Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for TPP

[Ebowed]

Yeah, the export of the United States' hitherto almost uniquely terrible intellectual property regime all over the Pacific Rim really is the most intolerable and indefensible part of this, and it's (obviously) one for which this country has nobody but itself to blame.

Exactly. In any case, it will do no further harm inside the US: all the harm has already been done.

We really don't want this garbage over here.

The TPP has been well known within politically aware circles for several months now as a severe threat to Australian consumers.  As much as we might respect America's love for intellectual property, nobody appreciates getting letters from film distributors demanding thousands of dollars up front to avoid a costly court case.  Nobody is thrilled about 'adapting' to higher US prices for medication, or 'adapting' to the needs of US corporations that wish to ignore environmental and/or labor protections.

Indeed, Australia discovered this recently as Philip Morris Ltd moved in an international court to challenge their plain cigarette packaging legislation, abandoning local mechanisms to defeat the restrictions as there existed no good will for the tobacco industry.  We're quite concerned that this could become a regular occurrence.

[Deus Naturae]

Yeah, the export of the United States' hitherto almost uniquely terrible intellectual property regime all over the Pacific Rim really is the most intolerable and indefensible part of this, and it's (obviously) one for which this country has nobody but itself to blame.

Exactly. In any case, it will do no further harm inside the US: all the harm has already been done.

It will do harm to American consumers of goods from other signatory nations. And, even if it would do no harm to the US, that still isn't an argument in favor of US participation in it. If a war harmed other countries but made no difference or benefitted to the US, that wouldn't be an argument in favor of US participation in the conflict.

The other countries are willing to take this sh**t, because US repays them with market access. If you do not want these IP provisions, just fight against them domestically - everybody else would be happy. We are willing to take this even in package with the IP sh**t - we would be much happier without. But saying that you are against an agreement because of the provisions YOUR GOVERNMENT insists upon, and so you will fight against the agreement, rather than against your government insisting on those provisions - is, at best, strange.

Correction: The governments of the other countries are willing to take this sh**t. That doesn't mean it's good for their citizens, many of whom oppose this treaty. Plus, I already pointed out that Americans are affected by the foreign adoption of these laws this as well.

I find it strange how you emphasize "your government" as if I personally have some sort of connection with its positions on these matters. I already advocate the repeal of these measures here; it only makes sense that I would oppose efforts by MY GOVERNMENT to extend them to foreign countries as well.

[ag]

Yeah, the export of the United States' hitherto almost uniquely terrible intellectual property regime all over the Pacific Rim really is the most intolerable and indefensible part of this, and it's (obviously) one for which this country has nobody but itself to blame.

Exactly. In any case, it will do no further harm inside the US: all the harm has already been done.

It will do harm to American consumers of goods from other signatory nations. And, even if it would do no harm to the US, that still isn't an argument in favor of US participation in it. If a war harmed other countries but made no difference or benefitted to the US, that wouldn't be an argument in favor of US participation in the conflict.

The other countries are willing to take this sh**t, because US repays them with market access. If you do not want these IP provisions, just fight against them domestically - everybody else would be happy. We are willing to take this even in package with the IP sh**t - we would be much happier without. But saying that you are against an agreement because of the provisions YOUR GOVERNMENT insists upon, and so you will fight against the agreement, rather than against your government insisting on those provisions - is, at best, strange.

Correction: The governments of the other countries are willing to take this sh**t. That doesn't mean it's good for their citizens, many of whom oppose this treaty. Plus, I already pointed out that Americans are affected by the foreign adoption of these laws this as well.

I find it strange how you emphasize "your government" as if I personally have some sort of connection with its positions on these matters. I already advocate the repeal of these measures here; it only makes sense that I would oppose efforts by MY GOVERNMENT to extend them to foreign countries as well.

You live in a democracy, don´t you?

Well, as a citizen of Mexico, I would like to have as many of these treaties as possible. Because free trade is good for us.

[Deus Naturae]

You live in a democracy, don´t you?

Well, as a citizen of Mexico, I would like to have as many of these treaties as possible. Because free trade is good for us.

I don't know what point this post is trying to make.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'll have to admit, the way some progressive wave "CHINA" like a red flag makes me uncomfortable, and seems out of step with the friendly attitude that progressives take towards other countries traditionally seen as potentially hostile to the U.S.

I ask at the risk of driving this thread off topic, but why should left-of-center Americans have any affinity toward China?

Because we hope things get better for the Chinese people by showing them affinity instead of the tough love that wont work on them.

[Beet]

I'll have to admit, the way some progressive wave "CHINA" like a red flag makes me uncomfortable, and seems out of step with the friendly attitude that progressives take towards other countries traditionally seen as potentially hostile to the U.S.

I ask at the risk of driving this thread off topic, but why should left-of-center Americans have any affinity toward China?

Well, it's a country of millions of largely poor people of color lifting itself out of poverty, and the left has generally been for that. If you can't have affinity for that, maybe you can at least see that when slapping the words "China" or "Chinese" on anything becomes a sort of epithet on itself (and this happens on both the right and left), it veers into the direction of othering and racism that has long been the dark side of this country's relationship with the Far East.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's absurd to trivialize political rhetoric with xenophobic undertones as "feeling get hurt." This is what I mean. At least a vocal part of the left will speak out against this sort of thing when it comes to Muslims, but then perpetuate it when it comes to Chinese.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'll have to admit, the way some progressive wave "CHINA" like a red flag makes me uncomfortable, and seems out of step with the friendly attitude that progressives take towards other countries traditionally seen as potentially hostile to the U.S.

I ask at the risk of driving this thread off topic, but why should left-of-center Americans have any affinity toward China?

Because we hope things get better for the Chinese people by showing them affinity instead of the tough love that wont work on them.

There's a difference between "showing them affinity" and being a complete pushover by leting them undercut our economy via currency manipulation so no one's feelings get hurt.

Letting them?  Please.  We made them do it.  We carroted them with "development" and now we're getting the stick in the form of massive pollution and cancer.

Why?  Because OUR companies populated with well meaning clarkos wanted it that way.

[Maxwell]

The internet freedom part is suspect, but ultimately this is a good deal.

[Beet]

Thanks Averroes. I do think the Obama administration's China policy has been a bit short-sighted. He's gotten some things right, but he doesn't seem to have much of an overall strategy, and seems to be drifting into a policy of vague containment. If so, it's somewhat understandable given China's increasingly hard-line actions, but the administration ought to find some way to articulate the policy and define what the end goal is. If he wants to push TPP, it would make more sense in the context of a larger East Asia policy.

[All Along The Watchtower]

From what I've seen, a lot of the objections to TPP read like they are from the mid-20th century (e.g. paranoid fears about the United Nations or economic globalization). Kinda hard for me to take those seriously in 2015.

[AggregateDemand]

Blocking trade makes us all poorer. The neglect of the working man is not related to these trade deals, rather the onerous taxation and abundant lack of services provided to the lower-middle class.

I don't understand why the lower-middle class are gluttons for punishment, but everyone loves to pile on. Conservatives are always trying to cut benefits, and liberals are always raising their taxes.

[Ebsy]

Blocking trade makes us all poorer. The neglect of the working man is not related to these trade deals, rather the onerous taxation and abundant lack of services provided to the lower-middle class.

I don't understand why the lower-middle class are gluttons for punishment, but everyone loves to pile on. Conservatives are always trying to cut benefits, and liberals are always raising their taxes.

They don't vote.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's absurd to trivialize political rhetoric with xenophobic undertones as "feeling get hurt." This is what I mean. At least a vocal part of the left will speak out against this sort of thing when it comes to Muslims, but then perpetuate it when it comes to Chinese.

I wasn't talking about xenophobia, even though I agree with your point. I was replying to Snowguy solely from an economics standpoint.

We wanted cheap goods.  It benefitted our companies by allowing them to skim profits.  Our companies said to China it would be like a down payment for their economic development...build factories and go to work and send products to America for cheap and reinvest your wages in your economy.  The exports sully the air and water though even as a middle class forms in China.

Now they are in the same place Japan was in around the late 80s.  Pollution is a major issue...there is little to no social welfare and worker productivity is super high.

Now we remove our investment and go to the next spot.  The smog settles and China busily moves its people into its gleaming new cities.  And they, like the Japanese will refind the emptiness that is offered by the drug of economic development.  Now you're miserable in your porcelain palace instead of your 300 year old farm house.  The real work begins on spiritual and cultural development and expression...but we will mock them because they don't have high economic growth rates even as their culture flowers into a billion different things to do.  We will have ours that cling to growth and only like yellow food and cheeseburgers.

This presumes a rapid and indefinite reduction in economic growth in China similar to Japan after 1989.

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/bernie-sanders-fast-track_n_7118242.html

[Ebowed]

From what I've seen, a lot of the objections to TPP read like they are from the mid-20th century (e.g. paranoid fears about the United Nations or economic globalization). Kinda hard for me to take those seriously in 2015.

There are plenty of voices, as Averroes points out, coming from a non-fringe perspective.  Personally I never credibly entertain the paranoid cries of nationalists, who have their own reasons for opposing trade agreements.  The problem with TPP is that it goes far beyond any free trade agreement by extending US patent laws to participant countries, and in the process creating an international court where corporations would be able to sue governments for any regulations they might find stifling.  The biggest problem with this extension of patents will come in medicine, where other countries will have to wait longer before manufacturing cheaper generic versions of pharmaceuticals.  The best reason any American could have to support it is that many of the most onerous problems it creates already exist in the US.  But these concerns are certainly not radical or fringe.

[All Along The Watchtower]

From May 2012:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/darrell-issa-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal_n_1521035.html

And in June 2012:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/trans-pacific-partnership-documents-sherrod-brown-jeff-merkley-ron-wyden-robert-menendez_n_1624956.html

No wonder the need for secrecy on TPP has become more urgent over the past few years. Looks like Rep. Darrell Issa's office illegally* leaked  the trade deal online, putting enormous political pressure on the US Trade Representative, President Obama, and others involved in negotiating TPP.

And several Democratic Senators, to add insult to injury, demanded access to the negotiations (completing ignoring the fact that Issa -Mr. Benghazi Republican Committee Chairman himself - had just jeopardized the United States' position in the negotiations - likely in an illegal fashion, FWIW - to undermine the Democratic President. Nice teamwork, Senate Democrats!).


_{*The fact  that the document was previously available online illegally doesn't mean that Issa's leaking  of it suddenly is OK, legally}.

[MaxQue]

Well, it's good to point out the few times the Republicans do right things. Believe me, it would best for everybody if that treaty transforming countries in slaves of corporations failed.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Let's hope this goes down in flames, then.

[Deus Naturae]

snip

LOL @ "the need for secrecy." We need to be secretive because...someone might attempt to reveal what we're doing to the public. That truly would be a disaster. We need to respect the privacy of those who would restrict the online freedom of millions without their knowledge!