EPTSpeaking of trade, Trump just met with Trudeau, who has apparently been in favor of not renegotiating NATO. Let's see what comes of it.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6861
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Speaking of trade, Trump just met with Trudeau, who has apparently been in favor of not renegotiating NATO. Let's see what comes of it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Then there is that whole pesky issue of getting it approved by congress. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 05:08 Logo wrote: The TPP included an ISDS provision that lets foreign companies to challenge/sue host state laws so they could turn around and challenge things like the US's IP laws if they found them unsatisfactory potentially forcing a country like the US to strengthen IP laws. It also would entrench laws like the DMCA and restrict congress' ability to reform IP law. while i'm not in favor of lengthy copyrights your understanding of ISDS and its relation to sovereign power to change the IP laws in the U.S. is very flawed. ISDS in the TPP/TTIP does not have the power to order states to change laws. specifically relating to IP, there is actually an explicit carve out ruling out considering changes to IP laws as a taking. unless the u.s. discriminates against foreign ip or something, which would never happen, there would not be much of an IP based ISDS claim. 5. This Article shall not apply to the issuance of compulsory licences granted in relation to intellectual property rights in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement, or to the revocation, limitation or creation of intellectual property rights, to the extent that the issuance, revocation, limitation or creation is consistent with Chapter 18 (Intellectual Property) and the TRIPS Agreement. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/_securedfiles/trans-pacific-partnership/text/9.-investment-chapter.pdf the situation with international ip is that the u.s. is the one pushing hardest for higher protection. if the u.s. wants to push for a bit of a lower standard there isn't much in the way of tpp politics stopping it. if you think the tpp would stop some sort of gigantic anti-disney wave in u.s. politics that would have revised copyrights down to 40 years without the tpp, that is just absolute pure fantasy. and as a general matter, there are some nation specific carve outs for isds in the tpp, making it rather weaker for places like vietnam when it comes to SOE subsidies and investment restrictions etc. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
ISDS in the TPP/TTIP does not have the power to order states to change laws. It's worth noting I didn't say ordered, I was trying to imply that countries would change laws to comply with the treaty to avoid trade sanctions (but that's effectively being forced to). Like has happened before: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150527/09320831127/even-before-tpp-ttip-us-already-being-forced-to-change-laws-trade-agreements.shtml | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 05:39 Logo wrote: It's worth noting I didn't say ordered, I was trying to imply that countries would change laws to comply with the treaty to avoid trade sanctions (but that's effectively being forced to). Like has happened before: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150527/09320831127/even-before-tpp-ttip-us-already-being-forced-to-change-laws-trade-agreements.shtml fyi country of origin labeling laws with discriminatory effect are no good at the wto court too, not just isds. if you are gonna blame a trade regime for revising COOL laws it's probably the wto court not ISDS. yes, countries can be made to pay damages where clear discrimination exist, but this is good! there is no reason to have dumb labeling laws that only a select group of american farmers and food snobs want. countries like the u.s., euro snobs (an actual country btw), korea etc need to get smacked when they discriminate against foreign farmers. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 14 2017 05:42 oneofthem wrote: fyi country of origin labeling laws with discriminatory effect are no good at the wto court too, not just isds. yes, countries can be made to pay damages where clear discrimination exist, but this is good! there is no reason to have dumb labeling laws that only a select group of american farmers and food snobs want These sorts of arguments are the exact reason why the TPP failed. And future trade agreements will fail. People spending their money on products want information about those products. I don’t care if there is no valid scientific reasoning to label GMOs, the argument that all consumers are stupid and don’t understand science isn’t really helping the cause of making people think they are totally safe. | ||
KwarK
United States44189 Posts
On February 14 2017 02:42 xDaunt wrote: I'm all for promoting international laws and norms, but that is an expensive luxury that we can't really afford right now. When some other nation decides to cut us a fat check and help subsidize the effort, great, I'll be back on board. I'm baffled by this idea that the US is too poor to act as an international strongman. I mean the vast, vast, vast majority of all expenses involved in doing that are just building an overwhelmingly powerful military, right? That's pretty much all of it. I mean beyond that, it's mostly just the cost of an international phone plan. You've already bought the military, that's a sunk cost. But somehow we're too cheap to call Putin and tell him to knock it off? And even then it doesn't make sense, given that he called us to ask if it was cool if he went ahead and annexed Ukraine. Was it a reverse charge call? Were we paying per minute? I don't get it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44189 Posts
On February 14 2017 03:18 LegalLord wrote: They're about evenly split on Westward and Eastward seeking folks. West Ukraine and East Ukraine are different in that regard. Ukraine is a weird and random juxtaposition of multiple cultures that don't belong together. As a result of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. All these different peoples and cultures didn't somehow end up there. Ethnic cleansing was a core part of Stalin's policy for dealing with the non Russian states within the Soviet Union. Literally "herd them like cattle into trains, ship them east, replace them with other people, keep them all hating each other while stop them being able to form a unified bloc". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 05:54 Plansix wrote: These sorts of arguments are the exact reason why the TPP failed. And future trade agreements will fail. People spending their money on products want information about those products. I don’t care if there is no valid scientific reasoning to label GMOs, the argument that all consumers are stupid and don’t understand science isn’t really helping the cause of making people think they are totally safe. part of that is just my personal take on the particular labeling law cited in that article. no serious u.s. trade rep would say that COOL laws are dumb. he would get run over by a farmer. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 14 2017 05:54 Plansix wrote: These sorts of arguments are the exact reason why the TPP failed. And future trade agreements will fail. People spending their money on products want information about those products. I don’t care if there is no valid scientific reasoning to label GMOs, the argument that all consumers are stupid and don’t understand science isn’t really helping the cause of making people think they are totally safe. the issue is that mandatory COOL just tend to jack up prices and create market inefficiencies. i guess it does fit into trump's "buy american! [unless it's my stuff which is made in china, mexico or elsewhere]' schtick, though. you make a good point that sometimes it's worth considering giving people what they want (even if its stupid). IDK if it's a hill to die on given limited political capital, but i want my cheap steaks. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18362 Posts
On February 14 2017 06:01 KwarK wrote: As a result of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. All these different peoples and cultures didn't somehow end up there. Ethnic cleansing was a core part of Stalin's policy for dealing with the non Russian states within the Soviet Union. Literally "herd them like cattle into trains, ship them east, replace them with other people, keep them all hating each other while stop them being able to form a unified bloc". While true, that does nothing to solve the problem. They're there, they're human and they deserve a voice. Regardless of what Stalin did with their (grand)parents. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 14 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote: I'm baffled by this idea that the US is too poor to act as an international strongman. I mean the vast, vast, vast majority of all expenses involved in doing that are just building an overwhelmingly powerful military, right? That's pretty much all of it. I mean beyond that, it's mostly just the cost of an international phone plan. You've already bought the military, that's a sunk cost. But somehow we're too cheap to call Putin and tell him to knock it off? And even then it doesn't make sense, given that he called us to ask if it was cool if he went ahead and annexed Ukraine. Was it a reverse charge call? Were we paying per minute? I don't get it. I missed your delusional overly simplistic rants on how easy it is for the US to deploy military strength wherever it wants without consequences. Even you must realize, deep down, that military strength is finite and no nation has ever been able to deploy everywhere in the world as it so desires. Certainly not the US, which can barely deal with a couple thousand desert folk with a mix of Soviet and American weaponry. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 06:13 LegalLord wrote: I missed your delusional overly simplistic rants on how easy it is for the US to deploy military strength wherever it wants without consequences. Even you must realize, deep down, that military strength is finite and no nation has ever been able to deploy everywhere in the world as it so desires. Certainly not the US, which can barely deal with a couple thousand desert folk with a mix of Soviet and American weaponry. big state actors can be effectively deterred. desert folks can't. fremen don't care about your spice, the spacing guild does. the major legs of the nuclear triad have global range. so does conventional power projection forces with all the aircraft carriers and forward air bases | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And farming industries imploding isn’t helpful to a nation. Protectionism is bad, but we need not confuse that with safety nets. The free market ideas that power free trade require failure for the efficiency to be realized. But that conflicts directly what the government wants if a state’s GDP tanks due to the failure of their farming industry. This is a larger problem for the US, since we are made up of 50 small governments. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 14 2017 06:15 oneofthem wrote: big state actors can be effectively deterred. desert folks can't. fremen don't care about your spice, the spacing guild does. The spacing guild also has more resources to fight back directly. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 06:18 LegalLord wrote: The spacing guild also has more resources to fight back directly. yes, but no one really wants to fight at the end of the day, hence deterrence. that deterrence doesn't work for nonconventional information warfare may be more relevant in this particular juncture, but hey, i blame obama on this one. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 14 2017 06:18 oneofthem wrote: yes, but no one really wants to fight at the end of the day, hence deterrence. Depends who wants what more. Push hard enough and it will come to war. Pretty obvious, yes, but a "we got da military powarz we can do anything @@@@" is delusional at best, catastrophic at worst. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 06:21 LegalLord wrote: no one is talking about 'we can do anything.' it was about the cost of effective deterrence of invasions. Depends who wants what more. Push hard enough and it will come to war. Pretty obvious, yes, but a "we got da military powarz we can do anything @@@@" is delusional at best, catastrophic at worst. strictly in terms of preventing conventional military conflict against our allies, that much we can ensure. it's the lower intensity stuff that deterrence doesn't work on. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/biden-points-military-aide-carrying-nuclear-codes-clinton/ i especially love the clinton at the end there. :cackle: https://conservativedailypost.com/unspoken-nuke-code-carrier-given-away-by-biden-huge-security-issue/ yuuge security issue http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/watch-joe-biden-exposes-his-military-15012327/ instant reaction from sean on this issue? | ||
| ||
