Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the why-else-would-they-hide-it? dept.

WaPo signals one - of the many - provisions which should cause concern in the Transpacific Partnership treaty.

The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

...

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court.

--- more after the break ---

Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:31AM (#151476)
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:20PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:20PM (#151533) Journal

      But the bad guy distraction is PUTIN! There's the DANGER to mom and apple pie!

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @09:53AM (#151478)

    The summary (by quoting appropriate parts of the source) seems to be shocked about this. To me it sounds a little bit like "How dare they request that from us, that's too much, that's against our core principles!"

    You US guys do realize that it's your very own government heavily pushing that stuff? Not only in TPP but also in TTIP (which is approximately the same, but with european countries)? Against widespread public opposition in the "partner" countries? Which, presumably, is why your government is still fighting tooth and nail to keep the agreements' content secret from the public?

    There's a very simple solution to all this. You are a democracy (you still are, right?!?). So how about you tell your representatives (they are still representing you, right?!?) to stop demanding that crap from other people and yourselves?

    Unless that happens, well, you're getting exactly what you obviously want. No sympathy from me, and probably nobody else either.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:44AM

      by K_benzoate (5036) on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:44AM (#151482)

      We in the US who oppose the TPP are the minority--because most people have absolutely no idea what the TPP is. This is too complicated for the average person to understand or care about, and yet it is also incredibly important. There's very few mechanisms in place to inform the electorate of such things; we can't count on the media, which has been completely silent on TPP.

      --
      Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:16AM (#151487)

        I can see where you're coming from and also the frustration that comes with the territory.

        But allow me to ask rhethorically:
        Is the average American really more (or less) stupid than the average Vietnamese, French or Mexican? I doubt it, and people there can and do understand the problems of ISDS, if properly explained.

        Aren't you the guys continually touting your freedom of expression, press, democratic ideals, and so on? TTIP was originally *kept secret* intentionally, nevertheless most of the European public now has a (admittedly blurry) opinion on e.g. ISDS through the mainstream (!) media. Politicians are feeling the resistance and are starting to react to it. You're not saying that the US is capable of less, or is being held down by it's rulers? If so ... well, draw your own conclusions.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:50AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:50AM (#151490)

          The population of the country with a decent education and enough non-working hours who also watch non-standard news (mainstream news is all violent crimes and celebrity news) is dwindling in the good ol USA. Free to work until exhaustion, yes. Free with independent thought, not so much anymore. It's sad. The last two elections really saw most people fall into two camps: completely thoughtlessly repeating hateful propaganda and a much smaller population with a clue. Education isn't valued more higher than tribal divisions including religion. Do yourself a favor and don't expect much from us anymore.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:13PM (#151547)

            Dwindling? Most people are unintelligent, and it has always been so.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:55PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:55PM (#151584)
              Yes and others will just take advantage of that. So if you don't like the what the others are doing, you should do something about it.

              Just looking down at stupid ignorant people doesn't work so well in a democracies and "somewhat democratic" countries if you're also at ground level and not one of those ones already at the top.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:56AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:56AM (#151493)

          Is the average American really more (or less) stupid than the average Vietnamese, French or Mexican? I doubt it, and people there can and do understand the problems of ISDS, if properly explained.

          The larger the population the more difficult it becomes to get any significant portion to agree on anything. Since TTP, TTIP, etc are not put up to a vote - and in fact are being done in secret - then there is very, very little chance most people in the U.S. will ever hear about it.

          The more regulations a government has the better chance a TTP "partner" country will have a company that runs into a law that hands them a payday. All these things point to the U.S. as a cash machine.

          I'm going to open a one-person office in Mexico and qualify as an international corporation. Then I'll find some obscure law in one of these countries and start suing more often than a patent troll. Capitalism: where greed is the seed of success.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:17PM

          by TheRaven (270) on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:17PM (#151510) Journal

          Is the average American really more (or less) stupid than the average Vietnamese, French or Mexican?

          The issue is the stupidity of the voter. One of the reasons that representative democracy is more popular than direct democracy is that running a modern country is complex. Pretty much everyone had time to be fully abreast of the issues that affected the Athenian city-state. This isn't really true for a modern country, so we elect people to work full time on understanding the issues and acting as we would if we were fully cognisant of the facts.

          The problem is that these representatives increasingly don't reflect either the views or interests of the electorate and there are no alternative candidates who will. I'd prefer to see a mechanism of direct democracy with recursive proxy voting, where for each issue (or range of issues) people could delegate someone to be their proxy. This person could, in turn, delegate their vote, and so on. At any point, if your interests are not being represented, you could withdraw your proxy and (after a short period, to stop people changing every few minutes and making it impossible for anyone to negotiate) either appoint a new proxy or be eligible to vote yourself.

          Here (in the UK) I've seen people campaigning against TTIP on the streets for the last six months. I've signed their petitions, but most people walk past them without becoming any more aware of the issues.

          --
          sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:28PM

            by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:28PM (#151534) Journal

            The voter is lied to constantly. The corporate monoliths that run media networks also build the bombs and pay for the politicians.

            Turn on US television and you will here 7 lies and logical fallacies supporting bizarre and narcissistic fantasies in as many minutes.

            Then - after being processed like a McDonald's cheeseburger - the US voter is plopped into an artificially constructed "district". This is an interesting system in the US, by which the candidate gets to select his voters - not vice versa, as done in the free world.

            --
            You're betting on the pantomime horse...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:45AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:45AM (#151714)

            Pretty much everyone had time to be fully abreast of the issues that affected the Athenian city-state.

            Right. In the days before modern technology that allows people to complete tasks more effectively and efficiently, everyone truly had more time on their hands.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:47PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:47PM (#151522)

          Is the average American really more (or less) stupid than the average Vietnamese, French or Mexican?

          According to an OECD survey [oecd.org], American students are below average in math and slightly below average in reading and science. French students did much better, particularly in math, although not as well as the Americans in financial literacy.

          So yes, it does look like the average American is either more stupid or more ignorant than the average French person. Anecdotally, one of my classmates in a US high school was a girl who had lost at least a years' worth of education because she and her family spent a while escaping from Bosnia, and even with all that and speaking her third language she was about 2 years ahead of the rest of the toughest math class the school offered and found our curriculum laughably quaint.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:37PM (#151575)

          You're talking about a country where a large percentage of the populus believes the earth is 6000 years old and was magically conjured by a bearded sky fairy.

        • (Score: 1) by hottabasco on Monday March 02 2015, @06:13AM

          by hottabasco (3316) <nicholas_wils84NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Monday March 02 2015, @06:13AM (#151726)

          I see comments agreeing that the average American is stupid: I question that – although I am British so I admit I have limited basis for this. I guess that the average American is quite capable of understanding TPP / TIPP, but the problem is:
          1) Both the media and politicians have no interest about explaining TPP/ TIPP in an accessible way.
          2) The average American is naive, in that they think they can get by just fine without having to think hard about stuff.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @05:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @05:48PM (#151986)

            Most people are stupid and/or ignorant. If you're one of the smarter ones you'd realize that just pointing out they're stupid, gloating or mocking them isn't going to get you far.

            Those already in power are exploiting them (and thus the rest). You're probably not one of those in power. What can you do so that things get better for you?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:09PM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:09PM (#151506) Journal

        One thing is easy to understand: Secrecy. Totally inappropriate secrecy.

        These trade agreements are being kept secret, and the reasons given for why, when they are given at all, are transparent bull. There is no good reason for the secrecy. We don't have to know anything of what is in the deals to know they are bad. The fact they are secret is enough to know to reject them. What has leaked out confirms our suspicions. The negotiators, who seem to be in the pockets of large corporate interests, are trying to get all kinds of ridiculously favorable provisions enacted. Just trash our regulations against toxic chemicals, our rights to our days in court, even basic rights to use our property as we see fit, hand over most of the national treasury to these shadowy interests, and when they whistle, come running with the military to beat up whoever they say is being naughty. They may as well be attempting to repeal the entire Bill of Rights and half the US Constitution.

        We should impress one thing upon our representatives. NO SECRET DEALS! Ever. Period. Any current deals negotiated in secret are null and void. While we're at that, roast those members of the media who are cooperating with the secrecy, and playing along with the propaganda.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 01 2015, @12:56PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 01 2015, @12:56PM (#151504) Journal

      Democracy. Yeah. Democracy has been equated to mob rule, among other things.

      First, we are NOT a democracy. Where did you ever get that idea? The US is a republic. "Representative" republic to be sure, but republic, first an foremost.

      Second, those representatives have blatantly been representing corporate interests and special interests for decades now. No one even pretends that they represent the chumps who voted for them anymore.

      But, I think that you are right, or close to right. "We" are getting just about what we deserve, in this case, and in others. Problem is, the generations to come will be paying the price, long after "we" are gone.

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:10PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:10PM (#151508) Journal

        First, we are NOT a democracy. Where did you ever get that idea? The US is a republic. "Representative" republic to be sure, but republic, first an foremost.

        You are (at least in theory) a representative democracy. Democracy means rule by the people. Direct democracy means that every issue is voted on by the people. Representative democracy means that the people who make the decisions are elected by the people. A republic is any form of government that is not ruled by a hereditary head of state. The idea that being a republic means that you are not a democracy is an idea that seems to have become popular with right-wing pundits in the USA in recent years. The fact that anyone believes it shows that political education in US schools is not really up to much.

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:48PM

          by Arik (4543) on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:48PM (#151542) Journal
          Err, no. A republic (res publica) is a system of government based on elected leaders and written laws. It's different from a representative democracy primarily in the primacy of a fundamental written law (the Constitution) which guarantees the rights of minorities.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:11PM

            by dry (223) on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:11PM (#151613) Journal

            Sounds the same as Canada, a Monarchy based on elected leaders and written laws. It's different from a representative democracy primarily in the primacy of a fundamental written law (the Constitution) which guarantees the rights of minorities.
            In both cases a super-majority can also change the Constitution including removing the rights of minorities.
            The difference is who actually signs laws, an elected President or an unelected representative of the Monarchy. Note that while the Monarch can in theory refuse to sign a bill into law, in practice it is never done (Queen Anne was the last Monarch to refuse royal assent and that was at the request of her government).

            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:49PM

              by Arik (4543) on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:49PM (#151660) Journal
              Yes, and the argument can be made that a modern Constitutional Monarchy tends to function as a Republic (in the case of Canada) or a Democracy (in the UK) but it's still generally held that Canada is still a constitutional monarchy, albeit one that resembles a Republic rather closely, as a result of retaining the Queen even in a mostly ceremonial role.
              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:23PM (#151553)

        First, we are NOT a democracy. Where did you ever get that idea? The US is a republic. "Representative" republic to be sure, but republic, first an foremost.

        A representative republic is a type of democracy. Not every democracy is a direct democracy.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:29PM (#151519)

      There's a very simple solution to all this. You are a democracy (you still are, right?!?). So how about you tell your representatives (they are still representing you, right?!?) to stop demanding that crap from other people and yourselves?

      Unless that happens, well, you're getting exactly what you obviously want. No sympathy from me, and probably nobody else either.

      Why is it that superiority complexes go hand in hand with abject ignorance of the topic?

      It is articles like this that are part of the process of informing the people so that they will start pressuring their representatives. Seriously, how else do you imagine the process would work? Do you expect people to have telepathy or something?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:15PM (#151548)

        Ok, let's see ... some notable US writer discovers that he's being royally fucked in the ass and writes about it. This is better than not noticing, I agree with you.

        But he's about a year late to the party - that's when that TTIP ISDS stuff started becoming public over here. I'm not even counting similar pushes by the US government, many of them now ratified treaties, which go at least as far back as 1990.

        And, even in his realization, the author *totally* omits that it's not just the US being reamed (which TFS very much makes it sound like). As previous similar agreements show, it's indeed mostly the non-US "partners" bearing the brunt of increased (corporate) liberties.

        Do you really think that my "Oh cry me a river!" is the sign of mental illness? Or could it, just maybe, be a lot of built-up exasperation? About the people who keep ignoring the evil stuff that is done in their name?

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:12PM (#151567)

          > And, even in his realization, the author *totally* omits that it's not just the US being reamed

          Amazing how an article designed to motivate american voters to action frames the issue in how it affects americans. What a terrible tactic.

          > Do you really think that my "Oh cry me a river!" is the sign of mental illness?

          Your words. Your truth.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:19PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:19PM (#151552)

      Unless that happens, well, you're getting exactly what you obviously want.

      That does not follow. Not accepting or rejecting something does not necessarily mean you want it; it could just mean you don't care enough to do anything, or don't even have knowledge about it. One party (usually claimed to be two) systems like the one in the US also distract simple-minded people (the majority) from many important issues by focusing on hot topics like abortion and gay marriage, so people vote almost solely based on those issues. It does not mean they agree 100% (or even 50%) with the candidates they voted for; they just voted against the 'greater evil.' It's illogical, but you can't expect much from most people, which is why a system that takes into account the immense stupidity of the majority is necessary.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:35AM (#151488)

    Great, now ISDS can solicit ISIS to enforce any disputes.

  • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:51AM (#151491)

    The US Trade Representative, at the behest of USAian (in name only) megacorporations, is going to try to get this rammed through Congress with only an up/down vote.

    It is critical that every American contact his Congresscritter and make it clear that fast-track is NOT acceptable.
    Ask your legislators if they think they should let this get through without close examination/debate.

    If this gets debated, it will fail.

    -- gewg_

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:59AM (#151717)

      Ah, but they be Oirish Corporatives when ye look for taxes, not American based mega businesses.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Sunday March 01 2015, @12:26PM

    by mtrycz (60) on Sunday March 01 2015, @12:26PM (#151498)

    What else would have you expected? Did you really ever thought it could go a different/better way?

    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @12:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @12:55PM (#151502)

      What would you want me to expect?

      Do you really think that something will change to the better while you, out of resignation and self-pity, are not even trying?

      People are a surprising bunch (and I'm talking personal experience as well as nation states). The moment you start having "good", though lofty, expectations, many of them actually will rise to those expectations. Not quickly. Perhaps not enthusiastically. And never all of them. But enough.

      Give up fighting for a good cause (whichever one), and all is truly lost.

      Expect better from your fellow men, tell them about it, and it may happen eventually!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:05PM (#151545)

        These kinds of things are inevitable under capitalism, same with monopolies, regulatory capture, etc. The real stupidity is bitching and complaining when the faults of the system repeatedly come to light but never doing anything about the system itself which is directly producing these terrible results.

        • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:36PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:36PM (#151557) Journal

          These kinds of things are inevitable under capitalism, same with monopolies, regulatory capture, etc. The real stupidity is bitching and complaining when the faults of the system repeatedly come to light but never doing anything about the system itself which is directly producing these terrible results.

          There are plenty of corrupt, venal societies which aren't capitalist. Typical misattribution of blame.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:27PM (#151599)

            There are plenty of corrupt, venal societies which aren't capitalist.

            Saying, "Other systems are corrupt too!" isn't any kind of proof that the system isn't corrupt and/or broken by design. At best its the same kind of simple misdirection typically used by right-wingers when, upon hearing faults and corruption of the GOP immediately start saying, "The Democrats are just as bad!"

            • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:52PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:52PM (#151630) Journal

              Saying, "Other systems are corrupt too!" isn't any kind of proof that the system isn't corrupt and/or broken by design.

              But it is an indication that one needs actual evidence that a system is "broken by design" before blaming capitalism.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:26PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:26PM (#151554)

        Expect better from your fellow men

        A grand majority of my "fellow men" only get riled up when the oppression is extremely visible and affects them personally. That's why you see most people either ignore the NSA's mass surveillance or come out in favor of it outright; they do the same with other things that violate our fundamental liberties and/or constitutions, such as this one. That doesn't mean you should stop trying, but I won't expect anything from the unintelligent majority.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:59PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:59PM (#151514)

    There are already completely unelected and unaccountable organizations that can and do regularly override the decisions of governments:
    - The World Trade Organization: Corporations have the power to bring complaints against sovereign nations if they believe their policies are being too restrictive towards them. That can include actions like introducing pro-union legislation, environmental regulation, or labor safety laws. The way it enforces this authority is that failure to comply will lead to crippling tariffs on all goods from the targeted country.

    - The International Monetary Fund: If a nation ends up in a debt crisis (where they can't immediately pay back loans, which causes bond rates to go so high they can't reasonably issue them), the IMF may bail them out but will demand that the government adopt whatever policies the IMF demands during the entire term of the loan. This can and does include tax rates and the details of what the government is allowed to spend their money on.

    - The World Bank: They operate in much the same way as the IMF, using the power of financial loans to demand policies of debtor countries.

    Now, in any of those cases, in theory the country thus targeted could say "Screw you, I'm not playing by those rules", but in that case the international organizations can turn to all the other member governments and say "Have at 'em! And if you don't, we'll do the same thing to you." These organizations operate with the full support of the G7 governments, so odds are good your nation is in full agreement with the basic concept already.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:57PM

      by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:57PM (#151585)

      None of those examples are ones where organizations have arbitrary control over the a Government. Yes they can compel actions, but only within the confines of already agreed upon terms.

      Lets say you mortgage your home and one of the terms was the bank will seize it if you're 30 days late on a payment. And you're now over 30 days late and the bank seizes it. You can't say they overrode your desire to stay the in house because you already gave permission for them to seize it when you signed the contract. If you think that's unfair, then you shouldn't have signed a mortgage or have at least negotiated more lenient terms.

      The same goes for your examples of the WTO, IMF, and WB.

    • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:19PM

      by Non Sequor (1005) on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:19PM (#151622) Journal

      Generally these other organizations operate in a technocratic fashion relative to a body of economic knowledge that compromises between fiscal conservative and fiscal liberal positions. Basically they are staffed by economists and they acknowledge tradeoffs between the safety of a balanced budget and the effect on growth of some level of deficit financing.

      My take is that in terms of social good, both the fiscal conservative and fiscal liberal worldviews are probably wrong but hedging the two is a reasonable position to occupy even if no one other than academic economists actually likes it. Overall these organizations create a regime where the international community puts out a recommendation that says, we hope you and your voters will find your way to something similar to this, and here is what our response will be if you don't.

      The TPP seems to be operating in a space where the terms of an intellectual ceasefire hasn't been worked out. If one were developed, it would probably infuriate both sides of the debates it's involved in (which appear to be intellectual property and I guess consumer protection based on this story).

      --
      Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:44PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:44PM (#151628)

        My take is that in terms of social good, both the fiscal conservative and fiscal liberal worldviews are probably wrong but hedging the two is a reasonable position to occupy even if no one other than academic economists actually likes it.

        That involves wholesale adoption of the Middle Ground Fallacy: If side A says the right answer is 10 and side B says the right answer is 30, that doesn't necessarily mean the right answer is 20. And believing that encourages both sides to say the right answer is more extreme than it actually is - if B changes their answer to 40, then to keep things "balanced" A must change their answer to 0 or you'll now think the new right answer is 25.

        There is also evidence these organizations don't operate anywhere near as neutrally as you think they do. For example, in the recent negotiations about Greek debt the IMF's primary concern was that allowing Greece to pay back their debt more slowly would encourage citizens in other countries to elect governments with similar platforms to the current left-wing Greek government. That's not dispassionate technocracy, that's trying to manipulate election results for the benefit of creditors.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:13PM

          by Non Sequor (1005) on Sunday March 01 2015, @10:13PM (#151652) Journal

          Your fallacy is presuming that it is computationally tractable to determine a right answer. People delude themselves into believing they have a right answer, largely by simplifying intractable problems into tractable problems that optimize their own interests but which pay no concern to things they don't regard as being an issue. Someone else usually does mind those issues, or the issues will grow to be an obvious concern if untended.

          Shit's hard. You aren't going to be right regardless. You'll find that you'll be more satisfied with life if you go out of your way to incorporate other people's ideas into your thinking even if they don't mesh with your own. When you are trying to salvage motivating concerns out of the platforms maintained by each side, the tactical bullshit starts to fade away. Seek a better understanding of both sides and stay with the solution that best reflects that understanding. If you're in an identifiable camp after you've done this, you haven't tried hard enough.

          Now I will say Europe has gotten itself into a real mess that is hard to fix even with mutual respect and understanding. They've intermingled their affairs in a way that guarantees that sometimes the issues will pivot on a tradeoff between (for example) Greek interests and German interests. I did forget to mention that these international organizations tend to have an ugly realpolitik streak and yes it is going to be especially ugly when weighing the relative value of the concerns of the citizens of different countries.

          Private interests are no longer holding much Greek debt and Greece's creditors are now primarily European governments and institutions backed by those governments. These institutions are also major creditors for other European nations, and if debt repudiation gains political traction, the net creditors in Europe will have another financial crisis on their hands. The IMF is actually taking the middle ground here, although I will say that on this issue, the middle ground may not be stable because there may not be a solution that doesn't screw over millions of people and the problems may fester until the monetary union is broken up (which itself would probably screw over millions of people).

          --
          Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by RobotMonster on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:47PM

    by RobotMonster (130) on Sunday March 01 2015, @02:47PM (#151523) Journal

    This is totally for the corporations. They are the only winners here. Note that the summary is US-centric -- all member countries get screwed by this.
    For example, US corporations will be able to sue any non-US member country's taxpayers for damages, if the laws of that country are damaging to the corporation's profits.
    Landmine manufacturers should do well.

    I guess that's why they want to arrange it all in secret; they couldn't figure out enough double-speak to make it sound palatable...

    Yay for capitalism!

    (I wonder if some internet security firms will sue the NSA for damages using ISDS? :-)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @03:45PM (#151541)

      For example, US corporations will be able to sue any non-US member country's taxpayers for damages, if the laws of that country are damaging to the corporation's profits.

      John Oliver covered an example of this last week in his segment on tobacco [youtube.com] - where a rich country (australia) was able to fight and win in the courts, but a poor country (Togo in west africa) couldn't afford to fight it out so just caved.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:49PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:49PM (#151561) Journal
        Surprisingly enough, Phillip Morris has a case there. Laws exist to protect everyone, including evil cigarette manufacturers. Of course, the speed with which the lawsuit was dropped indicates that Phillip Morris probably also bribed the right people, which is not legitimate rule of law. I don't take seriously the claim that Togo was somehow unable to afford a lawsuit on their home ground.
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:04PM (#151586)

          > I don't take seriously the claim that Togo was somehow unable to afford a lawsuit on their home ground.

          Of course you don't. You are kind of a bootlicker with basically zero perspective.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:38PM (#151603)

          I don't take seriously the claim that Togo was somehow unable to afford a lawsuit on their home ground.

          Well those are the facts. The yearly profits of Phillip Morris are more than Togo's entire GDP, which means the money at PM's disposal is many times more than the money at Togo's disposal. You can either accept reality or admit you're delusional. Believing something counter to what the facts and evidence say is the definition of delusional.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:55PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 01 2015, @08:55PM (#151631) Journal

            The yearly profits of Phillip Morris are more than Togo's entire GDP, which means the money at PM's disposal is many times more than the money at Togo's disposal.

            So what? Phillip Morris isn't going to sink a significant fraction of its profits into a country that just doesn't matter that much. I still think a bribe is more likely.

            • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:04PM

              by pnkwarhall (4558) on Sunday March 01 2015, @11:04PM (#151663)

              Still comes down to money, don't it?

              --
              Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 02 2015, @11:34AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 02 2015, @11:34AM (#151839) Journal
                It comes down to corruption. Sure, it's "money", but it's also suspension of rule of law which is the whole point, I think with the discussion of this treaty. Phillip Morris might have gotten away with something slimy, but they also might have been hit up for a bit of extortion by some Togo politicians.
  • (Score: 1) by http on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:28PM

    by http (1920) on Sunday March 01 2015, @04:28PM (#151555)

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 02 2015, @12:50AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 02 2015, @12:50AM (#151686) Journal

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

      (you mean... seriously?... is the month after April and before June?)

      Look, until the treaty applies, the result is undetermined. And maybe it is up to you (and everybody else) to kill it before it comes into your life.
      Until ratified, sure, the corporations might get around the laws or pay for lobby, but don't get to override the law.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:14PM

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 01 2015, @05:14PM (#151569) Homepage Journal

    This has been in just about every so-called free-trade treaty since NAFTA. It was wrong then, and it's still wrong.

    It was *intended* to keep countries from imposing bogus environmental regulations to block imports. It's being used to prevent action on legitimate environmental concerns.

    There has to be a better way.

    -- hendrik

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @07:46PM (#151618)

      Those who recognize how dangerous TPP is are calling it SHAFTA.
      Backronym: Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement

      -- gewg_