|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2016 00:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:08 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 23:48 kwizach wrote:On April 05 2016 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 23:20 kwizach wrote:On April 05 2016 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know. So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point. What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech? Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed. I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for. As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there. I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact. Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone? Read the agreement, please. (I even linked it before). "Nothing in return", "what they wanted". I dare you to make that concrete. List 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "they wanted but which the US does not want" vs "three that the US wanted but Panama doesn't care about" that I'd provide in return. I mean read this crap. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file875_10349.pdfI said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about. Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking. So you're saying that you cannot find 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want" and thus your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false. I just did. What do you think the US got out of the deal?
No, you did not post three paragraphs that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want".
You posted this:
I mean read this crap. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file875_10349.pdfI said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about. Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking.
This does not include three paragraphs that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want". Hence your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false.
|
NPR had a story this morning where the master mind behind the new North Carolina law complained that companies where getting back information about the law. Despite it being publicly available and several tech companies saying they had their legal departments review it before making a decision.
|
On April 06 2016 00:27 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:08 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 23:48 kwizach wrote:On April 05 2016 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 23:20 kwizach wrote:On April 05 2016 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point. What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech? Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed. I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for. As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there. I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact. Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone? Read the agreement, please. (I even linked it before). "Nothing in return", "what they wanted". I dare you to make that concrete. List 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "they wanted but which the US does not want" vs "three that the US wanted but Panama doesn't care about" that I'd provide in return. I mean read this crap. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file875_10349.pdfI said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about. Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking. So you're saying that you cannot find 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want" and thus your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false. I just did. What do you think the US got out of the deal? No, you did not post three paragraphs that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want". You posted this: Show nested quote +I mean read this crap. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file875_10349.pdfI said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about. Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking. This does not include three paragraphs that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want". Hence your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false.
The objectives of this Agreement, as elaborated more specifically through its principles
and rules, including national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment, and transparency, are to:
(a) encourage expansion and diversification of trade between the Parties;
(b) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods
and services between the territories of the Parties;
(c) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;
(d) substantially increase investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;
(e) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights in each Party’s territory;
(f) create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this
Agreement, for its joint administration, and for the resolution of disputes; and
(g) establish a framework for further bilateral, regional, and multilateral cooperation
to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.
those are the objectives. They are bullshit. The US didn't need or have any desire (beyond lobbyists) to make the deal, Panama (at least certain folks within it) however benefits from all of those things in a grossly disproportionate way.
I guess maybe the IP part migh have benefited us mroe than them, I know there's plenty of people here that are more familiar with that, but I don't imagine Panama has much IP they need to protect (though I doubt the protections would be sufficient anyway).
|
On April 06 2016 00:26 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:14 Lord Tolkien wrote:
What? Giving RT an interview isn't that big a deal. Heck, I've helped write a published response to a reporter from Novosti regarding China's military budget. Was that before or after it's rebirth under Putin's control? The problem is that it shows the would be commander-in-chief doesn't understand which are real news agencies and which are foreign propaganda channels. There's a reason why other US politicians shun RT. Novosti? Was like a year ago. Wrote a response to a few questions they asked my supervisor about this. Was nothing nefarious. If you mean RT, I personally don't see the interview being overly concerning.
That was just after the takeover. I skimmed the topic, looks like it was probably one of their standard news articles then. (Yes, they still have those too.)
The issue isn't with the content of the interview (I've heard that same story from Sanders before), it's not recognizing that it's RT that no other presidential candidate (besides perhaps Trump) would entertain. (And even Trump hasn't accepted an interview request from them.) It legitimizes a propaganda channel of one of US's greater rivals.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i mean if you want to cite from something you've only read for the first time ever, go for a secondary source.
|
Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible.
Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits.
|
Oh for fuck sake...
In what is believed to be a first, the Bible could be adopted a symbol of Tennessee, after the legislature narrowly approved a bill designating "the Holy Bible as the official state book." The measure now goes to Gov. Bill Haslam.
"Critics called the proposal both unconstitutional and sacrilegious," Nashville Public Radio reports. "They also pointed out there are many versions of the Bible, none of which are specified in the resolution."
The Senate version of the legislation, HB0615, was sponsored by Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown, who noted the importance of the Bible in Tennessee's history – both in its role as a historic record of important family milestones and as the heart of the state's multimillion–dollar Bible-printing industry. He singled out publishers who have headquarters in Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Gideons International, and United Methodists Publishing House.
After a debate over the bill, the Senate approved it with a 19-8 vote. Both Gov. Haslam and Attorney General Herbert Slatery have questioned whether the bill is appropriate or constitutional.
Source
|
On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits.
We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits.
panama is a hard nut to crack really. that tax transparency treaty they signed as part of this FTA seems to be the most they've given in to international pressure since ever.
but bottomline is a FTA does not affect or empower their tax fraud/money laundering efforts. in fact, a stronger non-fraud economy in panama plus more leverage from trade deepening means that we would have more leverage to affect change in the future.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us.
it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices?
sandernistas can't rely on their belief that trade deals are bad to justify some backhanded accusation that trade deals enable the corruption.
|
On April 06 2016 00:33 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:26 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 06 2016 00:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:14 Lord Tolkien wrote:
What? Giving RT an interview isn't that big a deal. Heck, I've helped write a published response to a reporter from Novosti regarding China's military budget. Was that before or after it's rebirth under Putin's control? The problem is that it shows the would be commander-in-chief doesn't understand which are real news agencies and which are foreign propaganda channels. There's a reason why other US politicians shun RT. Novosti? Was like a year ago. Wrote a response to a few questions they asked my supervisor about this. Was nothing nefarious. If you mean RT, I personally don't see the interview being overly concerning. That was just after the takeover. I skimmed the topic, looks like it was probably one of their standard news articles then. (Yes, they still have those too.)
I read the article after it was published, so yes it was just a standard article regarding the Chinese budget.
The issue isn't with the content of the interview (I've heard that same story from Sanders before), it's not recognizing that it's RT that no other presidential candidate (besides perhaps Trump) would entertain. (And even Trump hasn't accepted an interview request from them.) It legitimizes a propaganda channel of one of US's greater rivals.
Fair enough.
|
On April 06 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices?
Remember when I said "this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices"?
No, you probably don't, because I didn't.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices? Remember when I said "this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices"? No, you probably don't, because I didn't.
then why the fuck are you even talking about this deal in relation to the panama situation? in fact the tax transparency agreement we have with panama is the result of the FTA. you think less oversight is better?
|
On April 06 2016 00:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices? Remember when I said "this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices"? No, you probably don't, because I didn't. then why the fuck are you even talking about this deal in relation to the panama situation? in fact the tax transparency agreement we have with panama is the result of the FTA. you think less oversight is better?
It's an example of what we can expect Hillary to "get done" and the kind of people who will support her agenda (Rupert Murdoch) as evidence by the near celebration of the trade deal when you all know that we shouldn't have even been at the table without them giving major concessions on their banking.
Like Hillary has got you all so twisted up you all are actually defending her pushing for a trade deal lobbied for by Rupert Murdoch. Just let that sink in for a while.
|
On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us.
For any complex negotiation (or any project really) you have to define the goals and parameters to control the scope of the project in a way that makes it achievable. Either before or during the process it was determined that getting Panama to lift its skirts wasn't going to happen so instead of pressing for that and blowing up the whole deal they got other things agreed to.
Look at the Iran nuclear deal. It focuses on a pretty narrow set of objectives: nuclear restrictions for lifting economic sanctions. We don't ask them to stop yelling death to America, increase democracy and all that. It's not naivete as you like to call it, it's hardcore pragmatism to achieve some goals which, hopefully, will be the foundation for further progress.
|
On April 06 2016 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:27 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:08 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 23:48 kwizach wrote:On April 05 2016 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 23:20 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed. I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for. As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there. I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact. Put basically, we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return. Obviously whatever concessions we got changed nothing about their business model, and there was no pressure (other than from folks like lobbyists working for people with subsidieries there) to get it done Predictably, Lines are already forming and getting longer. over under on how long they get anyone? Read the agreement, please. (I even linked it before). "Nothing in return", "what they wanted". I dare you to make that concrete. List 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "they wanted but which the US does not want" vs "three that the US wanted but Panama doesn't care about" that I'd provide in return. I mean read this crap. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file875_10349.pdfI said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about. Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking. So you're saying that you cannot find 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want" and thus your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false. I just did. What do you think the US got out of the deal? No, you did not post three paragraphs that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want". You posted this: I mean read this crap. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file875_10349.pdfI said "practically" looking at the size of their economy and where it comes from, Bernie was right and it's pretty obvious this didn't have anything to do with reciprocal trade or the benefits of job creation from lowing tariffs on trading with Panama. That's the faux naivete I'm talking about. Like I said Kwiz the bar isn't "did it have any positive aspects". Any deal should have been conditioned on significant reforms in their banking industry. We didn't need whatever they were contributing to us economically as a result of the deal so there was no pressure for us to make the deal without the concessions on banking. This does not include three paragraphs that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want". Hence your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is false. Show nested quote +The objectives of this Agreement, as elaborated more specifically through its principles
and rules, including national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment, and transparency, are to:
(a) encourage expansion and diversification of trade between the Parties;
(b) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods
and services between the territories of the Parties;
(c) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;
(d) substantially increase investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;
(e) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights in each Party’s territory;
(f) create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this
Agreement, for its joint administration, and for the resolution of disputes; and
(g) establish a framework for further bilateral, regional, and multilateral cooperation
to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.
those are the objectives. They are bullshit. The US didn't need or have any desire (beyond lobbyists) to make the deal, Panama (at least certain folks within it) however benefits from all of those things in a grossly disproportionate way. I guess maybe the IP part migh have benefited us mroe than them, I know there's plenty of people here that are more familiar with that, but I don't imagine Panama has much IP they need to protect (though I doubt the protections would be sufficient anyway).
Let's take a look at them then (this was your job, btw):
(a) encourage expansion and diversification of trade between the Parties:
US exports to Panama in the period of 2010-2011 is $7158mln. In 2013-2014 it's $10515 mln.
Average balance of US trade in goods with Panama (US exports minus Panama imports in trade in goods) between 2010-201: $6863 mln, for 2013-2014 it's $10076 mln.
Job well done. Looks like the US gained 3 billion worth of exports from the deal.
(b) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods
and services between the territories of the Parties;
Here's a quote (you can see this in the schedules as well): "More than half of U.S. exports of agricultural commodities to Panama became duty-free on day one, including high-quality beef, frozen turkeys, sorghum, soybeans, soybean meal, crude soybean and corn oil, almost all fruit and fruit products, wheat, peanuts, whey, cotton, and many processed products."
Here's another quote from the US DoA on Panama: "The United States exported a record of nearly $667 million in agricultural products to Panama during the 2014 fiscal year, up nearly 17 percent from the prior year. Top exports included soybean meal, corn, dairy, wheat, and processed food products."
Looks like removing barriers was pretty good for the US.
(c) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;
Look at point (b), trade barriers distort competition.
(d) substantially increase investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;
Panama's FDI to the US in 2013 was 1.2 billion, more than Brazil or South Africa.
(e) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights in each Party’s territory;
It's pretty obvious that the US desires IP protection more than Panama, but here's an article decrying the draconian IP law Panama was willing to swallow as part of the FTA.
(f) create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this
Agreement, for its joint administration, and for the resolution of disputes; and
(g) establish a framework for further bilateral, regional, and multilateral cooperation
to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.
The last two are just procedural stuff. Why would you even add this?
I think I've demonstrated that it was very much in the US interest to negotiate this trade deal, as is common with international trade, farmers and food processors stand to gain the most from it.
You've still failed to point out three paragraphs where the FTA was in Panama's favour and not the US's.
And I think the above text shows that it's not the case that you and Bernie have said that Panama is a small country that the US doesn't care about. A 10 billion market for export feeds a lot of people in the US, and a billion dollar investment source creates a lot of jobs.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:49 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices? Remember when I said "this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices"? No, you probably don't, because I didn't. then why the fuck are you even talking about this deal in relation to the panama situation? in fact the tax transparency agreement we have with panama is the result of the FTA. you think less oversight is better? It's an example of what we can expect Hillary to "get done" and the kind of people who will support her agenda (Rupert Murdoch) as evidence by the near celebration of the trade deal when you all know that we shouldn't have even been at the table without them giving major concessions on their banking. Like Hillary has got you all so twisted up you all are actually defending her pushing for a trade deal lobbied for by Rupert Murdoch. Just let that sink in for a while.
answer the question.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. For any complex negotiation (or any project really) you have to define the goals and parameters to control the scope of the project in a way that makes it achievable. Either before or during the process it was determined that getting Panama to lift its skirts wasn't going to happen so instead of pressing for that and blowing up the whole deal they got other things agreed to. Look at the Iran nuclear deal. It focuses on a pretty narrow set of objectives: nuclear restrictions for lifting economic sanctions. We don't ask them to stop yelling death to America, increase democracy and all that. It's not naivete as you like to call it, it's hardcore pragmatism to achieve some goals which, hopefully, will be the foundation for further progress.
This is still presuming there was any pressure for a deal in the first place. Bush didn't need to work up the deal, Obama didn't need to revive it, Hillary didn't need to support it, let it blow up. The "progress' for either sides citizens was hardly anything to write home about, while special interests (corporations who stand to benefit from the deal) on both sides make out like bandits.
http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/panama
On April 06 2016 00:56 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:49 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Assuming you can negotiate a better deal due to having leverage that the people who actually made the deal don't have/ didn't use is a little Trump-ian isn't it? The scenario seems to have been the Panamanians weren't willing to put the sort of financial reforms/ controls mentioned on the table for the negotiations, or there was nothing we could offer that would make some sort of financial agreement possible. Looking at the .gov page it does seem that the trade agreement has some pretty tangible benefits. We didn't need to make the deal. Having a trade deal with a known tax haven benefits them more than it benefits us without the condition that they put the banking rules on the table. No rules, no deal, that's a no brainer for us. it's a separate issue though. what part of this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices? Remember when I said "this trade agreement enabled the secrecy practices"? No, you probably don't, because I didn't. then why the fuck are you even talking about this deal in relation to the panama situation? in fact the tax transparency agreement we have with panama is the result of the FTA. you think less oversight is better? It's an example of what we can expect Hillary to "get done" and the kind of people who will support her agenda (Rupert Murdoch) as evidence by the near celebration of the trade deal when you all know that we shouldn't have even been at the table without them giving major concessions on their banking. Like Hillary has got you all so twisted up you all are actually defending her pushing for a trade deal lobbied for by Rupert Murdoch. Just let that sink in for a while. answer the question.
I already told you I wasn't suggesting "it enabled the secrecy practices"...
11 am already getting lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
