The Bern endoses Hillary

[blankslate]

This is a speculative article that was written before the text of the TPP was made public, meaning the author had no idea what the dispute resolution process actually was/is.

Actually people were talking about this provision as a concern before the TPP was made public. Probably whistle-blowers leaking information about something they were worried about in the TPP. Reproductions of which they were not allowed to make to review outside of the special TPP reading room. Hell they had to leave their notes in the room as well. WTF?!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...deal-read-in-secret-by-only-few-or-maybe-none

For any senator who wants to study the draft TPP language, it has been made available in the basement of the Capitol, inside a secure, soundproof room. There, lawmakers surrender their cellphones and other mobile devices. Any notes taken inside the room must be left in the room.

Only aides with high-level security clearances can accompany lawmakers. Members of Congress can't ask outside industry experts or lawyers to analyze the language. They can't talk to the public about what they read. And Brown says there's no computer inside the secret room to look something up when there's confusion. You just consult the USTR official.

"There is more access in most cases to CIA and Defense Department and Iran sanctions documents — better access to congressional staff and others — than for this trade agreement," said Brown.

The White House says it has sent representatives to the Hill for more than 1,700 meetings over the past few years to help members of Congress and staffers understand the terms of the draft agreement.

I don't trust a trade agreement made under those restrictions on lawmakers trying to understand it. Especially if once it is made public no changes are then allowed to be made to the agreement.

The White House points out the final TPP language will be made public 60 days before the president signs the agreement. But by then, negotiations will be over and changes to the language can't be made.

You might be fine with it but then I hope you aren't involved in expensive business deals cause you must lose a crapton of money.


___________________

 

[Moonbeam]

To be clear I'm not saying there is no doubt as economics isn't firm enough to say things with certainty but there are at least quite a few areas where we can speak with a high degree of confidence.

I understand that. I am not attempting to contradict your points and I take your comment here as clarification not remonstration, but to say where I have my personal challenges with my own, if perhaps much less informed, but I think at least similar ways of thinking. In that vein, I would point to the 'we' in your statement. I just see a whole other 'we' that has an equal but different kind of confidence. This is why I am always interested in motivation. Some motives, for example, a desire for to be objective, might be considered good if untainted by a prior assumption one already knows what is good.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Good for Bernie. He did what he could for his supporters, then did the classy thing.

see? this is a reasonable response to what Bernie did/said. thank you werepossum. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Actually people were talking about this provision as a concern before the TPP was made public. Probably whistle-blowers leaking information about something they were worried about in the TPP. Reproductions of which they were not allowed to make to review outside of the special TPP reading room. Hell they had to leave their notes in the room as well. WTF?!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...deal-read-in-secret-by-only-few-or-maybe-none

I don't trust a trade agreement made under those restrictions on lawmakers trying to understand it. Especially if once it is made public no changes are then allowed to be made to the agreement.

You might be fine with it but then I hope you aren't involved in expensive business deals cause you must lose a crapton of money.

___________________

Why don't you base your trust or distrust of the agreement on the actual text of it which was made public quite awhile ago, after both of your articles? I mean what's the point in reading speculative articles when you can actually read what they were speculating about?

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

What in here do you object to specifically? Is it the whole concept of investor-state dispute settlement? If so, that's been a thing in US trade treaties for decades. If not, what specific components of the investor-state dispute settlement in the TPP do you object to?

I try to base my opinions on what is, not on what people speculate something is. People who take speculation over fact probably lose a crapton of money in expensive business deals.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just a random snip from the previously posted document. Anyone care to explain what it means, be specific not vague.

Article 18.10: Application of Chapter to Existing Subject Matter and Prior
Acts
1. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, including in Article 18.64
(Application of Article 18 of the Berne Convention and Article 14.6 of the TRIPS
Agreement), this Chapter gives rise to obligations in respect of all subject matter
existing at the date of entry into force of this Agreement for a Party and that is
protected on that date in the territory of a Party where protection is claimed, or
that meets or comes subsequently to meet the criteria for protection under this
Chapter.
2. Unless provided in Article 18.64 (Application of Article 18 of the Berne
Convention and Article 14.6 of the TRIPS Agreement), a Party shall not be

5
For greater certainty, paragraphs 2 and 3 are without prejudice to a Party’s obligations under
Article 18.24 (Electronic Trademarks System).
6
For greater certainty, paragraph 2 does not require a Party to make available on the Internet the
entire dossier for the relevant application.
7
For greater certainty, paragraph 3 does not require a Party to make available on the Internet the
entire dossier for the relevant registered or granted intellectual property right.
18-7
required to restore protection to subject matter that on the date of entry into force
of this Agreement for that Party has fallen into the public domain in its territory.
3. This Chapter does not give rise to obligations in respect of acts that
occurred before the date of entry into force of this Agreement for a Party.
Article 18.11: Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights
Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from determining whether or
under what conditions the exhaustion of intellectual property rights applies under
its legal system.

Think about how this was drafted, 85% were representing business 10% representing State/Federal Government 5% representing Labor. How can you think this agreement will be good for labor with those numbers?

My problems are specifically how it was drafted
How its nearly impossible to understand
What is its exact value to the US
What happens if it doesn't work out for us (the US)
What is its purpose? As mentioned before we already have free trade with many who are involved, how will this make it better? Why is keeping options open like feel free to trade with us as long as you play fair, stop playing fair and expect to lose that privilege a bad thing?

 

[Moonbeam]

Why don't you base your trust or distrust of the agreement on the actual text of it which was made public quite awhile ago, after both of your articles? I mean what's the point in reading speculative articles when you can actually read what they were speculating about?

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

What in here do you object to specifically? Is it the whole concept of investor-state dispute settlement? If so, that's been a thing in US trade treaties for decades. If not, what specific components of the investor-state dispute settlement in the TPP do you object to?

I try to base my opinions on what is, not on what people speculate something is. People who take speculation over fact probably lose a crapton of money in expensive business deals.

If I recall properly, it seems that Verge got quite a thrill by being willing to wager money on the accuracy of his hunches. It will be interesting if if he pays up. Perhaps the thrill is gone

 

[agent00f]

He isnt far off considering the fact that one of the only ways the trade deficits can be maintained is to not sell the dollars coming in and lower usd value. They have to do something with the dollars. Rather than buying hard assets they just financed the debt.

The point is the confusion over basic definitions stems from elsewhere, and it's only a coincidence that there's some overlap.

I find it difficult to escape the feeling there must be an actual reality that can be perceived and measured, and yet it seems to remain illusive. It's like being in a hall of funny mirrors. As each economic voice is projected and proven to show merit a new excuse as to why that new one can't be right from the other side is projected. It seems as if those who wear blue glasses always see a reality that is visible in blue light and those with red glasses see a world that reflects nothing but red. In one world maybe things look right and in the other they feel right. In one case one has to have the capacity to be able to reason rationally and in the other to feel without emotional bias. Is the mind capable of doing both, I wonder?

Your point is valid, but it's worth noting economics overall is more often prescriptive instead of descriptive than most any other science.

This isn't just a matter of interpreting results to self-interested ends, but the entire system is based on a normative approach. For example, much of econ lit simply assumes neoliberal sociopolitical ideals, in a way that astrophysics doesn't assume idealized heliocentric/geocentric solar system (anymore).

The result is that framing the discussion in your favor to start with is important, and that's a very much a political fight.

 

[agent00f]

Actually people were talking about this provision as a concern before the TPP was made public. Probably whistle-blowers leaking information about something they were worried about in the TPP. Reproductions of which they were not allowed to make to review outside of the special TPP reading room. Hell they had to leave their notes in the room as well. WTF?!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...deal-read-in-secret-by-only-few-or-maybe-none



I don't trust a trade agreement made under those restrictions on lawmakers trying to understand it. Especially if once it is made public no changes are then allowed to be made to the agreement.



You might be fine with it but then I hope you aren't involved in expensive business deals cause you must lose a crapton of money.


___________________

Actually the reason why these treaties & such are discussed behind closed doors is to avoid issues getting turned into political footballs.

I didn't read the specifics of this particular dispute, but a lot of trade deal details involve creating shared standards. If you've never been through standards committees, like for your industry or something, then know it's often a grueling process of horse trading interests.

The point being the US negotiators are looking out for american interests and vice versa. Those necessarily involve our corp interests, unfair as it might be to anyone else in the world.

For citizens to comment intelligently on the details requires some understanding of this complex bureaucratic task, and frankly that's a very tall order.

 

[blankslate]

Actually the reason why these treaties & such are discussed behind closed doors is to avoid issues getting turned into political footballs.

If you've never been through standards committees, like for your industry or something, then know it's often a grueling process of horse trading interests.

The point being the US negotiators are looking out for american interests and vice versa. Those necessarily involve our corp interests, unfair as it might be to anyone else in the world.

Except that these negotiators are not looking out for all American interests just the ones who are above a certain income level....

If you don't believe it look at all the closed factories and which countries import raw materials and export manufactured goods.


I've given the reasons I won't vote for Hillary and none of you have convinced me I should reconsider. But the conversation about that was nice I suppose.


_____________

 

[Moonbeam]

Except that these negotiators are not looking out for all American interests just the ones who are above a certain income level....

If you don't believe it look at all the closed factories and which countries import raw materials and export manufactured goods.


I've given the reasons I won't vote for Hillary and none of you have convinced me I should reconsider. But the conversation about that was nice I suppose.


_____________

I started a thread about the TPP because I didn't understand the issues. I was looking to understand if the treaty was good for the American people or just the players in industry. I learned that a lot of the negotiations are about standards and what I consider what I now personally consider to be minutia of no moment to me. I also came to the conclusion that the details are nut-crackingly endless and mind bogglingly arcane, and that I have neither the time or interest to deconstruct them as they relate to our macro economic situation. I saw that the only people who might have skin in the game are the ones in the negotiations, experts in trade knowledgeable about what is at stake for their countries trade benefits, and that this really will be about rich people and what trickles down. In short it strikes me that the TPP yes or no is an issue that has been coopted to stir the political fear pot, and my suspicion is that that is exactly what has gotten to you.

You won't be convinced to vote for Hillary because you don't want to, not because there is some huge relevance in this trade deal. I can't myself look around and say, geez all these people without jobs are because international trade is a bad deal. I think the real issue is what kind of a job government does with taxes, whether we borrow and invest in infrastructure that makes for jobs and a better tomorrow. Mass transit between the economic powerhouses in the US, rails and highways, would create jobs and spur economic growth, for example. We need liberals for that it would seem.

 

[werepossum]

Except that these negotiators are not looking out for all American interests just the ones who are above a certain income level....

If you don't believe it look at all the closed factories and which countries import raw materials and export manufactured goods.


I've given the reasons I won't vote for Hillary and none of you have convinced me I should reconsider. But the conversation about that was nice I suppose.


_____________

Exactly. The irony is that after American companies transfer their machinery and train the third world employees on how to build their products, it inevitably starts the downslide as the new factory people learn more and the Americans forget more. Pretty soon the American corporation farms out the engineering too, since their engineers have lost touch with the necessary processes. Then the foreign cheap labor people can start their own company, competing with their American benefactor who is by now nothing but marketers and brass. Then the outsourcing includes the CXOs too. However, that isn't much comfort to the American workers who no longer have jobs.

 

[blankslate]

You won't be convinced to vote for Hillary because you don't want to, not because there is some huge relevance in this trade deal.

If you don't believe there is a huge relevance in the trade deal you're living on the moon. If Hillary Clinton moved against the TPP in spite of her Wallstreet handers that would indeed provide me with strong evidence she could be trusted to look out for the people who are not in the 1%

Sorry to burst your weird bubble....


_____________

 

[ivwshane]

If you don't believe there is a huge relevance in the trade deal you're living on the moon. If Hillary Clinton moved against the TPP in spite of her Wallstreet handers that would indeed provide me with strong evidence she could be trusted to look out for the people who are not in the 1%

Sorry to burst your weird bubble....


_____________

Try reading his post again.

 

[blankslate]

Try reading his post again.

Not worth it. Now ah heck off.


____________

 

[ivwshane]

Not worth it. Now ah heck off.


____________

No surprise, reading is hard.

 

[agent00f]

Except that these negotiators are not looking out for all American interests just the ones who are above a certain income level....

If you don't believe it look at all the closed factories and which countries import raw materials and export manufactured goods.


I've given the reasons I won't vote for Hillary and none of you have convinced me I should reconsider. But the conversation about that was nice I suppose.


_____________

Moonbeam's assessment of the situation is about right. Trade deals these days aren't really about tariffs but regulatory standards, ie basically artificial barriers to trade.

But that can be misleading because it was those artificial barriers which were effectively tariffs in practice, which were protecting uncompetitive domestic businesses (because foreign competitors might not want to deal with complex US regs to enter our market).

You're more or less right that these negotiations don't represent peasant interests, but that's not due to some deliberate plot to exclude them, rather it's because they don't have trade/property interests to represent in the first place. Only the stockholder class do in a capitalist economic system.

To reiterate what I said in another post above, none of this is novel. For example, that one Marx guy wrote a big book explaining much of it a long while back. We've only managed to head off the worst consequences by robin hooding the bourgeois.

 

[blankslate]

No surprise, reading is hard.

Apparently especially for you....


________________

 

[fskimospy]

Except that these negotiators are not looking out for all American interests just the ones who are above a certain income level....

If you don't believe it look at all the closed factories and which countries import raw materials and export manufactured goods.


I've given the reasons I won't vote for Hillary and none of you have convinced me I should reconsider. But the conversation about that was nice I suppose.


_____________

You gave a reason that was based on speculation from poorly informed articles that were written before the details of the deal were made public. Does that seem like a sound reason to you?

Your vote is irrelevant anyway so I couldn't care less who you vote for. I'm far more interested in why people hold the positions they do and it seems like yours is based in emotion, not fact.

 

[blankslate]

Your vote is irrelevant anyway so I couldn't care less who you vote for. I'm far more interested in why people hold the positions they do and it seems like yours is based in emotion, not fact.

My reluctance to vote for Hillary is because her delegates on the platform committee are preventing the democratic platform from being more liberal instead of more centrist. And I believe that trade deals are a bigger deal than most others in this thread apparently.

If you think that is more based on emotion than fact you're welcome to that opinion.

In my first post in this thread I didn't castigate Senator Sanders in any way since he said if he didn't get the nomination he'd support the democratic nominee. I just stated why as a supporter of his I wouldn't be voting for who he endorsed; nothing so complicated.

However, if you really don't give one whit the way I vote then I expect that you have no reason to reply to my posts anymore (we'll see I guess).


_________________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If you don't believe there is a huge relevance in the trade deal you're living on the moon. If Hillary Clinton moved against the TPP in spite of her Wallstreet handers that would indeed provide me with strong evidence she could be trusted to look out for the people who are not in the 1%

Sorry to burst your weird bubble....


_____________

Her motives can be questioned her words cannot

But based on what I know so far, I can’t support this agreement,” she wrote. “The bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don’t believe this agreement has met it

She specifically criticized the agreement for lacking sufficient protections against currency manipulation, which she said “kills American jobs,” and provisions that benefit global pharmaceutical companies over patients.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/07/hillary-clinton-opposes-obamas-trans-pacific-trade-deal/

I agree its concerning to see who supports & who opposes the TPP its like they're colluding to hide their opinions.

 

[blankslate]

Her motives can be questioned her words cannot



http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...nton-opposes-obamas-trans-pacific-trade-deal/

I agree its concerning to see who supports & who opposes the TPP its like they're colluding to hide their opinions.

That is why I am concerned when the people she appointed to the committee to write the democratic platform voted against anti-TPP language.

Especially when it would be hard (if not impossible) to change the TPP to strip out parts of it that she said she objects to with the way the process of writing that trade deal has been set up.


_________________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That is why I am concerned when the people she appointed to the committee to write the democratic platform voted against anti-TPP language.

Especially when it would be hard (if not impossible) to change the TPP to strip out parts of it that she said she objects to with the way the process of writing that trade deal has been set up.


_________________

Funny I see it a similar way but different. The way its written doesn't allow modification so its either support or not. She has sided with not.
I agree language in the platform would be welcomed.

I still say its approved by the lame duck congress shortly after the elections and Obama will sign it the same day.

*I'm still waiting for someone to explain the random text from the posted TPP document, anyone who attempts please be specific and explain it in a way that's easily understood*

 

[fskimospy]

My reluctance to vote for Hillary is because her delegates on the platform committee are preventing the democratic platform from being more liberal instead of more centrist. And I believe that trade deals are a bigger deal than most others in this thread apparently.

If you think that is more based on emotion than fact you're welcome to that opinion.

All I've asked you is to show me what in the actual language of the deal you find to be objectionable and why. (or analysis of the actual language of the deal) If you think trade is a bigger deal than most that's fine, but you haven't provided any actual informed reasons as to why you oppose this deal in particular, especially so vehemently. It doesn't add up.

In my first post in this thread I didn't castigate Senator Sanders in any way since he said if he didn't get the nomination he'd support the democratic nominee. I just stated why as a supporter of his I wouldn't be voting for who he endorsed; nothing so complicated.

However, if you really don't give one whit the way I vote then I expect that you have no reason to reply to my posts anymore (well see I guess).


_________________

You think the reason why people reply to someone's posts on here is in an attempt to get them to vote differently? For real?

If your goal is to alter the voting behavior of people every single person on here would be way way better off simply canvassing for their preferred candidate. You'll likely get more votes that way in an afternoon than you would in a lifetime here.

 

[Jhhnn]

My reluctance to vote for Hillary is because her delegates on the platform committee are preventing the democratic platform from being more liberal instead of more centrist. And I believe that trade deals are a bigger deal than most others in this thread apparently.

If you think that is more based on emotion than fact you're welcome to that opinion.

In my first post in this thread I didn't castigate Senator Sanders in any way since he said if he didn't get the nomination he'd support the democratic nominee. I just stated why as a supporter of his I wouldn't be voting for who he endorsed; nothing so complicated.

However, if you really don't give one whit the way I vote then I expect that you have no reason to reply to my posts anymore (well see I guess).


_________________

Yes, Democrats find ways to compromise & move forward rather than adopt attitudes of nothing is ever good enough bitter divisiveness so typical of conservatives.

The platform currently supports a $15/hr minimum wage, MMJ & a path to legalization of cannabis just for starters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-call-for-pathway-to-marijuana-legalization/

It' obvious that the Bernie faction is having a strong effect on the platform & therefore the direction of the Party.

 

[blankslate]

Yes, Democrats find ways to compromise & move forward rather than adopt attitudes of nothing is ever good enough bitter divisiveness so typical of conservatives.

I think I have said before that if I wasn't in a swing state I wouldn't be saying I'm not voting for Hillary....
oh here it is.

depending on where you live there is more than one rational choice... if I was in a swing state I wouldn't be looking at a 3rd party choice. If you think I'm looking at Gary Johnson go jump off of a fucking cliff.

I live in a blue state as such I can withhold my vote from Hillary and still be rational

What you can infer from the above quote is that if I lived in a swing state we'd be having a slightly different conversation where I'd be saying "I'm voting for Senator Clinton as she is way less evil than Trump, but fuck I wish I could be voting for someone instead of voting against a person...."

The platform currently supports a $15/hr minimum wage, MMJ & a path to legalization of cannabis just for starters.

the $15 dollar an hour minimum wage is fine... in an earlier vote on the draft democratic platform they refused to index it to inflation which would've meant the issue would likely never have to be revisited again if passed in the way the platform advocates. Maybe hopefully that changed since the first vote.

I'm glad that Senator Sanders is moving the democratic party more left it's just unfortunate that it is holding fast on the TPP....

And yes I do weigh that extremely heavily in my considerations... /shrug

We just have different opinions on how much damage it could do to this economy in the types of jobs available to U.S. workers in the future.

However, if you really don't give one whit the way I vote then I expect that you have no reason to reply to my posts anymore (we'll see I guess).

TLDR=he replies again... (post 148)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.... but yeah.... congratulations for that.