
Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Is Reached - shill
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0
======
tptacek
Just a reminder: the TPP, like most trade deals, is _negotiated_ in secret,
but _ratified_ in public. The final version of the deal will be published in
30 days, and then Congress gets 90 days to consider before an up-or-down vote.

The 90-day thing is a result of Trade Promotion Authority granted by Congress
to the administration. This is the "fast track" Congress voted to allow the
President. It means the bill can't be filibustered.

~~~
marcosdumay
Well, isn't that the entire problem at the US side? Your Congress has 60 days
to read and understand several thousand of badly written legalese, and make a
decision on it.

~~~
tptacek
They have 90 days from publication, don't they?

At any rate: every member of Congress has a staff with a million dollar annual
payroll.

Are they going to carefully review the TPP for problems? Of course not. But
the negotiation process has nothing to do with that. They'll vote for or
against free trade as a valence issue and nothing more. What few surprises
we'll get will be a pure result of election year posturing against Obama.

As for whether this is a problem, again, I think that boils down to a valence
issue. Either you believe that free trade and trade rule harmonization led by
the US is a good thing, or you (reasonably) do not. If you don't, then the
process we have now is terrible, because that process creates the potential
that trade deals will happen. Because of course, if Congress was looped in on
TPP negotiation from the outset, with advise-and-consent on each successive
draft, there could be no trade deal. This Congress couldn't work out an
agreement to fund a pothole repair if the repair was close to a contested
district.

Remember here we're talking about Congress deciding about laws _for other
countries_ , much more so than for their own.

~~~
crdoconnor
>As for whether this is a problem, again, I think that boils down to a valence
issue. Either you believe that free trade and trade rule harmonization led by
the US is a good thing, or you (reasonably) do not.

Not really.

The TPP is largely a mechanism for stripping sovereignty from signatory
countries and handing it to corporations. It does this by creating a mechanism
whereby they can sue governments in secret courts for lost profits.

Sure, there are probably a few provisions in there about agricultural tariffs,
but trade liberalization isn't really what it's about.

~~~
jcranmer
That is as accurate an assertion as saying that Obamacare enables death panels
to ration health care.

A better way to describe the relevant clauses is that corporations can sue
governments under an international tribunal system if governments are failing
to uphold their commitments to an international law. It's basically the same
sort of process that was used when, say, the US and Great Britain had a
dispute about the boundary of Maine.

~~~
crdoconnor
>A better way to describe the relevant clauses is that corporations can sue
governments under an international tribunal system if governments are failing
to uphold their commitments to an international law

It's got jack shit to do with international law.

The wording in the agreement uses the term "indirect expropriation".

It's defined as "where an action or series of actions by a party (government)
has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of
title or outright seizure".

i.e. lost profits caused by legislation. kinda like when Australia decided to
put warning labels on cigarette packs.

Oh, and the supra-national court will be adjudicated by some corporate lawyers
who can probably relied upon to interpret the wording of the above agreement
in the "right" way.

~~~
tptacek
Once again: the TPP excluded tobacco from ISDS.

~~~
crdoconnor
And? It's still a clear example of how the ISDS would be used (by other
corporations).

~~~
tptacek
Maybe instead of repeatedly providing an example that the treaty specifically
excludes, you could find one that would be enabled by the treaty.

~~~
guelo
Yea, it would be great if we could debate the actual treaty.

------
belorn
Will be interesting to see how much of the leaked chapters is still in there.
The old one said to make ISP's more liable for data being transfered through
it. Imports of copyrighted goods without the authors permission will be made
illegal (and they said barriers to international trade was dead). Copyright
Terms will be extended in several countries. DRM protection is extended so
that those who "enabl[e] or facilitat[e]" circumvention can be charged even if
they do not violate a copyright (fun time for researchers). Last it dictate
that generic medicine is destroyed if such happen to be found in a country
where a patent cover it (all those who complain about Russia burning smuggled
food might find this interesting).

~~~
hiram112
Funny how globalization was going to flatten the world for everyone. Turns out
it doesn't actually include the plebs.

Capital gets to traverse the world - its factories spewing waste and
arbitraging cost of living and currency differences in SE Asia, its profits
reported in tax-resorts like Ireland and the Cayman Islands, and its
protection guaranteed via the US Military courtesy of the US middle class.

But should a lowly citizen try to pull a stunt like importing a medicine from
India or purchasing a text book from Hong Kong, well that's against the law.

~~~
seiji
It isn't free trade without also free immigration.

Global free trade without global freedom of movement is just profit
rearranging for corporations.

~~~
Camillo
Right. The American worker lost his job because he was undercut by people
who'll do the job for a third-world salary in third-world conditions. The
solution is to let the American migrate to the third world so he can join the
fun. How could we have been so blind?

~~~
seiji
It's like how the Affordable Care Act had to contain mutually reinforcing
requirements for insurance. You can't have insurance that covers pre-existing
conditions _unless_ you also require everybody be insured. Otherwise, people
would only buy insurance when they get sick.

You have to toggle both knobs at the same time to make sure the system doesn't
become unbalanced.

With trade+immigration, you can't allow the free movement of capital without
also giving people the option of following their jobs to places long removed
from their origins.

Is it practical? Not entirely, but the road has to flow both ways.

~~~
Camillo
The two knobs you want to touch in this case go in the same direction. You're
not balancing anything. You're just touching knobs for the sake of it.

If you wanted to balance things, you'd pair an open market with shared rules
on safety, environment, labor rights, etc.

~~~
seiji
We should invite the world to live in America, then when the rest of the world
is empty, take it over, make it all modern, then we can all have our non-
polluting futuristic countries of equality and proper environmental
regulations and building codes and renewable power transmission without trying
to negotiate with hundreds of mutually unnegotiateable peoples.

The ole' america swircherroo.

------
jussij
In other words a handful of multinationals, prepared to pay millions in
endorsements in hand outs to corrupt politicians, have got exactly what they
wanted.

So much for the democratic process and in fact stuff the democratic process.

This deal gives a handful few even more power in controlling the world
economy. It lets them screw not only the local worker, but the ability to
screw ever worker in the world, in the name of prosperity.

While I hate the fact that such an obvious power grab is happening, what I
hate more is the youth of today seem to let this shit happen.

Use your voice and vote out that crap!!!

Sadly my prediction will be, nothing unlike the last ten years, where as the
minimum wage remains flat (or maybe even declines), the corresponding CEO wage
will see ten fold increases thanks to this amazing free trade deal :(

~~~
pyrocat
I agree, but let's not rush to blame "the youth". "The youth" has been writing
and emailing and calling Congress to tell them we care about this issue but
it's not like they really listen to their constituents when so much campaign
money is on the line.

~~~
guelo
I'd guess that less than .00001% of the youth, or any other generation has
written to congress.

~~~
michaelleland
Careful on the zeros... .00001% of 318,900,000 people (current population of
America) is 31.89 people, and even rounded I suppose they get a few more than
that.

~~~
guelo
Ah yes, the percent tripped me up. I was thinking maybe a few thousand
letters.

------
bko
I hesitantly applaud such trade deals. I know that they are rife with
corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism of politically favored domestic
industries but it is better than the alternative. Interdependence and trade
have led to a much safer world and a rising global standard of living for all.

~~~
ckozlowski
>I know that they are rife with corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism

Actually, the goal was to eliminate a lot of that.

In trade, countries usually have two general aims:

1\. Negotiate reduction or elimination of tariffs in foreign markets so that
domestic producers can expand abroad.

2\. Protect their own domestic producers from foreign competition by retaining
the import tariffs that keep them competitive.

So, Japan subsidizes its domestic rice farms and tarrifs rice imports, but
wants to sell its cars unfettered. Brazil wants to export its oranges and
other produce more, the US wishes to export more of it's beef and cattle
market. (These are the ones I'm thinking of off hand.)

The thinking goes however, that nations will gain more if they can all agree
to open their tariffs, and allow goods to "trade freely". This means that
while there will be short term disruption and decline in some markets, that
their economies will have net growth on the whole, because economics is not a
zero-sum game. For the TPP, the math is somewhat easy: One or more domestic
industries will face internal competition, while their export markets will now
be open to a dozen new countries. If they all do this, it's a net gain. (So
the thinking goes.)

The portions that people seem to take issue with mostly in our line of
interest have to do with the intellectual property provisions. This is to
shore up the mismatch in legal protections that exist in countries with weaker
IP laws. You can more or less sum this up with pointing out that pirated
software and media is sold openly in countries like China and Vietnam. The
provisions pertaining to those are other countries saying "Look, we'll trade,
but only if you respect our IP."

Whether or not you agree with those provisions is of course, the million
dollar question, and on things like that, the fate of the TPP depends. But
that's the rationale.

And yes, you're exactly right, a rising global standard of living is /exactly/
what everyone wants. It's not some evil conspiracy, it really is that. And so
long as no one can game the system (too badly), that's exactly what will
happen.

(More reading on that last point. Can't recommend it enough: In Defense of
Globalization - Jagdish Bhagwati [http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-
Globalization-With-Afterwor...](http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-
Globalization-With-Afterword/dp/0195330935) )

~~~
rnnr
There is no need of a complete unilateral agreement. CountryA benefits from
free trade with CountryB even if the later imposes tariffs to some products of
industries they want to 'protect'. It's CountryB which will not have as an
optimized economy as it could.

~~~
bko
This point seems to be counter-intuitive but I believe it to be true. David
Ricardo had deep insights into this very idea in the 1800s. I remember his
arguments as being very persuasive.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo)

~~~
ashark
Ricardo assumed immobile capital.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Free_mob...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Free_mobility_of_capital_in_a_globalized_world)

------
137
In general, agreements like this seem to be a threat to classical liberalism.
Perhaps this is a simplified view but integration is a 7-stage process that
ends with supranational organizations and political unions. Or to be specific,
an eventual global government rooted more in EU-style bureaucracy rather than
(in theory) American-style classical liberalism.

MEP Daniel Hannan elucidated this nicely in a speech regarding the Treaty of
Lisbon-

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsAmAgn_i8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsAmAgn_i8)

Details on the 7 stages and lists of these agreements from the first 2 stages-

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_agreements)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multilateral_free_trad...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multilateral_free_trade_agreements)

------
raur
"TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due
process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and
the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet
their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most
fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens."

[https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp](https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp)

------
kome
To put those different "Trade Deal" in their context, wikileaks has made a
short but informative video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ)

tl;dr - US is trying to rewrite the rules of world trade because they are
scared by mounting BRICS influence over the World Trade Organization.

~~~
debacle
US is not really scared by BRICS at all. They're scared by China, and India
maybe, but the other three economies have been pretty handily defused.

~~~
copsarebastards
I don't think Russia can be ignored in light of growing relations between
Russia and China. Russia and China have different economic strengths and
weaknesses that make a Russian/Chinese bloc stronger than the sum of its
parts. A large part of US diplomatic work in the Middle East over the past
year has been an effort to undercut Russian oil prices so that Russian oil
isn't economically viable, with great success. But this is a band-aid. Even
with the current US economy, the incentives that the US is providing to i.e.
Saudi Arabia to keep oil prices low are tenuous; a dip in the US economy will
make it impossible to maintain these incentives even if Saudi Arabia continues
to be satisfied with them.

------
lighthawk
> For the first time in a trade agreement there are provisions to help small
> businesses without the resources of big corporations to deal with trade
> barriers and red tape. A committee would be created to assist smaller
> companies.

That's awesome. But, if you have that much of a problem, why form a committee
to help smaller companies- why not just make it easier for everyone? And what
good will a committee really do? Why not just say, "We promise to make trading
with foreign entities just that- you won't have to deal with the U.S.
government and foreign government at all."

~~~
copsarebastards
> But, if you have that much of a problem, why form a committee to help
> smaller companies- why not just make it easier for everyone?

How long do we have to try this idiotic idea before we recognize that "making
it easier for everyone" only helps big corporations?

~~~
lighthawk
That's not what I was saying. I was saying that government shouldn't impose so
much red tape that small companies need a committee assigned to help them,
when it is not known whether that committee will necessarily get them through
the red tape as efficiently as a big company that has more resources
available.

~~~
copsarebastards
You can't just talk as if "red tape" is this thing that is just hanging around
getting in people's way. Red tape usually exists for one of 2 reasons:

1\. Corporations have done something bad that wasn't illegal, so regulation
was created to prevent them from doing that. 2\. Corporate interests have paid
off politicians to make laws that favor them.

Ideally we could reduce red tape by cutting out only the laws in category 2,
but in practice, corporate interests cut both ways: they screw things up when
creating laws and they screw things up when removing laws. Moves to reduce
regulation almost always cause more harm than good, letting big corporations
go back to doing bad things they were doing before. History is rife with this
kind of deregulation: the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example. No move to
deregulate that I know of has resulted in a better situation for small
business. Deregulatory movements are almost always driven by monopolistic
large corporations.

------
teekert
Wow: The New York Times is very clear on its political preference: "Donald
Trump has repeatedly castigated the Pacific trade accord as “a bad deal,”
injecting conservative populism into the debate and emboldening some
congressional Republicans who fear for local interests like sugar and rice,
and many conservatives who oppose Mr. Obama at every turn."

~~~
jonknee
What part of that isn't accurate?

~~~
teekert
Saying "injecting conservative populism" without any example and counter
argument just comes across very dumb. They want to form an opinion for me and
I'm very well capable of doing that myself based on facts. This really
downgrades the NYT for me.

~~~
jonknee
Have you followed Trump's campaign at all? It's very much conservative
populism and it's causing a huge rift in the GOP.

~~~
teekert
Ok, I looked it up on the book of knowledge: "Right-wing populism is a
political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and often
combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. It is considered populism
because of its appeal to the "common man" as opposed to the elites."

I thought populism was associated with just saying anything that is popular
but not necessarily true and based on circular references or other obfuscating
techniques to score easily with people of low education/IQ/logical reasoning
skills.. I see I was wrong. In that case, perhaps my original remark is not
valid.

Actually, I agree with Trump very much. The TTIP is horribly elitist.

------
raldi
To any NYT employees who may be reading this: It's 2015, and you're still
using graphics (like this trade map) in a way that shows up tiny on mobile
devices but can't be zoomed in on -- and you've even managed to thwart the
usual "tap and hold, then Open Image in New Tab" trick.

This is the sort of thing that makes people demand ever-ridiculously-huger
smartphones.

~~~
iraphael
It's also part of the reason I don't plan on ever buying their subscription.
(The other reason being I disagree with the model and believe in a free open
internet)

~~~
exelius
Don't use your belief in a "free open internet" to justify why you don't pay
for content. I believe in a free and open Internet as well, and as such I
believe NYT is free to monetize however they want. I don't subscribe because I
don't feel that most of their content is that much better than other
publications which I already pay for or consume for free. But a "free and open
Internet" doesn't mean that all the content is available for free.

If nobody pays for news, then the best news we're going to be able to get will
be Buzzfeed articles written by a college student for $0.05 a word. That's a
sad future.

~~~
iraphael
I want to ask you a question but I don't want you to take it as sarcasm. It is
a genuine question.

How is locking content behind paywalls not exactly the same as closing the
web? I don't think there will be a point when all content will be available
for free, but if paywalls are the norm, then how is that web still considered
free and open?

I don't have a solution for what would be a perfect model, but I don't think
paywalling is the answer.

And yes, if news providers have to rely on ads, they will eventually converge
into clickbaity buzzfeed. I don't think that is the solution either.

I think we still have to find a good balance that works for everyone. But just
because ads don't work, doens't mean paywalling works. That's what I meant
with my comment above.

~~~
exelius
Paywalls never will be the norm; I honestly don't think the Internet can
support very many paywalled news sites.

I never liked this line of argument (what if X becomes the norm?) when applied
to markets: if X becomes the norm, it will be because the market is demanding
X more than anything else. If paywalls become the norm, then it will only be
because consumers prefer content produced under a paywall model to content
produced under a "free" model. But the friction of payment alone will prevent
that from happening; so I don't think the free web is really in a lot of
danger.

Now I do think a lot of paywalled sites try to have their cake and eat it too
by posting their articles on news aggregators then presenting a paywall
prompt. I think the news aggregators need to do a better job of blocking these
types of attempts, but they won't because they're funded by advertising and I
would assume paywalled sites are able to pay more to acquire traffic than ad-
supported sites. This is the problem with any funding model where the money
doesn't come from you: others' interests are represented above your own.

NYT is especially bad about using cookie and JavaScript tricks to allow
spiders to grab their articles, but enforcing their paywall on users
regardless. The Economist is a better example; when they post an article
online, it's available to anyone for a period of time (3 months I think?),
then it enters the archives behind the paywall. But there are many other
paywalled articles that never get posted online, and they don't try to promote
that content.

Also, I don't think there is a "perfect model". I think there are varied
consumer preferences and that many models can be successful. There may be
other models we haven't tried yet. But no one model is going to be universal,
and if it is, it will be because the market actually wants it to be.

------
gerty
Does someone know if the treaty has to be ratified by all parties before
becoming a law? If it's rejected by Canadian or NZ parliaments, would it still
be implemented?

~~~
tptacek
That's a good question. I couldn't easily find a clear answer. Do the other 10
parties just go forward with the deal and exclude the defector?

~~~
bryanlarsen
It's certainly quite possible that Canada will defect. We've got an election
in 2 weeks and it's a very tight three way race. The traditional "middle"
party is running on a very left-leaning platform, so opposition to the TPP is
going to be one of the major differentiators between the two left-leaning
parties.

~~~
tectec
It will be really unfortunate if we cannot see the document before the
election. I am not sure we can trust the government to give an honest
assessment of it.

~~~
tonyarkles
Yeah, in a situation where the conservatives don't win the coming election, I
have no problem imagining the NDP or Libs rejecting it on the basis of it
being "a treaty Stephen Harper negotiated in secret"

Although, reflecting on the limited number of campaign ads I've heard, this
seems to be something that no one is really talking about.

~~~
chongli
No one is talking about it? Just yesterday I attended a whistle-stop tour
stump speech by NDP leader Tom Mulcair; he had a LOT to say about the TPP and
the NDP's clear intent to oppose it should Harper try to ratify it in secret.

~~~
tonyarkles
Very cool!

I'll admit that I don't follow the leaders' discussions all that closely; most
of my opinion on what's going on in this race has to do with the ads I've seen
and heard, whether on CBC Radio, TV, or before watching Youtube videos.

My impression that there hasn't been much public discussion about it mostly
comes from the fact that the only memorable place I've seen TPP mentioned has
been on HN.

------
hellbanner
Most of this article is quoting what other people said about the TPP, applying
labels to supposedly specific provisions eg. 'foo expert calling it
"historic"' etc.

Smoke and mirrors until we can actually read the thing. Or change it
ourselves.

~~~
tptacek
You get to read it, all 30 chapters, most especially the riveting passages
about opening dairy markets, in 30 days.

You will not have an opportunity to _change_ it, nor will Congress, but the
opportunity exists to _reject_ it. It's an all-or-nothing proposition.

~~~
hellbanner
Does that have anything to do with selling raw milk?

Political fallout would be huge if this thing doesn't go through, right? All
players in the game are heavily invested in this passing because without it,
years are wasted, so I'm expecting it to pass.

~~~
tech-no-logical
this, to me, is the scariest part of all these deals (TPP, TTIP, CETA, TiSA
etc.) : they seem to be 'too big to fail', so chances are they'll pass simply
because parties involved are 'deeply invested', not because they're actually
good deals...

~~~
enriquec
thats generally they're strategy it seems. literally every year, they say "we
need more money or we have to shut everything down"

~~~
hellbanner
[http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-
Machine/dp/0393...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-
Machine/dp/0393338827)

------
mcv
As much as I am disgusted by the secrecy of these negotiations, the way they
seem to be pushed down our throats, and indeed some of the stuff that was
leaked (like the ISDS), there does seem to be some good stuff in it:

 _" The worker standards commit all parties to the International Labor
Organization’s principles for collective bargaining, a minimum wage and safe
workplaces, and against child labor, forced labor and excessive hours."_

and:

 _" The changes, which also are expected to set a precedent for future trade
pacts, respond to widespread criticisms that the Investor-State Dispute
Settlement panels favor businesses and interfere with nations’ efforts to pass
rules safeguarding public health and safety."_

Who knows? This might actually have turned into a decent treaty. But only
because of all the massive criticism on the bits that leaked through all the
secrecy.

~~~
emodendroket
Those are nice concessions, but I rather doubt that they aren't more than
offset by other provisions.

~~~
mcv
I want to see the concessions before I call them "nice". It's good that they
listened to criticism, but did they listen enough? The basic idea behind ISDS
is to me still a flagrant attack on justice and democracy. The article
mentioned tobacco companies are excluded, which is certainly nice. But I'd
also like to see everything related to public health excluded.

I understand that corporations want to be protected against arbitrary
protectionist law changes that disadvantage them, and I'm fine with that. But
they don't deserve any protection from laws that intend to protect public
health, labour conditions, civil rights, etc.

~~~
emodendroket
I think we're basically in agreement.

------
dougmany
My favorite part:

"Japan’s other barriers, like regulations and design criteria that effectively
keep out American-made cars and light trucks, would come down"

Take our crappy cars Japan!

I also didn't realize the US had a large (25%) tariff on trucks.

~~~
adevine
If our cars our crappy, why should Japan need trade barriers to keep them out?

~~~
EdwardDiego
I drive a Toyota Cavalier, which was built by Chevrolet to sell to the
Japanese, who didn't buy them, so they all got exported to Australia and New
Zealand.

It really is an odd car with questionable build quality and some baffling
engineering decisions - the boot/trunk wouldn't open, which turned out to be
due to the unlocking mechanism coming loose - but it was only connected to the
lock by a single plastic clip, the kind you normally find securing upholstery.

Replacing it with a nut and bolt fixed that, but yeah.

------
rce
Let's say a country wants to pass stronger environmental protections, shorter
copyright terms, or some other legislation which would conflict with the TPP.
How would they do that? Does the treaty need to be renewed every so often at
which point those items can be re-negotiated? Or does this essentially lock in
certain legislation such that it can't be changed in the future?

~~~
rodgerd
> How would they do that?

They pass, then get sued under investor state dispute provisions.

The whole point of the bill is to have countries surrender their right to make
their own laws; the US President has clearly stated that the goal is for the
United States to dictate "the rules" around the world

------
mimo84
Just yesterday I saw here on HN a news about what the TPP actually means for
intellectual property, which should be a quite known problem here in the
community. Interestingly enough though that news has only got 10 points and
right now it is quite low in the list. The first news today in HN is about CPU
caching. What do we need it for if we're losing our rights so quickly?

------
cdubzzz
USTR summary of the deal: [https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-...](https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership)

~~~
rspeer
Thank you.

Everyone in this thread should be reading this link. Yes, it is a one-sided
summary by the agency whose job is to pass TPP. But it is also among the very
small amount of up-to-date information we have about the deal. (We all know
about the leaks from 2011 and 2013. Those aren't news right now.)

This is at least closer to a primary source than the New York Times' glossed-
over description of it.

------
misterbishop
From the candidate who said he wanted to "re-negotiate NAFTA". This is a
betrayal to American workers, and it's a disaster for the Pacific signatories.

The TPP should be treated as a Treaty, requiring 2/3rd in congress. The
majority of the agreement has nothing to do with trade.

~~~
arca_vorago
I thought it was being treated as a treaty, but that's why they passed TPA
(fast-track) so they could curtail congress' power to stop it. What is it
being treated as then?

~~~
misterbishop
Just a trade deal as if it was a new tariff.

------
ddp
Where's Ross Perot when you need him.

~~~
japaget
For the benefit of non-US readers: Ross Perot was a third party candidate for
President in 1992 and 1996 who ran on a platform opposing adoption of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

~~~
arca_vorago
I've rewatched the 92 debates a few times in the last few months, and it's
crazy how spot on he was... it's also worth noting that the 92 debates were
what scared the two parties into corrupting the debate process, joining
together to push out the League of Women Voters and to control the stage to
prevent disruptive third-parties from being so publicly anti-establishment.

~~~
protomyth
He was a pretty good speaker in person. I went to his speech in Fargo to see
what he was about. His book the campaign put together was actually pretty well
reasoned and a lot more concrete than the other campaigns' materials. My
brother joined his party and we got 20% off a hotel room, so I guess hooking
up the corporate discounts worked.

I cannot really argue with the results, but I didn't much care for EDS and
some of their sayings. The whole "eagles fly alone" is factually wrong (watch
a video of them eating) and just plain stupid in the context of software
development.

~~~
noir_lord
EDS have had some massive failures here in the UK, they have a pretty terrible
reputation (though they can't take all the blame, government is just crap at
IT procurement generally).

~~~
protomyth
Also, to be fair to Perot, EDS has been a long time without his leadership. It
was 1984 when GM bought EDS, and that started quite a tussle. In 1996, EDS
became independent and in 2008, it got bought by HP.

------
arca_vorago
I knew when TPA passed it meant that TPP was nearing completion, they passed
TPA (fast-track) because it curtails the power of the congress to stop what I
consider to be the unconstitutional TPP. One of the best resources for both
documents I have found is the podcast Congressional Dish by Jennifer Briney,
who actually takes the time to read the docs and summarize issues.

Personally, I think this is a giant leap towards world government, away from
constitutional representation, and away from free-trade and towards the
oligarchy-controlled globalism.

I plan on digging into it more and writing a summary of my own, because this
is a major issue that we need to push back on hard due to the limitations of
the house and senate to oppose it.

~~~
jrockway
I'm not sure how unconstitutional it is. The Constitution says: "[The
President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

 _I_ wouldn't have written that into the Constitution, but nobody asked me.

------
jmnicolas
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership still faces months of debate in Congress[...]"

So nothing is reached : my understanding of US politics (which is quite
shallow I'll admit) is that the congress majority will vote contrary to
anything Obama wants.

~~~
tptacek
That's true in general but not true in the case of free trade agreements.
Obama's opposition is the party of free trade, and also the party of China
containment.

The fact that Republican opposition voted to fast-track the treaty augurs its
support for the final version. This bill is mostly stuff the Republican party
wants.

~~~
pdkl95
The sudden flip from "we're against anything Obama supports" to suddenly
standing with Obama to support the TPP is highly unusual, and more than a
little suspicious.

~~~
abalos
Often I find that it's not the issues the parties disagree on that I need to
worry about, it's those that get passed quickly and quietly through Congress.

~~~
jazzyk
Spot on - see my post above (In this subthread).

------
jedharris
NONE of the comments defending the TPP reference ANY POSITIVE reasons to
support it. They all reject negative claims or argue process ("It is too
democratic!" "Amendments are often bad!" etc.)

Obviously the TPP has major costs, both directly and indirectly. IF as I doubt
the TPP is worthwhile, then proponents should be able to give examples of its
benefits.

------
Asbostos
How on earth is every country going to pass all these laws? Won't it end up
broken to bits or with some countries quitting?

------
PythonicAlpha
Here is a discussion of and link to the consequences of this "great deal":

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330126](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330126)

------
giardini
So is TPP a treaty or merely a "trade deal"? If a treaty then IIRC only the
Senate is required to ratify it, not "Congress".

~~~
snowwrestler
Trade deals are treaties but have been recently implemented in a way that
requires both houses of Congress to pass them, I believe because the
legislation not only ratifies the treaty, but also changes domestic laws to
comport with the terms of the treaty. Recent free trade agreements like
Colombia and Korea were passed by both houses.

------
kevinalexbrown
The fact that the negotiations were done in secret probably means that most of
the TTP content is being given to journalists by those officially authorized
to speak about it. This isn't unexpected, but it does affect how the TTP is
framed (even if you don't buy the Greenwald puff-piece-for-access argument).

~~~
tptacek
I'm not sure how this even makes sense. The whole treaty will be public for
months before Congress votes on it. What's the "give to get" you're thinking
of here?

~~~
jessaustin
Journalists will be interested in publishing articles about TPP _today_ ,
rather than a month from now. That interest might lead one to lend a friendly
ear to the only people who have actually read the current draft, who just so
happen to strongly support the passage of the current draft.

~~~
tptacek
Why are journalists more interested in publishing articles about TPP further
away from the vote?

~~~
jessaustin
We're discussing TFA, which is already published. There are other reports and
analyses out now as well.

~~~
tptacek
You're claiming here that the _New York Times_ was bought off with early
access to TPP?

~~~
jessaustin
That's an extreme interpretation. KAB started the thread with thoughts about
"how the TTP is framed". I mentioned "lend[ing] a friendly ear". How did we
move from that to "bought off"?

It's not as though NYT are infallible, however, and it is well known that
journalists often become sympathetic to the opinions of those government
officials, company executives, etc. to whom they require _access_ in order to
obtain information they need.

------
ck2
Just a reminder that _this_ above everything else is Obama's legacy no matter
how they try to re-write history.

So if you thought it was bad that the TSA can hold people without even a phone
call to a lawyer, wait until they start putting people in prison over the TPP

------
datashovel
One positive IMO is that Ford Motor Co doesn't like it.

Ford, the company who famously exported so many manufacturing jobs out of US
in the past suddenly grew a heart for the well-being of "future
competitiveness of American manufacturing" ? Probably not.

------
beedogs
Welp, democracy was nice while it lasted.

------
binarray2000
R.I.P. democratic free society.

~~~
theklub
do you know something we don't?

~~~
binarray2000
I don't. No one does (besides people who have negotiated it). AND EXACTLY THAT
IS THE PROBLEM! Those who are elected are kept in the dark, too:
[http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/09/09/german-bundestag-not-
happ...](http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/09/09/german-bundestag-not-happy-about-
being-kept-out-of-ttip-reading-room-in-berlin/)

Maybe we the citizens are just plain stupid to understand so we need to be
persuaded: [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/14292827638/us-
em...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/14292827638/us-embassy-
berlin-offering-cold-hard-cash-people-to-create-pro-taftattip-
propaganda.shtml)

(Just like we were for Iraq war)

One of the examples of the "brave new world":
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-
droppe...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-
pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal)

You want you and your children and grandchildren to live in it?

If TTIP is SOOOO great why secrecy, why so many people who _don 't have_
financial interest in it are against it?

I could write a lot about it...

~~~
blumkvist
Of course it would be negotiated in secrecy. How else do you expect something
to get done? Every political player will get facts out of context and make his
rhetoric out of it, sprinkling emotions and indignation to rally up clueless
people, in order to build up his image or get a political favor. Now imagine
this happening in every country and mass media amplifying it.

Negotiators would have NO room to negotiate. Parliaments have to ratify and
have appropriate time to get themselves familiar with the matter. Stop
drinking the kool aid.

~~~
binarray2000
So basically, you are for sacrificing democracy on the altar of secrecy.
"Clueless people" are always dangerous. And "every political player" can
"rally them up". Yes! That's how it should be! People must be informed and
have rights to organize and protest for or against something. All fan-boys of
diverse trade agreements have only one thing to defend: Secrecy. (And, for the
sanity of the discussion, throw out such words as "drinking the kool-aid")

~~~
blumkvist
Not interested in a discussion. You don't seem to have any regard for
practicalities. Only utopia ridden dreams.

------
mtgx
Unless I skipped it, the article doesn't mention anything about the new
copyright clauses?

------
worik
Paywalled

------
DeBraid
tldr: eventually end more than 18,000 tariffs that the participating countries
have placed on United States exports

\- Goods include: autos, machinery, information technology and consumer goods,
chemicals and agricultural products ranging from avocados in California to
wheat, pork and beef from the Plains states.

\- establish uniform rules on corporations’ intellectual property,

\- open the Internet

\- crack down on wildlife trafficking and environmental abuses

~~~
arca_vorago
Good job summarising the article, but from the leaked documents none of that
seems to stand up to scrutiny. Just letting you know you are regurgitating bad
info.

------
isaacdl
Duplicate here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10331299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10331299)

------
politician
I know of no other act that would so throughly demonstrate the subjugation of
our democracy to corporations than to hold them to a 3-month review of a
complete rewrite of the laws that bind corporations.

We are staring at a phase transition.

When this treaty passes, expect the remaining dominoes to fall hard and fast.

_digusting_

------
dbg31415
Don't worry, Reddit won't have this on the home page for 4-5 hours.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Ironically, Reddit is our best hope for understanding what's in the deal in
time for ratification.

~~~
mfoy_
I love HN and Reddit for this reason, really. It's crowd-sourced insight.

