17 ms·

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? A

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.
  - chinathrow 12y ago
    "In the case of the TPP the US is looking to establish itself, its rules and its influence in the Pacific" There is the issue with that. THERE!!!! Just stay the fuck where you are and do not "establish itself" the world all over. I don't mean that directed at you personally but at your gov.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      > I don't mean that directed at you personally but at your gov. I understand. I get it. I'm actually very partial to the idea. It's the unfortunate truth that China is also making big bets to establish itself around the world and to gain influence - for example its heavy investment in Africa or the development of its own (BRICS) world bank. The US is not some lone perpetrator. The world would be better if we could all 'just get along'.
      - chinathrow 12y ago
        I agree with your view on China and that we just should get along. That would mean though, that certain nations would just need to start to withdraw their troops from the all over the world.
        HopeyChangey 12y ago
        It's a nice idea, but power vacuums tend to be filled.
pdkl95 12y ago
> Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically? You're entire original post - and part of this one - is trying to stir up fears about the future financial stability of the US. This is fear mongering because you haven't actually shown how the TPP fixes this other than to say it is necessary in some vague and highly theoretical ways. > You can be sure that the TPP is in the interest of the US's strategic financial and diplomatic future No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of corporations, while removing much of the features of government that might stop those corporations. Allowing foreign corporations the power to wield a criminal codes or civil liabilities - that they largely get to make up - over people in the US can only be "in the interest of the US" in the "we had to burn the village down to save it" sense. I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the constitution, aka "sedition". Any legitimate concerns about specific details of trade or the US's relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own. > nor is it fearmongering. lol
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  I can garuntee you that my post is not trying to stir up fears. (I know this because I wrote it...) That said if the idea that the gloomier prospects of US finances and it needing to jockey for position in the Asian Pacific region is new and scary I would suggest two things: first that the original post included some perspective regarding the importance of the region in upcoming decades and second that it is mere truth that the dollar, US bonds and Western financial institutions have not been seeing strong trends. The US and China are in the same relationship the UK and US were when the Stirling Pound was traded for the US Dollar as the international fiat currency; with the UK as the largest debtor nation and the US as the largest creditor. This is true today but it is the US who is the largest debtor and it is China who has been establishing international banks and building an empire of credit. I do not claim that the sky is falling, nor that this is somehow a secret disclosure - it is in fact commonly traded knowledge. My bet is that if you do independent research regarding the strength of the US as an economic power you will see that she is facing challenges. Not sky is falling challenges. But challenges that require action to address them. One of those things is the TPP. Or rather, one option is the TPP. The US government chose the Asia-Pacific option a decade ago and the TPP today is one tactic in that continuing strategy. The TPP is not the fix. Complex problems do not have simple singular fixes. It is, however, a keystone effort to establish a primary trade treaty in the region at a time it may be otherwise denied from. Nor does the post champion the TPP. I hoped to show how it is both important and potentially damaging, specifically in regard to domestic law. > No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of corporations I'm exactly the sort of person who would agree that there are dangerous trends toward corporate world governance. Nestle owns nearly half the world's potable water and 51 of the world's one hundred largest economic forces are international corporations (and as opposed to a democracy of any sort corporations are primarily autocratic and required by law to maximize the wealth of their leadership at the possible expense to others). However, I think we depart. Where you see a cabal of corporations running the show, bending the US government to its will, I see something very different. I see a US government, earnest to do right by its people (albeit partially blind to some of it's peoples ideals and struggles), positioned in stride with corporations. That is: from the perspective of both the US government and from US corporations the TPP is a strategic win. That the TPP may go further to enshine corporations as global players and a powerful political class is not mutually exclusive with the TPP being an important diplomatic and financial opportunity for the US as a republic. Rather, it is precisely what I say in my parent comment - that it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. The TPP is sincerely important for the US as a nation. It also further benefits large and international corporations. This is to say - yes I agree with you that corporate governance is an emerging threat. But it isn't the only emerging threat. The US's future is too. It's important that we recognize the issue in full scope rather than make it about any singular favorite issue. > I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the constitution, aka "sedition". The constitution directly allows the US to make treaties with other nations and for those treaties to be the law of the land. This is also not the first time, nor and exceptional time, that this has been done. So I think I misunderstood you here. You're clearly not saying this is unconstitutional. I think you're saying that the TPP is an agreement that will hurt the US more than help it - and that US leadership knows this - and thus it is 'sedition'? Again we depart. The TPP is important for the US and US leadership recognizes this. An unfortunate truth is that the TPP will not correct, and will probably exacerbate, the power and wealth concentrated within large corporations. We should definitely be having conversations about the role of corporations and their domestic and international political power. But we don't need to unilaterally reject the TPP - in fact if we were to we would still have a problem with corporate power. It's absolutely important we deal with consolidated capital and influence inside of these institutions - but it should not blind us from everything else going on. I would suggest, with my tongue partially pressed to my cheek, that making the TPP out to be entirely about corporate world order sounds a whole lot like... fearmongering? > Any legitimate concerns about specific details of trade or the US's relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own. Negotiating trade deals with so many divergent interests is not something that is done well by normal legislative bodies - nor do I think you want to suggest our deadlocked legislation would be an improvement. But with regard to the general sentiment that you wish there were more transparency: I agree.
FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
You are using the tactic of trying to seem just like us and agreeing with us that it's bad: "... it comes with certain trojan horses ... such as requirements mentioned in the article for internet service providers to filter and monitor customer traffic." Then, with us convinced that you're firmly on our side, you make the bold statement: "The TPP is important for navigating future global financial and international policy options, but bundled with it are laws that would otherwise be rejected at the ballot box." And you say it again: "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." I'm sure it is in the interests of the ultra-wealthy and elite in the US. What's in it for everyone else, though? This is your fearmongering: "it is dangerous to be a single issue voter." Nowhere in your previous post or this one do you come up with ONE justification for that, or for your statement that the TPP is important and necessary. Nowhere.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  There is no tactic. That's actually the entire point of the post: that there are both upsides and downsides to the TPP. Do you deny me a nuanced impression of the TPP? Do I have to come down firmly on one side, cherishing everything about it or rejecting it in it's entirety? The entire point of the post is to describe what I understand to be important and good about the TPP and also what I consider to be harmful or dangerous. I don't think it's misleading not to have a black or white view - in fact I think it is misleading to be so binary. I believe that the TPP is important for the future economic viability of the United States. I included some reasons why in that post, and also in other branches of the discussion. I would also be willing to discuss further here. > This is your fearmongering: "it is dangerous to be a single issue voter." I honestly think that is just common wisdom - being politically engaged means trying to engage with the full complexity of the issues of the times. > Nowhere in your previous post or this one do you come up with ONE justification for that, or for your statement that the TPP is important and necessary. Nowhere. Certainly I do not provide evidence in the prior post that single issue voting is harmful. I wasn't aware that was widely contested and in need of justification. Regarding the importance of the TPP - I do argue in the parent comment and in the branches of ensuing conversation (I hope successfully) that trade deals in the Asia-Pacific are important. I'm not exactly alone: here's a podcast from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (US Gov thinktank) that discusses current TPP prospects: http://csis.org/multimedia/cogitasia-podcast-tpp-prospects-previewing-asias-maritime-disputes http://csis.org/multimedia/cogitasia-podcast-tpp-prospects-p...

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.
- chinathrow 12y ago
  "In the case of the TPP the US is looking to establish itself, its rules and its influence in the Pacific" There is the issue with that. THERE!!!! Just stay the fuck where you are and do not "establish itself" the world all over. I don't mean that directed at you personally but at your gov.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    > I don't mean that directed at you personally but at your gov. I understand. I get it. I'm actually very partial to the idea. It's the unfortunate truth that China is also making big bets to establish itself around the world and to gain influence - for example its heavy investment in Africa or the development of its own (BRICS) world bank. The US is not some lone perpetrator. The world would be better if we could all 'just get along'.
    - chinathrow 12y ago
      I agree with your view on China and that we just should get along. That would mean though, that certain nations would just need to start to withdraw their troops from the all over the world.
      - HopeyChangey 12y ago
        It's a nice idea, but power vacuums tend to be filled.

pdkl95 12y ago

> Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically? You're entire original post - and part of this one - is trying to stir up fears about the future financial stability of the US. This is fear mongering because you haven't actually shown how the TPP fixes this other than to say it is necessary in some vague and highly theoretical ways. > You can be sure that the TPP is in the interest of the US's strategic financial and diplomatic future No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of corporations, while removing much of the features of government that might stop those corporations. Allowing foreign corporations the power to wield a criminal codes or civil liabilities - that they largely get to make up - over people in the US can only be "in the interest of the US" in the "we had to burn the village down to save it" sense. I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the constitution, aka "sedition". Any legitimate concerns about specific details of trade or the US's relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own. > nor is it fearmongering. lol

xnull2guest 12y ago
I can garuntee you that my post is not trying to stir up fears. (I know this because I wrote it...) That said if the idea that the gloomier prospects of US finances and it needing to jockey for position in the Asian Pacific region is new and scary I would suggest two things: first that the original post included some perspective regarding the importance of the region in upcoming decades and second that it is mere truth that the dollar, US bonds and Western financial institutions have not been seeing strong trends. The US and China are in the same relationship the UK and US were when the Stirling Pound was traded for the US Dollar as the international fiat currency; with the UK as the largest debtor nation and the US as the largest creditor. This is true today but it is the US who is the largest debtor and it is China who has been establishing international banks and building an empire of credit. I do not claim that the sky is falling, nor that this is somehow a secret disclosure - it is in fact commonly traded knowledge. My bet is that if you do independent research regarding the strength of the US as an economic power you will see that she is facing challenges. Not sky is falling challenges. But challenges that require action to address them. One of those things is the TPP. Or rather, one option is the TPP. The US government chose the Asia-Pacific option a decade ago and the TPP today is one tactic in that continuing strategy. The TPP is not the fix. Complex problems do not have simple singular fixes. It is, however, a keystone effort to establish a primary trade treaty in the region at a time it may be otherwise denied from. Nor does the post champion the TPP. I hoped to show how it is both important and potentially damaging, specifically in regard to domestic law. > No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of corporations I'm exactly the sort of person who would agree that there are dangerous trends toward corporate world governance. Nestle owns nearly half the world's potable water and 51 of the world's one hundred largest economic forces are international corporations (and as opposed to a democracy of any sort corporations are primarily autocratic and required by law to maximize the wealth of their leadership at the possible expense to others). However, I think we depart. Where you see a cabal of corporations running the show, bending the US government to its will, I see something very different. I see a US government, earnest to do right by its people (albeit partially blind to some of it's peoples ideals and struggles), positioned in stride with corporations. That is: from the perspective of both the US government and from US corporations the TPP is a strategic win. That the TPP may go further to enshine corporations as global players and a powerful political class is not mutually exclusive with the TPP being an important diplomatic and financial opportunity for the US as a republic. Rather, it is precisely what I say in my parent comment - that it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. The TPP is sincerely important for the US as a nation. It also further benefits large and international corporations. This is to say - yes I agree with you that corporate governance is an emerging threat. But it isn't the only emerging threat. The US's future is too. It's important that we recognize the issue in full scope rather than make it about any singular favorite issue. > I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the constitution, aka "sedition". The constitution directly allows the US to make treaties with other nations and for those treaties to be the law of the land. This is also not the first time, nor and exceptional time, that this has been done. So I think I misunderstood you here. You're clearly not saying this is unconstitutional. I think you're saying that the TPP is an agreement that will hurt the US more than help it - and that US leadership knows this - and thus it is 'sedition'? Again we depart. The TPP is important for the US and US leadership recognizes this. An unfortunate truth is that the TPP will not correct, and will probably exacerbate, the power and wealth concentrated within large corporations. We should definitely be having conversations about the role of corporations and their domestic and international political power. But we don't need to unilaterally reject the TPP - in fact if we were to we would still have a problem with corporate power. It's absolutely important we deal with consolidated capital and influence inside of these institutions - but it should not blind us from everything else going on. I would suggest, with my tongue partially pressed to my cheek, that making the TPP out to be entirely about corporate world order sounds a whole lot like... fearmongering? > Any legitimate concerns about specific details of trade or the US's relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own. Negotiating trade deals with so many divergent interests is not something that is done well by normal legislative bodies - nor do I think you want to suggest our deadlocked legislation would be an improvement. But with regard to the general sentiment that you wish there were more transparency: I agree.

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago

You are using the tactic of trying to seem just like us and agreeing with us that it's bad: "... it comes with certain trojan horses ... such as requirements mentioned in the article for internet service providers to filter and monitor customer traffic." Then, with us convinced that you're firmly on our side, you make the bold statement: "The TPP is important for navigating future global financial and international policy options, but bundled with it are laws that would otherwise be rejected at the ballot box." And you say it again: "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." I'm sure it is in the interests of the ultra-wealthy and elite in the US. What's in it for everyone else, though? This is your fearmongering: "it is dangerous to be a single issue voter." Nowhere in your previous post or this one do you come up with ONE justification for that, or for your statement that the TPP is important and necessary. Nowhere.

xnull2guest 12y ago
There is no tactic. That's actually the entire point of the post: that there are both upsides and downsides to the TPP. Do you deny me a nuanced impression of the TPP? Do I have to come down firmly on one side, cherishing everything about it or rejecting it in it's entirety? The entire point of the post is to describe what I understand to be important and good about the TPP and also what I consider to be harmful or dangerous. I don't think it's misleading not to have a black or white view - in fact I think it is misleading to be so binary. I believe that the TPP is important for the future economic viability of the United States. I included some reasons why in that post, and also in other branches of the discussion. I would also be willing to discuss further here. > This is your fearmongering: "it is dangerous to be a single issue voter." I honestly think that is just common wisdom - being politically engaged means trying to engage with the full complexity of the issues of the times. > Nowhere in your previous post or this one do you come up with ONE justification for that, or for your statement that the TPP is important and necessary. Nowhere. Certainly I do not provide evidence in the prior post that single issue voting is harmful. I wasn't aware that was widely contested and in need of justification. Regarding the importance of the TPP - I do argue in the parent comment and in the branches of ensuing conversation (I hope successfully) that trade deals in the Asia-Pacific are important. I'm not exactly alone: here's a podcast from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (US Gov thinktank) that discusses current TPP prospects: http://csis.org/multimedia/cogitasia-podcast-tpp-prospects-previewing-asias-maritime-disputes http://csis.org/multimedia/cogitasia-podcast-tpp-prospects-p...