3 ms·

I don't see why it's funny. It's not that ISDS is good for America and bad for Europe, or good for Japan and bad for America; according to opponents, it's good

by taejo 12y ago

I don't see why it's funny. It's not that ISDS is good for America and bad for Europe, or good for Japan and bad for America; according to opponents, it's good for big business and bad for ordinary people.

danbruc 12y ago
Because I was not aware that there are exactly the same concerns in the USA. In Europe TTIP is - as far as I can tell - mostly seen as a one-way street, empowering US companies over EU countries. The article kind of suggests the same view for the USA and TPP, empowering foreign companies over the USA. It would now be interesting to know whether these are just one-sided views ignoring the potential damages EU companies could do to the USA respectively US companies to the other TPP countries, or if these agreements would really turn out to be one-way streets, Vietnamese companies hurting the USA and US companies hurting Germany because there is a very real gradient with regard to the relevant standards. So can somebody tell what the US view on TTIP is? Are there the same concerns getting hurt by companies from EU countries?
- walterbell 12y ago
  This article has links to trade (not specific to TTIP) viewpoints from different US stakeholders, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms-opposition-mounts-corporate-friendly-trade-deals http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms... Watch the John Oliver video elsewhere in this thread about Philip Morris using Hong Kong to sue Australia. No one knows how companies will use these proposed powers, it may become less legally clear what constitutes the home-nation of a corporation. See also corporate inversions, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/2014/09/25/97827/the-skinny-on-corporate-inversions/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/20...

3 ms·

I don't see why it's funny. It's not that ISDS is good for America and bad for Europe, or good for Japan and bad for America; according to opponents, it's good

by taejo 12y ago

danbruc 12y ago
Because I was not aware that there are exactly the same concerns in the USA. In Europe TTIP is - as far as I can tell - mostly seen as a one-way street, empowering US companies over EU countries. The article kind of suggests the same view for the USA and TPP, empowering foreign companies over the USA. It would now be interesting to know whether these are just one-sided views ignoring the potential damages EU companies could do to the USA respectively US companies to the other TPP countries, or if these agreements would really turn out to be one-way streets, Vietnamese companies hurting the USA and US companies hurting Germany because there is a very real gradient with regard to the relevant standards. So can somebody tell what the US view on TTIP is? Are there the same concerns getting hurt by companies from EU countries?
- walterbell 12y ago
  This article has links to trade (not specific to TTIP) viewpoints from different US stakeholders, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms-opposition-mounts-corporate-friendly-trade-deals http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms... Watch the John Oliver video elsewhere in this thread about Philip Morris using Hong Kong to sue Australia. No one knows how companies will use these proposed powers, it may become less legally clear what constitutes the home-nation of a corporation. See also corporate inversions, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/2014/09/25/97827/the-skinny-on-corporate-inversions/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/20...