government, away from constitutional representation, and away from free-trade and towards the oligarchy-controlled globalism. I plan on digging into it more and writing a summary of my own, because this is a major issue that we need to push back on hard due to the limitations of the house and senate to oppose it.
- jrockway 11y ago
  I'm not sure how unconstitutional it is. The Constitution says: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." I wouldn't have written that into the Constitution, but nobody asked me.
ck2 11y ago
Just a reminder that this above everything else is Obama's legacy no matter how they try to re-write history. So if you thought it was bad that the TSA can hold people without even a phone call to a lawyer, wait until they start putting people in prison over the TPP
giardini 11y ago
So is TPP a treaty or merely a "trade deal"? If a treaty then IIRC only the Senate is required to ratify it, not "Congress".
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Trade deals are treaties but have been recently implemented in a way that requires both houses of Congress to pass them, I believe because the legislation not only ratifies the treaty, but also changes domestic laws to comport with the terms of the treaty. Recent free trade agreements like Colombia and Korea were passed by both houses.
teekert 11y ago
Wow: The New York Times is very clear on its political preference: "Donald Trump has repeatedly castigated the Pacific trade accord as “a bad deal,” injecting conservative populism into the debate and emboldening some congressional Republicans who fear for local interests like sugar and rice, and many conservatives who oppose Mr. Obama at every turn."
- jonknee 11y ago
  What part of that isn't accurate?
  - teekert 11y ago
    Saying "injecting conservative populism" without any example and counter argument just comes across very dumb. They want to form an opinion for me and I'm very well capable of doing that myself based on facts. This really downgrades the NYT for me.
    - jonknee 11y ago
      Have you followed Trump's campaign at all? It's very much conservative populism and it's causing a huge rift in the GOP.
      - teekert 11y ago
        Ok, I looked it up on the book of knowledge: "Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and often combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. It is considered populism because of its appeal to the "common man" as opposed to the elites." I thought populism was associated with just saying anything that is popular but not necessarily true and based on circular references or other obfuscating techniques to score easily with people of low education/IQ/logical reasoning skills.. I see I was wrong. In that case, perhaps my original remark is not valid. Actually, I agree with Trump very much. The TTIP is horribly elitist.
    - thieving_magpie 11y ago
kevinalexbrown 11y ago
The fact that the negotiations were done in secret probably means that most of the TTP content is being given to journalists by those officially authorized to speak about it. This isn't unexpected, but it does affect how the TTP is framed (even if you don't buy the Greenwald puff-piece-for-access argument).
- tptacek 11y ago
  I'm not sure how this even makes sense. The whole treaty will be public for months before Congress votes on it. What's the "give to get" you're thinking of here?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Journalists will be interested in publishing articles about TPP today, rather than a month from now. That interest might lead one to lend a friendly ear to the only people who have actually read the current draft, who just so happen to strongly support the passage of the current draft.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Why are journalists more interested in publishing articles about TPP further away from the vote?
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        We're discussing TFA, which is already published. There are other reports and analyses out now as well.
        tptacek 11y ago
        You're claiming here that the New York Times was bought off with early access to TPP?
        11y ago
dougmany 11y ago
My favorite part: "Japan’s other barriers, like regulations and design criteria that effectively keep out American-made cars and light trucks, would come down" Take our crappy cars Japan! I also didn't realize the US had a large (25%) tariff on trucks.
- adevine 11y ago
  If our cars our crappy, why should Japan need trade barriers to keep them out?
  - SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
    "if"???
  - EdwardDiego 11y ago
    I drive a Toyota Cavalier, which was built by Chevrolet to sell to the Japanese, who didn't buy them, so they all got exported to Australia and New Zealand. It really is an odd car with questionable build quality and some baffling engineering decisions - the boot/trunk wouldn't open, which turned out to be due to the unlocking mechanism coming loose - but it was only connected to the lock by a single plastic clip, the kind you normally find securing upholstery. Replacing it with a nut and bolt fixed that, but yeah.
- bdcs 11y ago
  Courtesy of the Chicken Tax, yes you read that correctly. "The chicken tax is a 25% tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks imposed in 1963 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson in response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/12/414029929/episode-632-the-chicken-tax http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/12/414029929/episo...
- Kluny 11y ago
  Does this mean that Tacomas and kei-trucks will get cheaper? Please!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jussij 11y ago
In other words a handful of multinationals, prepared to pay millions in endorsements in hand outs to corrupt politicians, have got exactly what they wanted. So much for the democratic process and in fact stuff the democratic process. This deal gives a handful few even more power in controlling the world economy. It lets them screw not only the local worker, but the ability to screw ever worker in the world, in the name of prosperity. While I hate the fact that such an obvious power grab is happening, what I hate more is the youth of today seem to let this shit happen. Use your voice and vote out that crap!!! Sadly my prediction will be, nothing unlike the last ten years, where as the minimum wage remains flat (or maybe even declines), the corresponding CEO wage will see ten fold increases thanks to this amazing free trade deal :(
- pyrocat 11y ago
  I agree, but let's not rush to blame "the youth". "The youth" has been writing and emailing and calling Congress to tell them we care about this issue but it's not like they really listen to their constituents when so much campaign money is on the line.
  - guelo 11y ago
    I'd guess that less than .00001% of the youth, or any other generation has written to congress.
    - michaelleland 11y ago
      Careful on the zeros... .00001% of 318,900,000 people (current population of America) is 31.89 people, and even rounded I suppose they get a few more than that.
      - guelo 11y ago
        Ah yes, the percent tripped me up. I was thinking maybe a few thousand letters.
- sremani 11y ago
politician 11y ago
I know of no other act that would so throughly demonstrate the subjugation of our democracy to corporations than to hold them to a 3-month review of a complete rewrite of the laws that bind corporations. We are staring at a phase transition. When this treaty passes, expect the remaining dominoes to fall hard and fast. _digusting_
rce 11y ago
Let's say a country wants to pass stronger environmental protections, shorter copyright terms, or some other legislation which would conflict with the TPP. How would they do that? Does the treaty need to be renewed every so often at which point those items can be re-negotiated? Or does this essentially lock in certain legislation such that it can't be changed in the future?
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > How would they do that? They pass, then get sued under investor state dispute provisions. The whole point of the bill is to have countries surrender their right to make their own laws; the US President has clearly stated that the goal is for the United States to dictate "the rules" around the world
worik 11y ago
Paywalled
datashovel 11y ago
One positive IMO is that Ford Motor Co doesn't like it. Ford, the company who famously exported so many manufacturing jobs out of US in the past suddenly grew a heart for the well-being of "future competitiveness of American manufacturing" ? Probably not.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mimo84 11y ago
Just yesterday I saw here on HN a news about what the TPP actually means for intellectual property, which should be a quite known problem here in the community. Interestingly enough though that news has only got 10 points and right now it is quite low in the list. The first news today in HN is about CPU caching. What do we need it for if we're losing our rights so quickly?
beedogs 11y ago
Welp, democracy was nice while it lasted.
jedharris 11y ago
NONE of the comments defending the TPP reference ANY POSITIVE reasons to support it. They all reject negative claims or argue process ("It is too democratic!" "Amendments are often bad!" etc.) Obviously the TPP has major costs, both directly and indirectly. IF as I doubt the TPP is worthwhile, then proponents should be able to give examples of its benefits.

478 points by shill 11y ago

tldr: eventually end more than 18,000 tariffs that the participating countries have placed on United States exports - Goods include: autos, machinery, information technology and consumer goods, chemicals and agricultural products ranging from avocados in California to wheat, pork and beef from the Plains states. - establish uniform rules on corporations’ intellectual property, - open the Internet - crack down on wildlife trafficking and environmental abuses

arca_vorago 11y ago
Good job summarising the article, but from the leaked documents none of that seems to stand up to scrutiny. Just letting you know you are regurgitating bad info.

tptacek 11y ago

Just a reminder: the TPP, like most trade deals, is negotiated in secret, but ratified in public. The final version of the deal will be published in 30 days, and then Congress gets 90 days to consider before an up-or-down vote. The 90-day thing is a result of Trade Promotion Authority granted by Congress to the administration. This is the "fast track" Congress voted to allow the President. It means the bill can't be filibustered.

hellbanner 11y ago
So Congress will publish the full "30 page document" on their website -- and citizens of each country have 90 days to harass their representatives if they disagree w/ the agreement? Sorry to be dense just trying to understand.
- tptacek 11y ago
  This is an article about the US political process. I don't know enough about the processes of Canada or Australia or Vietnam to comment on them.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Thanks. If a reader from those countries is seeing, please chime in!
    - oblio 11y ago
      I doubt the citizens of Vietnam have much say in this whole process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vietnam
    - frandroid 11y ago
      Canada will ratify it. The NDP has come out against it in the last few days but gave itself many escape clauses to support it (it was supporting it until it started tanking in the polls). Their only chance to come in power is through a coalition, and the other two parties support free trade.
  - code_sterling 11y ago
    For Canada, it will depend on which way the election swings.
- breischl 11y ago
  >>"30 page document" Not quite, it's a "30-chapter text" according to the article. I'd imagine those chapters are quite a bit longer than one page each.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Well, isn't that the entire problem at the US side? Your Congress has 60 days to read and understand several thousand of badly written legalese, and make a decision on it.
- _-__--- 11y ago
  well, is it that Congress has 90 post-publishing date or are we counting from today?
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    Post-publishing. I'd guess that part of the publishing part is to ensure everyone gets it at the same time. The text might leak before then, but there will be a "formal" delivery of the finished doc, and that will be made public.
- tptacek 11y ago
  They have 90 days from publication, don't they? At any rate: every member of Congress has a staff with a million dollar annual payroll. Are they going to carefully review the TPP for problems? Of course not. But the negotiation process has nothing to do with that. They'll vote for or against free trade as a valence issue and nothing more. What few surprises we'll get will be a pure result of election year posturing against Obama. As for whether this is a problem, again, I think that boils down to a valence issue. Either you believe that free trade and trade rule harmonization led by the US is a good thing, or you (reasonably) do not. If you don't, then the process we have now is terrible, because that process creates the potential that trade deals will happen. Because of course, if Congress was looped in on TPP negotiation from the outset, with advise-and-consent on each successive draft, there could be no trade deal. This Congress couldn't work out an agreement to fund a pothole repair if the repair was close to a contested district. Remember here we're talking about Congress deciding about laws for other countries, much more so than for their own.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Or, in other words, they'll vote the bill by its title, and won't ever care to know what is in it. (And that is the naive explanation, the cynical one is way worse.) Do you really not think this is a problem? And how will society push Congress to represent its interests if nobody had time to read it either? (And, no, that's not about the US Congress deciding about laws for other countries. Each country on the treaty must accept the bill independently. Each one of those countries has a process for it, that's usually at least as broken as the US one - it's just that I was commenting on the US process.)
acqq 11y ago
The fast track background: "The fast track negotiating authority for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster." It "was in effect from 1975 to 1994" "and from 2002 to 2007" "Although it expired for new agreements" "it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011." "In June 2015, TPA passed Congress and was signed by the President." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29
- walterbell 11y ago
  From http://www.citizen.org/fast-track http://www.citizen.org/fast-track "After dogged, diverse grassroots pressure delivered major blows to Fast Track, proponents used procedural gimmicks to pass Fast Track through Congress by a one-vote margin ... Fast Track has only been used 16 times in the history of our nation, often to enact the most controversial of "trade" pacts, such as NAFTA and the establishment of the WTO. Meanwhile, hundreds of less controversial U.S. trade agreements have been implemented without resort to Fast Track, showing that the extraordinary procedure is not needed to approve trade agreements."
  - tptacek 11y ago
    "Undemocratic", meaning that a tiny minority of legislators can't filibuster the bill preventing the majority from passing it? All fast-track really does is put a timeline to an up-or-down vote for the final treaty. People calling it "undemocratic" are really saying "it's too democratic".
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      It prevents elected representatives from making amendments.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Which are themselves another means that Congressional procedure creates for tiny minorities and influence groups to exert their will against the majority. I don't think straight up-or-down votes are necessarily the best vector for public policy in all cases! I'm not saying that it was unreasonable to oppose fast-track. I'm saying that calling fast-track "undemocratic" is a bogus argument.
seiji 11y ago
Also a good review of the implications at http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ The comic is too detailed and too well written to summarize here. Go read it. The TPP is basically why many companies gave up "policing" the Internet about 6-10 years ago. Many of the voracious file sharing lawsuits ($150,000 or $750 per download, which ever is greater) just stopped. They've been waiting for stronger legal teeth. Now they'll have the legal backing of governments to do private corporate takedowns. If we thought the MPAA/RIAA getting local police and federal officers to enforce their policies was bad, there's a lot worse ahead at a larger scale than most people can comprehend (required ISP logging/tracking/takedowns of every URL (retention time? forever), required in-line packet inspection (globally distributed GFW with local policies), etc). Fighting this won't be silly little "sopa nope-a" web blackouts. It'll need full time DC congressional lobbying from our viewpoints. It can be done, but it would take a few million in funding to drive the point home and maybe a few more tens of millions in campaign donations to turn around the right wrong-thinking people.
- tptacek 11y ago
  This comic is godawful, and it's embarrassing that it keeps coming up on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9982411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9982411
  - seiji 11y ago
    Well, nobody knows the TPP yet. It's not public. The parts that have leaked are pretty bad. The comic mostly argues against a common hybrid republican/libertarian economic branding of "free trade." Free Trade branding ended up being a disguise for reducing labor costs by moving interchangeable capital to places where people work for (and live off of) $1/day instead of $800/day, but people never get the same freedom of movement rights as corporate capital. So, companies reduce costs, but people can't move to cheaper (or even better) places to improve their own costs. As for arguing the comic is godawful, maybe de-escalate your rage meter for a while? It's just an informative comic posted to an online text forum run by a multi-billion dollar funding organization. It's all kinda meaningless overall.
danbruc 11y ago
If they would receive an annotated version with the annotations explaining the reasoning that led to each final decision then it might be possible to come up with an objective judgement. But if you have to reverse engineer the reasoning of several countries over several years about numerous topics in 90 days and from hundreds or thousands of pages in a language that hardly resembles your mother tongue...good luck with that.
- mtanski 11y ago
  Pretty sure that's not how diplomacy works. There's a pretty good podcast on Planet Money how things are negotiated in trade deals.
  - octaveguin 11y ago
    Yep. We don't really envision actual people doing these trade negotiations. This explains it with some humanity. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo... Not to say any of this is in the best interest of the public, it's still nice to get the less talked about perspective.
- walterbell 11y ago
  Public Citizen put together a legislative timeline for voting on the TPP, which they deem likely to occur in Feb 2016, alongside the US presidential primaries, http://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-vote-calendar-october-2-2015.pdf http://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-vote-calendar-october-2... (pdf). For the new U.S. laws that will be created to implement TPP: "Sec. 106(a)(1)(D)) Thirty days after the president submits to Congress a copy of the final legal text of the TPP, he may submit to Congress an implementing bill for the agreement, an explanation of how the implementing bill would change U.S. laws to conform to the terms of the agreement, a final statement of administrative action proposed to implement the agreement, reports on projected environmental and employment impacts, a plan for implementing and enforcing the agreement and other supporting information. (Sec. 106(a)(1)(E), Sec. 105(d)(1 and 2), and Sec. 105(e))"
digikata 11y ago
So are there any upcoming crowd projects to break it down and analyze the text in detail when it comes out?
kahirsch 11y ago
> Just a reminder: the TPP, like most trade deals, is negotiated in secret, but ratified in public. The final version of the deal will be published in 30 days, and then Congress gets 90 days to consider before an up-or-down vote. It's a maximum of 90 days after the implementing bill is introduced in Congress. There's no deadline for that bill to be introduced, but the bill can't be introduced until at least 30 days after the final text is submitted.[1] from [2] [1] http://i.imgur.com/k6Je0Dz.png http://i.imgur.com/k6Je0Dz.png [2] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf#page=26 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf#page=26
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
There is an excellent LSE debate podcast on TTIP with the chair of the Uruguary round. I have posted it before, and I will dig out the link, (http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2014/11/20141124t1830vSZT.aspx http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2014/11/20141124t18... ) but listening to the folks who built the WTO and their views on the current rounds is salutary. The gist of the podcast (from memory) - Fair Trade is good for us all - Global trade agreements benefit the poorest the best because if everyone is included, it's rare for the clauses to include "screw those guys over". Small poor countries usually get screwed over because all the effort goes into the big agreements between big trading partners (naturally). Global agreements usually get you the same good deal as Canada gets. - we have mostly solved tariffs on traditional physical goods. The WTO has done a good job on this. It seems a bit self congratulatory. - the TTP and TTIP (Pacific and Atlantic) are best we can do after WTO Doha talks basically collapsed. Global is better. - In general negotiations proceed to move standards upwards - European Chicken farms are fine for me in the UK but apparently the US consumers think we grow our chickens in faeces. As such the standards negotiated usually end up being the higher of the two, not the lower. - TTP and TTIP should never be negotiated in secret. Most of WTO was not and it is a political failure to do so. But the outcomes probably won't change much as frankly it's not that interesting to follow trade negotiations The upshot is the old guard of WTO basically announcing that the politicians set the stall out badly and should reboot, but the general direction is positive, that there should be a general default to take the "highest quality" standard in any negotiation. So please when seeing the phrase "negotiated in secret", see where it sits in the history of WTO negotiations, and pester congress not to kill it off for cheap political points but to pay more attention to their guidelines next time round - and damn well make sure the whole world is included, not half and half solutions.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
The TPP is likely to be a sprawling, enormous mess, 90 days is not nearly enough time to digest it or have a proper debate in congress about it.
patrickdavey 11y ago
At least the US has a chance to debate it in parliament. In New Zealand, our cabinet passes it and there is no debate. If there's one thing I don't like the sound of, it's the ISDS clauses..
maxxxxx 11y ago
That'a a big problem. It's a huge deal and Congress can either approve the whole thing or reject the whole thing. That puts a lot of pressure on the single representative. It should be voted on in small pieces. The same should have happened with the ACA. There are lots of parts that could be enacted on their own.
- rtpg 11y ago
  The trickiness (and the whole reason fast track is a thing) is that Japan agreeing on A likely depends on the US agreeing on B (which depends on Vietnam agreeing on C) It's hard to do compromise if the compromise itself isn't voted in. And when you're talking about 12 Nations... OTOH breaking down legislation into smaller chunks to pass is definitely a good idea that isn't applied often enough (see immigration). Though that too can be tricky. For example you can't have the universal healthcare mandate without the preexisting condition refusal ban ( I have cancer and can't get health insurance , and now I'm being taxed??)
6t6t6 11y ago
Will it be ratified in a referendum?

hellbanner 11y ago

Most of this article is quoting what other people said about the TPP, applying labels to supposedly specific provisions eg. 'foo expert calling it "historic"' etc. Smoke and mirrors until we can actually read the thing. Or change it ourselves.

tptacek 11y ago
You get to read it, all 30 chapters, most especially the riveting passages about opening dairy markets, in 30 days. You will not have an opportunity to change it, nor will Congress, but the opportunity exists to reject it. It's an all-or-nothing proposition.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Does that have anything to do with selling raw milk? Political fallout would be huge if this thing doesn't go through, right? All players in the game are heavily invested in this passing because without it, years are wasted, so I'm expecting it to pass.
  - tech-no-logical 11y ago
    this, to me, is the scariest part of all these deals (TPP, TTIP, CETA, TiSA etc.) : they seem to be 'too big to fail', so chances are they'll pass simply because parties involved are 'deeply invested', not because they're actually good deals...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - enriquec 11y ago
      thats generally they're strategy it seems. literally every year, they say "we need more money or we have to shut everything down"
      - 11y ago

raur 11y ago

"TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens." https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

gerty 11y ago

Does someone know if the treaty has to be ratified by all parties before becoming a law? If it's rejected by Canadian or NZ parliaments, would it still be implemented?

tptacek 11y ago
That's a good question. I couldn't easily find a clear answer. Do the other 10 parties just go forward with the deal and exclude the defector?
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  It's certainly quite possible that Canada will defect. We've got an election in 2 weeks and it's a very tight three way race. The traditional "middle" party is running on a very left-leaning platform, so opposition to the TPP is going to be one of the major differentiators between the two left-leaning parties.
  - tectec 11y ago
    It will be really unfortunate if we cannot see the document before the election. I am not sure we can trust the government to give an honest assessment of it.
    - tonyarkles 11y ago
      Yeah, in a situation where the conservatives don't win the coming election, I have no problem imagining the NDP or Libs rejecting it on the basis of it being "a treaty Stephen Harper negotiated in secret" Although, reflecting on the limited number of campaign ads I've heard, this seems to be something that no one is really talking about.
      - chongli 11y ago
        No one is talking about it? Just yesterday I attended a whistle-stop tour stump speech by NDP leader Tom Mulcair; he had a LOT to say about the TPP and the NDP's clear intent to oppose it should Harper try to ratify it in secret.

binarray2000 11y ago

R.I.P. democratic free society.

theklub 11y ago
do you know something we don't?
- binarray2000 11y ago
  I don't. No one does (besides people who have negotiated it). AND EXACTLY THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Those who are elected are kept in the dark, too: http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/09/09/german-bundestag-not-happy-about-being-kept-out-of-ttip-reading-room-in-berlin/ http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/09/09/german-bundestag-not-happ... Maybe we the citizens are just plain stupid to understand so we need to be persuaded: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/14292827638/us-embassy-berlin-offering-cold-hard-cash-people-to-create-pro-taftattip-propaganda.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/14292827638/us-em... (Just like we were for Iraq war) One of the examples of the "brave new world": http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe... You want you and your children and grandchildren to live in it? If TTIP is SOOOO great why secrecy, why so many people who don't have financial interest in it are against it? I could write a lot about it...
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    Of course it would be negotiated in secrecy. How else do you expect something to get done? Every political player will get facts out of context and make his rhetoric out of it, sprinkling emotions and indignation to rally up clueless people, in order to build up his image or get a political favor. Now imagine this happening in every country and mass media amplifying it. Negotiators would have NO room to negotiate. Parliaments have to ratify and have appropriate time to get themselves familiar with the matter. Stop drinking the kool aid.
    - 11y ago

raur 11y ago

bko 11y ago

I hesitantly applaud such trade deals. I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism of politically favored domestic industries but it is better than the alternative. Interdependence and trade have led to a much safer world and a rising global standard of living for all.

rangibaby 11y ago
That was a popular opinion at the beginning of the 20th century too.
- tptacek 11y ago
  And the world is much, much safer, more stable, and across the entire socioeconomic spectrum wealthier than it was at the beginning of the 20th century, so the snark here is missing its mark.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    Well if the proposition here is that we have another two world wars before then going on to enjoy still greater prosperity I think maybe I'll pass.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      The world wars had nothing to do with trade. In fact, this long stability in Europe traces its roots to a free trade agreement the Schuman Declaration, leading to the European Coal and Steel Community, which later becomes the European Union.
      - emodendroket 11y ago
        I think you may have missed the point!
      - isoos 11y ago
        > The world wars had nothing to do with trade. Future peace may be. An interesting quote from Lee Kuan Yew (From Third World to First, p. 534): "October, 1985. […] During my official visit, I was given the honour of addressing a joint session of the US Congress. […] I spoke on an issue then at the top of the American agenda - protectionism to safeguard jobs and check growing US trade deficits with newly emerging economies of East Asia. In 20 minutes, I described how the issue of free trade was really the question of war or peace for the world. Nations wax and wane. I argued that if a nation on the rise, with an excess of energy, was not allowed to export its goods and services, its only alternative would be to expand and capture territory, incorporate the population and integrate it to make for a bigger economic unit. That was why nations had empire which they controlled as one trading bloc. It was a time-honoured way for growth. The world had moved away from that after the end of World War II in 1945. GATT, the IMF, the World Bank and new rules made possible a prosperous and dynamic Germany in spite of large numbers of Germans returning from the East into a shrunken land area So also with the Japanese, who had to leave Korea, China, Taiwan and Southeast Asia and be packed into a few Japanese islands. The Germans and the Japanese were able to stay within their boundaries and grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars. But if trade in goods and services was blocked, then China would revert to its historical solution of small warring states conquering one another to gain control of more territory and people until they become one colossal continental empire. This tight, logical exposition may have convinced the legislators intellectually, but many found it emotionally difficult to accept."

dbg31415 11y ago

Don't worry, Reddit won't have this on the home page for 4-5 hours.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Ironically, Reddit is our best hope for understanding what's in the deal in time for ratification.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  I love HN and Reddit for this reason, really. It's crowd-sourced insight.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

Here is a discussion of and link to the consequences of this "great deal": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330126

isaacdl 11y ago

Duplicate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10331299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10331299

jmnicolas 11y ago

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership still faces months of debate in Congress[...]" So nothing is reached : my understanding of US politics (which is quite shallow I'll admit) is that the congress majority will vote contrary to anything Obama wants.

emodendroket 11y ago
That is, indeed, a pretty shallow understanding. On this issue Obama is essentially allied with a number of Congressional Republicans and in opposition to a number of Congressional Democrats.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Anyone viewing the Republican party as a unified whole is not really paying attention. Some will vote for it, and some will vote against. On trade treaties, some Democrats will defect and vote against regardless of the party of the President.
tptacek 11y ago
That's true in general but not true in the case of free trade agreements. Obama's opposition is the party of free trade, and also the party of China containment. The fact that Republican opposition voted to fast-track the treaty augurs its support for the final version. This bill is mostly stuff the Republican party wants.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The sudden flip from "we're against anything Obama supports" to suddenly standing with Obama to support the TPP is highly unusual, and more than a little suspicious.
  - abalos 11y ago
    Often I find that it's not the issues the parties disagree on that I need to worry about, it's those that get passed quickly and quietly through Congress.

mtgx 11y ago

Unless I skipped it, the article doesn't mention anything about the new copyright clauses?

raldi 11y ago

To any NYT employees who may be reading this: It's 2015, and you're still using graphics (like this trade map) in a way that shows up tiny on mobile devices but can't be zoomed in on -- and you've even managed to thwart the usual "tap and hold, then Open Image in New Tab" trick. This is the sort of thing that makes people demand ever-ridiculously-huger smartphones.

iraphael 11y ago
It's also part of the reason I don't plan on ever buying their subscription. (The other reason being I disagree with the model and believe in a free open internet)
- exelius 11y ago
  Don't use your belief in a "free open internet" to justify why you don't pay for content. I believe in a free and open Internet as well, and as such I believe NYT is free to monetize however they want. I don't subscribe because I don't feel that most of their content is that much better than other publications which I already pay for or consume for free. But a "free and open Internet" doesn't mean that all the content is available for free. If nobody pays for news, then the best news we're going to be able to get will be Buzzfeed articles written by a college student for $0.05 a word. That's a sad future.
  - iraphael 11y ago
    I want to ask you a question but I don't want you to take it as sarcasm. It is a genuine question. How is locking content behind paywalls not exactly the same as closing the web? I don't think there will be a point when all content will be available for free, but if paywalls are the norm, then how is that web still considered free and open? I don't have a solution for what would be a perfect model, but I don't think paywalling is the answer. And yes, if news providers have to rely on ads, they will eventually converge into clickbaity buzzfeed. I don't think that is the solution either. I think we still have to find a good balance that works for everyone. But just because ads don't work, doens't mean paywalling works. That's what I meant with my comment above.

Asbostos 11y ago

How on earth is every country going to pass all these laws? Won't it end up broken to bits or with some countries quitting?

belorn 11y ago

Will be interesting to see how much of the leaked chapters is still in there. The old one said to make ISP's more liable for data being transfered through it. Imports of copyrighted goods without the authors permission will be made illegal (and they said barriers to international trade was dead). Copyright Terms will be extended in several countries. DRM protection is extended so that those who "enabl[e] or facilitat[e]" circumvention can be charged even if they do not violate a copyright (fun time for researchers). Last it dictate that generic medicine is destroyed if such happen to be found in a country where a patent cover it (all those who complain about Russia burning smuggled food might find this interesting).

hiram112 11y ago
Funny how globalization was going to flatten the world for everyone. Turns out it doesn't actually include the plebs. Capital gets to traverse the world - its factories spewing waste and arbitraging cost of living and currency differences in SE Asia, its profits reported in tax-resorts like Ireland and the Cayman Islands, and its protection guaranteed via the US Military courtesy of the US middle class. But should a lowly citizen try to pull a stunt like importing a medicine from India or purchasing a text book from Hong Kong, well that's against the law.
- seiji 11y ago
  It isn't free trade without also free immigration. Global free trade without global freedom of movement is just profit rearranging for corporations.
  - sbov 11y ago
    That's not the point. Corporations get to (mostly) benefit from the most favorable aspect of all the governments of the world, all at the same time. Even with global free movement people would not be able to do the same. I cannot live in California, build my house using Chinese labor prices, and be taxed as if I lived in Nevada.
    - 11y ago

ddp 11y ago

Where's Ross Perot when you need him.

japaget 11y ago
For the benefit of non-US readers: Ross Perot was a third party candidate for President in 1992 and 1996 who ran on a platform opposing adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  I've rewatched the 92 debates a few times in the last few months, and it's crazy how spot on he was... it's also worth noting that the 92 debates were what scared the two parties into corrupting the debate process, joining together to push out the League of Women Voters and to control the stage to prevent disruptive third-parties from being so publicly anti-establishment.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    He was a pretty good speaker in person. I went to his speech in Fargo to see what he was about. His book the campaign put together was actually pretty well reasoned and a lot more concrete than the other campaigns' materials. My brother joined his party and we got 20% off a hotel room, so I guess hooking up the corporate discounts worked. I cannot really argue with the results, but I didn't much care for EDS and some of their sayings. The whole "eagles fly alone" is factually wrong (watch a video of them eating) and just plain stupid in the context of software development.
    - noir_lord 11y ago
      EDS have had some massive failures here in the UK, they have a pretty terrible reputation (though they can't take all the blame, government is just crap at IT procurement generally).
      - 11y ago

mcv 11y ago

As much as I am disgusted by the secrecy of these negotiations, the way they seem to be pushed down our throats, and indeed some of the stuff that was leaked (like the ISDS), there does seem to be some good stuff in it: "The worker standards commit all parties to the International Labor Organization’s principles for collective bargaining, a minimum wage and safe workplaces, and against child labor, forced labor and excessive hours." and: "The changes, which also are expected to set a precedent for future trade pacts, respond to widespread criticisms that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement panels favor businesses and interfere with nations’ efforts to pass rules safeguarding public health and safety." Who knows? This might actually have turned into a decent treaty. But only because of all the massive criticism on the bits that leaked through all the secrecy.

werber 11y ago
Are there any primary sources about those claims? They sound great, along with the big pharma regulations. But still, I don't trust the NYT enough to fully buy it.
emodendroket 11y ago
Those are nice concessions, but I rather doubt that they aren't more than offset by other provisions.
- mcv 11y ago
  I want to see the concessions before I call them "nice". It's good that they listened to criticism, but did they listen enough? The basic idea behind ISDS is to me still a flagrant attack on justice and democracy. The article mentioned tobacco companies are excluded, which is certainly nice. But I'd also like to see everything related to public health excluded. I understand that corporations want to be protected against arbitrary protectionist law changes that disadvantage them, and I'm fine with that. But they don't deserve any protection from laws that intend to protect public health, labour conditions, civil rights, etc.
  - emodendroket 11y ago

cdubzzz 11y ago

USTR summary of the deal: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...

rspeer 11y ago
Thank you. Everyone in this thread should be reading this link. Yes, it is a one-sided summary by the agency whose job is to pass TPP. But it is also among the very small amount of up-to-date information we have about the deal. (We all know about the leaks from 2011 and 2013. Those aren't news right now.) This is at least closer to a primary source than the New York Times' glossed-over description of it.

137 11y ago

In general, agreements like this seem to be a threat to classical liberalism. Perhaps this is a simplified view but integration is a 7-stage process that ends with supranational organizations and political unions. Or to be specific, an eventual global government rooted more in EU-style bureaucracy rather than (in theory) American-style classical liberalism. MEP Daniel Hannan elucidated this nicely in a speech regarding the Treaty of Lisbon- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsAmAgn_i8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsAmAgn_i8 Details on the 7 stages and lists of these agreements from the first 2 stages- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multilateral_free_trade_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multilateral_free_trad...

misterbishop 11y ago

From the candidate who said he wanted to "re-negotiate NAFTA". This is a betrayal to American workers, and it's a disaster for the Pacific signatories. The TPP should be treated as a Treaty, requiring 2/3rd in congress. The majority of the agreement has nothing to do with trade.

arca_vorago 11y ago
I thought it was being treated as a treaty, but that's why they passed TPA (fast-track) so they could curtail congress' power to stop it. What is it being treated as then?
- misterbishop 11y ago
  Just a trade deal as if it was a new tariff.

kome 11y ago

To put those different "Trade Deal" in their context, wikileaks has made a short but informative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ tl;dr - US is trying to rewrite the rules of world trade because they are scared by mounting BRICS influence over the World Trade Organization.

debacle 11y ago
US is not really scared by BRICS at all. They're scared by China, and India maybe, but the other three economies have been pretty handily defused.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  I don't think Russia can be ignored in light of growing relations between Russia and China. Russia and China have different economic strengths and weaknesses that make a Russian/Chinese bloc stronger than the sum of its parts. A large part of US diplomatic work in the Middle East over the past year has been an effort to undercut Russian oil prices so that Russian oil isn't economically viable, with great success. But this is a band-aid. Even with the current US economy, the incentives that the US is providing to i.e. Saudi Arabia to keep oil prices low are tenuous; a dip in the US economy will make it impossible to maintain these incentives even if Saudi Arabia continues to be satisfied with them.

lighthawk 11y ago

> For the first time in a trade agreement there are provisions to help small businesses without the resources of big corporations to deal with trade barriers and red tape. A committee would be created to assist smaller companies. That's awesome. But, if you have that much of a problem, why form a committee to help smaller companies- why not just make it easier for everyone? And what good will a committee really do? Why not just say, "We promise to make trading with foreign entities just that- you won't have to deal with the U.S. government and foreign government at all."

criddell 11y ago
Whenever I see "committee" given as the solution to a problem, my mind instantly goes to Gilliam's "Brazil".
copsarebastards 11y ago
> But, if you have that much of a problem, why form a committee to help smaller companies- why not just make it easier for everyone? How long do we have to try this idiotic idea before we recognize that "making it easier for everyone" only helps big corporations?
- lighthawk 11y ago
  That's not what I was saying. I was saying that government shouldn't impose so much red tape that small companies need a committee assigned to help them, when it is not known whether that committee will necessarily get them through the red tape as efficiently as a big company that has more resources available.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    You can't just talk as if "red tape" is this thing that is just hanging around getting in people's way. Red tape usually exists for one of 2 reasons: 1. Corporations have done something bad that wasn't illegal, so regulation was created to prevent them from doing that. 2. Corporate interests have paid off politicians to make laws that favor them. Ideally we could reduce red tape by cutting out only the laws in category 2, but in practice, corporate interests cut both ways: they screw things up when creating laws and they screw things up when removing laws. Moves to reduce regulation almost always cause more harm than good, letting big corporations go back to doing bad things they were doing before. History is rife with this kind of deregulation: the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example. No move to deregulate that I know of has resulted in a better situation for small business. Deregulatory movements are almost always driven by monopolistic large corporations.

arca_vorago 11y ago

I knew when TPA passed it meant that TPP was nearing completion, they passed TPA (fast-track) because it curtails the power of the congress to stop what I consider to be the unconstitutional TPP. One of the best resources for both documents I have found is the podcast Congressional Dish by Jennifer Briney, who actually takes the time to read the docs and summarize issues. Personally, I think this is a giant leap towards world government, away from constitutional representation, and away from free-trade and towards the oligarchy-controlled globalism. I plan on digging into it more and writing a summary of my own, because this is a major issue that we need to push back on hard due to the limitations of the house and senate to oppose it.

jrockway 11y ago
I'm not sure how unconstitutional it is. The Constitution says: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." I wouldn't have written that into the Constitution, but nobody asked me.

ck2 11y ago

Just a reminder that this above everything else is Obama's legacy no matter how they try to re-write history. So if you thought it was bad that the TSA can hold people without even a phone call to a lawyer, wait until they start putting people in prison over the TPP

giardini 11y ago

So is TPP a treaty or merely a "trade deal"? If a treaty then IIRC only the Senate is required to ratify it, not "Congress".

snowwrestler 11y ago
Trade deals are treaties but have been recently implemented in a way that requires both houses of Congress to pass them, I believe because the legislation not only ratifies the treaty, but also changes domestic laws to comport with the terms of the treaty. Recent free trade agreements like Colombia and Korea were passed by both houses.

teekert 11y ago

Wow: The New York Times is very clear on its political preference: "Donald Trump has repeatedly castigated the Pacific trade accord as “a bad deal,” injecting conservative populism into the debate and emboldening some congressional Republicans who fear for local interests like sugar and rice, and many conservatives who oppose Mr. Obama at every turn."

jonknee 11y ago
What part of that isn't accurate?
- teekert 11y ago
  Saying "injecting conservative populism" without any example and counter argument just comes across very dumb. They want to form an opinion for me and I'm very well capable of doing that myself based on facts. This really downgrades the NYT for me.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    Have you followed Trump's campaign at all? It's very much conservative populism and it's causing a huge rift in the GOP.
    - teekert 11y ago
      Ok, I looked it up on the book of knowledge: "Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and often combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. It is considered populism because of its appeal to the "common man" as opposed to the elites." I thought populism was associated with just saying anything that is popular but not necessarily true and based on circular references or other obfuscating techniques to score easily with people of low education/IQ/logical reasoning skills.. I see I was wrong. In that case, perhaps my original remark is not valid. Actually, I agree with Trump very much. The TTIP is horribly elitist.
  - thieving_magpie 11y ago

kevinalexbrown 11y ago

The fact that the negotiations were done in secret probably means that most of the TTP content is being given to journalists by those officially authorized to speak about it. This isn't unexpected, but it does affect how the TTP is framed (even if you don't buy the Greenwald puff-piece-for-access argument).

tptacek 11y ago
I'm not sure how this even makes sense. The whole treaty will be public for months before Congress votes on it. What's the "give to get" you're thinking of here?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Journalists will be interested in publishing articles about TPP today, rather than a month from now. That interest might lead one to lend a friendly ear to the only people who have actually read the current draft, who just so happen to strongly support the passage of the current draft.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Why are journalists more interested in publishing articles about TPP further away from the vote?
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      We're discussing TFA, which is already published. There are other reports and analyses out now as well.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        You're claiming here that the New York Times was bought off with early access to TPP?
        11y ago

dougmany 11y ago

My favorite part: "Japan’s other barriers, like regulations and design criteria that effectively keep out American-made cars and light trucks, would come down" Take our crappy cars Japan! I also didn't realize the US had a large (25%) tariff on trucks.

adevine 11y ago
If our cars our crappy, why should Japan need trade barriers to keep them out?
- SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
  "if"???
- EdwardDiego 11y ago
  I drive a Toyota Cavalier, which was built by Chevrolet to sell to the Japanese, who didn't buy them, so they all got exported to Australia and New Zealand. It really is an odd car with questionable build quality and some baffling engineering decisions - the boot/trunk wouldn't open, which turned out to be due to the unlocking mechanism coming loose - but it was only connected to the lock by a single plastic clip, the kind you normally find securing upholstery. Replacing it with a nut and bolt fixed that, but yeah.
bdcs 11y ago
Courtesy of the Chicken Tax, yes you read that correctly. "The chicken tax is a 25% tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks imposed in 1963 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson in response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/12/414029929/episode-632-the-chicken-tax http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/12/414029929/episo...
Kluny 11y ago
Does this mean that Tacomas and kei-trucks will get cheaper? Please!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jussij 11y ago

In other words a handful of multinationals, prepared to pay millions in endorsements in hand outs to corrupt politicians, have got exactly what they wanted. So much for the democratic process and in fact stuff the democratic process. This deal gives a handful few even more power in controlling the world economy. It lets them screw not only the local worker, but the ability to screw ever worker in the world, in the name of prosperity. While I hate the fact that such an obvious power grab is happening, what I hate more is the youth of today seem to let this shit happen. Use your voice and vote out that crap!!! Sadly my prediction will be, nothing unlike the last ten years, where as the minimum wage remains flat (or maybe even declines), the corresponding CEO wage will see ten fold increases thanks to this amazing free trade deal :(

pyrocat 11y ago
I agree, but let's not rush to blame "the youth". "The youth" has been writing and emailing and calling Congress to tell them we care about this issue but it's not like they really listen to their constituents when so much campaign money is on the line.
- guelo 11y ago
  I'd guess that less than .00001% of the youth, or any other generation has written to congress.
  - michaelleland 11y ago
    Careful on the zeros... .00001% of 318,900,000 people (current population of America) is 31.89 people, and even rounded I suppose they get a few more than that.
    - guelo 11y ago
      Ah yes, the percent tripped me up. I was thinking maybe a few thousand letters.
sremani 11y ago

politician 11y ago

I know of no other act that would so throughly demonstrate the subjugation of our democracy to corporations than to hold them to a 3-month review of a complete rewrite of the laws that bind corporations. We are staring at a phase transition. When this treaty passes, expect the remaining dominoes to fall hard and fast. _digusting_

rce 11y ago

Let's say a country wants to pass stronger environmental protections, shorter copyright terms, or some other legislation which would conflict with the TPP. How would they do that? Does the treaty need to be renewed every so often at which point those items can be re-negotiated? Or does this essentially lock in certain legislation such that it can't be changed in the future?

rodgerd 11y ago
> How would they do that? They pass, then get sued under investor state dispute provisions. The whole point of the bill is to have countries surrender their right to make their own laws; the US President has clearly stated that the goal is for the United States to dictate "the rules" around the world

worik 11y ago

Paywalled

datashovel 11y ago

One positive IMO is that Ford Motor Co doesn't like it. Ford, the company who famously exported so many manufacturing jobs out of US in the past suddenly grew a heart for the well-being of "future competitiveness of American manufacturing" ? Probably not.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mimo84 11y ago

Just yesterday I saw here on HN a news about what the TPP actually means for intellectual property, which should be a quite known problem here in the community. Interestingly enough though that news has only got 10 points and right now it is quite low in the list. The first news today in HN is about CPU caching. What do we need it for if we're losing our rights so quickly?

beedogs 11y ago

Welp, democracy was nice while it lasted.

jedharris 11y ago

NONE of the comments defending the TPP reference ANY POSITIVE reasons to support it. They all reject negative claims or argue process ("It is too democratic!" "Amendments are often bad!" etc.) Obviously the TPP has major costs, both directly and indirectly. IF as I doubt the TPP is worthwhile, then proponents should be able to give examples of its benefits.