Why is the TPP so bloody bad?

[rumdude]

Obama is for it; Donald is against it.

Why should I not side with Obama?

[Egnever]

1. Wee good luck with that

You are about to be bombarded with links of other peoples opinions with no actual excerpts from the text of documents that are available to everyone to support those opinions.

[bhikkhu]

2. The big issue is that is sets up arbitration courts for international dispute settlement

Which, in theory, allows a non-governmental entity to dictate law to local governments, including ours. In theory its bad, but in practice its been very effective at mediating disputes between trade partners, and the WTO (which we have been in since 1995) has long had the same kind of court with the same kind of mandate.

If you want to look at the WTO court process and history: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

If you want to look at a summary of the TPP: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership

I am aware that many people here are very much against the TPP, so I'll be a minority opinion, but I don't see anything wrong with it. If it doesn't pass that's fine too.

I also may be in the minority here in that I agree with most research and most economists that NAFTA had little impact on trade and employment in the US. Automation had a huge impact on manufacturing employment and other sectors, and the rise of Chinese manufacturing had a huge impact, but NAFTA was small potatoes.

[Cicada]

4. TPP is mostly about constraining China politically, not trade or economics

Our trade covered by TPP is a tiny tiny share of our economy. What TPP is really designed for is to rope Asian nations into our sphere before they align with China. Trade here is just the vehicle for international relations.

[rumdude]

12. Nevermind - question answered below.

[OnDoutside]

15. I'm with you on that.

[Egnever]

17. I agree

I don't see anything wrong with it. If it doesn't pass that's fine too.

My feelings echo those pretty closely.

[mwrguy]

3. You should side with Obama

[ronnie624]

5. FTAs aren't so bad

in the context of the economic orthodoxy. They help to entrench the status quo through international homogeneity. They strengthen corporate control over intellectual property, and will eventually bring wages to parity, globally. Their purpose essentially, is to allow capitalists even greater control over resources, and to enable them to wring even more profit from the economic structure.

But there's trouble brewing in the form of climatic upheavel, and we will eventually have no choice but to abandon our current system of exploitation and consumption, for one that is more logical and just.

[wickerwoman]

6. From my understanding,

and by way of example, I live in New Zealand which has significantly stricter environmental laws that then US, a $15 minimum wage and specific rights and protections for indigenous people enshrined into its political institutions. The problem with the TPPA is that is allows businesses to sue the New Zealand government if it makes legislation that threatens their investment so, for example, if New Zealand moved to raise the minimum wage or increase regulation aimed at water or air quality it could potentially be sued.

The TPPA also extends the life of patents and places restrictions on generic medication which would increase health care costs.

[Egnever]

7. The minimum wage perhaps

I am not sure I don't think that is true I haven't looked at it in a while. The air and water though is definitely untrue. Environmental protection and citizen health issues are carved out from disputes as long as they are an improvement over the baselines agreed to.

also the length of patents depends where you live and how long your patent laws are. It actually reduces the current protection here in the US not by a lot but some. In some other countries it will certainly lengthen them.

[wickerwoman]

8. It seems to define environment quite narrowly

and specifically does not exempt laws aimed at protecting the rights of indigenous people to access their traditional food sources.

Chapter 20 deals specifically with laws relating to discharge of contaminants, hazardous substances and protection of biodiversity but New Zealand environmental legislation deals with a much wider list of environmental effects including protection of landscape and amenity values, protection of the natural character of waterways and the coastal environment, and protection of specific rights for Maori.

So say a multi-national wants to build a wind farm in an outstanding natural landscape, in the coastal environment, on a wahi tapu site and on a ridge where it can be seen for 30 miles around. Under the existing NZ legislation, that application would almost certainly be declined but under the TPPA they could then appeal to some extra-judicial appointed Panel which would test the application against the purpose of the TPPA (promoting economic integration, economic growth, strengthening the competitiveness of businesses, promote high levels of (very narrowly defined) environmental protection) and not the purpose of NZ's Resource Management Act (the sustainable management of natural and physical resources).

[Egnever]

9. that is true they could appeal to the tribunal

But the tribunal is made of three people. One picked by each party and a third agreed upon by both parties with a process for settling if they cant agree on the third.

Not exactly the unfair advantage for the corporation that people want to paint it.

I do agree a lot of the language is vague and open to interpretation.

[wickerwoman]

10. I guess it depends on how the parties are defined.

Say in my example, one party was the multi-national corporation. The second party would be the New Zealand government, presumably, but the application would have gone through the courts which may have a different position to the government. For example, the government might support the application because of the economic benefits but it was opposed by Ngati Whatua because of its effects on Maori cultural values and the courts found in favor of Ngati Whatua. It wouldn't be the courts or Ngati Whatua choosing the Panel members because they wouldn't be parties to the appeal.

[Egnever]

11. A fair point

again I have not looked at it in a while I am going from memory when I read it a few months ago. I believe however parties of interest are also allowed to give input and it is part of the public record not exactly representation but possibly impactful. There is more on input of interested parties I am fairly sure but I can not remember off the top of my head.

I think you make a good point. I will definitely revisit it again.

I don't think it has a chance of passing at this point. Public sentiment is aligned against it in many countries including the US.

I don't think it is a perfect agreement by any means but I do think in many ways it improves on our current agreements. Not a vast improvement but an incremental one on balance.

That balance may shift depending on the country you are from.

[wickerwoman]

14. Not an expert myself, either,

so thanks for the discussion.

I guess to answer the OPs question in a less NZ-specific way, "What's so bad about the TPPA?" is its implications for national sovereignty when regulation that creates additional costs for businesses can be appealed to an unelected body.

Another example I vaguely recall is Australia wanting to require very graphic anti-smoking ads on cigarette packaging which the tobacco industry felt would hurt their sales and therefore reduce their competitiveness.

The basic principle is why should a company based in another country be allowed to potentially override the decisions of a democratically elected government?

How would the US feel if a Chinese company bought some land next to Gettysburg or Arlington National Cemetery and then used the TPPA to override historic heritage protection laws to build a theme park that was completely out of character for the setting?

I'm all for increasing globalism but not at the expense of democratic accountability and respect for local governments.

[Egnever]

16. I agree very much with this

"I'm all for increasing globalism but not at the expense of democratic accountability and respect for local governments"

I am not sure that would be the effect of the TPPA but I do recognize that concern.

[rumdude]

13. Thank you for your thoughts - this was helpful

I remember one of the big problems that people had with NAFTA was a similar arbitration panel/court type thing wherein corporations could sue to have government regulation, even local government regulation, overturned.

[Egnever]

18. It is essentially the same

with a little more transparency thrown in in regards to the arbitration.

Keep in mind the US has never lost a case to the NAFTA tribunals. They did not turn out to be as bad as they were portrayed.

It is not solely about that though there are more things covered. Standardizing trade so you don't have to apply to each country separately to market your product as it is now. There are some environmental protection floors agreed on though they are not nearly as stringent as is required by global warming but they do allow for improvement and encourage it.

There is more but I read it a while ago and the details are not as clear in my head as they were.

It is an interesting read though if you are truly curious and you can read it in full

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

Well parts of it are interesting some of it is pretty hard to get through.


This is also a pretty good report on it. Although I am not sure the models used will work out the way they predict.

https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/adjustment-and-income-distribution-impacts-trans-pacific-partnership

[dawg]

19. I oppose it, but it's not the catastrophe some make it out to be.

We need trade agreements like the TPP, but only if we have a government willing to enact redistributive policies to protect individuals working in industries that are negatively affected.

There are always winners and losers from trade agreements. With the TPP, there would almost certainly be a net economic gain for the country. But those gains (and losses) would not be distributed equally.

[LWolf]

20. Good lord.

A neo-liberal apologist. More will flock to this thread, I'm sure.

It all depends on whether you are a neo-liberal, or whether you support labor and the 99%. If you don't understand at this point in time why it's "so bloody bad," you really haven't been paying attention. So here is some reading for your pleasure; the answer to your surely sincere question is here:


http://rooseveltinstitute.org/why-tpp-bad-deal-america-and-american-workers/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-sorscher/how-to-tell-tpp-is-a-bad_b_8914388.html
http://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-workers/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/241829-why-obama-is-absolutely-wrong-on-tpp-and-warren-is-right
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-tpp-fair-trade-deal-lipinski-perspec-0810-md-20160809-story.html

[randome]

21. Because it's complex and it has to do with money. Ergo...evil.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[AlbertCat]

22. Why should I not side with Obama?

Because he might be wrong. He's not infallible, y'know.


The " argumentum ad verecundiam" y'know....


Why don't you research it (not by asking here) and make up your own mind and forget who else sides with or against it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. It's good to see you're putting a lot of thought into it.