Reading these things makes me angry. There are people in the world who uphold economic wealth and ownership over life itself. Money is supposed to serve life, not the other way around. Ownership at its best is a way to uphold responsibility and caretaking. It shouldn't be a way of domineering or exploiting peoples' very culture and spirituality.
Who gets to play the song? Who gets to retell the story? Only those sanctioned by those with money, the owners. This is wrong. Creation and recreation are a forms of communion, not some contrived, egoistic world domination ritual.
Excuse my colorful language, this is a religious issue to me.
You (and many others on HN) have highlighted what will be the dominant issue in global civ, "incumbent wealth owns everything (IP) and fuck the poor". Human greed knows no bounds, I wonder what will happen in 10, 50 years. Global trends suggest everyone will get wealthier but the super wealthy will control a larger fraction.
It's okay. The richest 85 people own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50% of the global population (1). I'm sure after we spend 8 hours of our day helping them towards owning even more of it, they'll do us a biggie by paying for our food and tiny apartments.
Again, this is a stupid statistic that inaccurately counts currently indebted but huge earning potential people (say, for example, a recent graduate of Harvard Business School) as "poorer" than a sub-Saharan subsistence farmer. Longer explanation here: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding...
The statistic might be stupid, but it does a marvellous job of illustrating immense inequality in wealth distribution, something which is both factual and important. Would you not agree?
If the statistic is inaccurate then it does a bad job at illustrating the inequality, because it's falsity discredits the conversation. In fact, it would be detrimental to the goal of telling the inequality story.
Generally the reason statistics are so dangerous when used to support an argument is that the argument quickly becomes about the validity of the number rather than the underlying issue.
At a very basic level comparing wealth between economies requires all sorts of subjective normalisation which is pretty open to challenge, and accounting for things like student debt is obviously going to be contentious.
Frankly I consider it surprising that you can even find the calculation methodology for something like that.
The trouble is that a burger flipper will not make as much money as an inventor, programmer, or doctor, no matter how much time you spend demanding minimum wage increases. The former's job is far less effort-intensive than the others; even if you created a fascist state and ordered that all burger-flippers be paid as CEOs, you would immediately lose your CEOs as they all quit to become burger-flippers.
Up-vote--I'm reminded of a line from Pear Buck's The Good Earth...
>"The common people had to move, then, and they moved complaining and cursing because a rich man could do as he would and they packed their tattered possessions and went away swelling with anger and muttering that one day they would come back even as the poor do come back when the rich are too rich."<
In 1911 the Xinhai Revolution in China, which the quote alludes to, demonstrates what is possible when income disparities reach a tipping point...
Leaves me wondering what's truly possible if the "global economy" ever truly begins a move in the direction of a global stasis...
Fun fact: Drones can be disabled by blinding them with excess visual or IR noise, jamming their control signals, or applying a fast-moving chunk of metal of appropriate size.
Further, drones are still limited to mostly open spaces. You can't clear a room with a quadcopter (yet), and a Predator missile strike is just as likely to kill loyal citizens as it is to kill the target.
Tanks are easily outmaneuvered by humans on foot. Planes cannot take a building and leave it intact. Drones have electronic weaknesses in addition to the usual flaws. And nukes are practically a joke--the fallout, physical and political, would ruin any nation.
TL;DR: Drones make terrible soldiers. Why do you think ISIS is still live and kicking?
But a stupid tactic is one that may result in defeat.
Sun Tzu's slightly-less-famous quote--"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight"--has two meanings, like a lot of Asian philosophy does. The obvious part is, as the saying goes, sieze the day. The less obvious part is that you should only sieze the day if you know you can hang onto it.
In the case of nukes, only a damn fool would nuke his own food supply or factories, or perhaps a spiteful loser.
Honest question: isn't wealth distribution thought to be fractal? So economic inequality should grow as an economy expands, but that alone doesn't imply there must be less for an arbitrary participant.
I don't know much about economics, so sorry if I'm off base. It's just the statistic "XX people have more than YY% of people" gets thrown around in discussions, and I'm curious if it's cause for concern or just an economic fact.
The point of wealth inequality is, that it is rapidly increasing -- particularly in the last 20 years.
The parent poster implied, that by increasing the wealth of some, all will benefit. In my country, this was not the case in the last 20 years. The middle class that was rather broad and healthy, is loosing particularly in the less wealthy part -- many of those people fall down the ladder and are poor and will be even poorer when they are in old age.
My country once was one of the wealthiest of the world, because many people where wealthy and earned good money. It was unthinkable once, that big parts of the society might be poor or have to live from "soup kitchens" -- today it is reality and all projections show, that it will become even worse!
To be complete: My country is still one of the wealthiest of the world -- but with a much much smaller fraction of people owning the biggest part of this wealth.
Well, that's one aspect. Another aspect is that there's no rule saying that everyone's efforts are worth getting paid, no matter how hard that person worked. Well-engineered, objectively better products & services get out-maneuvered or preemptively made impossible all the time, and ludicrous amounts of money are spent on advertising to, y'know, help people figure out what they need.
Population and automation proliferation both make humans less and less relevant, and non-altruistic behavior by rich and powerful is hardly ever punished because they have all the advantages. We sure do crack down hard on non-altruistic behavior committed by those in poverty, though.
Even if we could all magically decide to cooperate and work together to eg end poverty & war, the modern human way of life (infinite growth) is at odds with the reality of planetary ecology. We don't do moderation well, as a group.
>There are people in the world who uphold economic wealth and ownership over life itself.
They weren't born that way.
They grew up as wide-eyed children in the same world we all did. They loved to sing songs and share things at one time, too.
Their only fault is that they were perhaps more efficient or "luckier" than the rest of us in acquiring their wealth. Which in turn forced the rich person persona onto them. It's pretty much downhill from there on out. Save for a few astonishing outliers like Bill Gates, thankfully.
Money is the new God.
It cures our blind and heals our lepers. It puts food on our tables for which we give thanks. If even withers our fig trees.
It performs real miracles every day in a way that a book never could.
In short, I'm not surprised that those who have acquired massive amounts of money are now suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Is it possible to restrict the power that money has while still retaining most of it's core values? I don't know... But I'd bet money on it that we're going to find out pretty soon.
Bill Gates? Really? His company is one of the biggest proprietary companies in the world that to this day are still venturing into people's privacy as standard.
I have thought about this and my conclusion is that we have power over those companies, the power is on your decision not to buy any products from them.
-Take for chance apple, Imagine people not buying a
single iPhone until they start paying taxes as they
should on US, you still can buy any rival brand right?
You can imagine how stock prices would fall under the
pressure of 0 iphones sold.
-Software, go with a rival, support open source.
-Get to the street and complain.
-Do not play any music from vendorx, do not go to your
artists concerts, do not play youtube music from them.
Is all about us and doing some small sacrifices, in my case the reason behind my switch totally and never go back from windows to linux was the ftdi driver "update" bricking my olimexino 328.
Edit: I have to say laws it's a very difficult area, maybe one of the easiest ways you can have of making a change could be supporting organizations like the EFF.
It is diluted, indeed. We are poor and many, they are rich an few. It is much easier to maintain coherence between them than between us. They can use mass media and other channels to incite even more conflict and division between the poor to keep them from mounting a meaningful resistance.
I don't think a social change will happen on its own or by revolution, but rather there will be improvements in life quality for the poor as new technology such as the internet and smart phones are made available for the masses at low prices. The standard of living has improved in the last 100 years a lot for everyone, and this trend is going to continue in the future.
The first thing that came to mind: It's almost not possible to buy a computer without Windows, despite many times not needing it or being able to reuse the one shipped with the last computer. Microsoft managed to get in a position where almost everybody pays a tax.
>Reading these things makes me angry. There are people in the world who uphold economic wealth and ownership over life itself.
And the name for those people is: Everybody.
Every time I buy some nicety, something I want but do not need, I am spending money on myself that could have gone to some better purpose. It could've gone to pay for some man's surgery, to go feed some starving child in a third world country, or even to just help out the local domestic abuse shelter. My donations are less than the maximum I could give, and that is true for almost everyone out there.
While some definitely engage in worse behavior, it is important to remember that it is a difference of degrees and not a difference of kinds.
I guess it's not the first I've heard of it but doesn't it seem odd for the gameplay itself to be copyrighted/copyrightable by the game's creator? Doesn't it seem just ludicrous if we were to try to do the same for board games or sports?
A video of someone playing a copyrighted game has value separate from the game, and the person producing that video almost certainly has copyright of their own over it, but the video clearly derives from the music, images, and other materials provided by the game. Under most circumstances, the person publishing or streaming the video should be able to defend their usage via fair use; fair use specifically mentions uses like "commentary" and "criticism".
Similarly, people who upload/stream "reaction" videos, where they watch another video and provide commentary, can defend that usage via fair use.
Fair use doesn't mean that the video/stream does not derive from the copyrighted game or other material, but rather that the video/stream may legally use that copyrighted material.
Fair use only exists in case law, and treaties have the power to override the Constitution itself (IIRC), let alone things like case law or the legal code. That's why TPP is such a game-changer.
Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself.
To quote the Supreme Court case Reid v. Covert (1957), "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty".
"Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself."
While I agree that should be the case, it is sadly a bit more nuanced[1]:
Under the Constitution as originally understood, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution. The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution.”
But the full answer is more complicated. This is because the Founding-Era evidence does suggest that the Constitution enables the federal government to acquire significant—although not unlimited—additional power by entering into treaties.
...
In 1783, the Confederation Congress debated and approved a treaty with the Netherlands despite recognizing that the terms of the treaty might interfere somewhat with freedom of religion. Thus Congress impacted the exercise of religion, an area over which the Articles otherwise gave it no authority.
And it doesn't matter anyway, because trade pacts in the US have been enacted through Congressional-Executive Agreements rather than the treaty ratification process for decades.
Right: Assuming treaties were intended to override the rest of the Constitution is basically making the claim that everyone who ratified it back then was an idiot.
Specific applications of fair use appear in case law, and the question of whether any particular use qualifies as fair use would require determination by the court if sued, but fair use itself exists in statute, specifically 17 USC 107: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
A game is not a movie. Its core value is interactivity. You already pay a high price for purchasing the game itself. In addition to that the game company gets free advertisement.
Fining someone or taking their content down for just streaming a gameplay is unproportional.
Furthermore, the person who is playing the game is creating content. The streamers usually talk and show their image to entertain people. If the video game company is allowed to take down the video, or block his/her entire channel, that ought to be a clear violation of the streamer's rights.
Law itself is ancient, it has perfected its concepts and continues to evolve. The issues with digital rights aren't hard nor new to law, all disputes in this area could be solved just by following basic law principles case to case. The legislation has always been hesitant to make just laws. Rights are won with fights and struggles.
Too many people are ignorant on the matter of digital rights. One could argue every point of view with a harsh relativism. People forget easily that Slavery was once legal, women not allowed to vote... The people ignorant back then resorted to reasonable but unjust arguments too.
In the end it's our world and our rights.
In regards to interactivity, it depends. It's true enough for chess surely which is a bazillion years old and basically just a set of rules, but a modern game's entertainment value is also the content to a varying degree and not just the interactivity.
It bugs me when people suggest I'm "contrarian", because I do not as a rule arrive at positions by trying to think of the opposite of what the prevailing sentiment on HN will be.
In this case, though: the site is positively littered with things I've said about TPP.
Short summary: I'm ambivalent about TPP, dismissive of the notion that it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one. That's about it.
I immediately acknowledge that I have a big blind spot about TPP: I'm an American, and TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy, but a pretty significant impact on countries in Asia that had policies different from those of the US.
>>I'm an American, and TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy,
That is very short sighted, I'm am an American as well and feel TPP will have long and far reaching impact on Public Policy, While it ratification would only marginaly if at all change any policy currently in place, it will make any reforms to public policy impossible
It would forever ratify the terrible copyright and patent system preventing any reforms to them, that alone I believe should be classified as a major impact on public policy
> it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one.
It's important to realize - and this is true for most topics, not just the TPP - that there isn't much practical difference between a "secret conspiracy" and a "loose collection of parties with similar interests". In casual language, it's easier to say something like
They [it's always 'they'] planned this! The people pushing the TPP are
trying to scam us!
when what is really intended might be closer to
The people in a position that has actual decision-making power or influence
usually got to that position by using large amounts of money. The sources of
that money vary, but in any case an attitude is cultivated where money ends
up as the primary indicator when judging success.
When considering future policies, people with this type of attitude will
tend to prefer plans that maximize what they see as "success"m which is
any plan that maximizes money, regardless of other effects. Hence concepts
like the ISDS (both as an idea and it's idiotic implementations) are seen as
absolutely necessary to "protect investors" (maximize money/success), while
national sovereignty, health-and-safety regulations, and the possibility of
laws that require exposing source code are all seen as roadblocks to success.
Therefor, without any need for conspiracy, plans such as the TPP can gain
significant support because it aligns with the priorities of the people in power.
or something like that. Obviously, the latter is harder to say and probably impossible to say as a sound-bite. The former statement - which sounds like it requires a conspiracy - is often used as a shorthand, sometimes for brevity, sometimes because the speaker doesn't know how to articulate the longer variation in detail.
Of course, sometimes people actually intend to make an accusation of conspiracy... and sometimes villainous people actually do get together and make harmful plans.
I suggest that it's useful to assume a charitable interpretation when reading this kind of statement for two reasons: 1) Hanlon's Razor, and 2) often the details don't really matter (an international treaty can be just as damaging regardless of it's origin).
Unfortunately, American politics has always had a certain paranoid style[1].
> TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy
That may be true in the short term, but it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted. If our position in the world changes in the future, we may find the tools the TPP creates being used against us.
The American Empire is rapidly in decline[2]. While it's hard to say what that means for the political and economic future of the world, it's probably safe to say that at least some of the power that America currently holds will move elsewhere.
I feel bad about sniping a small part of a thoughtful comment, but this:
it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted
... is not actually at all true. The laws put in place by treaties (ie: ratified by Congress to enable treaties that they approve) are no harder to override than any other law.
Wouldn't that break the terms of the treaty? I presume that breaking the treaty either has a direct penalty or you're just kicked out entirely. If you're kicked out entirely, that changes the trade structure that your economy has adapted to over the time the treaty was in place. You'll face serious opposition from businesses that have grown to depend on those new trade arrangements.
Local laws can be adapted piecemeal, but my understanding is that a treaty like this is all or nothing.
That's kind of what I was intending with the "laws they create" phrase; I should have phrased that better. My point was more that laws are generally not easy to repeal once they are enacted.
Sure, some are repealed, but it's a lot easier to fix a bad policy before it becomes the status quo. After a policy becomes law, fixing it now has the added hurdle of having to argue against an "incumbent" policy.
Thanks for chiming in, I always value your input, and my disposition is usually in sync with your views. I suppose that I don't actually see you as a contrarian - your views just often run counter to the more popular opinions on HN.
Thanks, I've been on HN for a while (most of the time without having an account, due to a quirk of HN's signup process) but never figured out how to link to users. Glad to finally know.
It's pretty simple: focus on the flaws of the EFF instead of the problems the EFF points out. If you want to be against the establishment, you have to be perfect in pedigree, politics, and poise. Your arguments must not only be factually correct on every level (which by itself would be fine to point out) but must also be in obeisance to the status quo by explicitly recognizing the good intentions of the establishment.
All of this will be prefaced with "I'm no fan of the TPP, but..."
Here's how you write as an establishment equivocator:
---
There are certainly parts of the TPP which overreach. But the EFF is well known for taking things out of proportion [ignoring the absurd proportions of the actual situation]. Here we see another example: [point out something from the current EFF statement that is alarmist or not quite relevant to the TPP specifically, for instance...] a lot of what the EFF describes about copyright is specific to US law and copyright. The EFF is really just hitting its usual talking points and very little of this relates to the TPP; the TPP is just an excuse to talk about what they always talk about.
People should start having "LAN parties", except instead of playing games, they should just start doing massive torrenting with 20 tb + NAS devices. evade the mafIAA and start amassing "master" collections, i.e. ALL music...ever. ALL books (libgen), etc.
In Canada, this might actually be fully legal to do, if you decided to make it a political demonstration, and did it on the steps of the Legislature of your province of choice.
Basically, the same type of civil disobedience that happens at the legislature every April 20th for Marijuana, but for Piracy, and the right to copy.
I've noticed the EFF has a tendency to exaggerate slightly, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's partly sensationalized. Even so, it's rather disconcerting.
It's probably more along the lines of, "the law could be interpreted this way, and you might find yourself on the wrong side of a court case where a hotshot government prosecutor is trying to make a name for him- or herself by pushing the boundaries of how the law can be interpreted." For example, the case where the US government tried to say that breaking a website's ToS was "unauthorized access of a website" and ran afoul of anti-hacking laws.
Well considering what you've lost, I don't think you're really in a position to claim EFF is exaggerating considering the whole of copyright law has been corrupted and the industry has gotten its way every time over the last 200 years.
Personally, I'm also disturbed how little this bill and its implications are being discussed in the media. I mean, you've got a 'trade agreement' with a ton of worrying details and implications, yet newspapers, TV news shows, many popular websites, etc seem to have gone suspiciously quiet about it.
Bernie might want to repeal TPP, but he'd do that because he's against trade. The EFF is against some of the riders attached to TPP especially around intellectual property and digital rights management. No current candidate has a record that is at all aligned with the EFF on this.
A more direct problem is that as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the EFF is forbidden to directly endorse candidates.
No, Bernie sanders is not "against trade". He's "against" ceding elements of our sovereignty to unaccountable transnational corporations and the "trade" bodies that have sprung up to protect them.
Not sure that thats true. And I'm not super interested in a prolonged semantic argument that would sort it out. I'll just note that the "elements of sovereignty" I was referring to are transnational corps attacking nation-states for enacting laws that would protect their populations but would cut into corporate profits. Many examples of which already exist, like, say, the cigarette labelling laws of Austraila and Togo. Or environmental protection laws in Canada (and else where). These are not the sorts of "sovereignty" one negotiates away in the traditional westphailian system of nation states.
> Bernie might want to repeal TPP, but he'd do that because he's against trade.
You might want to reconsider what you said because it makes no sense. Bernie most certainly isn't against "trade". Maybe FTAs that sign away our rights and jobs, sure, but not all such treaties are bad.
From http://www.freezenet.ca/tpp-signed-off-marking-the-beginning..., "... the trade deal would force countries to ratify many other copyright treaties including various WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) treaties, kill Internet privacy for domain name registrants, create a so-called “TPP Commission”, extend the length of copyright, add criminal liability to the circumvention of a DRM, effectively institute statutory damages for non-commercial infringement, mandate government spying on the Internet for the purpose of tracking copyright infringement, possibly add unlimited damages for copyright infringement, allow “destruction” orders of any product circumvents copy protection, allows authority to enforce copyright laws even when infringement hasn’t taken place (ala “imminent” infringement), seize personal devices at the border for the purpose of enforcing copyright law (and destroys your property and forces you to pay if a border guard believes you have copyright infringing content on your personal devices), institute traffic shaping and site blocking for the purpose of allegedly enforcing copyright, implement a notice-and-takedown regime, force ISPs to install backdoors for others to enforce copyright law, and force ISPs to hand over customer’s personal information without court oversight or compensation to the ISP. So, in short, the TPP is a major crackdown on civil rights on the Internet."
TPP excludes devices (e.g. phones) in checked baggage from border inspections for copyright infringement, but the UN is considering a ban of battery-operated devices from checked baggage, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/un-panel-backs-..., "A UN panel has recommended banning cargo shipments of rechargeable lithium batteries from passenger airliners because they can create fires capable of destroying planes, according to aviation officials familiar with the decision."
Thanks for the correction, I was confused because cargo shipments of batteries in cargo planes would not be affected. Apparently they are saying it's ok to lose the pilots (in a cargo plane) but not everyone in a passenger plane. Single phones would not be a threat, because one explosion could not cause a chain reaction, unlike a cargo shipment with many batteries close together.
I would guess it's less about it being OK to lose the pilot, but not passengers, and more about the pilot being aware of the type of cargo and its risks.
Article says the pilots association is in opposition, but you're right that individual pilots and their insurance companies are free to accept compensation for the risk.
There is something bigger at play here that even the EFF isn't touching on. (nor do I expect them to, I like how they stick to the technical facts.)
The reduction if not straight out elimination of national sovereignty is a prereq for global governance under the collectivist model. Fast track, TTIP, TISA, TTP, and other more subtle treaties that have been falsely labelled as "trade agreements" are how they supranational oligarchy can chip away at sovereignty, because the same people and groups have already corrupted the system from the inside out so pervasively that they now have the ability to get this done, and here is the key, done despite whatever backlash the public is going to release!. This was actually the purpose of fast-track, as the precursor legislation that would enable them to run TTIP/TTP up America's ass before they could stop it. (by pretending something is a trade agreement instead of a treaty and with fast track now the required two-thirds majority in the senate becomes just a simple majority requirement, among other things.)
Although I may be one of the hn resident conspiracy theorists, even this threw me for a loop because I was expecting a currency upset first, but apparently the way to undermine a nation is by corruption of it's government and business first and then death by a thousand cuts (read: laws), because afterwards the currency upset can be much more controlled.
For me, an American who has sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...", I think that the country has forgotten the basic reasons for the American Revolution in the first place, and the principles upon which our country and it's constitution was founded, the Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration’s basis, Natural Law, but I digress.
The point to me is that we have allowed our supposed "allies" to send us on wild hunts for foreign enemies, while in reality the larger enemies are domestic, and they wear suits and ties and are in DC and on Wallstreet. All the branches of government are corrupted from the top down (including the fourth estate of journalism), and all the middle men are in one of three modes. 1) I'm gonna get mine and fuck you. 2) If I say anything I lose my job or worse, much worse. 3) Who cares, everything is fine, let's put our head in the sand.
There has been much debate about whether it is Eric Blair's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I say it's being setup so that it's a brave new world, until you resist, then it's 1984 and a boot on your face. I ought to know, I was the man with the boots in Iraq.
Throw in another recession or two and a depression, world resource wars, and technological revolution on an earth with an unsustainable population level, and what we have here is a recipe for disaster.
It's ok though, I'm sure I'm just paranoid. (like I was about NSA before anyone started listening about that too.)
Getting upset about the TPP is a waste of time. The provisions of the TPP are a red herring. We should be much more concerned with what is not present in the TPP. It only has 12 signatories!!! There are 160+ "countries" in the world. How much could an agreement between 12 of them really increase "free trade?" There are notable absences (CHINA) that make the treaty effectively meaningless. If 30% of the world is not covered by it, then who cares what it says.
The people getting screwed by this treaty are not the spoiled first world EFF supporters, but the people who assemble all our gadgets and gizmos. If you want an agreement that actually benefits humankind, it better include some protections for the outsourced labor that first world nations continue to exploit.
Regarding the fearmongering bulletpoints in the EFF article... Let's be honest. Any mildly technical person knows that these kind of legal measures are technically impossible to enforce. If you want to bend or break the rules, you can find a way, and you can avoid detection. "The Internet routes around censorship" as John Gilmore says. He's also an EFF founder so I'm not sure why EFF is fearmongering so much when they should know these measures are meaningless until they're enforced, which will require implementing impossible, nonexistent technical solutions.
If you don't like the rules, route around them. Or just leave the country trying to enforce them on you. There are 150 other countries you can go to if you don't like these rules.
Honestly the concern over this treaty is so overblown that it almost seems insensitive to the people in the world who are actually suffering from global commerce. The real victims are the millions of people starving, working 12 hour days as children, losing their families to warmongering nation states, and running along a hopeless treadmill of despair.
If you're going to get upset over what amounts to a relatively small set of unimplemented, highly unenforceable rules affecting your "digital rights," then you should at least devote 1% of your complaints to acknowledging the plights of the people who are actually suffering in the world.
> There are notable absences (CHINA) that make the treaty effectively meaningless
Don't be fooled by the headlines, the TPP changes "rules of origin" which will reduce US tariffs for Chinese-made auto parts that will now count as "Japanese". This will negatively affect North American auto parts manufacturing, https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-tp...
"Right now, the U.S. reserves the right to slap large tariffs on China, as it has done on steel (up to 236 percent), solar panels (up to 78 percent) and tires (up to 88 percent). But under TPP, many products, from agriculture to chemicals to plastics to leather seating, can include up to 60 percent of material from a non-TPP country ... China would not have to raise any standards or comply with any TPP rules, yet still be able to produce millions of auto parts and textiles for TPP countries at a lower cost, without the burden of tariffs."
> There are 150 other countries you can go to if you don't like these rules.
Europe has TTIP. China, India and other Asian countries have RCEP. The provisions are similar or worse than TPP. This is a race to the bottom, which is why the first trade agreement (TPP) matters so much. Stop the TPP and it will be easier for countries to push back on TTIP and RCEP. There is also TiSA which spans 50 countries. All of these agreements need to be renegotiated with additional corporate and civil society stakeholders, rather than favoring the small number of corporations that hijacked the TPP for their own purposes.
China regularly interferes with the ability of foreign corporations to compete in a fair Chinese market. Whether through crippling communications infrastructure (the GFW), subsidizing domestic counterparts, or ignoring US IP laws, China had no problem favoring domestic companies over foreign ones.
Yet the US needs an international treaty to authorize itself to slightly increase the fees it charges to China.
(personally I prefer the slow moving democracy of the US)
I read it as the US redirecting 40% of imports to TPP countries. Even if China produces the cheapest widgets, someone buying 100 widgets needs to buy 40 of them elsewhere.
China being absent from the tpp is not an oversight.
One of the points behind tpp is to have a trade agreement against china (without being overt about it). It somewhat reduces china ability to increase influence in the markets of countries around it.
I'd love to see some actual evidence of globalization and global commerce harming the world's poor.
Literally every shred of evidence I've seen points to the opposite: it has lifted people out of starvation agriculture into the lower classes.
We don't like seeing people in miserable conditions (and nobody denies that primitive manufacturing conditions are miserable), but that doesn't make them inferior to the silent misery of traditional agriculture. [1]
Just look at people's revealed preferences. To this day, millions of Chinese move from the agricultural hinterlands of the country (where farming looks largely the same as it has for centuries) towards the manufacturing centers along the coasts. If manufacturing is inferior to primitive village life, why do you think they're doing that?
"Let's be honest. Any mildly technical person knows that these kind of legal measures are technically impossible to enforce."
I'm sorry to tell you but you're wrong, videogame industry is a foretelling of where we'll be in years to come, stuff that is locked down on oneside of the internet and rented in perpetuity, that is the end game for our upper class.
Who gets to play the song? Who gets to retell the story? Only those sanctioned by those with money, the owners. This is wrong. Creation and recreation are a forms of communion, not some contrived, egoistic world domination ritual.
Excuse my colorful language, this is a religious issue to me.