Friam

TPP pro and con

Classic

List

Threaded

31 messages Options

gepr

TPP pro and con

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Owen Densmore

Re: TPP pro and con

Administrator

The saying that TPP is giving away the most successful market in the world, us, leads me to caution. And the bureaucracy is likely to be as intense and intrusive as the Eurocrats that lead to the Brexit.

Because the process was private, I'd vote no until it was more widely discussed and its impacts revealed.

-- Owen

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, glen ☢ <[hidden email]> wrote:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by gepr

I had heard about that

Can (seriusly) ask about (one of) the elephents here?

Why not just work twards StarFleet and a large club of some sort? such that Ireland and it's delightfull accent works with America, or China? (for example)

Fore example:

China might be reeally good at making underpants, but no clue how to make t-shirts, America might make pretty good T-shirts and no clue how to make Sweaters. Canada (might) have make KFA pants. And no clue how to make ShuttleCraft or hoverpods. Etc Greek (a melenia ago) coind the workd TechoGorky later called a Counsole if my very rough Greek history from highsool was (sort of) acurate. This got a unforate name now Faschita and Rebpubilic

I have to laugh it simply meens United as one, for the future of Sparta.

Today we might call it a Republic or get realy cool and call it a TechoGarky.

A TechoGrocky Colaberative or what ever that's called where persons-that-are clever and know how to do (SOMETHING HERE) work with each other rather than wasting energy biffing eachother on the head....wich while fun for a bit you run out of energy.

Sooo why then why not a Federation or StarFleet or TechaGark

I'll crawl back to my simple persons corner now.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, glen ☢ <[hidden email]> wrote:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by gepr

If the government is serious about supporting the service economy, rather than trying to figure out ways to protect U.S. intellectual property, I would suggest we turn it around and figure out ways to undermine other countries' intellectual property. Obviously from a trade perspective it is important not just to hand over power to others, so we can't decide to unilaterally make the change only in the United States.

Sitting on copyrights and patents and waiting for money to roll in is not going to keep a large information workforce busy. In the case of technologies like pharmaceuticals, it is not in the public interest to allow prices that burden the taxpayer through Medicare or send families into bankruptcy. And software as a service is a better pricing approach than software as a product.

I think a goal should be to improve the ability for individuals to find sustainable but unique and interesting work and to create many different kinds of robust market where every player feels like they have skin in the game. This is in contrast to what most corporations pursue: Hugely profitable work product that can be milked for decades. That doesn't encourage innovation, that encourages exploitation and stagnation.

Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 9:56 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

And as importantly with 100% transparency, such that there's hopefully good questions like: is (this thing here) doable and a good idea?

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I had heard about that

Can (seriusly) ask about (one of) the elephents here?
Why not just work twards StarFleet and a large club of some sort? such that Ireland and it's delightfull accent works with America, or China? (for example)
Fore example:
China might be reeally good at making underpants, but no clue how to make t-shirts, America might make pretty good T-shirts and no clue how to make Sweaters. Canada (might) have make KFA pants. And no clue how to make ShuttleCraft or hoverpods. Etc Greek (a melenia ago) coind the workd TechoGorky later called a Counsole if my very rough Greek history from highsool was (sort of) acurate. This got a unforate name now Faschita and Rebpubilic
I have to laugh it simply meens United as one, for the future of Sparta.
Today we might call it a Republic or get realy cool and call it a TechoGarky.

A TechoGrocky Colaberative or what ever that's called where persons-that-are clever and know how to do (SOMETHING HERE) work with each other rather than wasting energy biffing eachother on the head....wich while fun for a bit you run out of energy.

Sooo why then why not a Federation or StarFleet or TechaGark

I'll crawl back to my simple persons corner now.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, glen ☢ <[hidden email]> wrote:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: TPP pro and con

Administrator

Skin in the game is a good approach.

I think a goal should be to improve the ability for individuals to find sustainable but unique and interesting work and to create many different kinds of robust market where every player feels like they have skin in the game.

Oddly enough, this is somewhat like Open Source and its Licensing. What's to prevent someone from forking your repo and making it their own? (Happened with one of mine). But because the license was GPLv3, they weren't able to change the license and had to suffer some issues. It was clearly a rip-off, the Pull Request had > 80 commits!

We've recently been negotiating with a group wanting to use AgentScript in publications, which is full of legal issues. Thus they'd prefer a more open license. The most sensible approach for us, I believe, is skin in the game. What can they do for us, not just what can we do for them.

-- Owen

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

And as importantly with 100% transparency, such that there's hopefully good questions like: is (this thing here) doable and a good idea?

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had heard about that

Can (seriusly) ask about (one of) the elephents here?
Why not just work twards StarFleet and a large club of some sort? such that Ireland and it's delightfull accent works with America, or China? (for example)
Fore example:
China might be reeally good at making underpants, but no clue how to make t-shirts, America might make pretty good T-shirts and no clue how to make Sweaters. Canada (might) have make KFA pants. And no clue how to make ShuttleCraft or hoverpods. Etc Greek (a melenia ago) coind the workd TechoGorky later called a Counsole if my very rough Greek history from highsool was (sort of) acurate. This got a unforate name now Faschita and Rebpubilic
I have to laugh it simply meens United as one, for the future of Sparta.
Today we might call it a Republic or get realy cool and call it a TechoGarky.

A TechoGrocky Colaberative or what ever that's called where persons-that-are clever and know how to do (SOMETHING HERE) work with each other rather than wasting energy biffing eachother on the head....wich while fun for a bit you run out of energy.

Sooo why then why not a Federation or StarFleet or TechaGark

I'll crawl back to my simple persons corner now.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, glen ☢ <[hidden email]> wrote:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Eric Charles-2

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

Gillian asked: "Why not just work towards StarFleet and a large club of some sort? ... China might be really good at making underpants, but no clue how to make t-shirts, America might make pretty good T-shirts and no clue how to make Sweaters. Canada (might) have make KFA pants."

Two answers:

1) Generally speaking: When it is a mass production issue there are not people better or worse at it. I.e., if China is "better" at making IPhones, it is because of (comparatively) lax labor laws, and a government uninterested in stopping exploitation* of laborers, not because they are "really good at it" in any proper sense. That isn't a race we want to win.

2) Still generally speaking: Also, when it is a mass production issue, in the long run none of the laborers, in any of the countries, are better than machines.

Thus, "everyone just do what they are best at" logic only works when there is some geographic advantage (e.g., having land well-suited to growing grapes), or a protected skilled-labor advantage in small-batch or one-off production (e.g., a lineage of sword makers who make customized products and do not take foreign apprentices). Without those conditions, you just have a bunch of semi-random processes determining who happens to make the best at making items of a particular type at a particular moment (e.g., the best guy is in China, but the narrowly second best is in the U.S. and the narrowly third best in Canada), and thus you would never expect any country to stay the best location for production for very long. Even with small batch and one-off production, 3-D printing has already made much of that a "do anywhere" possibility.

* And by "exploitation" I mean things like imprisonment, not a Marxist notion of "divorcing them from means of production" or something like that.

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician

U.S. Marine Corps

[hidden email]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

And as importantly with 100% transparency, such that there's hopefully good questions like: is (this thing here) doable and a good idea?

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had heard about that

Can (seriusly) ask about (one of) the elephents here?
Why not just work twards StarFleet and a large club of some sort? such that Ireland and it's delightfull accent works with America, or China? (for example)
Fore example:
China might be reeally good at making underpants, but no clue how to make t-shirts, America might make pretty good T-shirts and no clue how to make Sweaters. Canada (might) have make KFA pants. And no clue how to make ShuttleCraft or hoverpods. Etc Greek (a melenia ago) coind the workd TechoGorky later called a Counsole if my very rough Greek history from highsool was (sort of) acurate. This got a unforate name now Faschita and Rebpubilic
I have to laugh it simply meens United as one, for the future of Sparta.
Today we might call it a Republic or get realy cool and call it a TechoGarky.

A TechoGrocky Colaberative or what ever that's called where persons-that-are clever and know how to do (SOMETHING HERE) work with each other rather than wasting energy biffing eachother on the head....wich while fun for a bit you run out of energy.

Sooo why then why not a Federation or StarFleet or TechaGark

I'll crawl back to my simple persons corner now.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, glen ☢ <[hidden email]> wrote:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen writes:

“Oddly enough, this is somewhat like Open Source and its Licensing. What's to prevent someone from forking your repo and making it their own? (Happened with one of mine). But because the license was GPLv3, they weren't able to change the license and had to suffer some issues. It was clearly a rip-off, the Pull Request had > 80 commits!”

People always think of copyright law protecting proprietary work, but it can do the same job for work intended for open distribution. The FSF (a small organization) has prosecuted companies for violating the terms of the GPL. As an economic development service, I would be happy to the government do or fund that, just as it would for protecting its own works.

For people that have a software project and consider it central to their livelihood, it probably won’t be productive for others to fork it. The author(s) will out-work them and have the reputation in the community that the forking agent will not. Further as an author, one could pull from their branches to take whatever improvements they made. Turnabout is fair play. But if they take the work and turn it into a proprietary product without dealing you in, it is just copyright violation and breaking the law.

Marcus

Nick Thompson

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2

Thanks, Eric, for making that clear.

I feel like as an Old Deweyan, I should be for free trade. After all, if I believe tin the market-place of ideas, surely I believe in the free market place of marketplaces. But isn’t it also Deweyan to believe in rational democratic planning?

Also, I have always been wildly ambivalent about disruption. It does seem that whenever we put the cat amongst the pigeons, it’s always the pigeoneers with the most pigeons that pick up the strays. I suppose there are some fat cats, but for the most part, the cat is working for the pigeon oligarchs. Ach!! This metaphor is getting out of hand.

Ok. Here’s a question: putting aside dumb conspiracy theories, if TPP is so bad, why is Obama for it. Deep answers only, please.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 1:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con

Two answers:

2) Still generally speaking: Also, when it is a mass production issue, in the long run none of the laborers, in any of the countries, are better than machines.

* And by "exploitation" I mean things like imprisonment, not a Marxist notion of "divorcing them from means of production" or something like that.

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician

U.S. Marine Corps

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

And as importantly with 100% transparency, such that there's hopefully good questions like: is (this thing here) doable and a good idea?

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had heard about that

Can (seriusly) ask about (one of) the elephents here?
Why not just work twards StarFleet and a large club of some sort? such that Ireland and it's delightfull accent works with America, or China? (for example)
Fore example:
China might be reeally good at making underpants, but no clue how to make t-shirts, America might make pretty good T-shirts and no clue how to make Sweaters. Canada (might) have make KFA pants. And no clue how to make ShuttleCraft or hoverpods. Etc Greek (a melenia ago) coind the workd TechoGorky later called a Counsole if my very rough Greek history from highsool was (sort of) acurate. This got a unforate name now Faschita and Rebpubilic
I have to laugh it simply meens United as one, for the future of Sparta.
Today we might call it a Republic or get realy cool and call it a TechoGarky.

A TechoGrocky Colaberative or what ever that's called where persons-that-are clever and know how to do (SOMETHING HERE) work with each other rather than wasting energy biffing eachother on the head....wich while fun for a bit you run out of energy.

Sooo why then why not a Federation or StarFleet or TechaGark

I'll crawl back to my simple persons corner now.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, glen ☢ <[hidden email]> wrote:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals.

I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it.

--
☢ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: TPP pro and con

I don't know what "deep answers" means. But my understanding is that if we allow China to dominate trade in the region, then we (may) lose seats at lots of negotiating tables. If we lead negotiations and have an excuse to stick our noses into every negotiation, then we retain more of both non- and military influence.

On 08/04/2016 11:44 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Ok. Here’s a question: putting aside dumb conspiracy theories, if TPP is so bad, why is Obama for it. Deep answers only, please.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

The idea that "free" markets (well, OK, relatively fluid markets) both allow more innovation and lower the barriers to entry is fundamental to my open-mindedness w.r.t. these trade deals. The complicating factor is that perhaps any 1 deal might _tighten_ things up in some ways (e.g. DMCA-like, net asymmetry, etc. nonsense). But if that tightening is part of a compromise that allows feet-in-the-door that may lead to more leveling later on, then it might be a good compromise. The tenure of the agreement then becomes crucial.

Of course, one might say that lower viscocity markets homogenize methods/behaviors, building a strong equilibrium that resists innovation. But again, w.r.t. to non-exploitative labor practices, pollution, climate change, etc., that's not all bad either. Perhaps we can delay the warp drive or the singularity for a couple of centuries if we just slightly improve the quality of life for the poor all over the world.

It's my understanding there are elements of both in the TPP. Of course, the idea that you can't experiment on something without _intervening_ is important. If the geopolitical risk of inaction (no TPP) is on the same plane as we saw with healthcare before Obamacare, then it seems completely reasonable to pass the TPP and then steadily work to improve it.

But, again, I'm pulling everything from thin air since I haven't and am unlikely to read the damned thing. Again, for cf

https://ustr.gov/tpp/#text

On 08/04/2016 09:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I think a goal should be to improve the ability for individuals to find sustainable but unique and interesting work and to create many different kinds of robust market where every player feels like they have skin in the game. This is in contrast to what most corporations pursue: Hugely profitable work product that can be milked for decades. That doesn't encourage innovation, that encourages exploitation and stagnation.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I assume you have all followed the story about copyright trolls … people who buy up vaguely written old patents and then hold up new technology companies for violating them. See

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/transcript

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con

Owen writes:

Marcus

Nick Thompson

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

Having followed you over the years, I don't think you know what a shallow answer is. It's just not in your blood.

I was trying to head off cheap attributions of Obama's motives. Whatever else one may say about Obama, I think he thinks hard about stuff, as does Sanders. So how do they come to disagree? In [ancient] psychology [the psychology of the 50's], there was something called Heider's Balance Theory. Basically, if I like Obama and I like Sanders, Obama and Sanders ought to like each other. So when they disagree about something as fundamental as trade policy, it creates, for me, cognitive dissonance.

I appreciate your efforts to help with that.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:25 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con

I don't know what "deep answers" means. But my understanding is that if we allow China to dominate trade in the region, then we (may) lose seats at lots of negotiating tables. If we lead negotiations and have an excuse to stick our noses into every negotiation, then we retain more of both non- and military influence.

On 08/04/2016 11:44 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Ok. Here’s a question: putting aside dumb conspiracy theories, if TPP is so bad, why is Obama for it. Deep answers only, please.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: TPP pro and con

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt! 8^)

I tend to think Sanders is best viewed as a storm trooper or, perhaps, an early adopter if you don't like the war metaphor, whereas Obama seems more like a 2nd round person. If that view works, then it should be obvious that they work best as a team. Sanders-types may be light on the details, but all the front line advances they make would be (if possible) maintained or conservatively progressed by the 2nd line Obama-type.

As a front-line member, Sanders sees how our advances can go wrong. If we stretch ourselves too thin (take the wrong hill, or take the hill too soon), things can go terribly wrong (like prematurely advancing on territory we don't yet understand, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Infrastructure_Investment_Bank). Obama, given his perspective, probably knows more about (and has more confidence in) the infrastructure required to maintain any ground captured.

Further, Obama is much more a credible _cog_ in the depths of the machine, whereas Sanders is more like an exploratory appendage of the machine. As such, Obama-types will see (or think they see) the larger -urgic progression of the machine, whereas Sanders-types will see the ways in which their more agile and fragile actions can be misleading or broken. Again, they're part of the same machine, just playing different roles.

In the end, Sanders-types are more plentiful and sacrifice themselves in order to realize the stodgy progress headed up by the Obama-types. I think they disagree on the front line tactics, but agree on the medium- and long-term objectives.

On 08/04/2016 02:09 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Having followed you over the years, I don't think you know what a shallow answer is. It's just not in your blood.
>
> I was trying to head off cheap attributions of Obama's motives. Whatever else one may say about Obama, I think he thinks hard about stuff, as does Sanders. So how do they come to disagree? In [ancient] psychology [the psychology of the 50's], there was something called Heider's Balance Theory. Basically, if I like Obama and I like Sanders, Obama and Sanders ought to like each other. So when they disagree about something as fundamental as trade policy, it creates, for me, cognitive dissonance.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Owen Densmore

Re: TPP pro and con

Administrator

Listening to http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/04/election-2016-tpp-trade-nafta .. pretty diverse opinions.

-- Owen

gepr

Re: TPP pro and con

Thanks for sending that. The "right to earn a profit" thing was interesting. I think it's a necessary consequence that such a large agreement, one that pert near forces people to rely on 2nd, 3rd, nth hand interpetations, will exhibit/accrue its own mythos. And that's above and beyond the more concrete concept that a system of rules will have complex consequences that can't be analytically found. It really does call for a full blown modeling and simulation effort.

On 08/04/2016 03:38 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Listening to http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/04/election-2016-tpp-trade-nafta .. pretty diverse opinions.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Joe Spinden

Re: TPP pro and con

In reply to this post by gepr

For an informed commentary:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08?utm_source=project-syndicate.org&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=authnote

--
Joe

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: TPP pro and con

"Among the big losers - those who gained little or nothing - were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries."

Is that not only expected, but even intended? Globalization gives people opportunities that don't have them and takes them away from an overly expensive, underskilled workforce?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joe Spinden
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con

For an informed commentary:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08?utm_source=project-syndicate.org&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=authnote

--
Joe

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: TPP pro and con

Administrator

In reply to this post by Joe Spinden

I like Joe's reference which ends with:

The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem was not globalization, but how the process was being managed

This and the podcast referred to earlier agree that there are hugely important cultural & political issues. For both sides. The 3rd world has to align with the 1st's notion of fairness and ecology. The 1st needs diffuse the market/trade gains to the 90%.

Can't be too bad if it hurts everyone involved?

My approach would be Duncan Watts' living in the present, measuring it, and fast response to failure. I.e. make it "try-able" so that if it fails, it can be modified and/or cancelled. The downside in that is our inability to adjust policy/politics to existing realities.

-- Owen

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Joe Spinden <[hidden email]> wrote:

For an informed commentary:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08?utm_source=project-syndicate.org&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=authnote

--
Joe

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: TPP pro and con

Administrator

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Agreed. All the pundits liken it to immigration. Buying Chinese goods is equivalent to letting them immigrate, but only in an economic sense. The result is to create a world economy where each citizen is given equal rights and privileges. And median income.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

"Among the big losers - those who gained little or nothing - were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries."

Is that not only expected, but even intended? Globalization gives people opportunities that don't have them and takes them away from an overly expensive, underskilled workforce?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joe Spinden
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con

For an informed commentary:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08?utm_source=project-syndicate.org&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=authnote

--
Joe

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com