Obama praises Trans-Pacific Partnership accord as full text is released

"The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century."

Read the whole story

 

[jimjimjimjimjim]

Shenkey[/url]":q8pkjw5d]

rabish12[/url]":q8pkjw5d]"The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century."

That's basically why it's awful, yes.

You prefer that China does it with its great record?

No. We prefer it not to be one-sided. There are ~196 countries in the world and we don't want the 'elites' of a small fraction of those countries calling the shots.

 

[jonah]

The movie industry is so pissant when you think about the absolute numbers that I'm continually shocked at how much they dominate the debate on things like this. There are probably fifty sectors of the economy bigger than the movie business. Why do we keep making horrendous laws to protect movie studios?

 

[slymenstra hymen]

fenris_uy[/url]":249udasn]

rabish12[/url]":249udasn]

Saint[/url]":249udasn]Other countries like Canada should just say no.
But they won't

Mostly because they can't. The US is far too important of a trade partner for Canada to refuse a major trade treaty like this with them.

Canada already has NAFTA, why would they need a new treaty with the US? Which tariff currently exists that this deal lowers that were not included in NAFTA?

Same with Australia, US has some tariffs lasting 24 years into the future while Aus has already eliminated all of them for US imports in the last FTA. Some serious horse shit going on here.

 

[mrwislr]

rick*d[/url]":3i76endn]

ichemandrew[/url]":3i76endn]

Quisquis[/url]":3i76endn]

rick*d[/url]":3i76endn]

anurodhp[/url]":3i76endn]

you're welcome, america.

Consider the alternatives...

How would either of those candidates been worse? I'm not saying they would be or wouldn't be, but Obama has an incredibly bad foreign policy history at the least.

I suppose if all you're interested in is healthcare, Obama is your guy (compared to the other two at least), but when it comes to assassinating US citizens, I'm not convinced that McCain would've done that (and other things like it) considering his military history.

Unpopular, maybe, but as for "incredibly bad"... I think that only time will tell. I'm personally jazzed about opening up Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, and things finally starting to get moving on Guantanamo. But I can see those things coming off, along with this deal, as being "bad" if one likes to stick with isolationist policies that have been shown not to work very well.

Don't forget, Obama inherited Guantanamo and wanted to close it - Congress forced it to stay open.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171653/ameri ... o-bay.aspx

Americans didn't want to close it, and congress is suppose to represent the people. It's not a dictatorship, yet.

 

[mrwislr]

acumentary[/url]":28du0se3]

fenris_uy[/url]":28du0se3]

rabish12[/url]":28du0se3]

Saint[/url]":28du0se3]Other countries like Canada should just say no.
But they won't

Mostly because they can't. The US is far too important of a trade partner for Canada to refuse a major trade treaty like this with them.

Canada already has NAFTA, why would they need a new treaty with the US? Which tariff currently exists that this deal lowers that were not included in NAFTA?

I couldn't agree more.

Quoting Catherine Austin Fitts:

The real (but unstated) goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is the build-out of a transnational legal system designed to:
1. Re-organize the constitutional and legal structure of the Anglo-American alliance and its G-7 allies;
2. Build a “wall” to ensure that governments cannot claw back resources from private investors and corporations to fund operations, outstanding debt or retirement liabilities;
3. Secure intellectual capital protection for a new wave of corporate and private patents and technology, including breakthrough energy, GMO seeds, biotech and weaponry, much of which has been funded by or transferred from governments;
4. Protect corporate valuations from their externalities – general liabilities or expenses created by their operations or the introduction of new (possibly harmful) technologies, products and services;
5. Promote a new round of privatization on highly favorable terms to corporations and private investors;
6. Aggregate a greater percentage of the small farm and small business economy into large corporations;
7. Continue to shift the relationship between capital and labor in favor of capital;
8. Increase corporate powers to override national, state and local laws and regulation;
9. Increase secrecy and immunity for Global 3.0.

That being said, the Ars Technica author exhibits a massive ignorance of trade treaties over the past 80 years by either deliberately gatekeeping their negative impacts with the opportunity to explore them definitively here, or he just isn't a learned person on the topic and should have let someone else write the article. Maybe read from others who actually know how to comprehend the legalese.

On Ars it's definitely deliberate gatekeeping, they are completely politically bias.

 

[provocateur52]

Say it ain't so O.

 

[isparavanje]

Ebbyman[/url]":z6josz2h]

isparavanje[/url]":z6josz2h]

Ebbyman[/url]":z6josz2h]"The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century," Obama said."
I think Brunei feels even smaller now than it currently is.

What about Brunei? They never had much to do with the US and are rather rich. Their gdp per capita is similar to Japan.

The quote does not sound like a partnership and if I were the head of any of these countries in the TPP it would be a "hmm" moment. So Brunei, and the other "partners", must feel really small now since America wrote the "rules of the road for the 21st Century" for them.

It's just strange you singled out Brunei when they are a developed country which probably stands to gain from the treaty, unlike Vietnam or Peru.

 

[Ilikebundy99]

rick*d[/url]":2stxjnz4]

Carewolf[/url]":2stxjnz4]

rick*d[/url]":2stxjnz4]

Derek Kent[/url]":2stxjnz4]Here's another nice provision for technology:

"Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming
1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare."

So, does this force Mexico to drop "caller pays" and go with "cell owner pays" like the rest of the world?

Callers pays is the standard in most of the world. Only the US has callee pays.

I did not know this. So how does that work? I know there are lots and lots of cell companies and presumably each company has several rate plans - are the rates set by the government or is it a crap shoot what each call will cost you? How do you even know if you're calling a cell phone or a land line? Seems like each month's phone bill is going to be a big mystery.

Edit: my sister lives in Mexico and she only calls known land lines due to the whole nonsense of not knowing what a call will cost otherwise. She thinks the "caller pays" system is rigged to help the land line phone company stay in business, otherwise people in Mexico would drop their land lines like people in the US are doing.

Here in Australia at least it is very straight forward, when you sign up for your phone account call costs are clearly laid out for you by your provider. It doesn't matter who the provider of the person you are calling is... Much better than having to pay to accept a call from someone with no context before hand imho.

 

[0bliv!on]

Ilikebundy99[/url]":2wjvca3s]

rick*d[/url]":2wjvca3s]

Carewolf[/url]":2wjvca3s]

rick*d[/url]":2wjvca3s]

Derek Kent[/url]":2wjvca3s]Here's another nice provision for technology:

"Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming
1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare."

So, does this force Mexico to drop "caller pays" and go with "cell owner pays" like the rest of the world?

Callers pays is the standard in most of the world. Only the US has callee pays.

I did not know this. So how does that work? I know there are lots and lots of cell companies and presumably each company has several rate plans - are the rates set by the government or is it a crap shoot what each call will cost you? How do you even know if you're calling a cell phone or a land line? Seems like each month's phone bill is going to be a big mystery.

Edit: my sister lives in Mexico and she only calls known land lines due to the whole nonsense of not knowing what a call will cost otherwise. She thinks the "caller pays" system is rigged to help the land line phone company stay in business, otherwise people in Mexico would drop their land lines like people in the US are doing.

Here in Australia at least it is very straight forward, when you sign up for your phone account call costs are clearly laid out for you by your provider. It doesn't matter who the provider of the person you are calling is... Much better than having to pay to accept a call from someone with no context before hand imho.

I don't understand how anyone in the US can criticize the call charging policies of companies in Australia or NZ when in the US you have to pay to receive calls.

 

[jibi]

If it has the unbridled support of the MPAA, you know something is terribly terribly wrong with it

 

[isparavanje]

0bliv!on[/url]":1so56m7m]

Ilikebundy99[/url]":1so56m7m]

rick*d[/url]":1so56m7m]

Carewolf[/url]":1so56m7m]

rick*d[/url]":1so56m7m]

Derek Kent[/url]":1so56m7m]Here's another nice provision for technology:

"Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming
1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare."

So, does this force Mexico to drop "caller pays" and go with "cell owner pays" like the rest of the world?

Callers pays is the standard in most of the world. Only the US has callee pays.

I did not know this. So how does that work? I know there are lots and lots of cell companies and presumably each company has several rate plans - are the rates set by the government or is it a crap shoot what each call will cost you? How do you even know if you're calling a cell phone or a land line? Seems like each month's phone bill is going to be a big mystery.

Edit: my sister lives in Mexico and she only calls known land lines due to the whole nonsense of not knowing what a call will cost otherwise. She thinks the "caller pays" system is rigged to help the land line phone company stay in business, otherwise people in Mexico would drop their land lines like people in the US are doing.

Here in Australia at least it is very straight forward, when you sign up for your phone account call costs are clearly laid out for you by your provider. It doesn't matter who the provider of the person you are calling is... Much better than having to pay to accept a call from someone with no context before hand imho.

I don't understand how anyone in the US can criticize the call charging policies of companies in Australia or NZ when in the US you have to pay to receive calls.

You do? Because I don't, I've always had flat-rate unlimited talk.

 

[FoolsGold]

This has kinda left me speechless. I am surprised to see a substantial amount of support for this among the comments, when it is so obvious that no good can come of something born in a cesspool of corruption. I see US Senators, Congress, and the President as following a model like television. Whatever is presented on TV, whether good, bad, or ugly, is liberally interspersed with commercials. You know the well-worn phrase - "Time for a word from our sponsor." So it is with these aforementioned government representatives. Whatever they do, good, bad, or ugly, is liberally interspersed with a word from their corporate sponsors. They take commercial breaks. It is obvious already this trade deal has payback provisions for some of Obama's biggest sponsors, the MPAA. For sure it will equally have provisions for the personal sponsors of a substantial number of Senators and Congress, because that is how politics works. That is how Obama got a deal with enough to pull this off. The worse thing is, the US exports their unique form of corruption to the rest of the world - by plain and simple bullying. Not being an American, I am sick of it!

Whatever ended up in the treaty that seems beneficial to actual citizens is mostly accidental coincidence of corporate needs, or deliberate window dressing. For sure, for every bit of accidental good, there is going to be something in there that is downright bad.

Of course in theory trade deals can be good, and can even justify negotiations in secret, but give me a break! All you gotta do is look at who is promoting this deal to know it can't be any good for actual citizens.

Why are we even discussing this without the actual document, anyhow? That is certainly one way to blunt the impact of this deal - hold all the discussions before the actual document is freely available, then when finally everyone can download the pdf, everybody is all talked out. I really think Ars should have held off until they got their hands on more substance.

 

[isparavanje]

FoolsGold[/url]":3gqesl5r]This has kinda left me speechless. I am surprised to see a substantial amount of support for this among the comments, when it is so obvious that no good can come of something born in a cesspool of corruption. I see US Senators, Congress, and the President as following a model like television. Whatever is presented on TV, whether good, bad, or ugly, is liberally interspersed with commercials. You know the well-worn phrase - "Time for a word from our sponsor." So it is with these aforementioned government representatives. Whatever they do, good, bad, or ugly, is liberally interspersed with a word from their corporate sponsors. They take commercial breaks. It is obvious already this trade deal has payback provisions for some of Obama's biggest sponsors, the MPAA. For sure it will equally have provisions for the personal sponsors of a substantial number of Senators and Congress, because that is how politics works. That is how Obama got a deal with enough to pull this off. The worse thing is, the US exports their unique form of corruption to the rest of the world - by plain and simple bullying. Not being an American, I am sick of it!

Whatever ended up in the treaty that seems beneficial to actual citizens is mostly accidental coincidence of corporate needs, or deliberate window dressing. For sure, for every bit of accidental good, there is going to be something in there that is downright bad.

Of course in theory trade deals can be good, and can even justify negotiations in secret, but give me a break! All you gotta do is look at who is promoting this deal to know it can't be any good for actual citizens.

Why are we even discussing this without the actual document, anyhow? That is certainly one way to blunt the impact of this deal - hold all the discussions before the actual document is freely available, then when finally everyone can download the pdf, everybody is all talked out. I really think Ars should have held off until they got their hands on more substance.

"Of course in theory trade deals can be good, and can even justify negotiations in secret, but give me a break! All you gotta do is look at who is promoting this deal to know it can't be any good for actual citizens."

I prefer to judge it based on what it is, not who wrote it. It is ridiculous to do otherwise. Blind distrust is just as bad as blind faith.

Also, ars is *reporting news*. Would you prefer they didn't tell you that it'll be released soon? This is not a blog, it is a news/reviews site which sometimes publishes opeds related to science and tech policy.

 

[mrwislr]

isparavanje[/url]":1zdor14d]

FoolsGold[/url]":1zdor14d]This has kinda left me speechless. I am surprised to see a substantial amount of support for this among the comments, when it is so obvious that no good can come of something born in a cesspool of corruption. I see US Senators, Congress, and the President as following a model like television. Whatever is presented on TV, whether good, bad, or ugly, is liberally interspersed with commercials. You know the well-worn phrase - "Time for a word from our sponsor." So it is with these aforementioned government representatives. Whatever they do, good, bad, or ugly, is liberally interspersed with a word from their corporate sponsors. They take commercial breaks. It is obvious already this trade deal has payback provisions for some of Obama's biggest sponsors, the MPAA. For sure it will equally have provisions for the personal sponsors of a substantial number of Senators and Congress, because that is how politics works. That is how Obama got a deal with enough to pull this off. The worse thing is, the US exports their unique form of corruption to the rest of the world - by plain and simple bullying. Not being an American, I am sick of it!

Whatever ended up in the treaty that seems beneficial to actual citizens is mostly accidental coincidence of corporate needs, or deliberate window dressing. For sure, for every bit of accidental good, there is going to be something in there that is downright bad.

Of course in theory trade deals can be good, and can even justify negotiations in secret, but give me a break! All you gotta do is look at who is promoting this deal to know it can't be any good for actual citizens.

Why are we even discussing this without the actual document, anyhow? That is certainly one way to blunt the impact of this deal - hold all the discussions before the actual document is freely available, then when finally everyone can download the pdf, everybody is all talked out. I really think Ars should have held off until they got their hands on more substance.

"Of course in theory trade deals can be good, and can even justify negotiations in secret, but give me a break! All you gotta do is look at who is promoting this deal to know it can't be any good for actual citizens."

I prefer to judge it based on what it is, not who wrote it. It is ridiculous to do otherwise. Blind distrust is just as bad as blind faith.

Also, ars is *reporting news*. Would you prefer they didn't tell you that it'll be released soon? This is not a blog, it is a news/reviews site which sometimes publishes opeds related to science and tech policy.

It's not 'blind distrust', it's simply 'considering the source'. Give me a break.

 

[david newall]

greatn[/url]":2fyf2z42]I like the labor protections it forces on some countries. For example, it would require Taiwan to allow their workers collective bargaining rights to unionize and a legal right to strike.

It might if Taiwan was going to be a party to the agreement, but they're not.

 

[loki679]

Derek Kent[/url]":rkngg5jh]Some of the provisions in the final text appear to be positives for an open and free Internet.

For example:
"Governments ... will be unable to force companies from those countries to store government data in local datacentres ... governments will not only be prevented from mandating data sovereignty provision, they will also be unable to demand access to source code from companies incorporated in TPP territories."

Holy shit, is that real? Governments can't get access to source code?

 

[MatthewSleeman]

Hopefully the medicine section will die in the Australian Parliament, after all the last treaty that would affect medicine prices suffered the same fate

 

[Eddis]

Going to read the whole thing before commenting if it's bad or not - but am fairly certain it's bad =)

 

[Carewolf]

rick*d[/url]":25kn8qhk]

Carewolf[/url]":25kn8qhk]

rick*d[/url]":25kn8qhk]

Derek Kent[/url]":25kn8qhk]Here's another nice provision for technology:

"Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming
1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare."

So, does this force Mexico to drop "caller pays" and go with "cell owner pays" like the rest of the world?

Callers pays is the standard in most of the world. Only the US has callee pays.

I did not know this. So how does that work? I know there are lots and lots of cell companies and presumably each company has several rate plans - are the rates set by the government or is it a crap shoot what each call will cost you? How do you even know if you're calling a cell phone or a land line? Seems like each month's phone bill is going to be a big mystery.

No the price is set by callers carrier, you usually have one price for calling a landline and one for calling a cell phone, some also try to give discount when calling cellphones from the same carrier. The prices the carriers pay for terminating with eachother is something they negotiate themselves, usually under the threat that if one of them tries to be greedy they will not be receiving any calls, and if they can't figure it out amongst themselves the government would intervene. Within the EU roaming maximum prices are set, which usually end up being defacto prices.
If a carrier sets too opaque prices for the customers they also get threats from the government to fix it or face regulation. Often regulation is not actually needed as long as companies know they are facing a functional government that might actually do something (the latter might not be working in Mexico).

 

[Deleted member 1]

mrwislr[/url]":jee48uh0]

rick*d[/url]":jee48uh0]

ichemandrew[/url]":jee48uh0]

Quisquis[/url]":jee48uh0]

rick*d[/url]":jee48uh0]

anurodhp[/url]":jee48uh0]

you're welcome, america.

Consider the alternatives...

How would either of those candidates been worse? I'm not saying they would be or wouldn't be, but Obama has an incredibly bad foreign policy history at the least.

I suppose if all you're interested in is healthcare, Obama is your guy (compared to the other two at least), but when it comes to assassinating US citizens, I'm not convinced that McCain would've done that (and other things like it) considering his military history.

Unpopular, maybe, but as for "incredibly bad"... I think that only time will tell. I'm personally jazzed about opening up Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, and things finally starting to get moving on Guantanamo. But I can see those things coming off, along with this deal, as being "bad" if one likes to stick with isolationist policies that have been shown not to work very well.

Don't forget, Obama inherited Guantanamo and wanted to close it - Congress forced it to stay open.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171653/ameri ... o-bay.aspx

Americans didn't want to close it, and congress is suppose to represent the people. It's not a dictatorship, yet.

Americans didnt want companies to be given equal powers as the electorate
Americans would not want a 70 year life for copyrights
American want to rip their own CDs and DVD without the police coming to their home

So, how exactly is it that you go around cherrypicking, especially after years of conditioning and misniformation by the media? Indeed this is America - and that is why no one should be in a gulag getting tortured. Put them on trial - that's the American way.

Let's hope that too - the growing disregard for law and rights - isnt going to be standardised and exported across the globe.

 

[david newall]

arcite[/url]":9z8lltrf]

rabish12[/url]":9z8lltrf]"The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century."

That's basically why it's awful, yes.

Hey, you're either in the free world club, or you aren't.

Presumably if your government signs TPP you are not

 

[david newall]

Derek Kent[/url]":36idthde]
While I don't care for the copyright extension, I don't put a lot of weight on it since it feels like it's a de facto standard almost anyway.

It is not a de facto standard and it's not even what's traditional in USA. The Usanite government keep extending copyright term to keep Mickey Mouse protected. They can't make copyright unlimited because that's against US Law or constitution or something. Copyright is only allowed for a limited time. So they just keep extending the period by a couple of decades. Eventually I expect they'll want life plus 10,000 years.

 

[romkyns]

All those other countries must be kicking themselves now, when Obama admits openly that the TPP puts America in charge.

 

[Meailda]

Darkness1231[/url]":w5k9402p]The MPAA and its sibling RIAA are so heavily invested in a tiny business that it is troubling they have such a heavy presence in the YASTTSHD (Yet Anther Stupid Treaty That Should Die). They make less annually than apple makes per quarter on phones alone. MSFT makes more on Windows updates per quarter as well. Indeed many of the companies in the technical sector that are used to support the ??AA businesses generate more revenue than both of the bastard children combined.

Why does the political machinery in the US cater to such a group of dinosaurs? It is really baffling as they show no leadership, no creativity, no IP that is worth the huge limitations to creativity, innovation and future growth of anything. Even their much treasured music and movie businesses.

Now, other countries will be able to attack American businesses remotely, with no need to establish standing or damage in the US. Just point to the treaty and demand payment. Sadly the damage to American businesses will be larger than then entire worth of the Movie and Music industries combined.

This is not a good deal.

Because the political machinery are dinosaurs themselves and apparently can be bought for cheap.

 

[ajmas]

For the Europeans, they should be testing the constitutionality of this treaty. I wouldn't be surprised if there are paragraphs that run afoul of the European constitution.

Note: I have not read the treaty, but at the same time from what I have read it risks trampling over the sovereign affairs of other countries. The only winners are likely to be US multinationals and one of the biggest losers risks being other countries trying to pass environmental protection laws.

Edit: looks like I mixed this up with TTIP, which is the same type of treaty as the TTP, but covering US-EU trade relations. Though, countries and citizens should still be verifying how the agreements impact their constitutions and their ability to pass laws in the interest of their citizens, without risking being sued by the multinationals.

 

[david newall]

Carewolf[/url]":3g0n86bb]

rick*d[/url]":3g0n86bb]

Derek Kent[/url]":3g0n86bb]Here's another nice provision for technology:

"Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming
1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare."

So, does this force Mexico to drop "caller pays" and go with "cell owner pays" like the rest of the world?

Callers pays is the standard in most of the world. Only the US has callee pays.

Telstra, in Australia, was considering that ("B" party charging) for data calls in the '90s. Worse, it was going to be timed. I wrote to the minister for communications to ask if that would be allowed and he answered a different question, which is how I know it was about to happen. Then ADSL arrived and the idea was dropped.

 

[managalar]

Meailda[/url]":brlh8u83]Does anyone else feel like the Trade negotiators have parked a couple of people on this thread to downvote anything even vaguely critical of this treaty?

It's just the first of the many new jobs created by the TPP!

 

[tampageek]

Let the public brainwashing propaganda begin!

Most people will not read all the legalese in the text and the people interpreting it for them will no doubt slant it one way or another. The media wants this deal because it contains SOPA -which could not pass as an independent law due to public outcry.

In reality, this entire co-called "trade" deal is is full of overrides to US laws that could never be passed through legislation. And THAT is why it was kept secret.

Investor State dispute is already being used to try to override public health (anti-smoking) laws..... http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/04/phi ... worldwide/
.....and just think of how much Big Oil will abuse this provision as they destroy drinking water supplies with fracking.

TTP enshrines the most dangerous elements of deregulated capitalism - which is to put profit above all else - including worker safety, public health, financial regulation, access to generic drugs, and anything else that forces corporations to consider anything but money. TPP is NOT a "trade" deal. It's a corporate override of national sovereignty.

 

[mad_magician]

We're fucked....

 

[Massolo]

But does it allow for American companies to export our jobs like NAFTA does?

 

[tampageek]

mad_magician[/url]":37fxst88]We're fucked....

Yes, we are.

 

[Deleted member 1]

romkyns[/url]":1r4pdyrz]All those other countries must be kicking themselves now, when Obama admits openly that the TPP puts America in charge.

You mean puts american multinationals in charge...of the global round of mega-mergers that the entire "Treaty" is ultimately designed to facilitate.

 

[Luv2Calculate]

There have been massive protests against this all over Europe, but as always, our governments don't represent the people.

 

[caldepen]

Once bitten twice shy, comes to mind. I cannot imagine this deal helping the individual. If you happen to be a large, global corporation, you're in luck!

Harper (thank god he is gone), already promised compensation in the billions to auto-workers and farmers. I ask you, why would a restaurant offer free dessert unless they knew the main course was rotten?

 

[jandrese]

Luv2Calculate[/url]":161fxgd4]There have been massive protests against this all over Europe, but as always, our governments don't represent the people.

Um, European countries aren't included in this deal. Their governments have no say in it one way or the other.

 

[AharmX]

FTAs helped a few Australians some importers linked to the Liberal and Labor parties the ASX 200 (a list of top tax avoiders). The Aus/USA FTA did not help Australia at all we dropped our tariffs and our company's had to compete vs effectively subsidized U.S company's and where all snapped up and sold off by U.S and local corporate raiders i guess that's one way of getting foreign investment.

On a brighter note i think i have got over my moral disgust about killing and eating humans should serve me well in the next few years.

 

[metec]

It's frightening that our President refers to corporations as 'America.' We the people, no more.

"The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century."

 

[JasePow]

For fear that it's already been asked in these comments,...

Is there ANY place where you can get the FULL TEXT of the agreement in ONE stinkin' PDF, rather than fifty-frickin-million of them?!?!

[Yeah, I know,... they broke it up like that so it'd be impossible to search the whole thing,... But, somebody has to have pieced it together,... right?!?!]

 

[crustytheclown]

Meailda[/url]":18cwwt8i]Does anyone else feel like the Trade negotiators have parked a couple of people on this thread to downvote anything even vaguely critical of this treaty?

Yup.

 

[crustytheclown]

Stone[/url]":3ds4lymf]I'm in general agreement with Obama, but this is an utter disaster. I've been reading on leaked sections for months, and this is such a terrible deal for America (populace) in favor of America (corporate).

It is these types of foreign entanglements that the Founding Fathers warned against getting into.

'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796