6 ms·

The thing I find most galling about this is not merely what it contains. It is an awful document, with horrible policy, yes. But, what is most disgusting is th

The thing I find most galling about this is not merely what it contains. It is an awful document, with horrible policy, yes. But, what is most disgusting is that we had to learn of how bad it is from leaked documents. The leadership in many nations (not just in one nation, this is effectively a conspiracy at the highest levels of several nations, most egregiously the US) supported the TPP, lobbied for the TPP on behalf of a select few corporate interests, and all around sold themselves to the highest bidder, while keeping the details of it a secret from the people they allegedly represent. Democracy doesn't run on secrecy. What these leaders are pushing is not democratic, it is oligarchic. It isn't one party's doing, either. This secret deal is not a Republican deal, or a Democrat deal. It has, at various times, had vocal support (even petulant support in the case of Obama, when fast track powers were on the line) from the likes of Hillary Clinton (she now makes noises acting as though she doesn't like it, despite championing it dozens of times, and after the damage has already been done), most high ranking Republicans in the house and senate, and damned near everybody else who ever cashed a check from ALEC. All while it was secret. All while the only people allowed to see it were the lawmakers supporting and writing it and the corporations that paid for it (seriously, legal representatives from several multinational corporations saw this deal before the people of the United States were allowed to see it). Even if the deal weren't awful, it would still be awful, because of the way it is being made.

mirimir 11y ago
Only one quibble. In large part, multinationals also wrote it.
- junto 11y ago
  And it is these companies that we should punish. I would love to find a way to inspire the consumers of this world to form a deep and powerful union. A union that stands together and through collective boycotting, is able to effect just one corporate take down. And by that I mean complete, absolute and terrible market action that brings a company to its knees and bankruptcy, Lehman Brothers style (I understand the employees are 'collateral damage here but I think it would be worth it). If we could just once, take down a stock market level company, through the pure will of the people, I think we could undermine the almost unmatchable power of the corporation as it stands today. The argument against of course is that boycotts have never really worked. Consumers don't want to work in union. Corporations control the media and as such are able to persuade the people of it ineffectiveness. But one success would change all that. I'd love to see that happen in my lifetime.
rebootthesystem 11y ago
Maybe next time people will figure out when they are being lied to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU
res0nat0r 11y ago
I thought that this whole "secret" thing has been explained ad naueum here and on reddit already. It is t secret before it becomes law, or is going to get snuck in under the radar. It will be open for review before it is voted on. Also you don't give away your bargaining wants to your competitors before you sign a contract, kind of like how you don't go to a job interview and tell them out of the gate the exact minimum amount you'd be willing to work for. Thus, the wants of each party are kept to themselves before a final draft.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  Doesn't make it acceptable. Just because the logic makes sense in one context, we don't actually have to accept the entire premise of that context. The list of interested parties let in by the gatekeepers is all by itself horribly flawed. Then there's questions about accountability, secretly planned PR campaigns and whatnot.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Yes, you don't "give away" your plans to the public because then they may be able to use the democratic process to do something about it, you keep it secret so that you can manipulate the media over a short period and swing through your sweeping changes. The thing is that is completely anti-democratic. If it hurts democracy to do the best thing for a small capitalist overclass then democratic nations should be choosing to uphold democracy. I wonder if there are any such nations?
- quanticle 11y ago
  It will be open for review, but not for modification. Thanks to "fast-track", Congress will just get an up-or-down vote. So, no, the final provisions won't be secret before they become law, but it doesn't matter at this point. Congress doesn't have the ability to say, "We'll take the good, but not the bad."
  - drewgross 11y ago
    A country can't sign part of an international treaty. They must agree to whole thing, not only the parts they like. Leaving it open for modification would essentially mean reopening negotiations, which is a good recipe not never getting any trade agreements signed. Regardless of whether or not you agree with this particular trade agreement, SOME trade agreements are good, and forcing them to happen in the open with each government having the option to modify it would be a terrible idea.
cchip 11y ago
I completely agree. This is a conspiracy by definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." The unlawful thing being the laws they are trying to pass (as they are not yet laws, and not determined by lawful structures: judicial system). Its all going from executive to legislative, and we are fucked. The administration is attempting to weaken our sovereignty and globalize [overthrow] our government. They should be charged for treason. If you voted Obama last time, please don't vote this time. Your bad judgement isn't necessary.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  Your party could block this if they wanted to. Evidently, they don't. The only solution here is campaign finance reform. Suggesting that it's a my party vs your party issue is laughable.
  - cchip 11y ago
    Did i mention party? Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself.
    - jjoonathan 11y ago
      > Did i mention party? Blaming the standing president for systematic problems is a fairly reliable sign that someone is a member of the opposite party (or an independent that always votes one way, natch). Even if that somehow happens to not be the case for you, there's the little problem that we have a FPTP voting system which effectively means that elections always boil down to two options (assuming that you're a rational actor who understands vote splitting). Claiming that voting for one option shows "bad judgement" implies that the alternative (remember, FPTP => only one rational alternative) is better, so it really is a partisan statement. Sanity check: would a statement of the form "Obama is bad because x,y,z" be necessarily partisan by this logic? No. > Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself. Sure you can, but for now that's a largely speculative failure mode. First let's solve the problem that our system effectively imposes a mandatory bribe quota on the candidates and see if that doesn't improve matters. If the problem you propose becomes an issue afterwards then we can fight over the whole "money is speech" argument.
walterbell 11y ago
The lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wall-street-crony-groups-demand-transparency http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wal... "Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals." What about lobbyists? http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-show-close-industry-involvement-in-tpp-negotiations/ http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-... "... 400 pages of email traffic between USTR officials and industry advisors ... the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders ... Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. … This is a very pleasant surprise.”
speby 11y ago
I agree especially with respect to the secrecy surrounding this whole thing. But which leadership of which countries? Who, to be specific? And which select corporation's interests?

mirimir 11y ago

Only one quibble. In large part, multinationals also wrote it.

junto 11y ago
And it is these companies that we should punish. I would love to find a way to inspire the consumers of this world to form a deep and powerful union. A union that stands together and through collective boycotting, is able to effect just one corporate take down. And by that I mean complete, absolute and terrible market action that brings a company to its knees and bankruptcy, Lehman Brothers style (I understand the employees are 'collateral damage here but I think it would be worth it). If we could just once, take down a stock market level company, through the pure will of the people, I think we could undermine the almost unmatchable power of the corporation as it stands today. The argument against of course is that boycotts have never really worked. Consumers don't want to work in union. Corporations control the media and as such are able to persuade the people of it ineffectiveness. But one success would change all that. I'd love to see that happen in my lifetime.

rebootthesystem 11y ago

Maybe next time people will figure out when they are being lied to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU

res0nat0r 11y ago

I thought that this whole "secret" thing has been explained ad naueum here and on reddit already. It is t secret before it becomes law, or is going to get snuck in under the radar. It will be open for review before it is voted on. Also you don't give away your bargaining wants to your competitors before you sign a contract, kind of like how you don't go to a job interview and tell them out of the gate the exact minimum amount you'd be willing to work for. Thus, the wants of each party are kept to themselves before a final draft.

Natanael_L 11y ago
Doesn't make it acceptable. Just because the logic makes sense in one context, we don't actually have to accept the entire premise of that context. The list of interested parties let in by the gatekeepers is all by itself horribly flawed. Then there's questions about accountability, secretly planned PR campaigns and whatnot.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
Yes, you don't "give away" your plans to the public because then they may be able to use the democratic process to do something about it, you keep it secret so that you can manipulate the media over a short period and swing through your sweeping changes. The thing is that is completely anti-democratic. If it hurts democracy to do the best thing for a small capitalist overclass then democratic nations should be choosing to uphold democracy. I wonder if there are any such nations?
quanticle 11y ago
It will be open for review, but not for modification. Thanks to "fast-track", Congress will just get an up-or-down vote. So, no, the final provisions won't be secret before they become law, but it doesn't matter at this point. Congress doesn't have the ability to say, "We'll take the good, but not the bad."
- drewgross 11y ago
  A country can't sign part of an international treaty. They must agree to whole thing, not only the parts they like. Leaving it open for modification would essentially mean reopening negotiations, which is a good recipe not never getting any trade agreements signed. Regardless of whether or not you agree with this particular trade agreement, SOME trade agreements are good, and forcing them to happen in the open with each government having the option to modify it would be a terrible idea.

cchip 11y ago

I completely agree. This is a conspiracy by definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." The unlawful thing being the laws they are trying to pass (as they are not yet laws, and not determined by lawful structures: judicial system). Its all going from executive to legislative, and we are fucked. The administration is attempting to weaken our sovereignty and globalize [overthrow] our government. They should be charged for treason. If you voted Obama last time, please don't vote this time. Your bad judgement isn't necessary.

jjoonathan 11y ago
Your party could block this if they wanted to. Evidently, they don't. The only solution here is campaign finance reform. Suggesting that it's a my party vs your party issue is laughable.
- cchip 11y ago
  Did i mention party? Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself.
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    > Did i mention party? Blaming the standing president for systematic problems is a fairly reliable sign that someone is a member of the opposite party (or an independent that always votes one way, natch). Even if that somehow happens to not be the case for you, there's the little problem that we have a FPTP voting system which effectively means that elections always boil down to two options (assuming that you're a rational actor who understands vote splitting). Claiming that voting for one option shows "bad judgement" implies that the alternative (remember, FPTP => only one rational alternative) is better, so it really is a partisan statement. Sanity check: would a statement of the form "Obama is bad because x,y,z" be necessarily partisan by this logic? No. > Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself. Sure you can, but for now that's a largely speculative failure mode. First let's solve the problem that our system effectively imposes a mandatory bribe quota on the candidates and see if that doesn't improve matters. If the problem you propose becomes an issue afterwards then we can fight over the whole "money is speech" argument.

walterbell 11y ago

The lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wall-street-crony-groups-demand-transparency http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wal... "Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals." What about lobbyists? http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-show-close-industry-involvement-in-tpp-negotiations/ http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-... "... 400 pages of email traffic between USTR officials and industry advisors ... the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders ... Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. … This is a very pleasant surprise.”

speby 11y ago

I agree especially with respect to the secrecy surrounding this whole thing. But which leadership of which countries? Who, to be specific? And which select corporation's interests?