• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement/.


  • Total voters
    55
Effective copyright is a boon for the American economy, what we have now is not effective copyright and it will only be made worse by the TPP. Instead of trying to crackdown on movie pirates maybe focus should be shifted to the 100s of billions of dollars lost due to stolen intellectual property by Chinese companies mainly corporate espionage or corruption.

China is not party to the deal and thus can't be prosecuted under it - instead you have to go to the WTO. The portions of Asia that are party to it, however, will become limited and less able to commit intellectual theft against the US. The patent protections in the TPP are there because we insisted upon them, because they are good for US businesses, besides being a good Rule of Law issue in and of themselves.
 
Oh yes. You just argued that we ought to adopt a protectionist policy whose intent is to protect and keep high American wages. So your position on immigration is rather pertinent.

Because my bet is that I can go find where you are in favor of immigration policy that has precisely the result you would decry from the TPP, that of driving down blue-collar wages.

You mean how something like NAFTA lead to a direct increase in illegal immigration? Something you can find like right here on my profile: http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/thedemsocialist/354-nafta-and-immigration.html
 
This isn't conspiracy.

No, no no, it's just a secretive grand design to undermine US sovereignty and put all of your blogs at risk of being censored by foreign powers :roll:

You thinking it is, is nonsense.

The arguments you put forth were nonsense. If you are committing intellectual theft, then you should get caught.

This has far greater reach than simply free trade.

That is 100% correct. The TPP is also fantastic foreign policy and geopolitics (not the same thing). By creating a free-trade atmosphere with much of Asia, the US can mitigate and roll back much of the economic exclusivity that China has been trying to enforce in the same region. We not only benefit from increased trade, but we help to protect smaller democracies from encroachment by an aggressive autocratic nature and we reduce the future chances that a forced alliance restricts our abilities to access key markets and shipping lanes. There is a good reason why administrations that feature everyone from Dick Cheney to Samantha Powers favored and pushed the TPP, and it's because it is excellent policy.
 
You mean how something like NAFTA lead to a direct increase in illegal immigration?

Nope. I asked what your preferred immigration policy was. Are you in favor of the DREAMers? Amnesty? Where do you stand on actually securing our border? Because large scale immigration of low-skill workers has the exact same effect you are decrying from the TPP.


Which you probably didn't stop to think about until now. Which is probably why you are trying to dodge the question.
 
China is not party to the deal and thus can't be prosecuted under it - instead you have to go to the WTO. The portions of Asia that are party to it, however, will become limited and less able to commit intellectual theft against the US. The patent protections in the TPP are there because we insisted upon them, because they are good for US businesses, besides being a good Rule of Law issue in and of themselves.

They are good for American businesses, but bad for the American people and innovation.
 
They are good for American businesses, but bad for bad for the American people and innovation.

Sure. No doubt all those businesses are staffed by robots, and the only inventors today are foreigners here on student visas :roll:

Protection of intellectual property is excellent for innovation because it incentivizes it.
 
Sure. No doubt all those businesses are staffed by robots, and the only people inventing anything today are foreigners here on student visas :roll:

Having restrictive copyrights that last forever and vague patents only serve to stifle innovation and competition in the industry. Restrictive copyrights and patents only help established large businesses in the industry to keep their grip and prevent anyone else from innovating and entering it the way most of them did. In the long run it harms everyone but the corporations profiting from it as people are not allowed to innovate and make money.
 
Having restrictive copyrights that last forever and vague patents only serve to stifle innovation and competition in the industry. Restrictive copyrights and patents only help established large businesses in the industry to keep their grip and prevent anyone else from innovating and entering it the way most of them did. In the long run it harms everyone but the corporations profiting from it as people are not allowed to innovate and make money.

That's an interesting claim. Who has restrictive copyrights that last forever?

In the long run it harms everyone but the corporations profiting from it as people are not allowed to innovate and make money.

This, however, is particularly laughable. Without solid patent protection, the individual who innovates has no ability whatsoever to make money and is completely unprotected from a corporation taking his design and using their greater resources to more quickly and cheaply produce it.
 
Just as the title says. I for one am for it because of what it could potentially mean for import of American autos to countries such as South Korea and Japan.

I'm for it because free trade enriches all participants.
 
No, no no, it's just a secretive grand design to undermine US sovereignty and put all of your blogs at risk of being censored by foreign powers :roll:



The arguments you put forth were nonsense. If you are committing intellectual theft, then you should get caught.



That is 100% correct. The TPP is also fantastic foreign policy and geopolitics (not the same thing). By creating a free-trade atmosphere with much of Asia, the US can mitigate and roll back much of the economic exclusivity that China has been trying to enforce in the same region. We not only benefit from increased trade, but we help to protect smaller democracies from encroachment by an aggressive autocratic nature and we reduce the future chances that a forced alliance restricts our abilities to access key markets and shipping lanes. There is a good reason why administrations that feature everyone from Dick Cheney to Samantha Powers favored and pushed the TPP, and it's because it is excellent policy.
Oh G_d, no.
You are to far gone.
There is no conspiracy.
The arguments are relevant.
And clearly you have bought into it being a great idea when it isn't.
 
Oh G_d, no.
You are to far gone.
There is no conspiracy.
The arguments are relevant.
And clearly you have bought into it being a great idea when it isn't.

:shrug: If you are going to descend into a Just So Fallacy, okay. There isn't much for it at that point.

This agreement is good for us economically, it is good for us geopolitically, and it is a rare foreign policy initiative that this administration has managed not to completely **** up. I've been following the TPP for about 5 years now. But thanks for telling me all about it.
 
Here's what we know about the TPP---absolutely zero.
Which was the GOP complaint with PPACA--pass it and we'll tell you what's in it .
 
:shrug: If you are going to descend into a Just So Fallacy, okay. There isn't much for it at that point.

This agreement is good for us economically, it is good for us geopolitically, and it is a rare foreign policy initiative that this administration has managed not to completely **** up. I've been following the TPP for about 5 years now. But thanks for telling me all about it.
No it isn't.
But you can't see that becasue you have already bought into it.
Hook, line, and sinker.
 
That's an interesting claim. Who has restrictive copyrights that last forever?



This, however, is particularly laughable. Without solid patent protection, the individual who innovates has no ability whatsoever to make money and is completely unprotected from a corporation taking his design and using their greater resources to more quickly and cheaply produce it.

Copyrights last too long, when they were created they only lasted 28 years which is enough time for someone to make money from their creation but also open it up to innovation as soon as possible so people can take it and build upon on it. The concept of fair use also needs to be expanded and protected. We need solid patent protection but we should also reform the system and an end to patents like Apple has on a rectangle with rounded corners as well as patent trolls.

 
Improper and overly restrictive protection of intellectual property is bad for innovation.

too little and too much are both equally debilitative of innovation
 
Sure. No doubt all those businesses are staffed by robots, and the only inventors today are foreigners here on student visas :roll:

Protection of intellectual property is excellent for innovation because it incentivizes it.

true, why would a pharmaceutical enterprise spend millions developing a new drug for say cancer or ALS, spend even more on clinical tests to get FDA approval only to see some maker of generics immediately copy the drug once it was approved.
 
This agreement is good for us economically, it is good for us geopolitically, and it is a rare foreign policy initiative that this administration has managed not to completely **** up. I've been following the TPP for about 5 years now. But thanks for telling me all about it.

Is this why Boehner still doesn't have his 'Freedom Caucus" on board--just as with the Cromnibus and DHS bill.
Both of which Obama supported.
So Boehner tries to divide DEMs instead.

Yes the liberals are tired of being taken for granted.
You're missing the further coalescing of the TEAs/LIBs, first begun with the Amash/Paul coalition against NSA .
 
No it isn't.
But you can't see that becasue you have already bought into it.
Hook, line, and sinker.

:) Accusations that anyone who disagrees with you has been suckered. Indication of a conspiracy theory at work #937.
 
:) Accusations that anyone who disagrees with you has been suckered. Indication of a conspiracy theory at work #937.
Way to misstate what was said. :doh
I said you bought into it.

But way not to accurately interpret what another has said. :thumbs:

That doesn't speak well to your interpretation of the topic. :shrug:
 
true, why would a pharmaceutical enterprise spend millions developing a new drug for say cancer or ALS, spend even more on clinical tests to get FDA approval only to see some maker of generics immediately copy the drug once it was approved.

Well they should have that exclusivity for a while but at some point that drug needs to be made available to other companies to allow them to innovate and make other advances.
 
Well they should have that exclusivity for a while but at some point that drug needs to be made available to other companies to allow them to innovate and make other advances.

and that is what the law is.
 
Copyrights last too long, when they were created they only lasted 28 years which is enough time for someone to make money from their creation but also open it up to innovation as soon as possible so people can take it and build upon on it.

Today they last 20 years, which seems fine.

...For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, utility and plant patents are granted for a term which begins with the date of the grant and usually ends 20 years from the date you first applied for the patent subject to the payment of appropriate maintenance fees for a utility patent. There are no maintenance fees for plant patents . Design patents last 14 years from the date you are granted the patent. No maintenance fees are required for design patents.

Note: Patents in force on June 8, 1995 and patents issued thereafter on applications filed prior to June 8, 1995 automatically have a term that is the greater of the twenty year term discussed above or seventeen years from the patent grant....

So... not forever.

And, again, patent protection is good for the US because we are the ones with the patents who are being violated.
 
and that is what the law is.

Currenlty copyrgiht last way too long for that to happen and patents have issues with them being issued for things that are too vague and the further issue of patent trolls which both stifle innovation and only lead to frivolous lawsuits.
 
Back
Top Bottom