Ahhh, a pro-TPP/TPPA post. When are we going to see an article by someone who is anti-TPP?
The US had set a minimal wage standard as well as numerous regulations in the name of equality and health during an economic boom. Isn’t that fascinating? Can you explain why countries can’t replicate that movement (between 1860 to 1917)?
Also, why don’t we just move people? Doesn’t it sound stupid to send water to desert places, build houses in known flood zones, and give medicine to people who willingly live in infected areas of disease? Sure, people will miss their homeland, but that’s only temporary. Generations will go by and not recognize these places as their homeland. I have no ill-wills or love for my great grandparents’ homeland. My grandparents think of themselves as American despite where their parents came from. We shouldn’t reshape the environment to our needs when we could simply move. It’s cheaper and easier to fly people out of these areas. So explain to me how it is economically and environmentally better to keep people in known areas that do not benefit the human race whatsoever?
Anabel González said, “. . . there are provisions in these agreements that are contentious; part of it may be associated with a misunderstanding of the content of the agreements.” So, what is the the contents that is being misunderstood? The interviewer does not ask questions that people actually want to know. To say such a statement requires a follow-up but neither González or the interviewer follows up. Or in other words, overall the questions were lackluster and the answers were equally as lackluster. I could have equally gave such vague answers and asked such vague questions.
Another problem, has González read the 5,544 pages of the TPP? I don’t think I can trust someone who talks about the contents if they didn’t actually read it! I see a lot of people for and against the TPP. But I doubt more than five thousand people have actually read it.
Which brings me to my next point. Should we pass bills that are over 5,000 pages long? I guess one could argue that quality outweighs quantity. Even though the quality could be sub-par or sublime, if no one actually reads it then why does the quality matter? Why should people who believe in small government even support the bill? There are plenty of lines to pin in ambiguous conduct and deals, which is what small government supporters are wary of.
González also fails to adequately explain why anti-globalists should support the deal. She says, “In parallel to international cooperation, domestic policies in the areas of education, health, safety nets, better business environments, and improved infrastructure –are important to make globalization work for all.” That explanation is not good enough. Anti-globalists believe indigenous people have the right to set their own domestic policies because they themselves need to choose how to and why they should improve. González clearly doesn’t understand why people are anti-globalists and what it means. Or at least, I can’t think of any other reason for her insulting response to anti-globalists.
Overall, this article is as disappointing as tape not sticking. I sort of blame the interviewer because he is supposed to lead the interviewee into talking about her expertise in a way everyone can understand. I guess it’s a loss art seeing as most of today’s interviewers don’t seems to do an adequate job. Today, we are better off having an eight years old who knows nothing ask the questions. It’ll at least get interviewees to expand and explain their points.