TPP: Okay, bad, or very bad?

Cheetah

Deity
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
8,010
Location
the relative oasis of CFC
We might find out in a few hours...

Reuters: Japanese economy minster says preparing news conference with expectation of announcing overall #TPP deal later today.

From the bits of leaked information I've seen, this is probably going to be bad, and if it's done now, I think a thread is in order to discuss the implications.

Edit: Seems it's done.
https://twitter.com/RichardMadan/status/650721578523717636
A burst of energy filled hotel after word #TPP deal reached. I'm up live on @ctvnewschannel in moments to bring latest #elxn42


UPDATE:

The full text is out!

One of the most controversial chapters in the deal concerns intellectual property. In an e-mail to Ars, James Love, the director of Knowledge Ecology International, said:
In the IP Chapter, the TPP locks in a number of anti-consumer measures, and imposes higher standards for IP on poor countries, after their transition periods. One impact of the IP chapter is to gut provisions in US law to encourage more transparency of patents on biologic drugs, and to make infringement of any patent or copyright more risky and costly.

In the investment chapter, the TPP gives private companies the right to bring cases and get fines when a country does not meet its obligations, for the IP chapter, and for pretty much all the other chapters too.

In the transparency annex, the TPP requires countries to give drug companies more rights to monitor and challenge government decisions on reimbursements on drugs, basically to hassle and sue governments when they push back on high drug prices.
Meanwhile, the deal also exports US copyright law regarding how long a copyright lasts. The plan, which now needs approval from all the pact's member nations, makes copyrights last for the life of the creator plus 70 years after death. That's basically the same as in the US.
Source
 
I am now at a point where my standard assumption is that such international trade agreements are overall pretty bad.

The principle idea is actually very good. Leaving the merits of more free trade aside (a very difficult issue on its own - especially in light of incessant mantras of the same simple slogans on most channels), an international economy requires international cooperation regarding policies concerning the economy. Such lack of cooperation is the biggest threat to democracy these days, IMO, as in an environment of international economic competition, market forces gain strength and political forces loose strength, step by step.

The problem is - special interests (capital) seem to dominate the actual content of those trade agreements and as a consequence they succumb to a back door through which financially powerful lobby organizations can get through what they can not get through on a national level.

In effect, what should be a tool to strengthen democracy and weaken the dictate of market forces / big money does the exact opposite.

And in Germany they became so desperate that they went from saying "It will be so good for us!" to "We have to do it since everyone does it, so that we can stay in the game and compete". Incidentally, just that shift is also what happened to efforts to justify the EU. You just need to replace "Everyone does it" with "Look how big everyone is!"
 
Trade is good overall. And freer trade is good overall. If this deal has downsides, and we don't yet know what all the details are, it's that intellectual property protections have gone overboard and need to be dialed back. And this goes in the wrong direction on that, from reports. Also, we need more commitment to lower unemployment rates and higher wages at home.
 
My problem with trade agreements is that they have been overly influenced by corporate interests. While trade is certainly conducted between corporations, and they obviously have an interest, they should be drafting proposals and directly influencing the talks. From what I have heard, numerous provisions of the TPP are strictly for the benefit of multi-national corporations.
 
It is done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0

Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Is Reached

The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations on Monday agreed to the largest regional trade accord in history, a potentially precedent-setting model for global commerce and worker standards that would tie together 40 percent of the world’s economy, from Canada and Chile to Japan and Australia.

[...]

The Pacific accord would phase out thousands of import tariffs as well as other barriers to international trade. It also would establish uniform rules on corporations’ intellectual property, open the Internet even in communist Vietnam and crack down on wildlife trafficking and environmental abuses.

[...]

Final compromises covered commercial protections for drug makers’ advanced medicines, more open markets for dairy products and sugar, and a slow phaseout — over two to three decades — of the tariffs on Japan’s autos sold in North America.

[...]

The agreement also would overhaul special tribunals that handle trade disputes between businesses and participating nations. The changes, which also are expected to set a precedent for future trade pacts, respond to widespread criticisms that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement panels favor businesses and interfere with nations’ efforts to pass rules safeguarding public health and safety.

Among new provisions, a code of conduct would govern lawyers selected for arbitration panels. And tobacco companies would be excluded, to end the practice of using the panels to sue countries that pass antismoking laws. On Sunday, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, hailed the provision as “historic.”

[...]

The way it reads doesn't sound too bad all in all, but I do not think the journalist has had access to the actual deal either.

We'll be able to read the real text in a month or so it seems...
 
http://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/10/...utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=SocialWarfare

The TPP would manage trade in pharmaceuticals through a variety of seemingly arcane rule changes on issues such as “patent linkage,” “data exclusivity,” and “biologics.” The upshot is that pharmaceutical companies would effectively be allowed to extend – sometimes almost indefinitely – their monopolies on patented medicines, keep cheaper generics off the market, and block “biosimilar” competitors from introducing new medicines for years. That is how the TPP will manage trade for the pharmaceutical industry if the US gets its way.

The biggest frustration is just the total secrecy and lack of legislative oversight from anywhere! Most people are open to the idea of making trade more likely between nations, but the applications herein to intellectual property and copyrights are kind of scary.
 
So far it seems like the TPP is basically America shoving their backwards copyright & patent laws down everyone's throats, for the benefit of old rich white guys.

Awesome

The mouse is your friend. All hail the mouse.
 
So far it seems like the TPP is basically America shoving their backwards copyright & patent laws down everyone's throats, for the benefit of old rich white guys.

Awesome

I have mixed feelings on this. I absolutely agree that US copyright and patent laws need yet another big overhaul. On the other hand, doesn't the US (and the pharmaceutical industry in particular) produce a lot of the innovations that move the global economy forward? If this is true (and I'm not taking that as a given - someone prove me wrong) then the US should get more clout in this sphere than everyone else.
 
Perhaps, but in your country people go bankrupt and have their lives ruined because they can't afford a prescription for a pill that costs $2 a pop elsewhere.

We don't want that sort of insanity over here, not even a bit of it.
 
I have more problems with unending copyrights in general than patents. Which seem like they still generally expire unless something is particularly screwy.
 
From what I've heard, somewhere between "bad" and "very bad" depending on the details. The patent and copyright portions in particular seem to be exactly the opposite of the direction changes should be moving - namely, extending copyright and patent lengths, and reducing exceptions to them.

Having been in the software industry a few years, it's become clear to me that patents are currently better at stifling high-tech innovation than encouraging it. Why? Patent lengths that are exceedingly long relative to the pace of technology, combined with a patent office that approves patents with far too little scrutiny, resulting in patents that are gobsmackingly broad to someone with some familiarity as to what they supposedly cover. As a result it's almost impossible to come up with something new without there being a serious concern about a patent lawsuit. The result is that those who own patents, not rarely corporations created solely for the purpose of buying up patents and suing people, get richer, even if they have no products using those patents.

And the pharmaceutical changes mentioned by Good Enough For Me are arguably even worse. While I'm not opposed to having some patents in the medical industry since it is expensive to develop new treatments, generics are a godsend to the cost of care. I've yet to see compelling evidence that higher profits for U.S. drug companies will result in better overall quality of life. It may have a small positive effect on new developments, but millions of other people would not be able to afford the care they need were it not for generics, and that's a much bigger downside.

Another relevant part of that article:

For decades, US-based tobacco companies have used foreign investor adjudication mechanisms created by agreements like the TPP to fight regulations intended to curb the public-health scourge of smoking. Under these investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems, foreign investors gain new rights to sue national governments in binding private arbitration for regulations they see as diminishing the expected profitability of their investments.

...

Philip Morris International is currently prosecuting such cases against Australia and Uruguay (not a TPP partner) for requiring cigarettes to carry warning labels. Canada, under threat of a similar suit, backed down from introducing a similarly effective warning label a few years back.

To me it seems like a very bad thing if corporations can sue national governments for regulating their product. How many hundreds of thousands of Canadians will die over the next few decades due to the threat of Philip Morris suing the government? Not a good thing.
 
The NDP just came out saying that they are against the TPP.. Our federal election is coming up shortly, but it doesn't look like the NDP will win. Right now the Liberals are in the lead, and as far as I know they support this nonsense.
 
So far it seems like the TPP is basically America shoving their backwards copyright & patent laws down everyone's throats, for the benefit of old rich white guys.

Awesome
Most people, from what I've seen, regard this as Harper basically having sold Canada to China. They're already pricing Vancouver out of reach for ordinary Canadians to live in.

The NDP just came out saying that they are against the TPP.. Our federal election is coming up shortly, but it doesn't look like the NDP will win. Right now the Liberals are in the lead, and as far as I know they support this nonsense.
This election is the worst of all worlds. It doesn't matter who the ABC people vote for, there will be a lot of noses being held this time around. There are no clear-cut good choices, at least not for me.

What bothers me more about the Liberals is the promise to repeal C-51 if they're elected. The last time they made a promise about a really significant piece of legislation the Conservatives put in, they didn't keep it. The GST has been with us for 25 years.

Maybe Trudeau should offer to resign if they don't repeal it. That tactic worked for Sheila Copps in 1993... even after her constituents reminded her of her promise. She did resign (reluctantly), a byelection was held, and she got back in.
 
Back
Top Bottom