EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 81
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 30 2015 17:31 silynxer wrote: You didn't really reply to phil.ipp's point (understandably because he didn't express himself too well) so let me ask again because I think this is the crux of your disagreement: Do you think regulating the design of the package of a product is the same (or the same in principle) as taking away property of the company? You seem to conflate property with profit margin or something. [EDIT]: And just to be sure, applying your principle seems to lead to "if a new law affects the profitability of a product, the producer should be compensated". I don't want to get too deep into philipp, as I'm trying to disengage from that. I did not conflate property with profit margin; but his doctrine did. The underlying issues are the same. Harm caused by legislative change, and whether there should be some means of recourse other than diplomatic incidents. There's a long history of issues like this coming up in the past; and when there's a lack of good systems for recourse, then the only way for a company to try to get its money is to pressure its own government to look out for its own citizens interests; which causes the issue to be a source of conflict between the two governments and has led to quite a bit of problems in history. And again, I said may, very clearly and specifically, not should, but may. So the producer should perhaps be compensated, for some amount. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 30 2015 23:58 WhiteDog wrote: Giving "force to the treaty" above government is just attacking sovereignty. Economic argument over political ones are plain wrong and I don't really need to argue for that. how do these absolute sovereigns enter into treaties then? by creating obligation sourced from their sovereign power. this is how suing a sovereign works, the sovereign agrees to be bound by certain obligations. we are not talking about some organization coming out of the ethers and controlling everything. it's a framework created by the treaty participants. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:09 oneofthem wrote: how do these absolute sovereigns enter into treaties then? by creating obligation sourced from their sovereign power. this is how suing a sovereign works, the sovereign agrees to be bound by certain obligations. we are not talking about some organization coming out of the ethers and controlling everything. it's a framework created by the treaty participants. Why should there be some kind of equal relationship between businesses and states in the first place? If a company wants to do business in the country fine, if they don't like the regulations and legal situations they're also free to not do that and do their business in another country. This is what this actually boils down to in this thread because the predominantly American view is that multinational companies should have some kind of grip over sovereign nations in one way or the other while nearly everybody else argues that politics and public institutions are actually the only legitimate actors when public interest and money is involved. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is the "no expropriation without compensation", there is the "no uneven and unfair treatment." these are the lmited rights offered to foreign corporations. the sovereign still has distinct and non-neutral interests in domestic regulation. non-neutral in the sense that their reasoning and choice of regulation is given deference as part of the sovereign's power. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:09 oneofthem wrote: how do these absolute sovereigns enter into treaties then? by creating obligation sourced from their sovereign power. this is how suing a sovereign works, the sovereign agrees to be bound by certain obligations. we are not talking about some organization coming out of the ethers and controlling everything. it's a framework created by the treaty participants. Yes a country accept to strip itself from part of its sovereignty, and that is utterly stupid. The whole european union is based around it and it just does not work this way. People quickly resent things they don't have control over, especially in a democracy. More than that, when the flaws of the treaty will become obvious, it will take ages to face those flaws because the instance who has power will do everything it can to keep it, and the instance who accepted to strip their powers will have unequal interests in changing it. That is almost the history of all treaties. But this stupidity of modern thinking that there are no distinctions, and sometime oppositions, in interests is leading us to outright hatred between countries : like the treaty is beneficial for ALL countries between europe and the US. I'm sure, even when some specific firms will have complete control and monopoly like situation over the TTIP area, there will still be people to explain us how the treaty is good for us. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:37 WhiteDog wrote: Yes a country accept to strip itself from part of its sovereignty, and that is utterly stupid. The whole european union is based around it and it just does not work this way. People quickly resent things they don't have control over, especially in a democracy. It might not seem that way to you, but people don't have much less control over the European Union than they have over their nation states, at least proportional to the respective size. But size cannot be the problem, because nation states have vastly different levels of population size. What is missing is mostly the psychological component of control. People in nation states believe to have much more control over their national governments than they actually have, because there is a more coherent "public opinion" in a nation, and everyone seems to be part of it. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:56 Maenander wrote: It might not seem that way to you, but people don't have much less control over the European Union than they have over their nation states, at least proportional to the respective size. What is missing is mostly the psychological component of control. People in nation states believe to have much more control over their national governments than they actually have, because there is a more coherent "public opinion" in a nation, and everyone seems to be part of it. There are hundreds of years predating the existence of modern era france or germany. Time that created a common unity, common representations and thus interests. There are no differences between representation and reality in this case : French have control over the french government because they commonly feel french. This is NOT the case between Germany and Greece (obviously ?) which explain most of our problems right now. That is really a basic political phenomena ; different entities have different interests. Neglecting this is stupid, which is everybody's argument for europe and any treaty ever : "look the growth we will get" ! Bretton wood favored the US (altho it was a brilliant treaty in some regards), the current europe favor the germans, and the TTIP will most likely favor the biggest economy and the biggest firms above the weakest countries. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this sort of statement about where people's allegiances lie is not evaluative of the EU, just its current political prospects. whether this current political prospect is a situation to be celerated or bemoaned is a question that can be answered without reference to people's attachments. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
I could take another point of view and say that the TTIP will favor business and capital against the worker class, but the worker class is not united throughout europe and the US, so it's a good bet to believe some specific countries will rapidly antagonise the treaty and not the worker class as a whole. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 31 2015 01:17 oneofthem wrote: im saying that you can't use the fact that an idea is unpopular to argue agaisnt it being a good idea. I'm saying there is no good and bad everything equal : that in political matters, good for someone is bad for someone else. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 31 2015 01:37 oneofthem wrote: i know that, but my point stands. you can have EU reform etc but there is no real argument given for preferring old national attachments. Yes there are : the complete incapacity of europe to pass through cultural representation, and thus its inability to create feeling of unity. Those cultural representations have role both economically and politically and make any institutions viable - the idea of "nation", as Benedict Anderson pointed out, permitted collective to pass beyond class antagonism. I'm not saying I prefer old national attachments, I am saying those attachments are both what makes democracy within nations possible and democracy within the europe impossible. The lack of solidarity between Germany and Greece is a good exemple of that : you can ask Greek to sacrifice themselves for their nation, but you cannot expect german to accept losing capital for the benefit of greeks. The institutions build themselves on cultural ground, not the other way around. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:25 Nyxisto wrote: Why should there be some kind of equal relationship between businesses and states in the first place? If a company wants to do business in the country fine, if they don't like the regulations and legal situations they're also free to not do that and do their business in another country. This is what this actually boils down to in this thread because the predominantly American view is that multinational companies should have some kind of grip over sovereign nations in one way or the other while nearly everybody else argues that politics and public institutions are actually the only legitimate actors when public interest and money is involved. The are no equal relationships when signing a treaty, it's a commitment a government makes to encourage foreign investment. You can see what happened to Argentina or Venezuela when foreign investment dries up (or when you have unreasonably large governments) Not related to the treaty discussion per se, but many of us believe people themselves are the only legitimate actors when their money is involved and that individuals have the right to choose for themselves; therefore we should have small governments that don't steal individuals wealth and let them make their own choices. That big governments are always inneficient, corrupt and that people should be left with as much control as possible over their life and wealth. | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
there is simply no way that the treaty can be favorable for the people of europe. ever. and what you dont get, the only argument we need to come to that conclusion is, we look into the past of the last decade. how europe has developed, what decisions where made, and the situation we are now in. and of course i can imagine a europe where a treaty like that wouldnt scare me at all. but thats not the europe we are living in. and there will be no reform until end of 2015 (when the treaty should be finished) thats like hoping america repeals the second amendment until end of 2015. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10601 Posts
And if you claim that the issues that have arisen with the euro are "state level" problems... Well then you have some serious explaining to do. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On March 31 2015 00:09 oneofthem wrote: how do these absolute sovereigns enter into treaties then? by creating obligation sourced from their sovereign power. this is how suing a sovereign works, the sovereign agrees to be bound by certain obligations. we are not talking about some organization coming out of the ethers and controlling everything. it's a framework created by the treaty participants. Support for the EU is at an all-time low because of the way it handled the eurocrisis; people want less EU meddling in their internal affairs, not more, especially not when it comes to economic policy. There is no public support for even more americanisation / neoliberalisation of the European labour market, as the success of parties like Podemos, FN and Syriza are clearly demonstrating. | ||
| ||
