What's in the TPP

[ReeferMadness]

There are, I'm sure, many advantages to the TPP,

This seems to be everyone's working assumption but nobody seems to be able to come up with any specifics. Is it not amazing that in an 8,000 page agreement, nobody can come up with anything in this document that will actually help Canadians? But still, everyone seems to think it's good anyway.

[-1=e^ipi]

This seems to be everyone's working assumption but nobody seems to be able to come up with any specifics.

Given the compellingness of the argument of comparative advantage, I think such a default assumption is reasonable.

come up with any specifics.

Lower tariffs.

[Bonam]

This seems to be everyone's working assumption but nobody seems to be able to come up with any specifics. Is it not amazing that in an 8,000 page agreement, nobody can come up with anything in this document that will actually help Canadians? But still, everyone seems to think it's good anyway.

Well personally I don't really know if it's overall effect on Canada will be net positive or negative. It may very well be net negative. But I would be truly surprised if in all those 8,000 pages there was not one little thing that benefited Canada at all.

[ReeferMadness]

Given the compellingness of the argument of comparative advantage, I think such a default assumption is reasonable.

Wow. The guy who thinks his science degree entitles him to second guess every detail of climate science thinks that we should trade away our sovereignty on the basis of a buzz phrase he learned on Economics 101.

OK, let's talk about competitive advantage. Why don't we start with the Vietnamese? Since they have almost no economy, they have little in the way of labor or environmental standards. So, Canadian companies that don't like to pay people or are bothered by the inconvenience of not dumping toxic waste wherever they like can just move there.

And Japan? Well, they are so culturally inclined to work long hours, they actually have a work for death from working too hard (karoshi). It's common practice for workers to work huge amounts of overtime but not record any of it.

And the US? Well, one of the advantages the US has is it's gargantuan military industrial complex that allows its government to feed mind blowing sums of money to US companies (national security and all, right?). But of course, its biggest advantage is its ability to coerce smaller countries to behave in a way favorable to it, including making us sign a deal like this, a deal that apparently, even the proponents can't find anything good to say about.

And us? Well, from everything I've heard, including all of the discussions on this forum, all this deal will do is reinforce our status as a trader in raw commodities. No need to fret over that because commodity prices stay high forever, right?

[ReeferMadness]

Well personally I don't really know if it's overall effect on Canada will be net positive or negative. It may very well be net negative. But I would be truly surprised if in all those 8,000 pages there was not one little thing that benefited Canada at all.

I suppose that's a fair assumption but don't you think it would have been nice if Harper had spent just a little less time patting himself on the back about what a fine deal he made and put a little more effort into some hard analysis in terms of how this will help Canada and where it will hurt? Do you think that Canadians deserve a little actual information about what we're getting into?

It's funny how people will insist on absolute proof that climate change is real before doing even the slightest thing to save their grandkids from possible catastrophe but will accept a major change like this without asking for the slightest evidence of whether it will be good for the country or not.

Belief without evidence is called faith. And faith is the bedrock of religion. And right wing economics is the predominant religion in the western world today.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[-1=e^ipi]

second guess every detail of climate science

Everyone should be allowed to question anything.

trade away our sovereignty

I'm not a nationalist. These sovereignty appeals will not work on me.

OK, let's talk about competitive advantage.

I said comparative advantage, not 'competitive' advantage. The rest of your post is just you referring to absolute advantage.

This link may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

[-1=e^ipi]

to save their grandkids

Speaking of proof, could you please prove that these grandchildren will exist? Why are you speaking of these grandchildren as a certainty?

Belief without evidence is called religion.

You mean like belief in the 2 C target, or the belief in this magical tipping point?

[biotk]

Please point to all these health problems that New Zealand has due to all this awful milk they are drinking.

New Zealand is not drinking milk form the US. Under TPP New Zealand will be exporting more milk and dairy products to the US.

However, you are correct that there are no health problems related to drinking milk from cows treated with rBST/rBGH. There is no difference in the milk. Health Canada said that there is no biologically plausible reason for concern about human safety and there isn't. Opposition based on human health claims are purely anti-science. Opposition based on animal health have some validity, but really not much as the reasons for increased health problems are all related increased milk production - but no one gives a damn about the many, many other things that also increase milk production (and therefore also increase health problems).

Antibiotics are illegal in milk both in the US and Canada.

[Bonam]

I suppose that's a fair assumption but don't you think it would have been nice if Harper had spent just a little less time patting himself on the back about what a fine deal he made and put a little more effort into some hard analysis in terms of how this will help Canada and where it will hurt? Do you think that Canadians deserve a little actual information about what we're getting into?

Yes, of course I do, and I've said so on these forums regarding the TPP in prior threads.

[-1=e^ipi]

New Zealand is not drinking milk form the US. Under TPP New Zealand will be exporting more milk and dairy products to the US.

..................................................... I was referring to the fact that reduced trade barriers to milk would result in New Zealand exporting milk to Canada.

[ToadBrother]

You mean like belief in the 2 C target, or the belief in this magical tipping point?

No, more like your belief that you actually understand AGW when you peddle your pseudo-scientific word salads.

[biotk]

..................................................... I was referring to the fact that reduced trade barriers to milk would result in New Zealand exporting milk to Canada.

OK. You were responding to a claim about antibiotics and artificial growth hormones in milk - neither of which will be present in milk from New Zealand. But the latter may be given to dairy cows in the US.

[Bonam]

No, more like your belief that you actually understand AGW when you peddle your pseudo-scientific word salads.

Having read this forum for over 8 years now, I think it's pretty safe to say that when it comes to actually understanding the body of science behind climate change, -1 is probably the closest to that here.

[ToadBrother]

Having read this forum for over 8 years now, I think it's pretty safe to say that when it comes to actually understanding the body of science behind climate change, -1 is probably the closest to that here.

No, he's just the best at throwing word salads together. If he has some grand command of climatology and can falsify AGW, then why is he posting here, and not publishing? It's because he knows he doesn't really understand the theory, but latches on to pseudoscientific claptrap and passes himself off as an expert. He's to climatology what Ken Ham is to biology.

[Bonam]

No, he's just the best at throwing word salads together. If he has some grand command of climatology and can falsify AGW, then why is he posting here, and not publishing? It's because he knows he doesn't really understand the theory, but latches on to pseudoscientific claptrap and passes himself off as an expert. He's to climatology what Ken Ham is to biology.

I don't think he's at any point tried to "falsify" AGW, just to quantify various aspects of it. His posts are not word salads, they have meaning, and unlike any other poster here he has actually put forth original thoughts regarding climate science rather than just rehashing blog posts from elsewhere. The original thoughts may not always be correct but they follow in a logical way from information in climate science papers and standard scientific approaches to these kinds of problems. Nor has he tried to pass himself off as an expert.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Bonam

[ReeferMadness]

Everyone should be allowed to question anything.

Indeed. And I would never question your right to question the work of scientists, although you are clearly not qualified to do so. I just find it curious that you accept the claims of economists holus bolus as an article of faith when economists have clearly shown they are unable to predict anything with any accuracy.

I'm not a nationalist. These sovereignty appeals will not work on me.

And I don't care whether they work on you or not. Sovereignty is a right in international law and Harper giving it away as a sacrifice to show his religious devotion to right wing economics is a bad deal.

I said comparative advantage, not 'competitive' advantage. The rest of your post is just you referring to absolute advantage.

Comparative advantage is inferred in my descriptions. I'm not going to write a book.

And comparative advantage is not without its detractors (see James K Gailbraith).

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think he's at any point tried to "falsify" AGW, just to quantify various aspects of it. His posts are not word salads, they have meaning, and unlike any other poster here he has actually put forth original thoughts regarding the topic rather than just rehashing blog posts from elsewhere. The original thoughts may not always be correct but they follow in a logical way from information in climate science papers and standard scientific approaches to these kinds of problems. Nor has he tried to pass himself off as an expert.

The reason that most people "rehash" posts from elsewhere is that climate change experts tend not to hand around MLW. Whether his posts mean anything or not is up for debate but I suspect they are sophomoric arguments that would be laughed off by the experts. If he seriously thinks that he can poke holes in the work of experts, he should go and publish some work and get it peer reviewed. Either way, he's wasting people's time in this forum because nobody around here has the background to evaluate whether he's on to something or not.

[TimG]

No, he's just the best at throwing word salads together. If he has some grand command of climatology and can falsify AGW, then why is he posting here, and not publishing?

Except if you actually had the ability to understand the arguments he is presented you would understand that he is not "falsifying AGW" but simply reading the literature and doing his own calculations to estimate CO2 sensitivity. If anything he finds that many of the core claims about GHGs make sense and he is only disputing the extreme claims which are not really supported by the IPCC reports either.

Your trouble is you refuse to acknowledge that the 'climate science establishment' has a huge incentive to exaggerate the problem because big problems lead to big budgets and a lot of personal fame and recognition for the scientists involved. There can be no rational discussion of the topic that does not start with the assumption that a lot of exaggeration occurs and the only question is how to figure what claims are really plausible.

Edited November 11, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

The reason that most people "rehash" posts from elsewhere is that climate change experts tend not to hand around MLW. Whether his posts mean anything or not is up for debate but I suspect they are sophomoric arguments that would be laughed off by the experts. If he seriously thinks that he can poke holes in the work of experts, he should go and publish some work and get it peer reviewed. Either way, he's wasting people's time in this forum because nobody around here has the background to evaluate whether he's on to something or not.

But rehashing posts from elsewhere is essentially uninteresting. If I wanted to read a climate blog, I'd read a climate blog, not MLW. The people here don't really add value to the blogs they quote, they just throw in a few extra insults to go along with the blog's contents.

Also, he isn't wasting anyone's time except his own by posting here, people are wasting their own time if they read long posts which they don't find interesting or don't understand.

[ReeferMadness]

But rehashing posts from elsewhere is essentially uninteresting. If I wanted to read a climate blog, I'd read a climate blog, not MLW.

I don't generally quote blogs, unless they are from someone with some reputation. I more rely on reputable news sources.

The people here don't really add value to the blogs they quote, they just throw in a few extra insults to go along with the blog's contents.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it. If you took his nonsense (his word salad as TB so elegantly put it) and put it into a blog, you wouldn't pay any attention to it. It would be a case of just another science wannabe trying to make a name for himself. But because he doesn't write a blog and he's one of "us" he's interesting? It makes no sense.

Either he knows what he's talking about (in which case he should be publishing for peer review) or he doesn't in which case he's not worth reading.

Also, he isn't wasting anyone's time except his own by posting here, people are wasting their own time if they read long posts which they don't find interesting or don't understand.

So, here's the thing. Most people in this world aren't scientists and most scientists aren't experts and even experts are only experts in one particular area. And to top it all off, lots of today's cutting edge science turns into tomorrow's bullsh*t. So, we all have to go through life trying to figure out what's real and what's not. And we need to decide if people know what they're talking about or if they just think they know what they're talking about or if they just wish they knew what they're talking about.

So, I think most people are here as lay people to exchange ideas. And having -1 and hitops pretend like they have some expert level insight into climate science is just polluting the threads. If they want to go off and have a let's pretend we know everything thread, I say they should knock themselves out.

[Michael Hardner]

How do you know that? Through this entire miserable debate, I've heard of literally dozens of things that could get worse but nobody has pointed to one tangible thing that will improve, other than apparently, I might save a few nickels on milk laden with growth hormones.

More opportunities for exports, cheaper dairy, cheaper automobiles.

Those are some of the benefits that Stephen Harper touted.

There seems to be an endless amount of faith in right wing economics.

No. It's ECONOMICS. The autoworkers are good at finding economists who will highlight the downsides of the TPP and highlighting those, but trade deals are agreed to be good for economics by an overwhelming majority of economists.

And as I have pointed out, the fact that people don't generally know this is a problem.

The most compelling case he could make was that if the US signed, we have to sign.

Yes, because we compete with them.

The lack of transparency over this whole deal is bullsh*t.

Then why don't we design a forum where the good things about trade are discussed on a level field with the downsides ? Given the fact that many (including you, apparently) are unaware about the positives of trade, would you really expect governments to treat citizens like sentient adults and publish the details ?

[Michael Hardner]

Back on topic... there are many threads on climate change already.

[Smeelious]

I'd be more worried about not being part of the TPP right now.

[kimmy]

More opportunities for exports, cheaper dairy, cheaper automobiles.

Those are some of the benefits that Stephen Harper touted.

And I gather you're pretty excited about driving around in a new Toyota drinking milkshakes.

No. It's ECONOMICS. The autoworkers are good at finding economists who will highlight the downsides of the TPP and highlighting those, but trade deals are agreed to be good for economics by an overwhelming majority of economists.

Yes yes, we're all familiar with basic economic principles like "tariffs bad, trade good!" and "competition means lower prices!"

But the TPP is not just about decreasing barriers to trade and creating more competition. The new IP rules will have the opposite effect... it'll create more barriers and reduce the amount of competition.

But every time somebody has made specific criticisms of the TPP, you've ducked out and gone back to discussing these junior high economics principles with somebody else.

-k

[Argus]

I'd be more worried about not being part of the TPP right now.

From what I've seen from economists discussing this, I tend to agree.

As to the rest, I'm not enough of an economist to really be able to judge the finer points of whether what we get will outweigh what we lose, and neither is anyone else here. There is no way the Liberals are going to repudiate this so discussion is moot.