8 ms·
Secret TPP Talks Continue as the Deal Grows More Controversial
- SwimAway 11y agoCorporate dictatorship recipe.
- chinathrow 11y agoSomeone is getting ripped of deeply by this new agreements if they get done as planned. Hint: It's not large US coorporations. It's us, the citiziens of the world.
- sillygeese 11y agoThat's exactly why they're working on it in secret.
- nindalf 11y agoTo get the viewpoint of people championing this agreement, I recommend reading this article by the Economist[1] where they say "for all its flaws, the biggest trade deal in years is good news for the world" [1] - http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21659716-all-its-flaws-biggest-trade-deal-years-good-news-world http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21659716... For the record, I think the TPP is pernicious for all the reasons pointed out by the EFF.
- jsmeaton 11y agoI'm confused by this statement in the article you linked, and I've heard it before: > the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is the most important free-trade agreement in years How does "29 chapters of dense rules and hundreds of tariff lines " == "free trade"? Free trade is meant to be open, without restriction, and free. Some of the conditions being reported are anything but.
- martincmartin 11y agoIt's lowering barriers to trade, making it easier for goods made in one country to be sold in another. One way it does that is by harmonizing regulations, so you don't need to make different versions for different countries, or pay for lawyers to explain compliance laws separately for each country.
- calgoo 11y agoAs an example, it lets farmers in Europeans buy soya beans from Brazil to feed their cows in winter. [http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/consumers/ http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/co...]
- idonthaveaname 11y agoOnly part of that results in lower barriers to trade. Mostly that reads like "follow these rules, update your processes and factories to these other specifications" - significant barriers themselves, just upstream from the actual trade. More significant is that there is little transparency and a, seemingly, active avoidance of public discourse about the rule-setting. The rule-setting is where the power lies, and that's what most of the objection is about.
- pdkl95 11y agoThe word-game being played with the TPP is when they talk about "free trade", it isn't generally referring to the free trade of goods or services. The last century of trade agreements already removed most tariffs[1]. Instead, when the TPP (et al) talk about "free trade", they are referring to the free trade of capital, which is an absolutely insane idea[2]. As you note, as it relates to actual goods and services, the TPP is generally restrictive, which is probably part of the larger goal of creating corporate sovereignty (e.g. ISDS), and general export of western power (e.g. the IP restrictions). TL;DR - It's imperialism via corporate corruption and regulatory capture. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#/media/File:US-Tariffs.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo... [2] http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
- 11y ago
- ekianjo 11y agoIf its THAT good why does it need so much opacity and secrecy?
- evgen 11y agoAll trade agreements are negotiated in secret. All of them. Just like your salary was not negotiated in the company break room...
- leereeves 11y ago> Just like your salary was not negotiated in the company break room... But hopefully you were there. This is like you (the people) hiring a lawyer (elected representative), who then goes to negotiate your salary in secret without you. And who receives all kinds of benefits for himself in exchange for accepting a low salary for you.
- sillygeese 11y agoOur representatives are representing us behind closed doors at a luxury hotel!
- A_Beer_Clinked 11y agoIs the fact that the talks are in a "Luxury Hotel" pertinent? The article doesn't explain how. Would the EFF be happier if the the "Secret TPP Talks Continue at a Reasonably Priced Motel as the Deal Grows More Controversial" Clearly the EFF doesn't like the process; but this phrasing is a cheap shot that distracts from the very important message. It's also one they've used a few times. https://www.eff.org/search/site/luxury%20hotel%20 https://www.eff.org/search/site/luxury%20hotel%20
- toyg 11y agoYou're projecting a bit of your own prejudices there. The concept of Luxury Hotel is not just about "luxury": it implies good security and inaccessibility for regular people. A "reasonably priced motel" would provide neither. So yes, the fact that it's a "Luxury Hotel" is important to the argument that talks are being held behind closed doors and away from the public, rather than in public spaces where they belong.
- sillygeese 11y agoThey're devising new ways to shaft us, and using our money to pay for a luxury hotel to do it in. So yes, it's pertinent.
- wfo 11y agoOf course it's pertinent. It tells the whole story. The TPP is being negotiated exclusively by the hyper-wealthy private capitalist elite who have no connection or concern for the well-being of the vast majority of citizens. These people live in a different world than most of the readers of any newspaper or magazine. The accommodations hammer this fact home. To not mention this would whitewash the story in favor of the negotiators, and allow the reader to make his or her own (invariably incorrect) assumptions about where the talks are held; in a public venue, government offices, modest accommodations as suitable for public interest group representatives as it is to high-powered corporate oligarchs. It would be journalistically lying by omission.
- te_chris 11y agoA perspective from New Zealand... https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/nuanced/ https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/nuanced/
- happyscrappy 11y agoEurope will pass it, blame America and the cycle will continue.
- lemming 11y agoThis article [1] linked from the OP contains the following fact: the pro-TPP lobby spent $135 million in the second quarter of 2015. I mean, I know lobbying costs money, but where can that much money possibly go? [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-trade-tpp-lobbying-idUSKCN0PX2JO20150723 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-trade-tpp-lobby...
- ekianjo 11y agoLet me guess... corruption?
- tptacek 11y agoWe missed you, Markov activist.
- tptacek 11y agoRead the Reuters article carefully: that's all the money spent by all the members of the "US Business Coalition for TPP" on all lobbying, it's in the same order of magnitude as it was prior to TPP, and even the surge in spending now isn't all TPP. For instance, Boeing doubled their lobbying --- to lobby against the proposed elimination of the Export-Import Bank.
- lemming 11y agoSure, but even if it's not all TPP related - that is a truckload of money. I have no idea what you even spend that amount of money on - it would buy a lot of champagne and hookers for representatives.
- tptacek 11y agoNot only is it not all TPP related, it is mostly not TPP related. They cited the aggregate lobbying of all the (gigantic) members of a trade coalition, and that statistic is misleading. The "champagne and hookers" snark is silly. Where do hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying fees go? Approximately the same place as the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to giant institutional charities go: * Salaries for formal employees of the organization * Contractor fees for copywriting, advertising, event planning, legal * Giant advertising and promotional campaigns * Fundraising * Direct political donations * PAC donations Just replace "food banks" and "medical care" with "report writing" and you're close. Lobbying isn't a great thing, and it interacts very badly with PACs, but it certainly isn't millions of dollars in strippers. Mostly, it's a scam to skim money off the political process and into the pockets of lobbyists and their firms.
- andy_ppp 11y agoWhy this needs to be done as one giant agreement seems crazy... A relevant example where this could be a good thing; I'd love for tech businesses in London to be as easy to invest in for Silicon Valley investors as local tech companies - this would be amazing for investors, London startup scene etc. - maybe it would require a special sort of company and also an easy way to move a company to CA if needed. There are loads of things in TTIP to hate but the above example would be a better use of these bureaucrats time and something that would be easy to pass and help lots of businesses grow!
- steego 11y ago> Why this needs to be done as one giant agreement seems crazy... If you want to circumvent debate and controversy, get all your buddies together and write up an omnibus agreement or bill. Bundling different ideas together makes it hard to talk about it, let alone debate it.
- andy_ppp 11y agoI go back and forward on this; is it really this brazen or do the people crafting TTIP and TPP really believe it'll make the world better. There must be some involved who think it'll create jobs and money for everyone. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic - it certainly does look like what you have said.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoObviously the people involved think it will make the world better for some people.
- andy_ppp 11y agoI suppose it comes back to this crazy religion (Ayn Rand et. al.) that looking after yourself at the expense of others is the only way to make the world stable. It's very convenient for people who are being selfish or making things worse to agree with such crackpot ideas.
- at-fates-hands 11y agoEvery time I hear about an awesome "free trade agreement", I need to look no further than the disastrous NAFTA agreement: "Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies." and "For instance, we track the specific promises made by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government data showing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico." and "The data also show how post-NAFTA trade and investment trends have contributed to middle-class pay cuts, which in turn contributed to growing income inequality;" source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-m... This too was being touted as a great free trade agreement for the US and its economy and the exact opposite happened. I can only assume the outcome for the TPP will be similar.
- smutticus 11y agoFor a harbinger of what's to come, look into what's happening in Romania with their Rosia Montana gold mine. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-11/paulson-backed-gabriel-threatens-4-billion-of-claims-in-romania http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-11/paulson-ba... http://www.miningfacts.org/Blog/Mining-News/Canadian-Miner-Prepared-to-Lose-$1-5-Billion-Investment/ http://www.miningfacts.org/Blog/Mining-News/Canadian-Miner-P... Basically a Canadian company will most likely sue the Romanian government for refusing to allow an open pit gold mine. They won't do this in a Romanian court. Just like we saw with Greece, sovereign nations are no longer all that sovereign. Treaties like TPP, and TTIP will further remove decision making capabilities from sovereign states. It's kinda crazy.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- x5n1 11y agoWelcome to the new corporate imperialism I guess. Was a matter of time. But really what is this about? It's about economic growth at all costs, while tooting the horn of environmentalism.
- blackbagboys 11y agoMy understanding of this case is that the mining company signed a contract with the government for development of this mining project, and there is now the possibility that the parliament will at the eleventh hour break the terms of the agreement. I don't see why the government should be exempt from making restitution in cases where it breaks contracts.
- Erikun 11y agoPlanet money had a fascinating podcast on how trade deals are made with the example of NAFTA. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo...
- thieving_magpie 11y agoI came here to link it as well. It really explained to me why these negotiations are secret, something that seemed a little sinister to me at first glance.
- dkns 11y agoCan somebody ELI5 the whole TPP thing? As an European should I be concerned? Does it matter only to countries involved?
- ccvannorman 11y agoThe TPP is a wholesome beneficial legislation, orchestrated by businesses around the world to ensure their continued profits and ownership of capital creation, such as copyright (it will be harder to share content online without paying for it and DMCA youtube takedown style action will increase.) Furthermore it allows corporations to legally prosecute governments for getting in the way of their hard-earned profits or potential profits, for example if you don't allow a gold mining corporation to mine your gold, you as a country will be sued for the value of that gold. I can't understand why everyone has got their panties in a bunch over this; that small group of people with capital who makes and influences the laws will do what they can to make sure they keep getting the capital for the future, so that there is less transfer of wealth, which is necessary for a stable global economy.. I personally am looking forwards to when governments are abolished entirely and corporations simply write laws along side their company charters. Whichever corporation has more money, has more rights to enforce their laws.
- ionised 11y agoI hope this is sarcasm because otherwise it is ridiculously short-sighted and naive.
- ccvannorman 11y ago/s
- ionised 11y agoThank god.
- DSingularity 11y agoYou want for profit entities governing and writing our laws? Wow.
- shmerl 11y agoI don't think current system (with fast track) is conductive for any partial fixing. TPP should be scraped completely and USTR should taste their own medicine. They don't want open negotiations and democratic oversight? They shouldn't get any agreement altogether.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- derriz 11y agoWell here goes my tiny store of karma points but as a contrarian I can't resist going against the comfortable consensus that the TPP and TIPP (which is of more relevance to me as a European) are evil and sinister. Some observations: These negotiations (at least the TTIP ones) are not being conducted by cigar chomping cartoon evil tycoons. A friend I know is involved and the guy is a very modestly paid civil servant. It's mostly boring and technical bureacratic work. There are very good reasons to conduct discussions like this in private. Despite the impression the EFF article gives, the biggest losers will be commercial special interests not consumers. Consumers don't form groups to spend millions to lobby politicians to enact laws blocking the import of foreign goods and services - these laws and regulations were campaigned for and paid for by politically connected local commercial interests. The secrecy is required to prevent these special interests from using their power to derail the negotiations. Consider what would happen if public minutes were published while say discussing the US bio-ethenol subsidies? Massive political pressure would be exerted on the US negotiating team from the corn producing states effectively making negotiation impossible. Other countries party to the discussion would face the same impossible pressures. Finally I don't believe that the ISDS is some evil anti-democratic instrument to allow corporations to subvert the local laws. In fact most countries have had similar instruments for decades as part of bilateral deals. The sole purpose is to prevent governments specifically targetting foreign companies with extra rules while not applying the same restrictions on politically connected local enterprises. I believe an individual should be able to defend themselves from capricious government behavior through the legal system. I don't see why businesses shouldn't have similar recourse.
- SwimAway 11y agoNot sure why my comment was flagged but let's put it up again: Corporate dictatorship recipe.