Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the i-am-spartacus dept.

It's looking like, possibly (hopefully), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks between the U.S. and Europe may be falling apart. According to a BBC article, the French Minister of trade is saying that the trade talks "are likely to grind to a halt".

The French minister, who threatened to leave talks last year, said Europe was offering a lot with little in return. It comes a day after Greenpeace leaked documents from the talks. The environmental group released 248 pages of classified documents, which it said showed how EU standards on public health risked being undermined by the major free-trade agreement.

So, in my opinion, the French (and Greenpeace) deserve a toast (and not with a California red). Now all we have to do is do the same with the TPP!

This is what the trade 'deals' mean for our future if not defeated.

takyon: Also at Foreign Policy, The New York Times .

Previously: TTIP Documents Leaked


Original Submission

Related Stories

TTIP Documents Leaked 37 comments

Apparently, Greenpeace got their hands on a version of the TTIP documents and plans to release them to the public at today, Monday 2nd of May, 11:00am (UTC+2) from Netherlands, while at the same time giving a press conference at the re:publica. While Greenpeace is apparently mainly concerned about the loss of the precautionary principle (in Europe, if a product is thought to pose a risk to the population or environment, it is prohibited until proven safe, as opposed to the US where it is permitted until proven harmful. According to Greenpeace (sorry, only in German), this is a reason that in US, 170 genetically manipulated plants are in the agricultural market, while in Europe it is only one.

While these mainly environmental concerns deserve some consideration, the more fundamental issue is that such a far-reaching contract, invalidating many of hard fought-for consumers rights in one coup and affecting half a billion people alone in Europe, is negotiated secretly. This is entirely unworthy of any democratic government system.

The documents are available for download.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:32PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:32PM (#341088) Journal

    in my opinion, the French (and Greenpeace) deserve a toast

    A French toast or a toast with French champagne?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:10PM (#341106)

      We won't have to call it something silly like "sparkling wine". Australia caved on this one.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:27PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:27PM (#341113) Journal

        Australia caved on this one.

        You mean Australia respected the French people wish, the californians gave a shit in the good American international tradition.

        Somehow... I do not think I'll drink to that, much less californian wines (sparking or not).

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:56AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:56AM (#341392) Journal
        You mean the country whose economy depends so much on other countries respecting their intellectual property doesn't respect foreign trademarks? Good precedent to set there.
        --
        sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:16PM (#341107)

      "Champagne," please, not "champagne."

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:32PM (#341117)

        In the EU it is Champagne, and it only comes from a place named "Champagne". It's like locations become trademarks.

        In California, we don't tolerate that level of nonsense. We can make all the champagne we want. FU to the EU!

        I wonder if the treaty would even stop us from selling French bread without shipping it all the way from France.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:45PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:45PM (#341125) Journal

          In the EU it is Champagne, and it only comes from a place named "Champagne". It's like locations become trademarks.

          It's actually a proper trademark - established under a treaty that's more than 120 years old [wikipedia.org]

          In California, we don't tolerate that level of nonsense. We can make all the champagne we want. FU to the EU!

          And EU will not even care to FU back. As it won't also care to buy Californian wines that are labelled against the trademark.
          Maybe it won't care to buy any type of californian wines, let's see how this serve the californian pride.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:03AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:03AM (#341136)

            Especially Calrose, it would just result in a burgeoning black or grey market trade in the item among the crowd who enjoy it over their native varieties.

            That said: California's wine tradition dates back hundreds of years (possibly Russian or Spanish era.) Although much of the modern wine growing is post Prohibition, thanks to large swaths of established vineyards having been torn out before it got repealed and taking another 40-80 years to become popular and internationally established enough to export once again.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by butthurt on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:00AM

            by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:00AM (#341155) Journal

            How about: Beaujolais nouveau is shipped from France to California, mixed with cranberry, peach, pomegranate or grapefruit juice and HFCS, carbonated and bottled, then shipped to France and sold under the protected appellation "California wine cooler"?

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:26AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:26AM (#341160) Journal

              How about: Beaujolais nouveau is shipped from France to California, mixed with cranberry, peach, pomegranate or grapefruit juice and HFCS, carbonated and bottled, then shipped to France and sold under the protected appellation "California wine cooler"?

              Ok, perhaps I'm wrong on "Maybe it won't care to buy any type of californian wines", but for sure France isn't going to import "Californian champaign".

              Speaking for myself, if I want a sangria [wikipedia.org], thank you, I can prepare it myself.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by Geotti on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:47PM

          by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:47PM (#341126) Journal

          Well, you did end up calling 'em "freedom fries" didn't you?

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:33PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:33PM (#341118) Journal

        (Zut alors!) Mes mille excuses, madame ou monsieur AC.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:39PM

    by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:39PM (#341091) Journal

    Thanks, Takyon: your editing-fu has cleaned up my submission nicely.

    One would think you do this often! :)

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:47PM

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:47PM (#341096)

    This has absolutely nothing to do with "free trade". This is about forcing EU to drive their standard of living down closer to the world average and reduce the friction of moving capital between borders so that ever greater swathes of humanity can be pitted against each other for the benefit of the capital-ownership class. Environmental and safety regulations are also favorite targets for people who don't have to deal with the consequences of eliminating these reasonable and necessary restrictions.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:44PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:44PM (#341123) Journal

      You really shouldn't be so bluntly honest. Please, for the sake of all who might be "offended", use the term, "redistribution of wealth". That term helps to make the pig prettier, and disguise the fact that the old sow wants all of our lunch money - along with our breakfasts, dinners, and snacks.

      You, Sir, are to subsist on gruel, while the corporate world dines on the finest steak and lobster, caviar, and assorted other delicacies.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:47PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:47PM (#341127) Journal
      What idiotic drivel!

      This has absolutely nothing to do with "free trade". This is about forcing EU to drive their standard of living down closer to the world average and reduce the friction of moving capital between borders so that ever greater swathes of humanity can be pitted against each other for the benefit of the capital-ownership class.

      Oh look, a free trade thing. The problem here is that the real world is getting in the way and causing said "drive". You don't magically deserve a particular standard of living. But you have one just the same because of that capital-ownership class which among other things is able to turn your labor into something more productive than skinning deer and making kids.

      Environmental and safety regulations are also favorite targets for people who don't have to deal with the consequences of eliminating these reasonable and necessary restrictions.

      Unless *plot twist!* those regulations aren't actually reasonable and necessary. You know, there might be a reason that Chinese stuff keeps getting shinier while developed world stuff does not. But I suppose that doesn't matter to someone who doesn't care about the consequences of regulations and regulators which don't work in the long term.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:33AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:33AM (#341145)

        Innovation and community are what built up the standard of living. Capital ownership has gone far out of touch with the common person and now applies to ideas and geometric shapes.

        Chinese stuff gets shinier because production moved there. Not because they have little to no regulations for worker and environmental safety. If it weren't for the greedy capital owners, those factories would have remained where they began, and it was a lack of international regulations that allowed the shift.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:19AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:19AM (#341197) Journal

          Innovation and community are what built up the standard of living. Capital ownership has gone far out of touch with the common person and now applies to ideas and geometric shapes.

          Cool story, bro, but that's not true. It's not securities and branding (for key examples of your two concepts) that are damaging common peoples' standard of living, but labor competition with the developing world and a very damaging reaction to that threat by the developed world.

          Chinese stuff gets shinier because production moved there. Not because they have little to no regulations for worker and environmental safety. If it weren't for the greedy capital owners, those factories would have remained where they began, and it was a lack of international regulations that allowed the shift.

          Yes, we could have always made things significantly worse by not allowing businesses to move their capital to more economically vigorous parts of the world. But that's not going to improve your standard of living. It'll merely hurt the standard of living of everyone involved. Those sickly developed world factories would still still fail and the Chinese will still build their industry, but we would now be missing the huge value increase of the current trade.

          It's worth noting that way back in 1950, the only developed world countries were the US and a few allies (Canada, Australia, etc), due to the fall out from the Second World War and the growing destruction of communism. It was only because the US decided to aggressively build up Western Europe with the Marshall plan and defense treaties like NATO, rather than protect US industries from European competition, that Europe has mostly a developed world standard of living in the first place and the EU exists.

          To summarize that history. Back in the 1950s, Europe was in the same position as China is now, a poor region exporting what it could to the US and other untouched parts of the world. Then in the 1970s, it was Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea who exported to the US, Europe, etc. Now, it's the turn of the Chinese and Indians. Soon, it will be the turn of South America, Middle East, Indonesia, and Africa. At that point, who's left to threaten Europe's standard of living? We ignore a lot of history when we blame China or "capital-owners" for Europe's current failings. The very same trade which you claim threatens Europe's current standard of living, created it in the first place.

          • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:47PM

            by bitstream (6144) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:47PM (#341705) Journal

            Are there natural resources to raise the standard of living in those countries? I doubt it. Unless the world commits to a serious R&D drive like the one during WWII.

            But you are right that the world quite recently there only existed a few industrialized countries. I would be tempted to say that around 1980 this was still the case.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:54PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:54PM (#341835) Journal

              Are there natural resources to raise the standard of living in those countries?

              Of course there are. And we're already in the process of doing it.

              Unless the world commits to a serious R&D drive like the one during WWII.

              You mean the few percent of global GDP that is already being spent? We're already burning a lot of resources on R&D.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:57AM

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:57AM (#341168)

        Unless *plot twist!* those regulations aren't actually reasonable and necessary.

        They are both reasonable and necessary. Corporations are not entitled to shift the costs of their negative externalities onto the commons--our clean air, water, soil. Being environmentally responsible is a cost of doing business and we will force you to pay this price if you're unwilling to do so willingly--and most businesses aren't as history (or a tour of "shiny" smog-choked China) has shown. I have no sympathy for free-riding companies who think they're entitled to shirking their bills. I'm against freeloading you see :)

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:06AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:06AM (#341238) Journal

          They are both reasonable and necessary.

          You are operating under the false dilemma fallacy. Just because something is needed doesn't mean the current choice is or that it is an improvement over doing nothing in this area.

          Corporations are not entitled to shift the costs of their negative externalities onto the commons

          But non-corporations are entitled to do that? There's plenty of minor failings in your post here.

          --our clean air, water, soil. Being environmentally responsible is a cost of doing business and we will force you to pay this price if you're unwilling to do so willingly--and most businesses aren't as history (or a tour of "shiny" smog-choked China) has shown. I have no sympathy for free-riding companies who think they're entitled to shirking their bills. I'm against freeloading you see :)

          But somehow it's fine for people to demand via law more and more concessions from "corporations" without providing anything in turn?

          My view is that it's been known for decades that there are deep, costly problems with environmental regulations in Europe such as a near complete disinterest in making regulation easier to comply with, a completely blind environmental advocacy movement which continues to lobby for higher environmental standards in the absence of any demonstrated need for those standards, a pursuing of meaningless, destructive fads, and an obsession with bureaucratic form over substance.

          A classic example of this counterproductive environmental policy is Germany's Energiewende program, which has almost doubled the cost of German electricity (both residential and industrial) compared to most of its neighbors. In exchange for this substantial disadvantage, Germany makes a negligible difference in global greenhouse gases emissions and developes some interesting renewable energy technologies for Chinese industry to exploit. It's a ridiculous situation that harms Germany and its people, completely failing your "reasonable and necessary" criteria.

          So when I see someone ranting about standards of living and displaying completely naive and uncritical adoration of modern regulation, I must say something. The cure is the disease. The developed world will not see an improvement in its standards of living as long as other things such as regulation for regulation's sake, venal protection of local industries, vague, fluffy ideas like environmentalism, and other such things have priority.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:19AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:19AM (#341324)

            "So when I see someone ranting about standards of living and displaying completely naive and uncritical adoration of modern regulation, I must say something. The cure is the disease. The developed world will not see an improvement in its standards of living as long as other things such as regulation for regulation's sake, venal protection of local industries, vague, fluffy ideas like environmentalism, and other such things have priority."

            Problem is, when those do NOT have priority, you eventually become China.

            Yes, you do.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:28AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:28AM (#341367) Journal

              Problem is, when those do NOT have priority, you eventually become China.

              Here's my prediction on the matter. By 2050, most of the developed world will want China's level of economic success, even though they don't want to become China. China is traveling a well-trod path to success. Maybe it's time for you to pay attention.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:25AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:25AM (#341346)

            Corporations are not entitled to shift the costs of their negative externalities onto the commons

            But non-corporations are entitled to do that? There's plenty of minor failings in your post here.

            Talking about fallacies. Here is a good one. He didn't say non-corporations were entitled to anything, he said only something about what corporations are not entitled to. Corporations would like to be entitled to, but they are not. What non-corporations are or are not entitled to is irrelevant.

            But somehow it's fine for people to demand via law more and more concessions from "corporations" without providing anything in turn?

            Oh, look, another one! you're on fire today!

            We do provide something in turn: we grant them permission to (attempt to) sell us their products and make profit out of it.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:11AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:11AM (#341889) Journal

              He didn't say non-corporations were entitled to anything,

              Exactly.

              We do provide something in turn: we grant them permission to (attempt to) sell us their products and make profit out of it.

              And I give you permission to exist. Yay me.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:30AM (#341276)

        A quick rule of thumb: If some bill, law, or treaty has "Intellectual Property" in its name (not in this case), or if it even so much as has anything related to that within it, it is almost certainly going to contain draconian rules regarding freedom of speech, copyrights, patents, and/or trademarks. The TPP is like this, and it appears TTIP is similar.

        If these treaties really were merely about free trade, they wouldn't be nearly as terrifying. The sad truth is that they will further destroy our freedoms. Don't be fooled just because some people say the treaty is about free trade. Just as the "Patriot Act" is completely unpatriotic, these free trade treaties are barely about free trade, and more about crony capitalism and draconian restrictions upon our rights.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:49AM (#341149)

      I'll likely get modded down for this, but this is the kind of thing that Ballmer used to say about open source software. It's a movement led by hippies to drive down American standards of living.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:28AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:28AM (#341162) Journal

      Well duh! this is why I have been arguing for years that "free trade" is a lie because at its heart its based on a lie, a lie that countries with completely opposing health and safety and environmental laws should be treated as equal....sorry but they are not and treating them as so does nothing but drive the world into a situation where you are told to "compete" with countries that can always undercut the others thanks to more lax laws when it comes to the above.

      But I think this and the TPP is gonna be moot unless they can ram it through before November because Trump just won the GOP nomination [msn.com] thanks to Cruz realizing nobody was gonna vote for a guy members of his own party called satan and I seriously doubt Trump is gonna support either trade deal after his speeches against the current trade with Mexico and China.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:59AM

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:59AM (#341169)

        It's very unlikely that Trump will be the next President. I'd bet on him losing in fact, and I'm not a gambler by nature. It's going to be Bernie or Hillary depending on if she gets indicted now or after the election.

        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:13PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:13PM (#341786) Journal

          I seriously doubt Hillary has a chance, she has too many skeltons that Trump will be able to exploit...which is fucking hilarious seeing as who we are talking about, but people cut Trump a lot more slack as he reads the National Enquirer and is thus "more like them" whereas Shillary comes off as a scheming megabitch. That whole "brought to heel" bit I have a feeling is gonna be her Willie Horton and kill the blacks voting for her once trump starts spamming it, not to mention as you pointed out the fact she is currently under investigation for multiple felonies and the transcripts of those paid speeches to Goldman Sachs which are starting to filter out and which make her look like...well what she is, in the pocket of the banksters.

          And remember what people tell to a pollster, where they think they are being judged on their choices, and what they do in a booth? Are often 2 different things. We have seen this going back to "Dewey Defeats Truman" but I think its gonna be a lot more pronounced with Trump as everything his enemies do end up just making him look better in the eyes of the populace and he is saying a lot of the things that many believe but just won't say on camera. He is the "un-PC candidate" if you will.

          But I honestly don't see Shillary getting it, all of the Bernie backers will vote Trump before they vote for her and her flip flops and backstabs will come back to bite her in the ass...if she isn't in jail by Nov.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:54PM (#341099)

    And this time they'll be more careful to keep it secret.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:09PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:09PM (#341104) Journal

      And this time they'll be more careful to keep it secret.

      "Information wants to be free" - that's a "truth" as true as "Girls just wanna have fun".

      So, better keep an eye on it - if it happens, remember SOPA/PIPA [wikipedia.org] and ACTA [techdirt.com] - you aren't as powerless [techdirt.com] as they may think.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:44AM

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:44AM (#341281) Journal
      Next up: the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)
      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
  • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:57PM

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:57PM (#341101)

    I TRULY cannot decide anymore.

    corps are evil; especially as they grow large (and they ALL want to grow large and more powerful).

    governments also tend to want to grow and collect power. that is evil.

    there was a time when the US government worked for us, the people. we got unions from it (with a lot of fight and pain, btw) and we got consumer protection bills and it looked like we had an ally and someone to keep the big power in check.

    then, the governments started to get larger still and grow naturally more corrupt.

    business started becoming an unofficial government once they got so powerful, they bought and sold politicians.

    so, bottom line: do you want governments to 'protect' you or corporations?

    answer: NEITHER WORK ANYMORE

    and so, this is yet another distraction. if the US government was doing its job (its not, btw) then we would not even be TALKING about giving power to corps. but the US has given up, its in a burn-the-earth-down mode where the rich get their final licks on us before they die (and no one seems to care); and the ones in office turn a blind eye and let the corps burn the world down. they each get their cut and they'll all be long dead before the earth starts to show some pay-back to us for all this abuse (not just talking environment).

    its hard to get worked up when the corps already own every fucking thing. there is not a plan in sight to reduce their power.

    in a way, the sooner we burn the world down, the sooner we can rebuild it.

    (half serious. don't send black helis to me, please.)

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:09PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:09PM (#341105) Journal

      I think change is coming: either through people like Bernie Sanders getting elected and making positive change for the people, or through revolution of some sort.

      The only problem is the people who keep their heads buried or differently occupied and aren't aware of what is happening (or hear through the media that "it's about trade! and that is good!")

      It's good that some people are diligent about standing on the watch towers: the problem is getting the plebs enraged. (and only revolution will create REAL change)

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by isostatic on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:28PM

        by isostatic (365) on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:28PM (#341116) Journal

        Lol.

        People don't want Bernie. If he or trump had 51% of the vote id have sympathy, but they don't, they can barely must 30% of their own party. That is not a mandate for anything, let alone for drastic action.

        To the "burn the village to save it lot", who seem to have such hope in the people, why would you have hope in a people that can't be bothered to make the easiest change of all - vote for someone who will actually deliver. The answer is they're quite happy with the way it is now.

        If you want a minority to overthrow the majority then that's fine. I don't fancy a dictatorship from a few keyboard warriors who think they know best.

        If you think the sheeple lack the intelligence to see what you can see, how do you think they'll cope building a new world order? Or won't you let them? Good luck with that, impose your views by force, it'll work wonders.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:04AM (#341156)

          Sadly, the majority of people in the US (or rather, people who vote, which is less than 50% of the population) are imposing their views by force upon people like me. They vote for authoritarian scumbags who then go on to violate our constitutional rights, which is unconstitutional even if the majority want it to happen. We don't live in a direct democracy and never should. I don't respect a viewpoint merely because it is widely believed, and nor will I tolerate oppression merely because the majority desires it.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:26AM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:26AM (#341181)

          I think Bernie Sanders is doing well, especially considering that the mainstream US media and the DNC are doing everything in their power to stop him. I actually get the feeling that if he does a lot better he'll have an 'accident' or 'health problem'.

          • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:02AM

            by isostatic (365) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:02AM (#341336) Journal

            Yes, doing well. Just not as well as Hilary.

            However the democrat voters have spoken. They want Hilary. On top of that, the party machinery thinks she has the best chance of winning in November.

            It's a long way from getting 9 million boringness for you to getting 65 million. Most political positions would find 8% support. It's the next 40% that's tricky.

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:55PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:55PM (#341576) Journal

            He'd doing better than I thought possible. But I really doubt he'll get the nomination, and Hillary appears to support the TPP. So I'll probably be voting third party. It almost doesn't matter which one.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:32PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:32PM (#341648)

          Claiming that a 40-50% primary vote split between two candidates in a party equates to 25% of the national vote is bullshit.

          Even with all the panic this election year at worst the final vote will be like 60-40. So yes, they do both have popular support (or at least, lack of popular lesser-evil-choosing?).

          --
          "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 JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:43PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:43PM (#341121)

      I don't know that all corporations want to grow larger.

      I do know that all publicly traded corporations shareholders want them to grow larger.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:51PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:51PM (#341129) Journal

        Except that, slowly (as in boiling the frog), the shareholders of public traded corporations are less and less made of the lower people.
        With the middle class melting down [ft.com] and all that

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:39AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:39AM (#341146)

          Shareholders are not people. Shareholders vote with majority rule, when has the majority of investors ever voted for anything other than maximizing profit? The usual majority of shareholders are represented by fund managers, and funds only exist to maximize profit (and occasionally reduce risk.)

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:19AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:19AM (#341159) Journal

            Shareholders are not people.

            There are people which are direct shareholders. Did you want to say that their "peopleship" attribute is of no relevance when discussing the "shareholder" attribute?
            But... even if so, does it make my statement invalid?

            Let me make my point a bit clearer: the participation of the middle and lower class to the capital/investment market diminishes as the time passes
            (where by participation does include both "direct" - as in owner of shares - or "indirect" - as member of an investment fund or something).

            Shareholders vote with majority rule, when has the majority of investors ever voted for anything other than maximizing profit?

            And this is the very trap so few realize (being blinded by the network of indirections/proxies which acts inside the economy/capital markets): we reached a point in which if someone wins, other have to lose.
            And, of course, at this "poker table" whoever has more chips has better chances to stay in the game (yes, I know it's not poker, but it's an almost a "zero-sum game").

            As such, the capability of real people to self-determination is eroded (fast, lately) and thus, in the context of "not sure which is the lesser of evils", I'd be more afraid of the corporations than the govt.
            The govts can be physically removed/replaced if they become too disconnected from the interest of the governed citizens, big enough (supra-national) corporations cannot.

             

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:47AM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:47AM (#341219)

              I meant to say that shareholders do not act like people. For most corporations, the majority of shares are not owned directly by people, but by collections of people - other corporations, mostly funds. Even when people own shares directly, the only thing they typically agree on (as shareholders) is to maximize profit.

              Yes, the less wealthy have less say in corporations because they (a) own less shares, and (b) tend to own those shares by proxy via collectives, funds, and other mechanisms that only "protect their interests" by maximizing profits.

              Its actually a really good argument for "government interference in business" - for the government to protect peoples' interest by passing laws to control the corporations. Now, when government is unduly influenced by "corporate interests", where does that leave the people?

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:06AM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:06AM (#341239) Journal

                Now, when government is unduly influenced by "corporate interests", where does that leave the people?

                Ummm... it leaves them in the USA?

                (grin)

                ---

                (PS. Kidding aside... come to think of it, it may be the only place were real corporate interest is influencing the governance - and not only the people in government.

                Yes, corruption of governments by private interest happens all over the world, but it is rather opportunistic in its nature - the favour goes to the highest payer of the moment. Change the govt, the old favourites go out of favour.
                In US? Change the govt and it is very likely the previous gained influence remains as the law.

                It's only in USA that I see a relentless push to make corporate interest the supreme law of the land... am I blind to other places in which this happens in a non-opportunistic way?)

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:53PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:53PM (#341132) Journal

      governments also tend to want to grow and collect power. that is evil.

      Not necessarily... just look at the Scandinavian ones - the people there don't seem worried about the evil of their government.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:55AM (#341917)

        How long until global warming turns them into banana republics?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:26AM

      by devlux (6151) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:26AM (#341143)

      4 Solutions to fix these problems that you can try at home right now!

      #1 Limit executive compensation to no more than 10x the lowest paid person in the organization. This 10x limit includes all forms of compensation including options, bonuses etc. Then eliminate the income tax and implement a single flat 25% VAT along with a constitutional amendment that requires the government to spend no more than 75% of what it collects in taxes annually with 25% set aside for a rainy day reserve and social safety net. Seriously, make that shit law right now. No reason not to. You have a congressman, go talk to him about it. If he resists, ask him why he hates America.

      #2 Stop allowing foreign & alien corporate ownership. For a business to do business in an area it should be incorporated in that area and subject to local laws. Bypassing federal supremacy. Ensure at least 51% local ownership is required for any business to come to town. There is no benefit to megacorps to anyone, not even the shareholders because they become too divorced from the process. If a company like walmart wants to move in, make it a local JV with 51% of shares to be offered to the locals within x miles of location. The 51% must be sold before they can expand into the area.

      #3 Revoke the corporate veil. Make executives criminally liable for any crimes of the company and shareholders severally liable for civil infractions and penalties as backup if the corp files for bankruptcy. I promise you do that you'll see a whole new world of "good corporate citizenship".

      #4 Dissolve the Union. The republic system fails due to financial influence and it is pointless in today's society. Direct democracy is perfectly viable now and should be used.

      We don't need a congress anymore, they haven't represented the will of the people in a very long time anyways.
      We could still keep the Senate in order to propose laws and get the exact wording on the ballot correct, but laws should be passed by the people and if the people can't be arsed to vote then the law should not pass. I say this, because we don't need 10 billion laws and a system so complex that a person can spend a lifetime studying it and still not know all the laws they might be subject to.

      Before anyone starts in about Democracy being tyranny of the masses, keep in mind that you are one of the masses and you have a more powerful voice and platform than at anytime in the history of humanity. If you feel the masses are wrong, then educate them; get them to come around to your point of view. Done correctly you'd have about 2 years to get your message out. If you can't do it, then consider the fact that perhaps you might not be one of the masses and should look at other opportunities elsewhere for like minded folks.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:36AM (#341278)

        I don't want anything to do with direct democracy. The majority should have clear limits on what they are able to do. They shouldn't be able to enslave a minority, for instance. Direct democracy would allow this, if it didn't have any checks and balances.

        Done correctly you'd have about 2 years to get your message out. If you can't do it, then consider the fact that perhaps you might not be one of the masses and should look at other opportunities elsewhere for like minded folks.

        Yeah, no thanks. I'm sure the oppressed minorities won't like what you have to offer either. Something isn't good or just simply because the majority desire it.

        • (Score: 2) by devlux on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:57AM

          by devlux (6151) on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:57AM (#341857)

          You poke problems again brining up the tyranny of the masses argument, but you don't provide a viable alternative.
          Clearly what we have doesn't work. Feel free to propose alternatives.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:31AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:31AM (#341144)

      Dude. Duuuude.

      So let's suppose you are a politician. You might even have the desire to do good every now and then.

      But... you need money. You need money to support your election campaign. You probably don't even feel bad about accepting a dinner invitation from a lobbyist every now and then.I mean, after all, besides all the things going on in your home state, you also have to pay rent in one of the most expensive cities in the US. And you have to travel back and forth constantly. That gets expensive.

      Now, you could raise money nickle and diming, but here is this nice corp., and they only want this one tinnie tiny favor. And, quite honestly, they are easier to keep happy. A lot easier than 50 different people pulling in 50 different directions, and none of them wants to pay for it.

      This a a structural problem. This is very easy to fix. In fact, I almost guarantee that a fix will be coming soon enough.

      These bills are a final power grab from governments and corps. that know change is coming. They want to make certain their interests are protected in the upheaval.

      You should really focus on designing better power structures. Every revolution travels 360 degrees.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:49AM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:49AM (#341150)

      The answer to your question largely depends on your answer to another question: Is the government you're describing a functioning democracy?

      If there is democracy, government is definitely the lesser evil, because there is at least the possibility of the government being made accountable for its actions by the population at large - democratic governments are approximately one person one vote, whereas corporate governance amounts to one dollar one vote which amounts to an oligarchy.
      If there isn't, corporations are the lesser evil, because they're at least accountable to one dollar one vote, whereas the government is accountable to nobody.

      As far as the "size" of government goes: If the citizens of a country want the government to do a lot of things, that means government should be large. If those same citizens want the government to do very little, that means government should be small. In both cases, government should be as efficient and effective as we can make it be at doing what it should be doing. The idea that government can do no wrong is wrong, but the idea that government can do no right is also wrong.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:31AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:31AM (#341203) Journal

        If there is democracy, government is definitely the lesser evil, because there is at least the possibility of the government being made accountable for its actions by the population at large - democratic governments are approximately one person one vote, whereas corporate governance amounts to one dollar one vote which amounts to an oligarchy.
        If there isn't, corporations are the lesser evil, because they're at least accountable to one dollar one vote, whereas the government is accountable to nobody.

        There is another significant attribute one can use to differentiate: the physical locality of the entity in power.
        Except for truly dystopian situation, a govt is identifiable and enumerable (thus theoretically able to be crippled/eliminated) - even strong tyrannies can be eliminated.
        Good luck identifying the persons to incapacitate to cripple a supranational corporation.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:10PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:10PM (#341420)

          Corporations have headquarters, factories, offices, etc, and a list of corporate officers that isn't too hard to find, so yes, there is in fact the possibility of crippling a supranational corporation.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:56PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:56PM (#341444) Journal

            Corporations have headquarters, factories, offices, etc, and a list of corporate officers that isn't too hard to find, so yes, there is in fact the possibility of crippling a supranational corporation.

            Like... say... Apple?
            Factories in China (not even theirs), money in Cayman, financial data spread geographically in their own cloud.
            Just load their officers onto an ugly boat [wikipedia.org]... (and unleash their hordes of hipster fans brought into a crazy frenzy by the news their next version release date is slipping because of troubles).

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:51PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:51PM (#341128) Journal

    It isn't enough that the talks grind to a halt. All parties to the talk need to be gibbeted, and their bodies left for the crows to eat. Hang them right up there beside the terrorists - there's no difference between them after all. Does France still have an appropriate place for gibbeting? Maybe the Eiffel Tower can be repurposed - it doesn't seem to be doing much of anything anyway.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:55PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:55PM (#341133) Journal

      All parties to the talk need to be gibbeted, and their bodies left for the crows to eat.

      Why waste effort when you can ignore them?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:55AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:55AM (#341153) Journal

        History provides the lesson that these people won't be ignored. They'll be back next month, and next year, and next decade, with new cons. If you really need an example, look at SOPA. Sure, it was defeated, but it keeps coming back, under new guises. And, of course, SOPA wasn't the first attempt. Remember the SSSCA? The earliest hit on it I found was Dec. 2001, in this forum post: http://www.speedguide.net/forums/showthread.php?60602-Stop-Policeware-NOW!-Act-now-before-it-is-too-late! [speedguide.net] The parent site referenced has since disappeared from the net.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by b0ru on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:09AM

          by b0ru (6054) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:09AM (#341341)

          I couldn't agree more. Let's not forget about ACTA [eff.org]. These people will continue to plot and scheme behind closed doors unless there are consequences. What's worse is that the people outraged by these agreements are becoming fewer and fewer with each iteration. Unless the underlying agenda here is brought to light in the most public and visual fashion each time it rears its ugly head, it will pass, without contest, like a ship in the night. As Wendell Phillips once said; "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:30AM (#341163)

    Run it. You'll get 50 replies not even counting the "News for Nerds" whiners.

  • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:04AM

    by Nuke (3162) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:04AM (#341357)

    Obama's comment that the USA would not deal with the UK if it exited no longer applies?
     

    • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:03PM

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:03PM (#341449)

      If TTIP is dropped, I'm sure politicians will start again with a different US-EU trade package. I see no reason for an independent UK's negotiations to be higher up the pecking order than a US-EU rematch.

    • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:14PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:14PM (#341552)

      Even the anti-EU campaigners didn't pick up on anti-TTIP as a response to Obama's comment. Most of the UK political and media establishment seem to be bought and sold on TTIP (I assume that the media all have huge IP interests and like the copyright-violation-as-a-capital-offence stuff) and if we come out of the EU the Tories, at least, will be so desperate to sign anything with the US that, I think, our best chance of staying out of - or watering down - TTIP is to stay in the EU alongside countries like France that don't worship "free" trade.

      Problem with the current EU exit scenario is that the plan seems to be (1) Have referendum, (2) Leave EU, (3) ???, (4) Profit. There's no rational discussion as to what (3) might look like (apart from the countries of the world beating a path to our door to sign favourable trade deals) - if you were a cynic you might think that the movers and shakers might actually be planning (1) Have referendum (2) Win referendum (3) gain lots of political power (4) retire to island in Bahamas long before the EU exit process reaches any conclusion.

      Not that there aren't arguments for leaving the EU, but it would be nice to think through the exit strategy before popping the hatch...