3 ms·

I disagree. Actually, I kind-of like what the US is doing - it's creating laws that have international reach (e.g. you can't launder drug money, and you can't b

by tomp 10y ago

I disagree. Actually, I kind-of like what the US is doing - it's creating laws that have international reach (e.g. you can't launder drug money, and you can't bribe foreign officials), and then they apply it to (i) domestic companies doing business abroad, and (ii) foreign companies wanting to do business in the US. So, each country could very easily create, and enforce, its own set of laws that would prohibit all of the crimes you mention. Companies would do business where they could, and if two countries would have incompatible laws (e.g. in country A, women can't work; companies from country B need to have 50% women employees in every region), there would be no trade between them. Unless they synchronize laws or create exceptions, of course. In the end, you'd arrive to something similar to what we have today (global trade), except that it would be created democratically, bottom-up, as opposed to what we have now, which is top-down and inherently undemocratic.

vinceguidry 10y ago
> So, each country could very easily create, and enforce, its own set of laws that would prohibit all of the crimes you mention. The problem here is enforcement. It's one thing to pass a law. But you have to devote state resources to every law to make sure people aren't evading it. Competent, incorruptible public servants are rare and even if they weren't, you'd have to pay all of them. Resource-poor states just can't do it. In practice all small countries can really do is accept foreign aid wherever you can get it. When you're dealing with bad actors with legal budgets bigger than your entire annual tax revenue, enforcement is hard.
- tptacek 10y ago
  In ISDS cases where foreigners seek relief from the US government, corporations with giant budgets aren't facing off against other countries. Instead, the US itself appoints an arbitrator (since the US isn't taken to ISDS panels all that often, you can quickly get a sense of the kinds of arbitrators they pick from the UNCTAD site: spoiler: they're international trade lawyers). In ISDS cases where US investors seek relief from foreign countries, the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases. Most US->foreign cases are done under NAFTA and most of those pertain to Canada. If you narrow the 138 US->foreign cases tracked by UNCTAD down to those against countries whose annual tax revenue is lower than the largest US corporation, you'll find 20 cases, most of which pertain to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. To me, this cuts against the argument that ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves.
  - tomp 10y ago
    > the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases That doesn't account for (1) the asymmetry of the lawsuits - if the company loses, no big deal, but if a country loses, it has to pay up or change its laws, and (2) according to several articles I've read, many countries are afraid of ISDS lawsuits and the high penalties they might result in, so they will modify their laws just off the threat of an ISDS lawsuit.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    > ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves. I don't think it's that simple either. It was probably started with the best of intentions and is staffed by well-meaning, competent administrators. The problem is that it's not enough. In the same way normal US police departments can become vulnerable to subversion through tactics like swatting, the ISDS is vulnerable to concerted attempts to subvert the system for personal gain. And there is every reason for them to want to do so.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      As was pointed out elsewhere on the thread, these cases are all tracked. Can you cite some of the successful abusive ones?
toufka 10y ago
You better hope the laws (and those who make them) in the strongest economic coalition agree with your moral judgement. The idea that one culture can decide the laws of another or else the weaker capitulates its economic will is a very tricky concept. It works when the one doing the deciding is 'right'. It's tough to have 'wrong' laws be imposed on you by a foreign power. The idea your proposing is very clearly economic cultural imperialism. Just as in moral philosophy it's very difficult to extract just and good laws from their cultural context. 'Doing business' in another country, as the US currently interprets it, includes the entire supply chain. If you make widget X, that's used in Y, that's used in Z, that's used in a gadget in a car sold in the US, you are 'doing business' in the US and are liable to spend time in US federal prison if the cultural business practices of your nation are not compatible with current US law, even if you have never set foot in the US nor sold any product to US customers. That's scary. One country's 'anti-competitive behavior' is another's 'human sociability'. Or one country's 'artistic right to profit' is another's 'crime against society'. Could not those acts which could be justified as being a 'fiduciary duty to profit above all else' be otherwise seen as 'immoral business practices' in a different cultural context? Is tracking foreign users a violation of legal privacy? Which of the above behaviors would land you in federal prison in your country? And which would get you charged and extradited to another country's federal prison? Does economic might make cultural right?
- tomp 10y ago
  What you're describing now is essentially ISDS, not what I'm proposing. First, the only way the US (or any other country) can "imprison" foreign individuals is if other countries agree to enforce its laws - something I don't support, but accept that it will inevitably happen because of military or economic alliances - and is in any case completely democratic. The US can directly only enforce its laws against companies that do business in the US - and the worse possible penalties are either confiscation of the company's assets, or prohibition of doing business in the country - so companies can individually decide whether to abide by US laws and do business in the US, or neither. Second, "economic imperialism" is exactly what ISDS/trade agreements are - a countries' laws can be overruled by arbitrary international courts that have no relationship with the people of said countries. Instead, I'm proposing that countries would freely choose whether to collaborate with other countries or not, and there are many different choices - e.g. UK could choose not to do business with SA, because they discriminate against women, or they could choose to do business with SA, because they have common military goals, or they could say "we don't care" because they decide that they support international trade despite different value systems.

by tomp 10y ago

vinceguidry 10y ago

> So, each country could very easily create, and enforce, its own set of laws that would prohibit all of the crimes you mention. The problem here is enforcement. It's one thing to pass a law. But you have to devote state resources to every law to make sure people aren't evading it. Competent, incorruptible public servants are rare and even if they weren't, you'd have to pay all of them. Resource-poor states just can't do it. In practice all small countries can really do is accept foreign aid wherever you can get it. When you're dealing with bad actors with legal budgets bigger than your entire annual tax revenue, enforcement is hard.

tptacek 10y ago
In ISDS cases where foreigners seek relief from the US government, corporations with giant budgets aren't facing off against other countries. Instead, the US itself appoints an arbitrator (since the US isn't taken to ISDS panels all that often, you can quickly get a sense of the kinds of arbitrators they pick from the UNCTAD site: spoiler: they're international trade lawyers). In ISDS cases where US investors seek relief from foreign countries, the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases. Most US->foreign cases are done under NAFTA and most of those pertain to Canada. If you narrow the 138 US->foreign cases tracked by UNCTAD down to those against countries whose annual tax revenue is lower than the largest US corporation, you'll find 20 cases, most of which pertain to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. To me, this cuts against the argument that ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves.
- tomp 10y ago
  > the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases That doesn't account for (1) the asymmetry of the lawsuits - if the company loses, no big deal, but if a country loses, it has to pay up or change its laws, and (2) according to several articles I've read, many countries are afraid of ISDS lawsuits and the high penalties they might result in, so they will modify their laws just off the threat of an ISDS lawsuit.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  > ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves. I don't think it's that simple either. It was probably started with the best of intentions and is staffed by well-meaning, competent administrators. The problem is that it's not enough. In the same way normal US police departments can become vulnerable to subversion through tactics like swatting, the ISDS is vulnerable to concerted attempts to subvert the system for personal gain. And there is every reason for them to want to do so.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    As was pointed out elsewhere on the thread, these cases are all tracked. Can you cite some of the successful abusive ones?

toufka 10y ago

You better hope the laws (and those who make them) in the strongest economic coalition agree with your moral judgement. The idea that one culture can decide the laws of another or else the weaker capitulates its economic will is a very tricky concept. It works when the one doing the deciding is 'right'. It's tough to have 'wrong' laws be imposed on you by a foreign power. The idea your proposing is very clearly economic cultural imperialism. Just as in moral philosophy it's very difficult to extract just and good laws from their cultural context. 'Doing business' in another country, as the US currently interprets it, includes the entire supply chain. If you make widget X, that's used in Y, that's used in Z, that's used in a gadget in a car sold in the US, you are 'doing business' in the US and are liable to spend time in US federal prison if the cultural business practices of your nation are not compatible with current US law, even if you have never set foot in the US nor sold any product to US customers. That's scary. One country's 'anti-competitive behavior' is another's 'human sociability'. Or one country's 'artistic right to profit' is another's 'crime against society'. Could not those acts which could be justified as being a 'fiduciary duty to profit above all else' be otherwise seen as 'immoral business practices' in a different cultural context? Is tracking foreign users a violation of legal privacy? Which of the above behaviors would land you in federal prison in your country? And which would get you charged and extradited to another country's federal prison? Does economic might make cultural right?

tomp 10y ago
What you're describing now is essentially ISDS, not what I'm proposing. First, the only way the US (or any other country) can "imprison" foreign individuals is if other countries agree to enforce its laws - something I don't support, but accept that it will inevitably happen because of military or economic alliances - and is in any case completely democratic. The US can directly only enforce its laws against companies that do business in the US - and the worse possible penalties are either confiscation of the company's assets, or prohibition of doing business in the country - so companies can individually decide whether to abide by US laws and do business in the US, or neither. Second, "economic imperialism" is exactly what ISDS/trade agreements are - a countries' laws can be overruled by arbitrary international courts that have no relationship with the people of said countries. Instead, I'm proposing that countries would freely choose whether to collaborate with other countries or not, and there are many different choices - e.g. UK could choose not to do business with SA, because they discriminate against women, or they could choose to do business with SA, because they have common military goals, or they could say "we don't care" because they decide that they support international trade despite different value systems.