Support NeoGAF

[michaelius]

Trade doesn't destroy jobs. The idea it would is ludicrous. https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company

Of course it does - when the only way to compete is uniting into one huge entity it results in plenty of small companies going out of business and the work places that are created in their place are low salary low qualification jobs.

We have seen it countless times whenever stupid politician allows Supermarket to open inside city it kills a lot of local shops.

S
So people can get different food, cheaper? Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay for them. The whole idea is people can make their own choices here.

Except I'll have to pay more for quality food - since majority of it will be replaced with cheap crap and everything better will be lower scale luxury production losing effect of scale.

I'm guessing you are American or Canadian which would explain why you argue so much in it's favor - after all you won't be losing anything since it will be our higher standards that get dragged to your almost non existing consumer protection levels.

 

[Pedrito]

Today I learned that I've been eating cheap crap food my whole life. Europe, please come save me with your high quality products.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

I have no idea what's in the TTIP, but CETA has been negotiated for years and years now and a lot of the the concerns you guys are talking about are largely addressed. Globalization is the future no matter which way you put it. Makes complete sense for two developed economies to sign free trade agreements.

 

[PdotMichael]

I have no idea what's in the TTIP, but CETA has been negotiated for years and years now and a lot of the the concerns you guys are talking about are largely addressed. Globalization is the future no matter which way you put it. Makes complete sense for two developed economies to sign free trade agreements.

Well, that's cute but it doesn't mean that Europe should accept a free trade deal which favors the USA in all central points.

 

[darkace]

What happened last time?

You said immigrants didn't hurt workers, I provided a citation showing specific sub-sections of society was hurt (low wage, low human capital workers, mainly, immigrants are a net benefit), you ran off.

Lookup article 191 of the Treaty for the functioning of the European Union, and article XX of the GATT.

Like I said, provided regulation is fact-based it cannot be successfully challenged. The EU can cite experts from any member country if required to give evidence.

Regarding its application, ask Texan firm Schuepbach how much money it got from France following the passing of a law forbidding fracking on its territory.

While I disagree with the ruling in principle, this is an example of the system working. I don't understand how you can cite this in your favour. Environmental protections that have basis will always be upheld, even if assets are expropriated (for instance Vattenfall and Ethyl Corp won because they had data from the government they were suing experts showing their regulatory approach was without empirical basis).

TTIP won't override WTO or Lisbon Treaty obligations. It explicitly provides for allowing member states to set their own regulatory approach. All it requires is that this approach is even across domestic and foreign companies.

Of course it does - when the only way to compete is uniting into one huge entity it results in plenty of small companies going out of business and the work places that are created in their place are low salary low qualification jobs.

This just isn't true. At all. Like I don't really have anything else to say. This is fundamentally untrue.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m

I can cite about a dozen studies on NAFTA and other trade agreements showing it increased employment and wages.

We have seen it countless times whenever stupid politician allows Supermarket to open inside city it kills a lot of local shops.

What universe do you dwell in where local independent retailers offer high wages and opportunity for advancement? Wal-mart was so good for consumers that economists in the 70's had to rejig their models to explain welfare gains among the lower classes.

Except I'll have to pay more for quality food - since majority of it will be replaced with cheap crap and everything better will be lower scale luxury production losing effect of scale.

You won't have to pay more. You'll pay the same amount. Except now you have more choice. Competition is always good in the market.

I'm guessing you are American or Canadian which would explain why you argue so much in it's favor - after all you won't be losing anything since it will be our higher standards that get dragged to your almost non existing consumer protection levels.

Firstly, Australian. Just sick of bad arguments surrounding these agreements.

Secondly, please cite the relevant provision of the TTIP or CETA that drags down consumer protections.

 

[Snowybreak]

Today I learned that I've been eating cheap crap food my whole life. Europe, please come save me with your high quality products.

Just look at that one sandwich thread. Apparently we don't have any good cheese or bread here in the US, the only good food is in Europe.

 

[PdotMichael]

You said immigrants didn't hurt workers, I provided a citation showing specific sub-sections of society was hurt (low wage, low human capital workers, mainly, immigrants are a net benefit), you ran off.

Yeah, I remember that now. The conclusion of that paper stated that it didn't have a negative effect but you ignored it.

Now, your points here are even more worthless.

Today I learned that I've been eating cheap crap food my whole life. Europe, please come save me with your high quality products.

The EU has stricter quality standards for food which is fact.

 

[Oriel]

What a pity. Free trade is better than protectionism. Hopefully Pres. Clinton will be able to restart the process of transatlantic and trans-pacific free trade.

 

[darkace]

Yeah, I remember that now. The conclusion of that paper stated that it didn't have a negative effect but you ignored it.

To rehash exactly what I said last time, it showed that the overall effect was negligible but it had small negative effects on low-skill native and existing immigrant welfare. I can even drag it up and you can read it again if you want.

 

[PdotMichael]

To rehash exactly what I said last time, it showed that the overall effect was negligible but it had small negative effects on low-skill native and existing immigrant welfare. I can even drag it up and you can read it again if you want.

No, the real incomes of all groups increased in that timeframe. The only time it sunk for the lowest income group was a result of the financial crisis at that time - not a result of immigration.

I remember that disaster quite well because it showed you can't read your own papers.

 

[Oriel]

The EU has stricter quality standards for food which is fact.

Perhaps too strict. Europe's anti-GMO stance is fucking insane and contrary to all fact and logic.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Well, that's cute but it doesn't mean that Europe should accept a free trade deal which favors the USA in all central points.

Umm okay? I'm pretty sure the EU negotiators are rational actors who use facts to determine what their negotiating positions and bargaining powers are. Acting like you gave up everything and the otherside didn't give any concessions as well is pretty much willful ignorance.

 

[PdotMichael]

Perhaps too strict. Europe's anti-GMO stance is fucking insane and contrary to all fact and logic.

Europe produces so much food that there is no need for GMO and all possible risks included.

It's also not just GMO but it includes antibiotics or hormones which are used in a large degree in the USA and aren't healthy. And also includes topic like intensive livestock farming or animal testing.

Umm okay? I'm pretty sure the EU negotiators are rational actors who use facts to determine what their negotiating positions and bargaining powers are. Acting like you gave up everything and the otherside didn't give any concessions as well is pretty much willful ignorance.

Yeah, and look at the thread title for that matter.

 

[darkace]

No, the real incomes of all groups increased in that timeframe. The only time it sunk for the lowest income group was a result of the financial crisis at that time - not a result of immigration.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf

There's the paper bro. Please show me the relevant part of the paper that finds what you're saying. Page number and paragraph, if you could.

 

[PdotMichael]

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf

There's the paper bro. Please show me the relevant part of the paper that finds what you're saying. Page number and paragraph, if you could.

The entire conclusion section.

hi

You failed in that old thread to address the two points:

1) How is it related to the UK
2) How does that paper proves a wage loss if the immigrants in the UK are like the best educated group of immigrants in the world - in fact even better educated than the native population.

 

[le-seb]

The only thing non-standard about these agreements are the gains. Generally they result in about 0.1% gains for the median consumer, but TTIP is 0.5% for the EU and 0.4% for the US.

What about economists thinking that those numbers are overvalued because they're based upon models that are way too optimistic, and who find out that TTIP will rather lead to net losses in GDP and jobs when using a more realistic model?

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/14-03CapaldoTTIP_ES.pdf
http://www.marianne.net/russe-europe/catastrophe-du-ttip-100232593.html

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Yeah, and look at the thread title for that matter.

CETA is only on the brink because of one province of Belgium. Every other country is ready to sign. That sends an awful message to the rest of the world, that you guys aren't willing to do business. Especially after Brexit...

 

[Fred-87]

So sad populist ignorance is destroying deals that would result in huge gains for citizens.

Let me tell you a (true) story. Romania has a individual trade deal similar to it with Canada. What happened was that Canada were gonna set up and exploit a gold mine in a beautiful nature area in Romania. Before it happened the citizens of nearby cities began to come into action and demand from the Romanian government that it was halted.
The Romanian government gave in and stopped the project. Upsetting the Canadians.. Normally they would have no rights the Canadians but because of this trade deal (like Ceta) they sued the country of Romania... for the price of the entire Romanian health-care budget!!!

You can argue that its the fault of the Romanian goverment to set up such a gold-mine deal with the Canadians. But its not the fault of the Romanian citisens... they should have the right to protest and challenge THEIR goverment. But now they have no choise because also foreign goverments can interfere in their country.

Its not democratic. You vote for a party inside of your country with the ideals you want. But you cant vote what Canada party you want to rule. However they can partly take over your country..

 

[darkace]

The entire conclusion section.

hi

These average gains are, in the short and long run, distributed as a small wage loss to the group of high school dropouts and wage gains for all the other groups of U.S. natives.

Is this a fucking joke dude. ITS RIGHT THERE. READ IT.

What about economists thinking that those numbers are overvalued because they're based upon models that are way too optimistic, and who find out that TTIP will rather lead to net losses in GDP and jobs when using a more realistic model?

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/14-03CapaldoTTIP_ES.pdf
http://www.marianne.net/russe-europe/catastrophe-du-ttip-100232593.html

http://ecipe.org/blog/capaldo-fails-to-convince/

See this for a response. He's the only person who has come anywhere close to the results he's seen. When you get an extreme outlier like that it needs some fairly convincing evidence in its position, and that has failed to materialise. His models haven't been used in decades, he hasn't given a reason he has used the models he did, and the models are private so other researchers have not been able to attempt to replicate his data or give a more in-depth response.

No trade deal ever undertaken has seen the job losses he's put forward. It's just not believable.

The Romanian government gave in and stopped the project. Upsetting the Canadians.. Normally they would have no rights the Canadians but because of this trade deal (like Ceta) they sued the country of Romania... for the price of the entire Romanian health-care budget!!!

You can argue that its the fault of the Romanian goverment to set up such a gold-mine deal with the Canadians. But its not the fault of the Romanian citisens... they should have the right to protest and challenge THEIR goverment. But now they have no choise because also foreign goverments can interfere in their country.

Its not democratic. You vote for a party inside of your country with the ideals you want. But you cant vote what Canada party you want to rule. However they can partly take over your country..

The Romanian government vetoed a mine that the company had spent more than a decade setting up without compensating the people for the loss of investment. What exactly are they expecting? They're stealing shit, why would there be no recourse for their actions? The company threatened the government with action if the mine didn't go ahead or compensation paid, they notified the government of their intent to launch action if the above didn't happen, and then they did six months later, after the Romanian government refused to settle amicably.

If I steal a billion dollars, you better believe that somebody will come at me with legal action.

The moral of the story isn't don't sign these agreements, it's don't steal shit. Australia has been in these agreements since the early 90's, and has not been successfully sued once. You know why? Because it doesn't steal shit.

 

[Oriel]

Europe produces so much food that there is no need for GMO and all possible risks included.

World population is growing rapidly and expected to top 12 billion by 2100 (previous estimates suggested 9 billion). The world only has a finite amount of land and resources so to feed all this population growth will require increased efficiencies in terms of yield, something only GM foods can provide.

And what "risks"? You do know that virtually all foods we eat is genetically modified to some extent right? Humans have been doing this for millennia. Foods don't have to be pumped full of chemicals to be "GM".

Governments really need to stop listening yo the insane ramblings of the so-called "Green" lobby.

 

[TheRealTalker]

I have no idea what's in the TTIP, but CETA has been negotiated for years and years now and a lot of the the concerns you guys are talking about are largely addressed. Globalization is the future no matter which way you put it. Makes complete sense for two developed economies to sign free trade agreements.

Well, that's cute but it doesn't mean that Europe should accept a free trade deal which favors the USA in all central points.

but this is CETA not the TTIP

agreed that globalization is reality and not something that can forever be pushed back

but I also agree that all globalization deals need to be at the best of the best standards on quality and rights

 

[PdotMichael]

Is this a fucking joke dude. ITS RIGHT THERE. READ IT.

Thanks for supporting my point.

World population is growing rapidly and expected to top 12 billion by 2100 (previous estimates suggested 9 billion). The world only has a finite amount of land and resources so to feed all this population growth will require increased efficiencies in terms of yield, something only GM foods can provide.

And what "risks"? You do know that virtually all foods we eat is genetically modified to some extent right? Humans have been doing this for millennia. Foods don't have to be pumped full of chemicals to be "GM".

Governments really need to stop listening yo the insane ramblings of the so-called "Green" lobby.

Food should be produced locally because it also supports the economy of third world countries.
There are several studies about the negative effects of food export from the EU to African countries.
There is no need from an European point of view to open the gates for even more food if we are already paying farmers for not doing their jobs - especially if the American food exports aren't even close to European standards.

 

[Team Alucard]

Excellent news.

 

[darkace]

Thanks for supporting my point.

I see you're attempting a new form of argument, denying reality that is literally directly in front of your face. It's an interesting one, for sure.

Me: 'The sky is blue'

You: 'No it's not!'.

Like I'm not sure if you're incapable of reading or just utterly incapable of admitting you're wrong. Because at this point in time it's fairly pathetic.

 

[gutter_trash]

Wallonia and Beligum are so dumb for blocking CETA

they are not doing for real reasons but are doing it for local partisan reasons to try get more power locally in Belgium politics

if the EU can't strike a sensible trade deal with a liberal democracy like Canada, than what does that say about future EU trade deals?

as a Canadian and a Portuguese, I will never ever visit Belgium ever.

I want CETA to pass, our food prices in Canada are way too high. CETA will help make food prices more affordable which helps lower income families

 

[frontovik]

The EU made the right decision in challenging these trade deals, it just reeks of corporate greed.

 

[gutter_trash]

The EU made the right decision in challenging these trade deals. It just reeks of corporate greed.

CETA is a different beast

I really don't get the far-fringers who are against all trade, it is insane

 

[old]

Thank goodness. I'm against any deal that creates special multi-national courts that can tell a sovereign nation what laws they can and can't pass. Especially when it comes to food safety, water safety, environmental protections, and consumer rights. The idea that a foreign company could sue a nation for passing any one if those is absurd.

 

[darkace]

Thank goodness. I'm against any deal that creates special multi-national courts that can tell a sovereign nation what laws they can and can't pass. Especially when it comes to food safety, water safety, environmental protections, and consumer rights. The idea that a foreign company could sue a nation for passing any one if those is absurd.

o my god

 

[Pedrito]

CETA is a different beast

I really don't get the far-fringers who are against all trade, it is insane

Same reasons why people are affraid of GMOs, vaccines, immigrants, etc.: fringe groups coming up will all kind of crazy hypothetical scenarios. Then all the discussions are about those things instead of the proven benefits.

 

[Jenov]

lol darkace, keep fighting the good fight! Interesting to see someone actually push back against anti-trade hysteria with sourced info. Thanks.

 

[Des0lar]

CETA is a different beast

I really don't get the far-fringers who are against all trade, it is insane

The terrible thing is that those far left groups that are all crying for open borders (and I say this without judgement), are the ones that are decrying free trade of goods and services.

When the EU is incapable of making a trade deal with Canada, we are truly fucked.

 

[gutter_trash]

The terrible thing is that those far left groups that are all crying for open borders (and I say this without judgement), are the ones that are decrying free trade of goods and services.

When the EU is incapable of making a trade deal with Canada, we are truly fucked.

ironic, isn't it

CETA is a win win for both sides:
EU would be blessed with superior Canadian beef.
Canada would be blessed with superior EU cheeses and whine

 

[Contica]

Is this a fucking joke dude. ITS RIGHT THERE. READ IT.

I don't know this case, and I'm not gonna read the link since I don't really care, but would you care to explain how this quote proves immigration has a negative effect? All I see here is a general gain, unless you're a dropout.

I think you have a lot of good points about trade agreements, although I definitely don't agree with everything. It's been enlightening though, so thanks for that.

I do think you'd get through to more people if you chilled with the whole "you're so dumb" shtick though.

 

[Lirlond]

I don't know this case, and I'm not gonna read the link since I don't really care, but would you care to explain how this quote proves immigration has a negative effect? All I see here is a general gain, unless you're a dropout.

I think you have a lot of good points about trade agreements, although I definitely don't agree with everything. It's been enlightening though, so thanks for that.

I do think you'd get through to more people if you chilled with the whole "you're so dumb" shtick though.

His argument was that people in lower classes, or the equivalent of dropouts in the UK, would feel the burden of immigration, and that this group of people were pro brexit because it was their way to fight against globalisation harming their prospects. He's right, but ultimately their ire should have been taken out on local government who constantly refused to invest in these areas of low education so they would be better prepared for the influx of migrants. Opening GPs, schools, hospitals etc to ease the burden.

 

[PdotMichael]

His argument was that people in lower classes, or the equivalent of dropouts in the UK, would feel the burden of immigration, and that this group of people were pro brexit because it was their way to fight against globalisation harming their prospects. He's right, but ultimately their ire should have been taken out on local government who constantly refused to invest in these areas of low education so they would be better prepared for the influx of migrants. Opening GPs, schools, hospitals etc to ease the burden.

High school drop outs aren't the "lower classes".

The paper also doesn't make the connection between immigration and lower income wages for the specific group of high school drop outs because this can be a result that there are just plain less oppurtunities for people without education to be somehow successful in the USA.

The paper, based on the fact that everyone earns more than 40 years ago (edit: paper was about 1990 to 2004 but paper provides data for until the 60's), just stated that there is no evidence that immigration to the USA led to a loss of income for the native population.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Since we're going full emotional hyperbole, why do you think giant bureaucratic legislatures with representatives essentially unanswerable to citizens outside of oligarchic elections should have the capacity to rob citizens and workers with threat of jail and incontrovertible force?

Are you serious about this? Are you saying that democratically elected legislatures are less answerable to citizens than giant corporations? Let me guess: do you also consider income tax to be theft?

Or maybe you are American and are projecting your dysfunctional government to the rest of the world. US-splaining?

The people most impacted by uncompensated expropriation are the workers, why do you want to take away one of the only impartial voices from the most vulnerable in society?

So PMI sued Australia for looking out for the health of their citizens only to be kind towards their factory workers? Could you show me a source for the bolded?

This argument is so terrible. Can people use Google before just stating highly controversial positions as fact?

Also show me a single example of a country without the capacity to fight a fucking legal battle. Honest to God the average fee for lawyers and payout is less than $10 million. What country can't spend $10 million on something they're going to win and receive their money back plus damages?

It's a fact that several small countries felt that they couldn't afford it the legal battles and backed down from enforcing similar legislation, including Namibia and Togo

These arguments are so terrible. Can people use Google before coming up with something you can debunk in three seconds.

https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2016/04/rr13.pdf

Here's a report by an actual expert debunking everything you've said. Please read it.

Sorry, I'm not going to read through 30+ pages from a corporate-funded think tank (which doesn't want to disclose its donors), espousing libertarian ideology while pretending to be independent (their name is the Centre for Independent Studies). I don't want to poison my mind with such stuff.

Instead, let's take a look at some of the other papers published by this organization.

Fix it or Fail: Why we must cut company tax now

The case against tax increases in Australia: The growing burden

The Democratic Deficit: How Minority Fundamentalism Threatens Liberty in Australia

Here is an excerpt from the above:

We are faced with a new kind of fundamentalism – call it ‘minority fundamentalism.’ It has all the features of religious fundamentalism, such as ideological fanaticism, intolerance of dissent, and a Manichaean certainty about truth and falsehood. The goal of the minority fundamentalists is to eradicate all forms of discrimination in the name of liberating those deemed to be oppressed.

The horror.

And we have this gem which takes upon itself to defend people who oppose gay marriage with quotes such as this one:

A disturbing development has been the branding of commentators, who may believe that heterosexual marriage should be sustained, as necessarily ‘homophobic’ and filled with hatred.14 It is inconceivable to such accusers that an individual may have no animus whatsoever to gay men and women and yet see marriage as essentially a heterosexual privilege capable of being defended for good reasons.

homophobes are the real victims T_T

Seems like a level-headed and impartial organization to use to back up your points

 

[Sony]

Are you serious about this? Are you saying that democratically elected legislatures are less answerable to citizens than giant corporations? Let me guess: do you also consider income tax to be theft?

Or maybe you are American and are projecting your dysfunctional government to the rest of the world. US-splaining?



So PMI sued Australia for looking out for the health of their citizens only to be kind towards their factory workers? Could you show me a source for the bolded?

This argument is so terrible. Can people use Google before just stating highly controversial positions as fact?



It's a fact that several small countries felt that they couldn't afford it the legal battles and backed down from enforcing similar legislation, including Namibia and Togo

These arguments are so terrible. Can people use Google before coming up with something you can debunk in three seconds.



Sorry, I'm not going to read through 30+ pages from a corporate-funded think tank (which doesn't want to disclose its donors), espousing libertarian ideology while pretending to be independent (their name is the Centre for Independent Studies). I don't want to poison my mind with such stuff.

Instead, let's take a look at some of the other papers published by this organization.

Fix it or Fail: Why we must cut company tax now

The case against tax increases in Australia: The growing burden

The Democratic Deficit: How Minority Fundamentalism Threatens Liberty in Australia

Here is an excerpt from the above:



The horror.

And we have this gem which takes upon itself to defend people who oppose gay marriage with quotes such as this one:



homophobes are the real victims T_T

Seems like a level-headed and impartial organization to use to back up your points

Couldn't have said it better.

His argument is "off which country can't afford legal fees" -> a country shouldn't even be in that position. Really, really weak arguments.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

It's true that corporations are already suing governments, but that is not a good argument to give more power to that idea. Look at the case in TransCanada going on now; They are suing the US government for 15 billion because they rejected the Pipeline. They are able to sue (and might just win) due to NAFTA provisions. That is the most outragous thing ever. Because of the potential for a Canadian oil giant to have lost hypothetical revenue, they want to bully other governments into doing deals that takes revenue over enviornmental concerns seriously.
It was the right thing to reject that Pipeline. The US should not be able to be sued over this. No company should have that power.

CALGARY -- TransCanada Corp. is moving forward with its attempt to seek more than $15 billion compensation under the North American Free Trade Agreement following the U.S. government's rejection of the company's proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The Calgary-based company made a formal request for arbitration from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment disputes under the trade deal on Friday, after giving notice of its intention to make the claim back in January.

x

The request says talks with the U.S. government to resolve the dispute began in April, but the two sides failed to reach an amicable settlement.

Similar to the notice TransCanada filed in January, the company alleges in the compensation request that the government concluded numerous times that the pipeline would not have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Still, TransCanada contends the government rejected the pipeline to appear strong on climate change.

/ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/27/transcanada-keystone-lawsuit-nafta_n_10696608.html


You risk pandering to climate denial / ignoring sayers. The entirety of that stick is that humans and the planet can go fuck itself in the name of corporate greed. To me that is the definition of a libertarian nightmare. Nobody should trust corporations to do the right morale and ethical thing. Handing them the keys and giving them more power, when we've seen time and time again that they will always favor revenue over responsibility or forego profit in the name of decency.

I don't believe many people on the left rejects trade deals because of globalization. Everyone with half a brain knows that trade is a massive asset in improving countries. What people are against (with trade deals like TTIP, TPP, Nafta, ACTA, SOAP and others) is that corporations should not be given provisions that increases their power.

It is due to the rigidity that the EU have protected its citizens from similar corporate schemes like the telecommunication companies have done in the US ( http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/10/1...nies-5g-service-european-union-net-neutrality ), where they effectively work as a mafia, having neglected any semblence of free market competition ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU )



People on the right (like Trump) who rejects trade deals, do it because they think jobs will come back. That's a completely different reason to reject them. Most people on the left, accept and understand that globalization is the key to the future.
But we need to make sure that, that future enables and encourages open competition, and new upstarts that can threaten the status quo. We do not want situations where a few monopolies own the entire industry and keep everyone else from entering it, because they've yanked up all the patents and systemic advantages that makes it nearly impossible for a new upstart innovator to challenge the big dog.
A company can always argue that its hypothetical revenue is being taken from it. I don't understand why you would side on "growth" above all else.

 

[mdubs]

The terrible thing is that those far left groups that are all crying for open borders (and I say this without judgement), are the ones that are decrying free trade of goods and services.

When the EU is incapable of making a trade deal with Canada, we are truly fucked.

This is what boggles my mind. I see many people advocating for open borders and the slow deemphasis of nationalism, and then many of the same people advocating for trade protectionism. This is a very odd position

 

[PdotMichael]

This is what boggles my mind. I see many people advocating for open borders and the slow deemphasis of nationalism, and then many of the same people advocating for trade protectionism. This is a very odd position

Open borders isn't really the same as giving lobbyists even more power.

 

[Silent Chief]

Honestly as a Pole I find the protected origin designations to be too harsh. Limit that to "genuine Champagne" or something like that and it would be alright. Though, granted, I don't care about champagne, I care about feta.

Anybody can come up with a new name. I don't see the deal there at all.

Kiwi, for example, is just a marketing name in reference to a famous bird because nobody would have bought Chinese gooseberries.

The Wallons are afraid that Canadian pork would drive the price down, except of course, none of the existing Canadian pork farms meet the arbitrary EU humane norms and won't be rebuilt to meet them, so the Canadian producers are just focusing on the Asian market where they can't even meet the growing demand.

Canada's trade is mostly with the UK, anyway. Those Brexit discussion will keep the EU busy for the next 20 years.

 

[Lirlond]

Edit : wrong thread

 

[darkace]

Are you serious about this? Are you saying that democratically elected legislatures are less answerable to citizens than giant corporations? Let me guess: do you also consider income tax to be theft?

It's hyperbole to point out how ridiculous what you're saying is. You're not being intellectually honest with your points, why would I be in response? And no, I don't consider income tax theft, although I would abolish it for different reasons.

Or maybe you are American and are projecting your dysfunctional government to the rest of the world. US-splaining?

Nope.

So PMI sued Australia for looking out for the health of their citizens only to be kind towards their factory workers? Could you show me a source for the bolded?

That's not what the point of what I said was at all. Just like most taxes are majority felt by the workers over the long-run, the government expropriating assets is majority felt by the workers. Rich people can move, poor people can't so a dearth of foreign investment is felt by them.

It's a fact that several small countries felt that they couldn't afford it the legal battles and backed down from enforcing similar legislation, including Namibia and Togo

Again, the average fee + payout is less than ten million. Ignorance of how the system works is not an argument.

Sorry, I'm not going to read through 30+ pages from a corporate-funded think tank (which doesn't want to disclose its donors), espousing libertarian ideology while pretending to be independent (their name is the Centre for Independent Studies). I don't want to poison my mind with such stuff.

Just let me know who you'd take information from. I have a half dozen published papers on the benefits of ISDS from a variety of sources, I'm sure you'll listen to them.

Fix it or Fail: Why we must cut company tax now

Repealing company tax has universal consensus from economists. It's extraordinarily distortionary and is majority felt by non-supervisory labour.

The case against tax increases in Australia: The growing burden

There's a very good case to be made.

The Democratic Deficit: How Minority Fundamentalism Threatens Liberty in Australia

In Australia we currently have legislation against offence in the guise of protecting minorities. Personally I don't think you need to be a libertarian to point out how ridiculous legislating offence is.

But, as I said, I have many more sources. Just let me know who you'd accept it from.

Couldn't have said it better.

His argument is "off which country can't afford legal fees" -> a country shouldn't even be in that position. Really, really weak arguments.

Absolutely, a country shouldn't even be in that position. And it won't be, provided it doesn't steal shit. It's really, really simple.

 

[Suikoguy]

To Those Anti-GMO arguerers:

Watch this very short clip (the link should skip you to 3:21).

https://youtu.be/sH4bi60alZU?t=3m21s

Frankly, that is more terrifying to me

Since the early 1900s, X-rays, Gamma Rays, and various chemicals were used to force random mutations on plants. This, as opposed to GM Crops of which we know what the fuck we are changing to a far larger degree.
Many of the crops created using the "Mutation Breeding" were created in the 70s, under no regulations, of which hundreds of breeds are still in use.

So where is the anti-mutation crowd at?

 

[le-seb]

To Those Anti-GMO arguerers

Them mad scientists!

 

[Theonik]

Honestly as a Pole I find the protected origin designations to be too harsh. Limit that to "genuine Champagne" or something like that and it would be alright. Though, granted, I don't care about champagne, I care about feta.

Leave feta alone.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It's hyperbole to point out how ridiculous what you're saying is. You're not being intellectually honest with your points, why would I be in response? And no, I don't consider income tax theft, although I would abolish it for different reasons.



Nope.



That's not what the point of what I said was at all. Just like most taxes are majority felt by the workers over the long-run, the government expropriating assets is majority felt by the workers. Rich people can move, poor people can't so a dearth of foreign investment is felt by them.



Again, the average fee + payout is less than ten million. Ignorance of how the system works is not an argument.



Just let me know who you'd take information from. I have a half dozen published papers on the benefits of ISDS from a variety of sources, I'm sure you'll listen to them.



Repealing company tax has universal consensus from economists. It's extraordinarily distortionary and is majority felt by non-supervisory labour.



There's a very good case to be made.



In Australia we currently have legislation against offence in the guise of protecting minorities. Personally I don't think you need to be a libertarian to point out how ridiculous legislating offence is.

But, as I said, I have many more sources. Just let me know who you'd accept it from.

So the first post I made in response to you was that you'd have to be pretty far up the asses of corporations to side with tobacco company trademarks over democratically elected governments wanting to protect the health of their citizens. And it seems that you now how shown that you agree there was a good case to be made for stopping tax increases ("Workers are most affected." Trickle down economics ho!), want to abolish income tax, have come out against minority protection legislation as ridiculous and want to repeal corporate tax.

Q.E.D. I guess

 

[darkace]

So the first post I made in response to you was that you'd have to be pretty far up the asses of corporations to side with tobacco company trademarks over democratically elected governments wanting to protect the health of their citizens. And it seems that you now how shown that you agree there should never be tax increases ("Workers are most affected." Trickle down economics ho!), have come out against minority protection legislation as ridiculous and want to repeal corporate tax.

Q.E.D. I guess

Does this place exist to set fire to strawmen or something? Is it capable of arguing with intellectual honesty? Why does everyone who posts essentially lies about my positions in order to frame my argument dishonestly (when the fuck did I say that minority protection legislation is ridiculous? What the fuck does trickle-down have to do with tax incidence? How the fuck is backing a system that has resulted in widespread economic gains and the diffusion of worldwide tensions to a significant extent backing the ability for cigarette companies to run over democratic legislatures? When the fuck did I say there should never be tax increases?)?

This is why I've stopped posting for the most part. People constantly outright make shit up in order to make my position far different from what it actually is. And then when I provide evidence for my position it's ignored, while me asking for evidence for others positions is ignored. It's all about the feels over the reals.

If you can't approach these things with a baseline of fucking intellectual honesty then don't fucking approach them.

 

[norinrad]

I have no idea what's in the TTIP, but CETA has been negotiated for years and years now and a lot of the the concerns you guys are talking about are largely addressed. Globalization is the future no matter which way you put it. Makes complete sense for two developed economies to sign free trade agreements.

Yep let's rollover and accept deals that only benefits big US companies who could also sue Euro governments when things don't go their way. Hey let's kill all those small places I eat and buy food at, where I also interact with the owners about how things are going. I really want to replace that with shareholders.