Not just TPP.. TTIP is the same but for Atlantic countries, EU - USA. They both also have clauses that prohibits boycotting or giving out negative reviews, anything that may cause loss of profit. They also have parts dedicated to copyright, denying free-for-use and to demanding the highest prison times for anyone sharing anything, denying the rights for stripping DRM from material you own...

I would be here the whole day if i would type each and every ridiculous thing those two "trade agreements" have but essentially they both deny independent nations to make ANY laws that may cause loss of PROJECTED profits.. Not just loss of profits but profits they might lose in the future..

And the court that solves these problems.. wait for it.. is independent jury with three private sector lawyers, no rights to defend nor to be even present, decisions are all secret. In practice three guys selected by corporations make a decision based on the evidence presented by corporations... It is sick and twisted "trade agreement" that is designed to maximize profits, to strip away environmental laws, regulations, worker rights, demands that nation HAS to privatize all of it's services if any corporation so wishes or face the "court"..

Interesting. When free trade agreements are usually about removing corporate interests at an international level like stagnant subsidies and industry handouts, it's sad to see the opposite occurring.

In relation to the TPP, on the anti-piracy side here in Australia you had the conservative Liberal party currently in power attempt to move us towards a three strikes policy, although that seems off the table for now.

Yep, this is currently a big issue with the Trans Pacfic Partnership trade agreement between the US and NZ (among others).

In NZ, there is a government subsidised drug buying agency called Pharmac. It standardises what treatment is used for each disease and as such, buys drugs in bulk at a discount.

The US pharmaceutical industry really wants to get rid of this, so they can shaft NZ like everywhere else, but it would be political suicide to get rid of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/justice-probation-contracts-private-companies

As if the privatisation of probation services wasn't horrible enough, the contracts include this little gimmick:

The Commons public accounts committee has established that the contracts included a £300m plus “poison pill” clause guaranteeing bidders their expected profits if the 10-year contracts were cancelled after the general election.

Latest WikiLeaks release about TISA: https://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/

What struck my eye was the list of partners on the left. It includes, amongst others, a public broadcaster from my country. So our government is moving mountains to keep all these trade agreements secret, yet a public broadcaster with a board of directors made up of mostly the very same politicians is working with WikiLeaks to expose it.

Wierd shit...

Where did I infer that; ""shit works okay, why should we bother trying to do better?" Nowhere. You appear to have missed my comment; "But we are getting there." Which, obviously, implies things are being done.
As for your patronising; " When you have seen enough information/had enough experiences." Not that it matters, but I have been around the world 3 times. I have seen - first hand - the sad state of some countries and try to do my bit.
FYI, technology and healthcare DOES actively reduce abuses. Also, we source from cheaper countries so that our goods are cheaper. Does that include bad working/remuneration packages? Sadly it does. But fair trade agreements are starting to tackle the issues. As badly off as some workers are, do you propose that we don't deal with the companies that exploit them? That would not be in their interest as they would have no income at all. And it would not be in our interest as we all like affordable goods. In that regard you are right, we are ALL complicit, but then we are all after making our money go further for our families.
Life is not fair my friend but, as I said, we are getting there.

You're missing the point. The USA may be able to say that they own the moon, and even get everyone on earth to agree to it, but without a permanent base on the moon, and a way to defend it, they can't enforce the claim.

Let's imagine that the whole of a small country, like France, is magically teleported to the moon. (With a protective air bubble, and the necessary resources to survive and defend it.)

The entire population of earth might still agree that the moon belongs to the USA, (as they could be coerced by military action and trade agreements), but the entire population of the moon would say the moon belonged to France - or the Moonians as they might call themselves - until the USA becomes motivated to put a competing presence there.

Flags are an effective means of designating territory on earth because they represent the nation whose power is backing up the claim. The flag on the moon is not backed up by the US Navy or Airforce, but instead with the knowledge that they last put three people there, for under a week, 41 years ago.

no one ever said taxing the rich would solve the debt problem...nothing individually will solve the debt problem. It's a strawman argument.

taxing the rich is more about making those freeloaders pay their fair share and having a fair and just society. The wealthy have a bigger stake in gov't services far more than the average citizen ever will. That's why a progressive tax is the only fair way to go. The wealthy have far more at stake when it comes to gov't negotiating trade agreements and diplomacy. they rely on the military more to keep the seas safe for commerce. they have more to lose if the gov't doesn't invest in health care, infrastructure and education since that's where they get their labor force from.

toning down military spending would probably make the biggest impact on the budget. but it can't be just one thing.

Most of all, private money needs to be removed from elections..period. money is not free speech.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
This shit is terrifying. How the can these lunatics be in any position to lead ANY country, let alone the USA? How does it get to this? American, you need to cull your inbred, bible bashing, ultra-conservative, voting rednecks

What country are you from? I'm just asking, because our inbred, bible-thumping, ultra-conservative voting rednecks wanna make sure you get invaded for not showing them the respect they think they deserve.

Australia, and you can't invade us. We have a trade agreement


Yeah, they'd also have to find it on a map first

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
This shit is terrifying. How the can these lunatics be in any position to lead ANY country, let alone the USA? How does it get to this? American, you need to cull your inbred, bible bashing, ultra-conservative, voting rednecks

What country are you from? I'm just asking, because our inbred, bible-thumping, ultra-conservative voting rednecks wanna make sure you get invaded for not showing them the respect they think they deserve.


Australia, and you can't invade us. We have a trade agreement

By the way, US officials have been pushing legislature similar to SOPA on other states for quite some time now. Latest example: Spain

Solomont’s threat was that should Spain not pass the Sinde Law (described by some as the Spanish SOPA) then the country would be degraded further and placed on the Priority Watch List. This serious step would mean that Spain was in breach of trade agreements and could be subjected to a range of “retaliatory actions”.

>> ^ghark:

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.
Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-li
bya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/
The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world
/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html
By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.


So your view on Libya is that Gaddafi didn't leave behind any mass graves, was not on the verge of prosecuting a genocide that he had publicly announced his intentions for, AND there are actual mass graves in Libya but only those dug by the rebels opposing Gaddafi?

So you support Gaddafi then. History won't remember your side well.

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.

Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-libya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/

The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html

By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.

"If we could pass trade agreements to help expand export growth, that would be good."

The "export growth" part means selling goods and services to other countries. He didn't say anything about exporting jobs. Any company can outsource jobs to other countries, whether it sells its product domestically or internationally. More exporting is a good thing for a weak domestic economy -- you sell in markets where the demand and buying power is stronger. Your company makes more money domestically, and the domestic economy grows.

1a. The ravages of globalization are the result of a lack of effective regulation. We can’t regulate the world, but we can end the international trade agreements that pit our labor against 3rd world slaves. We can create public sector jobs to take up the slack for the failings of the market. We can tariff the fuck out of countries (looking at you China) that pollute the environment and lower the value of labor. It’s not a matter of skilled vs. unskilled jobs. Unemployment is hitting the working class and working poor alike. Much of the current disparity is between people with similar levels of education.

1b. Huge double standard here. You recognize private contributions to society as things of value, but you are blind to the benefits the public sector provides you every waking (or sleeping) moment of your life. Whatever satisfaction you provide your consumers pales in comparison to the security, infrastructure, safety standards, constitutional rights, court system, labor protections and other benefits that have allowed you the opportunity to live, work and thrive in this society. You take these things for granted because you’ve never known a life without them. Spoiled libertarian brat (is there any other kind).

2. I believe there is a lot of truth to this.

3. Obviously this is important to you, but I’m not getting the significance of the article you linked to or it’s political or scientific ramifications? Some scientists are skeptical about a controversial hypothesis. Are they holding up the creation of a master race of brilliant chess playing super-Jews? I’ve got enough to read at the moment. Give me the cliff notes version.

I don’t want to live in a society of slaves and masters. I don’t want to live under absolute socialist equality either. A hybrid system that strikes a compromise between the benefits of socialism and capitalism, run with the oversight and transparency of a working democracy would be best.

The market should be free to do it’s thing just so long as it does not become harmful to society (and itself). When the market fails to create jobs, the public sector should step in. When markets pollute or exploit, the public sector should step in. The public sector should also handle services that are too important to gamble away in the private sector like health care, social security and education.

It really comes done to whether or not you believe that humans have a moral obligation to care for one another. I do absolutely. I don’t want to be anyone's slave or master. I don’t want to be a millionaire. I’d just like to live in a country that doesn't punish the meek and powerless for being meek and powerless.

Don't tell blankfist, but you are a much better debater than he. Good chatting with you, Chilaxe.