Trans Pacific Partnership - continuing the conservative assault on working people

[IGIT]

hello and good afternoon, mon,

Hi mate

I got it, IP protection and all that. You dont want to address any of my probs and I understand IP is very important to you.

Ongoing diversion aside (IP)lets discuss something you raised ie nothing sinister here.

i am happy to address any concerns that i'm able to, regarding the TPP. i just wanted to make sure that we didn't just gloss over IP.

There is something very sinister involved when no public citizen has access to this document, afterall the devils always in the detail. You stated theres nothing sinister here, please expand on this?

sure, my friend.

trade deals (and most major legislation that's multilateral in nature) are always discussed "in secret". there are multiple competing interests at work, and the process is fluid.

trade negotiators cannot do their work in a room filled with cameras and journalists present.

its interesting, because you'll notice that there are common tropes trotted out by the left and the right anytime any legislation is passed that they're not copacetic with.

here are two of them;

1) its done in secret

2) there are sooooo many pages! (volume seems to indicate treachery, lol)

this is ridiculous, of course.

as i said, all legislation is written and haggled over in a room with no cameras. this is not new. sometimes the legislation has requires many, many pages. this is also not new, nor is it a harbinger of great evil that's transpired.

when the legislation is finally written, its presented to the lawmakers and the public for evaluation and debate.

there's no skullduggery going on here, mon.

Also out of curiousity what is your job and/or sector do who work in? I ask as I also make money from different equities which have/does include pharma and other high r&d sectors and I'm not losing my shorts over the stealing of ideas. Maybe I should as the worlds most notorious IP thief China also got a free trade agreement through to screw us.

i am a commercial photographer. i made some money when i was younger and working in NYC and that money is invested in numerous entities that have a direct interest in IP.

Youre pushing the tpp up hill with a pointy stick.... Whats in it for you? Were you involved in this rogering of individual identity amongst cultural variations?

when my work gets scanned and appropriated, i lose money. when usage fees are ignored, i lose money.

when IP from corporations that i have investments in are compromised from piracy or patent violation, i lose money.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

IGGY,

Moving forward lets do away with this broken posting. Its a bitch on mobile and I've lost several replies during this thread.
It also makes it difficult to interpret whats being discussed in context.

Not really, no. We have free trade. Sure there is a way to grind out some freer trade, but I think we're kidding ourselves to present TPP as a simply a vehicle to facilitate more free trade, especially in light of the protectionism conversation we've been having over the last few pages.


It depicts the change in global wealth distribution related to globalization and free trade. It shows the developing countries doing better, the rich getting much richer, and the middle class getting fucked. There is a correlation between globalization and wealth inequality.


It can be addressed by winning the lottery, too. Not to be a nihilist, but this isn't going to be changed under our current political climate. And by current I mean the last 20 years and the foreseeable future.

I think this is a crazy exaggeration at this point. TPP wasn't saving these corporations from getting knee capped and dropping out of it wasn't doing the knee capping either.


Cheers on the compliment, you are one of my favorite WR posters for your style and well rounded knowledge.
Now, I don't bring up China to be a side argument. I think its the elephant in the room. You've brought them up several times. I've addressed how TPP was marketed to be essential to keep China in check. I've yet to see anybody, on sherdog or otherwise, elaborate on how that would work.


Agreed, I did read it too fast. Apologies. This broken posting makes it difficult to stay on track.
My point was voting for positive change is akin to a hail mary pass these days.



The US worker is a US citizen. These trade deals not only don't protect them, they have been systematically removing their protections for decades.




We need laws to restructure the obligations to share holders similar to Germany.

GO DEEP!

I'm with you. My understanding of currency manipulation is related to what I've read about China and Japan as it relates to our trade deficit. Based on what I've been told in this thread, I don't see how its possible that the US manipulates its currency. Seeing as we've had the world's largest trade deficit since the 1970s, if we're doing it, then we're doing it wrong.


It was sarcasm. Our tax and fiscal policies haven't addressed any of negatives of free trade. Relying on a politician to do so at this point (Bernie will be too old) is pure fantasy; why not suggest building it into the agreement. Again, its not about trade, or American citizens, its about giant corps.

If the TPP, under optimal conditions, barely helps, then killing it should barely hurt, if at all.


I agree. But only Bernie would have gone further to address issues that would reverse or mitigate the damage free trade and other policies have done to the poor and middle class.



Get high hombre, you've earned it!
Best,
AUR

'afternooon Anuung Un Rama,

i didn't know you posted from a mobile. i couldn't do it, lol.

i tried once, lost what i was writing on my iphone - had to take a call from a client - and was like, "f this".

regarding currency manipulation; two rounds of quantitative easing, along with Operation Twist (http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/federal_reserve_operation_twist/index.htm?iid=EL) absolutely devalued the dollar.

that seems like currency manipulation to me, no?

i'll close with this;

the angst about the TPP reminds me alot of the fears regarding the onset of robotics and automation. eventually owners will own the means of production - and the means of production will no longer involve people.

what happens then?

what happens is you'll either have tax policy and fiscal policy that redistributes the wealth in a tolerable manner - or not. that's the relevant fight. just because you're understandably fatalistic about the prospects of winning that fight doesn't mean that i'm not right.

you're objection to the TPP....well....it almost seem to come across as an act of spite.

the TPP would have helped a little, regarding trade. not having the TPP hurts a little, regarding trade. you can belittle this as much as you want, but that's how things work, my friend - grinding out percentages.

- IGIT

 

[Rod1]

Lol, first of all dude you attacked me for multiple positions I didn’t even take and continued to do so even after I clarified them over and over. I at least had the humility to ask you to clarify your comments before being a cunt and attacking you for things you didn’t say. You stopped being a credible partner in this conversation several posts ago, but I was a good sport and humored your repetitive ignorance.

No, you simply dismissed my points as part of a latino inferiority complex.

Apparently saying that is not to be taken as an insult.

Now you want to talk about currency manipulation when you’ve assured me that it didn’t exist while completely ignoring the context in which I most recently mentioned it. I don’t have the time or interest in dragging out a conversation with somebody so dishonest.

What is currency manipulation, and how does one country uses "currency manipulation".

 

[Anung Un Rama]

'afternooon Anuung Un Rama,

i didn't know you posted from a mobile. i couldn't do it, lol.

i tried once, lost what i was writing on my iphone - had to take a call from a client - and was like, "f this".

regarding currency manipulation; two rounds of quantitative easing, along with Operation Twist (http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/federal_reserve_operation_twist/index.htm?iid=EL) absolutely devalued the dollar.

that seems like currency manipulation to me, no?

i'll close with this;

the angst about the TPP reminds me alot of the fears regarding the onset of robotics and automation. eventually owners will own the means of production - and the means of production will no longer involve people.

what happens then?

what happens is you'll either have tax policy and fiscal policy that redistributes the wealth in a tolerable manner - or not. that's the relevant fight. just because you're understandably fatalistic about the prospects of winning that fight doesn't mean that i'm not right.

you're objection to the TPP....well....it almost seem to come across as an act of spite.

the TPP would have helped a little, regarding trade. not having the TPP hurts a little, regarding trade. you can belittle this as much as you want, but that's how things work, my friend - grinding out percentages.

- IGIT

Good Afternoon IGIT,

I alternate from mobile to laptop depending if I’m at home or out and about. This happens multiple times a day in my days off.

Sure does look like currency manipulation and I figured that was where you were going with that. I’m not a fan, but I’m not well versed enough to debate it. Other countries used QE as well, including China. Different motivation than China and Japan’s currency manipulation, yeah?

You’re right in part about voting, tax reform, etc, but it’s not a panacea. And my arguments aren’t out of spite. These trade agreements know little people are going to be shit on in the name of big business. Seems treasonous, imo. Probably why they fast track these deals so they can’t be debated and negotiated; instead they use fear mongering on behalf of transnational corporations and use Red Scare tactics. Build something into the deal for people who aren’t beholden to the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc instead of putting some TAA crumbs aside. Not spite, think of it as a Negotiation tactic.

And tpp MAY have helped a little. It’s a gamble. And if the “ROI” is peanuts after 30 years you have to wonder if it’s wirth such a gamble.

Best,
AUR

 

[Anung Un Rama]

No, you simply dismissed my points as part of a latino inferiority complex.

Apparently saying that is not to be taken as an insult.



What is currency manipulation, and how does one country uses "currency manipulation".

No. You continually accused me of nationalist hubris and misrepresented my points about Valeant/Schkreli, as well as my portrayal of tpp’s relationship to off patent drugs. This after you agreed with me about this clause and in spite of me arguing against America’s part of the deal.

 

[mon]

hello and good afternoon, mon,



i am happy to address any concerns that i'm able to, regarding the TPP. i just wanted to make sure that we didn't just gloss over IP.



sure, my friend.

trade deals (and most major legislation that's multilateral in nature) are always discussed "in secret". there are multiple competing interests at work, and the process is fluid.

trade negotiators cannot do their work in a room filled with cameras and journalists present.

its interesting, because you'll notice that there are common tropes trotted out by the left and the right anytime any legislation is passed that they're not copacetic with.

here are two of them;

1) its done in secret

2) there are sooooo many pages! (volume seems to indicate treachery, lol)

this is ridiculous, of course.

as i said, all legislation is written and haggled over in a room with no cameras. this is not new. sometimes the legislation has requires many, many pages. this is also not new, nor is it a harbinger of great evil that's transpired.

when the legislation is finally written, its presented to the lawmakers and the public for evaluation and debate.

there's no skullduggery going on here, mon.



i am a commercial photographer. i made some money when i was younger and working in NYC and that money is invested in numerous entities that have a direct interest in IP.



when my work gets scanned and appropriated, i lose money. when usage fees are ignored, i lose money.

when IP from corporations that i have investments in are compromised from piracy or patent violation, i lose money.

- IGIT

Why interject in the first place and force IP on a post which had nothing to do with it, over and over and over again. You say you're happy to address other concerns yet besides the sinister secrecy you havent.

I agree when the print isnt finalised, once a final draft is completed though there is no good reason that it isnt release

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/10/labor-talks-sense-free-trade-agreements/

“If we want to avoid the sort of anti-trade and anti-globalisation backlash that we have seen in the US and elsewhere we have got to do something about the growing gap between wealthier and poorer Australians”…

Mr Clare will say while equality needs to be addressed at a domestic policy level, having the Productivity Commission analyse future FTAs will be “a practical, commonsense way to address some of the scepticism that often surrounds these agreements”.

“It will be an honest assessment of the deal, done at arm’s length from government. It will identify the benefits and the costs. What it means for jobs, household income and different sectors of the economy as well as the strategic and other non-economic benefits.”

He will say the problem with the current set-up is that an FTA is signed and then a report prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade “outlining why the agreement is in Australia’s national interest”.

“Given all the scepticism that exists I don’t think it’s good enough to rely on a report from the same people who negotiated the deal that says it’s a good deal. It should be independently assessed,” he will say.




The PC has long been skeptical of Australia’s FTAs. For example, last July it noted the following about recently concluded deals:

"The benefits of increased merchandise trade emanating from bilateral trade agreements have been exaggerated.

Different and complex rules of origin in Australia’s preferential trade agreements are likely to impede competition and add to the costs of firms engaging in trade.

The nature and scope of negotiating remits should be assessed from a national structural reform perspective before entry into negotiations, rather than primarily for export opportunities. The text of proposed trade agreements should be made public and a rigorous analysis independent of the negotiating agency published with the final text.

The Australian Government should seek to avoid the inclusion of Investors-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in bilateral and regional trade agreements that grant foreign investors in Australia substantive or procedural rights greater than those enjoyed by Australian investors.

The history of Intellectual Property (IP) being addressed in preferential trade deals has resulted in more stringent arrangements than contained in the multilateral agreed Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). Australia’s participation in international negotiations in relation to IP laws should focus on plurilateral or multilateral settings. Support for any measures to alter the extent and enforcement of IP rights should be informed by a robust economic analysis of the resultant benefits and costs."

Where is our robust analysis? Why hasnt our productivity committee been given access to eveluate whether its productive or not? Australia(usa as well) has a rich history of politicians lining their pockets by using their position to push legislation through that isnt in australias best interest. We had a liberal arsehole juat recently sign a 3/4 century lease on the darwin port to a chinese company, he than takes a job with this company while legally isnt allowed. Effectively he has handed a foreign power control of a landing base.




Strange how hard you're shilling this and are fixated on IP. While your job doesnt appear to interact with the making of this trade agreement neither does it give you insight into the reasons the document is kept secret. The above is just one example on why I have no faith in the process behind the tpp. Just the leaked/released bits were enough to scare a lot of people.

This is why I stayed away from thus thread in the first place, a lot of work when I dont have time. A poster above linked a australian government website like it was fact, I would @ him but not sure if it was directed to me. A fact doesnt change from a different angle yet when we change the political party in charge the "fact" changes with it, the defining word starts with P (prop.....) not F for fact.

Anyway got to go.

 

[Rod1]

No. You continually accused me of nationalist hubris and misrepresented my points about Valeant/Schkreli, as well as my portrayal of tpp’s relationship to off patent drugs. This after you agreed with me about this clause and in spite of me arguing against America’s part of the deal.

I said that the notion that US corporations were writing the TPP to be hubris. Also the notion that the TPP would mean billions in costs to the signing countries to be exaggerated. You somehow took that as an insult.

The Valeant/Skreli being misrepresented is not true, the reason why you stuck with those examples is because you couldnt find other examples of drugs that would suddenly skyrocket in prices with the TPP.

As to the currency manipulation im still waiting on you explaining it to us, about what the problem apparently is and which safeguard do you think ought to be put in place.

 

[IGIT]

hi there mon,

Why interject in the first place and force IP on a post which had nothing to do with it, over and over and over again. You say you're happy to address other concerns yet besides the sinister secrecy you havent.

you yourself mentioned IP and how vexed the issue makes you. i was merely responding to it. i apologize for doing so, i guess?

“If we want to avoid the sort of anti-trade and anti-globalisation backlash that we have seen in the US and elsewhere we have got to do something about the growing gap between wealthier and poorer Australians”…

Mr Clare will say while equality needs to be addressed at a domestic policy level, having the Productivity Commission analyse future FTAs will be “a practical, commonsense way to address some of the scepticism that often surrounds these agreements”.

“It will be an honest assessment of the deal, done at arm’s length from government. It will identify the benefits and the costs. What it means for jobs, household income and different sectors of the economy as well as the strategic and other non-economic benefits.”

He will say the problem with the current set-up is that an FTA is signed and then a report prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade “outlining why the agreement is in Australia’s national interest”.

“Given all the scepticism that exists I don’t think it’s good enough to rely on a report from the same people who negotiated the deal that says it’s a good deal. It should be independently assessed,” he will say.




The PC has long been skeptical of Australia’s FTAs. For example, last July it noted the following about recently concluded deals:

"The benefits of increased merchandise trade emanating from bilateral trade agreements have been exaggerated.

Different and complex rules of origin in Australia’s preferential trade agreements are likely to impede competition and add to the costs of firms engaging in trade.

The nature and scope of negotiating remits should be assessed from a national structural reform perspective before entry into negotiations, rather than primarily for export opportunities. The text of proposed trade agreements should be made public and a rigorous analysis independent of the negotiating agency published with the final text.

The Australian Government should seek to avoid the inclusion of Investors-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in bilateral and regional trade agreements that grant foreign investors in Australia substantive or procedural rights greater than those enjoyed by Australian investors.

The history of Intellectual Property (IP) being addressed in preferential trade deals has resulted in more stringent arrangements than contained in the multilateral agreed Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). Australia’s participation in international negotiations in relation to IP laws should focus on plurilateral or multilateral settings. Support for any measures to alter the extent and enforcement of IP rights should be informed by a robust economic analysis of the resultant benefits and costs."

are you saying that the recent TPP that the Aussie's agreed to was done so without the trade agreement being made public? there was no public or governmental debate on the topic at all?

Where is our robust analysis? Why hasnt our productivity committee been given access to eveluate whether its productive or not? Australia(usa as well) has a rich history of politicians lining their pockets by using their position to push legislation through that isnt in australias best interest. We had a liberal arsehole juat recently sign a 3/4 century lease on the darwin port to a chinese company, he than takes a job with this company while legally isnt allowed. Effectively he has handed a foreign power control of a landing base.

if the TPP was signed in your country and the document was kept secret....then you have a very strange country. my condolences.

Strange how hard you're shilling this and are fixated on IP. While your job doesnt appear to interact with the making of this trade agreement neither does it give you insight into the reasons the document is kept secret. The above is just one example on why I have no faith in the process behind the tpp. Just the leaked/released bits were enough to scare a lot of people.

you need to calm yourself, lol. i told you why i have a direct interest in IP. if your country doesn't innovate, invent, or invest in IP - again, my condolences? i am sorry that Australian free riders aren't central to US trade interests?

i don't know what you want me to say.

at any rate, the solution for most of Onselen's anxieties related to the TPP is buried in the blog you are referring to - but for some reason, you decided to redact that part of the blog since it doesn't support your paranoia of the trade deal.

here it is, i'll post it for you to make it easier.

equality needs to be addressed at a domestic policy level

tax policy and fiscal policy. its all so simple.

also, if you're going to simply post blogs from Leigh van Onselen - who blathers endlessly about perils of immigration, that's fine.


- IGIT

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I said that the notion that US corporations were writing the TPP to be hubris. Also the notion that the TPP would mean billions in costs to the signing countries to be exaggerated. You somehow took that as an insult.

The Valeant/Skreli being misrepresented is not true, the reason why you stuck with those examples is because you couldnt find other examples of drugs that would suddenly skyrocket in prices with the TPP.

As to the currency manipulation im still waiting on you explaining it to us, about what the problem apparently is and which safeguard do you think ought to be put in place.

Sure pal. Whatever you say.

 

[mon]

you yourself mentioned IP and how vexed the issue makes you. i was merely responding to it. i apologize for doing so, i guess?

This is a bald faced lie and youve lost all credibility to me. As is most of garbage you just wrote. You've proceded from misdirection through to attacking with lies. Im not in the habit of redacting anything, I'll fix spelling errors etc but hiding not my style.

Peddle your bs else where egit

his is what I replied to

Regarding TPP specifically, it bends my imagination to understand how so many intelligent persons would have wished to have overlooked its insidious ADR provision, rights to private action against governments, inflexible patent protections, lost-profits clauses, and other despicable aspects, just to corner the international marketplace in a race to the bottom.

You than replied to my response bringing up IP. I steered the conversation back to my concerns and we're back to IP.

 

[IGIT]

This by 1000, absolutely mind boggling.

hi mon,

yes, "inflexible patent applications" sure are mind blowing to you.

that was you, right? like, you're "mon" the poster, right?

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

This is a bald faced lie and youve lost all credibility to me. As is most of garbage you just wrote. You've proceded from misdirection through to attacking with lies. Im not in the habit of redacting anything, ill fix spelling errors etc but hiding not my style.

hi mon,

IGIT does not lie.

also, i'm sad that i have no more credibility with you. somehow, i'll just have to gather myself and move on.

and you're a free rider. you like things that others make/create/invent, and you want access to those processes. for free. that's you. a free rider.

you also purposefully left out Onselen conceding that the way forward to address the issues that vex him are domestic policy (which is rather dishonest of you}.

do you understand?

heed the words of your God, Leith Van Onselen. or at least, learn to digest the entirety of his blogs, and not just the parts that appeal to you.

domestic. as in tax policy and fiscal policy.

i am sorry you were unable to discuss this topic without getting so upset. have a great day, mon!

- IGIT

 

[Rod1]

Sure pal. Whatever you say.

 

[mon]

hi mon,

yes, "inflexible patent applications" sure are mind blowing to you.

that was you, right? like, you're "mon" the poster, right?

- IGIT

Are you serious? 1 cherry picked part of a paragraph that I have stated I care little about. Post after post after post you have brought it up and I keep raising the issues I consider more important. It has been that bad I thought you were a bot.

Now what did I retract? Back your lie up mate. I'll pop back in when I get a chance.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

lol, when you repeatedly make false claims and accusations about my positions you shouldn't expect thoughtful responses to your posts.

 

[Rod1]

lol, when you repeatedly make false claims and accusations about my positions you shouldn't expect thoughtful responses to your posts.

When you are unable to simply say what does "currency manipulation" even entails, one can only try to guess as to what you meant.

And @IGIT also asked you to elaborate on what you mean with safeguards against currency manipulation.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

When you are unable to simply say what does "currency manipulation" even entails, one can only try to guess as to what you meant.

And @IGIT also asked you to elaborate on what you mean with safeguards against currency manipulation.

I answered IGIT.

 

[Rod1]

I answered IGIT.

So you accepted that the US manipulates its currency too, but think that the TPP is unfair to the US because it doesnt addresses currency manipulation?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

So you accepted that the US manipulates its currency too, but think that the TPP is unfair to the US because it doesnt addresses currency manipulation?

Lol,

 

[Rod1]

Lol,

Is the US a currency manipulator, yes or no?

EDIT and please no.