In Da Nang Vietnam, Australia and 10 other countries have tried to revive the TPP without the US.
Even though the analysis of the TPP has shown that the so called 'free trade agreement' has only minimal benefits and many drawbacks for developed nations the Australian Prime Minister is still set on having the agreement ratified. The Australian Prime Minister may be trying to push through the TPP before his government collapses due to the citizenship audit which is rapidly culling members of his party which could result in his party losing power in parliament. With the majority of the Australian public being against the TPP and with Malcolm Turnbull facing an election soon the reasons for this move to try to ratify the TPP is unknown.
If this trade agreement is accepted it will be the last in a series of detrimental trade agreements where Australia is on the wrong end of the stick. With Australia still reeling from the impact of the terrible China-Australia Free Trade Agreement the move to try to bring in another bad trade agreement may spell the end of the liberal government's long run in parliament.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:30AM (4 children)
Whereas the corporations who "sponsor" the politicians don't really give a damn about whether gays get to marry or not[1] (that's why they sometimes seem to sponsor both/all sides).
So the politicians give the voters what they want the most and the corporations what they want the most. The politicians get votes and $$$ and everyone gets what they want the most.
Democracy working as designed. Win-win. Kinda. ;)
[1] Even if the CEOs might personally care about "gay marriage" or "abortion" often when they are acting on behalf of the corporation, the resulting actions reflect a corporation that doesn't care e.g. the CEO's corporation will lobby for stronger monopolies for itself and not say a single word about "gay marriage".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:52AM
*Many sides.
Big corporations and industries will almost always care more about trade/regulation legislation than confused citizens. Sometimes they care so much that they helpfully write the legislation themselves [nytimes.com].
Meanwhile, corporations getting involved in the culture wars [businessinsider.com] can [nytimes.com] backfire [foxnews.com]. They have only gained confidence to support gay marriage as public opinion on the topic has taken a sharp turn in about 2 decades (in the U.S., maybe you know more about Australia). Now corporations could be boycotted for not providing benefits to certain employees or doing business in certain states [reuters.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:07PM (1 child)
It's deleterious to repose so much power in entities that do not have humanity's best interests at heart. They in turn have completely subverted the political entities that are charged, on paper, with serving humanity's interests. It has produced a massive schism between what humanity wants and needs and what it has gotten.
The system that succeeds the coming revolution must address that directly: how do we check the concentration of wealth and power in very few hands?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 14 2017, @06:54PM
Not really. [soylentnews.org] Don't be another Chicken Little advocating your favorite fantasy.
Revolutions routinely don't do that. The French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolutions in the USSR didn't do that, for example. And what is the quality of that wealth that's being concentrated? Is it really worth what is claimed for its valuation? What I frequently hear from those who claim to care about wealth inequality is a downplaying of the value of wealth while simultaneous pumping up the supposed power of that wealth.
Finally, if wealth inequality is so important, then why do so few people bother accumulating wealth? I'm not seeing the reason to care when at least half of US citizens (among the wealthiest of the world's population) can't be bothered to save significant money.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:37PM
I think I remember everyone having very strong views about gay marriage while our parliament debated the issue. Fortunately for us the extreme religious fringe trotted out their usual arguments against and were roundly mocked, so the bill was passed.
A few years later it is almost completely uncontroversial and no-one really cares.
Gay marriage has even failed to undermine my own heterosexual marriage and I was promised that it would.