SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Deutsche Welle reports on failed round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) negotiations:
Sticking points were said to have included differences over protecting regional food specialties, the auto trade, and protection for drug makers.
Among other things, New Zealand, the world's largest dairy exporter, has said it will not back a deal that does not significantly open dairy markets.
The question of data protection for drug manufacturers was also a bone of contention, with the US wanting data on biological drug development to remain monopolized for 12 years, as compared with Australia's five years.
The deputy trade minister from Chile, which has no protection at all for drugmakers, said any deal must reconcile public needs with commercial interest. "For us it's vital to have an agreement that balances public policy goals for intellectual property in medicines," Minister Andres Rebolledo said.
The New Zealanders are upset about their distant Canadian cousins protecting their dairy industry, the NZ stuff reports:
The heavily protected Canadian dairy industry has earned the wrath of Federated Farmers president Dr William Rolleston for standing in the way of a good deal for dairy in the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks in Hawaii.
Rolleston said the public position of the Canadians was "unacceptable".A 2014 paper written by Canadian academic and former Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay says it costs a Canadian family about $300 a year to prop up the dairy industry.
The Canadian government slaps on quotas of 246 percent for cheese, and almost 300 percent for butter.
Outside key dairy electorates, the supply management system that protects farmers is not popular.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday August 01 2015, @09:57PM
The Australians also balked at Sugar export quotas [theaustralian.com.au].
So it seems there are a significant number of commodity issues that are holding up the TPP. Protectionist government programs die hard. There will always be pressure for elected officials to work around any agreement that allows competition.
And in many ways it makes sense to protect your domestic food production industries. Its pointless for Canada to hand over all milk and cheese production to tiny New Zealand, and be at the mercy of longshoremen strikes or other shipping related issues.
The TPP isn't better at handling the problems it was sold to us as handling. Let alone all the IP/Patent crap snuck in during closed sessions.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday August 01 2015, @11:01PM
There are no open sessions. All of the TPP negotiations have been held under a veil of secrecy, so why are we hearing about these? Because it fits the narrative that the TPP is about free trade.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 02 2015, @07:46PM
There are no open sessions. All of the TPP negotiations have been held under a veil of secrecy
But this is true of MOST treaties. Historically, Few are negotiated in public, except those dictated by one party or another.
I can't think of a single treaty where there was great public debate and public input prior to the proposed text being made public.
Much is made of this, but I don't think it is the major issue here.
What is different here is the extent of corporate involvement in an otherwise closed proceeding.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 02 2015, @09:30PM
You are missing the point. Yes, secrecy is common when negotiating treaties. But why do we know about some of the negotiation issues? Aren't the negotiations secret? Which is it? Secret or not?
My point is that these leaks are strategic in nature and are designed to promote a particular narrative.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday August 01 2015, @11:03PM
Seems like the problems stems in the huge inhomogeneity in the economies' structure of the countries of the would-be trade partners. Australian Financial Review [afr.com]:
Even in contries with large private initiative in economy, there are protectionist measure to ensure fair access to their citizens: e.g. Australia's position on drugs or postal services/Internet access [smh.com.au] - for the latter, think of Australia's outback: produces most of the export cattle, yet with a population density of atto-people/square-km** there isn't a chance any telecom would think of wiring them to internet.
--
* (think Vietnam)
** well, yeah, a "poetic license" here, but you get what I mean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 01 2015, @11:56PM
Look at the state of employment in America today. We've tried the laissez faire export-all-the-GOOD-jobs thing (*). Maybe a little economic nationalism might be worth trying for a change. It isn't like what we're doing now is working out for the vast majority of people, although there are a few who profit enormously.
Note emphasis on "good". Politicians love to say we've created infinty*10 jobs, but when you look at most the jobs, it's stocking shelves at walmart or flipping burgers, not the kind that enable a middle class lifestyle.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @12:18AM
> It isn't like what we're doing now is working out for the vast majority of people, although there are a few who profit enormously.
Actually it has been working out pretty good for quite a large number of people in China and to a lesser extent south-east asia.
The problem is that the price in the USA has been predominately paid by the people least able to afford it. The libertarian mindset tends to emphasize the net good without giving much thought to the distribution of the costs. Since politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of their constituents that's a problem (and, as an aside, why guys who talk like Trump are so popular among those disaffected. Nevermind that the actions of guys like Trump are a primary source of the problem in the first place.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday August 02 2015, @01:47AM
It started with: "Music, movies, microcode and high speed pizza delivery". Nowadays, it's even worse
I'd give about 7-10 years for India to switch from being the manufacturer of drugs to starting researching and selling their own
*per se - only a matter of time to have Amazon tapping into "drone delivery" - self-driving delivery cars will take most of the rest, in case Amazon gets monopoly on air delivery
* as a metaphor for services - you need people with income to pay for services. Trickle-down economy? Huh, you kidding, right?
To regain the middle class, you'd better start concentrating on what the middle class can do best.
Here's an idea: go artisan and start exporting those high quality marijuana blends [independent.co.uk] in which you have so long a tradition. Seems to work fine for French wines and/or Italian Parmesan cheeses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 02 2015, @05:16AM
Love that book.
As for the artisan stuff, that will work for a few people, but it isn't any sort of mass employment program. Pot? Willie Nelson could make money branding whiskey too -- he's already famous so it's easy for him to profit that way. Joe Schmo grower? He's going to have to work his ass off and get very lucky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @08:38PM
That's only a viable suggestion if you enjoy prison. So long as prohibition is a thing, what you're suggesting isn't an option. Even in the states where its legal, federal agents could come in and murder you and steal all your hard-earned, legally-obtained funds and everything you own (because "it was all bought with drug money") at any moment because its still illegal at the federal level.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday August 02 2015, @08:01AM
We've tried the laissez faire export-all-the-GOOD-jobs thing (*).
Yes? What's the footnote? It drives me nuts when people asterisk stuff and it never leads anywhere. Putting it in parentheses just makes it more egregious.
Or should I just assume that whenever that happens I should assume that.*
*This is a bold-faced lie and I hoped you wouldn't notice.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 02 2015, @03:17PM
The footnote was the "note blah blah blah" but I forgot the *
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @08:33PM
You mean the only jobs available are minimum-wage "starter" jobs, that are "only meant for college kids", that you're "not supposed to be able to support yourself with" because minimum-wage jobs are "only meant to be supplementary income for when you're living with your parents"? If the only jobs available are only meant to be "your first-job, for when you're in high school or college", then what are you supposed to upgrade to to be able to afford to live on your own and raise a family?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 03 2015, @01:48AM
Exactly. That's why the focus on "jobs" is deceptive. The focus should be on GOOD jobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:46AM
I was more going for the idea that the minimum wage must be permanently tied to the living wage, and that every single argument against increasing the minimum wage (all seen in quotation marks in the post) is bullshit.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:40AM
That's only necessary in an economy of crap jobs. In an economy of good jobs, those min-wage gigs are basically jobs with training wheels for teenagers and beer money for college kids. I don't disagree though, if we are to have only crap jobs, then they need to be made somewhat livable, but it really is only a bandaid. At some point, the economy needs wealth generating jobs, meaning jobs that create something of value the world wants -- traditionally this has been goods and machinery though it may something different in the future. However, if the only jobs we have are shelf stocker and burger flipper, we will eventually spend our way through our accumulated wealth because those jobs don't really make anything of value.