• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been released

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not confident we can stop this. TPA passed, despite efforts to stop that, and with that in play, it becomes far easier to pass TPP without any amendments. We already know that Obama is not going to veto this thing, and with Congress the way it currently is, it won't be hard to get a simple majority in the Senate to make it happen. We've been boned since TPA.
 
Whereas your post contributes insightful analysis and well researched facts...

I posted a link to stuff I've been looking into and trying to find more information to gain an informed opinion. What has that poster done other than show us some tired old sarcasm?

Why don't you focus on encouraging positive discourse instead of calling me out for trying to do so. Don't shoot the messenger.
 
I posted a link to stuff I've been looking into and trying to find more information to gain an informed opinion. What has that poster done other than show us some tired old sarcasm?

Why don't you focus on encouraging positive discourse instead of calling me out for trying to do so. Don't shoot the messenger.

The problem is there are a lot of paid posters and plants right now infesting places like Reddit. You should see the comment thread for the TPP story on Ars Technica, there's this one guy that's blatantly being paid to post "positive" things about it and everyone's calling him out on it but as long as he's not breaking any rules, he's allowed to continue.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...p-accord-as-full-text-is-released/?comments=1

The reality is that a lot of the "positive" things in the TPP are intentionally non-enforceable. Look again at the "positive" things the (probably paid) Reddit posters are talking about. None of them are actually mandatory to implement. This goes doubly for the lonely chapter about the environment, nothing in that chapter is actually enforceable. It's a total red herring.

The only required and enforceable things are the bad things, like the copyright expansion, the IP sections, the corporate tribunals, the medication patents and price protections, and everything else that's awful. This is not coincidental. The corporations are trying to sneak the mandatory bad things past everybody by hiding it among the optional good things which everyone will obviously ignore after the trade agreement is ratified by the signatory nations.

I'm thinking the same thing. Or will these countries move on without Canada (for example)?

I would imagine anybody who ratifies it will be bound by the treaty with anyone else who ratifies it. That's how multi-lateral trade agreements work. Anybody who refuses to ratify the treaty will simply be left out.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
The problem is there are a lot of paid posters and plants right now infesting places like Reddit. You should see the comment thread for the TPP story on Ars Technica, there's this one guy that's blatantly being paid to post "positive" things about it and everyone's calling him out on it but as long as he's not breaking any rules, he's allowed to continue.

The sad thing is that we're now well into a time period where this kinda thing is far from paranoid superstition. It's a reality that's been happening for a while.

And without doubt, they would target the largest sources of information dissemination and discussion on the internet with conflation and obfuscation techniques if it means helping to push the issues through.
 
There's only one answer.

cg5yZXs.png

So, when do we enact the Corporate Congress?
 

Tesseract

Banned
eh, i don't buy it

this seems like the last grasp of a bygone era of old fart analogue rats who're out of pace with the new world internet information economy

glhf, gg
 
I should also note that the carve-out that prevents corporate sovereignty from being used by tobacco companies and the US caving in on not increasing pharma patent monopoly periods has already pissed off Big Pharma and Big Tobacco, respectively, and they will fiercely campaign against the TPP because they didn't get what they want. Many republicans are already indicating that they'll vote against ratification because of that. When Mitch McConnell, the leader of the senate Republicans, has openly said that he dislikes the tobacco carve-out, you know TPP will have problems in the senate.

Had the 'Maui Meltdown' not occurred, TPP wouldn't be in so much trouble right now in terms of its prospects. But it's now too close to the US election and has too many compromises that the Republicans hate (on top of the Democrats hating it in general) to be able to ratify this year or the next.

Let's not get too pessimistic about TPP not being properly ratified. Politically reality is already swinging hard against it. There was no way this thing could have been finalized without infuriating Republicans. Australia in particular (my home country) was never going to back down on not increasing pharma patent terms, and had a good reason to demand the tobacco carve-out due to the Phillips Morris case. Hell, Senator Orrin Hatch, someone who is vital to TPP being ratified in the US, has accused Australia of being 'greedy' and is basically implying that he wants the TPP to be re-negotiated.
 
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/

The new Planet Money episode is about the TPP.

I listened to this and I thought it was surprisingly awful. Like, I don't listen to NPR regularly but aren't they supposed to be progressive?

They considered copyright expansion from the point of The Walt Disney Company and declared it was good. Because you know what's good for Disney is good for America + 11 Pacific Rim nations. Really? Are these guys for real?

They also didn't seem to know anything about DRM or how bypassing that is criminalized by TPP. Granted, DRM is something that your average person doesn't really understand but that's exactly according to Big Media's design.

They then discussed the corporate tribunals and even though they noted that Phillip Morris infamously used one such tribunal to try and sue Australia to prevent them from removing branding from cigarettes, they still said well these aren't really bad or likely to be abused. Really? Really?

Is this NPR or Fox News I'm listening to? Come on. This radio show was absolute corporate PR at it's finest.
 

wonzo

Banned
I listened to this and I thought it was surprisingly awful. Like, I don't listen to NPR regularly but aren't they supposed to be progressive?

They considered copyright expansion from the point of The Walt Disney Company and declared it was good. Because you know what's good for Disney is good for America + 11 Pacific Rim nations. Really? Are these guys for real?

They also didn't seem to know anything about DRM or how bypassing that is criminalized by TPP. Granted, DRM is something that your average person doesn't really understand but that's exactly according to Big Media's design.

They then discussed the corporate tribunals and even though they noted that Phillip Morris infamously used one such tribunal to try and sue Australia to prevent them from removing branding from cigarettes, they still said well these aren't really bad or likely to be abused. Really? Really?

Is this NPR or Fox News I'm listening to? Come on. This radio show was absolute corporate PR at it's finest.

welcome to american liberalism
 

Mailbox

Member
Well, I like it. Ready for world government.

Awesome. Really wish people would listen to things like this instead of fringe garbage.

Poe's law?

I listened to this and I thought it was surprisingly awful. Like, I don't listen to NPR regularly but aren't they supposed to be progressive?

They considered copyright expansion from the point of The Walt Disney Company and declared it was good. Because you know what's good for Disney is good for America + 11 Pacific Rim nations. Really? Are these guys for real?

They also didn't seem to know anything about DRM or how bypassing that is criminalized by TPP. Granted, DRM is something that your average person doesn't really understand but that's exactly according to Big Media's design.

They then discussed the corporate tribunals and even though they noted that Phillip Morris infamously used one such tribunal to try and sue Australia to prevent them from removing branding from cigarettes, they still said well these aren't really bad or likely to be abused. Really? Really?

Is this NPR or Fox News I'm listening to? Come on. This radio show was absolute corporate PR at it's finest.

If it's that bad, then I'll probably skip out of listening to that.
NPR tends to be decent (i listen to This American Life, ted radio hour, and some other stuff), but if what you said is true about it, then i'm saddened by such incompetence
 

gohepcat

Banned
I listened to this and I thought it was surprisingly awful. Like, I don't listen to NPR regularly but aren't they supposed to be progressive?

They considered copyright expansion from the point of The Walt Disney Company and declared it was good. Because you know what's good for Disney is good for America + 11 Pacific Rim nations. Really? Are these guys for real?

They also didn't seem to know anything about DRM or how bypassing that is criminalized by TPP. Granted, DRM is something that your average person doesn't really understand but that's exactly according to Big Media's design.

They then discussed the corporate tribunals and even though they noted that Phillip Morris infamously used one such tribunal to try and sue Australia to prevent them from removing branding from cigarettes, they still said well these aren't really bad or likely to be abused. Really? Really?

Is this NPR or Fox News I'm listening to? Come on. This radio show was absolute corporate PR at it's finest.

They are rational pragmatists. They also don't play the appeal to emotion card that everyone is so fond of.

They also act like every other acedmic economists I've ever met. The TPP could be full of disastrous craziness and they would be overjoyed at technicalities because they are nerds.

And truthfully...this is how gown-ups who are actually educated in a subject talk about that subject.

Sent from Outlook
 

KtSlime

Member
I listened to this and I thought it was surprisingly awful. Like, I don't listen to NPR regularly but aren't they supposed to be progressive?

They considered copyright expansion from the point of The Walt Disney Company and declared it was good. Because you know what's good for Disney is good for America + 11 Pacific Rim nations. Really? Are these guys for real?

They also didn't seem to know anything about DRM or how bypassing that is criminalized by TPP. Granted, DRM is something that your average person doesn't really understand but that's exactly according to Big Media's design.

They then discussed the corporate tribunals and even though they noted that Phillip Morris infamously used one such tribunal to try and sue Australia to prevent them from removing branding from cigarettes, they still said well these aren't really bad or likely to be abused. Really? Really?

Is this NPR or Fox News I'm listening to? Come on. This radio show was absolute corporate PR at it's finest.

I felt the same way after listening, I was wondering if npr had changed their politics since I left the US a few years ago. I think tariffs are a fine tool used by the government to promote or discourage the import and export of goods, and a blanket removal of them while impairing a governments ability to have consumer and industry protections is naive and gives too much power to corporations. Intellectual property rights are especially worrisome.

I hope countries reconsider, as I really doubt there will be any tangible benefits to customers. Whatever savings companies do get from the lack of tariff will likely be pocketed, and the loss of revenue for the country will mean cuts in industry protections or a raise in taxes to make up the difference.
 
I should also note that the carve-out that prevents corporate sovereignty from being used by tobacco companies and the US caving in on not increasing pharma patent monopoly periods has already pissed off Big Pharma and Big Tobacco, respectively, and they will fiercely campaign against the TPP because they didn't get what they want. Many republicans are already indicating that they'll vote against ratification because of that. When Mitch McConnell, the leader of the senate Republicans, has openly said that he dislikes the tobacco carve-out, you know TPP will have problems in the senate.

Had the 'Maui Meltdown' not occurred, TPP wouldn't be in so much trouble right now in terms of its prospects. But it's now too close to the US election and has too many compromises that the Republicans hate (on top of the Democrats hating it in general) to be able to ratify this year or the next.

Let's not get too pessimistic about TPP not being properly ratified. Politically reality is already swinging hard against it. There was no way this thing could have been finalized without infuriating Republicans. Australia in particular (my home country) was never going to back down on not increasing pharma patent terms, and had a good reason to demand the tobacco carve-out due to the Phillips Morris case. Hell, Senator Orrin Hatch, someone who is vital to TPP being ratified in the US, has accused Australia of being 'greedy' and is basically implying that he wants the TPP to be re-negotiated.
That would be like the one good thing to come out of some Republicans' mantra of automatically being against anything Obama is for.

I don't think it will matter in the long run, though, with fast track already passed.
 

noshten

Member
Sad. This thread should have hundreds of pages. Fuck every politician who helps make this a reality.

Spot on, I feel the worst effected would be smaller nations where corruption is rife. To me the TPP allows corrupt governments to make awful deals and the people have no way of overturning these disastrous deals.

Long article ahead about the growing trends of multinational corporations bringing lawsuits against sovereign nations. I think the example with Apartheid South Africa is very good to drive down the point.

The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries
When companies are unsuccessful in their claims against states, there may be other advantages to be gained. In 2004, South Africa’s new, post-apartheid Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) came into force. Along with a new mining charter, the act sought to redress historical inequalities in the mining sector, in part by requiring companies to partner with citizens who had suffered under the apartheid regime. The new system terminated all previously held mining rights, and required companies to reapply for licences to continue their operations. It also instituted a mandatory 26% ownership stake in the country’s mining companies for black South Africans. Two years later, a group of Italian investors, who together control most of the South African granite industry, filed a landmark investor-state claim against South Africa. The country’s new mining regime, they argued, had unlawfully expropriated their investments and treated them unfairly. They demanded $350m in compensation.

The case was filed by members of the Foresti and Conti families, prominent Tuscan industrialists, and a Luxembourg-based holding company, Finstone. They cited two bilateral investment treaties, both signed in the late 1990s, during Nelson Mandela’s presidency. Jason Brickhill, a lawyer at the Johannesburg-based Legal Resources Centre, said the new, post-apartheid government seemed to view these agreements “more as acts of diplomatic goodwill than serious legal commitments with potentially far-reaching economic consequences”.

During that time, officials would be invited to meetings in Europe, he said, “and there would be all sorts of discussion about [South Africa’s] economic and trade direction, and part of that was an expectation that they would conclude an investment treaty – but they had no real understanding of what they were committing to in law”. Peter Draper, a former official in the South African Department of Trade and Industry, put it more starkly: “We were essentially giving away the store without asking any critical questions, or protecting crucial policy space.”

The companies’ case against South Africa dragged on for four years, before ending abruptly when the Italian group dropped its claims and the tribunal ordered them to contribute €400,000 (£290,000) towards South Africa’s costs. At the time, a government press release celebrated it as “successful conclusion” – despite the fact that South Africa was still left with €5m in unreimbursed legal fees. But the investors claimed a more significant victory: the pressure of the case, they said, allowed them to strike an unprecedented deal with the South African government that allowed their companies to transfer only 5% of their ownership to black South Africans – rather than the 26% mandated by the state mining authority. “No other mining company in South Africa has been treated so generously since the advent of the [new mining regime],” one of the investors’ lawyers, Peter Leon, boasted at the time.

The government seems to have agreed to this deal, which goes against the spirit of post-apartheid reparations in South Africa, to prevent a flood of other claims against it. “If the merits of the case were decided against the government, they thought, ‘That’s it, we are going to go down.’ And I think that’s why they were happy to agree to that settlement,” Jonathan Veeran, another of the company’s lawyers said, in an interview at his office in Johannesburg. His clients, he said, “were most pleased with the result”.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...stem-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
Yo isn't this the plot of The Phantom Menace. George Lucas was way ahead of the game, his social commentary was ahead by 1.5 decades.
 

ucdawg12

Member
Free trade is good for the global economy. Do you curse the names of NAFTA and the Eurozone? I'm the normal one here.

What makes it good? Free trade brings along a "net gain" in that the gains outweigh the losses, but this does not consider the distribution of who gets these gains. Is it still good if a very few experience huge gains and everyone experiences a loss, so long as the net was a gain?
 

Makai

Member
What makes it good? Free trade brings along a "net gain" in that the gains outweigh the losses, but this does not consider the distribution of who gets these gains. Is it still good if a very few experience huge gains and everyone experiences a loss, so long as the net was a gain?
Sure, some people lose their jobs but they find new ones very quickly. If you want to prove that NAFTA was a distaster for American jobs, you're going to have a tough time. The gains are enjoyed by nearly everybody in the long-term. Consumer goods are cheap as hell in America and citizens of developing countries are given a higher standard of living thanks to globalization. I would not want to live in the alternate history where America walled iteslf off from the rest of the world after WW2.
 

numble

Member
Sure, some people lose their jobs but they find new ones very quickly. If you want to prove that NAFTA was a distaster for American jobs, you're going to have a tough time. The gains are enjoyed by nearly everybody in the long-term. Consumer goods are cheap as hell in America and citizens of developing countries are given a higher standard of living thanks to globalization. I would not want to live in the alternate history where America walled iteslf off from the rest of the world after WW2.

That's making things more black and white than things are. For instance, you are living in the present where America imposed the chicken tax on foreign trucks after WW2--the alternative to the TPP is not a closed off economy. The alternative to the TPP could be something without requiring extended copyrights, not use ISDS panels, for instance, and could be extended to cover more countries.
 

ucdawg12

Member
Sure, some people lose their jobs but they find new ones very quickly. If you want to prove that NAFTA was a distaster for American jobs, you're going to have a tough time. The gains are enjoyed by nearly everybody in the long-term. Consumer goods are cheap as hell in America and citizens of developing countries are given a higher standard of living thanks to globalization. I would not want to live in the alternate history where America walled iteslf off from the rest of the world after WW2.

I would have a hard time, but so would you in proving the bold. First, I just want to assert that I am not anti-trade or pro-protectionism. They're both tools and both have their uses.

Tell me what you think about this line of reasoning: So, removing tariffs allows for production to be moved overseas and imported back in, this would cause as you said, some people to lose their jobs. I would say it also puts a downward pressure on wages. With the supply of labor available going up, potential employees must be willing to take less to stay competitive. The trade off is that those goods produced will also have their prices go down as companies must compete with each other for consumers and since now they can produce things much cheaper, they can lower their prices while still being profitable. So even if people make less, they pay less, right?

The problem is, what portion of someone's budget is dedicated to consumer goods as opposed to something like health care (I'm speaking from a US perspective), rent, education? These things are not get cheaper but more expensive, and one's ability to pay for them is not keeping up like it does for consumer goods.
 

Skeyser

Member
So, why is Reddit of all places having a reaction that's ranging from "it's a fucking trade agreement of thousands of pages, let's wait for it to be interpreted" to "some of these provisions are pretty good" while GAF is having a meltdown?

See:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLo...his_whole_tpp_thing_about_should_i_be/cwpk8y0

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/...ext_of_the_tpp_has_just_been_released/cwpf4kw

Cause people on gaf love to pretend that they're experts on subjects they don't know shit about. Usually just parotting claims from other people without putting any research into it to validate them.
 

Pedrito

Member
Cause people on gaf love to pretend that they're experts on subjects they don't know shit about. Usually just parotting claims from other people without putting any research into it to validate them.

I understand some of the concerns but good god at some of the buzzwords in here like Orwelian, 1984, evil, treason, etc. Is this thread about an international treaty or is it about "death panels"? It's like there's no middle ground.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Unfortunately, it seems impossible to get an unbiased opinion on this subject from GAF. I don't believe most who posted in this thread saying it is the worst thing ever, even read and understand the TPP either. Then there are some claiming those saying the opposite may be shills as if it isn't possible the other way around.

I don't know, but it sounds like this will pass. At least in U.S, the 60-40 vote to pass in Senate is ridiculous anyways, no bill should need that many votes.

Overall, all I can find is people talking bad about certain parts of it, ignoring the rest of TPP. I will read up on it myself.

To those claiming this will undo the legacy of Obama, you obviously are not thinking correctly. A trade agreement of 11 nations, 21 trillion dollars (30% of world GPD), is quite a legacy.

Also, it is 6,000 pages because it isn't a "free trade agreement", it is an agreement on trade to ensure your side benefits as much as possible. You can't just cut trade barriers and expect prosperity, that would be bad for any developed nation. All nations in this agreement are trying to get the best deal for themselves, knowing that they will have to compromise on certain industries.
 

numble

Member
Also, it is 6,000 pages because it isn't a "free trade agreement", it is an agreement on trade to ensure your side benefits as much as possible. You can't just cut trade barriers and expect prosperity, that would be bad for any developed nation. All nations in this agreement are trying to get the best deal for themselves, knowing that they will have to compromise on certain industries.

It is a free trade agreement and that's what almost all free trade agreements are.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements
 

Makai

Member
That's making things more black and white than things are. For instance, you are living in the present where America imposed the chicken tax on foreign trucks after WW2--the alternative to the TPP is not a closed off economy. The alternative to the TPP could be something without requiring extended copyrights, not use ISDS panels, for instance, and could be extended to cover more countries.
You need some mechanism to enforce the deal, and they're going with an established system. I haven't heard of any alternatives to ISDS. The ideal trade deal for a particular country would have exactly one signatory. Countries have diverse interests, so laws are always messy. The meat of the TPP is simple - should we further entangle our economies? I think the protectionist argument is legitimate, but I think we should do it. I thank you and the previous poster for discussing free trade, but this thread is not about that at all. It's about how this is the moment where America turns into V for Vendetta. Revealing scary-sounding provisions is pretty shameless, imo. That tactic is always used to challenge otherwise banal proposals. Let's be real - anything truly odious will be blocked by federal courts.
 

noshten

Member
Also, it is 6,000 pages because it isn't a "free trade agreement", it is an agreement on trade to ensure your side benefits as much as possible. You can't just cut trade barriers and expect prosperity, that would be bad for any developed nation. All nations in this agreement are trying to get the best deal for themselves, knowing that they will have to compromise on certain industries.

How have certain industries compromised to address humanity's best interests?
That's what I'd like to know, if you want to have Trade Deals that involve some of the worst human right violators in the region. To me this deal that will have a profound impact on the quality of life on those that have the least amount of resources - doesn't go anywhere near far enough to prove that the "free market" is moving towards a humanitarian direction. The fact that you can compromise with human life is unacceptable to me. Governments can be corrupt, corporations can be entirely profit driven - what in this deal tries to reign in the enormous power big money has on legislation. I'm sorry I don't trust Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei to have their populations best interests in mind


The problem, however, is that little of this will have real-world impact. Administration officials, and President Obama himself, repeat the word “enforceable” almost every time they talk about the TPP’s labor provisions. The truth, however, is that the TPP’s labor chapter is not enforceable in practice. And the administration’s broader efforts to use the agreement to leverage improvements in human rights records—in problem countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei—have largely been ineffective.

The situation with Vietnam puts the issues in sharpest relief. The United States has been pressing Vietnam for almost four years to improve its human rights record and labor rights record in particular, using not only the TPP but closer military ties as the leverage. All that the United States has received in response is a few pledges, baby steps, and a handful of political prisoner releases. (If one can call the releases that: One released prisoner was in poor health and died within weeks of his release, two others were only paroled into exile in the United States.)

The Vietnamese government still uses its penal code, which contains provisions criminalizing free speech and freedom of association, to lock up dissidents and critics. More than 150 have been convicted over the last four years, in the same period in which the US was negotiating with Vietnam on the TPP.

Meanwhile, Vietnam’s labor rights record remains abysmal. Independent unions outside the umbrella of the government-controlled Vietnam General Confederation of Labor are forbidden and the act of trying to organize one is punished as a crime against the state. Labor activists such as Nguyen Hoang Quoc Hung and Doan Huy Chuong remain behind bars. And tens of thousands in administrative detention for alleged drug use are forced to work for nothing, or near to nothing. The fact that this forced labor program of supposed “drug treatment” is operated by Vietnam’s labor ministry tells you everything you need to know.

The administration insists that the TPP’s labor chapter will compel Vietnam to improve its labor record, because Hanoi will need to change its laws to allow independent unions—factory-level unions, incidentally, not sectoral unions or federations.

But with neither a functioning and objective labor dispute system, nor an independent judiciary, it is difficult to imagine how these paper reforms would come to reality.

Worse, without additional reforms to the other problematic parts of the legal system, Vietnamese labor organizers will still be vulnerable to prosecution under penal code provisions that criminalize supposed anti-party or anti-government activities—which in the government’s view has included handing out pamphlets or having park picnics at which participants read the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The administration contends that the labor chapter is enforceable, but it’s not evident how. Should the TPP come into effect and Vietnam is still crushing workers’ rights, what will be the remedy? That non-existent unions will use non-existent labor dispute mechanisms to bring worker complaints before Vietnam’s non-existent independent judiciary?

At best, international or U.S. labor rights groups may be able to petition the United States to file a complaint against Vietnam in a trade tribunal, but this would only get to abuses in general, not specific complaints.

What’s lacking in the agreement is specific mechanisms to enforce commitments that governments make on labor rights. Why would Vietnam be compelled to do anything more, once it receives the benefits of TPP membership? The better course of action would be to negotiate an agreement where key benefits are withheld if Vietnam or other countries fail to meet their commitments.

The Obama administration needs to be more realistic in describing what can be accomplished by the TPP. It’s already bad enough to forego human rights protections for the sake of free trade. It’s even worse to attempt to sell the agreement by invoking supposed rights protections when they don’t exist.

The Obama administration needs to press harder on TPP members to improve their rights records—for real. The United States shouldn’t move ahead with the TPP until it can demonstrate more serious commitments to creating truly enforceable provisions on labor rights protections and better addressing human rights concerns generally. In the meantime, Congress should focus more closely at the specifics of the deal and exercise strong oversight. There is no need to rush, and with flaws this big, the stakes are too high.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/12/sure-tpp-win-win-unless-you-care-about-human-rights


So far I've not heard anything about the capability of corporations or nations acting against it's populace's best interests will be addressed by the TPP and thus the deal is just going to provide a platform for repressive regimes to ship cheap goods to the US and other countries.
 

numble

Member
You need some mechanism to enforce the deal, and they're going with an established system. I haven't heard of any alternatives to ISDS. The ideal trade deal for a particular country would have exactly one signatory. Countries have diverse interests, so laws are always messy. The meat of the TPP is simple - should we further entangle our economies? I think the protectionist argument is legitimate, but I think we should do it. I thank you and the previous poster for discussing free trade, but this thread is not about that at all. It's about how this is the moment where America turns into V for Vendetta. Revealing scary-sounding provisions is pretty shameless, imo. That tactic is always used to challenge otherwise banal proposals. Let's be real - anything truly odious will be blocked by federal courts.

In terms of free trade, ISDS isn't about enforcing the reduction of tariffs (which is free trade). It is fairly easy to enforce the reduction of tariffs, as we often see countries use countervailing measures to do so. The ISDS section is separate from all that, and it is about how you treat foreign investors in your country and their mechanisms for remedy.
 
ZEROOOOOOO

But in all seriousness this is awful. I hope it gets torn up and stomped on like the flaming pile of shit it is.
 
In terms of free trade, ISDS isn't about enforcing the reduction of tariffs (which is free trade). It is fairly easy to enforce the reduction of tariffs, as we often see countries use countervailing measures to do so. The ISDS section is separate from all that, and it is about how you treat foreign investors in your country and their mechanisms for remedy.

What's wrong with ISDS?
 

Makai

Member
In terms of free trade, ISDS isn't about enforcing the reduction of tariffs (which is free trade). It is fairly easy to enforce the reduction of tariffs, as we often see countries use countervailing measures to do so. The ISDS section is separate from all that, and it is about how you treat foreign investors in your country and their mechanisms for remedy.
Countries get around tariffs with unreasonable regulations specifically designed to disadvantage foreign competitors. This type of regulation does not improve public welfare. There was an example of this in the EU a while ago, but I'm completely blanking on it, sorry.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
It is a free trade agreement and that's what almost all free trade agreements are.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

I guess you didn't understand what I was saying. People think of free trade as just eliminating tariffs, that is not all it is about, that is why the length of the pages is so long.

How have certain industries compromised to address humanity's best interests?
That's what I'd like to know, if you want to have Trade Deals that involve some of the worst human right violators in the region. To me this deal that will have a profound impact on the quality of life on those that have the least amount of resources - doesn't go anywhere near far enough to prove that the "free market" is moving towards a humanitarian direction. The fact that you can compromise with human life is unacceptable to me. Governments can be corrupt, corporations can be entirely profit driven - what in this deal tries to reign in the enormous power big money has on legislation. I'm sorry I don't trust Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei to have their populations best interests in mind



https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/12/sure-tpp-win-win-unless-you-care-about-human-rights

Many FTAs are not for rising humanity as a whole, it is to protect one's industry while getting more power in another nation's industry. Money in politics is very specific, you need legislation to deal with that, one you likely won't get due to the money already in politics.

I understand what you are saying, but this don't make TPP a really bad idea. There are going to be unfavorable parts in it, I agree. Certain companies got what they wanted into it when they couldn't get it in another way, but is everything really going to be as bad as GAF seem to imply?

So far I've not heard anything about the capability of corporations or nations acting against it's populace's best interests will be addressed by the TPP and thus the deal is just going to provide a platform for repressive regimes to ship cheap goods to the US and other countries.

This is about economics for those involved. Are you against FTAs specifically because of some regimes being repressive?
 

noshten

Member
Many FTAs are not for rising humanity as a whole, it is to protect one's industry while getting more power in another nation's industry. Money in politics is very specific, you need legislation to deal with that, one you likely won't get due to the money already in politics.

I understand what you are saying, but this don't make TPP a really bad idea. There are going to be unfavorable parts in it, I agree. Certain companies got what they wanted into it when they couldn't get it in another way, but is everything really going to be as bad as GAF seem to imply?



This is about economics for those involved. Are you against FTAs specifically because of some regimes being repressive?

I agree that's how FTAs work at the moment and that's precisely the problem. A lot of people don't care about people across the global being enslaved to make the products they use on a daily basis. Full automation of such mass production and servile conditions cannot come quick enough and thus in the meantime every person needs to question what they can do about it. Opposing such FTAs until people stop being enslaved so we could have cheap sh*t. People have forgotten that this was happening in the States merely a hundred years ago and we as people stood against treating us like slaves, so why are we allowing other people to go through the same hell considering the advancement it has caused. The fact that elementary measures cannot be taken to ensure those civilized nations who trade also provide the needed work condition for a human being to be able to be able to live a normal live. It's sickening that proposals like this are still coming out in 2015 that barely provide a slap on the wrist to nations and corporations who treat people like a commodity.
 

numble

Member
What's wrong with ISDS?
They aren't transparent or public such that people do not know if their laws are being applied fairly if governments are agreeing to concessions to foreign companies in a non-transparent forum.

Prior posts I've made:
A UN report covering all available data on ISDS arbitrations shows a lower success rate for states than publicly claimed. The 2015 report shows that most state "wins" are just dismissals on jurisdictional grounds:
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationChapters/wir2015ch3_en.pdf

By the end of 2014, the overall number of concluded cases had reached 405.Out of these, 36 per cent (144 cases) were decided in favor of the State (all claims dismissed either on jurisdictional grounds or on the merits), and 27 per cent (111 cases) ended in favor of the investor (monetary compensation awarded).

Out of the 144 decisions that ended in favor of the State, almost half (71 cases) were dismissed by tribunals for lack of jurisdiction.

Looking at the decisions on the merits only, 60 percent were decided in favour of the investor, and 40 percent in favour of the State.

Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds includes cases where claimants were not a foreign investor, a government's lack of consent to arbitrate, or activity not considered an investment (and not subject to ISDS). These types of cases aren't really that relevant to the fact that investors that have jurisdiction win on 70% of cases, especially if TPP expands ISDS to mandatory arbitration and expands the types of activities that are covered under ISDS. You can file 100 baseless ISDS claims tomorrow to further stack the statistics in favor of state "wins", but the more relevant stat should be rulings where investors actually had jurisdiction to make a claim.

The majority of cases seem to be decided secretly, as I provided earlier:
The following fact is telling: at the end of 2012 the Permanent Court of Arbitration reported to have administered 85 ISDS cases under UNCITRAL Rules, only 18 of these disputes were publicly known.

I think it is in the interest of the state to not disclose the secret cases where investors have won and the country has lost. It can also be in the competitive interest of investors to not disclose the secret cases where they have won.

Countries get around tariffs with unreasonable regulations specifically designed to disadvantage foreign competitors. This type of regulation does not improve public welfare. There was an example of this in the EU a while ago, but I'm completely blanking on it, sorry.

No, that doesn't make sense. A tariff is a tax on an import. If you remove it, they cannot tax the import. ISDS is about investors in a certain state. If an investor is in a state, their products aren't imports anymore, they are domestic products. The laws for investment are separate from imports and tariffs, which is what free trade is about.

I don't really accept arguments about something as unspecific as "There was an example of this in the EU a while ago"--what is the tariff in this example?
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
im sure this will be signed quickly during Thanksgiving holiday week while no one is looking.

"who controls the British Crown?
who keeps the metric system down?"

WE DO !
 

Makai

Member
No, that doesn't make sense. A tariff is a tax on an import. If you remove it, they cannot tax the import. ISDS is about investors in a certain state. If an investor is in a state, their products aren't imports anymore, they are domestic products. The laws for investment are separate from imports and tariffs, which is what free trade is about.

I don't really accept arguments about something as unspecific as "There was an example of this in the EU a while ago"--what is the tariff in this example?
Maybe I should reword it so you understand. Assume two countries have free trade. One country wants to pursue protectionism, but they can't raise tariffs because of an agreement. Instead, they change their regulatory policy in such a way that hurts foreign competitors. Again, this regulation is specifically designed to hurt foreign competitors, not increase public welfare. What should the foreign competitors do?

http://www.law360.com/articles/18412/e-u-court-to-rule-on-volkswagen-law
 

numble

Member
Maybe I should reword it so you understand. Assume two countries have free trade. One country wants to pursue protectionism, but they can't raise tariffs because of an agreement. Instead, they change their regulatory policy in such a way that hurts foreign competitors. Again, this regulation is specifically designed to hurt foreign competitors, not increase public welfare. What should the foreign competitors do?

http://www.law360.com/articles/18412/e-u-court-to-rule-on-volkswagen-law

Foreign investment and free trade are separate things. You can have a country with 0 tariffs engaging in completely free trade (Hong Kong), but still make specific rules about foreign investment (in this case, foreigners cannot buy land in Hong Kong unless they are residents).

Your link is about preventing a foreign takeover. What tariff are they circumventing by preventing a foreign company from buying Volkswagen?
 

Pedrito

Member
What's the alternative to ISDS? Would an american company trust a vietnamese judge? Would Vietnam trust an american judge? Then there's the problem of court cases going on and on, often taking longer than a decade.

I don't know exactly how it works in the TPP, but usually when you go in arbitration, the arbitrator is chosen consensually by both parties. I assume it's the same thing here,

Finally, I don't see why the State losing 60% of the time means anything. Maybe the State was actually in the wrong 60% of the time. Is there an example of a truely horrible ISDS ruling that screams bias and collusion?
 

numble

Member
What's the alternative to ISDS? Would an american company trust a vietnamese judge? Would Vietnam trust an american judge? Then there's the problem of court cases going on and on, often taking longer than a decade.

I don't know exactly how it works in the TPP, but usually when you go in arbitration, the arbritrator is chosen consensually by both parties. I assume it's the same thing here,

Finally, I don't see why the State losing 60% of the time means anything. Maybe the State was actually in the wrong 60% of the time. Is there an example of a truely horrible ISDS ruling that screams bias and collusion?

We don't actually know the actual percentage because most ISDS rulings are in secret. A government loss in a secret ISDS ruling is the equivalent of giving a secret subsidy to the foreign company, because the law will still be on the books and govern the activities of all other companies, and since it is secret, other companies do not know that one company has this "subsidy".

Fully public rulings and hearings would be one better alternative, for instance.
 

Pedrito

Member
We don't actually know the actual percentage because most ISDS rulings are in secret. A government loss in a secret ISDS ruling is the equivalent of giving a secret subsidy to the foreign company, because the law will still be on the books and govern the activities of all other companies, and since it is secret, other companies do not know that one company has this "subsidy".

Fully public rulings and hearings would be one better alternative, for instance.

I don't agree with the subsidy analogy because if it went to ISDS, the foreign company and the government were adversaries and obviously the government didn't want to concede anything in the first place. I prefer to naively think it's just reparation.

I assume some/many rulings are kept secret to avoid creating precedents, even though it wouldn't really be binding.
 

numble

Member
I don't agree with the subsidy analogy because if it went to ISDS, the foreign company and the government were adversaries and obviously the government didn't want to concede anything in the first place.

I assume some/many rulings are kept secret to avoid creating precedents, even though it wouldn't really be binding.

It amounts to a subsidy because the foreign company gets a benefit that other companies do not have access to.

I don't know if it is a fact that the foreign company and government will always be adversaries. ISDS is a perfect avenue to cut secret deals.
 

OuterLimits

Member
It is interesting to see the more Sanders Left and Tea Party Right essentially on the same side on this issue. The exact reasoning for wanting to see it be killed may be different, but they are clearly allies on this issue.

Most GOP candidates support it. Exceptions are Trump, Santorum, and Huckabee. Cruz is more unclear I think. I think he supports it, but is being a bit critical because he knows it is hated by the Tea Party. Carson used to hate it, but told the WSJ he now supports it yesterday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom