a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by OftenBen
OftenBen  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Trans Pacific Partnership: Obama ready to defy Democrats to push secretive trade deal

kleinbl00 how concerned should I be about this?

The little bit that I've been able to understand about the TPP is that it's essentially NAFTA plus a bunch of stuff about intellectual property and patent law.





kleinbl00  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Goddamn it. I do not enjoy having my scattershot and academic knowledge tested by pragmatism. ;-)

So THING 1: Read this. Sagami is a textbook Rationalist which, near as I can tell, is the philosophy of "this is the world we live in" (Ohhhh) "and these are the hand we're given" (oooohh). Rationalists say things like "Southern California is effectively Mexico in all but name and expecting it to behave like Philadelphia is asking for disappointment." I think the rationalists sneak a little too much manifest destiny into their leanings as well as disguising Randian self-interest as fatalism but they also espouse a notion I tend to agree with: policy is of, for and by the big people, not the little people but the big people won't go out of their way to screw the little people because it's just business.

THING 2 is "put on your tinfoil hat."

The rationalists have been talking about currency wars for about three years now. Their prognostications have played out pretty well so far. John Mauldin didn't predict super-low oil prices, but he did predict that Abenomics would be a failed gambit to return Japan to solvency that would launch the G8 into a round of competitive devaluation. Stupid low oil prices have a lot of the effects you're looking for in a currency war, particularly if your economy isn't sensitive to oil prices but theirs is.

Here's the problem: the currency of the United States is strong as fuck. With Russia off doing its own thing, Japan hyperinflating as fast as they can and China pegging their currency to the dollar, the Euro is what you're worried about and the Euro is mighty competitive at the moment. Didja see that 30% drop over the past year? That's a 30% discount on BMW. A 30% discount on Bosch. A 30% discount on Eurofighter. A 30% discount on Steuben. A 30% discount on Hennessy. At least, against the dollar. And if your choice is a MAN diesel or a Dodge truck and suddenly the MAN is 30% off...

This agreement claims to do two things: Improve competitiveness of American business in Asian markets and give teeth to American trade law in Asia. The first is pretty well covered above. As far as the second, I've been known to give money to the EFF. They're doing The Lord's Work. BUT they are also primarily fighting for the rights of privileged Americans (of which I am definitely one - go EFF). The EFF mostly cares about your ability to copy your own software and music, while what really matters is the ability of the Chinese to copy your software and music. Korea, Thailand, Cambodia, China, Taiwan... go to a night market there and pick up Photoshop for $10. First-run movies dubbed into the language of your choice for $0.50. Look at it this way: if the US can cut piracy in half, they double their profits overseas... and cutting Asian piracy in half would still put the level at "egregiously rampant."

One of the points Piketty makes in Capital is that something like 30% of the world's money is squirreled away in offshore accounts where it can't be taxed and that cracking that money loose would accomplish more than any other reform. He then says something truly outrageous: FATCA is exactly what the world needs and further argues that with the US stepping in to crush offshore accounts, their days are globally numbered.

But nobody talks about that. Because it's the New World Order pursuing humanitarian goals. You can't paint it red or blue so people cover their ears and go la la la.

So here we have a trade agreement that does two things: (1) increase American competitiveness overseas (2) increase American policy overseas and you ask "how concerned should I be about this?"

Well, you're American, right?

    No nation-state should be in a position to impose rules on others. But there are issue areas where national sovereignty is just an illusion. Corporate taxation is a good example of this. No state can fight tax havens or multinationals on its own. Here, we need greater cooperation. The myth of national sovereignty helps big corporations screw us over. This parliament should focus on a small set of common decisions that relate to the common currency and the budgets of the member states but should leave other issues to national parliaments.

Thomas Piketty

NAFTA was largely bad for the United States. If Mexico didn't have a nasty one-sided drug war to deal with, it would have been miraculous for Mexico, though. A trade agreement with Asia is an inevitability, not something to panic about; we're further continuing the game of marginalizing Europe for apple pie and baseball.

Here's my take on it: Democratic presidents really do feel like they're the rulers of the free world. That's why they're generally the ones more likely to use executive orders, covert ops, drone strikes, clandestine shit and shady accounting to advance foreign policy while Republicans put marines in boats and storm beaches. After the midterms, the Obama administration has decided they're going to walk the walk. If I were Vietnamese I'd be deeply concerned - I never voted for American presidents, why should I be subject to American laws?

But I'm not.

TL;DR - when your tax dollars paid for the Death Star, Alderaan is regrettable, not tragic.

(Sorry. Hadn't had my coffee when I started. This may be one long incoherent mess.)

b_b  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Not sure if you've taken a look at the president's new budget proposal, but it's quite strong. Repatriation of offshore monies is one of its tenets, via a surcharge of 14% on previously untaxed profits, regardless of whether or not they're brought back to the U.S. The proceeds would be used to pay for infrastructure improvements, thus forcing companies to invest in the things they use to get richer by the day. Sadly, I'm sure it's dead in the water, rather than a jump off point for negotiations with the crazies on the Hill.

kleinbl00  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Have not. So far behind on shit I have to read that shit I don't is falling by the wayside; "budget proposals" are in the "not" category.

veen  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It's not as incoherent as you think.

    But nobody talks about that. Because it's the New World Order pursuing humanitarian goals. You can't paint it red or blue so people cover their ears and go la la la.

Isn't this a bit too cynical? I'd ascribe the disinterest of the media to its complexity and geopolitical nature.

Sidenote: for a second I really thought you meant this Eurofighter:

kleinbl00  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Isn't this a bit too cynical? I'd ascribe the disinterest of the media to its complexity and geopolitical nature.

Honestly?

I think the world was different in the era of the Fairness Doctrine. Back then, as part of having a license to use public spectrum, you had to present equal bias on public issues in such a way that the public ended up informed. If you didn't, you didn't get to have a radio or television station.

But that shit was repealed in 1987, which paved the way for demagoguery. Whitewater is probably a bit before your time, but the TL;DR of it is right-wing lobbyists dominated the news cycle with the story that the Clintons were corrupt because they lost money on real estate 20 years previously in a land deal with someone they hadn't talked to since and whom had long since been to prison. But it went so fucking crazy that any given Republican you met was convinced that Bill and Hillary had Vince Foster murdered because he was going to leak something about secret drug planes full of hookers to the press.

The Fairness Doctrine required that news be free of titillation and slander. The end of the Fairness Doctrine made the news require titillation and slander. Then the Internet came along and the competition for eyes and ears is so great that if you're not lobbing some gonzo assertion at the wall to see what sticks, you're writing in a void.

People talk about how divided the country is these days. A lot of that is we're no longer living in the same media realities. If you don't watch Fox News you don't really know what Benghazi is, let alone why it means Hillary Clinton belongs to the Secret Order of Lizard People. And if you don't watch MSNBC, Occupy Wall Street was unemployed hippies who wanted an increase in their welfare checks.

I can only have an American perspective, but my American perspective is that we've got hella more bias now than we did 30,20,10 years ago. And that the British press has been worse than the American press since the days of Pulitzer.

    Sidenote: for a second I really thought you meant this Eurofighter:

Veen: subscribed to /r/rollercoasters.

kleinbl00: subscribed to /r/credibledefense.

There's a sitcom in there somewhere.

veen  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·  

When it comes to American media, yes, it's become much more biased. Still, I'd argue that the media's lack of thorough coverage can be ascribed more to 'we can't find a good angle on this' than 'this doesn't fit our dualistic news coverage'.

I think I've been greatly spoiled here. Television news here is dominated by one public broadcasting news show and one commercial news show. The former is legally bound to provide impartial and complete news, and the latter's worst sin is pretending feelgood-stories like this one is actual news. The only newspaper I read regularly is critically acclaimed as one of the best of Europe. And De Correspondent. Which, by the way, will start releasing articles in English soon.

    There's a sitcom in there somewhere.

Two and a Half Men of Steel perhaps?

kleinbl00  ·  3340 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I love the irony that we're the ones with the Natalee Holloway channel , considering the Dutchness of "Joran van der Sloot."