7 ms·

For the sake of a better discussion, it should be noted that this new TPP agreement leaves out a number of the more egregious IP terms that were* eliciting loca

For the sake of a better discussion, it should be noted that this new TPP agreement leaves out a number of the more egregious IP terms that were* eliciting local citizen opposition to the policies - in both the Canada and the US. Michael Geist, the prominent Canadian IP and internet rights activist and pundit, who had previously taken a hard line against the TPP, seems to have basically endorsed the new IP terms: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-stands-balanced-ip-canadian-culture-tpp-deal/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-stand... I'm somewhat happy that my country's involvement seems to have helped push things in a positive direction. Our PM has also been openly bringing the issue of worker's rights and labour protections in these agreements, at least attempting to reduce some of the distortionary effects of trade between nations where exploited workers in undeveloped markets can be used to compete with developed markets. All in all, I think we (Canadians as well as other signing nations) got a pretty decent deal out of this. * Edit: s/IP terms, and was/IP terms that were/

mc32 9y ago
We'll have to see how many workers' unions endorse this new deal. I'm sure the Kochs and the Soroses of the world will lament the US not being part of the deal. But theirs is not the opinion that matters. What's not clear to me is why people who were in Seattle in 1999 protesting the WTO are more or less quiet on things like the TPP which were much worse.
- walterbell 9y ago
  Excellent question. Not only the individuals but the funding of the organizations who protested Seattle. It is likely that many lessons were learned on all sides in 1999, so that strategies evolved. The WTO apparently failed to reach consensus later (Doha?) as opponents organized, including Indian farmers who committed suicide. The failure of WTO to reach new agreements is what lead to bi-lateral agreements between individual countries, and multi-lateral agreements (like TPP) + exceptions in bi-lateral “side letters”. In that sense, the Seattle protestors eventually won (no new WTO agreements) but the battle has moved to smaller and more secretive (national legislators excluded from some phases) contexts. In addition, for the already established WTO agreements, the US is currently considering new trade barriers that are permissible within existing fine print, which could weaken the old agreements.
  - mc32 9y ago
    It doesn't cease to amaze and shock me how what were 1980s hard union democrats who fought hard against Reagan's little globalization, dissolved under Clinton's charismaman persona and fell for big globalization. Even NPR, typically on the workers side, pushing FUD like canned goods will get expensive due to steel in the cans. As if half a penny per tin will break people and second as if we didn't have alternatives like glass and aseptic packaging. I'm heartened to learn there could be provisions for us to amend the execution of the NA trade agreement; as it would make sense for our workers.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      Union membership rate declined from 25% to 15% over that period partly because they kept losing the fight against Reagan. I suspect it was less about Bill Clinton's charisma and more about their overall level of political muscle.
      - swebs 9y ago
        I think it's more about what individuals desire. Now we have people who promote socialism in one breath, but free trade in another. It's somewhat insane that the same people pushing for $15/hour minimum wage are the same as those pushing for unrestricted importing of cheap labor from Mexico.
        mc32 9y ago
        This! I don't know how people square these disparate ideas. It has to be the result of corporate astroturfing in the most effective, insidious and effective manner that has allowed them, corps, to have their cake and also eat it on the backs of so called socialists who took it hook line and sinker.
        dashundchen 9y ago
        I think you may be conflating multiple left wing viewpoints in the US, which ranges from centrist free-trade neoliberal types to democratic socialists. I don't think I've seen anyone push for unrestricted immigration from Mexico either - what seems to have support is a path to citizenship for the Dreamers and those who are established and working here. Legal status would provide protection for these workers and students, rather than the vicious cycle of black market labor abuses by companies and abusers who have the threat of life destroying deportation to hang over their heads.
- tzs 9y ago
  > I'm sure the Kochs and the Soroses of the world will lament the US not being part of the deal. But theirs is not the opinion that matters By August 2016, here was the polling among registered voters in the US on TPP: 62% had heard little or nothing about it. Of those who had heard about it: 35% supported it, 22% opposed it, and 43% did not know where they stood or had no opinion [1]. A few months earlier, it had been 72% had heard little or nothing about it, and of those who had 26% supported it and 29% opposed it [1]. This is quite different from the impression one would get reading the discussion here and on Reddit at the time, where the narrative was that most of the public was opposed to it, but corporations and special interests were trying to force it through. I never really understood why people had a hard time believing the public might be in favor. When you look at the lists of companies supporting it, you'd see that it included some of the biggest employers in many areas. It should not be surprising that people whose jobs directly depend on those companies doing well would support something that their employer says will open new foreign markets for their American made goods, or let them compete better in existing foreign markets they export to, or will tighten up safety and environmental rules that their foreign competitors who sell in the US are subject to. [1] http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291085-poll-support-for-tpp-grows http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29108...
  - mc32 9y ago
    While that may be --that much of the public was not well informed on the topic, it would still have been a detrimental pact for the hoi polloi --looking at the most arduous proponents kind of informs you who was to benefit from the pact --not the blue collar American worker, everyone's punching bag.
metalliqaz 9y ago
I'm ready to move to Canada, eh
walterbell 9y ago
> The fix will apparently come through side letters between Canada and the remaining TPP countries, which will keep the text intact but give Canada the exemption it wanted. What TPP exemptions will be unique to Canada?
jkaplowitz 9y ago
They did something weirder than dropping those bad provisions: they suspended them, in a way that allows the parties to agree to bring them into force in the future. My guess is this is so that the US might find it more appealing to join in the future on closer to their originally desired terms, but it is weird enough that it's very prone to misleading reporting from journalists and activists.
pasbesoin 9y ago
And at the same time, we have Jeff Sessions apparently starting to wind up about "the pirates". And I have little doubt of Mickey getting another 20 years, under the political status quo here in the U.S. So, Trump dumped the deal, but we'll end up getting some of the worst parts of it, here, nonetheless. That's my gut reaction. I see the purpose of limited monopoly IP rights. But I object to them lengthened to benefit parties having no role in the creative effort nor the creator's personal life, and increasingly towards perpetuity. All the more so as they are used to stifle innovation. They were originally created to foster innovation. Rent seekers in Armani suits are not innovation.

mc32 9y ago

We'll have to see how many workers' unions endorse this new deal. I'm sure the Kochs and the Soroses of the world will lament the US not being part of the deal. But theirs is not the opinion that matters. What's not clear to me is why people who were in Seattle in 1999 protesting the WTO are more or less quiet on things like the TPP which were much worse.

walterbell 9y ago
Excellent question. Not only the individuals but the funding of the organizations who protested Seattle. It is likely that many lessons were learned on all sides in 1999, so that strategies evolved. The WTO apparently failed to reach consensus later (Doha?) as opponents organized, including Indian farmers who committed suicide. The failure of WTO to reach new agreements is what lead to bi-lateral agreements between individual countries, and multi-lateral agreements (like TPP) + exceptions in bi-lateral “side letters”. In that sense, the Seattle protestors eventually won (no new WTO agreements) but the battle has moved to smaller and more secretive (national legislators excluded from some phases) contexts. In addition, for the already established WTO agreements, the US is currently considering new trade barriers that are permissible within existing fine print, which could weaken the old agreements.
- mc32 9y ago
  It doesn't cease to amaze and shock me how what were 1980s hard union democrats who fought hard against Reagan's little globalization, dissolved under Clinton's charismaman persona and fell for big globalization. Even NPR, typically on the workers side, pushing FUD like canned goods will get expensive due to steel in the cans. As if half a penny per tin will break people and second as if we didn't have alternatives like glass and aseptic packaging. I'm heartened to learn there could be provisions for us to amend the execution of the NA trade agreement; as it would make sense for our workers.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    Union membership rate declined from 25% to 15% over that period partly because they kept losing the fight against Reagan. I suspect it was less about Bill Clinton's charisma and more about their overall level of political muscle.
    - swebs 9y ago
      I think it's more about what individuals desire. Now we have people who promote socialism in one breath, but free trade in another. It's somewhat insane that the same people pushing for $15/hour minimum wage are the same as those pushing for unrestricted importing of cheap labor from Mexico.
      - mc32 9y ago
        This! I don't know how people square these disparate ideas. It has to be the result of corporate astroturfing in the most effective, insidious and effective manner that has allowed them, corps, to have their cake and also eat it on the backs of so called socialists who took it hook line and sinker.
      - dashundchen 9y ago
        I think you may be conflating multiple left wing viewpoints in the US, which ranges from centrist free-trade neoliberal types to democratic socialists. I don't think I've seen anyone push for unrestricted immigration from Mexico either - what seems to have support is a path to citizenship for the Dreamers and those who are established and working here. Legal status would provide protection for these workers and students, rather than the vicious cycle of black market labor abuses by companies and abusers who have the threat of life destroying deportation to hang over their heads.
tzs 9y ago
> I'm sure the Kochs and the Soroses of the world will lament the US not being part of the deal. But theirs is not the opinion that matters By August 2016, here was the polling among registered voters in the US on TPP: 62% had heard little or nothing about it. Of those who had heard about it: 35% supported it, 22% opposed it, and 43% did not know where they stood or had no opinion [1]. A few months earlier, it had been 72% had heard little or nothing about it, and of those who had 26% supported it and 29% opposed it [1]. This is quite different from the impression one would get reading the discussion here and on Reddit at the time, where the narrative was that most of the public was opposed to it, but corporations and special interests were trying to force it through. I never really understood why people had a hard time believing the public might be in favor. When you look at the lists of companies supporting it, you'd see that it included some of the biggest employers in many areas. It should not be surprising that people whose jobs directly depend on those companies doing well would support something that their employer says will open new foreign markets for their American made goods, or let them compete better in existing foreign markets they export to, or will tighten up safety and environmental rules that their foreign competitors who sell in the US are subject to. [1] http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291085-poll-support-for-tpp-grows http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29108...
- mc32 9y ago
  While that may be --that much of the public was not well informed on the topic, it would still have been a detrimental pact for the hoi polloi --looking at the most arduous proponents kind of informs you who was to benefit from the pact --not the blue collar American worker, everyone's punching bag.

metalliqaz 9y ago

I'm ready to move to Canada, eh

walterbell 9y ago

> The fix will apparently come through side letters between Canada and the remaining TPP countries, which will keep the text intact but give Canada the exemption it wanted. What TPP exemptions will be unique to Canada?

jkaplowitz 9y ago

They did something weirder than dropping those bad provisions: they suspended them, in a way that allows the parties to agree to bring them into force in the future. My guess is this is so that the US might find it more appealing to join in the future on closer to their originally desired terms, but it is weird enough that it's very prone to misleading reporting from journalists and activists.

pasbesoin 9y ago

And at the same time, we have Jeff Sessions apparently starting to wind up about "the pirates". And I have little doubt of Mickey getting another 20 years, under the political status quo here in the U.S. So, Trump dumped the deal, but we'll end up getting some of the worst parts of it, here, nonetheless. That's my gut reaction. I see the purpose of limited monopoly IP rights. But I object to them lengthened to benefit parties having no role in the creative effort nor the creator's personal life, and increasingly towards perpetuity. All the more so as they are used to stifle innovation. They were originally created to foster innovation. Rent seekers in Armani suits are not innovation.