4 ms·

So how much do they pay you to post that "press release"-style post that doesn't actually explain how the TPP would help? You've posted a lot of fear-mongering,

by pdkl95 12y ago

So how much do they pay you to post that "press release"-style post that doesn't actually explain how the TPP would help? You've posted a lot of fear-mongering, but haven't actually shown what would be changed by the treaty. As we already have very little in the way of tarriffs or other barriers to international trade, there isn't a lot that could be done to "improve trade" between US and asia. So why the treaty? The TPP is nothing more than an attempt to legalize the movement of capital. I suggest reading this fun comic that explains the economic history and theories, and what is actually being done to try and consolidate even more wealth. http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ In the long run, once both goods and capital can be moved freely outside the reach of government regulation - and taxation - we find the true purpose of the TPP in these two terrifying words: Corporate Sovereignty. John Oliver just a good example of the narcissism and greed that we can expect to get a lot worse if the TPP were to pass: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-oliver-highlights-ridiculousness-corporate-sovereignty-provisions.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-...

walterbell 12y ago
There is a proposed US-EU equivalent of the Australia - Hong Kong arbitration panel for ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement), http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update-l-3596807/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-up... "So what the European Commission is proposing with the dispute resolution chapter is how future clashes with the US over those key social constructs should be resolved. And the answer is: by a three-person arbitration panel. That is, key aspects of everyday life - the social, environmental and safety protections that have been laid down over decades or more - can be thrown out purely on the say of those three people if it is decided that they clash with TTIP. And remember: "The ruling of the arbitration panel shall be unconditionally accepted by the Parties." So if, for whatever reason, the arbitration panel says a well-established regulation protecting health and safety, or the environment, has to go, well, it has to go, even if the vast majority of the public that it will effect disagrees."
- mercurial 12y ago
  AFAIK, the ISDS has been met with enough opposition that it has been essentially expunged from the treaty.
  - chinathrow 12y ago
    How do you know that for sure when the meetings are held in private?
  - walterbell 12y ago
    References would be helpful, the citation above is only a week old, and Computerworld has been following the subject closely.
    - mercurial 12y ago
      It looks like I misremembered. The result of the public consultation was overly against ISDS, but the setback was less major that I thought.
xnull2guest 12y ago
I do not get paid to post to Hacker News. That would be a fun job... but alas I am not that lucky. Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically? As per the implication that corporations stand a lot to gain from the TPP - you'll see in my post I've said precisely the same thing. I would agree that there is a trend in the direction of corporate sovereignty - another large trend in this direction is what Bruce Schneier calls "Public-Private Partnership" where he suggests (rightly so IMHO) that as each is subject to different laws partnerships allow them to be bound by neither (he's gone so far as to call this partnership a "Modern Leviathan": http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corporate-government-data-collection http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corpora...). You can be sure that the TPP is in the interest of the US's strategic financial and diplomatic future. That's not a lie - nor is it fearmongering. Regarding what can be improved regarding trade - most of it has to do with fixing international standards and laws - though there are other details being ironed out (is it Korea or Taiwan that is building a giant shipping port as part of the agreement?). That's actually why it's important for the US to have influence there. The US wants to have as much influence setting the standards and regulations regarding trade and goods as possible. An important secondary effect is that both the process of negotiation and resulting trade partners garners political clout for future joint (bi- and uni-lateral) ventures.
- chinathrow 12y ago
  It's in the US interest, but it can't be in the non-US interest then. There's always another party to contracts like that. And one side is always getting screwed when the US is involved.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    I'm not sure I exactly follow. Sometimes agreements and relationships are "zero-sum" - A gains implies B loses. Other agreements are not win-lose ("potluck versus buffet"). In the case of the TPP the US is looking to establish itself, its rules and its influence in the Pacific - to the chagrin of China. While partnerships between the US and China continue to strengthen, some key areas have always kept the two from being too close. Financially China poses a threat to the US it hasn't faced in close to a century. The Renminbi represents a real (but not grave) threat to the dollar and established economic dominance. China refuses to acknowledge a fixed Western world order and in these pursuits it plays fair and nonviolent but hard. Obama gleefully reminded Chinese delegates that it championed TTIP before the birth of the TPP. At this level of the game, when nations are not in full competition, there's some level of gain-and-lose. That is to say: yes - one side is getting screwed by the TPP (China). But only if the US plays its cards right. If it doesn't, it will be China that screws the US. And let us not discount the dreams and ambitions rest of the Asia-Pacific or the rest of the world.

by pdkl95 12y ago

walterbell 12y ago

There is a proposed US-EU equivalent of the Australia - Hong Kong arbitration panel for ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement), http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update-l-3596807/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-up... "So what the European Commission is proposing with the dispute resolution chapter is how future clashes with the US over those key social constructs should be resolved. And the answer is: by a three-person arbitration panel. That is, key aspects of everyday life - the social, environmental and safety protections that have been laid down over decades or more - can be thrown out purely on the say of those three people if it is decided that they clash with TTIP. And remember: "The ruling of the arbitration panel shall be unconditionally accepted by the Parties." So if, for whatever reason, the arbitration panel says a well-established regulation protecting health and safety, or the environment, has to go, well, it has to go, even if the vast majority of the public that it will effect disagrees."

mercurial 12y ago
AFAIK, the ISDS has been met with enough opposition that it has been essentially expunged from the treaty.
- chinathrow 12y ago
  How do you know that for sure when the meetings are held in private?
- walterbell 12y ago
  References would be helpful, the citation above is only a week old, and Computerworld has been following the subject closely.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    It looks like I misremembered. The result of the public consultation was overly against ISDS, but the setback was less major that I thought.

xnull2guest 12y ago

I do not get paid to post to Hacker News. That would be a fun job... but alas I am not that lucky. Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically? As per the implication that corporations stand a lot to gain from the TPP - you'll see in my post I've said precisely the same thing. I would agree that there is a trend in the direction of corporate sovereignty - another large trend in this direction is what Bruce Schneier calls "Public-Private Partnership" where he suggests (rightly so IMHO) that as each is subject to different laws partnerships allow them to be bound by neither (he's gone so far as to call this partnership a "Modern Leviathan": http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corporate-government-data-collection http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corpora...). You can be sure that the TPP is in the interest of the US's strategic financial and diplomatic future. That's not a lie - nor is it fearmongering. Regarding what can be improved regarding trade - most of it has to do with fixing international standards and laws - though there are other details being ironed out (is it Korea or Taiwan that is building a giant shipping port as part of the agreement?). That's actually why it's important for the US to have influence there. The US wants to have as much influence setting the standards and regulations regarding trade and goods as possible. An important secondary effect is that both the process of negotiation and resulting trade partners garners political clout for future joint (bi- and uni-lateral) ventures.

chinathrow 12y ago
It's in the US interest, but it can't be in the non-US interest then. There's always another party to contracts like that. And one side is always getting screwed when the US is involved.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  I'm not sure I exactly follow. Sometimes agreements and relationships are "zero-sum" - A gains implies B loses. Other agreements are not win-lose ("potluck versus buffet"). In the case of the TPP the US is looking to establish itself, its rules and its influence in the Pacific - to the chagrin of China. While partnerships between the US and China continue to strengthen, some key areas have always kept the two from being too close. Financially China poses a threat to the US it hasn't faced in close to a century. The Renminbi represents a real (but not grave) threat to the dollar and established economic dominance. China refuses to acknowledge a fixed Western world order and in these pursuits it plays fair and nonviolent but hard. Obama gleefully reminded Chinese delegates that it championed TTIP before the birth of the TPP. At this level of the game, when nations are not in full competition, there's some level of gain-and-lose. That is to say: yes - one side is getting screwed by the TPP (China). But only if the US plays its cards right. If it doesn't, it will be China that screws the US. And let us not discount the dreams and ambitions rest of the Asia-Pacific or the rest of the world.