4 ms·

If they'd just drop the horrible intellectual property provisions, which aren't even relevant to geo-strategic trade, I wouldn't care so much what kind of geo-s

If they'd just drop the horrible intellectual property provisions, which aren't even relevant to geo-strategic trade, I wouldn't care so much what kind of geo-strategic trade deal they wanted to negotiate in secret.

drawkbox 11y ago
I agree. Drop the requirements that were easy to stiff arm in after WWII but that luster has worn off. We might have to compromise. I don't understand why we can't just say the real reason for the TPP publicly, China is winning world trade, then discuss the trade agreements more in the open. Let people know how it will affect them, give groups time to setup alternate paths for work/options. Secrecy is a short term thought path, we need long term planning and we need to give people a heads up. The general populace can't really vote on it anyways and our opinion doesn't impact decisions like this unless it is a corporate or wealth influence [1] Congress is acting like a manager that 'protects' you from problems that ends up causing more problems. Then one day, protected you so good the company shut down the division or similar. Informed people always fair better, they can plan better, they can survive better. [1] https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/ https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/ (video describes the study that only money has an effect on what is passed)
thomnottom 11y ago
While the IP sections are horrendous, it's dangerous to ignore the problems inherent with the investor-state dispute section(s). There are already multiple cases involving corporations suing countries for having laws that prevent them from making money in their preferred manner. Increasing the scope or range of those conflicts will strip more nations (including the US) of self-government. I don't want to come off as hyperbolic, but these provisions can seriously undermine any future legislation and nation might want to undertake in order to protect their resources or population.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  ISDS complaints can only win if the government is shown to unfairly hobble foreign investors, for example a regulation that says "companies owned by Americans can pollute twice as much as companies owned by Malaysians." That's not the way that U.S. law works; our laws are based on measurable standards that apply equally to all companies regardless of who owns them. That's why the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case in the decades they have already been in force.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
bobwaycott 11y ago
You seriously don't care about anything outside of IP provisions? You do recognize the irony inherent in claiming you wouldn't care so much about deals negotiated in secret, so long as they don't include horrible provision X that was included during these secret negotiations, and you only know that because the secrecy was violated and the information was released, right?

drawkbox 11y ago

I agree. Drop the requirements that were easy to stiff arm in after WWII but that luster has worn off. We might have to compromise. I don't understand why we can't just say the real reason for the TPP publicly, China is winning world trade, then discuss the trade agreements more in the open. Let people know how it will affect them, give groups time to setup alternate paths for work/options. Secrecy is a short term thought path, we need long term planning and we need to give people a heads up. The general populace can't really vote on it anyways and our opinion doesn't impact decisions like this unless it is a corporate or wealth influence [1] Congress is acting like a manager that 'protects' you from problems that ends up causing more problems. Then one day, protected you so good the company shut down the division or similar. Informed people always fair better, they can plan better, they can survive better. [1] https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/ https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/ (video describes the study that only money has an effect on what is passed)

thomnottom 11y ago

While the IP sections are horrendous, it's dangerous to ignore the problems inherent with the investor-state dispute section(s). There are already multiple cases involving corporations suing countries for having laws that prevent them from making money in their preferred manner. Increasing the scope or range of those conflicts will strip more nations (including the US) of self-government. I don't want to come off as hyperbolic, but these provisions can seriously undermine any future legislation and nation might want to undertake in order to protect their resources or population.

snowwrestler 11y ago
ISDS complaints can only win if the government is shown to unfairly hobble foreign investors, for example a regulation that says "companies owned by Americans can pollute twice as much as companies owned by Malaysians." That's not the way that U.S. law works; our laws are based on measurable standards that apply equally to all companies regardless of who owns them. That's why the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case in the decades they have already been in force.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

bobwaycott 11y ago

You seriously don't care about anything outside of IP provisions? You do recognize the irony inherent in claiming you wouldn't care so much about deals negotiated in secret, so long as they don't include horrible provision X that was included during these secret negotiations, and you only know that because the secrecy was violated and the information was released, right?