Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
patokl
Over 90 days ago
Straight Cis Male
0 miles · Germany
Forum
(yeah, I'm not afraid to hug a guy!)
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by hayleyThe author of your quote apparently had no idea of the safeguards New Zealand had negotiated under TTP and other investment treaties, to protect their right to regulate. If your interested: http://insider.thomsonreuters.co.nz/2016/10/investment-negotiations-walking-the-tightrope-between-offensive-and-defensive-interests/
“There does not appear to be an underlying economic problem that necessitates the inclusion of ISDS provisions within agreements. Available evidence does not suggest that ISDS provisions have a significant impact on investment flows. Experience in other countries demonstrates that there are considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions.”
The Australian government refused to include ISDS in its free trade deal with the US in 2005, and under their Labour-led government had a investor-state policy not to sign up to any more ISDS obligations including in the TPPA:
If the TPPA comes into force, an investor from any of the TPPA countries (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam) will be able to sue the New Zealand government for millions in damages in secretive offshore tribunals. Under ISDS foreign investors could claim that new laws and regulations introduced by the New Zealand government have breached their special rights under the TPPA and undermined the value of their investments. “Investment” is defined extremely widely in the TPPA, to include almost anything a foreign company has spent money on in New Zealand — including shares, businesses, contracts, land, intellectual property rights, and even government bonds. Putting corporate rights above New Zealand’s democracy. If the TPPA is ratified the ISDS provisions in the agreement would seriously fetter New Zealand’s sovereignty.
So much for the TPP.
That said, this thread is, as far as I can tell, about the United States of America, not about New Zealand. Let's stick to that.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by hayleyTTP would not have increased ISDS, because that very protection already exists as part of NAFTA and international law.
Thanks for your comment. What you say about your country is interesting. If the TPP had gone ahead the protection, as it exists in America, would have been increased even more under the TPP, in favour of big corporates as you so rightly point out. Sorry about the court thing. What I meant was that all disputes under the TPP were to be decided not by a court, but by a tribunal. That tribunal was to have three corporate lawyers and was to be based in the US.
What you said about branded medicines is interesting. That is not the case in Australia and New Zealand where branded products can be prescibed. Fortunately for the citizens, but unfortunately for big pharma, the health systems in both Aussie and NZ [called the Shakey Isles by Aussies because of the frequency of earthquakes and tremors] certain drugs are chosen for subsidy and only those chosen are 'fully' subsidised. That subsidy can lasts for up to three years. So it creates a monopoly of supply. Very much a no-no under the TPP if it had happened.
Active Ink Slinger
In the Netherlands, with very few exceptions, prescription of branded medicine is prohibited and apothecaries are obliged to give out the cheapest medicine that fits the prescription. Exceptions to that rule are patients who need a specific medicine because of interactions or allergic reactions. When a brand adjusts it prices to become the cheapest, it automatically becomes the prefered brand. Not all apothecaries have the same brands and many have a cheap "house brand". Competition is definitely encouraged by that, and a "monopoly" only exists as long as a medicine is cheapest.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by hayley
You missed my point entirely. I think I do not explain myself as well as I believe. I know the TPP is dead. It almost was before the election. Have you read it? The TPP? It's over 5,000 pages and you get lost in the rubbish detail.
I was not talking about the US sweet man. When Donald Trump said he would dump the TPP I was thinking only of Australia and its neighbour The Shakey Isles. USA didn't even come into my thinking, because I agree with you regarding big pharma and their ilk in America. Except i would say we are really going to have an affordable health care system here someone will need to take on big pharma. But that's another thread.
And the TPP did specify profit protection for big pharma and others, including financial institutions, that cut across the sovereignty of other countries in their incumbent trading practices. And that law that you said would never make it in the US... that law is in place in Australia and New Zealand. Fortunately now the TPP has gone, it will never be tested.
The other point is that he did say he would scrap it and he has, whereas Hillary said, at the last minute, she would review it if elected. But as Hillary was one of its supporters and those that would benefit most from it finance her and the Democratic Party, I couldn't believe her.
If the remaining countries want to revive it with China, well they can, but it will be a much different trade deal to the TPP. I don't see that happening. Increased access to the US market was it's key factor.
It's gone and I am so happy it has.
You sounded as if you compared Australia and those Isles to the US, and you explicitely mentioned American courts and American jobs, so it certainly wasn't all "not about America". Btw, Dutch law also generally forbids prescribing branded medication and controls the prices of both medicine and medical care.
That protection against loss of profit you mentioned is called Investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS. It protects foreign investors against unreasonable government measures that negatively impact their profits.
ISDS does not exist by the grace of TTP alone. It is part of international law. The legal protection of foreign direct investment is guaranteed by a network of more than 2750 bilateral and multilateral investment treaties and a number of free trade agreements(e.g. NAFTA and CETA). What ISDS does not do, is restrict the power of a government over domestic investors and industries. That's a matter of national law, which in America apparently protects big business better than it does the general public.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by hayleyFirst off, TTP as yet had no legal effect whatsoever on what influence a government can have on prices and profit margins, because it was not ratified yet. And since both Vietnam and the US backed out of it, it will never take effect anywhere.
Well maybe he will, maybe he won't. Am sure his bankers think he's hopeless toooo... all $4.35billion of him.
Global Trade has always been a reality. Remember the Phoenicians? I don't but you might. And the first really big corporation.. the de Medici family? They were merchant bankers with lots of Cardinals and the odd Pope thrown in. Some of them were pretty good on poisons... oops! pharmaceuticals too.
The TPP wasn't a global trade deal... just a disguise for big corps to line their pockets yet again... more like a business treaty for major corporations.
Aussie and NZ have virtually free health care systems. One of the reasons is that they control the price of medicines and pharmaceuticals. Now that's not allowed under the TPP. Any government that tries to interfere with the profit making of a company can be sued for loss of profits.
They don't get sued in an American court of course, but before a special American Tribunal comprised of three corporate attorneys and the tribunal decision is final.
The tribunal meets in camera... i.e. secretly.. hands down the fines and damages. Cool that we don't need courts anymore isn't it?
As for the American jobs that it was supposed to create.. they might have been created but sure as heck wouldn't have been in the USA. Besides, there was no provision for the squillions in profits to be invested anywhere ... certainly not in jobs. They would have just paid off the shareholders, pocketed their bonuses and dumped the remaining squillions in offshore accounts... à la Apple!
Sorry, but I agree with the concensus at Davos this year, that Globalisation has gone too far and isn't working. It has produced inequalities that have to be rectified .. and fast! I admit to being something of a protectionist. For me charity begins at home.
More importantly though, do you really believe, the pharmaceutical industry will voluntarily give up their huge profit margins in the US, just because TTP is scratched. They won't and to force them to, is virtually impossible. Touching them would require adaptations of patent laws protecting their interests, that will never pass. The lobby of the pharmaceutical industry is one of the strongest around, and has huge influence in Washington DC. I think that even a law, that would encourage competition, by making generic prescriptions (so not by brandname, but by active substance) mandatory, would never make it.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Becky4TexasWell, it may seem politically correct, but that was not my intention. You asked what I prefer. How a partner likes what I do, affects how much I enjoy it. So I'll always prefer the way she likes it best, because if she doesn't like it, I won't either.
Patoki....are you a politician.....you like to refrain from choosing on these choice topics and always run to the politically correct thing to say.....the question was your preference, not where I would want you to ejaculate
I like it slow and gentle, by the way
Prefer sex at night time or during daylight hours?
I like sex any time of day, but with kids in the house, sex at night is the smarter choice
Outdoor sex, in a natural surrounding or in the garden
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Becky4TexasI didn't mean irrigation, but wildlife, animals. As far as I can tell, the Rio Grande is the only available source of drinkable water for most animals there. A wall will cut off their access to that.
False...if the wildlife perishes it will be because lumber companies have destroyed the rain forests in South American, which sent much needed moisture north for rainfall.....irrigation from the Rio Grande will not be affected by the so-called "wall"
Today is going to be a wonderful Wednesday
And: True, I've had an excellent Wednesday.
You're more fond of strong liquor than is good for you