3 ms·

I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the

I've still not read a super convincing argument as to why TPP is terrible as a whole. Certain bits, especially those with respect to copyright, sure. But on the whole free trade is generally a good thing. And lots of people are up in arms on this and most complaints I've found don't have much substance beyond South Park level "dey took er jerbs!". So, HN, I ask of you. What's the best argument against TPP on the internet? What's the strongest case as to why it's bad and why I should lobby my congressman to push against it?

sremani 11y ago
The devil is in detail, a good case for or against can be only presented after we have draft. People are going by assumptions, which may be likely part of the agreement, but assumptions none the less. note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.
- walterbell 11y ago
  The Asian equivalent to TPP is RCEP, it includes China and India, and has more draconian IP terms than TPP, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-no-trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-...
36erhefg 11y ago
Skipping the court system in case of disputes in favor of an arbitrage. Let's say a country established a law that prohibits smoking. A company conducting business there (selling cigarettes), can complain based on the loss of future income. According to the bilateral agreement, they demand an arbitrage that is performed in secret by a third-party and is binding and final.
- dbcooper 11y ago
  Tobacco has been excluded from Investors State Disputes Settlement provisions http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11524706 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...
  - 298219640 11y ago
    Let's say a country established a law that prohibits alcoholic beverages...
  - walterbell 11y ago
    The tobacco exemption only underscores the danger, as there are many other health and environmental regulations to which companies may take exception. This site has lawsuit history from a cross-section of countries that were sued by companies in the health, energy, financial, environmental and essential-services sectors: http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org/ http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - manicdee 11y ago
    Australia's PBS will be the first victim. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ensures that essentials medicines are available at reasonable prices, and that generics are also available. This compromises future profits for companies that want to increase the price of certain drugs, for such purposes as making generics too expensive or simply ensuring maximum profit per dose manufactured. Other examples could be environmental regulations which cause expenses that manufacturers and miners are unwilling to meet. Little things like pollution controls, national parks, marine sanctuaries and so forth. The TPP also opens the path for US IP law to be imposed on Australia. The ISDS does not specifically rule these out of contention. So they will be contended (cf: everything that is not illegal is mandatory). Once the actual text is out, people might say, "the ISDS is such a small and insignificant part" but it is there for a reason. It will be abused, just as cigarette companies abused other FTA with Australia. Why are you so dismissive of "the Chinese workers on the Chinese government projects took our jobs on Australian soil"?
venomsnake 11y ago
Investment dispute court is terrible. As an idea it is deeply disturbing to anyone that values national sovereignty.
RobertoG 11y ago
Maybe, a better question is, what problem TPP solve? You say "free trade is generally a good thing". Maybe it is, but a lot of knowledgeable people say that we already have free trade. Globalization is already a fact but "somebody" is pushing for more. What we have seen in the last times is the use of international agreements and organizations in order to make the states powerless. I have problems believing this is not what this is about. Steep by steep the frog is boiling and a new brave world is being built. You have to be very naïve to think that when the people that writes these agreements think of “America” or “Vietnam” they are thinking in the persons of America or Vietnam. Well, they are, because corporations are persons after all. We should be, at least, suspicious of all this.

sremani 11y ago

The devil is in detail, a good case for or against can be only presented after we have draft. People are going by assumptions, which may be likely part of the agreement, but assumptions none the less. note: The economic center of the world is moving eastward to Asia, so US has to pivot to asia both militarily and economically and TPP on a grand scale is part of the economic pivot.

walterbell 11y ago
The Asian equivalent to TPP is RCEP, it includes China and India, and has more draconian IP terms than TPP, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-no-trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-...

36erhefg 11y ago

Skipping the court system in case of disputes in favor of an arbitrage. Let's say a country established a law that prohibits smoking. A company conducting business there (selling cigarettes), can complain based on the loss of future income. According to the bilateral agreement, they demand an arbitrage that is performed in secret by a third-party and is binding and final.

dbcooper 11y ago
Tobacco has been excluded from Investors State Disputes Settlement provisions http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11524706 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...
- 298219640 11y ago
  Let's say a country established a law that prohibits alcoholic beverages...
- walterbell 11y ago
  The tobacco exemption only underscores the danger, as there are many other health and environmental regulations to which companies may take exception. This site has lawsuit history from a cross-section of countries that were sued by companies in the health, energy, financial, environmental and essential-services sectors: http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org/ http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- manicdee 11y ago
  Australia's PBS will be the first victim. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ensures that essentials medicines are available at reasonable prices, and that generics are also available. This compromises future profits for companies that want to increase the price of certain drugs, for such purposes as making generics too expensive or simply ensuring maximum profit per dose manufactured. Other examples could be environmental regulations which cause expenses that manufacturers and miners are unwilling to meet. Little things like pollution controls, national parks, marine sanctuaries and so forth. The TPP also opens the path for US IP law to be imposed on Australia. The ISDS does not specifically rule these out of contention. So they will be contended (cf: everything that is not illegal is mandatory). Once the actual text is out, people might say, "the ISDS is such a small and insignificant part" but it is there for a reason. It will be abused, just as cigarette companies abused other FTA with Australia. Why are you so dismissive of "the Chinese workers on the Chinese government projects took our jobs on Australian soil"?

venomsnake 11y ago

Investment dispute court is terrible. As an idea it is deeply disturbing to anyone that values national sovereignty.

RobertoG 11y ago

Maybe, a better question is, what problem TPP solve? You say "free trade is generally a good thing". Maybe it is, but a lot of knowledgeable people say that we already have free trade. Globalization is already a fact but "somebody" is pushing for more. What we have seen in the last times is the use of international agreements and organizations in order to make the states powerless. I have problems believing this is not what this is about. Steep by steep the frog is boiling and a new brave world is being built. You have to be very naïve to think that when the people that writes these agreements think of “America” or “Vietnam” they are thinking in the persons of America or Vietnam. Well, they are, because corporations are persons after all. We should be, at least, suspicious of all this.