Hacker News Reader

Reducing tariffs is not in vogue anymore. Trump is getting lots of support for his proposal to reinstate many tariffs.

>Furthermore, we can't realistically ask for the parties to go back to the negotiating table to try to improve the deal. This one was 10 years in the making, which is depressing, but does mean that it's basically this deal or nothing.

But they told us that negotiating it in secrecy does not matter as there will be a window of so many months in which it will be made public before the legislators will sign it.

So then it does matter, after all.

The point is that we did not have an opportunity to influence the negotiations and therefore the text of the treaty. We instead are presented almost with a fait accompli that we must either accept or reject altogether.

Was there a good reason for the secrecy? I feel like revolting against it as a statement of dissatisfaction with the process.

Most Americans want tariffs. We've seen what removing protectionism and globalizing the economy has done: things are great for American elites and corporate interests, and American workers have been thrown in the dumpster. "Removing tariffs" is a negative, not a positive aspect of a law for most Americans at this point.

And the fact that it is up-or-down without our input makes me more inclined to simply say no. If you don't want my input but you want me to agree, you had better tailor-make your proposition with my interests in mind.

"This deal or nothing" is an easy choice much like a bully saying "my way or the highway" -- the highway is fine, thank you.

It is a fact that the TPP is an early stage of a process that is a threat to clasical liberalism-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages

And people like to criticize the Koch Brothers and George Soros, but how many policy promoting non phrofits does David Rockefeller have? Dozens?

What if Rockefeller's personal political philosophies are flawed? Him and the Foreign Policy Establishment have uniformly defined globalization as Balassa's theory of economic integration.

The TPP is the 2nd or 3rd stage of a 7 stage process. It is very dangerous, if you believe in natural rights and human freedom.

It is indeed a fact that the TPP moves us closer to Economic Integration. Claiming that Economic Integration is a threat to classical liberalism is your opinion, and is not supported by the link you cited.

Economic Integration is undeniably a threat to American sovereignty and classical liberalism. The evidence is overwhelming.

The entire concept is that the centralization of power is always a good thing. There is no acknowledgement of natural rights in the European Union.

So a supranational world government that replaces the American Constitution and Bill of Rights is going to be rooted in popular sovereignty? Ha.

You are being overly optimistic in a world full of powerhungry collectivists who certainly see classical liberalism as an impediment to world peace and a perfect society.

"The Difference Between the U.S. Constitution and EU Constitution - MEP Dan Hannan" https://youtu.be/dS6hQQ2pyco

> The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal

So ? A chain is as strong as it's weakest link. If one aspect of the deal is unacceptable then there is no point in discussing the rest, you can reject the whole deal.

I don't understand your use of the chain analogy. The TPP is wide-ranging agreement. How are the economic benefits of reduced tariffs eliminated by another aspect of the deal, such as copyrights?

Imagine there is an agreement that does two things: a) eliminates some tariffs and b) murders all children under the age of 12.

If (a) is good and (b) is not related to or necessary for (a) then clearly we should do (a) and not (b), and an agreement that ties them together for no reason is flawed and should be voted down so we can come back and vote on the separate issues separately.

If (b) is related to and necessary for (a) then clearly (a) isn't worth (b) and we should vote down the whole agreement.

Notice that in both cases we should vote down the whole agreement.

You didn't argue for why the chain analogy applies here. You just argued that we should reject the entire agreement if one part is so egregiously bad that it outweighs the others, which is obviously true. Why does the "weakest link" analogy apply to the actual TPP, which, as far I know, does not call for the murder of any children at all.

The agreement is supposed to be a chain. The things in it are supposed to be related in some way, otherwise why are they together? Dumping many completely unrelated things into the same agreement so that things that should not pass have to be passed in order to do things people want is the thing so egregiously bad that it outweighs everything else. It's a chain with a link so weak it doesn't even exist.

Otherwise you could take an agreement which is net +1000, add absolute garbage to it until it's net +0.5 and then argue that we should still pass it because the net result is still positive. Which, compared to the alternative of throwing away the net +0.5 agreement and insisting on the net +1000 agreement, is net -999.5.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The strength of all other links is irrelevant.

A better measure for a deal like this is the geometric mean of its components. If one component is zero, the entire deal is worth zero, but otherwise each component contributes to the aggregate value of the deal.

There are many other controversial aspects of the bill, such as extensive copyright protections and reduced access to generic medicines, both of which were forced in through US pressure. To me it sounds like the agreement is designed primarily to benefit large American corporations.

Michael Geist covered many more issues with TPP here:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/