Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by takyon on Saturday August 01 2015, @08:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the eats-shoots-and-leaves dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 03 2015, @01:48AM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Monday August 03 2015, @01:48AM (#217181) Journal

    Exactly. That's why the focus on "jobs" is deceptive. The focus should be on GOOD jobs.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:46AM (#217221)

    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

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:40AM (#217692) Journal

      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.