It will be interesting to see how the internet and citizens respond to this. For the first time in history, the mass of the populace has a chance to see what their overlords are plotting before it becomes written into law.
My guess is that these will all pass and corporate oppression will get worse, and in 20 years people will look at this and the average person will be more fired up to care.
right now, the average person doesn't understand the implications and doesn't care, which is why it won't be stopped.
My only problem with this is that people are more concerned about who will win the next American Idol or Dancing With The Stars contest than secretive issues like these that our politicians are creating.
To be fair, your average person doesn't understand the implications of an international trade deal even in the case of full and honest disclosure. The nuances of international trade across many industries is something most people - such as me - do not have a strong grasp of.
While this might be true, I'd have said the same about privacy/universal surveillance a couple of years ago.
When the message is condensed and communicated in a way that everyone understands (even if that means highlighting some relatively trivial effects because they're more universally digestible), it becomes easier for Joe Public to identify with.
"When the message is condensed and communicated in a way that everyone understands (even if that means highlighting some relatively trivial effects because they're more universally digestible), it becomes easier for Joe Public to identify with."
And nothing of importance changes. And it's too late.
With economics, that means interpreting things through political lenses for them. Contrary to some veins of popular anti-intellualism, not everything can be broken down into soundbytes accessible to anyone with a third-grade education without losing meaning along the way.
The very fact that there is such secrecy involved makes me think those running the show know their rigging the game and just hope to get away with it before any non biased parties realize.
Supposedly so they can be negotiated without domestic pressure groups fighting to keep protectionist measures. In fact, it's so that industry groups and lobbyists can use treaty provisions to make supine and rape the populace.
But hey, we held a (gerrymandered) election and elected (already bought an paid for) "representatives" so please shut up because direct action by the populace is the only kind of illegitimate politics.
My general impression: every country engaged in the TPP is making embarrassing concessions in the negotiations; if such an embarrassing concession came out into public early in the negotiation process, it could politically wreck that country's ability to continue negotiations due to domestic pressure. Repeat this for a few countries (since every country is making embarrassing concessions to get this thing done) and the entire deal is in jeopardy.
The deal will have to be public once complete anyway, so secrecy during the negotiations isn't the biggest price to pay.
That's an excellent argument for making the negotiations public: if a country's representative is doing something that would embarrass it in front of its citizens, it needs a new representative or it needs to drop out of the negotiations.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant", and it sounds like this negotiation needs quite a bit of disinfection.
Well, 51 different governments are negotiating. Publishing their positions means that political pressure gets put on all of them. That means that no deal gets negotiated, because someone who wants to block it (or any given aspect of it) can always find some of the 51 that they can put enough pressure on that they cave.
But secret for 5 years after it's signed? Seriously? Um, how is the US Senate supposed to ratify that? Or how is any nation supposed to implement it?
Or did that mean that details of the negotiations are secret for 5 years after signing, but the final text is not? That's a bit more reasonable, but I didn't get that from the article.
> Or did that mean that details of the negotiations are secret for 5 years after signing, but the final text is not?
That is what it means. The discussion drafts are kept secret, in part so that folks considering ratification will consider the actual final deal, and not spend all their time nitpicking the details of the negotiations.
Trade agreements are balances--each country gets some new things it wants, but must give up some old things it likes. Balances like that can only be achieved when folks are free to consider and trade all the possible permutations.
Generally speaking, the best things result from a process by a small group, which is then validated or rejected by the broader market.
OK, that's fine. Just publish the final results, not the negotiations. But publish the final results with time for us to review it before the Senate votes on it.
According to Ron Kirk, Obama's former top trade official, the reason he opposes making the text public is "doing so, he suggested to Reuters, would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign".
The stated rationale is literally "because the public would be against it".
It's just another move from the corporate elite to break down the ability of democracies to fight against them. They have corrupted the US system and aim to do the same everywhere else.
Do you support a society where dissenting opinions are branded as smear campaigns? Or do you prefer for all journalists to agree with you? Is there evidence this is more than an individual's (and maybe an editor's) opinion?
I'm not saying I thought the author's premises were relevant to his assertions; on the contrary, I think his argument was poorly-formed. I'm sure we can find embarassing quotes from the youth of almost every influential historical figure; everyone is entitled to change his or her own opinions.
>> Do you support a society where dissenting opinions are branded as smear campaigns?
almost. I support a society where anyone has the right to launch a smear campaign - as long as anyone disagreeing with it is able to air their disapproval.
We should all be able to say shit that is wrong or immature in public (especially when we're young) without being held accountable 10 years later.
I do not understand why countries want to give up so much power to foreign corporations? So desperate to get foreign investment money?
As far as I understand the implications it transfer risk from corporations to government for international investments. US BigCo puts a few millions into some german fracking project. If it fails they (secretly) sue Germany and get their money back (without any press noticing).
"Countries" are made up of fallible and corruptible human beings. Just take a look at how many heads of state in Europe have close ties with Goldman Sachs.
Now the global corporatocracy is metastasizing - and all the concerns of the those who fear "UN overreach" will now be materialized, but in the form of corporate-owned venues.
"I do not understand why countries want to give up so much power to foreign corporations?"
Because:
a) "Countries" don't give up those things. The corrupted and bribed politicians do.
b) If you are not corrupted, you can't get elected. The system rejects you from the start. If you are somehow magically elected, you are threatened. If that's not enough, the USA "brings democracy" to your country.
PS: All high level politicians are corrupted, in every country.
I see a fundamental problem with shifting the responsibility for uncertain profits (due to changes in laws) from corporate entities to national entities. I believe that the uncertainties from investing in a certain country (ie. investing in nuclear reactors in Germany) should entirely be carried by the (private) investors themselves - and not by the governments. As a recent example: There is an ongoing dispute where a Swedish utility (Vattenfall) sued the German government for their plan to phase out nuclear energy.
If governments are suddenly held accountable for (lost) profits of private companies we create a huge imbalance. Where the private entities reap the benefits of successful investments but the governments carry the burden if such investments fail (due to legislative action by the government). This is particularly worrisome because the higher tax revenues generated by a successful (or successfully suing) company might benefit an entirely different country.
Thus this whole process essentially creates a race to the bottom in terms of consumer and environmental protection, as well as a huge barrier to the introduction of new regulations. Again, reducing regulations by itself doesn't have to be bad at all - frankly it's quite a good process. The only problem is that now the public gets excluded from the debate and instead an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process - held at international arbitration courts - will decide which regulations are allowed and which are not.
In conclusion this further emphasizes - or to put it more drastically - ultimately codifies the primacy of economics over democracies.
29 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 76.3 ms ] threadMy guess is that these will all pass and corporate oppression will get worse, and in 20 years people will look at this and the average person will be more fired up to care.
right now, the average person doesn't understand the implications and doesn't care, which is why it won't be stopped.
When the message is condensed and communicated in a way that everyone understands (even if that means highlighting some relatively trivial effects because they're more universally digestible), it becomes easier for Joe Public to identify with.
And nothing of importance changes. And it's too late.
I suppose it's to be expected; profits for the next quarter above all other considerations!
Their successors will have to deal with the fallout, not them.
The end of Greater Taylorism is nigh.
But hey, we held a (gerrymandered) election and elected (already bought an paid for) "representatives" so please shut up because direct action by the populace is the only kind of illegitimate politics.
The deal will have to be public once complete anyway, so secrecy during the negotiations isn't the biggest price to pay.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant", and it sounds like this negotiation needs quite a bit of disinfection.
But secret for 5 years after it's signed? Seriously? Um, how is the US Senate supposed to ratify that? Or how is any nation supposed to implement it?
Or did that mean that details of the negotiations are secret for 5 years after signing, but the final text is not? That's a bit more reasonable, but I didn't get that from the article.
That is what it means. The discussion drafts are kept secret, in part so that folks considering ratification will consider the actual final deal, and not spend all their time nitpicking the details of the negotiations.
Trade agreements are balances--each country gets some new things it wants, but must give up some old things it likes. Balances like that can only be achieved when folks are free to consider and trade all the possible permutations.
Generally speaking, the best things result from a process by a small group, which is then validated or rejected by the broader market.
The stated rationale is literally "because the public would be against it".
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/opinion/obamas-covert-trad...
[1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-gle...
I'm not saying I thought the author's premises were relevant to his assertions; on the contrary, I think his argument was poorly-formed. I'm sure we can find embarassing quotes from the youth of almost every influential historical figure; everyone is entitled to change his or her own opinions.
almost. I support a society where anyone has the right to launch a smear campaign - as long as anyone disagreeing with it is able to air their disapproval.
We should all be able to say shit that is wrong or immature in public (especially when we're young) without being held accountable 10 years later.
As far as I understand the implications it transfer risk from corporations to government for international investments. US BigCo puts a few millions into some german fracking project. If it fails they (secretly) sue Germany and get their money back (without any press noticing).
Now the global corporatocracy is metastasizing - and all the concerns of the those who fear "UN overreach" will now be materialized, but in the form of corporate-owned venues.
Because: a) "Countries" don't give up those things. The corrupted and bribed politicians do. b) If you are not corrupted, you can't get elected. The system rejects you from the start. If you are somehow magically elected, you are threatened. If that's not enough, the USA "brings democracy" to your country.
PS: All high level politicians are corrupted, in every country.
If governments are suddenly held accountable for (lost) profits of private companies we create a huge imbalance. Where the private entities reap the benefits of successful investments but the governments carry the burden if such investments fail (due to legislative action by the government). This is particularly worrisome because the higher tax revenues generated by a successful (or successfully suing) company might benefit an entirely different country.
Thus this whole process essentially creates a race to the bottom in terms of consumer and environmental protection, as well as a huge barrier to the introduction of new regulations. Again, reducing regulations by itself doesn't have to be bad at all - frankly it's quite a good process. The only problem is that now the public gets excluded from the debate and instead an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process - held at international arbitration courts - will decide which regulations are allowed and which are not.
In conclusion this further emphasizes - or to put it more drastically - ultimately codifies the primacy of economics over democracies.