47 ms·

This endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-consumer, pro-corporation. I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive t

• forrestthewoods 10y ago
  Is it anti-consumer? Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion. So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.
  • sounds 10y ago
    How about anti-national-sovereignty? The secret drafts and the extra-legal processes weaken national sovereignty. I think a strong nation is good for consumers, and a weak nation destroys the consumer base.
    • jonknee 10y ago
      Has there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? I mean that's pretty much the point in these things, lots of horse trading behind closed doors.
      • tremon 10y ago
        Has there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?
        • jonknee 10y ago
          Of course the government was involved. Of course corporations were involved (it's trade, completely pointless without corporations!).
          • banach 10y ago
            Trade was a thing for thousands of years before the rise of corporations.
        • dragonwriter 10y ago
          > Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives? Pretty much all major trade agreements of the modern era have been largely drafted by corporate lobbyists, so, I guess "yes" is the answer you are looking for. Why do you ask?
      • mcv 10y ago
        TPP and TTIP do seem to go quite a bit further than just some agreement about tariffs, though. There are public health issues at stake, and as such, public interest should definitely be involved.
    • tootie 10y ago
      There's nothing anti-sovereignty. ISDS only allows foreign entities to sue for breach of a law voted on by our own Congress inasmuch as it effects them.
      • Fej 10y ago
        Why not just use the US courts, then?
        • snowwrestler 10y ago
          That is what companies do in the U.S. ISDS is in the treaty to encourage foreign direct investment in developing nations, which often do not have well-functioning, independent and fair courts the way the U.S. does.
    • gavinpc 10y ago
      Are you referring to the part about corporations being able to sue nations if they take any measures that they can claim hurts their business? [0] I assume that the "ISDS" that Warren refers to in the linked article (which was written before the draft went public), is chapter 28, "Dispute Settlement," in the draft at readthetpp.com. [1] This is already happening, at least with tobacco companies. "Last Week Tonight" did a piece on this.[2] [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-set... [1] https://www.readthetpp.com/ch28.html https://www.readthetpp.com/ch28.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8
      • cheald 10y ago
        > if they take any measures that they can claim hurts their business? This is just flat-out false. The second link you provided clearly lays out the criteria for resolution of a conflict via the ISDS: > the dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply...wherever a Party considers that an actualor proposed measure of another Party is or would be inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement or that another Party has otherwise failed to carry out its obligations under this Agreement; or wherever a Party considers thata benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under [this agreement] is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement. That is, the ISDS is for resolution of conflicts which are alleged to be in violation the the treaty, not for "any measures that they can claim hurts their business". The Phillip-Morris case you cite is because PM alleges that the Australian government expropriated their intellectual property without due compensation. This post[0] has a very nice breakdown of ISDS cases, rationale, and outcomes. Also give this thread[1] a read - SavannaJeff is a well-known professional trade economist, and has a lot of very valuable expert insight on the TPP that's worth reading. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/390p5l/over_2000000_europeans_have_now_signed_the/cs0hyfx https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/390p5l/over_2000000... [1] https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/2srn0u/trade_secrets_why_will_no_one_answer_the_obvious/cnsffwo https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/2srn0u/trade_sec...
  • _delirium 10y ago
    One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrictions on what regular people can do with their data and devices.
    • tptacek 10y ago
      How exactly does putting a provision in a treaty make it harder to repeal? The same actions that ratify the treaty (for instance, passing an enabling domestic law) can be used to break it.
      • pzone 10y ago
        It's like how the US is slightly less likely to unilaterally legalize marijuana at the federal level, it is signatory to several UN treaties which forbid it from doing so.
        • pbhjpbhj 10y ago
          Would you mind saying which treaties, please, I'm interested in researching this further.
          • rangibaby 10y ago
            Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961)
      • proksoup 10y ago
        Because it's no longer as simple as repealing/passing a domestic law but in addition to that becomes an issue of reneging on an agreement with other nations. In practice maybe we don't respect treaties very much, but it does seem to be an additional barrier, at least in the public discourse about what laws to repeal/pass.
  • fixermark 10y ago
    I honestly can't fathom why this question has been downvoted. It's a reasonable question, and one I share. It's a large and complicated document; there's plenty of room for bad ideas, and plenty of room for good. The real question is, "Would we rather have nothing?" Because the existing ecosystem of loosely-affiliated nation-by-nation policies is a sh-tshow.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • izacus 10y ago
      Yes, we would certanly rather have nothing. Status Quo is infinitely better than forced data transfer of our data to another nation and infinitely better than selling out IP protection to US corporation under ridiculous copyright laws.
      • tptacek 10y ago
        If that's true, why does your local legislature (I don't know where you are) enable the treaty in domestic law?
        • izacus 10y ago
          It doesn't. I'm not sure why that would affect this debate at all?
          • tptacek 10y ago
            If your local legislature doesn't enable the treaty, you aren't bound by it: it isn't a part of your law. A trade treaty is essentially a promise to pass a set of laws.
            • iofj 10y ago
              Generally treaties are negotiated by the executive of a country, not the legislative force. Even in the cases where there is still a ratification step, the initiative is taken away from the legislative, and the law is written by indirectly (at best) elected commissars (in the case of the EU), rather than directly elected representatives. In the case of the EU, there isn't even a ratification step once the EU commission (which isn't elected) agrees to a treaty. And of course ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_(European_Union_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_(European_Union_law) That means that with EU commission agreement you get the supreme court (that supersedes all local courts) arguing that anything the commission agrees to can countermand local constitutions. So local legislature agreement required, in many cases, is incorrect.
  • tremon 10y ago
    That's because we don't know enough about the actual text to make a substantial argument. All we have are leaked drafts. And by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry. Do you know how many consumer advocacy groups are included in the negotiation process for TPP? I gather it's zero. Given the process is specifically intended to keep out consumers, why should we believe the end result will be any different?
    • forrestthewoods 10y ago
      Not true. Full text had been available since November. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
      • rory096 10y ago
        To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've never bothered reading anything on the subject except other anti-TPP FUD. Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy.
        • vidarh 10y ago
          As a prominent example of a treaty which was negotiated fully in the open: The UN treaty. Broadcasters were present and recording large parts of the negotiations. Positions papers were printed during the negotiations. Detailed information including drafts was mailed out to citizens of many countries. Negotiating treaties in private has become normal because its inconvenient to those who wish to find ways getting their pet provisions packaged into something that is hard to resist.
        • kuschku 10y ago
  • gpm 10y ago
    "The Trouble with the TPP" series by Michael Geist [0] is an excellent view of some of the issues with it, and demonstrates how the huge nature of the TPP makes it difficult to create short (digestible) but powerful arguments against it. It was very much written from Canada's point of view, so it isn't the most convincing argument for why the US, or any other country, shouldn't ratify the treaty. [0] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/
  • yepnopemaybe 10y ago
    Here is the way I see it: Accept that free trade as a general principal is a good thing for all parties. NAFTA and agreements modeled after it have this in common: They throw US manufacturing jobs under the bus so that we can all have more competitive, fuel efficient, cheaper, safer cars. (Hooray). OK, so lets say we just killed ~2,000,000 'decent paying' jobs, many of them union, and did a number on hundreds of rust belt communities. Well thats fine, everyone is better off. We are saving money here. Saving Lives. But what about other industries? Pharmaceuticals do not support nearly the number of jobs that auto industry does. Maybe 30,000 very well paying white collar jobs, people who are upwardly mobile and educated. It is widely accepted that that industry is sapping US economy of strength. We regularly pay 10X what other countries do. Why don't we open up that market to competition too! Oh wait, thats an industry with deep connections in Washington. They rank up there with banks as the largest political donors, spend the most on lobbyists, and so on. So count them out, they don't need competition. OK, so the standard counter argument to this is that Pharma is a special case. We let them keep the fat on their margins because... innovation! Think of all the lives we are saving by shoveling them money! If only it were that simple. The overwhelming majority of the increase in lifespan over the past 100 years has not been modern medicine; its been public health efforts like sewars, safety standards, and as well as a handful of fluke cures like polio vaccine, penicillin, smallpox vaccine, no thanks to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I could go on, the point is that too often trade deals are structured to protect the politically connected and their interests while regressively opening up high employment industries to competition. So even if you believe that free trade is a great thing (I do) it is also valid to acknowledge that it has historically been adopted in a regressive way. Medicine is by far the most flagrant example, but plenty of others. Another valid, if more contrived argument is this: A trade agreement is a treaty. Once a treaty is passed, congress cannot easily change it; it become the domain of the executive branch and regulatory agencies specified in the treaty. So a lot of progressive critics see it as a way of creating a court system to mediate trade disputes which is not accountable to the laws that congress makes or repeals. On example of this is the cigarette industry, which has successfully used NAFTA courts to prevent third word countries from banning sales or making labeling requirements on the grounds that it was a violation of IP and so on. But the bigger problem is that you have this international body making decisions that effect everyone which is not directly accountable to anyone. So in its way it is a separation of powers and taxation without representation type argument which really requires deeper reading than I can provide here.
• imaginenore 10y ago
  Well, they removed "Don't be evil" as their motto, replaced it with "Do the right thing", which clearly means "make more moneys". They became yet another big corporation.
  • Buge 10y ago
    https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
    • imaginenore 10y ago
      That doesn't negate what I said. Why did they even change such a great motto?
      • Adverblessly 10y ago
        I think the point is that they didn't. Google's motto is still "Don't be evil". Alphabet (Google's parent company) adopted "Do the right thing" as its own, but Google's is still in effect. To answer the question of why "Do the right thing", it is in my opinion to support actions that they deem "right" or "good" which otherwise aren't strictly required for their operations. For example their support of gay marriage.
• ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Also interesting: All current Presidential candidates have come out against the TPP. Presumably Obama is pressuring Google to help him push it through before he no longer has a say in the matter. If he can get it through, it's going to be very hard to repeal, but if he doesn't get it through, our next President, whoever that is, will do their best to block it.
  • Qwertious 10y ago
    Why do you assume the next president won't do a backflip and support it once they're in? Politicians break promises, and break opinions a whole lot more.
    • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I can't argue that as a definite possibility. Obama certainly did quite a few things directly opposed to reasons I voted for him.
    • guelo 10y ago
      I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.
      • harry8 10y ago
        trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.
        • nostromo 10y ago
          Hillary reads the same to me, I must say. I have no idea what she genuinely believes. But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do. There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.
          • 10y ago
• benevol 10y ago
  Once you have successfully locked the consumer (rather: society) into your product portfolio and therefor are taking control away from the consumer, once you have sufficiently monopolized your market(s), you can afford behavior like Google's, because you simply get away with it.
  • jakeogh 10y ago
    I blacklisted them over 2 years ago. Not missed. https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate