Obama rightfully stands firm on the Pacific trade deal

[fun n serious]

Beyond its economic importance, the TPP is — or would be — a pillar of future U.S. strategic relevance in the vital Asia-Pacific region and a check on Chinese influence. It fell to Mr. Lee of Singapore to explain those high stakes. Noting the political risks taken by leaders of other nations that agreed to the TPP, especially Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, he warned that rejection of the agreement would do serious damage to the United States’ reputation abroad — “for a long time to come.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-stands-firm-on-the-pacific-trade-deal/2016/08/03/10f35c02-59ac-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?postshare=9731470325123734&tid=ss_fb

President Obama: The TPP would let America, not China, lead the way on global trade

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-the-tpp-would-let-america-not-china-lead-the-way-on-global-trade/2016/05/02/680540e4-0fd0-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html?tid=a_inl

[Angry Dragon]

1. Has anyone read the TPP agreement??

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

3. Buh bye

[Angry Dragon]

6. what did I miss??

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

7. An endorsement of Rump

[zipplewrath]

4. Lead it where?

We already trade with all of these folks. The provisions to protect workers and the environment are weak. There is extensive protections for intellectual property rights. Where are we leading them on what?

[glennward]

5. Yes. Lots of environmental, wage, health, safety, technology and copyrite requirements.

Part to worry about is who and what entity gets to make final judgements concerning challenges, international law, business priority rights. Battle between corporations, foreign countries, US law. I confess, I need to read it again as my eyes glazed over but that's my impression from my first reading.

[fun n serious]

8. I agree. I do not think people should be completely against TPP.

Globalization can not be stopped and we need to have a place in the world economy..

[MBS]

19. "" " n/t

[Angry Dragon]

9. I will ask again: Has anyone read the TPP??

[fun n serious]

10. It was George H W Bush and NOT Clinton who signed NAFTA. Those same people fear TPP. IMO

I have not heard anything bad,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/03/04/why-good-trade-deals-matter-business-mine

[Angry Dragon]

11. I have heard nothing good about it

no one able to take it home and read it, all hush-hush
corps come out just great, the people not so much

[fun n serious]

12. There is a lot of good said about it

I don't think it should pass as is.. I think Curency rules should be better placed. I'm not against TPP though and no one should be against trade.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy/trade

[Angry Dragon]

14. I am for fair trade not free trade

[fun n serious]

15. Me too.

I have not spent a lot of time analyzing TPP but from what I see it looks like a good thing. China not having so much control and the USA having a place in a global economy are important to me. Globolization is already here, it can not be stopped so why kick the can down the road? I would like Hillary to do her wonking on it before a decision is made. It should not be rushed.

[riderinthestorm]

33. You haven't spent time analyzing it but think it's good?

WTF?

[fun n serious]

34. I said A LOT

you skipped that. I did read it. Did you?

[Sancho]

13. Here are two Diane Rheme shows discussing TPP

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy

[KMOD]

16. You can read it

here

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

[Angry Dragon]

18. thank you

[Snotcicles]

20. Wrong. Both Clinton and Gore were pimping it and Clinton signed the finished agreement in 1993. nt

[fun n serious]

22. Bush Signed it

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-17-1992-pres-bush-signs-nafta-15205420

Clinton endorsed it in 93 but he did NOT sign it.

[amandabeech]

23. Bill Clinton signed the enabling legislation.

HW signed the treaty.

All you have to do is look at Wiki.

[Snotcicles]

24. It needed to be ratified before I could become law. That's why Bush tried to fast track it.

Time ran out. Clinton signed it into law.

[TheBlackAdder]

17. TPP will give the Pacific Rim to China, just like how NAFTA gave Central & South America to them!

.


The difference between US business and China is that China acts as a collective state.

When they move into a country, they don't hire locals for their factories, they bring in labor from the mainland.


NAFTA, while nicely premised with good intentions, has caused 7 Central & South American countries to become chief trading partners with China and 6 more nations are about to shift the bulk of their import-exports from the US to China within the next 5-7 years.


China acts as a mercantile nation. They are not bound by the job, financial, and social constructs of NAFTA.
They move into a country and say, deal with us and we won't hold you to the same standards that NAFTA nations do.
They then pay people lesser wages and make 10-20 year or more contracts for guaranteed raw materials that China needs to produce its goods for the world. This completely undercuts NAFTA's goals. Then, China sells those finished goods to the same countries below the costs locals or other imports can provide them. This puts locals out of work. Since they have less money, they become even more dependent on Chinese goods.

(This is the same shit that Wal*Mart does. They move into an area, sell their goods lower than other Wal*Mart stores to undercut and drive local businesses out of competition, which causes people to lose jobs. Wal*Mart benefits from low wages, that force people onto government programs--something local businesses cannot do. As people lose their jobs, they have less buying power and rely more and more on Wal*Mart's goods, feeding this vicious cycle.)


This is why China does not sign onto TPP... because they will undercut TPP and walk away with the keys to the kingdom.


.

[Divine Discontent]

30. great post, thanks

it's sickening.... good thorough explanation, though!




sticker here --> http://www.cafepress.com/hillaryforamerica2016

[Snotcicles]

21. We give up our sovereignty and render our courts powerless to multinational corporate tribunals.

We are currently being sued under the NAFTA agreement chapter 11 to the tune of I believe $15 billion.

[fun n serious]

25. There is no real evidence NAFTA hurt jobs nt

[Snotcicles]

26. Watch "Trading Democracy" from Bill Moyers. It's on youtube.

I removed the link because it is an hour long video

[ForgoTheConsequence]

27. If you're talking about "jobs" as only numbers, sure.

But there is absolutely proof that NAFTA impacted certain industries and specific people. If you're comfortable talking about "jobs" in the abstract sense, more power to you. Jobs = people though. I don't think those impacted by NAFTA are going to be swayed by academics and journalists telling them that things are fine.

[TheBlackAdder]

29. We're one big happy global economy. Our NAFTA partners also deal with Russia, Iran, and the DPRK.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

31. Someone's happy.

But it ain't the workers.

[TheBlackAdder]

28. I remember my dad's company. Solicitations for Mexican Master Welders at $4/hour. It cost jobs.

[CentralMass]

32. Article: Why TPP Is a Bad Deal for America and American Workers

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/why-tpp-bad-deal-america-and-american-workers/

[ucrdem]

35. Stiglitz is pretty vague.

Mostly his argument is, paraphrasing, "past trade agreements haven't put an end to offshoring and TPP won't either." No it probably won't but offshoring manufacturing jobs is not really something a trade agreement CAN prevent, though it can regulate conditions in partner countries, which TPP does or at least attempts to. Those GM and Whirlpool jobs will go where conditions are most congenial and that's not always offshore. Plants can and do occasionally return when local governments make it sufficiently attractive which is kind of Darwinian but that's not something international trade agreements can micromanage. Basically Stigliltz is missing the point which is that TPP is written from the position of growing domestic jobs that can't be so easily offshored like agricultural and intellectual property and industries relying on new technologies that haven't yet emerged. IOW Stiglitz is looking backward to an economic model that isn't coming back and TPP is trying to build a bridge to the future.