Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

according to the news, Belgium is not signing

so I will boycott all Belgium products and never visit that country ever


nobody embarasses my Canada

 

[ClosingADoor]

But that's the thing,... it's not about the few products where it actually makes sense to protect the name. It's about the fact that when such a policy is in place the bureaucracy and corruption takes over and applies it hundreds of times more to situations where it should not apply. Where people are swindled out of their livelihood for political gain, while purposefully opening loopholes for large companies to be able to get ahead.
EU regulations are made in such a way that only big existing companies can operate on the market, because startups cannot afford a handful of international lawyers.

And yes, you're right, there have been some instances where an EU ruling was fine. But when most of their policies are absolutely crippling it is not surprising that people are skeptical when they come with something new.

Please point me to "most of their policies" here. Because I can't think of them. This is something I hear mostly from anti-EU people who just go with what the papers tell them instead of knowing the actual cases they pretend to talk about. The EU even saw it necessary to go by these things case by case to make clear the Euromyths are mostly not true at all. You can look them up at http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

And protecting a name like that is for smaller companies. If the law wasn't there, how else would a wine producer from a certain region protect its name from some multinational importing the cheapest stuff from the other side of the world? This is one that multinationals and large corporations probably would want to get rid off, because then to make champagne they don't really have to make it in France with its more expensive labor market.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It's always amused me how the left and the right will use the exact same language in different areas. The sovereignty argument and Brexit was dismissed out of hand, but suddenly it's viable for trade agreements?

There is a big difference. UK has had referenda about whether to be in the EU (1975). They democratically chose to enter. Also, the EU regulation they so toiled under have been decided by (somewhat) democratic EU institutions. Meanwhile, no one has had a vote on these trade agreements. And they are negotiated in secrecy. You are not making a one to one comparison

according to the news, Belgium is not signing

so I will boycott all Belgium products and never visit that country ever


nobody embarasses my Canada

So you will give up trappist beer? I couldn't do that

Great news though!

 

[ClosingADoor]

There is a big difference. UK has had referenda about whether to be in the EU (1975). They democratically chose to enter. Also, the EU regulation they so toiled under have been decided by (somewhat) democratic EU institutions. Meanwhile, no one has had a vote on these trade agreements. And they are negotiated in secrecy. You are not making a one to one comparison

The argument about secrecy always made little sense to me. How else do you negotiate a treaty? It's not like you can put all the things you want and are willing to give on the table in public, since the other side will make use of that to put more pressure on you.

 

[CyclopsRock]

There is a big difference. UK has had referenda about whether to be in the EU (1975). They democratically chose to enter. Also, the EU regulation they so toiled under have been decided by (somewhat) democratic EU institutions. Meanwhile, no one has had a vote on these trade agreements. And they are negotiated in secrecy. You are not making a one to one comparison

The "EU" that we joined in 1975 was very different to the one we're about to leave, and I don't just mean in name. I broadly agree that the two aren't usefully comparable here, but it's hard to argue that the referendum 40 years ago gave a democratic mandate to us being in in 2016.

 

[YourMaster]

Please point me to "most of their policies" here. Because I can't think of them. This is something I hear mostly from anti-EU people who just go with what the papers tell them instead of knowing the actual cases they pretend to talk about. The EU even saw it necessary to go by these things case by case to make clear the Euromyths are mostly not true at all. You can look them up at http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

And protecting a name like that is for smaller companies. If the law wasn't there, how else would a wine producer from a certain region protect its name from some multinational importing the cheapest stuff from the other side of the world? This is one that multinationals and large corporations probably would want to get rid off, because then to make champagne they don't really have to make it in France with its more expensive labor market.

Sorry, I'm not British, so a quick look at that site showed me almost nothing familiar. But it has been EU policy to introduce a common currency without unified laws. It is EU policy to mishandle refugees. And even on smaller scale, it is the EU that made ridiculous (tracking) cookie laws. It is hard to name policies that actually work.

Protecting a name helps only if you're that small company in that small region that is designated by the EU. Yes, a wine makes from champagne would be happy. A small feta maker from Bulgaria won't be. Now, large companies shipping pork from for example the Netherlands to Parma (Italy) to get a stamp and sell their stuff for a premium will find it easier to compete against pig farmers who don't.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

The argument about secrecy always made little sense to me. How else do you negotiate a treaty? It's not like you can put all the things you want and are willing to give on the table in public, since the other side will make use of that to put more pressure on you.

I sort of agree. But even after finishing the agreement, politicians haven't really been up-front and transparent about what's in it. You can upload a 1000+ page document, but that isn't really going to help the layman. On the contrary many politicians in favour engage in straw man arguments and pretend that detractors just hate trade. Several of them even refuse to acknowledge the controversies around ISDS.

 

[diaspora]

I sort of agree. But even after finishing the agreement, politicians haven't really been up-front and transparent about what's in it. You can upload a 1000+ page document, but that isn't really going to help the layman. On the contrary many politicians in favour engage in straw man arguments and pretend that detractors just hate trade. Several of them even refuse to acknowledge the controversies around ISDS.

Pretend? It's true.

 

[Lanf]

according to the news, Belgium is not signing

so I will boycott all Belgium products and never visit that country ever


nobody embarasses my Canada

Only Wallonia, the southern part our country, is against. They aren't ratifying the agreement and in turn our federal government can't ratify anything either.

The socialists in the south are against, but wether this is for genuine concerns over CETA or for internal political gains is up for debate.

 

[diaspora]

Only Wallonia, the southern part our country, is against. They aren't ratifying the agreement and in turn our federal government can't ratify anything either.

The socialists in the south are against, but wether this is for genuine concerns over CETA or for internal political gains is up for debate.

Local Man Region Ruins Everything.

 

[Coriolanus]

All the time? Venezuela has done it dozens of times. Canada has done it a few. Russia did it recently in a massive way with Yukos.

There are far more examples of countries unfairly expropriating assets than their are of companies winning ISDS cases when they shouldn't have (zero so far that I know of).

Ehh, if a government is taking conduct that a company feels is unfair, there usually is recourse within that country's judicial system. The argument then would be why one would think that the country's judicial system would be biased in favour of the government (given that, obv, if they enjoy rule of law, they shouldnt be), thus justifying the need for ISDS. In the case of Russia or Venezuela one might expect unfair behaviour, but then, those countries wouldn't be signataries in the first place.

In the case of Canada or EU nations, tho... ehhhh...

US Navy accused of pirating 558,000 copies of VR software | Ars Technica UK

And this is an example. Sure, the navy might've commited piracy, but that doesn't mean that the company has to eat the loss. They can sue, prove their case, and win. And that's that. No need for additional structures.

 

[diaspora]

Ehh, if a government is taking conduct that a company feels is unfair, there usually is recourse within that country's judicial system. The argument then would be why one would think that the country's judicial system would be biased in favour of the government (given that, obv, if they enjoy rule of law, they shouldnt be), thus justifying the need for ISDS. In the case of Russia or Venezuela one might expect unfair behaviour, but then, those countries wouldn't be signataries in the first place.

In the case of Canada or EU nations, tho... ehhhh...

I mean the likelihood of something like that happening is contingent on the governing party no? I mean, a hard left or right electoral sweep can make such behaviour very possible in the future.

 

[darkace]

Just posting a bunch of papers without summarizing them is a very lazy way to argue. So you will post some links supporting your argument I will post some supporting mine. Doesn't lead us anywhere. It's also dishonest because the papers you link to don't support your point. You claim there is consensus yet the papers you link acknowledge that there is no consensus. The final study you linked had this to say:

That final paper finds BIT's increase FDI. I can read, and have.

I am starting to think that you just want to overwhelm those you debate with with a bunch of links you know they won't read, rather than actually want to have a discussion. Very dishonest. The fifth paper doesn't even seem to be related to the topic we're discussing ffs.

Oh shit you're right, that's the wrong paper. There are two Busse et al. (2010) apparently.

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201010_e.pdf

That's the one that should be linked. It finds:

UNCTAD (2009: 37) has spotted a shift in the recent empirical literature towards a more
positive assessment of the impact of BITs on FDI. This could be because BITs have become more binding over time in offering credible investor protection. Our results on ISDS provisions do not support this view, even though it is the investor's “ability to access a tribunal outside the sway of the Host State which is the principle advantage of a modern investment treaty” (Wälde 2005: 194). It rather appears that the mere existence of BITs has helped reputation building in a relatively small sub-set of host countries, notably in some post-socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe whose BITs did not contain ISDS provisions in the strictest form.

Also, I would have liked to see you address the study by Yackee that I posted. None of the papers you linked to did.. For example, I would have liked to see you take on the result of his survey where only 5 % of GCs considered the presence or absence of BITs important for investment in foreign countries. (This is my fault though because I was lazy and only provided a link rather than talk through the paper.)

I don't put much stock in surveys. The numbers say that BIT's have modest impact on developed countries and larger ones in developing ones.

Also, like you say yourself, even the papers that find them be positively related to investment only really sees a big effect for developing countries. So even the studies you provided can't really be used as an argument for the need to have ISDS in treaties between US, EU and Canada.

The main reason for its existence is to standardise terminology, although also because Canada is a little bit iffy when it comes to these areas. These countries have robust regulatory environments, but Canada has had a history of undermining foreign companies. It's the most sued Western country by far.

Ehh, if a government is taking conduct that a company feels is unfair, there usually is recourse within that country's judicial system. The argument then would be why one would think that the country's judicial system would be biased in favour of the government (given that, obv, if they enjoy rule of law, they shouldnt be), thus justifying the need for ISDS. In the case of Russia or Venezuela one might expect unfair behaviour, but then, those countries wouldn't be signataries in the first place.

In the case of Canada or EU nations, tho... ehhhh...

Canada does it alot. And places like Russia and Venezuela are exactly who these are set up for.

 

[Coriolanus]

I mean the likelihood of something like that happening is contingent on the governing party no? I mean, a hard left or right electoral sweep can make such behaviour very possible in the future.

At that point, the same concern applies wrt future governments following the treaty, rendering the concern moot.

that is, if they willing to throw their judicial structure in the trash cuz new govment, there is no reason to assume that they wouldn't also disregard treaty provisions.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Sorry, I'm not British, so a quick look at that site showed me almost nothing familiar. But it has been EU policy to introduce a common currency without unified laws. It is EU policy to mishandle refugees. And even on smaller scale, it is the EU that made ridiculous (tracking) cookie laws. It is hard to name policies that actually work.

Protecting a name helps only if you're that small company in that small region that is designated by the EU. Yes, a wine makes from champagne would be happy. A small feta maker from Bulgaria won't be. Now, large companies shipping pork from for example the Netherlands to Parma (Italy) to get a stamp and sell their stuff for a premium will find it easier to compete against pig farmers who don't.

The EU wanted to handle the refugee crisis, but was blocked by national parliaments in distributing the burden across the continent. You would need an EU with more power to handle such a thing.

The cookie laws are because of privacy. It is a stupid implementation, I agree. But the public is in constant uproar regarding anything privacy related online for some reason, so I don't fault them for that. Should be fixed at a browser level though, which is going to happen in the next few years if recent reports are any indication.

The policies that actually work are probably a ton, but they are the ones you don't read about or the ones your national government takes credit for.

I think you are looking at this issue in a very strange way. That local Bulgarian farmer, if he would be from the region that falls under the name protection, can sell his goods as such. But a random Danish farmer can not, since he does not produce his goods there. How is that unfair? Seems like a very good thing and protecting the smaller farmers. There is probably some abuse going on, but then you would need even more regulation to fix that, not getting rid of it and letting everyone in Holland just make their products under Italian names.

I sort of agree. But even after finishing the agreement, politicians haven't really been up-front and transparent about what's in it. You can upload a 1000+ page document, but that isn't really going to help the layman. On the contrary many politicians in favour engage in straw man arguments and pretend that detractors just hate trade. Several of them even refuse to acknowledge the controversies around ISDS.

If the document is out in the open and politicians think it is a good thing, then they say as such. From then on the media and public should take over and report on the good and bad things in it. And I must say, the media is doing a terrible job at it. All the reporting I read about CETA doesn't even explain what the issues are.

 

[diaspora]

At that point, the same concern applies wrt future governments following the treaty, rendering the concern moot.

that is, if they willing to throw their judicial structure in the trash cuz new govment, there is no reason to assume that they wouldn't also disregard treaty provisions.

There's a bit of a gulf between undermining a foreign company as my country of residence- Canada does, and throwing out a treaty entirely.

 

[Coriolanus]

There's a bit of a gulf between undermining a foreign company as my country of residence- Canada does, and throwing out a treaty entirely.

disregarding treaty provisions is quite different from throwing out a treaty entirely. Fwiw i'd cancdidly say that it's more likely that a country will selectively ignore treaty provisions than that it'd change its legal system to skullfuck foreign companies, cuz the latter would most likely take constitutional ammendments to be done without the risk of being reversed in higher courts (again, assuming rule of law).

could you say which company canada is shitting on so i could look it up?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

IDK why you bother responding to me when you don't respond to what I say in return.

Corporations can't sue for lost profit. The fact I have to repeat this over and over again makes me wonder.

Of course they can:

On Wednesday, TransCanada, the Canadian fossil fuel company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline, announced that it is suing the Obama administration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The case will be decided by an international tribunal. The corporation also filed a separate suit at the US Federal Court in Dallas.“TransCanada has been unjustly deprived of the value of its multi-billion-dollar investment by the U.S. Administration’s action,” the company said in a press release, declaring that it hopes to recover $15 billion in US taxpayer money as compensation for lost profits.The NAFTA suit takes advantage of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a way corporations can sue foreign governments for damages that’s a feature of many trade agreements — and which many environmental groups staunchly oppose.



The Guardian had a good article on it as well:

Investors have used this system not only to sue for compensation for alleged expropriation of land and factories, but also over a huge range of government measures, including environmental and social regulations, which they say infringe on their rights. Multinationals have sued to recover money they have already invested, but also for alleged lost profits and “expected future profits”. The number of suits filed against countries at the ICSID is now around 500 – and that figure is growing at an average rate of one case a week. The sums awarded in damages are so vast that investment funds have taken notice: corporations’ claims against states are now seen as assets that can be invested in or used as leverage to secure multimillion-dollar loans. Increasingly, companies are using the threat of a lawsuit at the ICSID to exert pressure on governments not to challenge investors’ actions.

A year after the Moorburg case closed, Vattenfall filed another claim against Germany, this time over the federal government’s decision to phase out nuclear power. This second suit – for which very little information is available in the public domain, despite reports that the company is seeking €4.7bn from German taxpayers – is still ongoing. Roughly one third of all concluded cases filed at the ICSID are recorded as ending in “settlements”, which – as the Moorburg dispute shows – can be very profitable for investors, though their terms are rarely fully disclosed.

If states do not pay up after the decision, their assets are subject to seizure in almost every country in the world
In Guatemala, internal government documents obtained through the country’s Freedom of Information Act show how the risk of one of these cases weighed heavily on one state’s decision not to challenge a controversial gold mine, despite protests from its citizens and a recommendation from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that it be closed down. Such an action, the documents warned, could provoke the company, owned by Canadian mining giant Goldcorp, to activate the ICSID or invoke clauses of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta) to gain “access to international arbitration and subsequent claims of damages to the state”. The mine was allowed to stay open.

As the claims made by companies get bigger, it seems increasingly likely that the massive financial risks associated with investor-state arbitration will effectively grant foreign investors a veto over government decisions.

But what is more is how predatory and hostile ISDS can be even when a corporation losses. Like in the case in South Africa:

When companies are unsuccessful in their claims against states, there may be other advantages to be gained. In 2004, South Africa’s new, post-apartheid Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) came into force. Along with a new mining charter, the act sought to redress historical inequalities in the mining sector, in part by requiring companies to partner with citizens who had suffered under the apartheid regime. The new system terminated all previously held mining rights, and required companies to reapply for licences to continue their operations. It also instituted a mandatory 26% ownership stake in the country’s mining companies for black South Africans. Two years later, a group of Italian investors, who together control most of the South African granite industry, filed a landmark investor-state claim against South Africa. The country’s new mining regime, they argued, had unlawfully expropriated their investments and treated them unfairly. They demanded $350m in compensation.

The companies’ case against South Africa dragged on for four years, before ending abruptly when the Italian group dropped its claims and the tribunal ordered them to contribute €400,000 (£290,000) towards South Africa’s costs. At the time, a government press release celebrated it as “successful conclusion” – despite the fact that South Africa was still left with €5m in unreimbursed legal fees. But the investors claimed a more significant victory: the pressure of the case, they said, allowed them to strike an unprecedented deal with the South African government that allowed their companies to transfer only 5% of their ownership to black South Africans – rather than the 26% mandated by the state mining authority. “No other mining company in South Africa has been treated so generously since the advent of the [new mining regime],” one of the investors’ lawyers, Peter Leon, boasted at the time.

The government seems to have agreed to this deal, which goes against the spirit of post-apartheid reparations in South Africa, to prevent a flood of other claims against it. “If the merits of the case were decided against the government, they thought, ‘That’s it, we are going to go down.’ And I think that’s why they were happy to agree to that settlement,” Jonathan Veeran, another of the company’s lawyers said, in an interview at his office in Johannesburg. His clients, he said, “were most pleased with the result”.

 

[darkace]

On Wednesday, TransCanada, the Canadian fossil fuel company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline, announced that it is suing the Obama administration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The case will be decided by an international tribunal. The corporation also filed a separate suit at the US Federal Court in Dallas.“TransCanada has been unjustly deprived of the value of its multi-billion-dollar investment by the U.S. Administration’s action,” the company said in a press release, declaring that it hopes to recover $15 billion in US taxpayer money as compensation for lost profits.The NAFTA suit takes advantage of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a way corporations can sue foreign governments for damages that’s a feature of many trade agreements — and which many environmental groups staunchly oppose.

This isn't suing for lost profit dude. They've sunk a shitload of resources into Keystone XL that they won't be fairly compensated for if the deal sinks.

The Guardian had a good article on it as well:

The Guardian does not do good articles. And I'm not sure I'd call a system in like 3700 trade agreements obscure. Also the Guardian is seriously, seriously misrepresenting what happened in this document. Like this is basically Fox News level misrepresentation of the facts.

But what is more is how predatory and hostile ISDS can be even when a corporation losses. Like in the case in South Africa:

Yes how dare they fight to stop governments stealing their shit.

How is the company the predatory one here? The South African government literally stole their investment.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

That final paper finds BIT's increase FDI. I can read, and have.

You misunderstand my argument. You say it's settled. I say it's not, and it depends on how you do the maths. You post some papers that do the maths one way and conclude it has an effect. I say it’s still controversial, the very papers you linked say so themselves. My point stands: there are good studies that show it has a positive effect, but there are also good studies that say it doesn’t have much of an effect. The results you get depend on the details of the maths and models you are using. So it’s still controversial

Oh shit you're right, that's the wrong paper. There are two Busse et al. (2010) apparently.

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201010_e.pdf

That's the one that should be linked. It finds:

UNCTAD (2009: 37) has spotted a shift in the recent empirical literature towards a more
positive assessment of the impact of BITs on FDI. This could be because BITs have become more binding over time in offering credible investor protection. Our results on ISDS provisions do not support this view, even though it is the investor's “ability to access a tribunal outside the sway of the Host State which is the principle advantage of a modern investment treaty” (Wälde 2005: 194). It rather appears that the mere existence of BITs has helped reputation building in a relatively small sub-set of host countries, notably in some post-socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe whose BITs did not contain ISDS provisions in the strictest form.

That’s not quite a ringing endorsements of BITs. They say they that a sensitivity analysis of their results shows insignificant effect if you exclude former socialist Eastern European states. This paper seems to agree with me that it’s controversial and highly dependent on how you do the maths.

Look, I’m not asking you to condemn ISDS or anything like that, but can’t you concede that there is not quite a scientific consensus regarding their efficacy, with some studies finding significant effects and others disagreeing. This is not the kind of scientific consensus as that for, say, global warming.

If the document is out in the open and politicians think it is a good thing, then they say as such. From then on the media and public should take over and report on the good and bad things in it. And I must say, the media is doing a terrible job at it. All the reporting I read about CETA doesn't even explain what the issues are.

I agree.

 

[Pedrito]

Most of these examples don't really show that ISDS is bad, as the results would most likely have been the same with normal court proceedings. It's the effects of the legal dispute, not of the method of dispute resolution.

Also, TransCanada suing under NAFTA is not the same as TransCanada winning under NAFTA. Frivolous lawsuits are filed everywhere everyday. And they're allegedly suing in Federal Court as well so...

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

This isn't suing for lost profit dude. They've sunk a shitload of resources into Keystone XL that they won't be fairly compensated for if the deal sinks.

It's lost profit. There was no deal. Those risky investments are on the corporation. They want 15 billion for the compensation lost, not equal to what they have already invested. Hench lost profit.

The NAFTA suit demanded $15 billion (13.8 billion euros) in damages. TransCanada said it had already spent $3.1 billion in the Keystone XL project, and that it expected to announce a balance-sheet write-down of $2.9 billion in after-tax write-offs in consequence to the US government's having stopped the project.

The Guardian does not do good articles. And I'm not sure I'd call a system in like 3700 trade agreements obscure.

Guardian is one of the most well respected outlets on earth. Regardless if you like their articles or not, doesn't change the level of integrity it has.

Yes how dare they fight to stop governments stealing their shit.

How is the company the predatory one here? The South African government literally stole their investment.

Why the fuck do you think? They are actively undermining the victims of apartheid and trying to stop justice from happening. They only reached a settlement because the government was afraid of counter suits as extortion tactic.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

The Keystone issue is very complex. To say it's just a company suing because they didn't get their way is an extreme simplification to a very complicated topic.

It's sad that the EU can't even sign a trade deal with fucking Canada. Literally every single argument coming from Wallonia has been negotiated to hell and back. Seems like it's a power play at this point more than anything, not a good look.

 

[darkace]

You misunderstand my argument. You say it's settled. I say it's not, and it depends on how you do the maths. You post some papers that do the maths one way and conclude it has an effect. I say it’s still controversial, the very papers you linked say so themselves. My point stands: there are good studies that show it has a positive effect, but there are also good studies that say it doesn’t have much of an effect. The results you get depend on the details of the maths and models you are using. So it’s still controversial

AFAIK it's trending towards consensus on the positive, esp re. UNCTAD, but I'm happy to say it's not entirely conclusive.

It's lost profit. There was no deal. Those risky investments are on the corporation. They want 15 billion for the compensation lost, not equal to what they have already invested. Hench lost profit.

You understand investment isn't just purely in monetary output, yea? Time, risk, opportunity cost, etc.

It's not lost profit, regardless of how much you want to simplify it to push your agenda.

Guardian is one of the most well respected outlets on earth. Regardless if you like their articles or not, doesn't change the level of integrity it has.

This is literally Fox News level.

Why the fuck do you think? They are actively undermining the victims of apartheid and trying to stop justice from happening. They only reached a settlement because the government was afraid of counter suits as extortion tactic.

Apartheid doesn't give you the right to rob foreign investors. I'm not sure why you'd believe it would.

 

[YourMaster]

The policies that actually work are probably a ton, but they are the ones you don't read about or the ones your national government takes credit for.

I think you are looking at this issue in a very strange way. That local Bulgarian farmer, if he would be from the region that falls under the name protection, can sell his goods as such. But a random Danish farmer can not, since he does not produce his goods there. How is that unfair? Seems like a very good thing and protecting the smaller farmers. There is probably some abuse going on, but then you would need even more regulation to fix that, not getting rid of it and letting everyone in Holland just make their products under Italian names.

Sure there must be good policies we just don't know about them.

And you fail to understand the issue - you just assume it must work alright - it's the Bulgarian farmer who learned to make feta from his grandma who learned it from hers before that, that now can no longer sell their feta as feta. THAT is unfair.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

You understand investment isn't just purely in monetary output, yea? Time, risk, opportunity cost, etc.

It's not lost profit, regardless of how much you want to simplify it to push your agenda.

Don't deflect- That was calculated into their total cost, nowhere close to 15 Bn. Your shitposting is unreal. I've never seen a poster being so delusional.

There is no Agenda here. Btw, Opportunity costs are a form of lost profit. You're sinking your own argument.

This is literally Fox News level.

Apartheid doesn't give you the right to rob foreign investors. I'm not sure why you'd believe it would.

It's counter suits via extortion. It's not robbing anyone of anything trial to add diversity to a work force. It's corporate greed.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Sure there must be good policies we just don't know about them.

And you fail to understand the issue - you just assume it must work alright - it's the Bulgarian farmer who learned to make feta from his grandma who learned it from hers before that, that now can no longer sell their feta as feta. THAT is unfair.

It's also unfair to the farmer making the actual feta that someone from somewhere else can profit from the name while it's not the same. I'd argue that while there are some cases where it hurts businesses, it is overall a good measure to protect smaller business from multinationals who would otherwise abuse the name.

And this is the case with a lot of laws and regulations. There will always be some cases where someone gets hurt a bit, but overall it improves things. Instead of writing off the whole regulation then as something bad, the focus should be on improving the faults of it and not just say "awful EU" as if that solves anything.

 

[darkace]

Don't deflect- That was calculated into their total cost, nowhere close to 15 Bn.

And do you think companies start at their expected cost, or do they start high and get worked down? Do you understand how basic negotiation works? Do you understand that ISDS winners generally receive 10% of what they ask for?

There is no Agenda here. Btw, Opportunity costs are a form of lost profit.

No, it's not. Take an accounting class.

It's counter suits via extortion. It's not robbing anyone of anything trial to add diversity to a work force.

It's the fucking definition of robbing. 'It's ok to rob people to add diversity.' 'It's corporate greed to not want to be robbed because they want higher diversity.'

Jesus Christ. Sometimes the people on the left worry me. Unfair expropriation isn't ok because it suits your greater goals.

 

[diaspora]

There is no Agenda here. Btw, Opportunity costs are a form of lost profit. You're sinking your own argument.

Well, that's the dumbest thing I'm going to see today.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Well, that's the dumbest thing I'm going to see today.

It's called something else in my country. I just read up on it on wiki. We call it something else.

And do you think companies start at their expected cost, or do they start high and get worked down? Do you understand how basic negotiation works? Do you understand that ISDS winners generally receive 10% of what they ask for?

I find this hard to believe given the surge of specialized law firm who sue as a collateral and form of extortion. We've seen it in many countries. Like Libya where when it was suit for close a to a billion even though cost had not to more than 5 million: http://www.iisd.org/itn/2014/01/19/awards-and-decisions-14/
The directly cited "Lost Profits" as a cause, which you said was not possible.
Not only that, but unlike regular courts, there is not even a liability for having to pay for damages, making a country like El Salvador- Even if they win, completely fucked as they won't be able to cover the legal costs for not wanting to engage in dangerous mining operations.

TransCanada should have known the risks instead of being tone deaf.

It's the fucking definition of robbing. 'It's ok to rob people to add diversity.' 'It's corporate greed to not want to be robbed because they want higher diversity.'

Jesus Christ. Sometimes the people on the left worry me. Unfair expropriation isn't ok because it suits your greater goals.

They mandated the companies re-applied for their sovereign rights to superseed native Africans rights. It wasn't robbery. You know what is robbery however? Colonization and european systemic oppression on the continent. you reapply and you try to better -redistribute. This wasn't throwing all white men on the door, but to ask for better representation. Something countless countries have done post-WW2 as they have distanced themselves from their former colonial powers.

They created more suits because the tribunals are pro-investor and promotes siding with the corporation. It's amazing that investors don't win more than they do, but it probably speaks to how outragous so many of their claims are.

US oil giant Chevron is using an investor-state lawsuit to avoid paying US$9.5 billion to indigenous groups to clean up vast oil-drilling related contamination in the Amazonian rainforest, as ordered by Ecuadorian courts. So far, the three-man tribunal hearing the case has sided with Chevron, ordering Ecuador to block the enforcement of the ruling. But as such a move would violate the separation of powers enshrined in Ecuador’s constitution, the government did not follow the tribunal’s order. Now, Chevron is arguing that this decision is violating its right to ‘fair and equitable treatment’ in the US-Ecuador investment treaty and is demanding compensation. In this egregious misuse of investment arbitration to evade justice, Ecuadorians themselves might have to pay for the poisoning of their ecosystem – rather than the polluter that caused it.

 

[His Majesty]

It's sad that the EU can't even sign a trade deal with fucking Canada. Literally every single argument coming from Wallonia has been negotiated to hell and back. Seems like it's a power play at this point more than anything, not a good look.

My impression is the same. The Parti Socialiste is sacrificing the trade deal for political gain from communist voters. The sad part is that Wallonia has no trade ties with Canada and thus has nothing to lose, contrary to Flanders.

 

[darkace]

We've seen it in many countries. Like Libya where when it was suit for close a to a billion even though cost had not to more than 5 million: http://www.iisd.org/itn/2014/01/19/awards-and-decisions-14/
The directly cited "Lost Profits" as a cause, which you said was not possible.

Dude the Libyan state unilaterally cancelled the contract without fulfilling the compensation obligations. The state didn't fulfil their basic obligations as mandated in their own contract. How is this a failure? What exactly would a successful ISDS case look like to you?

Not only that, but unlike regular courts, there is not even a liability for having to pay for damages, making a country like El Salvador- Even if they win, completely fucked as they won't be able to cover the legal costs for not wanting to engage in dangerous mining operations.

That's a little weird, given PMI paid Australia's legal costs in their entirety. Are you just making things up now?

They mandated the companies re-applied for their sovereign rights to superseed native Africans rights.

They do.

You know what is robbery however? Colonization and european systemic oppression on the continent.

Yadda yadda irrelevant.

you reapply and you try to better -redistribute. This wasn't throwing all white men on the door, but to ask for better representation. Something countless countries have done post-WW2 as they have distanced themselves from their former colonial powers.

So pay for it as stipulated in your contractual obligations?

They created more suits because the tribunals are pro-investor and promotes siding with the corporation. It's amazing that investors don't win more than they do, but it probably speaks to how outragous so many of their claims are.

How are you so wrong about literally everything?

US oil giant Chevron is using an investor-state lawsuit to avoid paying US$9.5 billion to indigenous groups to clean up vast oil-drilling related contamination in the Amazonian rainforest, as ordered by Ecuadorian courts. So far, the three-man tribunal hearing the case has sided with Chevron, ordering Ecuador to block the enforcement of the ruling. But as such a move would violate the separation of powers enshrined in Ecuador’s constitution, the government did not follow the tribunal’s order. Now, Chevron is arguing that this decision is violating its right to ‘fair and equitable treatment’ in the US-Ecuador investment treaty and is demanding compensation. In this egregious misuse of investment arbitration to evade justice, Ecuadorians themselves might have to pay for the poisoning of their ecosystem – rather than the polluter that caused it.

Oh man Public Citizen. Maybe we can get Jacobin Mag to weigh in next. Then Russia Today.

 

[YourMaster]

It's also unfair to the farmer making the actual feta that someone from somewhere else can profit from the name while it's not the same. I'd argue that while there are some cases where it hurts businesses, it is overall a good measure to protect smaller business from multinationals who would otherwise abuse the name.

And this is the case with a lot of laws and regulations. There will always be some cases where someone gets hurt a bit, but overall it improves things. Instead of writing off the whole regulation then as something bad, the focus should be on improving the faults of it and not just say "awful EU" as if that solves anything.

Now I understand why you think the EU is a net positive, you fail to realize the difference between laws and EU regulations.
In countries, politicians make laws for their own population, for the people that elect them. And although they are certainly not always effective or just or good, but at the very least the politician is motivated to have the citizens be happy with the law. Many laws are indeed as you describe, mostly good with only some people unjustly negatively affected or not at all. ( E.g. Don't murder people is quite a popular law).
EU regulations are not made for the people that elect you, but against other countries. There's competition and strong conflicts of interest between different counties, and the goal of the powers there are to get something they want. To stick to the original example: In large area's of the Balkan and Greece people made Feta cheese for generations, Denmark managed to make even better Feta, and because Greece had to accept the 'protections' of so many regional products they to were entitled to forbid others to do stuff and as a quid pro quo Greece is now the only country allowed to make Feta and all the Farmers in the Balkan countries suffer, as well as the consumers. This is the example of a single product, and with almost all of them you find something wrong, and instead of a few dozens of 'protected' products there are now hundreds.

The more you learn about EU procedures and regulations, the more you learn this is the norm: Perhaps sometimes the idea can be justified in a specific situation, but overall it does more harm than good.
So when the EU has a new project - one which has a powerful long term effect in overruling national laws - people are highly skeptical.

 

[Skab]

I wish I knew what any of this was

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Dude the Libyan state unilaterally cancelled the contract without fulfilling the compensation obligations. The state didn't fulfil their basic obligations as mandated in their own contract. How is this a failure? What exactly would a successful ISDS case look like to you?

We're not arguing the inner contracts. We're arguing you saying that they cannot sue for lost revenue. 5 million dollars spending doesn't justify being sued for over a billion.

Yadda yadda irrelevant.

Apartheid is not "yadda yadda"- It says in the article that it was counter to their laws in combating apartheid. And thats a key point of these tribunals. They are circumventing a countries own laws which is a key of what we're talking about here.

Oh man Public Citizen. Maybe we can get Jacobin Mag to weigh in next. Then Russia Today.

More deflection... This is your strategy. You dismiss shit you don't like so you don't have to move from your key talking points.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

The Guardian does not do good articles. And I'm not sure I'd call a system in like 3700 trade agreements obscure. Also the Guardian is seriously, seriously misrepresenting what happened in this document. Like this is basically Fox News level misrepresentation of the facts.

The Guardian is a well-respected outlet. You can't just dismiss them out of hand without making a good case for why the specific article is inaccurate in your opinion (especially when you went around posting reports from libertarian industry-funded think tanks as fact earlier (though I did appreciate that you posted scientific papers later)). What parts of this article makes you think it's Fox level reporting? It's very hard for us to either agree or disagree if you are not being specific in your criticism.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

This is, far and away, the dumbest post I've ever seen.

I don't give a shit about cigarettes. What I do give a shit about is governments not having the right to arbitrarily expropriate IP and assets without due compensation. Why do you feel you have the right to steal property because you disagree with it?

And they fucking lost. They sued because they knew ignorant peeps would start railing against the proceedings because they don't understand them. Anybody in the industry would tell you PMI was going to lose from the outset, they were protecting their shareholders by exploiting the populations' ignorance on how ISDS works. They would lose less money paying Australia's expenses at the ISDS court than they would through the introduction of plain-packaging legislation around the world.

Also I like how not a single person I pressed for actual evidence responded with some. It's almost as if nobody actually has any that's worth a damn.

Hey look dude, many (read "most people") don't want to cede any legal/litigious advantage their governments hold over large multinational corporations, however small, because of what they believe: their nation's right to self sovereignty and self determination with corporate bodies being subservient to the collective public will. And I tend to agree with that sentiment. Otherwise, you end up with the erosion of a country's middle class along with their bargaining power in politics and in the labor market, as companies will just circumvent or reshape the law for their benefit as we've witnessed in the US over the past 4 decades.

The estimated 0.1% improvement for consumers comes at what expense? Further loss of diversity in skills and industry for many countries, along with further loss of environmental and labor protections (or further outsourcing the negative labor and environmental externalities somewhere else instead of trying to mitigate them) due to pressure in the market from global competition that doesn't meet local producers' enforced standards and doesn't have to.

Just look at what multinational corporations and global free trade deals have factually done for the average US citizen: drastically weakened or eliminated most private and public sector unions, stagnated real wage growth and diminished benefits everywhere except for the executive elites (new noble class), downgraded from pensions to 401k if it's even offered, diluted the value of US citizens' earning power in workforce due to downward pressure on wages coming from a much larger global pool of workers (many who have free or heavily-subsidized health care and education in their home countries, making it easier for them to gain greater credentials at a younger age relative to their US counterparts without going into crippling debt, which in turn also makes them demand lower wages relative to their US counterparts as a result), shift towards lower paying part time service jobs with few if any offered benefits (i.e., underemployment), and the clusterfuck which is Citizen's United and its terrible effect on democracy.

 

[darkace]

We're not arguing the inner contracts. We're arguing you saying that they cannot sue for lost revenue. 5 million dollars spending doesn't justify being sued for over a billion.

Again, monetary damages are not the only thing that they're being sued for. And it's clearly not 'lost revenue'. The Libyan state essentially tore up the contract without compensation. How is this not an example of it working?

Apartheid is not "yadda yadda"- It says in the article that it was counter to their laws in combating apartheid. And thats a key point of these tribunals. They are circumventing a countries own laws which is a key of what we're talking about here.

Dude they are stealing things. It doesn't matter what they're combating. If you take something from foreign investors, you need to pay compensation. The history of countries legislating to expropriate assets without compensation is exactly why these tribunals exist.

More deflection... This is your strategy. You dismiss shit you don't like so you don't have to move from your key talking points.

Get a source that isn't outright lying to push an agenda. The prosecution in Ecuador was found complicit in widespread bribery and fraudulent action in order to win damages against Chevron, a company that had never operated in Ecuador, for their acquisition of another company that was a minority owner in operations in Ecuador years before the purported damages were done. And the company they acquired had already paid for the damages they had caused as required in the agreement, the Ecuadorian government had bought the stake in the operations prior to the damages in question occurring, and Chevron, at no point, had any financial stake in any company responsible for the damages. The US, Brazil and Gibraltar all found in favour of Chevron, who are taking the prosecution to court for damages.

It's essentially a shake-down, which you would realise if you'd stop railing against all companies as if they were evil.

The Guardian is a well-respected outlet. You can't just dismiss them out of hand without making a good case for why the specific article is inaccurate in your opinion (especially when you went around posting reports from libertarian industry-funded think tanks as fact earlier (though I did appreciate that you posted scientific papers later)). What parts of this article makes you think it's Fox level reporting? It's very hard for us to either agree or disagree if you are not being specific in your criticism.

The flagrant misrepresentation of cases brought before ISDS courts, plus the couching in vaguely sinister language in order to make the reader scared of these courts. For instance, its representation of the Vattenfall case is completely wrong:

The quiet village of Moorburg in Germany lies just across the river from Hamburg. Past the 16th-century church and meadows rich with wildflowers, two huge chimneys spew a steady stream of thick, grey smoke into the sky. This is Kraftwerk Moorburg, a new coal-fired power plant – the village’s controversial next-door neighbour. In 2009, it was the subject of a €1.4bn investor-state case filed by Vattenfall, the Swedish energy giant, against the Federal Republic of Germany.

Vattenfall sued Hamburg in the local courts. But, as a foreign investor, it was also able to file a case at the ICSID. These environmental measures, it said, were so strict that they constituted a violation of its rights as guaranteed by the Energy Charter Treaty, a multilateral investment agreement signed by more than 50 countries, including Sweden and Germany. It claimed that the environmental conditions placed on its permit were so severe that they made the plant uneconomical and constituted acts of indirect expropriation.

“It was a total surprise for us,” the local Green party leader Jens Kerstan laughed, in a meeting at his sunny office in Hamburg last year. “As far as I knew, there were some [treaties] to protect German companies in the [developing] world or in dictatorships, but that a European company can sue Germany, that was totally a surprise to me.”

Vattenfall v Germany ended in a settlement in 2011, after the company won its case in the local court and received a new water permit for its Moorburg plant – which significantly lowered the environmental standards that had originally been imposed, according to legal experts, allowing the plant to use more water from the river and weakening measures to protect fish. The European Commission has now stepped in, taking Germany to the EU Court of Justice, saying its authorisation of the Moorburg coal plant violated EU environmental law by not doing more to reduce the risk to protected fish species, including salmon, which pass near the plant while migrating from the North Sea.

You'd think that Vattenfall was in the wrong here, right? Well, you'd be wrong. Here's what happened: Vattenfall signs contract with the city of Hamburg to build a new coal power plant, the Green party (which was ruling Hamburg at the time in a coalition government) kept arbitrarily creating and raising regulatory standards with the aim of stopping the power plant. There was no empirical/evidence-based backing for most of the regulations that they implemented, it was simply directly targeting the power plant. Vattenfall actually changed their plans multiple times to accommodate these changes, before realising it was an unfair playing field and deciding to take Germany through ISDS. And Germany lost the dispute, because again, this is an instance of unfair and discriminatory regulation. You can read about the stuff they went through here: http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0889.pdf (starts at p.7 of the PDF document). Perhaps most telling is the multiple instances where leaders of the Green Party said they would take every avenue possible to stop the coal power plant (such as exhibit C12), clearly violating the Energy Charter Treaty and abusing their regulatory power for political ends.

The Guardian is pushing an agenda.

Hey look dude, many (read "most people") don't want to cede any legal/litigious advantage their governments hold over large multinational corporations, however small, because of what they believe: their nation's right to self sovereignty and self determination with corporate bodies being subservient to the collective public will. And I tend to agree with that sentiment. Otherwise, you end up with the erosion of a country's middle class along with their bargaining power in politics and in the labor market, as companies will just circumvent or reshape the law for their benefit as we've witnessed in the US over the past 4 decades.

Domestic law-making and ISDS are two entirely different things. Also I have no idea what the middle class has to do with this.

The estimated 0.1% improvement for consumers comes at what expense? Further loss of diversity in skills and industry for many countries, along with further loss of environmental and labor protections (or further outsourcing the negative labor and environmental externalities somewhere else instead of trying to mitigate them) due to pressure in the market from global competition that doesn't meet local producers' enforced standards and doesn't have to.

Citations needed.

Just look at what multinational corporations and global free trade deals have factually done for the average US citizen: drastically weakened or eliminated most private and public sector unions, stagnated real wage growth and diminished benefits everywhere except for the executive elites (new noble class), downgraded from pensions to 401k if it's even offered, diluted the value of US citizens' earning power in workforce due to downward pressure on wages coming from a much larger global pool of workers (many who have free or heavily-subsidized health care and education in their home countries, making it easier for them to gain greater credentials at a younger age relative to their US counterparts without going into crippling debt, which in turn also makes them demand lower wages relative to their US counterparts as a result), shift towards lower paying part time service jobs with few if any offered benefits (i.e., underemployment), and the clusterfuck which is Citizen's United and its terrible effect on democracy.

Let's try looking at what free trade has actually done:

http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2008/Papers/Romalis.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6095

https://www.brookings.edu/research/close-the-deal-on-free-trade/

Free trade is massively welfare enhancing. Putting a whole heap of factually devoid far-left buzzwords one after the other doesn't change this fundamental truth.

 

[HarryHengst]

Anytime someone starts talking about how free trade is so amazing you know that person is just talking a bunch of shit. It is nothing more than a bunch of feel-good words that hides that any free trade deal ends with people being exploited to hell and back to give Americans and Europeans cheap stuff (even though those same people suffer from more competition and thus lower wages) and put more profit in the hands of corporations. Basically, smash capitalism because it is the root of all evil.

 

[Maledict]

Anytime someone starts talking about how free trade is so amazing you know that person is just talking a bunch of shit. It is nothing more than a bunch of feel-good words that hides that any free trade deal ends with people being exploited to hell and back to give Americans and Europeans cheap stuff (even though those same people suffer from more competition and thus lower wages) and put more profit in the hands of corporations. Basically, smash capitalism because it is the root of all evil.

The root of all evil and at the same time responsible for the largest increase in living conditions, healthcare, reduction in poverty and improvement in opportunity for the entire species in history.

Capitalism has many problem, but it's done a better job in all its various forms than anything else so far. Unless you think feudalism is the way to go?

 

[darkace]

Anytime someone starts talking about how free trade is so amazing you know that person is just talking a bunch of shit.

Free trade is responsible for the largest increase in living standards in human history.

If free trade harmed people we wouldn't blockade our enemies, we would drop all restrictions to them entering

Given I've posted a whole heap of evidence for the widespread improvements free trade makes, it's more likely that you're ignorant on this subject than free trade harms people. And looking at the rest of your post makes it plain as day that that is true.

 

[HarryHengst]

The root of all evil and at the same time responsible for the largest increase in living conditions, healthcare, reduction in poverty and improvement in opportunity for the entire species in history.

Capitalism has many problem, but it's done a better job in all its various forms than anything else so far. Unless you think feudalism is the way to go?

Because the options are feudalism or capitalism...

And sure, capitalism does better if you are a middle-class or upper-class American or western european. But god forbid you lose your job in America or capitalism really isnt so fun anymore.

If you think that the child labourers in Rwanda mining minerals for your iphone find it all that better than how their predecessors lived before western nations swooped in you are delusional. Or do you think that the factory workers in 19th century Britain thought it was so great? Or the people in the Congo who had to work for the Belgium king, that sure was fun for them because hey, they contributed to capitalism! Or the people making clothin in Bangladesh, they sure love working so many hours for barely any money with a daily change to die in a fire because their capitalist boss locks their factory with chains.

You forget how many people had to die and continue to suffer and die so you can sit here on the internet saying how amazing capitalism is because you are one of the relative winners of the system.

Most progress is made in spite of capitalism, not thanks to capitalism.

 

[PatjuhR]

Good. TTIP was going to be bad for Europe.

So much difference in standards and the ability for US companies to sue european countries for not doing business with them for those reasons.

 

[HarryHengst]

Free trade is responsible for the largest increase in living standards in human history.

If free trade harmed people we wouldn't blockade our enemies, we would drop all restrictions to them entering

Given I've posted a whole heap of evidence for the widespread improvements free trade makes, it's more likely that you're ignorant on this subject than free trade harms people. And looking at the rest of your post makes it plain as day that that is true.

It must be great to have such a short-term memory. Capitalism and ''free trade'' first destroyed the lives of half the world, now some recovery is happening after hundreds of years of misery and oppression and here you are praising free trade and capitalism (which arent the same of course) for that.

 

[darkace]

It must be great to have such a short-term memory. Capitalism and ''free trade'' first destroyed the lives of half the world, now some recovery is happening after hundreds of years of misery and oppression and here you are praising free trade and capitalism (which arent the same of course) for that.

It does make me wonder how people get so misinformed about these things. Economies before were mercantilist, not capitalist. It was focused on expropriating profits from overseas countries back home. It's the exact opposite of free trade and free markets, it was a repressive totalitarian regime where people were literally slaves.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It must be great to have such a short-term memory. Capitalism and ''free trade'' first destroyed the lives of half the world, now some recovery is happening after hundreds of years of misery and oppression and here you are praising free trade and capitalism (which arent the same of course) for that.

I don't know what you're referring to with the "first" bit there. Colonialism isn't a form of free-trade. It's "capitalism" only in the sense that capital is privately owned, but capitalism is defined more broadly in a lack of constraints allowing for free and mutually beneficial trades to occur between private entities (as opposed to, say, centrally imposed price ceilings or floors, state control of the means of production, artificial trade barriers etc). Sailing across the sea, massacre'ing half a continent, enslaving the other half and stealing all their shit isn't a "free and mutually beneficial trade", anymore than Stalin dragging political dissidents off to the gulag was "communism".

You can use historic states as evidence in favour or against certain economic systems, but only in a piecemeal way, and even then it needs to be couched in context and caveats. That Britain had private ownership over the means of production and relatively free trade with Europe in the post-Napoleonic era does not mean that Colonial Britain's actions define what capitalism is.

 

[Dingens]

Free trade is responsible for the largest increase in living standards in human history. [...]

What free trade exactly? Free trade and free markets are like text-book socialism, nice on paper but not very practical in reality. the "free trade agreement" you are arguing for is the best example. It has barely anything to do with free trade, but rather tries to equalize different markets (which according to many free trade advocates like smith, ricardo and torrens is not necessary for "free trade" to function. They basically try to achieve what the republicans already tried under Reagan in the 80s (but back than the roles were kinda reversed).
further more, like most people already mentioned, the agreement gives privileged rights to foreign investors (as compared to domestic ones), which, under a truly free market agreement should not be necessary, a free market is self-correcting after all right?

And the ISDS debate completely ignores the 2nd reason why these courts are so controversial: no option for appeals, fixed staff and basically a private for-profit business structure. The staff is particularly problematic as today's lawyer may become tomorrows judges (and the other way around). "They have always been there" is a pretty absurd argument, considering most agreements in the past were between less developed nations. But for a contract between two advanced parties? I'm sure there could be better ways, like setting up a new international commercial court under the UN or WTO.

lastly it's kinda odd, how you accuse others of getting emotional, but at the same time use overly emotional language throughout. Like the claim that states "steal" investments and the evil left is uninformed.

The "stealing" part is particularly funny. First of all, investments are a risk and nobody forces an investor to invest into a certain country. The investor makes a decision and consequently should have to live with the consequences. The same goes for the state ofc. If a state decides to not honour an agreements, it will have a hard time attracting investors in the future - but I don't see why the investor should be entitled to compensations. I can't sue the casino if I bet on the wrong number. If Investors decide to go all in with 32 red, they should be ready to win or lose everything.

Circumstances change all the time, especially in politics, and reasons for policy change do not have to be "scientific" at all. The rights of the stake holders should always outweigh the rights of the share holders. Nobody can predict the future, and if drastic policy changes become necessary, a state needs enough room to act in the interest of its stakeholders first.

And lastly, even if the lack of ISDS were to hamper FDI in theory, currently there is way too much money on the market and investors are already desperate to put it into some decent investment. No reason to hand them any extra power, they will flock to you regardless.

if you're asking for sources, sry, but I'm afraid you'd have to go to your local library

 

[darkace]

What free trade exactly? Free trade and free markets are like text-book socialism, nice on paper but not very practical in reality. the "free trade agreement" you are arguing for is the best example. It has barely anything to do with free trade, but rather tries to equalize different markets (which according to many free trade advocates like smith, ricardo and torrens is not necessary for "free trade" to function. They basically try to achieve what the republicans already tried under Reagan in the 80s (but back than the roles were kinda reversed).

Free trade doesn't refer to the total absence of regulations.

further more, like most people already mentioned, the agreement gives privileged rights to foreign investors (as compared to domestic ones), which, under a truly free market agreement should not be necessary, a free market is self-correcting after all right?

Yes it self-corrects by investment flowing away from risky areas. The idea is to signal to potential investors that you are less risky.

And again, nobody except loonies argues for total absence of regulations.

And the ISDS debate completely ignores the 2nd reason why these courts are so controversial: no option for appeals, fixed staff and basically a private for-profit business structure. The staff is particularly problematic as today's lawyer may become tomorrows judges (and the other way around). "They have always been there" is a pretty absurd argument, considering most agreements in the past were between less developed nations. But for a contract between two advanced parties? I'm sure there could be better ways, like setting up a new international commercial court under the UN or WTO.

Your solution is setting up an ISDS court that differs in name?

lastly it's kinda odd, how you accuse others of getting emotional, but at the same time use overly emotional language throughout. Like the claim that states "steal" investments and the evil left is uninformed.

Unpaid expropriation is quite literally stealing. And the far-left has repeatedly shown itself to be uninformed in this thread.

How exactly is that emotive?

The "stealing" part is particularly funny. First of all, investments are a risk and nobody forces an investor to invest into a certain country. The investor makes a decision and consequently should have to live with the consequences.

Your solution is to allow states to steal investments and then throw up our hands and say 'shit happens'? It's an interesting one, for sure.

The same goes for the state ofc. If a state decides to not honour an agreements, it will have a hard time attracting investors in the future - but I don't see why the investor should be entitled to compensations. I can't sue the casino if I bet on the wrong number. If Investors decide to go all in with 32 red, they should be ready to win or lose everything.

I have no interest in completely free markets. Or completely free trade. Regulations have a place, and the existence of rule-of-law and strictly defined and enforced property rights is the fundamental underpinning of our relative prosperity today.

I have an interest in things that are empirically good for the people of a country. I'm happy with anything provided it doesn't cross fundamental moral boundaries.

Circumstances change all the time, especially in politics, and reasons for policy change do not have to be "scientific" at all. The rights of the stake holders should always outweigh the rights of the share holders. Nobody can predict the future, and if drastic policy changes become necessary, a state needs enough room to act in the interest of its stakeholders first.

And they can, provided they compensate investors.

And lastly, even if the lack of ISDS were to hamper FDI in theory, currently there is way too much money on the market and investors are already desperate to put it into some decent investment. No reason to hand them any extra power, they will flock to you regardless.

They aren't being handed extra power. And there is never enough money on the market.

 

[Giant Panda]

Anytime someone starts talking about how free trade is so amazing you know that person is just talking a bunch of shit. It is nothing more than a bunch of feel-good words that hides that any free trade deal ends with people being exploited to hell and back to give Americans and Europeans cheap stuff (even though those same people suffer from more competition and thus lower wages) and put more profit in the hands of corporations. Basically, smash capitalism because it is the root of all evil.

Free trade is one of the few areas that nearly all mainstream economists agree is a good thing. Also lol if you think socialism is good. Socialism can't work and will just lead to totalitarianism.

 

[Gallbaro]

Anytime someone starts talking about how free trade is so amazing you know that person is just talking a bunch of shit. It is nothing more than a bunch of feel-good words that hides that any free trade deal ends with people being exploited to hell and back to give Americans and Europeans cheap stuff (even though those same people suffer from more competition and thus lower wages) and put more profit in the hands of corporations. Basically, smash capitalism because it is the root of all evil.

Free trade has been hugely beneficial to the human species. It does affect a minority drastically to the benefit of the drastic majority.

Really the people who complain about free trade are the privileged who won the planetary sperm lottery and now find themselves competing with increased labor.