Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 April 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Reads like conspiracy theory

Not least due to no cites. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 11:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For all I've seen, it is a conspiracy theory. I don't like some of the attributes of the thing, but "corporations will displace governments because of nefarious scheme X" is a conspiracy prototype we should all be able to spot by now. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't all treaties negotiated in secret anyway? Because making demands you don't actually need in order to negotiate them away for the ones you do is smart diplomacy but looks like capitulation to the public. CorruptUser (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

These treaties in particular are seriously problematic in practice, with lots of objection from non-insane NGOs - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And that's fair, but maybe our article should describe and account for the conspiracy theories and summarize the "it's still shit" point too. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can nutpick some loonies if you really really need to, but the sane opposition is quite sufficient and actually noteworthy in the wider world, and if you don't know about it but want to pontificate on the topic anyway then that's a problem with you rather than with the objections - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Holy Shit!

Holy shit! Politicians have to be ACCOUNTABLE to the public, and what they have to be most accountable about is what laws and treaties they want to enact!--Arisboch (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

They aren't. Money gets them elected, and post citizens-united the $500 a good voter can donate is nothing compared to the millions GE/Sony/etc can donate. We get the representation that is paid for. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that might be the reason the copyright laws are the way they are today.--Arisboch (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The asinine copyright laws are much less "the people that want more copyright bribe congress" and much more "the people that want more copyright are the very same people that own all the news companies".CorruptUser (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Close enough (the record labels or, rather, the companies owning the record labels, do own all the news companies? That's news to me).--Arisboch (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more MPAA and television than RIAA. NBC and MSNBC are owned by GE, FOX News is Fox obviously, CNN is Time Warner, ABC is Disney, the Daily Show is Viacom. You piss off copyright holders, and the press turns on you. CorruptUser (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Governments signing away their power

Seriously, what's up with that? Why would politicians give up powers and empower big corporations — the one thing that can defy government authority these days. Are they all being bribed or minarchists? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Because they're in the lobbyists' pockets - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

They are giving up power for the future, likely long after they are retired or have died. Easy payout now and if it gets too bad people can maybe reverse it. No one they know is likely to suffer. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)