"If the TPP would be as good for American jobs as they claim, there should be nothing to hide."

[Hoyt]

27. Are you sure Obama is going to screw us and endorse a bad agreement? Or is it possible a

trade agreement might be for our, and the world's good long-term.

While I read all the bad stuff that COULD happen from groups who need to attract interest to keep their organization viable, I wonder whether they really know. I mean they talk about how secret the negotiations are, but they seem to know all the bad things that will happen.

Is it possible that the truth is not as bad as some folks believe. Could it be more like this post on a website in Oregon:

"Trans-Pacific Partnership: Our company, Nutcase helmets, is one of thousands in Oregon that rely on overseas customers for growth. With support from local economic development agencies and improvements in technology, accessing global markets is becoming less burdensome for small companies. But we need modern trading rules to ensure a more level playing field. That's why we support President Barack Obama's call for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

"The agreement would raise environmental, labor and intellectual property protections in Asian countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, while also giving Oregon exporters lower tariffs and more consistent access to markets like Japan and Canada.

"Trade has been good for our company. It's fueled our growth and allowed us to hire more Oregonians who share a passion for our products. We hope that the members of our congressional delegation embrace the opportunity to deepen our relationship with Oregon's most important trading partners in the Pacific Rim."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/trans-pacific_partnership_deba.html

________________



To repeat what I have posted before, I'm still convinced Obama will not endorse a final agreement that sells us down the river. I know there are plenty who thought he'd gut Social Security, push the pipeline, work against net neutrality, etc., but he hasn't.

And I believe Obama when he responded to Matt Yglesias a few weeks ago by saying: "Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its own weight or following the rules of the road and we were, and in some cases we got the short end of the stick. This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating. There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, 'Why would we want another trade deal that hasn't been good for American workers? It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.'"

"And my argument is two-fold. Number one: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we're trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer, because right now it's not fair, and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime. We can't just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us."

"But the second reason it's important is because the countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged. Why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal. It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them, but they're already selling here for the most part. And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be. . . . . . ."

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

__________________


Truthfully, it appears to me we are undermining Obama's chance to get something that helps our country (and others) long-term. Whatever fears we conjure up on this issue, I am convinced doing nothing will not help us long-term.

I'm also reminded of something Paul Krugman said recently -- People I normally agree with, blame NAFTA for things caused by other factors. Even recent TPP critic Robert Reich, says he still believes NAFTA was good, but should have gone further with respect to human rights and the environment. I'll be darned, if that is not what Obama says he is trying to do.

But, we all know he's secretively trying to screw us, and big corporations are going to make a lot of money (as if mom-and-pop local businesses -- who often pay the lowest wages -- have the means to compete in international trade).

Personally, as long as human/worker rights, the environment, etc., are improved, I'm fine with these companies making big bucks -- but spreading the wealth to us and other countries, either through paying decent wages or taxing the hell out of them.

End of Rant