4 ms·

What stunning misdirection in this thread by anigbrowl. In a way it reflects the NY Times opinion piece, which tries to simply characterise the TPP as a 'trade

• anigbrowl 13y ago
  That the text and all associated material must remain secret for four years after the negotiations have ended (whether successful or not) shows the level of trust negotiators have in engaging with an informed democracy. ^ not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're probably referring to an agreement to keep negotiating documents secret for a 4 year period as described here (by an organization opposed to that approach): http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency-letter-2011.pdf http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency-letter-2011... I'm actually in favor of this approach. WTO negotiations involves full transparency, as mentioned in the letter above; it's also true that the WTO has been unable to reach agreement on what's known as the 'Doha round' for almost 13 years now. There are multiple reasons why that might or might not have happened, but the upshot is that trade liberalization has been stalled for over a decade. If negotiations out of the spotlight increase the parties' willingness to conclude a more limited and offer that for ratification, I'm willing to put up with it. Most of you here seem to be assuming that this is the result of corporate secrecy; it seems as likely, if not more, so, to be at the request of the various countries involved in the negotiations. Trying to guide discussion towards whether people are 'pro or anti trade' is risable misdirection or wilful ignorance at best. It's interesting that you complain about this when I made no effort whatsoever to guide discussion in that direction. I called out the EFF article for being factually incorrect on its face and I stand by that. I mentioned elsewhere that I was personally pro-trade but uncertain about the TPP pending futher details.
  • justsee 13y ago
    > not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're probably referring to... Yes, the final text, if it becomes law, will be public. The leaked texts show how dedicated the negotiators are to weakening sovereignty and empowering vested interests. This is the issue. Lobbying groups have worked out how to hack sovereignty (with those pesky democratic processes and a desire to consider the public interest) by negotiating 'trade agreements' which are a bulk insert of desired laws around patent, copyright, and DRM into the legislative frameworks of multiple countries at the same time, without consultation or input by the citizens of each negotiating country. These efforts are serious attacks on fundamental ideas we hold around self-determination, consent of the governed, transparent democratic processes. So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements, historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in continued artful misdirection.
    • 001sky 13y ago
      Lobbying groups have worked out how to hack sovereignty (with those pesky democratic processes and a desire to consider the public interest) We just saw this with the repeal of glass stegal. Could not be fixed because why? Idiots put it in the WTO via the FSA. Now we are stuck with it. Of course nobody ever mentions this until some working paper is leaked by people trying to spike the nomination of larry summers for the Fed Chair. [Regardless of your position of summers or derivatives regulation, its the <technique> that is cringeworthy] ______ “As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…” ... ...Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to ... {too big to fail universal banks}. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-...
    • anigbrowl 13y ago
      That's your take on the issue. I see IP as just another market with a variety of interested parties, not of all whose interests coincide. From my perspective, a lot of people want to build consumer services without having to pay for content, just as many content holders are engaged in rent-seeking. I don't like the copyright lobby, but nor do I subscribe to the proposition that because the marginal cost of production in some industries is terribly low, no ownership interest should entail. And in case you're wondering, I do not lobby for or even own shares in any media or IP portfolio companies. So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements, historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in continued artful misdirection. Sorry, those happen to be my actual opinions. copyright, patent, and DRM issues are not the whole story of economics. I'm also interested in things like environmental and labor standards, public health policy, food security and poverty reduction, and I'm not going to apologize for having an interest in broader economic issues or willingness to compromise; it's my firm opinion that half a loaf is better than no bread, especially so in matters of economics. That's why I'm broadly in support of a TPP and ardently in support of TTIP, not withstanding the numerous likely imperfections.