Discussions

 
 
Everyone should watch this video to get informed about the TPP. If the government ratifies it, we'll all be affected by it.

Are there any candidates in this election against the TPP

The above video is indeed for dummies as it was produced by an Australian left-wing radical activist propaganda group.A lot of rhetoric with very little fact.  
Left-wing parties are generally against freer trade  
due to protectionist beliefs.The same reactions happened during the North American Free Trade Agreement discussions in the 90's.  
Today's trade deal will be debated & voted on in Parliament by our upcoming minority government,as well as in every other country involved in the discussions.  
The deal needs to be decided on facts rather than disinformation.

A blatantly biased video, can't trust information when the agenda behind it is obvious.  
 
If anybody want to see the pros and cons, laid out in a neutral manner, so you can form your own opinions, than this is not the video for you.

The parties that are opposed to the TPP are the NDP and Greens.  
 
Instead of dismissing the video as unbalanced and coming from leftist activists, can you provide some information that counters the claims in the video, please?  
 
Maybe Doctors Without Borders (though they are leftists because they believe in affordable/accessible health care for all) is a more reliable source of information for you. They've been speaking out against TPP, too. Here's the link:  
 
http://www.msf.ca/en/article/the-negative-impact-on-public-health-will-be-enormous-statement-by-msf-on-the-conclusion-of  
 
 
 
Edited by Diogenes, 2015-10-11 11:15:00

If you want to get down into the nitty gritty, read the wikileaks documents.  
 
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/

By the way, NAFTA devastated Mexico. it wasn't that great for the USA either.  
 
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

Diogenes said "The parties that are opposed to the TPP are the NDP and Greens.     Instead of dismissing the video as unbalanced and coming from leftist activists, can you provide some information that counters the claims in the video, please?     Maybe Doctors Without Borders (though they are leftists because they believe in affordable/accessible health care for all) is a more reliable source of information for you. They've been speaking out against TPP, too. Here's the link:     http://www.msf.ca/en/article/the-negative-impact-on-public-health-will-be-enormous-statement-by-msf-on-the-conclusion-of         Edited by Diogenes, 2015-10-11 11:15:00"

if, and I mean IF, the cost of medications goes up, that may at first glance seem like a bad thing, right?  
 
Pharmaceutical companies don't make medication out of the goodness of their hearts, it costs millions of dollars of research, and millions more for the years of trials before any drug can hit the market.  
Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit Corporations, that's the reality of it.  
 
Why invest that money if countries can challenge prices? Why bother with all that expenditure of producing a new drug for whatever life threatening ailment if it doesn't make economic sense to do so?  
 
The trade off for cheap drugs is less new drugs. That simple.  

Diogenes said "By the way, NAFTA devastated Mexico. it wasn't that great for the USA either.     http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain "

It seems that the problems told in that story were more a result of subsidized agriculture than the free trade agreement.

ynot said "The above video is indeed for dummies as it was produced by an Australian left-wing radical activist propaganda group.A lot of rhetoric with very little fact.   Left-wing parties are generally against freer trade   due to protectionist beliefs.The same reactions happened during the North American Free Trade Agreement discussions in the 90's.   Today's trade deal will be debated & voted on in Parliament by our upcoming minority government,as well as in every other country involved in the discussions.   The deal needs to be decided on facts rather than disinformation. "

Im sorry but I had to comment on this..  
 
This deal is DONE. It was not decided by anyone else but the countries involved. There was no public discussion. Our laws were changed by this conservative government to allow them to keep making this deal happen while an election was taking place and parliament was out.  
 
There is only disinformation out there because this deal was done in secret for many years.  
 
This government has signed 42 trade deals since being in power. How many do you know of off hand? How many of them did you see being discussed in parliament?  
 
We just recently signed a trade agreement with Ukraine. We are on the losing end of that agreement as told to us by the prime minister. Did we as a country have a say in that?  
 
Not just the TPP but all of our recent trade agreements have made our country weaker. It puts power in the hands of the corporations/foreign entities to sue our government when they pass laws that are intended to protect our people but cut into profits.  
 
Can someone explain why need to get products from countries that have poor human right laws, lack of oversight into there production methods?  
 
Example: Our latest trade deal with Europe makes it so that our products get pushed to the side on the store shelve to make way for their products, and if we don't, we can be sued. Products like dairy, should not have to come from halfway around the world. Support local.  
 

Enfyre said "    Diogenes said "The parties that are opposed to the TPP are the NDP and Greens.     Instead of dismissing the video as unbalanced and coming from leftist activists, can you provide some information that counters the claims in the video, please?     Maybe Doctors Without Borders (though they are leftists because they believe in affordable/accessible health care for all) is a more reliable source of information for you. They've been speaking out against TPP, too. Here's the link:     http://www.msf.ca/en/article/the-negative-impact-on-public-health-will-be-enormous-statement-by-msf-on-the-conclusion-of         Edited by Diogenes, 2015-10-11 11:15:00" if, and I mean IF, the cost of medications goes up, that may at first glance seem like a bad thing, right?     Pharmaceutical companies don't make medication out of the goodness of their hearts, it costs millions of dollars of research, and millions more for the years of trials before any drug can hit the market.   Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit Corporations, that's the reality of it.     Why invest that money if countries can challenge prices? Why bother with all that expenditure of producing a new drug for whatever life threatening ailment if it doesn't make economic sense to do so?     The trade off for cheap drugs is less new drugs. That simple.   "

It seems like you're the type to pat the rich on the back while the poor die besides because they can't afford the necessary medicine patented and priced by the rich, saying things like, "Yep, cheap drugs is less drugs".  
 
I know this is going to ruffle your feathers, being the market fundamentalist you appear to be, but governments fund scientists to research medicines and it's paid for by taxes. Harper has done gone to great lengths dismantling the scientific community, which has lead us to this state.  
 
The USA model is more like the one you're describing (you're not in Florida, are you?), and we all know Americans have terribly expensive health care bills. Not that Canada's health care plan is the best in the world. Pharmaceuticals are not covered.  
 
Attempting to advance a Pharmaceuticals plan, one that makes drugs affordable or free, can hurt corporate profits (or increases taxes, but when costs can be lowered nationally, so can taxes), which, under PPT, is a reason for pharmaceutical corporations to sue the Canadian government, which will then increase taxes to cover the loss. So either way, we're paying for it. Under PPT, we'll probably be paying more both ways.  
 
I don't mind paying a little extra taxes to cover the cost of the medical expenses of others. I don't want tax money going to court cases or directly to big corporations. But this isn't only about Canadians. It's about the poorest of the poor in the Pacific nations.  
 
PPT hasn't been ratified yet. It will be ratified or vetoed after the election.

Diogenes said "    Enfyre said "    Diogenes said "The parties that are opposed to the TPP are the NDP and Greens.     Instead of dismissing the video as unbalanced and coming from leftist activists, can you provide some information that counters the claims in the video, please?     Maybe Doctors Without Borders (though they are leftists because they believe in affordable/accessible health care for all) is a more reliable source of information for you. They've been speaking out against TPP, too. Here's the link:     http://www.msf.ca/en/article/the-negative-impact-on-public-health-will-be-enormous-statement-by-msf-on-the-conclusion-of         Edited by Diogenes, 2015-10-11 11:15:00" if, and I mean IF, the cost of medications goes up, that may at first glance seem like a bad thing, right?     Pharmaceutical companies don't make medication out of the goodness of their hearts, it costs millions of dollars of research, and millions more for the years of trials before any drug can hit the market.   Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit Corporations, that's the reality of it.     Why invest that money if countries can challenge prices? Why bother with all that expenditure of producing a new drug for whatever life threatening ailment if it doesn't make economic sense to do so?     The trade off for cheap drugs is less new drugs. That simple.   " It seems like you're the type to pat the rich on the back while the poor die besides because they can't afford the necessary medicine patented and priced by the rich, saying things like, "Yep, cheap drugs is less drugs".     I know this is going to ruffle your feathers, being the market fundamentalist you appear to be, but governments fund scientists to research medicines and it's paid for by taxes. Harper has done gone to great lengths dismantling the scientific community, which has lead us to this state.     The USA model is more like the one you're describing (you're not in Florida, are you?), and we all know Americans have terribly expensive health care bills. Not that Canada's health care plan is the best in the world. Pharmaceuticals are not covered.     Attempting to advance a Pharmaceuticals plan, one that makes drugs affordable or free, can hurt corporate profits (or increases taxes, but when costs can be lowered nationally, so can taxes), which, under PPT, is a reason for pharmaceutical corporations to sue the Canadian government, which will then increase taxes to cover the loss. So either way, we're paying for it. Under PPT, we'll probably be paying more both ways.     I don't mind paying a little extra taxes to cover the cost of the medical expenses of others. I don't want tax money going to court cases or directly to big corporations. But this isn't only about Canadians. It's about the poorest of the poor in the Pacific nations.     PPT hasn't been ratified yet. It will be ratified or vetoed after the election. "

First thing is pharmaceutical companies profiting isn't such a bad thing, most are publicly traded, they are owned by average joes with stock portfolios, any person can be a part owner of a pharmaceutical company, and the corporations profit becomes their profit.  
 
See, I can't help to imagine(jokingly) that you think that these corporations are these black holes, that any money that goes to these companies are never seen again, off to some evil guy stroking a cat in a big swivel chair, but no, the good chunk of the profits go back to average citizens of Canada or other TPP countries, to be paid as taxes and recirculate throughout the economies.  
 
As for the CIHR, all the federal government did, as I understand it, is put more control into who gets grants, means more oversight into where the money is going and how its being spent. That's a good thing. Some scientists didn't get the grants they were used to (for probably good reason) and made a lot of noise.  
 
Canada does basically cover pharmaceuticals, although it varies by province, you pay a deductible based on your income and dependents.  
Isn't that enough?  
 
Socialism is great until they run out of other people's money.  

Stocks are for those that have spare money to buy them.  
 
The pharmaceutical industry is currently worth 300 billion a year and the top ten largest drug companies control one third of the market. They are monopolists and the TPP will give them more power to expand their monopolies. Corporations are a colonial force, too. The industry itself is driven by the desire for people to buy products and not to cure people of their ailments. So rather than investing in the research of effective and efficient cures, pharmaceutical corporations design the types of treatments that will accumulate the most wealth. That’s at the expense of people’s health.  
 
Scientists should be able to work without the government deciding (or corporate executives dictating) which studies are worthy of funding. After Harper’s massive assault on the Canadian Enlightenment, instead of funding scientific research, the government hired bureaucrats to monitor scientific work and cancel the funding for anything that challenges the Conservative’s worldview. That is an extremely bad thing. They fired environmental scientists and shut down Canada’s world-class science labs like the ELA and PEARL. Now the whole world is in the dark about high arctic research and the effects climate change will have on Earth’s most precious resource, fresh water. Scientists should be able to work without government meddling, just as Borden envisioned long ago.  
 
It’s nice of you to end with such a familiar Thatcher quote. She and many others seem to miss the point that socialists and social anarchists advocate for the abolition of money. She’s thinking of social capitalists because she never understood real socialism. The capitalist critique of socialism is often that socialism isn’t capitalism anyway. Money doesn’t run out, it circulates (in a health economy anyway).  
 
The wealthy get a little nervous when they accumulate too much. People and corporations and governments sit on money and such inactivity can spark a recession. Canadian corporations are currently sitting on about 600 billion dead dollars and they’re not reinvesting. Why do corporations sit on money? Because it increases the value to their stockholders. Under these conditions the money’s not circulating and the economy becomes unhealthy.  
 
Money is issued by the government and is property of the government. It’s essentially a governmental “I own you”. It isn’t your money or my money or someone else’s money, even though we have it in our bank accounts, it’s the governments. Luckily enough, a democratic government is owned by the people of the democracy and so the government’s money is everyone’s (not yours, or mine, or somebody else’s), and, for that reason, it should be used to benefit everyone, not just CEOs and shareholders.  
 
“Free trade” agreements are enacted and enforced by governments, too. That’s quite the antithesis of what a free trade agreement is supposed to be and it’s called crony capitalism, which is basically Mussolinian fascism.  
 
Perhaps you can bring up some of the things you like about the TPP. That would be on topic and interesting to read.

Diogenes said "Stocks are for those that have spare money to buy them.     The pharmaceutical industry is currently worth 300 billion a year and the top ten largest drug companies control one third of the market. They are monopolists and the TPP will give them more power to expand their monopolies. Corporations are a colonial force, too. The industry itself is driven by the desire for people to buy products and not to cure people of their ailments. So rather than investing in the research of effective and efficient cures, pharmaceutical corporations design the types of treatments that will accumulate the most wealth. That’s at the expense of people’s health.     Scientists should be able to work without the government deciding (or corporate executives dictating) which studies are worthy of funding. After Harper’s massive assault on the Canadian Enlightenment, instead of funding scientific research, the government hired bureaucrats to monitor scientific work and cancel the funding for anything that challenges the Conservative’s worldview. That is an extremely bad thing. They fired environmental scientists and shut down Canada’s world-class science labs like the ELA and PEARL. Now the whole world is in the dark about high arctic research and the effects climate change will have on Earth’s most precious resource, fresh water. Scientists should be able to work without government meddling, just as Borden envisioned long ago.     It’s nice of you to end with such a familiar Thatcher quote. She and many others seem to miss the point that socialists and social anarchists advocate for the abolition of money. She’s thinking of social capitalists because she never understood real socialism. The capitalist critique of socialism is often that socialism isn’t capitalism anyway. Money doesn’t run out, it circulates (in a health economy anyway).     The wealthy get a little nervous when they accumulate too much. People and corporations and governments sit on money and such inactivity can spark a recession. Canadian corporations are currently sitting on about 600 billion dead dollars and they’re not reinvesting. Why do corporations sit on money? Because it increases the value to their stockholders. Under these conditions the money’s not circulating and the economy becomes unhealthy.     Money is issued by the government and is property of the government. It’s essentially a governmental “I own you”. It isn’t your money or my money or someone else’s money, even though we have it in our bank accounts, it’s the governments. Luckily enough, a democratic government is owned by the people of the democracy and so the government’s money is everyone’s (not yours, or mine, or somebody else’s), and, for that reason, it should be used to benefit everyone, not just CEOs and shareholders.     “Free trade” agreements are enacted and enforced by governments, too. That’s quite the antithesis of what a free trade agreement is supposed to be and it’s called crony capitalism, which is basically Mussolinian fascism.     Perhaps you can bring up some of the things you like about the TPP. That would be on topic and interesting to read. "

anti capitalist spreading their message via everything that capitalism created! Propaganda!

Capitalism hasn't created anything. Everything in human history comes from either human labour or the environment, capitalism included. Don't act as if capitalism is God or Nature or whatever the ultimate reality of the universe. Learn, be critical, and think rationally.  
 
Propaganda, eh? Do you think that what you say isn't laden with ideology? It most certainly is! Propaganda is usually defined as the organized dissemination of information to influence thoughts, beliefs, and actions. But how can mere words not influence thought, belief, and action? Anyway, I'm an unaffiliated individual expressing myself as I see fit, not an advertising firm.  
 
If you would like to debate economic theories and history, I'm all for it, but I've created this thread to discuss the TPP, and in my last post I asked for reasons why anyone does or doesn't support it.

It might amuse you to know that when I was younger I was a member of the Communist Party of Canada, I know what your saying and where your coming from with it, I once shared the same sentiments and ideologies.  
 
But I was naive.  
 
20,000 years ago, humans lived in small wandering bands, hunting and gathering, there was no social safety net, no room for anyone who couldn't pull their own weight, the pressures of natural selection were extreme, the smart and healthy survived and passed on their genetics, anyone else died. The principals of Darwinism.  
20,000 years ago, based on skull analysis, the average brain was 1500 cc, and skeletons show no signs of disease.  
 
Interesting thing began 10-15,000 years ago, invention of agriculture, humans learned how to produce grain and domesticate animals, large amounts of people could now live in one spot, rise of specialized jobs, and the beginnings of socialism, now if someone, who otherwise for whatever reason would not have survived before, now can be supported by the community and even have offspring, passing on their genetics.  
 
Today the average brain is 1350cc, humans are plagued with poor eyesight, poor health, cognitive deficits, people being kept alive by pharmaceuticals and machines, all a result of the removal of natural forces that favor survival of the fittest. The human species is on a downwards evolutionary spiral.  
 
Socialism will result in the eventual destruction of the human species by natural degenerative processes.  
 
Pure Capitalism is the answer, only those with the health and intelligence to succeed financially will be the ones who prosper and have children.  
 
At some point we have to embrace the cruelty of the natural processes that created us.  
 
So for the future of the human species, anything capitalist must be promoted, and that includes TPP, and anything socialist shunned.

Enfyre said "It might amuse you to know that when I was younger I was a member of the Communist Party of Canada, I know what your saying and where your coming from with it, I once shared the same sentiments and ideologies.     But I was naive.     20,000 years ago, humans lived in small wandering bands, hunting and gathering, there was no social safety net, no room for anyone who couldn't pull their own weight, the pressures of natural selection were extreme, the smart and healthy survived and passed on their genetics, anyone else died. The principals of Darwinism.   20,000 years ago, based on skull analysis, the average brain was 1500 cc, and skeletons show no signs of disease.     Interesting thing began 10-15,000 years ago, invention of agriculture, humans learned how to produce grain and domesticate animals, large amounts of people could now live in one spot, rise of specialized jobs, and the beginnings of socialism, now if someone, who otherwise for whatever reason would not have survived before, now can be supported by the community and even have offspring, passing on their genetics.     Today the average brain is 1350cc, humans are plagued with poor eyesight, poor health, cognitive deficits, people being kept alive by pharmaceuticals and machines, all a result of the removal of natural forces that favor survival of the fittest. The human species is on a downwards evolutionary spiral.     Socialism will result in the eventual destruction of the human species by natural degenerative processes.     Pure Capitalism is the answer, only those with the health and intelligence to succeed financially will be the ones who prosper and have children.     At some point we have to embrace the cruelty of the natural processes that created us.     So for the future of the human species, anything capitalist must be promoted, and that includes TPP, and anything socialist shunned. "

There's a like button at the top of the thread. There is no like button for your post.  
 
Consider your post "[b]LIKED[/b]"

Does it really exist, my answer to that is doubt it. Anyone else remember in the not to distant past where the to big to fail were bailed out by the taxpayer. The idea may be a great one to have competition but rarely will we see it in it's true form. It's at times interesting how we have people promote an open and free market system but then build walls to protect themselves. I think that putting a capitalist idea in with the evolution of a species is a big mistake, and we have many therories and models for economics but many of them lack things like human phycology, population, global production, greed and ego.  
 
As a species we are terribly short sighted and so many of our decisions are made for the here and now, and in a way money falls into that idea as well.  
 
Enfrye do you farm, I'm thinking not likely, i've seen many people toute the idea of capitalism while living within a domestic world. Do you know why we are having ever increasing crises in our capitalist countries, when it comes to economic issues, simply put it is us that cannot compete.  
 
If your idea has merit I hope you are well up the ladder, because those who are below you will fight to survive just like you and sometimes those who have nothing to lose become the most formidable enemy.  
 
I thought I should add one thing, I didn't watch the video, I try to think for myself.  
 
Edited by don brown, 2015-10-14 23:00:34

Are you sure you weren’t a member of the national socialist party? Being a member of the communist party means nothing to me. Your “naïve” monologue is a common paternalist tactic. I don’t appreciate it at all. Have I actually fleshed out my worldview and you proven to understand it? No.  
 
We have no idea what life was like 20,000 years ago. Anthropologists can only draw conclusions from best guesses. There is a wealth of authors that argue all sorts of ideas though. Some get popular, some don’t. There were people living on the six continents 20,000 years ago. Was each live identical? Not likely. Sure, Paleolithic people lived 30 years at the most. We know this from the condition of their teeth. We know next to nothing about the humans that came before that other than the remnants of tools and a few bones. Even as recent as 500 hundred years ago, we know very little about the common people. Many theories of the past are emulated by the way people live today. A capitalist will uncritically project current capitalist practices to understand the past, as any socialist will.  
 
But if you ever go to Scotland or England or the Netherlands and wander the old cemeteries, you’ll find that the people with the largest monuments (the wealthiest) lived significantly longer than the poor. Sickness is caused by poverty: poverty is caused by unfair distribution of wealth, in today’s world anyway. There’s no need for it.  
 
The reason wealthy people have better health and “intelligence” is because they have greater access to quality food, fitness, less stress, and instant access to higher education. Wealth buys them health and education. The poorest person might have the greatest ideas ever, but if they’re working 16-hour days to bring home hardly enough to feed the family, they’ll have no time to develop anything. They won’t have time to go to the gym, hardly enough time to get a good night sleep, and will probably live less than you. Note: we don’t really have such working conditions in Canada. But in the Pacific, yes. In countries under the TPP, yes. So between countries, how does your version of Darwinism apply? Obviously an economically "stronger" country can crush a "weaker" one, though the people in the "weaker" one might actually be more capable of out-muscling the "stronger" country, both physically and mentally. Generally the workers have more strength and knowledge than the owners.  
 
One thing you’ve seemed to miss in reading Darwin (I’m actually assuming that you haven’t read any Darwin whatsoever and you are relying on a simplified populist interpretation you may have pieced together yourself) is mutual aid, which is common among and between many species. Humans are heavily dependent on all types of mutual air, especially the wealthy that rely on the poor to produce the products that cause the wealthy to flourish. Capitalism depends on mutual aid more than competition and exploits it to its fullest.  
 
I don’t see how working together will lead to “degeneration”.  
 
I am curious what you think capitalism is. I have a feeling you don’t even understand it.  
 
 
Edited by Diogenes, 2015-10-15 20:47:19

Great points Don Brown!

I'm still scratching my head about your post, Enfyre. You talk about survival of the fittest and you think humans should induce the survival conditions ("pure capitalism") because you're afraid that humans won't survive. You're saying that humans are surviving too well and that needs to change because they're not surviving very well. Can I say "contradiction" or am I missing something?  
 
Edited by Diogenes, 2015-10-15 21:21:26