Trans-Pacific Partnership Thread

[DSeid]

@BrainGlutton

This topic does need debate, but I think this thread really belongs in GD, not Elections; almost certainly TPP will be a done deal before the next election.

Although it will likely be an issue during the election cycle. HRC will need to take a position on it.

[DinoR]

@DSeid

Although it will likely be an issue during the election cycle. HRC will need to take a position on it.

It will be interesting to see how big of an issue it becomes. Bill, IIRC, didn’t get big questions as part of the tag team between Bush and him that saw NAFTA implemented. Of course he was running against the incumbent that led negotiations and trade seems to have more traction now. The internet let’s use parse every single public word of a vague answer now too.

[Stringbean]

1. Large multinationals support it? Check.

2. All negotiation has been conducted in secret? Check.

3. The president is demanding Congress vote for it with no debate and no transparency? Check.

Folks, we have a victory for democracy. How could it not be in our best interests? We’re obviously too stupid, us citizenry, to even deserve a looksie before they enact it into law.

Thank goodness our elected officials are all so much wiser than us. They know what’s best, and, as always, that aligns perfectly with the interests of our corporate overlords.

[DinoR]

@Stringbean

3. The president is demanding Congress vote for it with no debate and no transparency?
   .

No check. The vote is only about fast track authority not pre-approving implentation. Any agreement negotiated would still require Congressional approval at the end. Fast track authority does limit time in committee along with preventing filibuster and amendment during the ratification process. The whole agreement is public once it’s ready and Congress can refuse to pass the implementing legislation.

It will be still be made public and subject to a Congressional vote later even if fast track authority is approved.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

And while we’re addressing checks…

@Stringbean

All negotiation has been conducted in secret? Check.

First of all, the negotiations kind of have to have a level of security and always have:

Of course, the U.S. trade representative has reasons for keeping the discussions under wraps. Other countries may not put their best proposals on the table, the office has said, if the whole world can see them.

But right now, with the perception that America will soon be subject to an international trade pact influenced by corporate interests behind closed doors, whatever level of strategic advantage that’s created among negotiating parties is exacting political costs that might keep the deal from ever making it through Congress at all.

Even if U.S. Trade Ambassador Michael Froman thinks that opponents of the TPP are being disingenuous in their claims about how it could affect local health and safety regulations, for example, he can’t put the text out in public to prove anybody wrong. Instead, draft chapters have seeped out via Wikileaks, leading to outrage when people find out what’s in them – and fear that the rest of the agreement might be just as bad.

“This is saying, 'We need to build trust among the negotiating parties, and that trust is more important than the trust among the public at whom the policy is aimed,’” Aaronson says. “The more information you put out, you empower people with the facts, but you also disabuse them of the demagoguery related to the facts.”

Aaronson says that it makes sense for some elements of the negotiations to remain out of public view, such as confidential business information.

With the TPP, the United States isn’t alone in its secrecy. Japan hasn’t even allowed its legislators to see the text, to their chagrin. And public interest advocates in other countries, such as Australia and Canada, are impatient with their own governments’ tight lips.

Washington Post

[eschereal]

Is China expected to eventually sign onto it?

[Ruken]

@Velocity

Free trade, like opposition to governmental spying, is one of those weird things where the far right and far left are in agreement.

I’m always fascinated when people can can get far left and right such that they can give each other a reach-around.

[Ruken]

There are going to be people here who are generally for or against more free trade. I’m not sure that’s very interesting.

Some folks have discussed the IP provisions. Those are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership_intellectual_property_provisions

I’m leery about copyright extensions and anti-circumvention measures, but most of what I’m seeing in there jives with existing US law. Where it doesn’t is covered in the linked article:

For example, the TPP extends rights to copyright holders over temporary copies, whereas US law specifies that copies must be “fixed”; this may also impact the ISP safe harbor for cached copies of infringing works. The TPP also contains language that would “resolve” court splits in favor of copyright holders on the issues of: parallel imports, whether circumvention liability requires an underlying copyright infringement, and whether authors have a “making available” right. The TPP’s “standards” for preliminary injunctions are quite different from US law, including a 10-day window in which a court must grant the injunction, and no requirement that the right holder show likely irreparable harm. The TPP patent provision has been criticized primarily for its impacts on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, but will likely also impact software and other technology. In particular, the TPP removes the requirement that an inventor disclose the “best mode” of the invention, thus creating the possibility of inventors “retaining the best for [themselves].”

[Jonathan_Chance]

@BrainGlutton

This topic does need debate, but I think this thread really belongs in GD, not Elections; almost certainly TPP will be a done deal before the next election.

Can’t really argue with that.

Off to Great Debates.

[eschereal]

New Republic has some stuff to say about TPP, which mostly sounds like “not as bad as you might think”. Except, maybe, the IP issue. But, apart from the US, the partner countries do not seem to be industrial powerhouses. For it to have real weight, I would think China, Indonesia and the Phillipines should be in on it.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

. . . Fed auditing-type cranks . . .

There is indeed a lot of crankery about the Fed. But, there is no good reason why the Fed should not be audited.

[foolsguinea]

@adaher

It’s not like we’re moving from a situation where American workers are protected to one in which they won’t be. It’s more like a situation where we inadequately protect American workers while still lacking sufficient access to certain foreign markets. These deals solve the latter problem at the very least.

“Sufficient access” for whom?

It sounds like you’re saying that since the USA has already trashed its own labor movement, it should now get international law on the books to trash protectionism, including labor protection, in other countries. That is, that our government should work to expand the power of crony capitalists around the world and diminish the political power of labor unions and worker’s movements around the world.

And that’s before we get into health and environmental issues.

If this kind of trade policy is so “good” why can’t it be drafted and voted on openly? Why isn’t it something that will arise spontaneously from free, peaceful, democratic politics, not only in the USA, but in Australia and Japan?

[foolsguinea]

@Richard_Parker

The argument for free trade is that countries ought not–and should agree not to–put up such trade barriers because it is net beneficial to everyone.

I would counter that it may actually be logically impossible for it to be a net benefit to everyone. A rising tide on one side of the world is a falling tide 90° longitude away.

And IP laws in particular are not natural rights, they are direct, created sanctions. International IP treaties necessarily take away the freedom of entrepreneurs in countries behind the curve or with fewer patents, and drain money from those countries to the countries that hold most of the rights. Or rather, to the elites of international business, loyal to no country. Those guys will go wherever is willing to undertax them or fail to prosecute tax evasion. Monies that flow to them are lost to the public interest.

It makes a certain sense for the USA to support this, in a predatory, amoral way. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for anyone else to do so.

[John_Mace]

@foolsguinea

I would counter that it may actually be logically impossible for it to be a net benefit to everyone. A rising tide on one side of the world is a falling tide 90° longitude away.

I think by “everyone” he meant all the countries. Clearly, not every single person in every country is going to come out ahead.

And IP laws in particular are not natural rights, they are direct, created sanctions. International IP treaties necessarily take away the freedom of entrepreneurs in countries behind the curve or with fewer patents, and drain money from those countries to the countries that hold most of the rights. Or rather, to the elites of international business, loyal to no country. Those guys will go wherever is willing to undertax them or fail to prosecute tax evasion. Monies that flow to them are lost to the public interest.

It makes a certain sense for the USA to support this, in a predatory, amoral way. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for anyone else to do so.

A country like the US has no incentive to engage in free trade with countries that do not recognize IP rights. That’s why it makes sense for poorer countries to agree to honor them.

[foolsguinea]

Well, I disagree. The USA has at least some incentive to engage in abusive treaty-drafting with smaller countries, and their incentive to play along largely amounts to fear of losing a very large market and of gaining a very large enemy.

This almost can’t be a good deal for general populace of the non-USA signers. It can be a good deal for a few politically connected persons in each country. It might make little difference to the median citizen of the USA one way or another, as we have no populist political movements of any strength as it is, and we’re used to being ruled by the toadies of billionaires.

[Deeg]

Is it a given that NAFTA was bad? It doesn’t seem to have caused the American economy to go into a tail-spin.

[John_Mace]

@foolsguinea

Well, I disagree. The USA has at least some incentive to engage in abusive treaty-drafting with smaller countries, and their incentive to play along largely amounts to fear of losing a very large market and of gaining a very large enemy.

Certainly those are possible. But just because something is possible doesn’t mean that it will actually happen. We don’t know what the deal is going to end up as-- it has yet to be negotiated.

[DinoR]

@foolsguinea

I would counter that it may actually be logically impossible for it to be a net benefit to everyone. A rising tide on one side of the world is a falling tide 90° longitude away.

You contention would be arguing against the overwhelming majority of economists who pretty much all accept the concept of comparative advantage. You’d be close to the realm of arguing against climate scientists about AGW based on last winter being pretty cold in your area.

Now the devil is still in the details and since this is mixed with IP parts of the agreement that’s a useful spot to look at. IP law grants some monopoly power to creators/inventors to create an incentive to go through the effort and expense. The goal is to try and balance the cost of that market power against the public good of having people create/research new stuff. I think we get it wrong in spots. Since the US has some of the most restrictive laws regarding IP so there’s an argument that IP provisions are actually restrictions on certain aspects of trade that don’t exist now. Not all aspects of a trade agreement are necessarily ones that provide for freer trade no matter how the agreement is labeled.

[John_Mace]

@foolsguinea

I would counter that it may actually be logically impossible for it to be a net benefit to everyone. A rising tide on one side of the world is a falling tide 90° longitude away.

I was so focused on your first sentence that I didn’t full appreciate the second one. Are you really saying that if one country benefits from trade, the other country must necessarily lose? It seems like that’s what you’re saying, but it’s so outside the realm of what economists tell us that I’m going to assume I’m reading that incorrectly.

[DinoR]

@Deeg

Is it a given that NAFTA was bad? It doesn’t seem to have caused the American economy to go into a tail-spin.

It’snot.