Comment by walterbell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by walterbell | Hacker News Reader

The TPP vote may be delayed to reduce US election-time scrutiny. It would be better for democracy if the TPP were placed under the spotlight of US primary elections in early 2016, instead of a stealthy vote after the new president is elected in November, http://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-vote-calendar-october-2... & http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/257065-white-hous...

“... aides in both parties believe the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement will not be brought to the floor before the 2016 elections ... Waiting until the lame-duck session could allow members to take a tough vote on the free-trade deal without electoral consequences.”

The text could be public soon, http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2015/10/pro-...

“TPP countries could release the final text of the agreement as soon as next Tuesday — the day after elections in Canada — where the trade deal has proven to be a politically charged issue ... The AFL-CIO, meanwhile, is demanding the immediate release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership text ... "Creating a level playing field for American workers includes equal access to information, and the only way to ensure that is to ensure that all Americans have equal access to the text — not in 30 days, after the public relations spin has been spun, but right now."”

No way. Obama wants to pass it so it can be part of his "legacy". If anything he wants it pass the day after the 60 days of scrutiny expire, to minimize the debate about it and leave as little time as possible for protesters/opposition to organize against it.

Also, if Bernie Sanders wins, he'll veto it. If Clinton wins, she'll "evolve" once again on the issue, and pass it. If Trump wins, despite him saying he doesn't like it he'll probably be convinced to pass it.

Why would he want a legacy of pushing corrupted undemocratic agreements which are clearly against society? It's like having a legacy of the biggest crook.

And in general, if he is leaving, why is he pushing it so much? Those who stay in power might do it for corruption reasons (money and power they'll get from those who lobbied for this garbage). But pushing for it when leaving is simply weird.

Because to regular people he spins it as a trade deal that will get us x, y, and z. Regular people don't understand how they're being fucked in the ass by Obama on this issue.

I doubt he can spin anything forever in this information age. I.e. he can of course mislead some to push this through, but it surely won't give him any positive legacy. Quite the opposite.

Maybe he can use some of the draconian provisions in TPP to ensure the legacy stays positive. I'm only mostly joking =/

It's almost like he believes it will actually be good for the country.

I doubt he doesn't understand the crooked nature of such agreements. So I really have no clue what his intentions are.

He might believe that it's good for corporations and what is good for them is good for him.

i guess Obama is mainly talking to businessmen, so its is the 'what is good for business is good for america' mantra.

everything is moving to the net, so business wants to get money out of it, so far they came up with two models to do business

- surveillance as the business model of the internet

- DRM lock in

and so it goes that we run into a big reversal: the internet, which is after all a technology that promises freedom of information and transparency turns into a tool that results in exactly the reverse.

> 'what is good for business is good for america' mantra.

Except what is good for one business can be quite bad for another. And DRM in general is bad overall for business and economy (same as lock-in, growing monopoly and etc.). So this mantra doesn't sound meaningful.

but DRM is good for content owners and this is a very strong interest groups - they don't mind that it kills opportunities for growth in the future; all they care about is to turn their IP into something that results in a steady rent.

There is a major difference between a self publishing artist and a record label; the artist is primarily interested in gaining a wider audience and DRM is a hindrance here; the artist wants to increase his reach, he is less bothered by piracy.

The record label however is very worried about piracy - i argue that your position on the subject depends on your initial position in the hierarchy of things.

> but DRM is good for content owners

Not really. DRM reduces sales and end user reach. It reduces quality of what they offer. Unless you define as "good" those reasons they really use DRM for. And for sure none of them are good in general.

> they don't mind that it kills opportunities for growth in the future

Then it's even more pointless for anyone to think in this context that "what's good for business is good for America".

Correction: they really mean 'what is good for big business is good for america'

> what is good for big business

I'd rephrase it. To certain legacy business which can't compete and instead wants to use various combination of corrupted laws and lock-in to preserve their control over the market. There as well can be big business which is hurt by TPP and the like.

but if Obama man is friends with this kind of business he is probably not a friend of the small guy, isn't he?

Expanding on the existing business models; maybe this is all about the terms and conditions that people are able to comprehend:

maybe this whole business model thing is about domination - if megacorporation is not in a dominating position then there is no business model to think about, so there is nothing serious to begin with;

i mean that a position of dominance is a prerequisite for a business relationship - one where the owner of the business can turn the mutual relationship into money.

However this is only speculation, since i don't know enough on the subject of money making.

If it passes in a 2016 lame duck session, Obama will sign it. He is in office until noon, January 20th, 2017.

There is a broad coalition of groups who are against the TPP, including labor unions who play a role in getting out the vote for the general election.

If there is a TPP vote in early 2016, before the general election, labor groups like the AFL-CIO can organize Nov 2016 election campaigns to punish/unseat members of Congress who vote for the TPP. If the TPP vote is moved to the lame duck period between Nov 2016 and Jan 2017, Congress can be re-elected before going on-record with a TPP vote that is opposed by American workers and possibly a majority of voters.

By moving the TPP vote to a lame duck session in Nov 16, the anti-TPP lobbying/campaigning power of American workers in the general election could be neutralized. Sen. Sherrod Brown from the linchpin electoral swing state of Ohio is not a TPP fan, http://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-to-...

"Access to the text has been inadequate throughout the TPP negotiations. A copy of the agreement was not readily available for Members of Congress until we demanded it. And even after the text was deposited in the secure reading rooms in the House and Senate, Members had to ask USTR for TPP annexes and other related documents to be made available. In addition, despite repeated requests, congressional staff with the necessary security clearance are still prohibited from seeing the text on their own."

>the anti-TPP lobbying/campaigning power of American workers in the general election could be neutralized

That goes both ways. By pushing it to the lame duck session, it gives us an opportunity to neutralize TPP. We can vote out anyone who indicates support for it before they get the opportunity to vote on it.

Make it an election issue. Make the candidate go on record. If they won't go on record against TPP, then we can assume they are for TPP and vote them out. Don't even let them through the primaries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com