The really question about TPP is; "Do we need to sell our stuff to the 5 Billion in the Pacific rim"

[CK_John]

yes or no? It's that simple, do we need exports or not, can our economy sustain us without trade?

You think the world is complex now, do without TPP and find out what chaos really is.

[NYC_SKP]

1. We are one of the few countries that COULD make and grow EVERYTHING we need.

But then regular people might prosper from good paying jobs and we wouldn't have so much Chinese shit to fill our garages and closets.

Shame that we head further and further away from that world where our shirts and TVs were made in America.

[CK_John]

3. Could, should, and would don't mean squat unless we actually do.

[NYC_SKP]

6. No argument here. I'm a strong supporter of those who lean that way. Hillary ain't one of 'em.

[pampango]

20. If we could have kept Coolidge and Hoover in power perhaps we would be doing that.

They raised tariffs and cut trade so that the US relied on no other country for food or manufactured goods. Of course, income inequality was even worse then than it is now.

For better or worse Hoover was succeeded by FDR who lowered tariffs, increased trade and then set up international organizations that liberalized trade permanently. FDR, back in the day, and European countries today show that good paying jobs and a strong middle class have a lot more to do with strong safety nets, progressive taxes to fund them, strong union with popular and legal support, etc.

FDR's America traded more than Hoover's, just as Europe trades more than the modern US. I suppose one could imagine a progressive country with a strong middle class and little trade but neither historical nor modern examples are very plentiful. FDR apparently did not think that was the way to go.

[NYC_SKP]

27. Where did we go wrong? Why are our wages falling to meet poor nations' wages?

[pampango]

32. We stopped supporting our workers. Taft-Hartley was a self-inflicted wound to labor.

Deregulation, cutting taxes on the rich, weakening the safety net. FDR did none of those even while he expanded trade and set up international organizations that would perpetuate its expansion.

I imagine FDR would wonder how we could do all these things and then wonder why our workers and middle class have suffered, then blame it on trade that we do much less of than the countries with strong middle classes.

Oddly Europe seems to have learned the lessons FDR taught (or already knew them) and has largely maintained them, hence their world class level of income equality without wages falling. FDR probably planned for a more "European" America than has actually happened.

[Populist_Prole]

70. Wow, mark the date

You can actually make sense every now and then.

[pampango]

81. Thanks ... I think.

[merrily]

77. It's not odd that Europe learned lessons from FDR and Truman. It's odd we pretend we did not.

[pampango]

82. Good point. It is "odd" about it is that FDR's own country has forgotten those lessons while

a continent far away has remembered them.

[merrily]

83. Oh, I don't think any politician, historian or economist forgot.

I don't think that for a second.

Also, the Great Depression is supposedly Bernanke's particular area of knowledge.

[pampango]

86. I'm sure you are right. Politicians and economists have not "forgotten". "Chosen to ignore"

FDR's legacy is a more accurate description.

[merrily]

88. Yes. One odd thing I've noticed on this politics board is the instinct

to couch what we say about politics in a way that excuses them for screwing us. Not strong enough, not combative enough, too trusting, forgot, doesn't get, impossible, etc. And, I say "instinct" because most posters do, I think, go there as a default or knee jerk.

We're paying for that whole mess in D.C. and throughout the 50 states, PR, American Samoa, etc. we call the US government. Yet, it's been serving the 1%. And our instinct seems to be to keep paying them and to keep excusing them. And to keep lowering our standards until the base line is "not literally a registered Republican."

What's wrong with that picture?

[pampango]

91. I'm not sure about that. Most of us would admit that FDR screwed up at times. No excuses.

Clinton and Obama have certainly screwed up at times as well. The only "perfect" president would be me since I disagree with all others at times. Even a President Sanders or a President Warren would screw up at times by compromising "too much" to partially achieve a liberal goal or not getting anything done by pursuing liberal goals that don't get enacted. To assume that either would govern perfectly would be wishful thinking, though I would love to see either of them in the White House.

I think it is fair to criticize a politician's (and everyone else's, for that matter) mistakes without necessarily casting them as evil or stupid or corrupt for those mistakes. Politics may be the "art of the possible" but how one gets from where we are to a country (or world) with widely shared prosperity, human rights, labor rights, environmental protections, etc. is subject to disagreement among well-meaning people.

[merrily]

94. Not really the same thing. FDR has been dead a long time. My references were to what is happening

Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 09:31 AM - Edit history (2)

now. And, btw, I have posted many times about screw ups of every FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Carter, right along with Bubba and Obama. ( I've also done the same with St. Ronnie and Dimson, but, on this board, that is preaching to the choir and therefore both the much easier conversation and the least likely to generate change).

I've also posted many times that most to all our Presidents have been a mixed bag. History has no doubt romanticized some to the point where any record of their faults has all but disappeared. But, for the more modern ones, there has been no saint and no one who did not do any good at all.

My comment went to what I observe posters posting when they are discussing current events, without being very conscious of their exact wording. I think a lot of what goes on is intentional and self serving. Whether that makes it "evil" or not is way above my pay grade.

[former9thward]

38. Globalization.

The U.S. was the only nation left standing after WW II. Gradually other nations built or rebuilt infrastructure and educational opportunities. So then they could do what we used to do. The fall of the Soviet Union and rise of China added about a billion workers to the world labor force. Technology means information can be sent around the world instantly. We have too many workers in the world and so wages will level.

[merrily]

79. "Level" Sink even further in the US. Union busting.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. Because it's getting harder for the first world to exploit the third (and ex-second).

Wages in the first world are artificially high, and wages in the third world are artificially low, because the terms of trade between the two are massively biased in favour of the former.

On average, people in the first world consume much more stuff than they produce; people in the third world produce more stuff than they consume.

Globalisation is making that inequality harder to sustain. Somewhere[1], Paul Krugman has a fascinating chart of how wealth, or possibly income, at each global centile, has changed in the past 30 or 40 years. I think it would surprise most DUers. It has the significant gains in the top 5 or 10 percent, and small gains between about the 70th centile or so and the 90th or so - which is where people who are middle class or poor by American standards sit - which I'm sure will come as no surprise. But then from there down to about 5 or 10%, the gains are very much larger again, and at the very bottom they're small. So the chart looks a bit like a fish swimming left, with a pointy nose, fat body, thin tail and tail-fin.

What I guess (and I use the word guess advisedly; I cannot stress enough that this is idle armchair-economist musing rather than an educated opinion) this shows is that the two categories of people who have been benefiting most are workers outside the first world, who are becoming able to compete with first-world workers on less rigged terms, and employers, who benefit from that more competitive labour market. The people who are losing out are the people who are rich by global standards but poor by first-world ones, and the very poor in places with no employment even now.

Average living standards have been rising. The underlying reason American workers are not benefiting as much from that as workers in other places is that global inequality has been falling, and all but the very poorest Americans are net beneficiaries of that inequality.

There is a lovely, comforting lie that the main economic competition is between the American poor and the American rich, and it's obvious which side of that one should be on. But the truth is that the really significant competition is between the poor in America and the even poorer in other countries.



[1] I've just tried and failed to find it, so this bit is from memory, and the details will definitely be wrong. If anyone knows the chart I'm talking about, please link it, and I'll correct accordingly

[whathehell]

78. Absolutely, and good on you for pointing it out. n/t

[Romeo.lima333]

2. can this country survive trade under tpp

how have the other trade agreements helped (I mean people other than the 1%)

[CK_John]

5. The past is gone and done, it just doesn't matter anymore. The world is as it is now.

[Aerows]

23. In the US

Many people can grow fruits and vegetables (and do, by the way) on their back porches, balconies and yards.

We are the MOST independent nation with regard to food supply in the world. You think "stuff" trumps being able to eat?

[CK_John]

29. Look at California with 6-9mo water supply that is the new world order.

[Aerows]

31. I live in the very wet part of the US

We are still a food basket for much of the world, and polluting our food supply with food that is inadequately inspected will harm us far more than allowing crap that hasn't been inspected in will save us money.

Fail.

[ret5hd]

54. You gonna import water from China???

[merrily]

84. The past does matter. We still have NAFTA and Korea and they are still affecting us.

One value of not dismissing the past so cavalierly is that sane people are supposed to learn from it.

[FBaggins]

55. Simple answer

The stuff the 99% buys is cheaper.

[merrily]

87. Yet real wages for the 99% have not increased in decades.

The stuff the 99% buys is also more dangerous and our purchases are helping us and our neighbors less and less. Plus, we apparently give tax benefits for off shoring.

The answers are rarely as simple as we may wish.

[FBaggins]

98. That isn't really true either

Or, at best, is itself an oversimplification.

real wages for the 99% have not increased in decades.

They are awfully close to what they were forty or so years ago. That's true. The problem with your position is that they fell for a couple decades... and then have been rising for the last couple decades... with NAFTA as the inflection point.

[merrily]

101. Your own graph is headed "Little Change in Purchasing Power."

[FBaggins]

102. That's because they're looking at a 40-50 year period

The conversation here deals with the impact of international trade.

The graph clearly shows a decline for over two decades and then an increase over the two decades following NAFTA (even including the worst recession since the depression).

The normal protectionism spin is that things have gotten worse since Clinton signed NAFTA. What the graph implies is that things were getting worse before he did that... and that they've gotten better since then.

[merrily]

103. Exactly: Little change over a 40 to 50 year period.

Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
October 9, 2014
For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Look at the top line of the graph at that link. That is the line representing real wages, which is what my post referred to. It has not moved appreciably since 1964.

[FBaggins]

104. So context doesn't matter?

Look at the top line of the graph at that link. That is the line representing real wages, which is what my post referred to. It has not moved appreciably since 1964.

It's the line I've been pointing you to as well. The context of the conversation is the impact of trade agreements on that line.

What has the line been doing since NAFTA was signed? Trade policy has changed substantially since Nixon/Carter

[merrily]

105. Huh? The increase in purchasing power you are referring to was miniscule. It's hardly

worth mentioning. let alone in post after post. Moreover, the final result is slightly lower than in 1964. And nothing even says NAFTA was responsible for that tiny increase.

No clue what in my post 87 you think was untrue. So far, everything you and I posted prove that post true.

[FBaggins]

106. Sorry... that's not true either

A 10-15% real increase in 20 years is actually quite substantial.

Saying that the improvement doesn't get us back to 1964 really isn't relevant to the conversation. There are significant cultural changes since then. One example would be to point out that the graph shows hourly wages... but far more families have to wage earners now. There's no question that standards of living are higher today than in the mid 60s (though no doubt many will deny it).

And nothing even says NAFTA was responsible for that tiny increase.

That doesn't matter much either... since there's obviously not evidence there for the implied claim was that international trade was hurting the figure.

[merrily]

107. An absolutely true post of mine (#87) is not relevant to the conversation (about trade)

and untrue, because you inferred something my post did not say. However, it doesn't matter that a claim of yours may have absolutely nothing to do with trade?

Really? LOL!

Also, not at all sure about that 10-15%. However, assuming that is correct, and also even assuming that it is somehow related to NAFTA, 10% of 19.18, while not nuthin'. is not what America was promised about NAFTA.

BTW, I wonder how many jobs were represented in by a single household in 1964 versus how many today? A relative and his wife are holding down two a piece, for a total of four, versus the one my relative held in 2006. They have one kid, still in public high school and live quite modestly.

[FBaggins]

112. Sigh.... sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

The post I replied to asked whether prior trade agreements had any positive effect on the 99%. I answered that, yes, they had made the products that the 99% buys more affordable. That's where your #87 came in.

Silly me to assume that you were replying in context. My apologies. What you actually meant was that you have nothing to add about the impact of trade agreements but just thought you would throw in there something that was true if we expanded it to a period unrelated to the conversation? Ok... now I've got it.

However, it doesn't matter that a claim of yours may have absolutely nothing to do with trade?

You've provided zero evidence that gains post-NAFTA were unrelated. All I did was point out that it certainly isn't evidence for the contrary position.

10% of 19.18, while not nuthin'. is not what America was promised about NAFTA.

I have no idea what promises you're thinking of... but if you told me that TPP would improve real hourly wages by 10% over a couple decades... I'd be pretty excited. Note that one of the benefits of appropriate trade (call it free/fair/whatever) is to lift poverty-stricken people up... and there's no question that it has done that for hundreds of millions of them. To do that and still make any gains in real wages in wealthy countries is incredible.

BTW, I wonder how many jobs were represented in by a single household in 1964 versus how many today?

Certainly fewer. There were far more middle class households with a single earner than today.

[merrily]

113. Sit on your personal unprovoked insults and unwarranted condescension.

Bottom line, you twice said my posts were untrue, but did not prove diddly about any lack of truth. To the contrary, to the extent that what you posted supported anything at all, it supported the post you claimed was untrue. And you still either don't get that or can't admit it, so you go ad hom instead.

Stop wasting my time and yours.

[TheKentuckian]

99. It is the neoliberal position that the 99% are far too well off and must be brought down

many notches for on par competition with the global 99%.

They scoff at our every complaint because the current state of affairs is fucking glorious compared to what they have in mind for us, I estimate the target spot is day slave labor that you might see in India and industrialized portions of Vietnam to perhaps the Chinese factories though even those types of incomes and conditions are already proving to be more expensive than the vulture class seems comfortable with as they are already looking for cheaper pastures.

There is nothing but utter disdain for the American working class and poor AS WELL AS those in the global poor and working class no matter what phony and pretensious lies they spout as they set up the next people to drive from their lands, steal their resources, and turn them into a desperate labor force cheaper and more compliant than maintaining out in the open slaves.

It is all race to the bottom, all the time. They aren't trying to keep America competitive they are strip mining us into oblivion.

[merrily]

108. Yep. Neoliberal politicians and their defenders are something else.

Claiming huge victories as the party and the country go further and further into the hole.

[notadmblnd]

4. what stuff would "we" sell them?

[CK_John]

7. Not enough.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Maybe body organs.

It's not like we'll have anything left to live for.

[pampango]

24. Ask Germany. They pay their workers more and export almost as much as the US with

a population that is 1/4 of ours. Somehow they have learned how to not fear the poor and participate in the world economy.

[former9thward]

39. They pay almost nothing for a military.

They rely on the U.S. If you don't pay for a military there is extra money to go around.

[pampango]

41. Agreed. But they still pay their workers more than we do and are tremendous exporters.

The argument that a country cannot pay its workers well and compete with less affluent countries is flawed.

We are indeed foolish to spend as much as we do on the military. Decreasing it would not necessarily raise the pay of American workers. Given that our workers make less than German ones our companies should be able to export at the same rate that German ones do.

[FBaggins]

57. Aircraft, heavy equipment, medical equipment

Electronics, cars, plastics, chemicals

[Populist_Prole]

72. As far as aircraft

Boeing has a HUGE amount of offshored content in the way of many subassemblies...much of it demanded as a condition of sale by those country's buying them. That certainly erodes any of the much ballyhooed US aircraft "exports".

More of the same "you're doing fine" rhetoric to a boxer that's getting the shit kicked out of him.

[FBaggins]

76. Not really

An outsized percentage of the 787 is produced overseas (though even that model is still predominantly US production)... but overall it's hardly large enough to "erode any of the much ballyhooed US aircraft 'exports'" when you consider the relative distribution of their model sales and how little of the other models are imported. Also... that outsourcing didn't work well for them, so it's unlikely to get worse.

Nor is Boeing the only aircraft exporter in the US.

[Renew Deal]

89. Gluten free anything

Hipster beard shavings

[Elwood P Dowd]

9. So we give total corporate control over our laws and regulations

just so we can continue losing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in trade deficits to our Asian trading partners who pull every trick in the book to legally violate past trade agreements?

[CK_John]

13. Maybe is just an excuse to do nothing. Face the facts they don't need our stuff

but we need them to buy our stuff, they don't what us whining about their rules and regs.

[Elwood P Dowd]

16. They use currency manipulation, VATs, import consumption taxes and other

tricks to block our imports. None of that has been fixed with TPP, which is mostly about multi-national corporations being able to challenge local, state, and federal laws that they consider non-tariff trade barriers.

[Skittles]

45. you really, really sound republican

they don't like rules and regs either - corporations rule the day and now they want to rule the world

[merrily]

109. Libertarians, Republicans, neoliberals.

[cali]

10. not 5 billion. we already do sell our stuff to the tpp nations

There are very few trade barriers extant now. Tariffs are low. This is largely not about what you seem to believe it's about. oh, and they'll sell way more stuff to us than we will to them.

[Elwood P Dowd]

12. OP is a true believer. He loves him some TPP and corporate rule.

[cali]

25. that's fine with me. his making shit up, is not

Don't buy any of his bogus claims. He truly has no idea what he is talking about

[CK_John]

15. Example, How many cars do we sell in Japan? Hardly any.

[Elwood P Dowd]

18. And TPP won't fix that. (nm)

[cali]

21. but not because we can't. for one thing they aren't a huge market

And for another they plain Don like our cars. now rice is another matter, and still an unsettled issue in the agreement. Btw, Japan produces about 11 million vehicles a year but they only buy about 5 million.

You're just making shit up.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. Remember when Obama said he was "against" Citizens United???

I think he meant he was against citizens,
united.

[Joe Turner]

14. That's a big Strawman there

Did you know that foreign exports were much greater prior to our adventures in free trade than post free trade? Free trade agreements are largely written by corporations for corporations and result is that it encourages offshoring jobs and industries to other nations. The free trade crowd always likes to suggest that there would be no trade without these agreements, which is pure rubbish. Don't confuse corporate welfare with international trade which is essential...as long as nations prosper from the deal.

[CK_John]

17. Big bad corporate bogeyman, has been around since Ben Franklin brought Louisiana.

[cali]

28. yeah, nothing about corporations has changed since then

[Joe Turner]

40. Your point being?

You can't hide from the economic damage free trade agreements have wrought on the U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors. Prior to the One-Way free trade adventure, America ran huge trade surpluses with the rest of the world and had a large and growing middle class. Today, not so much. Your Big Bad Corporate Bogeyman has indeed been active.

[Art_from_Ark]

75. When Ben Franklin bought Louisiana?

Was that around the time that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[PoliticAverse]

19. There's no TPP right now but we're still trading with these countries. n/t

[Binkie The Clown]

22. You mean "our stuff" that was manufactured in China? n/t

[Aerows]

26. As I posted above

We are the most food independent nation on earth. If we closed up shop exporting food around the world, do you know who would miss us?

Think about it. Controlling the money supply is one thing, but controlling the food supply?

How about poisoning our food supply with crap that hasn't been adequately inspected from countries that can barely support their people, yet we import their horrible crap IN? You *DO* realize we have no universal health care. If our food supply gets wrecked, we are screwed (well, those that don't grow their own or know how to do so).

[orpupilofnature57]

30. Do I want to be scaled as a laborer with a person in China ?

Only if the people making 600% profit pay for everything, Health, Food and Education.

[Aerows]

33. Yep

But they won't. That's by design. You get less, they get more and you foot the bill.

[orpupilofnature57]

93. Bingo !!!!!!!

[Hoyt]

34. I don't think trading among ourselves is going to be good enough for most folks.

Nor do I think it's fair to tell the rest of the world to kiss off after we've taken so much of try world's wealth and resources.

To most of the world, even our poorest workers are in the 1%.

[Aerows]

35. And when you buy junk

and get maimed, killed or made horribly ill by it, and can't sue ... well, aren't you just living in a beautiful 3rd World Country?

[Hoyt]

37. Assuming that actually happens, you can still sue the manufacturer, the importer, the guy who sold

it to you. Do you think the FDA, and other regulations, don't apply to foreign companies?

[Aerows]

42. Have you read the TPP

and the clauses regarding the sovereignty of nations?

Have you read some of the by-lines about how the FDA can be sued by a foreign nation if our laws impact an investor's profits?

Oh. You haven't.

[Hoyt]

48. Whew, you have misinterpreted it badly. That has to do with a corporation like BMW

with a plant in SC and some local xenophobe passes some tax or something on them and not similar coorporations.

Contrary to Warren, Bernie, etc., you don't lose your rights to sue over defective products.Besides, there are plenty of sorry domestic products too.

[Aerows]

52. So you have read the TPP as it stands currently?

Funny, Congressional aides can't even do that without the USTR and the Congress member they work for being there.

Whew, I'm so glad you, Hoyt, have read the TPP in its entirety and we at DU can rely on you to tell us exactly what is in it!

You know all of the little devils that are in the details, right?

[Hoyt]

65. Enough of it is available and it's similar to language in roughly 2500 trade

agreements.

[Aerows]

66. Because

Hoyt says so.

[cali]

36. The op is virtually all nonsense

It not 5 billion people. We already trade with all those countries and its more about imports for us than exports

[Aerows]

43. Which they want to loosen restrictions

on what we import, while as consumers we have less knowledge of where the goods we buy come from, and less protection against faulty products.

[Hoyt]

49. It's impossible to respond to something that wrong.

[Aerows]

53. It's also impossible to respond with authority

when even those in Congress can't read it without the USTR being there, and their aides can't read it without their Congress member that they work for being there.

But hey, Hoyt said so!

[Joe Turner]

47. Non sequitur argument

Free trade agreements have little to no bearing on trade. America has been engaged in vigorous world trade since its inception and until 1980 had tariffs which encouraged domestic production. What has changed is allowing corporations to write our trade laws for their benefit. The funny thing is, American really is one of the few countries that actually practices free trade. Most nations, as painfully made clear in the balance of trade statistics, have trade polices that nurture their industries and generate wealth. I.E. they don't let their corporations lead their country around by the nose.

[sadoldgirl]

44. To those, who set Germany as an example,

there were huge protests in that country against the
TTIP, and the social democratic party is reconsidering
its approval.
As far as I know, Germany has much higher tariffs than
we do, and has much stricter labor laws than the US.

As far as I am concerned I am against free trade,
but for fair and open trade. If we as citizens are not
allowed to see all the drafts, and most of the designers
are large corporations, then I don't trust it, no matter
who is supporting it. Corporations have no interest
in the people (no matter, where they live),and are only
out for profit for themselves.

So, let the sun shine on all the agreements.

[pampango]

62. Germany has lower tariffs than the US. Imports are 40% of their economy. 14% of the U.S.'

There have been large protests against the TTIP in Germany but it is popular in the polls and the Social Democratic Party supports it.

You are right that Germany has much better labor laws than the US. As a result despite their high level of imports and trade their unions are very strong and their manufacturing workers are paid more than in the US. Germany has no Taft-Hartley law so no right-to-work states to weaken unions and strong legal protection for those unions.

[Xithras]

46. I'm sorry, but the argument is garbage on its face. It's a lie meant to distract and deceive.

We ALREADY sell our stuff to the 5 billion in the Pacific rim. All 12 nations participating in the TPP negotiations have existing trade agreements with the United States.

The TPP is about decreasing regulation and increasing profits from that trade.

So, the REAL question is this: Do we need to further gut our manufacturing base and undermine our ability to regulate the environmental and labor practices of businesses, both at home and abroad, simply so the wealthy can become even wealthier? That is the ONLY real purpose of the TPP. Those who argue for its passage are whores for the 1%

[CK_John]

50. So can we do without exports or not, you cannot change the question and

then not answer the OP.

[Xithras]

63. We already have trade with them. The question is pointless and distracting.

Those of us who oppose the TPP aren't talking about slamming the gates shut to trade. That's a strawman designed to paint us as some sort of anti-trade extremists. We ALREADY trade with every single nation around the Pacific rim. The TPP will not change that, whether it passes or fails. The TPP is about changing the terms of that trade, and about shifting the balance of authority and the beneficiaries of that trade from the governments and people, to the corporations and stockholders.

But, when it comes right down to it, COULD we survive without trade? Sure. With a population of over 350 million people, we have enough of a domestic market to survive just fine without external trade. Would it suck for the economy? Yeah, but it wouldn't be the end of the world as we know it. Our economy would adjust.

The point is irrelevant though, since NOBODY is proposing that we end foreign trade..

[Populist_Prole]

69. BS argument. The poster answered your question

You just didn't like the answer.

[Chan790]

110. If the cost of those exports is TPP and other FTAs...

we can and should.

[daleanime]

51. If that's the question you come away from the TPP with.....

your in for a rude awakening.


The question is can we do enough about climate change if the TPP ties our hands. Which is what it looks like.

[CK_John]

56. I'm not buying into the false notion that TPP is a front for everything that

went wrong in the last 30 yrs.

We are responsible for the government we get. It's our problems and we better learn the process of government and the need to vote.

[daleanime]

59. Who talking about the last 30 years?

If the frame work allows corporations to sue for 'lost' profits, you don't think anything close to helping the environment will be targeted?


Although, honestly, I think I can guess your answer. Have a good day.

[jwirr]

58. TPP does not deal with trade directly. I deals with profits for corporations.

[GoneFishin]

60. It's a hypothetical question. Since NAFTA we barely manufacture anything in this country.

There's very little remaining to export. And with TPP the few manufacturing jobs we have will go overseas.

It's a bullshit supposition, unless you have some magic transcendental scheme to balance our trade deficit by exporting McDonalds and Walmart workers.

[FBaggins]

61. That's simply not true

What we lack is manufacturing jobs... "barely manufacture anything in this country" is nonsense.

We manufacture about 1/5th of everything produced in the world... a number that has remained largely steady for decades.

[GoneFishin]

95. You are splitting hairs to obfuscate the point that jobs are what put money in the pockets

of average Americans who spend it, which drives demand, which fuels the economy. I don't give a rat's ass whether Charles and David Koch export more of their shit to other countries. Whatever additional profits they make are used to further suffocate our dying democracy.

PS: Fuck the Keystone XL, which is a perfect case in point of exports that do way more harm than good, unless you are a Koch brother.

[FBaggins]

97. No hairs were split... you were just wrong

Now you're confusing an entirely different factor (labor losing employment to capital), with is entirely different from labor losing out to cheaper foreign labor.

Neither of which changes the fact that the common refrain that the US doesn't manufacture anything anymore is incorrect. The US is, in fact, awfully close to record production.

In short, the problem is jobs, not a lack of producing things.

[GoneFishin]

100. "...the problem is jobs...". No shit. Keeping repeating my point for me. I don't care about exports

that don't create manufacturing jobs.

[HereSince1628]

64. The real question is whether the TPP partners can afford to meaningfully by our stuff

Three of nations are already in negative trade balance.

Although the remainder had export surpluses (which should raise revenue), it's not clear that their GDP minus-Exports leaves much domestic demand to buy more imports, and that export wealth very likely returns to the hands of those nations' 1%

The average GDP per capita in the TTP partners is HALF the GDP to capital of the US.

When you look at the piles of money that could be used to buy imports, the biggest pile of money remains in the US, and that is the pile that the TTP partners will want to get to that pile of money.

[DebJ]

67. So then since there currently is no such agreement in force, I guess we are already in chaos?

It's working okay for me.

[Populist_Prole]

68. Oh come on! False dilemma/strawman question IMO

First of all, It's not about trade vs no trade.

Second, if an agreement that allows more exports open the floodgates for exponentially yet more imports; then yes; we don't need those "exports". If you lose on every transaction, it's an absolute fool's errand to think one will make up for this in sheer volume. Keep in mind; The makers of said agreements ( or certainly an ardent member of its many architects ) are those that set up shop abroad to produce ( to seek economic rents ) products to export here for the US to import.

Speaking with brutal frankness; I can't believe at this stage, with the knowledge of history of past trade agreement's effects so well known; somebody would advance the same policy with the same lame platitudes that were stale 20 years ago.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. All the countries involved already trade with each other n/t

[GeorgeGist]

73. Rubbish.

[eridani]

74. The real question is what in goddam bloody hell does TPP have to do with trade

Four of 29 articles deal with trade, and the rest is a bunch of garbage giving corporations the right to override laws passed by elected governments.

Please spare us the bullshit about how if tobacco companies aren't allowed to sue governments for requiring warning labels on cigarettes, nobody will ever buy wheat and apples from us again.

[KG]

80. I lulz'ed.

[Enrique]

90. thanks for explaining it to us

like we are morons.

[Enrique]

92. the real question about Obamacare is, do we want to have hospitals?

the question is that simple. Do we need doctors to take care of us when we are sick?

You think our healtcare system is bad now, do without Obamacare and find out what chaos really is!

[99Forever]

96. Bull.

What a fucking pantload.

[onecaliberal]

111. What do you think we still make here that they want to buy.

We buy all our cheap shit from china. Have you noticed the trade deficit?