Trans-Pacific Partnership

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by opendoor

How much are you paying for milk? The average milk price in the US right now is about $3.50 USD for a gallon which works out to about $4.75 CAD for 4 liters. In BC I can get local milk for about $5.50 for 4 liters or national brand stuff for $4.50.

What you're saying is certainly true for cheese, but I've never found milk of similar quality to be all that much cheaper in the US if at all.

We were paying about 1.99 in Tucson last winter AFAIR. Maybe it was Mexican irradiated milk.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by vegasbound

Well for one, I can't count any small time dairy farmer for it and I know lots... I come from a dairy farm. 3.25% imports and displacement of 250 million litres of milk is not an insignificant amount. Therefore, that's going to have an impact on quota management. Quota is hard enough to get in BC, let alone after this deal goes through. This is just the coles notes of it.

.

Again, good. I don't want to subsidize you.

I sound harsh, I get that, but I don't feel that it is my responsibility to ensure you are profitable by keeping you in a protected market.

Now as your your comments regarding quality of the milk - I admit I know nothing, and that might be a fair critic of the agreement.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Again, good. I don't want to subsidize you.

I sound harsh, I get that, but I don't feel that it is my responsibility to ensure you are profitable by keeping you in a protected market.

Now as your your comments regarding quality of the milk - I admit I know nothing, and that might be a fair critic of the agreement.

The licensing is a bigger issue IMO.

At $35,000+ just for the license for each cow, the term small time farmer takes. on a different meaning. It's a complete barrier for anyone but the rich to enter the market.

[vegasbound]

Originally Posted by blankall

The licensing is a bigger issue IMO.

At $35,000+ just for the license for each cow, the term small time farmer takes. on a different meaning. It's a complete barrier for anyone but the rich to enter the market.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner! It boils down to quota. Quota isn't necessarily a "license" for a cow, it's more how much milk/butterfat you can produce (measured in kg/butterfat). I'd guess quota is more at $45k right now. You want to start dairy farming in BC and don't have family already in the industry?- have about $10mil to start with and then be on a quota wait list for a good 5 years and you might get somewhere. I have to finish a paper and don't have time to actually discuss what quota really is and why it impacts dairy farmers but the BC Milk Board website is a good place to start and I have the Quota Policy of 2014 saved if anyone wants to read it.

And no, I don't want subsidies from the government either.

[Buster]

Screw that. Quotas?

If I want to buy a damn cow, and start milking in the back of my shack in Aspen, I should be able to do that.

Quotas. FFS.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by vegasbound

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner! It boils down to quota. Quota isn't necessarily a "license" for a cow, it's more how much milk/butterfat you can produce (measured in kg/butterfat). I'd guess quota is more at $45k right now. You want to start dairy farming in BC and don't have family already in the industry?- have about $10mil to start with and then be on a quota wait list for a good 5 years and you might get somewhere. I have to finish a paper and don't have time to actually discuss what quota really is and why it impacts dairy farmers but the BC Milk Board website is a good place to start and I have the Quota Policy of 2014 saved if anyone wants to read it.

And no, I don't want subsidies from the government either.

well then lets kill the milk board!

[JohnnyB]

Pacific trade deal could limit affordable drugs - world health chief

A massive trade pact between 12 Pacific rim countries could limit the availability of affordable medicines, the head of the World Health Organization said on Thursday

She said no country in the WHO objected to the private sector making a fair profit, but she was worried about companies influencing decision-making in health policy.

"I worry about interference by powerful economic operators in the new targets for alcohol, tobacco and non-communicable diseases, including many that are diet-related. Economic power readily translates into political power."

[JohnnyB]

Why the TPP is too Flawed for a "Yes" Vote in Congress
Author: Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University Economist, Prof of Sustainable Development & Director of Earth Institute

The agreement, with its 30 chapters, is really four complex deals in one.

The first is a free-trade deal among the signatories. That part could be signed today. Tariff rates would come down to zero; quotas would drop; trade would expand; and protectionism would be held at bay.

The second is a set of regulatory standards for trade. Most of these are useful, requiring that regulations that limit trade should be based on evidence, not on political whims or hidden protectionism.

The third is a set of regulations governing investor rights, intellectual property and regulations in key service sectors, including financial services, telecommunications, e-commerce and pharmaceuticals. These chapters are a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly. Their common denominator is that they enshrine the power of corporate capital above all other parts of society, including labor and even governments.

The fourth is a set of standards on labor and environment that purport to advance the cause of social fairness and environmental sustainability. But the agreements are thin, unenforceable and generally unimaginative. For example, climate change is not even mentioned, much less addressed boldly and creatively.

[Table 5]

Whether we are talking milk or other goods, all anyone ever seems to care about is the price of things these days. We sell our soul to save 50 cents... and then wonder why nothing is made in North American anymore, why everything is made of junky plastic, and why nothing seems to last.

At the end of the day, these types of deals all seem to just be part of the race to the bottom. All while a good chunk of the middle class slowly erodes. It's already hugely apparent in the US, it's only a matter of time before it starts becoming a bigger issue in Canada too.

[Buster]

The complaint that it supports corporate capital above government intervention is an odd one.

That's what de-regulating trade barriers actually does. It's the intent that government intervention is generally a negative intervention, leading to mal-investment and market distortions. Private capital and market price discovery should be allowed to determine competitive advantages, etc.

It is, as they say, a feature and not a bug.

If we let governments be the arbiter of trade in a free-trade arrangement, then we wouldn't have a free trade arrangement.

Strange complaint.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Buster

The complaint that it supports corporate capital above government intervention is an odd one.

That's what de-regulating trade barriers actually does. It's the intent that government intervention is generally a negative intervention, leading to mal-investment and market distortions. Private capital and market price discovery should be allowed to determine competitive advantages, etc.

It is, as they say, a feature and not a bug.

If we let governments be the arbiter of trade in a free-trade arrangement, then we wouldn't have a free trade arrangement.

Strange complaint.

The thing is when trade agreements allow private companies to dictate our health and environment laws, we lose a part of our sovereignty.

In early April, 1997 the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, for one of the few times since its election in 1993, acted to "err", as the government put it, on the side of human health and the environment. Invoking its trade powers, Parliament passed a law restricting the import and interprovincial transport of the neuro-toxic MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl), a gasoline additive that contains the heavy metal, manganese.




Within days, the US multinational Ethyl Corp., the sole supplier of MMT in Canada, invoked the "expropriation" clause (article 1110) of the investment chapter of NAFTA to sue the government for $350 million Canadian for damages and lost income. With the NAFTA agreement working exactly as it was designed to, the pressure of significant potential public liability mounted on the federal government and on July 20th, 1998 it backed down, settling out of court before the NAFTA arbitral panel could rule.

In a final cruel irony the $13 million US ($19.5 million Canadian) compensation payment to Ethyl for lost profits and legal costs exceeds the total 1998 Environment Canada budget for enforcement and compliance programmes ($16.9 million Canadian). The government will also issue a statement to the effect that the manganese-based additive is neither an environmental nor a health risk which, or course, Ethyl will use to market MMT internationally.


With all we know about lead, manganese and other heavy metal poisoning why are we running one more collective experiment on our kids when safer alternatives to MMT exist and are widely used in the US? How did we end up in this sorry situation? The answer to that question is a long and involved, but ultimately very instructive, little Canadian vignette.

http://www.cela.ca/article/internati...ill-ethyl-corp

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The thing is when trade agreements allow private companies to dictate our health and environment laws, we lose a part of our sovereignty.

The whole purpose of the thing is to give up some of the control of our government. You might be giving up federal sovereignty, but improving your personal sovereignty.

Your complaint is just another way of saying "free trade is bad".

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Buster

The whole purpose of the thing is to give up some of the control of our government. You might be giving up federal sovereignty, but improving your personal sovereignty.

Your complaint is just another way of saying "free trade is bad".

Again, Joe Stiglitz, since he says it better than I.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/...olluters_could

But under these provisions, corporations can sue the government, including the American government, by the way, so it’s all the governments in the TPP can be sued for the loss of profits as a result of the regulations that restrict their ability to emit carbon emissions that lead to global warming. If this provision had been in place when we had discovered that asbestos was bad for your health—you know, under the current provisions, asbestos manufacturers have to pay for the damage that they’re doing. They pay billions and billions of dollars. If the TPP had been in place, we would have to pay the asbestos manufacturers for not killing us. It’s outrageous.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/...oseph_stiglitz

First, it seems to me that the conditions under which you can sue are wrong. If a country passes a regulation, whether it’s for health, safety, the environment or managing the economy, you shouldn’t be able to sue. These are called regulatory takings. And repeatedly our courts have said it’s the basic right of a country to design rules to protect their citizens, protect their economy, protect their environment. So the conditions under which you can sue are wrong. Who can bring a suit is wrong. It should be government to government, not corporations suing a government.

And thirdly, the judicial process by which it’s done, it shouldn’t be in private courts. The most important—one of the most important public functions is dispute resolution. When we created the WTO, we created an international panel for dispute resolution. We could do the same thing for investment agreements. But instead, they’ve decided to go to very expensive private arbitration, rife with conflicts of interests,

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Buster

The whole purpose of the thing is to give up some of the control of our government. You might be giving up federal sovereignty, but improving your personal sovereignty.

Your complaint is just another way of saying "free trade is bad".

No I'm saying there needs to be some limits on capitalism, as on just about everything. The people and the government have the right to protect their health and environment over short term profit.

[FlameOn]

This is starting to look like a bad deal for Canadians. According to a study done by the World Bank and US Department of Agriculture, the TPP will have little to no economic benefits to Canadians with only a 1.2% economic benefit over the entire period of the agreement while pushing most gains to countries like Vietnam and Malaysia.

A breakdown of the TPP by the World Bank states the "TPP is projected to have no measurable impacts on real GDP". With real breakdowns of benefits by country as follows as a measure of "Cumulative GDP over a 10 year period":

Vietnam -- 10%
Malaysia -- 8%
Brunei -- 5%
New Zealand -- 3.1%
Singapore -- 3%
Japan -- 2.7%
Peru -- 2.1%
Mexico -- 1.4%
Canada -- 1.2%
Chile -- 1%
Australia -- 0.7%
US -- 0.4%

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs...-Agreement.pdf
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ustralia.shtml

This agreement looks to be a bunch of sacrifices to our auto and diary sectors without any tangible gains.

[Frequitude]

If there's an economic benefit of 1.2%, wouldn't that mean that the gains exceed the auto/dairy sacrifices by an amount that gives a 1.2% benefit? And therefore they are tangible?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

If there's an economic benefit of 1.2%, wouldn't that mean that the gains exceed the auto/dairy sacrifices by an amount that gives a 1.2% benefit? And therefore they are tangible?

Missed an almost when typing that up. 0.12% annual growth is almost negligible.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Missed an almost when typing that up. 0.12% annual growth is almost negligible.

Doesn't growth mean that the overall impact is still positive?

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Doesn't growth mean that the overall impact is still positive?

when it costs us more than measurable items (IP protection, internet freedoms, other freedoms, medicines possibly being more expensive, groceries could too, ), heck no it's not positive.