
Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex - jamesbritt
https://www.wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/
======
lifeisstillgood
Secret agreements are automatically suspect but this seems like more of the
same rather than a change in direction.

This is partly a result of the move to multi-lateral trade talks (bad idea but
when WTO rounds take a decade it's not unexpected), and partly inertia - there
is little common agreement on how to prevent the next crash, so without a
better idea we seem to follow the inverse of Einsteins quip - "the definition
of insanity is repeating the last mistakes but hoping for a different outcome

Minor thought : this leak is still a pretty big deal. But it feels like
wikileaks is the wrong place for this - like the main media organisations
should have already got their investigatory acts together and made wiki leaks
irrelevant.

Just wondering ...

~~~
rosser
_...like the main media organisations should have already got their
investigatory acts together and made wiki leaks irrelevant._

On the whole, the "main media organizations" are an entrenched part of the
system they'd need to be reporting on in order to do that job. That's a pretty
major "biting the hand that feeds them" sort of impediment.

~~~
mathattack
There's also not a market for things that are hard to explain like
multilateral trade agreements.

It's much easier to shout, "It was Bush's fault!" or "But what about
Benghazi?"

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _There 's also not a market for things that are hard to explain like
> multilateral trade agreements._

Financial institutions, macro-oriented asset managers and companies with
multinational supply chains and long-term assets are each affected by these
dynamics. Gaining intelligence on the nature and implications of trade
negotiations is huge business.

I spent a good amount of time, as a trader, trying to anticipate how sundry
domestic political variables constrained international actors, thereby
predicting the odds of various trade structures arising from a forum (or of a
forum even materialising in the first place).

------
javert
> proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services
> markets.

But...

> The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the
> expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York,
> London, Paris and Frankfurt

These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more
specifically, regulatory capture). Without regulation, there would be
thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to
be.

Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking.
We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like
this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the
status quo through confusion.

~~~
justsee
> But...

International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation)
which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear to
think it is.

> These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more
> specifically, regulatory capture).

Well they're _purely_ a product of regulation only in the broadest sense:
without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade,
and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies).

Your more specific case ('regulatory capture') is an example of weakened
regulation through infiltration / corruption so your statement appears to
read: Multinationals are a purely a product of regulation (more specifically,
weakened regulation).

> Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in
> the US, as there apparently used to be.

What do you mean by 'Without regulation'? If taken literally it would be
impossible to define what a 'bank' is, so I assume your definition of 'Without
regulation' involves regulations - which makes for a very confusing
definition.

You imply there is an optimal outcome (thousands of medium-sized banks) being
suppressed through regulation. What regulations force all banks to move
quickly to a few larger banks? Usually these sorts of market regulations are
about stopping that practice: for instance in Australia there is a 'four
pillars policy' which stops mergers of the four largest banks. Without this
regulation there would be less competition.

> Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy
> thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think
> sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports
> maintaining the status quo through confusion.

Characterising deregulation as deregulation is sloppy thinking? Let's back up:
there is an international agreement which aims to enforce further deregulation
of nation states... and characterising this as deregulation is sloppy
thinking?

~~~
javert
You are conflating two different and commonly-used meanings of the word
"regulation."

In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that
violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These
are laws under which the government initiates force against market
participants to try to force a desired outcome.

Proper laws merely _protect_ individual sovereignty. For example, you can't
use force against someone, whether physically or through possessing something
that violates a contract with them (which is fraud). Only the government can
use force, and only in retaliation to protect sovereignty.

The ethical basis for this distinction is that it is in everyone'e self-
interest to be protected from the initiaion of force in general, while it is
against everyone's self-interest to be vulnerable to the initiaition of force,
in general. Thus, regulatory laws are wrong.

P.S. If Australia only have four banks, instead of forty or four hundred, it
is because of regulation (in my sense of the word).

~~~
justsee
> In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that
> violate individual sovereignty.

Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed
to control or govern conduct."

The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but
isn't (even fairly) common parlance.

A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'.

Your definition also implies that governmental rules that protect individual
sovereignty (or don't impact upon it) are not the 'regulation' you protest
against, and a clearer term for that would simply be 'good regulation'.

There are obviously regulations which protect individual sovereignty:
environmental laws stopping anyone or any entity dumping toxic waste which
impacts on the health and well-being of those individuals is but one of many
obvious examples.

So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and you are against bad
regulations, but you choose to call them simply 'regulations' which is rather
confusing.

You also conclude: 'Thus, regulatory laws are wrong'.

Better to use the clearer, more correct statement 'Thus, bad regulatory laws
are wrong'. Very uncontroversial and agreeable.

I think it could actually be argued that redefining a term like 'regulation'
as you are doing is actually harmful to individual sovereignty. The common
meaning of 'regulation' also covers regulation that is protective of
individual sovereignty, and trying to promulgate a pejorative sense of the
term merely enables moochers and looters to further hijack the term to weaken
those regulations which protect individual sovereignty.

~~~
javert
My usage is absolutely common parlance.

For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration
of Independence are not considered to be "regulation."

Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my
explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt
to discredit my (correct) position.

~~~
justsee
> My usage is absolutely common parlance.

Maybe in your particular social or intellectual circles, but not in common
parlance. This is obvious by comparing the dictionary definition with your
definition: the former is general and widely understood, while the later is
values-laden and requires an appreciation of a particular philosophical
position.

> For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration
> of Independence are not considered to be "regulation."

They are by definition regulations. If you read the definition of regulation,
you would have to agree they are regulations.

> Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my
> explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor
> attempt to discredit my (correct) position.

They specifically acknowledge and address your points around individual
sovereignty - your assertions to the contrary indicate you haven't properly
read what I wrote.

I called out an example of a 'good regulation' by your definition - an
environmental law - to show how regulations can support individual
sovereignty.

Leaving this point unanswered is what discredits your position. However it's
clear to me this contortion around the meaning of 'regulation' is something
impossible to honestly defend.

------
cb3
Who are the people negotiating and agreeing to these 'agreements'(this, ACTA,
etc) and what could their justification for keeping them secret possibly be?

~~~
wodenokoto
Elected government officials from democratic countries and non-elected from
non-democratic countries together. This is decided by politicians or
bureaucrats representing government. I believe advisors from universities,
think tanks and businesses are invited to speak.

Why they keep it secret, I don't know.

~~~
gorhill
> Elected government officials from democratic countries

Such secrecy is incompatible with democracy, why refer to some of the
countries participating in this as "democratic"?

~~~
leorocky
The term "democracy" is kind of a fuzzy and abused word but if we limit its
definition to include only the governments run by civilians voted in by fair
enough, regularly occurring elections you could do worse. Democracies can have
secrets, and in fact must if they want to achieve their interests. I am not
sure why this would surprise anyone.

~~~
greenyoda
_" Democracies can have secrets, and in fact must if they want to achieve
their interests."_

I can see how certain things can be justifiably kept secret in a democracy,
like matters related to national security (military, intelligence, etc.). But
secrecy in business and financial regulation is just corruption. Especially
when the interests in question are those of private businesses and may not be
in the best interests of the country as a whole - and if the deliberations are
secret, how can we and our elected representatives decide whose interests are
actually being promoted?

~~~
leorocky
I believe in this instance they're only secret while under negotiation, when
congress votes on it, it will be open.

~~~
nadaviv
"the draft has been classified to keep it secret _not just during the
negotiations_ but for five years after the TISA enters into force"

~~~
twoodfin
It's the draft that will be secret, not the final agreement.

I don't understand why this is so confusing: It's much easier for negotiators
to propose a series of concessions and trade-offs in private, knowing that
they'll only face political heat for those that actually make it into the
final agreement.

~~~
crdoconnor
It's also much easier for them to propose a series of trade-offs and
concessions that primarily benefit their rich donors/friends rather than their
electorates.

------
w_t_payne
Apart from the secrecy yadda yadda yadda ... is there anything in the content
that might be of concern?

~~~
crdoconnor
Plenty. It's very clearly intended to restrict the exact kinds of regulations
that national governments would put into effect to clamp down on too big to
fail institutions.

The kind that required humungous bailouts and are STILL taking outsized risks
because the regulatory framework is still insufficient to prevent them from
causing yet more systemic crises.

