More at http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org & https://icsid.worldbank.org
Water: Azurix v. Argentina
Investor win (awarded $165 million plus interest)
Ban of toxic fuel additive: Ethyl v. Canada
Case settled (investor received $13 million, ban reversed)
Toxic waste: Metalclad v. Mexico
Investor win (awarded $16.2 million)
Too-big-to-fail: Saluka v. Czech Republic
Investor win (awarded $236 million)Never say there is nothing you can do. Tell other people about ISDS. Share the videos [1][2][3][4].
Jon Oliver's video [4] about the Philip Morris tobacco ISDS lawsuit against Australia (for brown paper packaging) caused such an outcry that TPP negotiators were forced to exclude the entire tobacco industry from ISDS. This is the first time such an industry-specific carve-out has appeared in a trade agreement.
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=M9ZFDpuiFUs
[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU
The ones who follow "the line" and are afraid of getting ostracized by their peers.
The ones who value pocket change now over future prospects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campai...
The above Saluka v. Czech Republic case got me interested, so I have read a little on this. At the time Japanese Nomura had invested in Czech IPB bank in 1998, there was an international treaty on protection of investments in effect between the Czech republic and the Netherlands. Nomura had transferred the 46% ownership of IPB to their Netherlands-based fund Saluka (I am not sure on legality of this operation). The lawsuit took place after Czech government's actions reacting to IPB bank falling down. Nomura was partially responsible for the downfall as it did not make promised actions to help the bank, but the government also had their feet wet when later they helped other banks in similarly bad shape, but did not help IPB. Nomura was smart and resourceful enough to point out this is in odds with the above treaty and benefit from the situation. The government has tried to sue Nomura as well for its actions/inactions and law breaking for 240 billion crowns, but then dropped it to make an agreement with Nomura.
An international arbitrage took place in 2006-8 which found 5 out of 8 claims made by Saluka to be invalid, but the remaining 3 were found to be valid. The most important finding was that the Czech republic did not give the same kind of financial assistance to the IPB bank it had given to other banks in similar shape and thus failed to honor the international treaty ion investment protection. Saluka demanded 30 billion crowns as a compensation, the arbiters decided only 3.5 billion crowns, equal to initial Nomura's investment, should be payed. In this case at least, it seems to me, legally things worked well - the government screwed up, it got sued, it lost and it paid up.
Sorry for the long write-up. What's the morale of the story? I am not outraged so much by the possibility of corporation suing the government as by government's utter ineptness. We need more efficient, less corrupt government that can follow and enforce meaningful rules and at the same time, keep nasty investors and their schemes in check.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144277
http://www.protext.cz/zprava.php?id=2487 http://www.kurzy.cz/zpravy/117569-respekt-nomura-na-investic... http://www.rozhlas.cz/radiozurnal/publicistika/_zprava/jan-m...
It doesn't tell me that at all.
In terms of fearless leaders, he definitely is one.
Of course, I also think his ideas are mostly inane and that within fifteen minutes of his inauguration he would have already started World War III. But I can understand why people want to elect him.
- Wants to stop illegal immigration. Not immigration. Only illegal. i.e. people not paying taxes but living there undocumented
- Non-citizens giving birth in USA and then automatically the baby is USA's problem until it dies
- Tax reform that wants to stop corporate inversion and bring money back to USA (Google, Apple, etc.)
- Wants a more competitive health care system than Obamacare
- Wants USA to make better trade deals because there are crazy trade deficits.
Why are any of these ideas seen as being crazy by Americans?
It's not some incidental issue. Resolving it would mean completely overhauling what American identity is.
It's crazy because you've just given the entire substance of his campaign. He hasn't actually given any more details than that, and the points are ostensibly chosen because they're easily latched onto by people who can't be bothered to pay very much attention. Also the wall thing.
Trump seems like a very pragmatic reasoner. Keeps things simple. His way of reasoning seems to go something like this: "Illegal immigration. Are you for it, or against it? Against it? Ok. Would a wall help? Yes or no. Yes? Ok but you seem apprehensive about it. Why are you apprehensive? It's going to be expensive? We have a trade deficit with Mexico. I bet I could force them to pay for it by using strong arm tactics and adding taxes onto things they like exporting here. I'm good at negotating shit like that. Are you still apprehensive?" And so on.
I just simply can't find any coherently written rebuttals other than articles that go "Trump is crazy. He's an narcissist. He's a racist" basically just ad hominems. No one is being critical about any of his points. So it's very weird when I see all the hostility against him but no actual counter arguments.
Nation state fully intact. Donald Trump is far less dramatic and just another cookie cutter populist.
Even without conspiracy theories regarding secret cabals that rule the world from the shadows, there is overwhelming inertia baked into the system itself.
A fairly recent study that I very vaguely recall pointed to this fact: the conclusion being that it is extraordinarily difficult to effect change within systems that are essentially self-perpetuating.
They're both creative individuals that are willing to buck the trend and change things in the way they think is right rather than toeing the party line.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-comparing-donald-tr...
Notably #6 in the article.
But although he tends to vote the same as many other Democrats, he is very dangerous to moneyed interests in politics. No one's bothered to fix that for a long time.
Which is exactly why he can't win: those moneyed interests have...money.
Citizens United eviscerated of at least the appearance of a democracy.
Not saying this is a good thing. Read any 80s cyberpunk novel to see what's coming. William Gibson was a prophet.