Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Someone explain this to me please?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 07:52 AM

Can someone break the Trans-Pacific Partnership down to me? I've done a bit of reading on it. Please don't be rude to me and try to keep the discussion civil. I'm asking for information and an education. Feel free to express either side of the TPP thing (for or against it). I wanna know everything you can share. I'll keep reading on it myself. Please include links too!



#2 SheOfTheEnderworld

SheOfTheEnderworld
  • The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist


  • 3,838 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 08:37 AM

@Coops I like the brevity of this BBC article on it...very concise, and there's a link out from it to further information: http://www.bbc.com/n...siness-32498715



#3 HiMyNameIsNick

HiMyNameIsNick
  • Shitlord


  • 1,719 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 08:41 AM

I've learned about the TPP thing last week and somehow everyone I know is against it. I don't have a clue what it is though.



#4 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 08:42 AM

Any large company can sue governments if their interferences causes a loss of profit.

#5 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 08:47 AM

Any large company can sue governments if their interferences causes a loss of profit.

Can you substantiate this please? I downloaded the actual government document available on the US.gov site. Still sifting through it.

I can see how that would be an issue though.

Edit:
Thanks @Kord. I checked the article out. It mentions the same thing Frizzle did, briefly. 

@HiMyNameIsNick That's why I'm asking actually. Mainly, I've heard a bunch of vague arguments against it or for it. But I'm not well-versed in global economics. I'm interested in learning more. I don't have an opinion or enough knowledge to be for or against it, honestly.


Edited by Coops, 05 December 2015 - 08:52 AM.


#6 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 09:51 AM

Put it this way:

A company invents a product that is incredibly successful so they monopolise it. The government intervenes and allows other companies to enter that market so there isn't a monopoly.

The original company will then be able to sue the government as it would obviously lose profits.

That's obviously a very simplified version.

#7 Guppie

Guppie
  • 1,285 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:54 AM

How about tobacco? Governments make laws requiring health warnings on packaging, which may lead to a loss of profit. The tobacco companies can now sue those governments.



#8 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 11:42 AM

Wow. That sounds really shitty and bad, in general, for society. 



#9 SheOfTheEnderworld

SheOfTheEnderworld
  • The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist


  • 3,838 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:08 PM

Wow. That sounds really shitty and bad, in general, for society. 

 

Yeah...that's pretty much my personal feelings on it.



#10 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:08 PM

Yeah...that's pretty much my personal feelings on it.

I'm going to keep looking for more information, so I can understand it better, but so far I think I'm against it. :/



#11 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:12 PM

It's made deliberately confusing so people can't challenge it. It's basically large corporation blackmail and corruption.

#12 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:17 PM

It's made deliberately confusing so people can't challenge it. It's basically large corporation blackmail and corruption.

I am not surprised, honestly. The document is long as fuck.



#13 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:25 PM

It's made deliberately confusing so people can't challenge it. It's basically large corporation blackmail and corruption.

 

Yeah, because in comparison non-controversial trade agreements are usually worded very succinctly and are incredibly easy to understand for the layman.



#14 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:44 PM

Yeah, because in comparison non-controversial trade agreements are usually worded very succinctly and are incredibly easy to understand for the layman.

When is any political document ever easy to understand and not loaded with posturing, or long-winded? Ha.



#15 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:53 PM

When is any political document ever easy to understand and not loaded with posturing, or long-winded? Ha.

 

My point exactly. They haven't made it deliberately confusing to stop people from challenging it, it's a legal document with huge economic, social and political implications covering 12 countries over 4 continents, $30 trillion of trade and over 10% of the world population. It's impossible to make something like that simple...



#16 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 12:58 PM

My point exactly. They haven't made it deliberately confusing to stop people from challenging it, it's a legal document with huge economic, social and political implications covering 12 countries over 4 continents, $30 trillion of trade and over 10% of the world population. It's impossible to make something like that simple...

I'm sure it's possible that it is a bit of both. But you're absolutely correct and in many cases of legal documents that's the problem, you can't really make that sorta shit simple -- not just for the people, but for the politicians involved (since their staff usually draws that shit up, not them). I'm trying to read it but holyfuck, it's massive and I don't know where to start. But I genuinely want to understand it better.

P.S. Your new profile pic is awesome.



#17 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 01:16 PM

I'm sure it's possible that it is a bit of both. But you're absolutely correct and in many cases of legal documents that's the problem, you can't really make that sorta shit simple -- not just for the people, but for the politicians involved (since their staff usually draws that shit up, not them). I'm trying to read it but holyfuck, it's massive and I don't know where to start. But I genuinely want to understand it better.

P.S. Your new profile pic is awesome.

 

I think the secretive nature of the negotiations is much more worrying than the way it's actually written. They've hidden elements of it behind confidentiality for years and that kind of behaviour doesn't really sit well with a supposedly transparent, democratic government. More people should try to understand these things better.



#18 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 01:59 PM

My point exactly. They haven't made it deliberately confusing to stop people from challenging it, it's a legal document with huge economic, social and political implications covering 12 countries over 4 continents, $30 trillion of trade and over 10% of the world population. It's impossible to make something like that simple...


When it affects the socio-economical lives of over 700 million it should be simplified as much as possible. It's not a coincidence that almost the majority of the public don't know or don't understand the ramifications of a wholly unfair law.

#19 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 02:04 PM

I think the secretive nature of the negotiations is much more worrying than the way it's actually written. They've hidden elements of it behind confidentiality for years and that kind of behaviour doesn't really sit well with a supposedly transparent, democratic government. More people should try to understand these things better.

Yeah, I was reading about that actually. That was cited as a reason for opposing it, in many of the articles I read. I think that's disturbing. But then, I'm not really surprised about the lack of transparency.



#20 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 02:31 PM

When it affects the socio-economical lives of over 700 million it should be simplified as much as possible. It's not a coincidence that almost the majority of the public don't know or don't understand the ramifications of a wholly unfair law.

 

Have you read any of it yet? It's quite lengthy (I wouldn't say overly so, however) but from what I've read of it the language used isn't actually too unapproachable.



#21 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧ī¸đŸŒŠī¸đŸŒ§ī¸




  • 3,607 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 02:44 PM

Have you read any of it yet? It's quite lengthy (I wouldn't say overly so, however) but from what I've read of it the language used isn't actually too unapproachable.

Even if it was, at the beginning of the chapters it defines terms like many research papers do.

If anyone is interested: https://ustr.gov/tra...p/tpp-full-text



#22 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 02:57 PM

Have you read any of it yet? It's quite lengthy (I wouldn't say overly so, however) but from what I've read of it the language used isn't actually too unapproachable.


Only the excerpts. It's like tax equations and legislative procedure, it's easy to simplify for the common man, even if it's necessary for it to be complex due to its nature.

#23 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 03:57 PM

Only the excerpts. It's like tax equations and legislative procedure, it's easy to simplify for the common man, even if it's necessary for it to be complex due to its nature.

 

Which is what chapter summaries are for. There are lots of simplified explanations of everything in the agreement from other sources like the news, there's no need to replicate the entire document in very slightly easier language for the dozens of people who would want to read the whole thing but who couldn't manage the actual text. Taxpayers money and all that.



#24 Fikri

Fikri
  • submissive


  • 4,433 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 07:50 PM

malaysia is part of the TPP and most people here are against it. i think a lot of the opposition comes from the fact that it's spearheaded by the US and a majority of people here are anti-america. personally, i'm pro-TPP. the government of malaysia already assured the people that if anything goes wrong, we can exit the deal anytime we want because we are the first batch of signatories and we have the negotiation power and stuff.



#25 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 December 2015 - 07:54 PM

Which is what chapter summaries are for. There are lots of simplified explanations of everything in the agreement from other sources like the news, there's no need to replicate the entire document in very slightly easier language for the dozens of people who would want to read the whole thing but who couldn't manage the actual text. Taxpayers money and all that.


Are you suggesting that hundreds of pages of indepth legalisations and economic reform will suddenly be easily read by the common person?

Bare in mind the most read newspaper in the UK is the Sun..


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users