TTIP Monster Rumbles On

OP

You believe in a different outlook than I do. That's fine. But name calling is not required especially when free markets demo garage only positives.

Might I suggest you read global shift by Dickens.

I quote the 2011 version (the PDF was the first thing search on google): "Paradoxically, the 2008 global financial crisis could offer a real opportunity. For
the first time in several decades, both the economic inefficiencies and the social
limitations of free, unregulated markets have been exposed for all to see. In par-
ticular, an economic system based so heavily on financial speculation is, in any
social and moral sense, dysfunctional. It has failed. ":

Whereas you espouse the virtues ot free markets...

He then says: " The opportunity must be taken to build a new system to redress the imbalance that has developed between states and markets. Such a project is global in both scale and scope; hence the need for coordinated international policy initiatives rather than individual national measures that would lead to destructive competition rather than collaboration. "

Redressing the balance of power between states and markets is exactly what TTIP DOESN'T Do.

Reply 41

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Raiden10

I quote the 2011 version (the PDF was the first thing search on google): "Paradoxically, the 2008 global financial crisis could offer a real opportunity. For
the first time in several decades, both the economic inefficiencies and the social
limitations of free, unregulated markets have been exposed for all to see. In par-
ticular, an economic system based so heavily on financial speculation is, in any
social and moral sense, dysfunctional. It has failed. ":

Whereas you espouse the virtues ot free markets...

He then says: " The opportunity must be taken to build a new system to redress the imbalance that has developed between states and markets. Such a project is global in both scale and scope; hence the need for coordinated international policy initiatives rather than individual national measures that would lead to destructive competition rather than collaboration. "

Redressing the balance of power between states and markets is exactly what TTIP DOESN'T Do.

You've obviously missed out the section (s) where he says that free trade on the whole has improved the lives of everybody and has had no negative impact.

You're obviously going through the 'communism/socialist' phase of growing up And haven't yet understood that it's pretty much failed everywhere It's been tried.

The politics and economics of jeoulsousy that you espouse tends to fail.

Reply 42

GnomeMage

2

Original post by MatureStudent36

You've obviously missed out the section (s) where he says that free trade on the whole has improved the lives of everybody and has had no negative impact.

You're obviously going through the 'communism/socialist' phase of growing up And haven't yet understood that it's pretty much failed everywhere It's been tried.

The politics and economics of jeoulsousy that you espouse tends to fail.

except that TPP isnt about free trade. We already have WTO for free trade. yup there is the place to go.

In the 29 pages of TPP clauses, only 5 pages are about trade, the rest is about giving power to foreign company to rule a country, just like east india company.

If there is nothing to hide, open it up and let it be debated in all the involved country's parliament. If you hide it, there must be something fishy about it.

and on the free trade 'has no negative impact', you clearly don't know much about economics dont you? Thanks for the joke.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 43

GnomeMage

2

Original post by MatureStudent36

I believe in a free market with limited controls. The one we have and the one that works

TPP has no limited controls. You have no control at all.

Reply 44

GnomeMage

2

Original post by MatureStudent36

You believe in a different outlook than I do. That's fine. But name calling is not required especially when free markets demo garage only positives.

Might I suggest you read global shift by Dickens.

Nowadays, even a dog knows how to use google to search....

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effects-trade-5221.html

http://www.preservearticles.com/201012291888/disadvantages-of-free-trade.html

http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/economics/global_economy/tut7/Tutorial7.html

http://www.economicshelp.org/trade/arguments-against-free-trade/

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/free_trade_agreements.shtml

Reply 45

Raiden10

OP

17

Original post by MatureStudent36

You've obviously missed out the section (s) where he says that free trade on the whole has improved the lives of everybody and has had no negative impact.

You're obviously going through the 'communism/socialist' phase of growing up And haven't yet understood that it's pretty much failed everywhere It's been tried.

The politics and economics of jeoulsousy that you espouse tends to fail.

So I believe (correctly) that free market fundamentalism is a force of evil, and this makes me a communist? Great argument.

Free market fundamentalism, at its most extreme, doesn't really represent a market at all. That's why the opposition to TTIP comes from both right and left wing commentators.

Free market fundamentalism always ends up being free market for the very largest, and barrier barrier barrier for EVERYONE ELSE.

THIS IS WHAT TTIP REPRESENTS, YOU JUST CANT GET IT INTO YOUR TINY LITTLE HEAD.

Reply 46

ChaoticButterfly

20

https://theconversation.com/search?q=TTIP

Reply 47

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Raiden10

So I believe (correctly) that free market fundamentalism is a force of evil, and this makes me a communist? Great argument.

Free market fundamentalism, at its most extreme, doesn't really represent a market at all. That's why the opposition to TTIP comes from both right and left wing commentators.

Free market fundamentalism always ends up being free market for the very largest, and barrier barrier barrier for EVERYONE ELSE.

THIS IS WHAT TTIP REPRESENTS, YOU JUST CANT GET IT INTO YOUR TINY LITTLE HEAD.

Merely highlighting that the free market has demonstrably I proved the lives of those who touched it.

Reply 48

KarlOMarx

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Where are UKIP on all of this? What are labour doing? When did the parties campaign around this issue in the election? They didn't (well Green did but no one cares what they say as everyone knows they are a nutty fringe party). They all agree with each other. Democracy is non existent on this issue. There is no choic, TTIP is outside the spetrum of acceptable debate.

This is trend that has been goign on for decades. Democracy is being taken out of the economic sphere. We are not to concern ourselves with such matters. We are to submit to what get called markets (they couldn't be further away from the kind of markets their god Adam Smith thoerised about)

Same in Germany.
I was wondering what americans think about things like TTIP, Ukraine et cetera, so ive made an account. There are big lacks of demogracy in Germany and i have the feeling my Country transforms more and more to some kind of capitalism regime then a welfare state.

Reply 49

BolshevikJews

Globalism/Jewish supremacy

Reply 50

L i b

19

Original post by Raiden10

So I believe (correctly) that free market fundamentalism is a force of evil, and this makes me a communist?

Given that you seem to think the existence of a market is "fundamentalism", I, for one, expect you probably are. Or, even worse, a trendy left-winger who reads Comment is Free and likes Owen Jones, but doesn't really bother to think about the politics behind the rhetoric.

In either case, go back to Moscow, pinko.

Free market fundamentalism, at its most extreme, doesn't really represent a market at all. That's why the opposition to TTIP comes from both right and left wing commentators.

No, it comes from both the far left and the far right because, in reality, these authoritarian ideologies end up pretty much indistinguishable in practice. Political difference is blurred in the centre-ground - it is also blurred at the extreme ends.

Reply 51

demx9

3

Original post by SotonianOne

I'm in favour. Free trade and unified regulations are great.

only 5 out of 25 sections are about free trade .. most of it is about giving more power to corporations and disguised as a trade agreement

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 52

SotonianOne

3

Original post by demx9

only 5 out of 25 sections are about free trade .. most of it is about giving more power to corporations and disguised as a trade agreement

Depending on what the extent of power sharing will go to with corporations I don't think I will mind, the free trade economical benefit will cancel out any detriment.

Reply 53

L i b

19

Original post by demx9

only 5 out of 25 sections are about free trade .. most of it is about giving more power to corporations and disguised as a trade agreement

Can I ask what these 25 sections are, to your mind? A link to a document will be fine.

Reply 54

KarlOMarx

Original post by L i b

Can I ask what these 25 sections are, to your mind? A link to a document will be fine.

European politicals promote TTIP as a great way for economic growth, but this has already been debunked as a lie.The main Problems are standarts. Both European and the USA have economic standards, wich are the main Reason why no one stands behind TTIP and this has nothing to do with extreme right or left.

For Example: Food. Europeans have higher Standards in Food then the USA. Higher doesnt mean "High enouth" in some cases, but it is true.One Question is: What standarts do we need?Representatives say they will take the highest Standards, but TTIP also means court of Arbitration.The use of those courts mean that industrials can complain about economic disadvantages and can receive damages (erm ... money ... alot ..) from the country wich "causes" these damages by higher Standards.I hope u understand my english so far.

At the End you can TTIP translate with economic damage (high plaintive hum wich damages our economy), softening of standards and neither USA or Europe anything on the pro side, unless you are a big player in industry.

Oh and Fracking is a big Deal for Euopean. With TTIP also Fracking comes to Europe and we disagree with this technology because of the ecologically damage.

There is some kind of new awarness growing in Europa wich comes along with Occupy, other Movements and political Events in the last 15 Years. More and more people are aware of the fact this system is not what we want. Europa has to make sure where we are and where we want to go and most Germans asure that TTIP heads into a wrong direction.
We like the USA, but you should copy only the good from other Countrys. Not the worst. (We are not that much into this "sue for your rights" Stuff, just for example).

Ps. Please do not interchange the European will with political interessts. At least the Union Party (Angela Merkel) in Germany does absolutely not respresent the will of the German People. German democracy has its mistakes. There is no majority for those politics like TTIP, NATO Forces (US Tanks, bombs and Drones in our country), Arm Trading, Putin Bashing, refugee policy et cetera.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 55

demx9

3

Original post by L i b

Can I ask what these 25 sections are, to your mind? A link to a document will be fine.

kek, the whole point of it is it's secret .. we just know from the leaks

Reply 56

L i b

19

Original post by demx9

kek, the whole point of it is it's secret .. we just know from the leaks

Fine, I accept that. It isn't drafted, but there have been materials leaked. So could you clarify which particular leaked document are you referring to?

Reply 57

L i b

19

Original post by KarlOMarx

European politicals promote TTIP as a great way for economic growth, but this has already been debunked as a lie.

No it hasn't.

The main Problems are standarts. Both European and the USA have economic standards, wich are the main Reason why no one stands behind TTIP and this has nothing to do with extreme right or left.

For Example: Food. Europeans have higher Standards in Food then the USA. Higher doesnt mean "High enouth" in some cases, but it is true.One Question is: What standarts do we need?Representatives say they will take the highest Standards

Well, hold on, the four largest political parties in the UK - Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP - all support TTIP, but each hold concerns and have set out what they want to be in the agreement. None of them reject it, as you are suggesting, they simply want an agreement that's effective.

As for Europeans having higher food standards: I don't necessarily agree. The US has maintained overly cautious standards on imports in many prominent occasions.

After BSE, the EU blocked UK beef exports in 1996. It raised them in 1999, but France maintained its ban for longer. Under the threat of huge fines from the European Commission they were forced to lift these bans.

Meanwhile the United States continued to ban not only British beef, but all EU beef until 2013 - over 15 years later. They also ban a number of products readily sold in the UK: haggis being a fine example given the many appeals from the top of the British government to repeal their ban and allow it in. Horsemeat, while frowned upon in Britain, is entirely legal to import here: the US have none of that. You can't even get a bloody Kinder egg over there, because the toy inside it is considered a danger to public health.

These were the same scare-stories put about when we were going into the European Community in the 70s. Amazingly, we've got by without any notable decline in our regulatory standards - if anything, they've increased. The France situation I mentioned above shows, however, that import bans can be used as political tools to block free trade and, rightly, they should be overturned. This happens already.

but TTIP also means court of Arbitration.The use of those courts mean that industrials can complain about economic disadvantages and can receive damages (erm ... money ... alot ..) from the country wich "causes" these damages by higher Standards.I hope u understand my english so far.

It does. And who better to rule on matters of this nature than an impartial tribunal? I don't want British goods blocked from export on political whims or simply to advantage another country's producers. I want regulation to be based on sound principles and evidence, in line with the law. That's what these tribunals would uphold.

Oh and Fracking is a big Deal for Euopean. With TTIP also Fracking comes to Europe and we disagree with this technology because of the ecologically damage.

The UK Government doesn't disagree with fracking, but that's besides the point: there has been no suggested content in TTIP that would require fracking licences to be granted to anyone.

There is some kind of new awarness growing in Europa wich comes along with Occupy, other Movements and political Events in the last 15 Years. More and more people are aware of the fact this system is not what we want.

In my view, this 'new awareness' you speak of is nothing new at all. It's a lot of old and damaging concepts rebranded for the modern age: conspiracy theorism, protectionism, suspicion of the intentions of foreigners and plain old scaremongering.

Reply 58

TimmonaPortella

21

This is one of those topics in relation to which most people know nothing and yet still manage to get apoplectic over. Treaties protecting investments and harmonising regulations are perfectly standard and have a clear and entirely proper purpose, that is to reduce trade barriers and give investors confidence that they will have some international recourse if a government, say, decides to expropriate their property. The idea that there are going to be terms in this treaty that would allow corporations to require the NHS to be privatised or the minimum wage to be kept low or anything of the sort is ludicrous and if you believe this nonsense you need to stop listening so much to Owen Jones.

Reply 59

KarlOMarx

First things first.

Original post by L i b

In my view, this 'new awareness' you speak of is nothing new at all. It's a lot of old and damaging concepts rebranded for the modern age: conspiracy theorism, protectionism, suspicion of the intentions of foreigners and plain old scaremongering.

conspiracy theorism: In rare cases, absolutely. However, we live in a world of Conspiracy practice. Nothing wrong with asking Questions.
protectionism: Disagree.
suspicion of the intentions of foreigners: Totally disagree. The awarness i am speaking of is system related and i am not speaking of any rothschild NWO storys.
plain old scaremongering: Nothing substantial here. Politics use these Methods to build up a new "Hitler" evrytime Geo-Political interrests comes up or for daily politics. This whole sovereign debt crisis and globalization stuff is a whole scaremongering campaign. I mean the awarness of understanding these techniques and basics like our money system - because it goes hand in hand with our politics.

Original post by L i b

Well, hold on, the four largest political parties in the UK - Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP - all support TTIP, but each hold concerns and have set out what they want to be in the agreement. None of them reject it, as you are suggesting, they simply want an agreement that's effective.

Original post by L i b

No it hasn't.

Yes it has.
Representative and politics sayd there will be a economic growth more then 5%.
Recalculations revealed that this Number is an estimated and not sure growth of economic expected for 10 Years runtime. Maybe.
Why do we need TTIP if there is no profit?
Maybe because of the same reasons the negotiations are not public, i dont know.

I dont care about what partys think as long as they do not act in interrest and will for their people. In Germany this is actually (and also with TTIP) just not the case. I believe anyone in this Thread sayd "Do not trust politics" and i totally agree with that.

The discuss about the standards (who has the best) doesnt lead to anything, specially when we are going to talk about BSE. My english also is not good enouth to discuss this much further, sorry.

Original post by L i b

It does. And who better to rule on matters of this nature than an impartial tribunal?

Country Courts.
Impartial does not mean "not to sale" and we are speaking Big Industrials and billion transactions. Honor to regulation, but we are speaking of Reality. No Space for false understood ideology. Just have a look at the North American Free Trade Agreement. "Impartials Tribunals" jsut dont work as their should and are extremly expensive.

Original post by L i b

there has been no suggested content in TTIP that would require fracking licences to be granted to anyone.

https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Fttip-faktencheck-fracking-europas-riesiger-energiehunger-1.2066306&edit-text=&act=url

Original post by Timmona

This is one of those topics in relation to which most people know nothing ...

Carefull ...

Original post by Timmona

Treaties protecting investments and harmonising regulations are perfectly standard and have a clear and entirely proper purpose, that is to reduce trade barriers and give investors confidence that they will have some international recourse if a government, say, decides to expropriate their property.

Political Catchphrases like "reducing trade barriers" are no major way out not to think or talk about the consequences when it comes to real economy.

But this was not ment to be a debate anyway.
Would be unfair.

Ps. Owen Jones?

(edited 8 years ago)

TTIP Monster Rumbles On

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you