Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex
wikileaks.org
wikileaks.org
This is partly a result of the move to multi-lateral trade talks (bad idea but when WTO rounds take a decade it's not unexpected), and partly inertia - there is little common agreement on how to prevent the next crash, so without a better idea we seem to follow the inverse of Einsteins quip - "the definition of insanity is repeating the last mistakes but hoping for a different outcome
Minor thought : this leak is still a pretty big deal. But it feels like wikileaks is the wrong place for this - like the main media organisations should have already got their investigatory acts together and made wiki leaks irrelevant.
Just wondering ...
On the whole, the "main media organizations" are an entrenched part of the system they'd need to be reporting on in order to do that job. That's a pretty major "biting the hand that feeds them" sort of impediment.
It's much easier to shout, "It was Bush's fault!" or "But what about Benghazi?"
Financial institutions, macro-oriented asset managers and companies with multinational supply chains and long-term assets are each affected by these dynamics. Gaining intelligence on the nature and implications of trade negotiations is huge business.
I spent a good amount of time, as a trader, trying to anticipate how sundry domestic political variables constrained international actors, thereby predicting the odds of various trade structures arising from a forum (or of a forum even materialising in the first place).
Wall Street and the mainstream media go hand in hand. That is why this would never have been leaked by them, and why they won't give it anything except the most cursory reporting now it is leaked.
If you're waiting for them to get their investigatory acts together you'll be waiting forever. Wikileaks exists because they refuse to.
I am seeing this in WaPo and Guardian and maybe al-jazera
It's simply the combination of a dry (but fantastically important) subject and a high likelihood of making powerful enemies by reporting on it.
These things won't stifle reporting on this leak entirely, but they will result in the reporting being significantly muted, conciliatory and perfunctory. E.g. like Krugman's absurd "nothing to see here, move along people" post about TTP: http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/02/tanks-or-cars-why-krug...
- idealistic - will choose the "right path" as a differentiator or ethical choice
- conspiracy - consciously works with others for a purpose known to be wrong.
But inher wren those we have at least
- cock-up - whilst intentions are good the implementation fails
- head-in-sand - while the going is good and the consequences are not clear (but obviously not good) ignore and follow the common herd. This seems to be the majority of the financial crash, and is a regulatory fail not a conspiracy.
> Just wondering ...
Funny you should mention that today:
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/bbc-and-press-ignor...
But...
> The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt
These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be.
Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion.
Well put.
A problem with "deregulation" is that unless all regulations are being removed it's hard to tell what the new state of regulation will be.
There are some regulations that offer privileges, then other regulations that constrain those privileges.
Removing only the latter and calling it "deregulation" creates the impression that things will be more open or equal while doing the opposite.
Yes it appears to be a fatal problem, considering an area with no regulations whatsoever is simply called 'lawless'.
International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation) which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear to think it is.
> These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture).
Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade, and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies).
Your more specific case ('regulatory capture') is an example of weakened regulation through infiltration / corruption so your statement appears to read: Multinationals are a purely a product of regulation (more specifically, weakened regulation).
> Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be.
What do you mean by 'Without regulation'? If taken literally it would be impossible to define what a 'bank' is, so I assume your definition of 'Without regulation' involves regulations - which makes for a very confusing definition.
You imply there is an optimal outcome (thousands of medium-sized banks) being suppressed through regulation. What regulations force all banks to move quickly to a few larger banks? Usually these sorts of market regulations are about stopping that practice: for instance in Australia there is a 'four pillars policy' which stops mergers of the four largest banks. Without this regulation there would be less competition.
> Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion.
Characterising deregulation as deregulation is sloppy thinking? Let's back up: there is an international agreement which aims to enforce further deregulation of nation states... and characterising this as deregulation is sloppy thinking?
In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These are laws under which the government initiates force against market participants to try to force a desired outcome.
Proper laws merely protect individual sovereignty. For example, you can't use force against someone, whether physically or through possessing something that violates a contract with them (which is fraud). Only the government can use force, and only in retaliation to protect sovereignty.
The ethical basis for this distinction is that it is in everyone'e self-interest to be protected from the initiaion of force in general, while it is against everyone's self-interest to be vulnerable to the initiaition of force, in general. Thus, regulatory laws are wrong.
P.S. If Australia only have four banks, instead of forty or four hundred, it is because of regulation (in my sense of the word).
Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct."
The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but isn't (even fairly) common parlance.
A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'.
Your definition also implies that governmental rules that protect individual sovereignty (or don't impact upon it) are not the 'regulation' you protest against, and a clearer term for that would simply be 'good regulation'.
There are obviously regulations which protect individual sovereignty: environmental laws stopping anyone or any entity dumping toxic waste which impacts on the health and well-being of those individuals is but one of many obvious examples.
So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and you are against bad regulations, but you choose to call them simply 'regulations' which is rather confusing.
You also conclude: 'Thus, regulatory laws are wrong'.
Better to use the clearer, more correct statement 'Thus, bad regulatory laws are wrong'. Very uncontroversial and agreeable.
I think it could actually be argued that redefining a term like 'regulation' as you are doing is actually harmful to individual sovereignty. The common meaning of 'regulation' also covers regulation that is protective of individual sovereignty, and trying to promulgate a pejorative sense of the term merely enables moochers and looters to further hijack the term to weaken those regulations which protect individual sovereignty.
For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation."
Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position.
Maybe in your particular social or intellectual circles, but not in common parlance. This is obvious by comparing the dictionary definition with your definition: the former is general and widely understood, while the later is values-laden and requires an appreciation of a particular philosophical position.
> For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation."
They are by definition regulations. If you read the definition of regulation, you would have to agree they are regulations.
> Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position.
They specifically acknowledge and address your points around individual sovereignty - your assertions to the contrary indicate you haven't properly read what I wrote.
I called out an example of a 'good regulation' by your definition - an environmental law - to show how regulations can support individual sovereignty.
Leaving this point unanswered is what discredits your position. However it's clear to me this contortion around the meaning of 'regulation' is something impossible to honestly defend.
Has this been demonstrated conclusively? It seems like international trade probably would have come before international law.
Because technological advancements and economic pressures are completely blameless?
Make global communications networks disappear, and you'll get millions of small banks, with no changes in regulation at all...
I'm not sure why you think that an industry with so many instances of irresponsibility and dishonesty is fit to essentially govern itself more through deregulation.
Why they keep it secret, I don't know.
Such secrecy is incompatible with democracy, why refer to some of the countries participating in this as "democratic"?
Secrecy, at least concerning the details, during negotiation gives the negotiators a better opportunity to work out a deal that best serves the interests of the country as a whole.
Note that I'm only talking about secrecy during negotiation. The result of the negotiations should be made public well before Congress votes on it, to give the country time to decide on whether to accept or not.
From leaked documents, it appears that inside the negotiations, there's really not the kind of secrecy you're imagining. Every part to ACTA, for example, just marked it up as they thought it should be, and then there was a lot of something (not public) to get to a final draft. That's not keeping a maximum (or minimum) position secret in order to gain advantage, that's just deciding how much of something can be foisted upon the global public without causing a revolution.
From my standpoint, the secrecy we get is of no use to anyone but corporate fat cats and insiders.
I can see how certain things can be justifiably kept secret in a democracy, like matters related to national security (military, intelligence, etc.). But secrecy in business and financial regulation is just corruption. Especially when the interests in question are those of private businesses and may not be in the best interests of the country as a whole - and if the deliberations are secret, how can we and our elected representatives decide whose interests are actually being promoted?
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
"""Declassify on: Five years from entry into force of the TISA agreement or, if no agreement enters into force, five years from the close of the negotiations."""
I don't understand why this is so confusing: It's much easier for negotiators to propose a series of concessions and trade-offs in private, knowing that they'll only face political heat for those that actually make it into the final agreement.
People cant do informed choices and elect other people that represent them if the people in power make choices behind close doors.We are not talking about 2 corporations which are negociating something.
So no,"democracies" need no secrets. Or it says a lot about what the people in power think about their constituent.
Secrets protect those who are in power,secrets never protect the people.
Secrecy is therefore totally anti-democratic.
Would that be an existential threat to the nation and the people? Or would be an embarrassment to the upper echelons of government and military?
Would it be better for the people for such an event to happen, or worse?
However in the United States these decisions are not made by citizens but by elected officials voted in by citizens. Hence the United States is not a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.
You can play with words as much as you want, the substance here is that citizens are purposely kept uninformed, and without information there is no such thing as informed consent, a core principle of democracy regardless of the technical details.
The kind that required humungous bailouts and are STILL taking outsized risks because the regulatory framework is still insufficient to prevent them from causing yet more systemic crises.