Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Not to fault Wikileaks but…[edit]

The leaked draft documents are now 9 months old, and quite a bit of negotiating has presumably gone on since then. They are not particularly good as references — though there's nothing else available — without some caveats. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs

The ball isn't really in Wikileaks' court in this regard - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
True, but it would be worth noting the age and relevancy of the documents in the citations. Bongolian (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If I'm being personally honest...[edit]

...I think the Alex Jones quote is not far off, not immensely hyperbolic, and also not loony. I know it's tempting to follow that with, "Said no one ever," but I mean it. Am I crazy?

P.S: I still appreciate the humorous way that section was written. Hat's off to you, Reverend Black Perry. Rand0 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Soo... Is all hope lost?[edit]

I've lost sleep, seeing that this shit will set back humanity a century or two of progress. Now that signature is looming over, is this gonna be the world as we know it?-- (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It'll bump up free trade, and that'll be most of the real impact. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? The Tumblr post I've read is pretty well-sourced, and I'm pretty sure it could turn this couyntry into a cyberpunk dystopia. besides, your article yourself criticizes parts like Copyright, "restricts the power of governments to offer public health care[5]", "would lengthen and strengthen drug patents (they already last 30 years in the US, even if they were researched and developed on the government's dime and handed over to a drug company), allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge higher prices for medication", the like. I'd suggest you attempt to be a bit more... consistent, RATIONAL [sic] Wiki. :) --TASOfficial (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've see you idiots contest nothing I say. All i need to know.--TASOfficial (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Or none of us have been paying attention in the last four hours to the talk page where there isn't much discussion, while other more highly discussed topics are taking up the "Recent Changes" spots? Have fun on your high horse. (P.S. the opinion of one user != opinion of all users) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Clearly none of you have read the leaked parts of the bill that threaten our Net Neutrality, lack of internet censorship, ISP monitoring or giving corporations the ability to sue governments over losing "potentian profits", Abolition of Universal Healthcare, Giving Pharmacy companies too much leeway on their medicinial pricing AND lack of regulation for negative side-effects (From headaches or even death), The dystopian version and every corporatation's Wet Dream version idealist of copyright, Abolition of human rights Risking fair use in copyright, Anti-environmentalist Abolishing the constitution (At this point it's far from constitutional), No food regulation (GMO or otherwise), and now, Corporations Backing it up. OH, don't get me started with the fact that Senators were paid by corporations to support this.

I wont go as far as to claim Rational Wiki (or whoever runs this hivemind) is being paid by those corporations, because the tone of your article says otherwise, but you guys clearly have your heads in the sand. Either protest and realize how fucked we are or learn to get on with this new Cyberpunk Dystopia!--TASOfficial (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

We have the official publication now[edit]

It might be worth redoing the page by examining the final will show a lot of those fears are teetering on slippery slope fears.

Not to say the thing is perfect but right now a lot of the info is based on really old drafts.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Did nobody here seriously do any research?[edit]

These courts which corporations will supposedly use to strip governments of their power are already in dozens of free trade agreements, and the vast majority of the time the governments are the ones who win in these disputes. It's nothing but baseless fearmongering to say that governments are 'signing away their sovereignty'. Government regulations will only be overriden by the court if they apply differently to foreign and domestic companies. Thus, environmental regulations are entirely fine and will not be struck down. They will only be struck down if the domestic government discriminates in their enforcement of this regulation and fails to hold domestic companies to the same standard as foreign ones.

There are some problems with the TPP, namely the issue of pharmaceutical copyrights. That doesn't mean that this wiki should stoop to borderline infowars level of fearmongering. Erik Tiber (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Shhh, you'll anger the anti-free-trade Berners here. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Erik. The aversion of some leftist to free trade is sickening, to the least. Horseshoe theory in action. Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Well said. TheEOE (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)