Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
New World Order (recent meetings)
-
12-07-2012 9:43pm#1The New World Order have just been conducting their latest round of secret negotiations in San Diego, California.
Also attending were representatives from the governments of the U.S, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan also rumoured to be involved in the next stage. This particular series of negotiations was originally organised in Febuary 2008 by the George W.Bush administration. The first meeting kicked off in Melbourne in March 2010. The current round in San Diego (July 2012) is the thirteenth of the series.
The official name given to these meetings between the New World Order and representatives of various sovereign governments is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Perhaps you've read of these ongoing meetings already in the mainstream media. Perhaps not.
Outside of places like HuffPost and the Guardian, some tech magazines and various alternative media sources, this has been getting very little attention as far as i can make out.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, as the name suggests, currently just pertains to New World Order future plans for populations in the Pacific Rim, but other New World Order rules are already in effect worldwide by organisations with which we are all familiar with. The World Trade Organisation officially commenced on 1st January 1995 and is one of the main mechanisms of the New World Order.
As Public Citizen puts it:
"Under the WTO's system of corporate-managed trade, economic efficiency, reflected in short-run corporate profits, dominates other values. Decisions affecting the economy are to be confined to the private sector, while social and environmental costs are borne by the public. The WTO have functioned principally to pry open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations ( aka the New World Order ) at the expense of national and local economies; workers, farmers, indigenous peoples, women and other social groups; health and safety; the environment; and animal welfare. In addition, the WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people."
The TPP is currently still at the negotiation stage, but respected organisations, commentators and well-known economists whose opinions i trust have expressed grave reservations about this. It has been described as "NAFTA on steroids", which is a scary concept indeed.
To paraphrase Public Citizen again:
Describing NAFTA (and TPP potentially) as a “trade” agreement is misleading. NAFTA was really an investment agreement. Its core provisions granted foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promoted relocation abroad (ie to sweatshops) of factories and jobs, and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care. It includes an array of new corporate investment rights and protections that are unprecedented in scope and power. It's been a race to the bottom basically that has cost millions of jobs and gutted whole industries, all in the name of "free trade".
[SIZE=-1]Where the TPP departs from past agreements is in the range of issues it covers and the degree it flagrantly defies national sovereignty in favor of New World Order interests. Only two of the TPP’s 26 chapters have to do with trade. The rest are focused on new corporate rights, privileges and tools to override local government interests.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Perhaps the most controversial of these tools would be the setting up of a three attorney tribunal, with no checks on conflicts of interest, to judge New World Order complaints regarding government regulations in the countries they are setting up operations in. If, for instance, the NWO argues it is losing profits because of its host nation’s overtime laws, this tribunal could rule that the country’s taxpayers owe the NWO compensation for this loss. Such costly judgments could result from any regulations including labour law, local environmental standards, financial rules, etc.[/SIZE]
According to PublicCitizen, (and this is just one small aspect of it), the proposed terms could inhibit access to medicines in individual Trans-Pacific countries and also constrain potential and emerging sources of supply such as Vietnam and Malaysia. Applied regionally, the Trans-Pacific agreement would limit the economies of scale necessary for the generics industry to keep prices low. These risks combined make the Trans-Pacific agreement especially dangerous for generic competition and access to medicines in the Asia-Pacific region.
The negotiations are closed to the public and the text is secret. Nevertheless, leaked texts have revealed U.S. demands that would:- Expand pharmaceutical patenting and create new drug monopolies, by lowering patentability standards and requiring patentability of minor variations of older, known medicines.
- Lengthen drug monopolies by requiring countries to extend patent terms.
- Eliminate safeguards against patent abuse, including among others the right of third parties to challenge patent applications (pre-grant opposition).
- Risk facilitating patent abuse by requiring countries to condition marketing approval on patent status (patent linkage). Under patent linkage, even spurious patents may function as barriers to generic drug registration.
- Expand exclusive control over clinical trial data including through an extra three years of data exclusivity for new uses of known products (in addition to five years exclusivity for first uses) and a new provision on biotech medicines.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GURmyY-PggComments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I did read it, but again let me state, if the NWO are holding secret meetings how do people know about them?
Can you please read this link. The one from post 10. Here it is:
http://nwlaborpress.org/2012/07/tpp/
It will take you all of 2-3 minutes. Then hopefully you will understand what was meant when the word secret was used to describe the meetings. It wasn't the "Oh but how do people know about it then??:p
" type of secret.
Have you anything interesting to add in regards the thread? I'm all ears..0 -
-
-
Yeah a lot of questions once I get out of work
Ok..well, i'm no expert on this or anything. Came across it for the first time a couple of weeks ago when the documents were leaked. Just putting it out there as you do. Am more curious to hear what you (or anyone) thinks about it, whether good or bad, on possible outcomes for stuff like workers rights, intellectual property, finance, medicine etc.Brown Bomber wrote: »Channel Zero, thank you
You're most welcome!
Was thinking of this the other week to pop the cherry on that blog, but sure there's plenty of other topics as always.
I don't think we'll hear much more on this until September (the next round). These guys seem to be a good source anyway.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
They aren't hypothetical?
No, the alternative models are of course still hypothetical, but saying they're hypothetical is sort of obvious and pointless though. It doesn't mean they're not workable or feasable.so, the internet is indirectly "alter-globalisation'?
What now? The current model of globalisation is the best model because internet?
You're really spoiling me with these gems of wisdom.
Victorian kids are no longer up chimneys. Plus we have the internet (also somehow thanks to globalisation apparently). Hooray!Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but you believe the top 600 companies are in fact the "new world order"?.. if so, what date did this take effect? (since you mention meetings) - if not, then please explain..
Silly question time is over now mate. Will gladly try to answer your non-silly one's though, ie you asked "What's the alternative?" Can and will post some good info on that (but again to point out am not an expert on all this but have read a fair bit at this stage).Don't get me wrong, the top 600 companies in the world hold a lot of sway..... I'm not quite sure what is "new" about all this?
I've called it the New World Order and framed it like that in the OP, but have already clarified that what is meant is the current model and resultant effects of corporate globalisation, or neo-liberalism. Never stated it's brand new as in it's just recently emerged. So we're agreed on that then; it's been around since the '70's.
The reason for the OP is in relation to it evolving though (TPP, WTO, NAFTA etc), with potentially ever-increasing influence on the world economies and people, more than it already has.
Would like to throw out some questions aswell. I'm curious to know if you think the manifestation of TPP in the OP (if it gets agreed upon as per the leaked documents) will be a positive thing for the people in those countries.
Am also curious to know what you meant by saying, " If the current one is failing so badly how are our standards of living constantly rising?" Could you expand on that a bit if possible.
I'm not saying it's not true that standards of living are rising. Am just wondering for clarity is it the developed or developing countries or both you're referring to?0 -
Channel Zero wrote: »No, the alternative models are of course still hypothetical,
Which is all I said, yet I got attacked.What now? The current model of globalisation is the best model because internet?
You're really spoiling me with these gems of wisdom.
Because the internet is an example of "alter-globalisation"?Victorian kids are no longer up chimneys. Plus we have the internet (also somehow thanks to globalisation apparently). Hooray!
Yes they practically are, especially in the Bric countries. Surely issues like ethics, environmental issues, exploitation (which is the core of your point?) are much more prevalent in developing countries than the "top 600 TNC's".Silly question time is over now mate. Will gladly try to answer your non-silly one's though, ie you asked "What's the alternative?" Can and will post some good info on that (but again to point out am not an expert on all this but have read a fair bit at this stage).
You are clearly not an expert, so it seems a little strange to be so defensive on something you aren't so sure about.I've called it the New World Order and framed it like that in the OP, but have already clarified that what is meant is the current model and resultant effects of corporate globalisation, or neo-liberalism. Never stated it's brand new as in it's just recently emerged. So we're agreed on that then; it's been around since the '70's.
GoodThe reason for the OP is in relation to it evolving though (TPP, WTO, NAFTA etc), with potentially ever-increasing influence on the world economies and people, more than it already has.
That's a matter of regulation - perhaps the economics forum? hardly a CT.Would like to throw out some questions aswell. I'm curious to know if you think the manifestation of TPP in the OP (if it gets agreed upon as per the leaked documents) will be a positive thing for the people in those countries.
Again, economics discussion. If the benefits (job creation, growth, stimulus) outweigh the negatives (affecting domestic, local business, stifling healthy competition, environmental, etc) then yes its a good thing.Am also curious to know what you meant by saying, " If the current one is failing so badly how are our standards of living constantly rising?" Could you expand on that a bit if possible.
I'm not saying it's not true that standards of living are rising. Am just wondering for clarity is it the developed or developing countries or both you're referring to?
Across both the developed and developing world, its very broad subject but to give an example, China is a good barometer and the natural progression of competitive practices within the country have meant that several years ago workers (many from the country moving to the cities) would take any job at any wage, but now are finding themselves often being courted by employers competing to offer better wages and conditions. Obviously it's gradual and differs from region to region.
Some people just have the simplistic notion that any trade agreement just consists of US corporate fatcats personally stuffing their pockets with wads of profits - and whilst not entirely untrue, is not a fair nor realistic representation of who is actually benefitting and how.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Channel Zero wrote: »
It's puzzling why "the internet" was mentioned at all, but no it's not an example of alter-globalisation, nor is it an example or benefit of globalisation. It is a product of government funded research and nothing to the subject i would have thought.
Apparently yes it is an example of alter-globalisation, which in itself is pretty vague.Victorian children are no longer up chimneys in developing countries? especially in Bric countries? Right, that's slightly clearer.
You seemed to be implying that there aren't kids up chimneys here and that this "progress" was somehow a benefit of what we're talking about.So, correct me if i'm wrong, are you saying that working conditions for children in those countries have been vastly improved or eradicated due to the TNC's/corporate globalisation in the last 30 years and that they're not up chimneys? Is "no longer up chimneys" a euphemism for child labour?
Im losing your point here, is this an economics/globalisation discussion or a conspiracy theory. I am address the conspiracy theory here.Do you have any source of info for that? That ethics, environmental issues and exploitation is much more prevelant in developing countries than in those areas where the TNC's operate.Thanks, but that's all a bit general and unverified. It's true that living standards for some in China have risen dramatically, but do you have any numbers, figures or links with info for either China or worldwide?
Because your statement was "If the current one is failing so badly how are our standards of living constantly rising?"
This implies that the current system of trade liberalisation is directly responsible for better increases of standards than say, another system.
You'll find that info by reading about it
Newspapers, current affairs, TV programmes and documentaries, the economist, online sites, etc.Conversely, some people have the simplistic notion that these trade agreements we're talking about just consist of countries trying to increase trade and partnership. That is definitely unrealistic.
Do the benefits outweigh the negatives of these deals, short-term and long-term or is the converse true? that's really an economics/globalisation discussion.
Unless you have solid evidence for the CT?0 -
Apparently yes it is an example of alter-globalisation, which in itself is pretty vague.
Then you don't know what alter-globalisation is. Do a quick wiki there and you'll find out all about it.Im losing your point here, is this an economics/globalisation discussion or a conspiracy theory. I am address the conspiracy theory here.
It's both at this stage. If you don't want to address the economics/globalisation part, no problem. You did throw out some statements though on the economics. Am just trying to find out what you meant by them.You'll find that info by reading about it Newspapers, current affairs, TV programmes and documentaries, the economist, online sites, etc.
Was hoping you would back up what you stated already yourself tbh. All i've had so far is sweeping generalisations about non-chimney dwelling youngsters and vague anecdotal tales of improvements in some peoples standard of living, apparently the proof that the system is not failing.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oIMjGz3OwU
Advertisement