- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
How is this "arguing for income inequality"? What?Okay we're going to flip-flop and now argue for income inequality in this case?
Yes it is important but the point was this makes it even worse by essentially establishing global monopoly rights.(2) Intellectual property rights are important. Artists deserve to be paid for their work, as do inventors and companies. Those that are in the arts and in the business of R&D would go broke if we all stole their work the minute they released it to the public. Just because a poor country is poorer, it doesn't mean that they should have a right to steal a novelist's book or a company's gadget.
There's obviously an argument to be had as to how unfair the intellectual property rights are (... being extended to 120 years now or the freedoms we've given to buy and sell them), but that's an argument about the severity of our policies and that shouldn't kill the idea that we want to protect intellectual property globally just because the US and EU's policies are severe.
An example they gave: "Take software and pharmaceuticals: Foreign firms serving their home market can make larger profits if they are not forced to pay large royalties to American holders of intellectual property monopolies. Following the intellectual property harmonization that is a standard part of too many U.S. trade agreements, these foreign firms are not just unable to export output back to the United States without paying these royalties, they are often not even allowed to continue serving their own home market without making these royalty payments.13 This has the effect of boosting the rise in exportable prices in global markets that tends to follow tariff-cutting trade agreements. In turn, this increases the amount of domestic reshuffling of production in the U.S. economy, amplifying the regressive redistribution caused by trade.14,15"
Oh yes. "Free trade" has done wonders by allowing those Mexican farm workers play a part in the "global economic citizenry", after essentially all of their jobs were killed... Same with American manufactures. Or the global sweatshop industry. Its not like past free trade deals have literally reinforced the "elite", and its not like this one wont do the exact same thing of reinforcing the elite. Its not like this deal was written and negotiated behind close doors by the elite..(3) Pish posh. It a great step in the direction of letting the global economic citizenry to have an effect on everyone's domestic policies (environment, human rights, worker's rights); instead of our current mis-mash situation of international laws and treaties, and non-recognition of each other's laws that makes it near impossible for anyone but the "global economic elites" to navigate and have influence on the world.