TPP 'worst trade deal ever,' says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz - Business - CBC News

Kai_Daigoji · 24分前

TPP'S ISDS will be run by corporate lawyers.

It will be run exactly the same as every other of the 3400 ISDS provisions that exist in trade agreements around the world. The onus is on you to show things will be different.

Kai_Daigoji · 25分前

Ever heard of the Pony Express?

Lasted 19 months, and a precursor to UPS and FedEx? Yeah. How does that support your point?

Is there a difference between a government worker and a private worker delivering mail?

This whole line is dishonest, honestly, because I went into detail explaining exactly why they are different. The question isn't "can the market deliver mail to people" it's "can the market deliver mail to everyone, at the same price (or at least a price that bring it into reach for the rural poor)."

Regardless, I can't imagine that letters can't be delivered to rural areas. Is bread delivered to rural areas?

You're being intentionally obtuse. Is electricity delivered to the rural poor? Not most of them, prior to rural electrification.

But that's not the statement that was made by David Sloan Wilson - he said the Post Office wouldn't ever exist on the free market.

And by Post Office, he means not simply any mail delivery service, but a mail service that delivers to everyone (I keep bolding it because it's fundamental, and you're ignoring it.) The rural poor didn't have electricity in the 1920's for the same reason they wouldn't have had mail service in the 19th century - it wasn't worth the expense to bring it to them.

But who cares?

Probably the rural poor, for a start.

"Have access to" doesn't necessarily imply "at the same price". Do people not have access to coffee because there are different prices for different types of coffee?

It certainly implies an affordable price. I don't have access to a Lamborghini. That's okay, because society works fine with people who lack access to Lamborghinis. It works less well when people are not connected to their central government (which is Acemoglu's entire point.)

Kai_Daigoji · 32分前

EFF was offered a seat and turned it down.

Kai_Daigoji · 33分前

It's because the other half of it is getting the best possible deal for our country. If you just tell other countries what you're willing to give up, it's much harder to get them to give things up as well.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

Just because they haven't lost a case yet doesn't mean they never will.

As long as the legal rights protected in ISDS (which I would bet money you couldn't list) continue to be protected in US law, yes, the US government's win record will continue.

The US hasn't done much in the way of progressive legislation to test the waters, but if they do go down that path, i.e. raise the minimum wage significantly, environmental regulations, etc. we would see a lot more ISDS challenges.

That's nonsense, because none of the things you mentioned violate ISDS provisions. ISDS doesn't give companies the right to sue if their future earnings are hurt. Let's look at what would have to happen for the US to lose an ISDS case with each of the things you mentioned:

1) Raise the minimum wage for foreign companies only. This would be a discriminatory practice targeting foreign investors, the US would lose the case. Except they wouldn't, because the law would never survive a court challenge.

2) Enact stricter environmental regulations for foreign companies only. See above.

I also think it's cute that you don't think the US has passed environmental regulations or minimum wage increases since being a signatory for an ISDS treaty - I shouldn't be surprised, considering you don't know what you're talking about.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

First off, there was a free-market postal service created.

It came about after the USPS, which is my point. If these things were capable of doing the same thing - that is, performing the same service, not a similar service, but the same service, they would have done so.

The ALMC didn't perform the same service. It didn't deliver mail to everyone, it delivered mail to the people it was easy to deliver to. Which is why the government prohibits competition - when mail needs to get delivered to everyone, you have to charge people in cities more in order to deliver mail to rural citizens. A private company undercuts the government service by ignoring rural citizens, raising costs to reach those rural citizens.

Instead, you assert that the free market would be unable to deliver to person B from person A.

No, and your failure to understand is typical of libertarians talking about the postal service. I'm not saying the free market can't deliver things from person A to person B (because that's ridiculous). I'm saying the free market can't deliver mail to everyone at the same price. And since we decided (broadly speaking, through elected representatives) that mail service is something everyone deserves access to, a national postal service is a solution that the free market can't match.

Meanwhile, Farmer A gets corn to Consumer B all the fucking time without a United States Corn Service.

And there's never a cost differential for people based on where they live right? Have you never heard of a utility?

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

In my experience, people who ignore evidence do so because it conflicts with what they already believe.

So when you ignore evidence that immigrants (illegal and otherwise) help the economy, I don't see a way to interpret it other than you are already opposed to immigrants. I didn't say you're racist, but you are ignorant, and choosing to stay that way.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

How else am I supposed to interpret:

If you need rules now, maybe in 20 or 30 years, you will be creating your own.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

I understand why it is the way it is. The general public wouldn't allow the deal to be wrote in the way that it was.

Nope; there is a specific answer, and you failed. They're negotiated in secret because of two-level game theory, which is a specific concept in international negotiations. They are specifically negotiated with what the public (through their representatives in Congress) will accept in mind.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

Do you? Because despite the lie that's been spread on reddit that it allows companies to sue if governments do anything that hurts their profits, it's actually a very limited set of legal protections.

There's a reason the US has never lost an ISDS case - all of the protections it gives are already part of US law.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

and even the provision that states this

You can't, because it doesn't exist. I don't care how many misinformed opinion pieces you can link to; it's a lie that's been spread around the internet for a couple of years now, but it's completely wrong.

The thing is the language is vague enough that this could happen.

That's nonsense. ISDS provisions exist in thousands of trade agreements worldwide; in none of them does language exist 'so vague' as to do what you're suggesting.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

How the deal is written is absolutely reflective of multinational interest. Look at how it is written.

You can't just keep repeating this. Eventually you have to actually point to something.

Kai_Daigoji · 1時間前

This isn't necessarily true though.

Can you point me to a time it hasn't been true? This sounds like the lump of labor fallacy. Trade is built on the idea of reallocating labor - if it costs jobs, economists wouldn't be behind it.

Over the whole entire world maybe, but each developed nation loses more jobs than they get back because cheaper goods doesn't always spur demand.

This is nonsense.

It this was a simple economy where supply always increases demand than you would be right.

That's not how economics works. You have very strong feelings about economics considering you have no idea how it works.

Kai_Daigoji · 2時間前

Do you know the reasons why it's done the way it is? It's no good to question it if you don't understand it in the first place.

Kai_Daigoji · 2時間前

You're ignoring what I said, which doesn't really surprise me. Most people who get really angry about illegal immigrants have the same problem, and don't actually care about the problems they claim to.

My guess is you just don't like immigrants.

Kai_Daigoji · 2時間前

If anything this will hurt labor rights because multinationals could sue countries for things like increasing the min wage or paid time off saying that these policies hurt their profits.

This is a lie. There's no provision in the TPP that gives corporations that power.

Kai_Daigoji · 3時間前

What's your counterfactual?

The failure of any free-market postal service to ever be created.

Kai_Daigoji · 3時間前

Trade representatives seek input from stakeholders in the relevant industries. This includes corporations, government agencies, NGO's - anyone with relevant experience. So no, it's not fair to say the deal reflects only their interest, considering they aren't the ones with final say on what gets in the deal and what doesn't.

Kai_Daigoji · 3時間前

It will also lead to millions of jobs being created.

Mostly sweatshop jobs in third world countries

First, no, it will create jobs in the US too. The net effect of trade deals on jobs is basically zero - jobs are created at the same rate they are destroyed, labor is just reallocated from inefficient sectors of the economy to more efficient sectors.

Second, it's easy to hate sweatshops, but it's worth pointing out that people rush to them because they represent an opportunity. If you're a subsistence farmer, sweatshops represent an increase in your standard of living.

I'm not pro-sweatshop, but economies seem to universally go through a sweatshop phase in the transition from agrarian economy to industrial, and I'm definitely not willing to consign entire nations to subsistence agriculture just so I can feel superior that they aren't working in a sweatshop.

Kai_Daigoji · 4時間前

I don't see any reason why the TPP is going to lead to cheaper goods.

Because that's what trade does? Allows countries to focus on areas they have a comparative advantage, and thus lowers prices?

No one in the deal is going to produce cheaper goods than china/taiwan

This is not how trade works.

The global market is less about competing and more about getting the cheapest labor you can get.

That's definitely not how trade works.

This ends up consolidating major multinational corporations which in the long run is bad for cheap goods.

It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Kai_Daigoji · 4時間前

But one vital way to combat overpopulation would be to give people, especially women, the choice of how many children to have.

I'm a sex-positive feminist, but to play devil's advocate, the pope and many Catholics would say they already have a choice in how many children they have.

Kai_Daigoji · 4時間前

What's the enforcement mechanism?

Cutting them off from the trade deal?

Kai_Daigoji · 4時間前

Are you under the impression they do the same thing as the USPS?

Kai_Daigoji · 5時間前

It isn't. Stiglitz either doesn't know what he's talking about (which isn't unusual - most people don't know the intricacies of international trade negotiation) or doesn't care.

Kai_Daigoji · 5時間前

I disagree. The TPP is huge for workers rights in Malaysia and Vietnam, and will probably help pull millions of people out of poverty.

reddit gold Since January 2016	Four-Year Club
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

Kai_Daigoji

次のモデレーターです

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率