The issue is NOT whether or not this benefits corporations, consumers, IP, or other pieces. The issue is that it's being done in secret and there is a big push for a "Fast Track" for the US signers, so that Congress will not be allowed to view it or vote on it.
It's not about countries. It's about corporations.
The talks between Europe and the US (TTIP) are largely to remove barriers in legislation for corporations. E.g. new medication and chemicals can be sold in Europe/US if either passing FDA review or EU review.
As a citizen of a country I'll doubt you'll have any benefits from it. People in Europe are worried (I think not without reason) that it will worsen safety regulations for consumers.
I doubt that will happen and think it's naive. If the corporation can still take the higher price (because of patents) it will take the price and make more profit.
Coincidently patents and intellectual property are also a big discussion point that is discussed there. Intellectual property rights will be tightened and likely generic medication will be more difficult to produce.
It means more drugs can be profitably be taken to market. This increases competition and lowers prices when multiple drugs can treat the same condition.
How does that increases competition? And you turn around the idea at at the end: you say it would be more profitable to make certain drugs, and then you say it would lower the prices , which will make (obviously) less profitable to make/sell those same drugs. So which one is it?
See the comment I already made: more drugs can be brought to the market because the cost is lower.
> you say it would be more profitable to make certain drugs, and then you say it would lower the prices , which will make (obviously) less profitable to make/sell those same drugs. So which one is it?
Lower production costs increases profits and price competition lowers profits (passing savings onto the consumer).
You're right if that's the only variable. Corporations love to be the only player, and tweak government to make sure they are. Normally without interference, they rarely have a monopoly for long.
Well, it's a free-trade agreement. Mutually getting rid of tariffs increases trade, which makes all the participating countries better off.
In addition, it tries to remove non-tariff barriers to trade, which involves harmonizing legislation. E.g. if you want to sell US beef in Japan and Japanese beef in the US, then the health regulations about how cows should be raised should be the same in both countries.
The copyright stuff comes under the heading of harmonizing intellectual property law, although somehow it seems to end up as pro-copyright-holder as possible...
> then the health regulations about how cows should be raised should be the same in both countries.
As you point out in the copyright example, this is an immediate race to the regulations that are best for businesses. So in this plan, Japanese consumers would be subject to health regulations constructed on behalf of corporations by a broken and regulatory-captured US political system.
Ultimately, the health regulations of their food would be that imposed by US companies, regardless of the political actions of the Japanese electorate.
Yes exactly. And to take your specific example, Japanese health regulations with regard to meat are much more strict than US regulation. I've eaten things raw in Japan (pork, beef, fish, etc.) that I would never consider doing in the US. Choosing the lowest common denominator for the sake of improved trade will cause problems and get people killed due to culture differences. And as you say, totally ignores the wishes of the local electorate.
>The copyright stuff comes under the heading of harmonizing intellectual property law, although somehow it seems to end up as pro-copyright-holder as possible...
