5 ms·

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 heavi

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"
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827 http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393...
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Yes, and because various interested parties know that will happen, no matter how much evil anticonsumer shit they pack into the deal, there's nothing holding them back during the negotiations. We've heard about the awful IP shit because EFF is on the ball, but there's no doubt we'll find out about even more once this takes effect. I'm not talking about e.g. Vietnam rice farmers vs. USA rice farmers vs. rice eaters everywhere, but rather all of those parties getting screwed by the ag corp interests who were actually represented at these negotiations.
vidarh 11y ago
And that's of course the reason they're turning it into such a massive beast. Because tons of it is likely to be things that would not pass if they were part of small little individual deals where the vested interests were not so huge. Personally I believe the sheer scope is reason enough to reject it on principle as a massive abuse of process.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  That is kinda how political negotiation works. One side says, "We want X." The other side says, "Ok, we'll support X if it also has Y." Repeat that, in this case for a few years, and you have a very large number of Y's. The problem with saying this, > Because tons of it is likely to be things that would not pass if they were part of small little individual deals where the vested interests were not so huge. Is that the thing that potentially would pass would never make it out to see the daylight without negotiation, which is how you get the things that potentially wouldn't pass stand-alone. (And I say potentially, because for every person we're probably talking about different things.)
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Yes, but generally, when the tit-for-tat is likely to be understood and acceptable to the electorate, such deals tends to be smaller and more focused. In such cases there's no reason to pile it on, because it can withstand scrutiny and debate. So you come agreement, and move on to negotiate another agreement. The larger such an agreement becomes, the murkier it ets. Given the complexity, it will take at least a decade after TPP is ratified before all the implications become clear. We better hope we like the results. But I'll predict that long before that we'll have a string of lawsuits filed over the effects. (Similarly, once TTIP comes up for ratification, I equivalently expect ratification attempts themselves to be met by a number of legal challenges across the EU, followed by a number of legal challenges over the effects of it; If ISDS is part of a final ratified agreement, I'd expect it take at least a decade to sort out the legal mess alone)
Cowen 11y ago
> 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. This depends on perspective. In terms of domestic elections, chances are the TPP won't make a real difference in countries like the US or Canada one way or another. Foreign policy generally only affects domestic elections at its extremes, e.g. winning/losing a war. Voters might be for or against TPP for any number of reasons, but chances are when they actually step into the voting booth, TPP will be low on their list of reasons for voting whichever way they do. In terms of international relations, reneging on a huge deal that was painstakingly negotiated over seven years is obviously never a good thing. But it's hard to say how or when that could come back to bite whichever countries back out of the deal.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  ...e.g. winning/losing a war. Is "winning" a possible outcome from wars? It hasn't happened during my parents' lifetimes. All of the losing we've been doing doesn't seem to have affected our commitment to outspending the rest of world combined to support the military-industrial complex. Do elections have something to do with that?

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"
- hellbanner 11y ago
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827 http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393...
jessaustin 11y ago
Yes, and because various interested parties know that will happen, no matter how much evil anticonsumer shit they pack into the deal, there's nothing holding them back during the negotiations. We've heard about the awful IP shit because EFF is on the ball, but there's no doubt we'll find out about even more once this takes effect. I'm not talking about e.g. Vietnam rice farmers vs. USA rice farmers vs. rice eaters everywhere, but rather all of those parties getting screwed by the ag corp interests who were actually represented at these negotiations.

vidarh 11y ago

And that's of course the reason they're turning it into such a massive beast. Because tons of it is likely to be things that would not pass if they were part of small little individual deals where the vested interests were not so huge. Personally I believe the sheer scope is reason enough to reject it on principle as a massive abuse of process.

jdmichal 11y ago
That is kinda how political negotiation works. One side says, "We want X." The other side says, "Ok, we'll support X if it also has Y." Repeat that, in this case for a few years, and you have a very large number of Y's. The problem with saying this, > Because tons of it is likely to be things that would not pass if they were part of small little individual deals where the vested interests were not so huge. Is that the thing that potentially would pass would never make it out to see the daylight without negotiation, which is how you get the things that potentially wouldn't pass stand-alone. (And I say potentially, because for every person we're probably talking about different things.)
- vidarh 11y ago
  Yes, but generally, when the tit-for-tat is likely to be understood and acceptable to the electorate, such deals tends to be smaller and more focused. In such cases there's no reason to pile it on, because it can withstand scrutiny and debate. So you come agreement, and move on to negotiate another agreement. The larger such an agreement becomes, the murkier it ets. Given the complexity, it will take at least a decade after TPP is ratified before all the implications become clear. We better hope we like the results. But I'll predict that long before that we'll have a string of lawsuits filed over the effects. (Similarly, once TTIP comes up for ratification, I equivalently expect ratification attempts themselves to be met by a number of legal challenges across the EU, followed by a number of legal challenges over the effects of it; If ISDS is part of a final ratified agreement, I'd expect it take at least a decade to sort out the legal mess alone)

Cowen 11y ago

> 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. This depends on perspective. In terms of domestic elections, chances are the TPP won't make a real difference in countries like the US or Canada one way or another. Foreign policy generally only affects domestic elections at its extremes, e.g. winning/losing a war. Voters might be for or against TPP for any number of reasons, but chances are when they actually step into the voting booth, TPP will be low on their list of reasons for voting whichever way they do. In terms of international relations, reneging on a huge deal that was painstakingly negotiated over seven years is obviously never a good thing. But it's hard to say how or when that could come back to bite whichever countries back out of the deal.

jessaustin 11y ago
...e.g. winning/losing a war. Is "winning" a possible outcome from wars? It hasn't happened during my parents' lifetimes. All of the losing we've been doing doesn't seem to have affected our commitment to outspending the rest of world combined to support the military-industrial complex. Do elections have something to do with that?