http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement
QuoteThe Obama administration’s desire for “fast track†trade authority is not limited to passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In fact, that may be the least important of three deals currently under negotiation by the U.S. Trade Representative. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would bind the two biggest economies in the world, the United States and the European Union. And the largest agreement is also the least heralded: the 51-nation Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).
On Wednesday, WikiLeaks brought this agreement into the spotlight by releasing 17 key TiSA-related documents, including 11 full chapters under negotiation. Though the outline for this agreement has been in place for nearly a year, these documents were supposed to remain classified for five years after being signed, an example of the secrecy surrounding the agreement, which outstrips even the TPP.
TiSA has been negotiated since 2013, between the United States, the European Union, and 22 other nations, including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and others scattered across South America and Asia. Overall, 12 of the G20 nations are represented, and negotiations have carefully incorporated practically every advanced economy except for the “BRICS†coalition of emerging markets (which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
The deal would liberalize global trade of services, an expansive definition that encompasses air and maritime transport, package delivery, e-commerce, telecommunications, accountancy, engineering, consulting, health care, private education, financial services and more, covering close to 80 percent of the U.S. economy. Though member parties insist that the agreement would simply stop discrimination against foreign service providers, the text shows that TiSA would restrict how governments can manage their public laws through an effective regulatory cap. It could also dismantle and privatize state-owned enterprises, and turn those services over to the private sector. You begin to sound like the guy hanging out in front of the local food co-op passing around leaflets about One World Government when you talk about TiSA, but it really would clear the way for further corporate domination over sovereign countries and their citizens.
Reading the texts (here’s an example, the annex on air transport services) makes you realize the challenge for members of Congress or interested parties to comprehend a trade agreement while in negotiation. The “bracketed†text includes each country’s offer, merged into one document, with notations on whether the country proposed, is considering, or opposes each specific provision. You need to either be a trade lawyer or a very alert reader to know what’s going on. But between the text and a series of analyses released by WikiLeaks, you get a sense for what the countries negotiating TiSA want.
First, they want to limit regulation on service sectors, whether at the national, provincial or local level. The agreement has “standstill†clauses to freeze regulations in place and prevent future rulemaking for professional licensing and qualifications or technical standards. And a companion “ratchet†clause would make any broken trade barrier irreversible.
It may make sense to some to open service sectors up to competition. But under the agreement, governments may not be able to regulate staff to patient ratios in hospitals, or ban fracking, or tighten safety controls on airlines, or refuse accreditation to schools and universities. Foreign corporations must receive the same "national treatment" as domestic ones, and could argue that such regulations violate their ability to provide the service. Allowable regulations could not be “more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service,†according to TiSA’s domestic regulation annex. No restrictions could be placed on foreign investmentâ€"corporations could control entire sectors.
This would force open dozens of services, including ones where state-owned enterprises, like the national telephone company in Uruguay or the national postal service of Italy, now operate. Previously, public services would be either broken up or forced into competition with foreign service providers. While the United States and European Union assured in a joint statement that such privatization need not be permanent, they also “noted the important complementary role of the private sector in these areas†to “improve the availability and diversity of services,†which doesn’t exactly connote a hands-off policy on the public commons.
Corporations would get to comment on any new regulatory attempts, and enforce this regulatory straitjacket through a dispute mechanism similar to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process in other trade agreements, where they could win money equal to “expected future profits†lost through violations of the regulatory cap.
For an example of how this would work, let’s look at financial services. It too has a “standstill†clause, which given the unpredictability of future crises could leave governments helpless to stop a new and dangerous financial innovation. In fact, Switzerland has proposed that all TiSA countries must allow “any new financial service†to enter their market. So-called “prudential regulations†to protect investors or depositors are theoretically allowed, but they must not act contrary to TiSA rules, rendering them somewhat irrelevant.
Most controversially, all financial services suppliers could transfer individual client data out of a TiSA country for processing, regardless of national privacy laws. This free flow of data across borders is true for the e-commerce annex as well; it breaks with thousands of years of precedent on locally kept business records, and has privacy advocates alarmed.
There’s no question that these provisions reinforce Senator Elizabeth Warren’s contention that a trade deal could undermine financial regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act. The Swiss proposal on allowances for financial services could invalidate derivatives rules, for example. And harmonizing regulations between the U.S. and EU would involve some alteration, as the EU rules are less stringent.
Member countries claim they want to simply open up trade in services between the 51 nations in the agreement. But there’s already an international deal governing these sectors through the World Trade Organization (WTO), called the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The only reason to re-write the rules is to replace GATS, which the European Union readily admits (“if enough WTO members join in, TiSA could be turned into a broader WTO agreementâ€).
That’s perhaps TiSA’s real goalâ€"to pry open markets, deregulate and privatize services worldwide, even among emerging nations with no input into the agreement. U.S. corporations may benefit from such a structure, as the Chamber of Commerce suggests, but the impact on workers and citizens in America and across the globe is far less clear. Social, cultural, and even public health goals would be sidelined in favor of a regime that puts corporate profits first. It effectively nullifies the role of democratic governments to operate in the best interest of their constituents.
Unsurprisingly, this has raised far more concern globally than in the United States. But a completed TiSA would go through the same fast-track process as TPP, getting a guaranteed up-or-down vote in Congress without the possibility of amendment. Fast-track lasts six years, and negotiators for the next president may be even more willing to make the world safe for corporate hegemony. “This is as big a blow to our rights and freedom as the Trans-Pacific Partnership,†said Larry Cohen, president of the Communication Workers of America in a statement, “and in both cases our government’s secrecy is the key enabler.â€
This is scary shit. When we talk about global conspiracies in vague terms, what is not mentioned is the part played by the global reach of corporations like Monsanto and several oil companies. With TISA they are given the ability to sidestep national regulatory policies and safety regulations based on TISA. Uruguay, to their credit, has already opted out
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/09/22/uruguay-does-unthinkable-rejects-global-corporatocracy-tisa/
But if you want to talk global conspiracy, here you go. TPP and TISA and similar trade agreements, made to sound beneficial on the surface, would hand power to a global conglomerate of corporate entities; in effect, giving a few dozens of individuals the ability to operate outside the control of government regulation by elected officials.
The Europeans are a lot more scared than the average Americans. They have much stronger laws on environmental control, working safety conditions, and labor rights. Under that agreement, they would have to lower them to American sub-standard. So there. OTOH, this agreement is to undermine BRICS, particularly China, as it will eventually surpass the US as the biggest economy in the world. Now how can you let the US drop to number 2... Tst,tst...
TPP (Trans Pacific), the European version of TPP and TISA are an unholy trinity of RICO. But then the IMF and BIS are both beyond all laws of all nations, and have been for over 50 years. BIS is pre-WWII and was initially run by Nazis. The IMF has been the primary hit-man against Latin America ... and now S Europe ... Latin Europeans that is. This is really an extension of BIS/IMF to beyond inter-State banking, to inter-State commerce.
One of the many reasons I can never forgive Obama (or the Clintons for their crime spree dating back to the 70s). I expect this kind of thing from DINOs and RINOs ... hence I can only support Sanders and Trump or Third Party. Basically for the Bushes ... it helps them turn the whole world into a neo-Nazi bunker like their ranch in Paraguay. Henry Ford tried to build a kingdom in the Amazon in the early 20th century, called Fordlandia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia
All subsequent wet-dreams by the tycoons and petty bureaucrat tools ... is a reworking of what Nazi Ford was trying to do.
The agreement has been reached on the TPP. It remains that it has to be ratified by the government of each country involved. What will the US congress do? Trump has already made his intentions known that he is against it, even though he hasn't seen the deal. As they say, the devil is in the details...
QuoteThe US, Japan and 10 other Pacific rim countries have signed a controversial and sweeping trade agreement that covers about 40% of the world economy.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will create a new economic bloc with reduced trade barriers between the 12 nations involved.
The deal was signed after five days of talks in Atlanta in the US but has been under negotiation for five years.
It was delayed repeatedly by negotiations over drug patents.
The other countries included in the TPP are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
'We should write the rules'
US president Barack Obama said in a statement that the deal "reflects America's values and gives our workers the fair shot at success they deserve".
"When more than 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can't let countries like China write the rules of the global economy," he said.
"We should write those rules, opening new markets to American products while setting high standards for protecting workers and preserving our environment."
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters the deal was a "major outcome not just for Japan but also for the future of the Asia-Pacific".
If ratified by the individual countries involved, the agreement has the potential to influence trade in everything from dairy produce to cancer treatments.
Supporters say it could be worth billions of dollars to the countries involved but critics say it was negotiated in secret and is biased towards corporations.
Biotech dispute
The final round of talks were delayed by negotiations over how long pharmaceutical corporations should be allowed to have a monopoly period on next-generation drugs.
The US had sought 12 years of protection to encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in expensive biological treatments.
Australia, New Zealand and public health groups had sought a period of five years to bring down drug costs and the burden on state-subsidized medical programs.
A compromise was reached but the agreed protection period has not been confirmed.
Speaking at a press conference following the deal, US Trade Representative Michael Froman hailed the deal as the first to set a period of protection for patents on new drugs, which he said would "incentivise" drug producers.
The Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Association said it was "very disappointed" by the reports that the agreement fell short of the 12-year protections sought by the US.
Job losses
Asked about potential job losses - a criticism of the deal - Canada's trade minister Ed Fast said: "We don't anticipate that there will be job losses. Obviously there will be industries that have to adapt."
The agreement was a "once in a lifetime to shape rules in the Asia Pacific region", Mr Fast added.
The TPP has been championed by Barack Obama, who said previously he hoped it would address "21st century trade issues" such as intellectual property protections, digital trade rights and protections for investors.
The Obama administration also hopes that China, the world's second-largest economy, will eventually be forced to accept the standards locked into place by the TPP.
Trans-Pacific free trade deal agreed creating vast partnership (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34444799)
This is mostly about US pharmaceutical companies being able to gouge in other countries. Y'all know that in the US we pay more for drugs than you do in other countries ... this is about equalizing, in Big Pharma's favor. In the case of the European version, American drug companies could sue the NHS for restraint of trade.
The effects will be far bigger it means any DEMOCRATICALLY elected government which may want to carry out or make a law which is wanted by it's people can be sued and have to pay monies to a foreign firm which did not like that law.
It means that corporations will have monetary control over democratic governments.
Question is this why the American embargoes on Cuba are being broken up, because European companies could sue the American government if these rules were in place?
Its just Capital winning over the mob again.
1. Further power for an international elite that goes back over 100 years
2. Further insulation against accountability of those elites (IMF is like a god legally)
3. This could be just the usual personal aggrandizement, or bureaucratic extension ... or something really evil
Why is everyone so anti-globalization? Over the last 30 years, billions of people escaped poverty due largely to globalization. The record shows that countries that trade substantially are unlikely to go to war against each other. It also forces countries to have equivalent standards in regard to labor laws, quality of products and services. It also entices all countries to innovate in order to better compete and be more efficient.
Oh wait, this is a knee-jerk reaction to One World, One Government...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 05, 2015, 01:44:10 PM
Why is everyone so anti-globalization? Over the last 30 years, billions of people escaped poverty due largely to globalization. The record shows that countries that trade substantially are unlikely to go to war against each other. It also forces countries to have equivalent standards in regard to labor laws, quality of products and services. It also entices all countries to innovate in order to better compete and be more efficient.
Oh wait, this is a knee-jerk reaction to One World, One Government...
When china became a unified state it was the most advanced society on earth, once it had a single government a state education system and a civil service it hardly invented another thing. You might say gun powder, but the elixir that killed the first emperor was more or less gun powder but it took more or less a tousand years to realise how that elixir could be used. Or you might mention ceramics but then you would have to see how much China owes to the Islamic potters contributed to that work.
On the other hand could one of the reasons why Europe became so powerful was that it was not centrally controlled so if you upset a king you only had to move a relatively short distance. Do I have to mention all the artists musicians, thinkers and scientists that did just that?
No I don't want a world government there would be no place to hide from it. It could only ever be a tyranny.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 05, 2015, 01:44:10 PM
Why is everyone so anti-globalization? Over the last 30 years, billions of people escaped poverty due largely to globalization. The record shows that countries that trade substantially are unlikely to go to war against each other. It also forces countries to have equivalent standards in regard to labor laws, quality of products and services. It also entices all countries to innovate in order to better compete and be more efficient.
Oh wait, this is a knee-jerk reaction to One World, One Government...
The best way to solve the world's problems, is to get behind the reestablishment of the British Empire, conquer all the Gunga Dins ... force them to eat shepherd's pies and stout ... and learn the Queen's English ;-) Oh ... the US Empire is British Empire ... stealth mode ;-( Remember, conquest, expropriation and enslavement are for your own good ... particularly if the Chinese do it.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 06:53:28 PM
The best way to solve the world's problems, is to get behind the reestablishment of the British Empire, conquer all the Gunga Dins ... force them to eat shepherd's pies and stout ... and learn the Queen's English ;-) Oh ... the US Empire is British Empire ... stealth mode ;-( Remember, conquest, expropriation and enslavement are for your own good ... particularly if the Chinese do it.
:lol:
In case some of you haven't figured that one: globalization ≠one government.
Abolishing tariff, abolishing artificial quotas, opening to new markets to facilitate exports, all in all that brings lower prices, which benefits the poor and low-wage earners, greater variety of products, and better cooperation between countries instead of conflicts and wars.
So to the anti-global people: get a life.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 05, 2015, 07:10:55 PM
:lol:
In case some of you haven't figured that one: globalization ≠one government.
Abolishing tariff, abolishing artificial quotas, opening to new markets to facilitate exports, all in all that brings lower prices, which benefits the poor and low-wage earners, greater variety of products, and better cooperation between countries instead of conflicts and wars.
So to the anti-global people: get a life.
Yes that is precisely what ISIS is setting out to achieve.
This is pretty much just more of the same. It's just more naked about letting corporate interests fleece consumers.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 05, 2015, 07:10:55 PM
:lol:
In case some of you haven't figured that one: globalization ≠one government.
Abolishing tariff, abolishing artificial quotas, opening to new markets to facilitate exports, all in all that brings lower prices, which benefits the poor and low-wage earners, greater variety of products, and better cooperation between countries instead of conflicts and wars.
So to the anti-global people: get a life.
I will bring you lower prices ... slave labor in S Thailand will bring it ... but not without a price ... there are no free whippings!
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:48:21 PM
Yes that is precisely what ISIS is setting out to achieve.
But ISIS works for the NWO ... they are the bad-cop ... and now Russia is the good-cop. Putin has to please the gnomes of Zurich, same as every other kleptomaniac.
Quote from: SGOS on October 05, 2015, 08:23:06 PM
This is pretty much just more of the same. It's just more naked about letting corporate interests fleece consumers.
Wait until the NHS gets sued for restraint of trade, and the Brits realize that Rumpole of the Bailey is long dead? Things will be so much better when everyone has to pay high prices for medicine, same as us Americans ;-) Lower costs? That isn't capitalism. Capitalism is lower costs for the capitalists ... and poverty for everyone else.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 11:03:31 PM
I will bring you lower prices ... slave labor in S Thailand will bring it ... but not without a price ... there are no free whippings!
In theory. But when I first noticed the great American Company LL Bean starting to sell stuff made in the Far East, I never noticed a drop in prices. In fact, things got more expensive. LL Bean may have made more profit, but none of that seemed to be passed on to consumers. Like any system of economics, capitalism and free enterprise can be perverted by political wrangling and cronyism. It has been and is getting worse. Wealth flows to the top, and our government won't have it any other way.
Baruch is the real conspiracy not that the powers that be are expanding to take over the world, but that is a cover to hide the truth that the economic model of the nwo is unsustainable and they are having to withdraw from territories and they can no longer provide the standard of living that once the population enjoyed.
Steve Keen is an economist that is well worth a read. Especially on the subject of how academic economics has been distorted so that subjects like debt are not taught with any scientific rigger. I have also heard him talk about how 'effortless superiority' is used to stifle debate. A very interesting man.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 06:26:03 AM
Steve Keen is an economist that is well worth a read. Especially on the subject of how academic economics has been distorted so that subjects like debt are not taught with any scientific rigger. I have also heard him talk about how 'effortless superiority' is used to stifle debate. A very interesting man.
A timely suggestion. I'm looking for an interesting read right now.
https://youtu.be/kZOiC9LxZYI
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSUxESMbYufjXOzNBHH4oTDpIH6TfEs0dgQqv8vJsqJlEc2pWd)
There is also lots on youtube of him and other books honestly I think what he says is very interesting.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 06:26:03 AM
Baruch is the real conspiracy not that the powers that be are expanding to take over the world, but that is a cover to hide the truth that the economic model of the nwo is unsustainable and they are having to withdraw from territories and they can no longer provide the standard of living that once the population enjoyed.
Steve Keen is an economist that is well worth a read. Especially on the subject of how academic economics has been distorted so that subjects like debt are not taught with any scientific rigger. I have also heard him talk about how 'effortless superiority' is used to stifle debate. A very interesting man.
There you go reading my mind again. Been following Dr Keene for several years now. What is your take on how the whole Australian government had to conspire to get this one egg head exiled back to the motherland? Brilliant coupe de gras ... the economics department wouldn't fire him, so the government fired the whole economics department!
Any modest spreadsheet wrangler can tell you, that even in a simple economic model (say software development) entropy is inescapable. In the gas chambers, the last person to gasp their last, did it by climbing to the top of the already dead people. Machiavellian that.
Dr Keene's rather modest dynamic models (using tools familiar to mechanical or electrical engineering) are at a whole other level compared to the simplified linear algebra of the folks ... who unlike Dr Keene, never saw 2008 coming.
Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences
I think I'll get this one. Why? Because the cost of Keen's books at Amazon are extraordinarily high (one book is a phenomenal $164), and I can buy a used copy of this one for eleven dollars. But it's a place to start.
I actually find economics a fascinating topic, although it reminds me a lot of philosophy and politics. Basically, you either favor a certain brand, perhaps for some unexplainable reason or you don't for a similar reason. Even less senseless than that, you may favor a brand because the party you affiliate with favors it. Whether the brand accomplishes good or bad is secondary to how it titillates you. It's like poor Republicans voting for Republicans when the end result is that they will only get poorer, or liberals voting for a Democrat who sides with corporate America. And then as they watch the environment get trashed and the cost of prescription drugs soar into space, they satisfy their sense of loss by believing their vote at least went to a guy who had his heart in the right place.
Still, I like learning about economics. I liked it in college, but I only took an introductory course. Whether right or wrong, economics can be thought provoking, and it most certainly affects your life.
Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2015, 07:24:54 AM
In the gas chambers, the last person to gasp their last, did it by climbing to the top of the already dead people. Machiavellian that.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and actually in knowing that we can get information.
You and I both have children, and we both know we would willingly lift them out of harms way at the cost of our own lives. The evidence of a pile of bodies does not tell you whether a person is being lifted or is scrambling on top of, it would all look the same. So when that view is invariably interpreted as 'climbing on top of' it tells us something about the observers that they don't want to see even in that situation humanity could be present.
Could it be there are some so driven by a need to justify their nature that they have to see the world through a lens of selfishness rather than care for one another, which is why the evidence is only ever presented one way?
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 11:03:31 PM
I will bring you lower prices ... slave labor in S Thailand will bring it ... but not without a price ... there are no free whippings!
Without globalization, third-world countries would get none of those jobs, and you would condemn them to Stone Age civilization. Now, it's true that those workers get pittance compare to US workers, but relative to the workers in their own country, they get to have a higher standard of living. Take a trip and go talk them to them before spewing nonsense.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:48:21 PM
Yes that is precisely what ISIS is setting out to achieve.
That's total nonsense. If you believe that you are willfully ignorant or an hypocrite.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 08:31:07 AM
That's total nonsense. If you believe that you are willfully ignorant or an hypocrite.
You are the one calling for one world government and is saying anybody that opposes it 'should get a life', in other words you brook no opposition and you are happy to force what you want on others leaving no space for them.
That is the model of ISIS, Genghis Khan, etc and you fit that model very well.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 08:40:32 AM
You are the one calling for one world government and is saying anybody that opposes it 'should get a life', in other words you brook no opposition and you are happy to force what you want on others leaving no space for them.
That is the model of ISIS, Genghis Khan, etc and you fit that model very well.
Which part of "In case some of you haven't figured that one: globalization ≠one government" don't you understand?
Do you know what "≠" means? Get yourself an education.
Your symbolic assertion is purely symbolic. All countries are trading now, to enforce a global system which is uniform needs an administration. That administration would be by definition a global governance.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 10:07:42 AM
Your symbolic assertion is purely symbolic. All countries are trading now, to enforce a global system which is uniform needs an administration. That administration would be by definition a global governance.
No, as I have written before, globalization has to do with the elimination of tariff and quota, imposed in different measures on a variety of goods and services that each country might impose. YOU DON'T NEED A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT to enforce that. All that is needed is cooperation between countries. Hence a consequence is that these countries are unlikely to go to war against each other since inadvertently these countries develop an inter-dependence.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 10:18:13 AM
No, as I have written before, globalization has to do with the elimination of tariff and quota, imposed in different measures on a variety of goods and services that each country might impose. YOU DON'T NEED A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT to enforce that. All that is needed is cooperation between countries. Hence a consequence is that these countries are unlikely to go to war against each other since inadvertently these countries develop an inter-dependence.
It is a system that nobody would cheat at is it? la la land
and your second assertion lets just look at the wars that are going on now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts)
List of ongoing armed conflicts
Did you see the number of civil wars and internal conflicts there are? How many nation on nation conflicts are there? Even presuming the nation on nation conflicts are between nations that have no inter-dependence your assertion does not seem to have any substance does it?
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 10:38:41 AM
It is a system that nobody would cheat at is it? la la land
and your second assertion lets just look at the wars that are going on now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts)
List of ongoing armed conflicts
Did you see the number of civil wars and internal conflicts there are? How many nation on nation conflicts are there? Even presuming the nation on nation conflicts are between nations that have no inter-dependence your assertion does not seem to have any substance does it?
I don't think you understand the issues being discussed in this thread. We're talking about countries that are part of
free trade agreement, such as NAFTA, EU or the TPP in the OP, not just any country, which your list clearly indicates are at war, which is precisely my point.
You people do love to argue and I love to watch. So much fun.
Elizabeth Warren has not a lot of clout and I have none. I'm not worried personally because I own everything I need and have the financial wherewithal to buy what I want. Ultimately the corporations will do what they want and they have input into government I don't have, so it will eventually go the way they want. Sad, but that is reality.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 10:52:45 AM
I don't think you understand the issues being discussed in this thread. We're talking about countries that are part of free trade agreement, such as NAFTA, EU or the TPP in the OP, not just any country, which your list clearly indicates are at war, which is precisely my point.
I do there are a good number of Brits who do not wish even to be part of the EU. Of the groups I speak to there is a great deal of reticence about how the international trade agreements are being administered now, let alone proposed agreements.
There is a presumption that bigger is better, this is far from true there is if anything a growing number of people that are interested in ideas around smaller states which are more responsive to the local populations.
Think about it this way, I pay a slightly higher price per unit of the gas and electricity I use, because I have chosen a payment plan which gives me better control both out of what I use and when I pay. This benefits me greatly. I do not want a standardized payment plan even if superficially it may seem cheaper. You seem not to be able to recognize that anybody might want other than the cheapest possible low quality goods. The most basic part of Adam Smith's capitalism is the right of choice.
On war
To reduce what you are talking about down to countries which are not at war and then saying it will prevent war is it seems silly to say the least, especially when talking about global. If you state a general principle to back your argument it has to have some substance to it, if you want any sort of persuasive argument.
Quote from: stromboli on October 06, 2015, 11:09:53 AM
You people do love to argue and I love to watch. So much fun.
Elizabeth Warren has not a lot of clout and I have none. I'm not worried personally because I own everything I need and have the financial wherewithal to buy what I want. Ultimately the corporations will do what they want and they have input into government I don't have, so it will eventually go the way they want. Sad, but that is reality.
The king of France owned all of France. Once the people of France realised they were working and paying taxes to support a system that did not benefit them the king fell as he had no support. Britain and America have had relatively few revolutions partly because even though those in control have rigorously pursued self interest at the point of fracture they often pull back enough to allow sufficient to the aggrieved so that they can retain power. One has to wonder if the corporations and banks have the sort of structure that would enable them to do this? How would a C.E.O. explain to the shareholders he has given all their money away this year?
Hopefully big business is intelligent enough to not push too much, but the truth is no system lasts if one party in it only takes. That is reality.
Quote from: SGOS on October 06, 2015, 07:28:38 AM
Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences
I think I'll get this one. Why? Because the cost of Keen's books at Amazon are extraordinarily high (one book is a phenomenal $164), and I can buy a used copy of this one for eleven dollars. But it's a place to start.
I actually find economics a fascinating topic, although it reminds me a lot of philosophy and politics. Basically, you either favor a certain brand, perhaps for some unexplainable reason or you don't for a similar reason. Even less senseless than that, you may favor a brand because the party you affiliate with favors it. Whether the brand accomplishes good or bad is secondary to how it titillates you. It's like poor Republicans voting for Republicans when the end result is that they will only get poorer, or liberals voting for a Democrat who sides with corporate America. And then as they watch the environment get trashed and the cost of prescription drugs soar into space, they satisfy their sense of loss by believing their vote at least went to a guy who had his heart in the right place.
Still, I like learning about economics. I liked it in college, but I only took an introductory course. Whether right or wrong, economics can be thought provoking, and it most certainly affects your life.
Don't bother listening to anyone whose model couldn't predict 2008 ... if it has no accurate prediction, it is bull shit. There were less than 6 economists who predicted 2008, one of which is Dr Keene. Aside from those, they are frauds, just like Adam Smith.
TPP may have already cut in. They just cut the access to prescription pain meds again in my state, maybe in other states. You can't get a multi month prescription as of 2013 ... so they went with single month prescription, but the doctor had to re-approve the script ... and that is OK. Then that wasn't enough, they force us in 2014 to have to pick up the re-approval by hand, face to face in the doctor's office, the doctor's office can't call it into the pharmacy. So now in 2015 they just changed it this week ... now that isn't enough, you have to actually see the doctor for an exam, before you can get the re-approval. So that means my mother must to to the doctor every single month, to get the most essential meds renewed ... the doctor's most recent visit isn't enough. Problem is, can you get a doctor's visit every month, for that prescription limited to month-to-month?
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 11:41:36 AM
I do there are a good number of Brits who do not wish even to be part of the EU. Of the groups I speak to there is a great deal of reticence about how the international trade agreements are being administered now, let alone proposed agreements.
There is a presumption that bigger is better, this is far from true there is if anything a growing number of people that are interested in ideas around smaller states which are more responsive to the local populations.
Most countries have states/provinces, and these are further divided along counties/municipalities. So these smaller jurisdictions are amply equipped to look after local issues. So that is irrelevant to the present discussion.
QuoteThink about it this way, I pay a slightly higher price per unit of the gas and electricity I use, because I have chosen a payment plan which gives me better control both out of what I use and when I pay. This benefits me greatly. I do not want a standardized payment plan even if superficially it may seem cheaper. You seem not to be able to recognize that anybody might want other than the cheapest possible low quality goods. The most basic part of Adam Smith's capitalism is the right of choice.
The right of choice is meaningless if the product you're buying are subject to the tariff/quota imposed by your government are so stringent that very few companies can offer you the same product/service at a cheaper price.
QuoteOn war
To reduce what you are talking about down to countries which are not at war and then saying it will prevent war is it seems silly to say the least, especially when talking about global. If you state a general principle to back your argument it has to have some substance to it, if you want any sort of persuasive argument.
Take NAFTA - which countries in that trade agreement will likely go to war against each other? Which countries in the EU will likely go to war against each other? Answer: none. I'm not saying that it is impossible they will go to war against each other, but very, very unlikely. That is one of the many benefit of these trade agreements. Are there downsides to these agreements? Sure, no agreement is perfect - they are fashioned by humans who are imperfect creatures. But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, otherwise they would have collapsed a long time ago. Also, they are always subject to change/improvements as the countries participating are doing it willingly.
The "countries" aren't making agreements. The governments are making the agreements. And unfortunately, the feral governments have lost their legitimacy with the people. I see this all over the world, developed and developing. Dictatorship and oppression is the ultimate form of society ... not Marx's government-less communism. Without legitimacy, the government (as controlled by an elite) is no more stable or legitimate than a Mafia gang. Without stability, trade agreements won't matter ... just where your gun ammo is. When the elite become lawless ... their peasants follow suit.
Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2015, 12:44:58 PM
The "countries" aren't making agreements. The governments are making the agreements. And unfortunately, the feral governments have lost their legitimacy with the people. I see this all over the world, developed and developing. Dictatorship and oppression is the ultimate form of society ... not Marx's government-less communism. Without legitimacy, the government (as controlled by an elite) is no more stable or legitimate than a Mafia gang. Without stability, trade agreements won't matter ... just where your gun ammo is. When the elite become lawless ... their peasants follow suit.
Define a "legitimate" government.
A legitimate government is one that manages to maintain the support of the people it is managing. This failed in 1788 in France ... and at other times and other places. That is a practical definition. But since it is based on delusion and deceit ... the ultimate definition is that no government is legitimate. But lets ignore that for now. Human beings and their BS organizations are ... monkey shit.
Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2015, 12:52:37 PM
A legitimate government is one that manages to maintain the support of the people it is managing. This failed in 1788 in France ... and at other times and other places. That is a practical definition. But since it is based on delusion and deceit ... the ultimate definition is that no government is legitimate. But lets ignore that for now. Human beings and their BS organizations are ... monkey shit.
Would that mean that Khamenei in Iran, with support of 95% of the population, is legitimate; while Cameron in the UK with 36% is less legitimate? Can you clarify?
You took the words right out of my mouth! Yes, Cameron is ... less legitimate than Khameni ... assuming an honest pole. Congress in the US is so unpopular ... we should be speaking French now.
Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2015, 01:06:28 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth! Yes, Cameron is ... less legitimate than Khameni ... assuming an honest pole. Congress in the US is so unpopular ... we should be speaking French now.
Duh, in the first round, French President Hollande got less than 30% of the vote. From your POV, he is definitely not legitimate. You should learn Russian - Putin has an approval rate of 86%.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 12:39:43 PM
Most countries have states/provinces, and these are further divided along counties/municipalities. So these smaller jurisdictions are amply equipped to look after local issues. So that is irrelevant to the present discussion.
If the country is restricted by a trade agreement from implementing a policy that the population wants because a foreign company does not like it then that very much is relevant.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 12:39:43 PM
The right of choice is meaningless if the product you're buying are subject to the tariff/quota imposed by your government are so stringent that very few companies can offer you the same product/service at a cheaper price.
If I and my country people cannot have what we want, because an external company in another part of the world can extract monies from our country that tarif is a direct restriction on our choice.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 12:39:43 PM
Take NAFTA - which countries in that trade agreement will likely go to war against each other? Which countries in the EU will likely go to war against each other? Answer: none. I'm not saying that it is impossible they will go to war against each other, but very, very unlikely. That is one of the many benefit of these trade agreements. Are there downsides to these agreements? Sure, no agreement is perfect - they are fashioned by humans who are imperfect creatures. But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, otherwise they would have collapsed a long time ago. Also, they are always subject to change/improvements as the countries participating are doing it willingly.
So countries which are not going to go to war, are not going to go to war because they implement a new trade agreement you say, or is it that countries which are not going to go to war don't go to war and the stuff you say that trade agreements affect on this is irrelevant.
I state once again there are significant numbers in the EU and this seems if anything to be on the rise that are rejecting it as a system of government. The Shah of Iran had a linage of kings that went back more than two thousand years. In 1978 you could use exactly the same justification for his rule as you are currently using for the EU etc, problem for the Shah was what happened in 1979.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 03:07:15 PM
If the country is restricted by a trade agreement from implementing a policy that the population wants because a foreign company does not like it then that very much is relevant.
It's an agreement - that means the participating countries willingly signed on. If you as an individual don't like it, tough luck.
Quote
So countries which are not going to go to war, are not going to go to war because they implement a new trade agreement you say, or is it that countries which are not going to go to war don't go to war and the stuff you say that trade agreements affect on this is irrelevant.
Historically tariff/quotas came about on the presumption of war - if our country goes to war, we don't want our country starving or lacking of such goods and services, so let's protect those with tariff/quotas. With free trade agreement, reducing and eventual eliminating those tariffs/quotas, it becomes very hard for a country to go to war. Since now it becomes dependent on those countries to supply needed goods/services. That is the meaning behind what I said earlier - "Countries under a free trade agreement become inter-dependent."
QuoteThe Shah of Iran had a linage of kings that went back more than two thousand years. In 1978 you could use exactly the same justification for his rule as you are currently using for the EU etc, problem for the Shah was what happened in 1979.
Iran is one country, and it was NOT in any free trade agreement with any other country. OTOH, NAFTA includes 15 countries, the EU 28 countries, and the TPP will involve 12 countries and a population of 800 million people.
So as you have not been able to justify your assertions, you are now editing my comments so you can answer propositions which have not been made. . . . sad.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 04:24:15 PM
So as you have not been able to justify your assertions, you are now editing my comments so you can answer propositions which have not been made. . . . sad.
I did not edited any of your comments; and I've made my position very clear. If you haven't understood it by now then maybe this conversion is way over your head.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 02:49:01 PM
Duh, in the first round, French President Hollande got less than 30% of the vote. From your POV, he is definitely not legitimate. You should learn Russian - Putin has an approval rate of 86%.
Thanks for mentioning it. Four years of Russian in HS.
Yes, many people have a hard on for a real man like Putin ... especially after the second chili flavored vodka! ЧÑ,о у Ð²Ð°Ñ ÐµÑÑ,ÑŒ в вашем бумажнике?
Yes, we will all be better off, on average, after China and India F**K us all in the ass. Law of large numbers. So then, San Marino doesn't count for shit then?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 06, 2015, 05:25:25 PM
I did not edited any of your comments; and I've made my position very clear. If you haven't understood it by now then maybe this conversion is way over your head.
That must be it then, I bow to you eminently superior intellect, now I understand why you could not be bothered to give me more than off the peg assertions with out any back up. Yes I am truly grateful that somebody so superior as you could even be bothered to litter this thread with the detritus of crumbs from your high table just for an unworthy worm like me.
kiss kiss mighty one.
Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2015, 07:04:01 PM
Thanks for mentioning it. Four years of Russian in HS.
Yes, many people have a hard on for a real man like Putin ... especially after the second chili flavored vodka! ЧÑ,о у Ð²Ð°Ñ ÐµÑÑ,ÑŒ в вашем бумажнике?
Yes, we will all be better off, on average, after China and India F**K us all in the ass. Law of large numbers. So then, San Marino doesn't count for shit then?
Мой бумажник прекраÑен
Try Monaco. I hear the Casino is splendid.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 07:44:54 PM
That must be it then, I bow to you eminently superior intellect, now I understand why you could not be bothered to give me more than off the peg assertions with out any back up. Yes I am truly grateful that somebody so superior as you could even be bothered to litter this thread with the detritus of crumbs from your high table just for an unworthy worm like me.
kiss kiss mighty one.
Stick around. You might learn a thing or two.
Quote from: SGOS on October 06, 2015, 07:28:38 AM
Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences
I think I'll get this one. Why? Because the cost of Keen's books at Amazon are extraordinarily high (one book is a phenomenal $164), and I can buy a used copy of this one for eleven dollars. But it's a place to start.
I actually find economics a fascinating topic, although it reminds me a lot of philosophy and politics. Basically, you either favor a certain brand, perhaps for some unexplainable reason or you don't for a similar reason. Even less senseless than that, you may favor a brand because the party you affiliate with favors it. Whether the brand accomplishes good or bad is secondary to how it titillates you. It's like poor Republicans voting for Republicans when the end result is that they will only get poorer, or liberals voting for a Democrat who sides with corporate America. And then as they watch the environment get trashed and the cost of prescription drugs soar into space, they satisfy their sense of loss by believing their vote at least went to a guy who had his heart in the right place.
Still, I like learning about economics. I liked it in college, but I only took an introductory course. Whether right or wrong, economics can be thought provoking, and it most certainly affects your life.
One of the big problems with people studying economics is that they don't understand how science works. What does science have to do with economics? Everything. Science, as with economics, deals with models. For instance, in cosmology, every textbook will devote whole chapters to a de Sitter model, which has little to do with the real cosmos. But its simplicity allows to do calculations you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. From there to a model that approximate the real world is often just a few steps. Similarly in economics, whether you take a Keynesian model or a neoclassical or Austrian model, these allow to figure out certain things when certain conditions are in place. The wrong reaction by many people is that these models don't correspond to reality, therefore they are wrong or why bother studying them. That is the wrong approach. You need to study different models as no one single model fits all sizes.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 07, 2015, 07:12:13 AM
Мой бумажник прекраÑен
Try Monaco. I hear the Casino is splendid.
Well if you aren't Grace Kelley, then your wallet will soon be empty ;-)
So for you, economics is you apply capitalism and marxism, and then take the average of the two? ;-))
There is crime in economics, not science. Economics is a branch of politics, which is the original criminal science.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2015, 01:25:23 PM
Well if you aren't Grace Kelley, they your wallet will soon be empty ;-)
So for you, economics is you apply capitalism and marxism, and then take the average of the two? ;-))
There is crime in economics, not science. Economics is a branch of politics, which is the original criminal science.
Politicians also use science to commit their crime. Let's not confuse the users with the tool being used.
All humans are tools ... except for the elite, who are the only users/abusers. Are you elite? Then hang your head in shame.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2015, 07:19:43 PM
All humans are tools ... except for the elite, who are the only users/abusers. Are you elite? Then hang your head in shame.
We are all users and
usees. (I believe I've just invented a new word)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 09, 2015, 09:18:43 AM
We are all users and usees. (I believe I've just invented a new word)
The users and the used, and even I may say their grandmas bow to your self evident and magnificent abilities!
Entomology would not a 'usee' be one that uses? Brilliant quite brilliant.
Exactly, as long as the users and abusers speak German, and have well tailored military uniforms, then we are all good right? End justifies means. The ends being ... I get power, wealth and fame ... you get abasement, poverty and flame. The Nazi mind-set isn't limited to a couple of decades, and not limited to Germans. It is an archetype lurking in every human ... usually at war with their inner Stalin.
People who want to use other people as tools and fools ... I will be happy to reduce your Berlin or Tokyo to rubble. Dr Mengele didn't have a good bed-side manner -(
Quote from: Baruch on October 09, 2015, 07:39:33 PM
Exactly, as long as the users and abusers speak German, and have well tailored military uniforms, then we are all good right? End justifies means. The ends being ... I get power, wealth and fame ... you get abasement, poverty and flame. The Nazi mind-set isn't limited to a couple of decades, and not limited to Germans. It is an archetype lurking in every human ... usually at war with their inner Stalin.
People who want to use other people as tools and fools ... I will be happy to reduce your Berlin or Tokyo to rubble. Dr Mengele didn't have a good bed-side manner -(
Users and abusers came along way before the Germans appeared on this planet. You lose (see, I didn't have to invoke Godwin's law).
As a Jewish person, all Gentiles sometimes seem to act like Germans ... and sometimes they actually do. While none of my relatives that I know suffered during WW II, let alone the Holocaust (and other ethnic groups have suffered ethnic cleansing too) ... I keep having nightmares of Nazis ... and not while I am asleep.
Some people believe in reincarnation or believe that dreams catch some kind of reality. Based on a dream, I believe I could have been a German soldier during WW II. That gives me a different perspective, believing that. I am not horrified by it, but I have greater sympathy for villains. But I keep my powder dry anyway.
Israelis though, for the record ... are a cross between Stalinist Jews (Labor) and Nazi Jews (Likud). Their behavior shows their origins, more than any Kazar genetics ever would. So I am not in that camp. Though I do have some sympathy for Marxist villains too, not just Nazis.
It would take a thousand posts ... to explain how I think that politics is a cesspool of villainy ... should I post them? Rhetorical question ;-) Trade agreements are political. They are part of the cesspool of villainy.
I often refer to Washington DC as our national seat of corruption.
Don't forget the state capitals too ... they will get jealous of Washington DC. But mind you, I am not pointing out villainy because I am righteous ... it is because I am a villain myself, and there is no respect among fellow villains ... in the sense that I am fine warning one set of villains against the villainy of another. Life really is a fairy tale like Princess Bride ... the words we use don't mean what we think they mean ... and we really shouldn't drink the poison cup of a "land war in Asia". Once you open your eyes, it is all Bears and Goldilocks, all the way down ... oh ... that was Alice jumping down the rabbit hole ;-)
QuoteIt would take a thousand posts ... to explain how I think that politics is a cesspool of villainy ... should I post them? Rhetorical question ;-) Trade agreements are political. They are part of the cesspool of villainy.
It is a monster but it's part of the human landscape: throw a bunch of people on an island, and soon enough, a leader will emerge, supported by a small number of henchmen. That's politics in a nutshell.
But it matters who the henchmen are ... are you a henchman or am I a henchman. Being a henchman pays better than being a schlub. And the chief of the henchmen pays better still. So thanks for the empirical observation ... but while what, where and when are important ... so are who, why and how.
Some trade deals are better than others. Hopefully someone can explain why this trade treaty (actually three, TISA, TPP, TAP) are better than the prior arrangement, or how a different set of trade deals would be better than this trio or the prior arrangement. But that would be a different website. May I recommend Naked Capitalist? One of the few honest and progressive economics websites.
Quote from: Baruch on October 11, 2015, 10:42:43 AM
But it matters who the henchmen are ... are you a henchman or am I a henchman. Being a henchman pays better than being a schlub. And the chief of the henchmen pays better still. So thanks for the empirical observation ... but while what, where and when are important ... so are who, why and how.
Some trade deals are better than others. Hopefully someone can explain why this trade treaty (actually three, TISA, TPP, TAP) are better than the prior arrangement, or how a different set of trade deals would be better than this trio or the prior arrangement. But that would be a different website. May I recommend Naked Capitalist? One of the few honest and progressive economics websites.
If you think that you are smarter than any of the folks who work at these international agreements, then get your feet wet and start getting involved, instead of playing Monday morning quarterbacking.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 11, 2015, 04:16:40 PM
If you think that you are smarter than any of the folks who work at these international agreements, then get your feet wet and start getting involved, instead of playing Monday morning quarterbacking.
OK so only those who go to church should criticize religion fair enough.
No wait. . .
Oh sorry I forgot for a moment. . .
your mosque.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 11, 2015, 04:16:40 PM
If you think that you are smarter than any of the folks who work at these international agreements, then get your feet wet and start getting involved, instead of playing Monday morning quarterbacking.
A Catholic priest has a PhD equivalent in religion studies. Why doesn't that impress you? And economics is a bag of tricks, it isn't any kind of science at all ... because it is part of politics. And no, I am not smart enough (aka criminal enough) to be a powerful, famous or rich person ... otherwise I would still trust Dr Kissinger and just ignore all those dead bodies in Santiago Chile. I pointed out a good website that has smart people on it ... for those who want more info ... I have no intention of competing with people who work full time in banking, finance etc. But neither do I trust what they say, given that money is involved ... I at least compare several to get the real story.
Quote from: Baruch
A Catholic priest has a PhD equivalent in religion studies.
Oh no they havent. at least not in any way equivalent with any studies in real matters.
More like in "weird spinoffs of the story of Harry Potter"
Quote from: facebook164 on October 12, 2015, 12:45:53 AM
Oh no they havent. at least not in any way equivalent with any studies in real matters.
More like in "weird spinoffs of the story of Harry Potter"
Context of response ;-) ... otherwise I agree with you.
Quote from: Baruch on October 11, 2015, 09:51:43 PM
A Catholic priest has a PhD equivalent in religion studies. Why doesn't that impress you? And economics is a bag of tricks, it isn't any kind of science at all ... because it is part of politics. And no, I am not smart enough (aka criminal enough) to be a powerful, famous or rich person ... otherwise I would still trust Dr Kissinger and just ignore all those dead bodies in Santiago Chile. I pointed out a good website that has smart people on it ... for those who want more info ... I have no intention of competing with people who work full time in banking, finance etc. But neither do I trust what they say, given that money is involved ... I at least compare several to get the real story.
There's a lot of badass activists who come from humble origins, but keep making excuses and enjoy your Monday morning quaterbacking.
But Gandhi and MLK are dead! The Man killed them.
Gandhi was not from humble origins, Bania, of the merchant caste, but I understand the mistake it is so rare to find a person of the upper orders that gives a shit about anybody else at all that when one does come along there is a presumption they must be of the people.
Dalits, the untouchable caste see him as the enemy, this is not a story spoken about in polite circles or the west that likes it's heroes untarnished.
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2015, 06:51:00 AM
But Gandhi and MLK are dead! The Man killed them.
Yes, humans are mortal... shocking...
Yes the voice of authority always has washed it's hands of responsibility. Outsiders are not allowed to criticise is also a view spread by those in power or seeking it. ISIS blame the kafir for not joining with gawd.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 12, 2015, 08:08:09 AM
Yes, humans are mortal... shocking...
All die, but shall all die as victims of injustice?
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2015, 12:45:42 PM
All die, but shall all die as victims of injustice?
I volunteer you to step up to the plate and fight injustices so that no one will die as a victim of injustice.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 12, 2015, 07:23:22 PM
I volunteer you to step up to the plate and fight injustices so that no one will die as a victim of injustice.
Good for you ... the recruiting station is over on 2nd St and Main ;-) It was a trick question to identify the annoying do-gooders ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2015, 07:25:47 PM
Good for you ... the recruiting station is over on 2nd St and Main ;-) It was a trick question to identify the annoying do-gooders ;-))
So you're telling me that you won't volunteer, how disappointing!
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 07:14:44 AM
So you're telling me that you won't volunteer, how disappointing!
Been fighting asshats for 28 years of my adulthood ... though in civies. But not because of Truth, Justice and the American Way. I don't look so good in spandex ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2015, 07:23:32 AM
But not because of Truth, Justice and the American Way.
Those words, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" if not an oxymoron could be the title of a play that would rival "Waiting for Godot".
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 09:13:12 AM
Those words, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" if not an oxymoron could be the title of a play that would rival "Waiting for Godot".
You are going to need to visit Kal-El at the Fortress of Solitude ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
You are going to need to visit Kal-El at the Fortress of Solitude ;-)
Duh! Just a chunk of kryptonite gives you victory.
All is not too rosy with the TTIP. France is threatening to pull out.
QuoteFrance says it is ready to pull out of talks over the controversial Transatlantic free-trade agreement between the EU and the US, because the "secretive" negotiations were favoring American interests over French ones.
The warning was given by France’s Secretary of State for Foreign Commerce Mathias Fekl, who said Paris is on the verge of pulling the plug on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
The controversial treaty has long been the cause of angst in France and a French minister has given the clearest indication yet that Paris may not be willing to go on with talks that began in July 2013.
Mathias Fekl is angry that France's main concerns are not being taken into account and that the negotiations have so far prioritized American wishes over European ones.
In an interview with French newspaper Sud Ouest, Fekl said the negotiations "either weren't advancing or were progressing in the wrong direction".
"If nothing changes, it will show that there isn't the will to achieve mutually beneficial negotiations. France will consider all options including an outright termination of negotiations,†Fekl warned.
http://www.thelocal.fr/20150928/france-warns-us-over-transatlantic-treaty (http://www.thelocal.fr/20150928/france-warns-us-over-transatlantic-treaty)
There you have it ... voila! I don't think there is a French word for "duh" ... because it is too similar to the French word for "two" ;-)
TPP = Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere ... but run by Americans, not Japanese [=(