4 ms·

Corporations have only themselves to blame for the failure of the TPP. Instead of limiting the agreement to trade, it was filled to the brim with anti-consumer,

by deogeo 7y ago

Corporations have only themselves to blame for the failure of the TPP. Instead of limiting the agreement to trade, it was filled to the brim with anti-consumer, anti-worker, and anti-environment clauses. Negotiated entirely by industry and kept secret from even senators, laundering legislation they could never get through any parliament. If there was any justice in the world, the TPP would not only have failed, but everyone involved would be executed for treason. Instead, they'll just try again in a few years.

eru 7y ago
The bigger criticism I heard about the TPP was extending America's Intellectual Property laws even further across the globe. And the secrecy was annoying as well. What anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment clauses are you referring to? Of course, from the standpoint of mainstream economic theory, trade agreements are moot for their stated purpose: everyone is better off just opening up to unilateral free trade. No need for an agreement. (Trade agreements can still be useful in practice to organize political coalitions for trade.)
- ajdlinux 7y ago
  > The bigger criticism I heard about the TPP was extending America's Intellectual Property laws even further across the globe. The IP issues were the big criticism within the tech community, because we care a lot about IP laws, but AFAICT not the big issue for unions, left-wing orgs, right-wing populists, etc who were much, much more concerned about tariffs, workers rights, etc and had barely anything to say about IP.
  - eru 7y ago
    Good points. I was also reading economists' opinions. Though as you can guess, they are quite in favour of lowering tariffs.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > What anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment clauses are you referring to? The mentioned IP clauses would be anti-consumer, criminal penalties for trade secrets, and the horrifyingly 'standard' investor-state arbitration, which can throw a wrench into any pro-consumer/worker/environment law, as they usually impact corporate profit, meaning lawyers can argue that this is an indirect form of expropriation. It has a chilling effect on legislation. E.g. Canada backed off cigarette plain packaging and pesticide registration due to the arbitration clauses in NAFTA: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141121/07460329216/corporate-sovereigntys-chilling-effects.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141121/07460329216/corpo... A law professor made the same argument specifically in reference to the TPP - that the government would basically have to pay a tax to corporations on any legislation that cuts into their profits: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gord-miller/trans-pacific-partnership_b_9670458.html https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gord-miller/trans-pacific-part... "Dean Baker argued that Article 18.78, under which countries should ensure that they protect trade secrets and impose criminal procedures for violators, could be used to enforce non-compete agreements.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership And much of the TPP's more noble language, such as environmental and worker protections, is non-binding, and even explicitly subordinate to other parts of the agreement: "In the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter and another Chapter of this Agreement, the other Chapter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.": https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-poses-a-grave-threat-to-sustainable-development-50398 https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-po... Basically, if it were remotely good, it would not have been negotiated in such secrecy. Think about who it was kept secret from - not the counterparties in the negotiations, so it cannot be argued the secrecy was to preserve some 'advantage'.
Taniwha 7y ago
But the TPP didn't fail - Trump pulled the US out, the rest of the countries came to an agreement (under a different name and without the onerous US/Disney IP stuff) and are happily free-trading today More info on the CPTPP here: https://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/ https://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/

by deogeo 7y ago

eru 7y ago

The bigger criticism I heard about the TPP was extending America's Intellectual Property laws even further across the globe. And the secrecy was annoying as well. What anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment clauses are you referring to? Of course, from the standpoint of mainstream economic theory, trade agreements are moot for their stated purpose: everyone is better off just opening up to unilateral free trade. No need for an agreement. (Trade agreements can still be useful in practice to organize political coalitions for trade.)

ajdlinux 7y ago
> The bigger criticism I heard about the TPP was extending America's Intellectual Property laws even further across the globe. The IP issues were the big criticism within the tech community, because we care a lot about IP laws, but AFAICT not the big issue for unions, left-wing orgs, right-wing populists, etc who were much, much more concerned about tariffs, workers rights, etc and had barely anything to say about IP.
- eru 7y ago
  Good points. I was also reading economists' opinions. Though as you can guess, they are quite in favour of lowering tariffs.
deogeo 7y ago
> What anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment clauses are you referring to? The mentioned IP clauses would be anti-consumer, criminal penalties for trade secrets, and the horrifyingly 'standard' investor-state arbitration, which can throw a wrench into any pro-consumer/worker/environment law, as they usually impact corporate profit, meaning lawyers can argue that this is an indirect form of expropriation. It has a chilling effect on legislation. E.g. Canada backed off cigarette plain packaging and pesticide registration due to the arbitration clauses in NAFTA: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141121/07460329216/corporate-sovereigntys-chilling-effects.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141121/07460329216/corpo... A law professor made the same argument specifically in reference to the TPP - that the government would basically have to pay a tax to corporations on any legislation that cuts into their profits: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gord-miller/trans-pacific-partnership_b_9670458.html https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gord-miller/trans-pacific-part... "Dean Baker argued that Article 18.78, under which countries should ensure that they protect trade secrets and impose criminal procedures for violators, could be used to enforce non-compete agreements.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership And much of the TPP's more noble language, such as environmental and worker protections, is non-binding, and even explicitly subordinate to other parts of the agreement: "In the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter and another Chapter of this Agreement, the other Chapter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.": https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-poses-a-grave-threat-to-sustainable-development-50398 https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-po... Basically, if it were remotely good, it would not have been negotiated in such secrecy. Think about who it was kept secret from - not the counterparties in the negotiations, so it cannot be argued the secrecy was to preserve some 'advantage'.

Taniwha 7y ago

But the TPP didn't fail - Trump pulled the US out, the rest of the countries came to an agreement (under a different name and without the onerous US/Disney IP stuff) and are happily free-trading today More info on the CPTPP here: https://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/ https://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/