SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars Technica reports that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement debate and vote due to be held at the EU Parliament on Wednesday 10th June were postponed at the last minute following an MEP revolt over the back-door inclusion of the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses:
Things began yesterday, when an e-mail was sent to MEPs on behalf of Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament. It informed them that the text on TTIP agreed by the European Parliament's trade committee (INTA) a fortnight ago would not be voted on as previously agreed. The reason given was that there were so many amendments to the text—more than 200—that it was not possible to consider them in the plenary session. Schulz was therefore asking the INTA committee to re-work the text, taking into account some of the amendments, and discarding others.
Although the European Parliament vote on the TTIP text was cancelled, the plan was to continue with the debate today. But in yet another surprise, early this morning the MEPs voted by an extremely narrow margin—183 in favour and 181 against—to postpone the debate as well. The earliest that these could now take place is July, although they may be pushed into autumn.
Underlying these moves is a growing discontent among the left-wing S&D group with the INTA committee's compromise text, particularly the way it left open the door for the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. One amendment to the committee's text, which called for the European Parliament to "oppose the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in TTIP," was gaining support among S&D MEPs.
ISDS is a mechanism by which commercial entities can extract financial compensation from governments who have made any of their activities, or planned future ventures, illegal. The inclusion of ISDS clauses in the NAFTA trade agreement has lead to Canada being sued by an oil company for $250million after various provinces banned fracking, Mexico being sued by a waste disposal company for $16.7million for keeping a dump site closed due to concerns over water supply contamination, as well as the US being sued by a fuel company for $1billion after California banned the use of a fuel additive also over water supply contamination concerns, along with hundreds of other suits against all three nations.
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:42AM
NAFTA pretty much destroyed Mexico's economy
Didn't happen that way.
And, governments don't even understand that those increases in revenues are going into corporate coffers, not government revenues.
And from the corporate coffers that money goes elsewhere.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:21AM
True, but the wealthy have enough already.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:07AM
One day he'll realise that trickle-down economics have always been a lie told by those who'll benefit from it the most.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:29PM
One day he'll realise that trickle-down economics have always been a lie told by those who'll benefit from it the most.
The welfare state is just a slightly different variation of trickle-down economics: vote for my corruption and I'll reward you with a little bit of the swag.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:34PM
what definition are you using here for "welfare state"? for corporate welfare, essentially the only kind of welfare that exists in the US, you're absolutely right; for personal welfare, eg social safety nets and the like, i fail to see how its a valid comparison.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:18PM
what definition are you using here for "welfare state"? for corporate welfare, essentially the only kind of welfare that exists in the US, you're absolutely right; for personal welfare, eg social safety nets and the like, i fail to see how its a valid comparison.
Social Security is the obvious counterexample that personal welfare exists as a government program in the US at the federal level. My point is that personal welfare and corporate welfare are tied together in the US with the former used as a bribe to look the other way while the latter (and a variety of other abuses) occurs.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:52PM
True, but the wealthy have enough already.
Apparently, some of the wealthy feel differently. I'm inclined to take their opinion of their desires and wants over yours.
And once it becomes ok to legally steal from each other, the professionals take over. The general public doesn't stand a chance. I don't care how many zeros a person has to their wealth as long as it was built up by helping others and improving the world. By being concerned about someone's wealth rather than by how they got it, you are missing the forest for the trees and engaging in highly unproductive class envy. There will always be people smarter, richer, and luckier than you. We should be asking how do we make our society better, not how can we kneecap these bastards for being better off than ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:39PM
Didn't happen that way. Alright - please enlighten me, and maybe some other SN'ers.
My take on the situation is, Mexico had some very serious protectionist laws in place, which, among other things, prevented outsiders from owning property. By "property", I mean real estate. Nor could foreign interests own businesses, unless there were Mexican partners. A lot of protectionism was in place.
With NAFTA, Mexico took down many, or even most, of it's protectionist laws. American corporations, as well as American citizens, came in and bought up a lot of prime real estate. Those purchases displaced a lot of people, from family lands in most cases, which had given those families a subsistence living for generations. Zoning laws, tax packages, blah blah blah, the same kind of silly crap we have in the States, all started happening in Mexico. And, as usual, the poorest were more directly affected than the wealthy, who simply stood by and harvested all the profits to be had.
So, suddenly, there is a large population of displaced people in Mexico, whose land was zoned out from under them, or whatever. No farmland left to grow food on, they need money just to survive. SOME of that population found employment with the foreign corporations building plants on what used to be their land. That still leaves a lot of people with no food, no crops, and no money.
What's left for them? Drug cartels? Yeah, THAT really helps the economy, doesn't it? Migrate north? What else is there?
Yes, NAFTA seriously changed Mexico's economy. Mexico has always had a corrupt government. They've had plenty of revolutions because of that fact. Mexico's government was at least as corrupt as the government of the US for as long as there has been a Mexico, or a US.
Introduce the drug trade, and at the same time, displace an appreciable population off of their ancestral lands - you tell me how that DOES NOT disrupt, or even destroy a nation's economy.
I'll be waiting breathlessly to be educated . . . .
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:09PM
With NAFTA, Mexico took down many, or even most, of it's protectionist laws. American corporations, as well as American citizens, came in and bought up a lot of prime real estate. Those purchases displaced a lot of people, from family lands in most cases, which had given those families a subsistence living for generations. Zoning laws, tax packages, blah blah blah, the same kind of silly crap we have in the States, all started happening in Mexico. And, as usual, the poorest were more directly affected than the wealthy, who simply stood by and harvested all the profits to be had.
So what's supposed to be bad about the outcome? Subsistence farmers by definition aren't supporting a lot of people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:30PM
Oh - I see. These rural people who made a living off the land weren't good enough, their way of life wasn't good enough, so they needed CORPORATIONS to come in and disrupt their lives. Thanks to those corporations, now those people have the wonderful future of working for their choice of drug cartels.
Tell me - do you have any idea what things are like in Mexico today? Do you read the main stream media, and believe that life is wonderful in Mexico today? Have you ever read the not-so-mainstream media? Let me give you a link -
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ [borderlandbeat.com]
Be warned, many of the stories are very graphic. If you have a weak stomach, you might want to avoid the site soon after a meal. Maybe you're in luck - you can read four stories before scrolling down far enough to see the first image of bodies lying in the street. Right now, anyway - the next story may have scores of bodies.
Twenty five years ago, the people were maybe poor, but they knew what honor was. They had morals. They had pride. Today - they are a different people. And, you have the corporations to thank for that. Corporations, and corrupt government officials. Read about Mexico today - and ask yourself whether it may not be the United States tomorrow. The globalists ARE redistributing America's wealth around the world right now, after all. They have no use for wealthy Americans.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:37PM
Oh - I see. These rural people who made a living off the land weren't good enough, their way of life wasn't good enough, so they needed CORPORATIONS to come in and disrupt their lives. Thanks to those corporations, now those people have the wonderful future of working for their choice of drug cartels.
The US War on (some) Drugs started long before NAFTA. And ending that would end the power of the drug cartels whether or not NAFTA was in effect. It has never been that hard to smuggle drugs into the US and illegal smuggling has never been beholden to trade agreements.
And I find it bizarre how you are advocating the fucking over of these people by ending NAFTA in the name of imaginary protection of their honor. NAFTA is probably the second best thing to have happened to Mexico in the past 50 years (first, being the ending of the PRI party stranglehold on political power) and there's a considerable inflow of wealth to the citizens of Mexico from that treaty.
Mexico has always been a county of great honor and great dishonor. That hasn't changed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 14 2015, @02:05AM
Whoa - who said "end NAFTA"? I plainly stated that the people were already fucked over BY NAFTA. The people have already been displaced. And, sometimes, you really can't go home again. It's to damned late to end it - but the criminals who imposed it on the Mexican people should be executed for their crimes against humanity.
The US War on Drugs affected Mexico long before NAFTA, true, but you don't seem to understand that the war is a dynamic thing which was affected by NAFTA and in turn affected NAFTA. Things went from bad to much worse when NAFTA was imposed on the Mexicans.
Did you visit borderlandbeats? Do you have ANY IDEA what life is like in Mexico? Are you aware that in just a few recent years, the casualties in Mexico have exceeded our casualties in Vietnam? In short - do you have any idea what you are talking about? Or, have you simply dismissed the human costs involved in allowing the corporations to run roughshod over the Mexican people?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:27PM
Whoa - who said "end NAFTA"? I plainly stated that the people were already fucked over BY NAFTA. The people have already been displaced. And, sometimes, you really can't go home again. It's to damned late to end it - but the criminals who imposed it on the Mexican people should be executed for their crimes against humanity.
You do realize that every advanced, modern country in the world has also experienced the same sudden decline of their subsistence farming class and it's always been to their benefit? You're blaming NAFTA for something that would have happened anyway. And why should we pine for the days of barely surviving? You don't show that this is a bad thing.
The US War on Drugs affected Mexico long before NAFTA, true, but you don't seem to understand that the war is a dynamic thing which was affected by NAFTA and in turn affected NAFTA.
You show no such connection.
Did you visit borderlandbeats? Do you have ANY IDEA what life is like in Mexico? Are you aware that in just a few recent years, the casualties in Mexico have exceeded our casualties in Vietnam? In short - do you have any idea what you are talking about? Or, have you simply dismissed the human costs involved in allowing the corporations to run roughshod over the Mexican people?
Do you have anything relevant to say? The corporations have always run roughshod over Mexican people. In the past, they were called names like "Partido Revolucionario Institucional".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:35PM
" it's always been to their benefit"
Really? Aside from childhood inoculations against diseases, how, specifically, is your life superior to the lives of your great grandparents? (Add however many "greats" are necessary to reach the days when polio was a widespread and deadly threat to all American children.)
The rest of your post seems to prove that you didn't visit borderland beats and/or that you just don't give a small damn for the human costs involved.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:02PM
Aside from childhood inoculations against diseases, how, specifically, is your life superior to the lives of your great grandparents?
I got to study advanced mathematics for more than ten years, live in Yellowstone National Park for another seven, and communicate with people from another continent in near-real time.
The rest of your post seems to prove that you didn't visit borderland beats and/or that you just don't give a small damn for the human costs involved.
Which you have yet to show is an actual net cost, much less something I should care about.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:40PM
are you implying that people shouldn't be able to be self-sustaining and completely disengaged from the economy if they choose?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:21PM
are you implying that people shouldn't be able to be self-sustaining and completely disengaged from the economy if they choose?
That's not what subsistence farming implies. It implies you're barely getting by (sustaining oneself at the minimum) which is not self-sustaining in the long run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:32PM
Yeah, into the owners' bank accounts and their descendants' trust funds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:54PM
Yeah, into the owners' bank accounts and their descendants' trust funds.
If you look at actual rich people, they burn a lot of money on charity and status signaling. Wealth doesn't stay put.