Trans Pacific Partnership delegates fail to reach final deal.
34 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Delegates negotiating a pacific free trade agreement have failed to reach a final deal after talks in Hawaii, the ABC understands.
Earlier, Australia's Trade Minister Andrew Robb said a Pacific trade deal was 98 per cent complete, but said it was hard to see if it would be finalised.
Sources involved in the talks said a dispute between Japan and the United States over autos, New Zealand digging in over trade in dairy products and no agreement on monopoly periods for next-generation drugs had held up negotiations.
Source:
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-01/tpp-deal-98pc-complete/6665204[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]a dispute between Japan and the United States over autos[/quote]
You can't stop Japanese cars from coming over to America. Mostly because they have no brakes.
In all seriousness, though, it must have been some pretty awful debates going if it had reached "98% complete" just to fail now.
[I]holy shit[/I] i never thought it would end like this
i'm so happy, fuck TPP (not yours, kojima. you're cool)
What this means... is that the TPP will not die... However IT WOULD have to be voted on election Year and that was a no no to Politicians
So we are ok for now? Or will TPP come back in some sort of another abomination?
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48344581]So we are ok for now? Or will TPP come back in some sort of another abomination?[/QUOTE]
No way they're going to let all that work go to waste, it'll come back in some form. They had far more agreements than disagreements.
wait so not doing something for once has actually not caused something to happen?
political apathy party 2016!
[QUOTE=Sableye;48344676]wait so not doing something for once has actually not caused something to happen?
political apathy party 2016![/QUOTE]
what do you mean "doing nothing?" a lot of people have been voicing opinions against the TPP, and that's before they even announced what's in it. they're probably just going to try again in a few years and hope the public is more apathetic.
Hopefully if it does come back again later on, being forced to reveal its inner workings will get the public to shut it down. If not I guess I get to look forward to living in a real-life Cyberpunk 2077.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;48344681]what do you mean "doing nothing?" a lot of people have been voicing opinions against the TPP, and that's before they even announced what's in it. they're probably just going to try again in a few years and hope the public is more apathetic.[/QUOTE]
well i meant politicians not doing anything
[editline]31st July 2015[/editline]
i hope that the full text is finally published and we can find out exactly what kind of scary shit they had
[QUOTE=Sableye;48344743]well i meant politicians not doing anything
[editline]31st July 2015[/editline]
i hope that the full text is finally published and we can find out exactly what kind of scary shit they had[/QUOTE]
The full text for the TPP and others have been leaked IIRC.
-snip-
So we killed it?
I mean, the thing is like Cthulhu, we can't kill it. But we have stopped it for the moment, right?
Time to breath a sigh of relief and hope to god they fuck up next time too.
Someone catch me up, what is TPP, how did it fail, what is going on and what does it mean for countries that isn't America?
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48345360]So we killed it?
I mean, the thing is like Cthulhu, we can't kill it. But we have stopped it for the moment, right?
Time to breath a sigh of relief and hope to god they fuck up next time too.[/QUOTE]
They can always just have another meeting. Obama has a lot riding on this considering how much political capital he spent to push Fast Track through so I doubt it's over. The terms might have to not be totally favorable for him though.
[QUOTE=Xonax;48345483]Someone catch me up, what is TPP, how did it fail, what is going on and what does it mean for countries that isn't America?[/QUOTE]
It's the latest "Fuck consumers give me all the money" plot.
From what I'm hearing it failed because the NSA got caught spying on Japan's trade negotiators (Japan is apparently an important player in this) and now everyone's upset because America isn't respecting their ability to make their own choices.
[QUOTE=Xonax;48345483]Someone catch me up, what is TPP, how did it fail, what is going on and what does it mean for countries that isn't America?[/QUOTE]
I don't know anything about it myself, but I read that it was basically to allow more outsourcing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48344383]You can't stop Japanese cars from coming over to America. Mostly because they have no brakes.
In all seriousness, though, it must have been some pretty awful debates going if it had reached "98% complete" just to fail now.[/QUOTE]
Most likely going back the other way, actually. I imagine it's got a tarriff of some sort on auto exports from the US, we after all do build most of the cars sold on our roads and it's long been more economic to build-and-export-from-America than build-in-japan for the home market, that would make Japan's domestic brands ridiculously costly back home while Americans continue to enjoy dirt cheap prices for them locally.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48345360]So we killed it?
I mean, the thing is like Cthulhu, we can't kill it. But we have stopped it for the moment, right?
Time to breath a sigh of relief and hope to god they fuck up next time too.[/QUOTE]
It has returned to the depths of the Pacific, awaiting a new coven being formed to raise it from its slumber
[QUOTE=Sableye;48347346]It has returned to the depths of the Pacific, awaiting a new coven being formed to raise it from its slumber[/QUOTE]
Just wait for the next wyrd of politicians to stumble across the ancient scrolls of the TPP, and attempt the summoning described within.
[QUOTE=Xonax;48345483]Someone catch me up, what is TPP, how did it fail, what is going on and what does it mean for countries that isn't America?[/QUOTE]
If it did pass, it would most likely end in the dismantling of the quota system for Canadian dairy (which would be horrible for our economy): [url]http://www.milkledowneffect.ca/[/url]
[QUOTE=_RJ_;48350226]If it did pass, it would most likely end in the dismantling of the quota system for Canadian dairy (which would be horrible for our economy): [url]http://www.milkledowneffect.ca/[/url][/QUOTE]
I did some reading and it turns out that Canadian dairy farmers are extremely protected from competition (both domestic and foreign), which drives up prices massively.
Government regulations in Canada appear to restrict supply and drive up prices so that milk is more expensive, protecting farmers (which is why their incomes are relatively high). In addition, it means that it's very difficult for new farmers to enter dairy farming in Canada.
Another negative of the existing regulations means that it's expensive for industries that utilize dairy products to be competitive overseas, meaning it's nearly impossible for Canadians to export products such as cheese.
I say, dismantle the Canadian quota system. It would do a lot of good for Canadian dairy, and it would allow new farmers to enter the market in addition to cutting prices of dairy products and allowing Canadian manufacturers to start selling more (especially overseas).
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48344581]So we are ok for now? Or will TPP come back in some sort of another abomination?[/QUOTE]
Eh the TPP is not that unusual. It's basically a BIT, just multiparty, which are not uncommon.
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;48351492][url]http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/[/url]
its pretty much shitty for everyone (that isnt a massive multinational company)[/QUOTE]
For the most part it's good and bad mixed in roughly equal measure, coupled with a lack of transparency and other issues.
TPP (and trade treaties in general) could benefit a lot from greatly expanded oversight, scrutiny, and transparency in general.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48350441]I did some reading and it turns out that Canadian dairy farmers are extremely protected from competition (both domestic and foreign), which drives up prices massively.
Government regulations in Canada appear to restrict supply and drive up prices so that milk is more expensive, protecting farmers (which is why their incomes are relatively high). In addition, it means that it's very difficult for new farmers to enter dairy farming in Canada.
Another negative of the existing regulations means that it's expensive for industries that utilize dairy products to be competitive overseas, meaning it's nearly impossible for Canadians to export products such as cheese.
I say, dismantle the Canadian quota system. It would do a lot of good for Canadian dairy, and it would allow new farmers to enter the market in addition to cutting prices of dairy products and allowing Canadian manufacturers to start selling more (especially overseas).[/QUOTE]
May I know your sources?
As for the quota system raising prices, that's not true, and getting rid of it will keep the prices the same (if not higher) as it's the processors who sell to stores, and stores that set the price to what it is. The quota system posts its demand for dairy and accepts a certain supply. As for dairy farmers selling to a processor, prices are practically guaranteed to be the same which actually stabilizes the dairy industry. Dairy farmers can anticipate how much they make and work around that ([url=http://future.aae.wisc.edu/publications/13-130_DairyPolicy.pdf]source[/url]):
[thumb]http://i.gyazo.com/2a65b4452f6dd9b5e6284c304a4f6d44.png[/thumb]
[thumb]http://i.gyazo.com/7a8ef150618deec29cfeb8a3198e627d.png[/thumb]
The reason why the quota system restricts supply is because the quota system is one that regulates supply and demand. The higher the demand, the higher the supply (and vice versa). Whether we have the quota system or not, to get in to farming it would cost the same. There's a cost to buying quota but you'd be able to run a smaller farm. If you didn't have the quota system, you wouldn't need to buy the quota to get started, however, you'd need to buy more cattle, land, equipment, etc. to make as much as you would if you had the quota system as the quota system only regulates the price at which processors have to buy from farmers.
[b]Our Canadian dairy is "expensive" because it's regulated and ensured to be high quality, anything less isn't accepted. Canadian milk can't be sold if it contains antibiotics, growth hormones, or steroids ([url=http://www.albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/ive-started-buying-organic-milk-based-on-the-assum/]source[/url]).[/b]
Dismantle the quota system and our dairy industry would crash, millions of jobs would be lost (the dairy industry affects many other industries such as beef, seed, agricultural manufacturers, etc.), our dairy quality would fall through the floor, and farms would shut down because they wouldn't have the funds to run the way they do (source is me, I'm a dairy farmer, you could probably find other sources for this as well). The only benefit to doing this would be for foreign companies so that they can get their foots in to our market and would hurt Canada rather than help it.
Also, Australia didn't see any gain from getting rid of their quota system, in fact, their consumer price went up ([url=http://www.dairyfarmers.ca/what-we-do/supply-management/myths-realities]source[/url]):
[thumb]http://www.dairyfarmers.ca/var/df_site/storage/images/media/images/myth_australianpricederegulation/24301-1-eng-CA/myth_australianpricederegulation.jpg[/thumb]
[b]Edit:[/b]
An interesting article to read: [url]http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/supply-management-in-canada-why-politicians-defend-farm-marketing-boards-1.3166329[/url]
It basically talks about dairy prices being predictable, farmers not being subsidizes (whereas the US farmers are, and taxpayers have to pay for that), who farmers affect, safe business operations for smaller farmers, buyout for quota if it were dismantled (which would again fall on taxpayers), etc.
[QUOTE=_RJ_;48356031]May I know your sources?[/quote]
[url]http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/supply-management-hall-findlay.pdf[/url]
I've been working off this source primarily.
[quote]The reason why the quota system restricts supply is because the quota system is one that regulates supply and demand. The higher the demand, the higher the supply (and vice versa). As for dairy farmers selling to a processor, prices are practically guaranteed to be the same which actually stabilizes the dairy industry. Dairy farmers can anticipate how much they make and work around that (source):[/quote]
Except supply and demand increases or decreases can be met through markets setting the prices. A commission setting the price isn't responding to a corresponding increase or decrease in demand, but is artificially restricting supply in order to drive up prices.
Guaranteeing prices is just another way to ensure profits for farmers. Indeed, the way supply management is handled in Canada ensures profits (which is what it is designed to do).
[quote]With such protection from outside and with guaranteed returns, the dairy business would be extremely attractive to potential new producers or for existing producers to add production. After all, a guaranteed price for your output based on your costs, not on market forces and competition, makes for a no-lose, profitable enterprise.
But overproduction would wreak havoc with the scheme, so the government established a quota system — each producer is only allowed to produce his or her quota of milk.5 This alone has now created a major economic distortion, however: quota is now worth about $28,000 per cow, meaning about $2 million per average farm, for a total quota value in Canada of about $28 billion. This represents double the value of quotas only 10 years ago.6[/quote]
[quote][b]Our Canadian dairy is "expensive" because it's regulated and ensured to be high quality, anything less isn't accepted. Canadian milk can't be sold if it contains antibiotics, growth hormones, or steroids.[/b][/quote]
Except the supply regulations do not cover antibiotics, growth hormones, etc The European Union has banned the use of growth hormones and has multiple regulatory agencies for agriculture to ensure high quality. The quality of the milk is irrelevant here.
[quote]Dismantle the quota system and our dairy industry would crash, millions of jobs would be lost (the dairy industry affects many other industries such as beef, seed, agricultural manufacturers, etc.), our dairy quality would fall through the floor, and farms would shut down because they wouldn't have the funds to run the way they do (source is me, I'm a dairy farmer, you could probably find other sources for this as well). The only benefit to doing this would be for foreign companies so that they can get their foots in to our market and would hurt Canada rather than help it.[/quote]
Why would it crash and why would millions of jobs be lost? Let us assume for this instance that you simply remove supply management and open up Canadian markets to exports/imports. Let's assume it doesn't cover the quality of the milk at all, regulations on bovine growth hormones, etc.
If the quality of the dairy products was what was important for consumers, then they would buy high quality products from domestic farmers surely? Wouldn't Canadian cheesemakers begin to sell their products overseas, allowing them to expand production and demand more Canadian milk? What's to stop the government from setting in to manage the transition by slowly loosening it up rather than eliminating it all at once?
Canada as a whole has one of the most intensively protected dairy industries in the world. With the rise of free trade and increasing integration of global markets, a lot of countries find it unfair that Canada is benefiting from free trade in other industries, but keeps the dairy sector fiercely protected from any kind of competition at all.
[quote]We live, however, in a global trading environment, and in most cases, the prices set in Canada are significantly higher than what imports of competing products from other countries would cost. To maintain those higher domestic price levels, the Canadian government has to limit competition from outside. First, they simply prevented any imports at all. This was, initially, straightforward, but became more difficult to sustain when faced with increasing international efforts to lower trade barriers, first under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and then under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Canada is a trading nation, and has generally been a proponent of freer trade — with the glaring exception being its protection of the dairy, poultry and egg sectors. Canada claimed that these sectors were sensitive (an approach grudgingly permitted under the WTO trading rules); it established a tiny quota of allowable imports in these sectors to fulfill minimum access commitments at low tariffs, and then applied exorbitant tariffs to any imports over and above the quota. The allowable quota is so small it doesn’t really affect the domestic market — eight percent of the domestic market for cheese, for example, or one percent in the case of yogurt — as trade negotiator Michael Hart has described it, the equivalent of one rounded teaspoon of yogurt per Canadian per year.4 The tariff on the over quota (ranging from 168 percent for eggs, 238 percent for chicken, 246 percent for cheese, to almost 300 percent for butter) means that the prices of imports are so high that virtually no one bothers.[/quote]
While you are a dairy farmer and I understand that your livelihood depends heavily on what amounts to government protection, there's a degree of upset at the fact that Canada benefits massively from free trade, the high tariffs, supply management, etc goes heavily against the spirit of many free trade agreements and is seen as a way to avoid letting people trade and instead just amounts to a textbook case of rent seeking. A lot of other countries are upset at the fact that Canadians can freely access their own markets, but the country in turn cannot access Canadian markets.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321][url]http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/supply-management-hall-findlay.pdf[/url]
I've been working off this source primarily.[/QUOTE]
It may be best to find a new source, it's pretty outdated since our dollar is at $0.75 to USD and the focus of that is to put supply management in a bad light through manipulation and bias (giving our milk price at 4 litres and the US price at 3.8 litres, giving opinions on what's good and bad, etc.). Documents such as those should only present info and let the reader decide.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321]Except supply and demand increases or decreases can be met through markets setting the prices. A commission setting the price isn't responding to a corresponding increase or decrease in demand, but is artificially restricting supply in order to drive up prices.[/QUOTE]
[b]Sure, this would work in a textbook market, but most governments have subsidies on farmers. They influence the market by buying milk if the price drops below a certain point thus increasing demand and driving up the price. Additionally, whether you buy milk or not, you'd be paying the extra cost through your taxes on top of buying the milk. The high cost is still there, it's just hidden.[/b]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321]Guaranteeing prices is just another way to ensure profits for farmers. Indeed, the way supply management is handled in Canada ensures profits (which is what it is designed to do).[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's one reason I think the quota system is for, and I believe it's good that it does that. Corporations would benefit the most from no supply management because they can then make more money and charge whatever they want.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321]Except the supply regulations do not cover antibiotics, growth hormones, etc The European Union has banned the use of growth hormones and has multiple regulatory agencies for agriculture to ensure high quality. The quality of the milk is irrelevant here.[/QUOTE]
That's correct, supply management doesn't regulate quality, however I believe supply management indirectly influences the ability to supply such a product. Without it (and subsidies) farmers may find themselves unable to afford that extra visit from veterinarians or having it not be worth the cost to medicate an animal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321]Why would it crash and why would millions of jobs be lost? Let us assume for this instance that you simply remove supply management and open up Canadian markets to exports/imports. Let's assume it doesn't cover the quality of the milk at all, regulations on bovine growth hormones, etc.
If the quality of the dairy products was what was important for consumers, then they would buy high quality products from domestic farmers surely? Wouldn't Canadian cheesemakers begin to sell their products overseas, allowing them to expand production and demand more Canadian milk?[/QUOTE]
Canadians do buy domestic and there's no great need for us to export because we buy what we produce as there's little to no overproduction (however exporting does happen: [url=http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=imp-exp&s3=exp]source[/url]).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321]What's to stop the government from setting in to manage the transition by slowly loosening it up rather than eliminating it all at once?[/QUOTE]
Nothing really, but I don't think there should be any transition at all away from what already works for us.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321]Canada as a whole has one of the most intensively protected dairy industries in the world. With the rise of free trade and increasing integration of global markets, a lot of countries find it unfair that Canada is benefiting from free trade in other industries, but keeps the dairy sector fiercely protected from any kind of competition at all.[/QUOTE]
We have other markets available to trade in, and the dairy industry isn't entirely locked down for imports ([url=http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=imp-exp&s3=imp]source[/url])
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48356321]While you are a dairy farmer and I understand that your livelihood depends heavily on what amounts to government protection, there's a degree of upset at the fact that Canada benefits massively from free trade, the high tariffs, supply management, etc goes heavily against the spirit of many free trade agreements and is seen as a way to avoid letting people trade and instead just amounts to a textbook case of rent seeking. A lot of other countries are upset at the fact that Canadians can freely access their own markets, but the country in turn cannot access Canadian markets.[/QUOTE]
See above, there's also other markets besides dairy.
[QUOTE=_RJ_;48371759]It may be best to find a new source, it's pretty outdated since our dollar is at $0.75 to USD and the focus of that is to put supply management in a bad light through manipulation and bias (giving our milk price at 4 litres and the US price at 3.8 litres, giving opinions on what's good and bad, etc.). Documents such as those should only present info and let the reader decide.[/quote]
By the same token, this should bring your sources under scrutiny considering they are almost exclusively from dairy farmers who would very much have a vested interest in protection of the dairy sector.
[quote][b]Sure, this would work in a textbook market, but most governments have subsidies on farmers. They influence the market by buying milk if the price drops below a certain point thus increasing demand and driving up the price. Additionally, whether you buy milk or not, you'd be paying the extra cost through your taxes on top of buying the milk. The high cost is still there, it's just hidden.[/b][/quote]
Well I'm against agricultural subsidies too, since the vast majority of them exist more for political reasons than sound economics. Comparative advantage makes it cheaper to import goods from abroad in many instances, but for some reason the west has an unhealthy obsession with supporting agriculture it doesn't need and using land that frankly is better left to return to a more wild state rather than trying to encourage farmers to squeeze extra food out of it that nobody is going to buy.
[quote]Yes, that's one reason I think the quota system is for, and I believe it's good that it does that. Corporations would benefit the most from no supply management because they can then make more money and charge whatever they want.
That's correct, supply management doesn't regulate quality, however I believe supply management indirectly influences the ability to supply such a product. Without it (and subsidies) farmers may find themselves unable to afford that extra visit from veterinarians or having it not be worth the cost to medicate an animal.[/quote]
The problem is that it's textbook rent-seeking. The number of Canadian dairy farmers has been declining for years in addition to the number of dairy farms.
In addition, it's incredibly hard for new farmers to enter the Canadian dairy markets - many new ones are saddled with heavy debt.
[url]http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/04/the-new-chicken-farmer.html[/url]
Giving poultry as an example (which is regulated like dairy), you see that the return on investment is tiny, and that a significant proportion of expenses is accounted for by deleterious effects of supply management.
[quote]To invest $4.6 million and to get back $138,964 in profit gives a return of 2.99%. After depreciation and taxes, it's not much to show for a year's hard labour.
Alternatively, you could put your money into a government guaranteed GIC and get 2.85% from ICICI Bank Canada, with absolutely zero risk and zero work.
So if these numbers are correct, and I look forward to a real chicken farmer confirming these numbers, it doesn't make much sense to be a chicken farmer today.
The number of chicken farmers is dropping each year. The average age of chicken farmers is rapidly increasing. The small guy is being bought out by the large operators and the huge agri-corporations. Soon there will only be 3 chicken producers if this keeps up. That will be the end of CFO and the supply management system, because we will produce the 3 "too big to fail" chicken producers, and then those 3 will fail us at the moment of our greatest need.[/quote]
[quote]We have other markets available to trade in, and the dairy industry isn't entirely locked down for imports ([url=http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=imp-exp&s3=imp]source[/url])[/QUOTE]
Imports are virtually nonexistent because of high tariffs. The only reason Canada has some imports is because it skirts around the provisions of trade treaties by accepting the bare minimum necessary. These imports are small.
Ignoring the TPP, there is also the trade treaties between Europe and Canada (CETA). There is no risk of us selling you shitty cheese, and the removal of the extortionately high tariffs on imported agricultural goods would benefit both Canada and Europe in the long term and promote increased investment and development.
The problem I see with Canadian agriculture is that even if supply management ensured high quality milk, it has still done nothing to promote (let alone maintain) the efforts of existing dairy farmers. Their numbers have been in terminal decline, even with significant support from the Canadian state.
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-farms-getting-bigger-but-rarer-1.1244248[/url]
With supply management in place, this means that a decreasing number of Canadian farmers are now owning an increasing share of the market. With virtually no competition, this means that a smaller number of wealthier people are coming to predominate. You know, a bit like a monopolistic corporation.
There's no point in arguing with Sobotnik, he sticks to 'everything should be open because the free market regulates itself'. And if you mention other economies, he'll glorify capitalism.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48351675]For the most part it's good and bad mixed in roughly equal measure, coupled with a lack of transparency and other issues.
TPP (and trade treaties in general) could benefit a lot from greatly expanded oversight, scrutiny, and transparency in general.[/QUOTE]Until TPP, I didn't even know secret treaties were still a thing. It's like nobody learned from the First World War.
[editline]4th August 2015[/editline]
Granted though, there's not going to be a global conflagration because of a secret treaty to sodomise pirates.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.