|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 22 2015 08:52 phil.ipp wrote:
one huge problem i have with TTIP, and why i dont think europe can ever come out ahead on these negotiations is the following:
think about WHO does the negotiating
on the US side, its the government of the US, you can hate it as much as you want, but as a European citizen i think one thing is damn sure, no matter who is US President or the US Government - they will make damn sure that the US comes out ahead on EVERY fucking negotiation there is - and to be even more clear - they will use every asset they have to make sure of this. this means naturally as we learned the last years, full NSA surveillance and information about every politician who is even remotely involved in these negotiations.
on the EU side, you have the EU COMMISSION, is this the government of europe? many americans here maybe feel this way, but every european in this thread will tell you: HELL NO. there is no EU government, the nearest thing would be the EU parliament, is the parliament involved in the negotiations? no.
maybe the elected governments of the EU countrys are involved? no. in fact they dont even know a single word that is negotiated.
when EU country governments nor EU parliament is involved in any talks, how does the EU Commission even know what the people need and want out of this talks? answer: they dont, what they know is what EU and US Companys want out of this talks, cause they spend a lot of money lobbying to the EU commission.
and last, of course the EU doesn't have a NSA counterpart nor does any intelligence agency have the money or would even dare to bug phones (or similar things) from US representatives (i guess if that would have taken place in recent history, the US government would have gladly revealed this in the NSA Scandal over the last years).
so whats the conclusion here, i see many winners and only one loser in all this
US Company's and US Citizens are clearly on the winner side of this, cause they have the US Government looking out for them.
I guess EU Company's also will profit from this deal cause they have the EU Commission looking out for them.
the only one, no one fucking cares in this whole process are the european citizens.
You can say a lot about the EU the commission, their inefficiency and what they do wrong. What they do have though is a huge ego and they want to do the best for Europe however flawed their pov sometimes is. They certainly care about the European citizen.
|
Genuine curiosity, are you posting drunk again ?
|
On March 22 2015 05:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 04:46 cLutZ wrote:On March 22 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On March 22 2015 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know why wage growth drifted so far apart, but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. I mean there's no rule set in stone how fast wages are supposed to grow, but having wages increase along productivity seems reasonable. Yeah but that's exactly the point : it's not about reason but about politics ? Why do you think wage still increase in recession when the productivity increase is negative ? It's politics, it's life. Controlling wage like Germany is doing is impossible for most countries in the world because politically it's too complicated (Germany, much like all european country today, is politically dead). In may 1968, France is at the brink of a revolution, and the worker class, through its syndicates, negotiate for an increase of the minimum wage by 35 % !!! 35 % is HUGE, it's effectively a huge redistribution of income, from the top wages to the lowest, and it's was necessary because it permitted the country to go on and prevent the revolution - De Gaulle even thought about calling the army... We do have a word for threatening violence to obtain the wealth of another... ? Capitalism ? Property right ?
Lol? Extortion. I don't understand how you percieve a reformation of law under threat of 1789 part two to be a just result.
|
On March 22 2015 12:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 05:32 WhiteDog wrote:On March 22 2015 04:46 cLutZ wrote:On March 22 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On March 22 2015 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know why wage growth drifted so far apart, but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. I mean there's no rule set in stone how fast wages are supposed to grow, but having wages increase along productivity seems reasonable. Yeah but that's exactly the point : it's not about reason but about politics ? Why do you think wage still increase in recession when the productivity increase is negative ? It's politics, it's life. Controlling wage like Germany is doing is impossible for most countries in the world because politically it's too complicated (Germany, much like all european country today, is politically dead). In may 1968, France is at the brink of a revolution, and the worker class, through its syndicates, negotiate for an increase of the minimum wage by 35 % !!! 35 % is HUGE, it's effectively a huge redistribution of income, from the top wages to the lowest, and it's was necessary because it permitted the country to go on and prevent the revolution - De Gaulle even thought about calling the army... We do have a word for threatening violence to obtain the wealth of another... ? Capitalism ? Property right ? Lol? Extortion. I don't understand how you percieve a reformation of law under threat of 1789 part two to be a just result.
Part two was in 1848 and part three was in 1870 so it's part 4.
Because the situation prior to this increase of min wage was unjust ? Extortion from who to who ? That's the core problem, to me redistribution is not extortion it's politics.
|
On March 22 2015 08:52 phil.ipp wrote:
think about WHO does the negotiating
on the US side, its the government of the US, you can hate it as much as you want, but as a European citizen i think one thing is damn sure, no matter who is US President or the US Government - they will make damn sure that the US comes out ahead on EVERY fucking negotiation there is - and to be even more clear - they will use every asset they have to make sure of this. this means naturally as we learned the last years, full NSA surveillance and information about every politician who is even remotely involved in these negotiations.
Let's be very clear here, those who coming out ahead aren't the American people, but American corporations.
Throughout its history America has made pretty clear that the well being and safety of her people are rather lower on the list of priorities than are her corporations. If there is any doubt about this, I highly recommend watching Chomsky's 'Surviving the 21st Century'-speech.
|
On March 22 2015 18:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 12:18 cLutZ wrote:On March 22 2015 05:32 WhiteDog wrote:On March 22 2015 04:46 cLutZ wrote:On March 22 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On March 22 2015 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know why wage growth drifted so far apart, but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. I mean there's no rule set in stone how fast wages are supposed to grow, but having wages increase along productivity seems reasonable. Yeah but that's exactly the point : it's not about reason but about politics ? Why do you think wage still increase in recession when the productivity increase is negative ? It's politics, it's life. Controlling wage like Germany is doing is impossible for most countries in the world because politically it's too complicated (Germany, much like all european country today, is politically dead). In may 1968, France is at the brink of a revolution, and the worker class, through its syndicates, negotiate for an increase of the minimum wage by 35 % !!! 35 % is HUGE, it's effectively a huge redistribution of income, from the top wages to the lowest, and it's was necessary because it permitted the country to go on and prevent the revolution - De Gaulle even thought about calling the army... We do have a word for threatening violence to obtain the wealth of another... ? Capitalism ? Property right ? Lol? Extortion. I don't understand how you percieve a reformation of law under threat of 1789 part two to be a just result. Part two was in 1848 and part three was in 1870 so it's part 4. Because the situation prior to this increase of min wage was unjust ? Extortion from who to who ? That's the core problem, to me redistribution is not extortion it's politics.
I just want to be clear. You think that threats of violence, by a segment of the population, to benefit themselves, do not upset the "social contact" or whatever other moral justification there is for the state to exert force over the populace?
|
1789 was injust I guess. Somehow.
Edit : "The populace" lol. Not much to discuss I guess.
|
The whole idea of the social contract is giving the lower classes enough stuff that they don't revolt, while the rich extract as much wealth out of them as possible. Thus, if the lower classes threaten revolt, that means you failed at that distribution. If a majority of the population thinks that the current system is putting such an unbearable load onto them that violent revolt is preferable to continuing like before, it does not even matter if that system is fair or not, unless you are able to suppress that majority with superior force, your system is not stable. And if you do that, your country is probably not going down a nice path either.
|
On March 22 2015 20:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
1789 was injust I guess. Somehow.
Edit : "The populace" lol. Not much to discuss I guess.
This is a bit OT, but does it bother anyone else that it's 'populace' and not 'populus'? I mean, why change the spelling of a latin word if you could pronounce it just the same without chancing anything?
|
On March 19 2015 04:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 03:35 RvB wrote:On March 15 2015 18:01 WhiteDog wrote:On March 15 2015 08:53 RvB wrote:
To be fair the US and China have already done the same thing way earlier. The US via QE and China because they pretty much decide their own exchange rate.
The US have a 4% commercial surplus ? And China's behavior is not an exemple. Late response but I'll give one anyway. They don't but they still let the dollar depreciate to record lows via QE. This was actually pretty important in getting their growth going again after the crisis. The ECB could've unlocked a currency war if they wanted but they did not or could not. Ths time it's simply the other way around. QE is also not the only reason for the strong dollar. The US economy is preparing for a rate hike and has had a higher growth rate for a while now. The USD has been rising against a lot of currency's and some currency's went down even more than the euro compared to the USD. It's false. The US didn't get their growth after the crisis by exports (the US is notably bad at exports, because their strategy revolve around producing directly in the country and not exporting), but by supporting internal demand - the QE was just one of their strategy, but they also increased deficit in the first years of the crisis by massive investment in various field. You cannot really compare the impact of a decrease of the parity of money between a country with a commercial deficit (the USA) and an area with a huge surplus (like Europe) even more if you include the fact that this area is reducing its spending. ![[image loading]](http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/files/us_trade_0409_1.gif) The USA is NOT very open to the world and function almost like a closed circuit.
Your graph is only till 2009 which doesn't cover the recovery period..
Exports support millions of jobs across the economy. According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of goods and services were responsible for 11.3 million jobs in 2013, an increase of 1.6 million from 2009.12 According to
this analysis, each $1 billion of exports supports 5,590 jobs.13 In the manufacturing sector, nearly 25 percent of production is exported according to the most recent data (2012).14
source
However, though the overall growth rates were similar, exports contributed more to GDP growth during
this most recent recovery than in the recovery after 2001. Nearly 30 percent of GDP growth over the
last five years has been the result of export growth, while exports contributed only about 11 percent to
GDP growth in the five years after the 2001 recession.
source
so yeah it's been a pretty important part in the recovery.
|
On March 22 2015 09:31 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 09:11 warding wrote:
Are you guys having fun speculating about the trade agreement? Fearmongering really necessary?
There is a hell of a lot to be gained from both EU and US with the trade agreement, as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological.
as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological. I also don't really understand what's really expected about making it more transparent. Should the negotiations be televised? omfg a study said something over something - lets go and make decisions over the lifes of some hundred million people haha and what is this "hell of a lot" which can be gained? im truly interested, cause in all the negotiating there was never a single word out of the EU Commission whats to be gained, but you seem to know. in fact they didnt even tell anyone that there IS a negotiation. and televised? are you trying to be sarcastic? hmm lets think maybe some of our elected politicians should be involved? or is this too much to ask?
It has to be ratified by the European Parliament AND the council of ministers, so I don't understand what you're on about.
If you want quantified estimates about the possible gains from lowering tariffs and other barriers check the wiki page for references. The document could also be tremendously beneficial if it synergizes regulatory hurdles between us and the EU, namely for pharmaceuticals and also electronics which would immensely benefit consumers.
|
On March 22 2015 20:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
1789 was injust I guess. Somehow.
Edit : "The populace" lol. Not much to discuss I guess.
1789 was just (until they went too far) in that they used the threat of violence to overthrow a government that had no moral claim to rule, yet was using soldiers, constables, and jailors to coerce the people. The problem is that Whitedog has informed me that his situation is the opposite, where a set of people used the that of violence to force the government to use its power of coercion against the people they were threatening.
That means the government is one again just an assortment of soldiers, constables, and jailors with no moral claim to rule. Why do we care? Well America, Britain, and Canada spilled a lot of blood to defend and liberate the French from a set of soldiers governing with no moral claim to rule. Apparently, in vain.
|
On March 22 2015 09:11 warding wrote:
If you want quantified estimates about the possible gains from lowering tariffs and other barriers check the wiki page for references. The document could also be tremendously beneficial if it synergizes regulatory hurdles between us and the EU, namely for pharmaceuticals and also electronics which would immensely benefit consumers.
thats exactly the problem, nobody wants to "synergize" regulatory hurdles.
i mean if you just think why these "hurdles" exist, then you come to the conclusion that they serv a purpose.
ESPECIALLY for pharmaceuticals, its so people dont die.
there is NOTHING to be gained in lowering these regulatory hurdles, it can only lead to more damage done to people by pharmaceuticals. like its not already bad enough. "synergizing" these hurdles can never lead to better pharmaceuticals for people.
also why would we need a treaty, to lower our own regulatory hurdles?!?
if we would feel these barriers and rules are not justified, we could just lower them without any treaty at all. these regulatory hurdles dont apply only to US companys, they apply to EVERYONE.
people always forget that these trade barriers and regulatory hurdles are there for a reason, to just lower them in the name of economics is typical neoliberal free market stuff, really nobody needs.
i hope this treaty is dead, no treaty EVER should forbid me to raise my quality standards for anything. and thats exactly the whole point of this shit. some companys would want to sell more shitty products. and the funniest thing of all is, if they sell their shit here and you raise the quality level with a law, they would sue the government for protection of the investment haha
its so funny, and then you realize they are dead serious and you get the feeling you have to shoot somebody.
|
On March 23 2015 08:35 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 09:11 warding wrote:
If you want quantified estimates about the possible gains from lowering tariffs and other barriers check the wiki page for references. The document could also be tremendously beneficial if it synergizes regulatory hurdles between us and the EU, namely for pharmaceuticals and also electronics which would immensely benefit consumers.
also why would we need a treaty, to lower our own regulatory hurdles?!?
Silly rabbit. You need a treaty to do something unpalatable because then you can point to the treaty for being the culprit! And a treaty change is a matter that must be agreed by several countries at the same time which is almost impossible, especially when there are powerful special interests involved. It's the perfect excuse for politicians!
Shady stuff like this needs to die fast, before it gets a foothold. If you want to promote economic activity fine, be as open about it as possible, be reasonable, be rational and it'll happen in no time.
|
The level of discourse on this topic is disheartening.
On pharma regulation: the amount of new drugs available decreases with an increase in costs of bringing new drugs to market. That decrease translates to worse health and more deaths than otherwise possible. The invisibility of these deaths vs the visibility of the, arguably much fewer, deaths from drugs that shouldn't be on the market create a bias towards overregulation. This, among other factors, has led to a slowdown in the number of new drugs available. In the case of harmonization of regulation it's not even about more vs less regulation, only about creating synergies so that the same hurdles don't have to get overcome twice.
As for the ideological garbage mentioned, regulation very often benefits big corporations at the expense of small companies and the consumers.
|
On March 23 2015 10:07 warding wrote:
The level of discourse on this topic is disheartening. That rich, especially when you follow it up with some of the most naive stuff I red in a while.
Do you even know what you talking about on a reality based level? Your understanding of how the pharmaceutical sector works is both hilarious and absolutely wrong.
But sure, call it 'ideological garbage' if your economic theory does not match the real world...
Here is one example of the real world:
Say you are a food producer and you want to bring a new dairy product to the market (like I don't know, filter out the lactose, add some proteins, some vitamins, some pro-biotic voodoo and call it "Life drink, the better milk").
Currently in the EU the burden of proof is on you to show, that your shiny new invention is not doing any harm to for example pregnant women or introducing new allergies for certain people unfortunate to have a genetic intolerance to one of your added substances. It takes on average about 3 years of clinical trials for a new food product to be approved by health authorities in the EU.
In the US it is the other way around (generally speaking). You can bring whatever you want to the market. If people have problems with your stuff, it is on them to find evidence and sue you. (Mind you, if you really introduced something unhealthy and lose the court case you pay up big time.)
Now, for food companies the EU regulation is a typical 'hurdle' that the TTIP is to get rid off. "It takes 3 years longer for products to get to the EU market with all this excessive bureaucracy" they say.
For the people of the EU this license system is actually good. It protects them.
But here is the thing, even if the TTIP would adopt the EU system and bring it to the US (and we all know that will never happen), I would still be against it. Because it sets a standard that will never again be improved on. It purposely takes away the ability of politics to regulate these standards in the future.
|
really, you are lobbying for pharmaceutical companys, you tell us people die cause the EU hast overregulated the pharmaceutical market? thats outrages, its so not real that i have to think you are a troll. thats so fucking wrong, even pharma companys would never dare to make such an argument haha
But here is the thing, even if the TTIP would adopt the EU system and bring it to the US (and we all know that will never happen), I would still be against it. Because it sets a standard that will never again be improved on. It purposely takes away the ability of politics to regulate these standards in the future.
thats exactly the main point i was also trying to get at.
once these new "rules" are agreed on, there is NO chance to change them without beeing taken to court by companys .. why in the world would any government put itself in a position were they cant even change the law anymore.
|
On March 23 2015 11:12 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 10:07 warding wrote:
The level of discourse on this topic is disheartening. That rich, especially when you follow it up with some of the most naive stuff I red in a while. Do you even know what you talking about on a reality based level? Your understanding of how the pharmaceutical sector works is both hilarious and absolutely wrong. But sure, call it 'ideological garbage' if your economic theory does not match the real world...
This is why the level of discourse is borderline stupid. You tell me my argument about pharma regulation is "absolutely" wrong but offer no argument in return. Instead you go on about how great it is for European grannies to have to overcome lots of regulatory hurdles before they can market their new jam. Pointless to debate then.
|
As an MD I would be okay with reconsidering some of the regulations on the pharmaceutical area provided that:
1. Pharmaceutical companies publish study protocols prior to their trials (only recently made mandatory and not for all trials)
2. Pharmaceutical companies had to release raw data as well as a summary of ALL their trials (including negative) within a certain timeframe (1-2 years depending on class of trial) - inspiration could be drawn from clinicaltrials.gov and add a raw-data field to EudraCT.
Those 2 requirements are crucial if we are to have a transparent pharmaceutical sector and they are desperately needed to ensure the integrity of evidence based medicine.
|
i try it one more time, nobody says you cant and shouldnt change rules and regulation if it benefits the people.
you can change regulations in EVERY industrial sector, not one of them is perfect.
but thats not what TTIP is about, you dont need a treaty for that. the US and EU could change these regulations every day if they wanted to and saw the need to. if the EU would want more US Investors, they just would have to ask US Investors what regulations are needed so it is attractive to invest. You dont need a signed treaty with the US Government for that.
what TTIP is about, is agreeing on rules that are then set in stone. And to insure that they dont get changed, they introduced secret courts where companys can sue countrys for changing the rules, that are set in stone with the treaty.
so for example: if the treaty says every company doesnt have to label their meat correctly, and in some years for example germany feels this doesnt benefit the people and want to change that. Then the company could go to court and get compensation for all the investment they made in germany. so naturally the government of germany would be very reluctant to change these rules, cause it would cost them.
so then we would have made a society where we are punished (money), if we would raise quality levels of products.
of course only companys profit from something like that.
THAT is the real problem everybody has with this treaty. it has to go, and if that part of the treaty goes, its not a fucking treaty anymore, cause the whole use of the treaty is that countrys have to accept the decisions of the secret courts.
without this part its just a: hey lets agree on setting the same rules for some industrial sectors, for as long as we see it benefits our people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
