Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:05 AM May 2015

Without endorsing TPP, some things to consider about it.

1. Will refocus some Eastern hemisphere trade away from China and toward SE Asia.

We already have an abusive trade relationship that eviscerated US manufacturing, and blocking TPP won't change that. It's called trade with the "People's Republic" (LOL) of China. As a result of that one-sided relationship, China is now a hulking industrial and increasingly military monster that threatens to destabilize the entire region, and becomes bolder every day in bullying its neighbors.

It can do that because its population and natural resources are colossal. Since our trade policies are the author of this threat, do we not bear some responsibility to correct it? And since simply altering our relationship with China, even if that were practical, would not put the genie back in the bottle and remove the trillions of dollars that have already flowed to them, clearly it makes sense to instead build up those of its neighbors who are still developing.

I see no foreign policy downside to building up Vietnam and Malaysia as economic bulwarks against Chinese financial might. The likely alternative over time would be they would end up having a far more one-sided and exploitive relationship with China rather than the West, and that could evolve into literal military imperialism.

2. The lot of Chinese people has strongly improved since we started trading with them on a massive scale. Why wouldn't that also happen with Vietnamese and Malaysians?

Whatever the problems that globalization has introduced to China - the pollution, the almost universal corruption, and the displacement of people from their homes - most Chinese appear to agree their lot in life is better than it once was, and are highly optimistic about the future. Moreover, China's human development index has gone from 0.650 in 1998 (ranked 95th) to 0.719 in 2014 (ranked 91st). Four places in a decade-and-a-half is quite a rise for a nation of over a billion still recovering from the ruins of Maoist megadeath.

So is it not arguably the case that the Vietnamese and Malaysian people would benefit from trade to some extent, even without the rigorous labor and environmental protections that would be ideal (and that their governments would not likely agree to)? Would the world not be a slightly better place with a Vietnam and Malaysia rising a few places in the HDI, somewhat more immune to both the financial influence and military threat of China?

3. Why would a poor, developing country sign an agreement with us if it protected our jobs at their expense?

We can and should reasonably demand some level of increase in wages, labor rights, etc. for workers in these economies, but it can't be to the point that there's no reason for them to sign it because it would eliminate the incentive for Western capital to invest there. Being too demanding on this front would also eliminate the purpose identified above of draining some capital from China, which is now possible because China's wages are somewhat increasing.

And since the lot of the Chinese people has improved despite any stipulations whatsoever about wages in our trade deals with them, it's rational to at least say it's possible for these things to improve naturally from greater economic activity without having been required up front.

4. In a financially multipolar world, TPP would not fall as heavily on the shoulders of the US as China trade did - China would also pay, whether it wants to or not.

Western investments in Chinese manufacturing are gargantuan. With TPP, some of that money would be relocated to points South - to countries that are not a threat to us or their neighbors, and not a threat to the very concept of democracy (despite either not being one themselves, or being partially one - for now).

5. Negotiations involve bargaining positions one doesn't necessarily intend to see in the actual deal, so don't get hysterical over every leaked proposal.

This is why trade deal negotiations are secret, not because they're hiding from you - they're hiding from each other. Especially in a multilateral negotiating process, countries have one-on-one discussions with each other, form alliances to push for some elements and oppose others, bargain and cajole, play games, and do all the things that politicians must do to make anything happen in reality. Part of that reality is taking bargaining positions that don't necessarily reflect the reality of one's intentions. Even in everyday life, simple bargaining involves this principle, and these negotiations are as far from simple as one can get.

6. If we aren't willing to make such deals, China is.

Regardless of who makes the deal, China is going to relinquish some of its capital position. But if China makes the deal, the profits will go to its millionaire and billionaire elites rather than ours, and they're champing at the bit to do this kind of business.

Is it wise to further enrich those scumbags, who make our own scumbags look like Ralph Nader, and feed them entire countries that are geopolitically important to checking the ambitions of their own? Is that a proportionate price to keep some shoe sweatshops in the United States?

---

The American people have been screwed over repeatedly by trade deals, and we can and should demand to get a piece of the benefits, but there are plenty of reasons to support the underlying principle of seeking a Trans-Pacific Partnership. Our demands for it should be aware of, and tailored to those reasons.

103 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Without endorsing TPP, some things to consider about it. (Original Post) True Blue Door May 2015 OP
"Our demands for it should be aware of, and tailored to those reasons." - With Fast Track, the djean111 May 2015 #1
Agreed. True Blue Door May 2015 #2
The only thing I know abou the TPP that has been released to the public Exilednight May 2015 #3
That promise has been delivered. True Blue Door May 2015 #6
There is no reason to keep a trade agreement secret, this isn't Exilednight May 2015 #12
There is no trade agreement. There are negotiations on a trade agreement. True Blue Door May 2015 #14
If the trade agreement doesn't exist, then there is nothing to Exilednight May 2015 #19
Indeed, there is nothing to vote on until something is submitted. True Blue Door May 2015 #38
I know what TPA is. It's used to squelch or limit debate Exilednight May 2015 #79
When the final negotiations take place and a deal is agreed to, it will be submitted to okaawhatever May 2015 #63
Well - Similar Things Were Said About NAFTA - We Saw What That Spawned cantbeserious May 2015 #4
Nothing of the sort was said about NAFTA. True Blue Door May 2015 #8
And Can One Believe Platitudes Over History - If So - That Is The Definition Of Gullibility cantbeserious May 2015 #9
Facts are not "platitudes." They ARE history. True Blue Door May 2015 #16
Actually, there were striking similarities. cali May 2015 #11
So instead of actually making an argument, you just assert that you have one. True Blue Door May 2015 #18
I just informed you that the evidence exists that the arguments were similar in many cali May 2015 #20
Usually Public Citizen does better work than that. True Blue Door May 2015 #26
What Happened To This Obama - Promoted The Scrapping Of NAFTA cantbeserious May 2015 #40
Who says that's not still his agenda via TPP? True Blue Door May 2015 #41
Non Sensical - TPP Is For Pacific Rim - NAFTA Was For Canada And Mexico cantbeserious May 2015 #42
I mean the agenda of serving the working people of this country. True Blue Door May 2015 #43
Obama - Like HRC - Serves The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - Based On His Support Of TPP cantbeserious May 2015 #44
A reckless, arrogant smear 180 degrees off of reality. True Blue Door May 2015 #45
Your Opinion Only - Others Would Disagree cantbeserious May 2015 #46
Of course it's my opinion. Who else's opinion would I be advocating? True Blue Door May 2015 #47
Are Some Now Advocating That Emotion Is Not A Valid Human Trait cantbeserious May 2015 #48
It's not a valid basis for drawing conclusions about a Presidency. True Blue Door May 2015 #49
The Emotional Upheaval And Main Street Impact Of NAFTA Can Be See On Many Streets In The US cantbeserious May 2015 #52
Where is the evidence that NAFTA caused those job losses? True Blue Door May 2015 #55
Now One Now Has To Question Your Reason - Studies Galore About The Impact Of NAFTA cantbeserious May 2015 #58
So you're refusing to justify your position with evidence? Fine by me. True Blue Door May 2015 #60
No - I am Not Willing To Do Your Homework For You - There Is A Difference cantbeserious May 2015 #61
Proving your claims is not MY homework. True Blue Door May 2015 #66
Proving Your Claims Is Not My Homework Either cantbeserious May 2015 #67
Since my claim is that you're not proving yours...guess what? True Blue Door May 2015 #71
Since My Claim Is That You Have Unsupported Claims - Guess What cantbeserious May 2015 #73
So this is your plan - parroting me? True Blue Door May 2015 #75
You Are The One With An Agenda cantbeserious May 2015 #76
Who's doing the negotiating? HooptieWagon May 2015 #102
You can argue for it, but you fail to persuade me Exilednight May 2015 #81
I disagree. China's growing power is not some fundamental law of the universe. True Blue Door May 2015 #82
It does have a specific cause, and solution, but a trade agreement will not stop it. n/t Exilednight May 2015 #84
However, it can be a beginning toward a solution. Can be. True Blue Door May 2015 #86
Superpower ambitions? They're already there. Good luck Exilednight May 2015 #88
Having the most money does not make one a superpower. They're not even close. True Blue Door May 2015 #92
If you don't believe they're a super power, then you live in Exilednight May 2015 #99
Oversimplification treestar May 2015 #34
That You Believe Differently Is Your Opinion - Others Would Disagree cantbeserious May 2015 #54
ooh, I'll play. Let's parse: cali May 2015 #5
In other words, we're falling behind China in trade with SE Asia. True Blue Door May 2015 #13
China has a population of nearly one and a half billion people. It is cali May 2015 #17
Your sense of fatalism about Chinese power is very strange. True Blue Door May 2015 #21
a knowledge of history is helpful cali May 2015 #23
Fair enough. I'll look more deeply. True Blue Door May 2015 #28
but is the choice actually only between standing still cali May 2015 #33
Our entire economy is too influenced by corporate interests. True Blue Door May 2015 #37
Here, let me fuck you before China fucks you? That's really what it boils down to? X_Digger May 2015 #72
No, not even close. Your Universal Translator needs some calibrating. True Blue Door May 2015 #74
Some may think it protects our jobs here. edgineered May 2015 #7
I'm not clear on what you mean. True Blue Door May 2015 #22
No problem, most of the time I don't say things right the first time. edgineered May 2015 #24
Too detailed a question for my pay grade. True Blue Door May 2015 #29
Ha - good answer! edgineered May 2015 #31
I think these are reasonable arguments although I am sure many will dispute them. DCBob May 2015 #10
Thanks. I don't know what to feel about it, but I can see it's not as simple as some claim. True Blue Door May 2015 #15
I tend to look at things from a more global perspective. DCBob May 2015 #25
Indeed, my trust in Barack Obama's motives and values is 100%. True Blue Door May 2015 #30
Good way to put it. DCBob May 2015 #32
ah, now I better understand. cali May 2015 #56
Hmm, too abstruse for my limited attention span. True Blue Door May 2015 #59
actually, it's quite a good read. cali May 2015 #64
My definition of "progressive" is someone committed to making progress. True Blue Door May 2015 #70
One of my biggest issues with TPP is from the viewpoint of the smaller less powerful nations. What jwirr May 2015 #50
Globalization has helped many in developing nations out of poverty. DCBob May 2015 #85
So less than a $1 an hour will lift someone out of poverty? I doubt it. And also why do we have all jwirr May 2015 #89
Many are much better off than that. DCBob May 2015 #90
Of course there are a few who rise. But is it a real reform for the people? By the way, our jobs are jwirr May 2015 #93
It's more than a few.. DCBob May 2015 #94
I was just trying to show that more power to the powerful was not going to be good for any of us. jwirr May 2015 #97
If what this is really about, is limiting the influence of China, RDANGELO May 2015 #27
It's one possible aspect, but that doesn't mean it's the only one. True Blue Door May 2015 #35
FDR's trade deals were about trade. From everything we have so far seen about TPP this is not jwirr May 2015 #51
Can you elaborate the distinction between trade and international corporate profit? True Blue Door May 2015 #53
Trade = export of US products. International corporations = import of foreign made products to the jwirr May 2015 #57
Then we agree on definitions. My problem with FTAs as currently configured True Blue Door May 2015 #68
I hear what you are saying - don't know if it would work. Emmanual Todd in his book "After the jwirr May 2015 #69
Japan is a high wage, high population, high consumer partner, dwarfing the other nations economies, good to remember that. Fred Sanders May 2015 #36
Indeed, and China was apparently quite irked when Japan signed on to TPP. True Blue Door May 2015 #39
The Chinese being irked puts what into my pockets and presents me with what opportunities? TheKentuckian May 2015 #62
These are very good points. True Blue Door May 2015 #65
I'm concerned with both. You get the domestic issues that you claim will fix trade problems and TheKentuckian May 2015 #103
Um, no AgingAmerican May 2015 #77
Umm, yes. True Blue Door May 2015 #78
Hilarious! AgingAmerican May 2015 #100
It's really, really good for us. Trust the president. Katashi_itto May 2015 #80
I do trust him, I just don't know if I agree with him on this. True Blue Door May 2015 #83
Give the track record of agreements and the nature of the opposition Katashi_itto May 2015 #87
A lot of it is knee jerk. That particular concern, however, sounds very credible. True Blue Door May 2015 #91
Let me rephrase. It doesnt matter if it's knee jerk. Katashi_itto May 2015 #95
I'm not convinced that trade agreements are what hollowed out our middle-class. True Blue Door May 2015 #96
Whatever. People have been sending links above, posting valid arguments and you simply ignore them. Katashi_itto May 2015 #98
My views. JDPriestly May 2015 #101
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
1. "Our demands for it should be aware of, and tailored to those reasons." - With Fast Track, the
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:12 AM
May 2015

chance for demands and tailoring evaporate. And we should not have to wait until it cannot be changed, in order to see it.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
3. The only thing I know abou the TPP that has been released to the public
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:23 AM
May 2015

is that it has not been released to the public.

What happened to the promise of most transparent goverent in US history?

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
6. That promise has been delivered.
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:31 AM
May 2015

And the reasons identified in the OP for not negotiating in public view are common sense.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
12. There is no reason to keep a trade agreement secret, this isn't
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:58 AM
May 2015

The same as nuclear weapon negotiations. Everything in this trade agreement will have an impact on every persons job.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the transparency issue.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
14. There is no trade agreement. There are negotiations on a trade agreement.
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:20 AM
May 2015

And there are obviously reasons to keep negotiations secret - reasons that I mentioned. Reasons that every single administration ever has understood implicitly.

You can't accuse the President of being un-transparent for conducting trade negotiations as they've always been conducted.

Do you think Thomas Jefferson kept the newspapers apprised of every letter between his envoys and the French government on the Louisiana Purchase? No - he conducted a negotiation, reached an agreement, then submitted it to Congress for public debate and approval. Which is what every single administration ever has done.

And this is objectively the most transparent administration in US history. Even when you could just walk into the White House and say Hi to the President in the early days of the republic, you still had no right to any kind of documents, let alone actual public services devoted to giving you access to them. This administration expanded access more than any other ever.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
19. If the trade agreement doesn't exist, then there is nothing to
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:31 AM
May 2015

To vote on in congress. You have to have an agreement before there is a vote.

PBS, NPR and a slew of other news organizations would argue about the Obama record on transparency.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
38. Indeed, there is nothing to vote on until something is submitted.
Sun May 10, 2015, 11:22 AM
May 2015

Nothing has been submitted.

I think you're mistaking TPP for TPA - "Trade Promotion Authority" or "fast track", which is another issue entirely despite being justified on the grounds of promoting TPP.

As for PBS and NPR, I'm well aware of anecdotes about areas where transparency could be improved. That doesn't change the fact that this is the most transparent, publicly open administration in US history.

You can't judge administrations against perfection. You judge them against what the world they inherit, same as any other human beings.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
79. I know what TPA is. It's used to squelch or limit debate
Sun May 10, 2015, 04:43 PM
May 2015

Before anyone can fully understand what is in the agreement.

The agreement exists, if it didn't then Obama wouldn't be pushing so hard. There might be a few details to work out, but Obama could point to which ones he is working on changing and can go on record as to what will work for the U.S. and what will not.

Please do not lecture me on the world they inherited. PBS and NPR are not the type of news organizations that do half ass comparisons. Even the group Reporters Without Borders say that Obama has not lived up to his pledge. This administration has set a record that will be hard to beat when it comes to the number of whistleblowers they have prosecuted.

okaawhatever

(9,492 posts)
63. When the final negotiations take place and a deal is agreed to, it will be submitted to
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:30 PM
May 2015

Congress. There will be a minimum 60 day review and comment period. The various legislators can go read what they have right now. Plus, like the OP writer said, you may have Fast Track Authority and the TPP confused.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
8. Nothing of the sort was said about NAFTA.
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:41 AM
May 2015

There was no national security basis for it, so none of the points I make on that subject applied.

We were not competing with anyone at that point for global supremacy, so that wasn't an issue.

NAFTA was with Mexico and Canada. Is Canada an impoverished post-industrial wasteland? Did Mexicans stop wanting to live in the United States? And apparently we still have significant manufacturing, since the loss thereof is what people are saying TPP will produce.

The fact is manufacturing started leaving the US under the Reagan administration. Businesses used the surplus cash from his tax cuts to finance relocating factories.

There is effectively no analogy whatsoever to NAFTA. Falling under the category "trade deal" does not make two things relevant to each other.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
16. Facts are not "platitudes." They ARE history.
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:23 AM
May 2015

And I still don't hear an explanation for how we still have such a significant manufacturing sector after all these other trade deals that TPP would be a major threat to the American economy.

I don't hear an explanation for why Canada, despite being in NAFTA, did not become an impoverished wasteland, and why Mexicans still want to live in the United States. Or, for that matter, why Chinese who can afford it still want to move to the United States by a large margin.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
11. Actually, there were striking similarities.
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:50 AM
May 2015

Someone posted a video of Gore on C-Span making eerily similar arguments to many that are now being put forth regarding the tpp. Watch it.

And the national security basis is bullshit tailored to scare people who don't know much. sorry, but that's clear.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
18. So instead of actually making an argument, you just assert that you have one.
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:27 AM
May 2015

That's certainly convincing.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
20. I just informed you that the evidence exists that the arguments were similar in many
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:34 AM
May 2015

ways. do your own search. Amusing that you chide me for not presenting an argument when yours is basically "no the arguments aren't the same and YOU don't even refer to evidence for that claim beyond "national security"- which sure as shit was used with NAFTA. Have a heaping helping of evidence that demonstrates how full of.... your "argument" is:

https://www.citizen.org/documents/TPP-foreign-policy.pdf

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
26. Usually Public Citizen does better work than that.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:15 AM
May 2015

Its handful of examples of politicians selling NAFTA by saying Mexico would do similar deals with other countries is (a)common sense, and (b)has no relevance to national security arguments. Nebulous rhetoric about "American power" obviously does not apply. Moreover, there is no evidence - none whatsoever - that the US would necessarily be in a better position had NAFTA never occurred.

I say once again: Canada is flourishing, the US apparently still has more than enough manufacturing for people to claim TPP is a threat to it, and Mexicans still want to live in the United States. There are valid arguments that FTAs make internal reforms more difficult, but it's clear that such reforms would have been necessary to avoid the decline in American manufacturing driven by the persistence of Reaganomics giving businesses the cash to relocate. They didn't wait for trade agreements to do that.

Moreover, the document goes on to say TPP would benefit China, and then says arguments that it's necessary to contain China are false because China was offered membership, not noticing the contradiction in the two claims: If it would benefit China and it was offered participation, why did it fail to join?

It also makes a number of sweeping statements without evidence, and that seemingly contradict other sweeping statements also made without evidence. There are also repeated logical fallacies and deceptive statements, trying to spin positive statistics as negative (e.g., spinning other nations increasing investments in the US as the US having a "negative" investment presence in the partner country) or straight-up asserting that a correlation is a causation. I guess the failure of Central America to grow must be due to FTAs rather than MS-13 tearing it to shreds.

Public Citizen needs to get better writers. I could write a better attack on FTAs and I'm not even convinced they're necessarily bad.

The question is not whether the entire world should do this kind of thing. If we got to decide that, I would say we shouldn't - we should do Fair Trade that keeps capital local so that comparative advantage actually applies, and what's traded is limited to goods and services rather than liquidating capital.

The question is whether we should participate in free trade when the rest of the world does this, and it seems somewhat convincing that it's worse to not participate.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
41. Who says that's not still his agenda via TPP?
Sun May 10, 2015, 12:43 PM
May 2015

You're kind of begging the question there.

If he's not using the same rhetoric, it's definitely at least partly because he's working in the role of a negotiator with other countries rather than a political candidate.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
43. I mean the agenda of serving the working people of this country.
Sun May 10, 2015, 12:54 PM
May 2015

The implication was that he's not that person anymore, and there's no evidence of that other than using different rhetoric.

If you want to know why he didn't try to renegotiate NAFTA, that's a valid question worth asking. But if your implication is that he failed to do so because he lost sight of progressive values, I reject that out of hand.

I'm also curious what political capital you think he had to get a renegotiated NAFTA passed in the short window where Democrats controlled Congress, given how hard it was to pass Obamacare even then.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
45. A reckless, arrogant smear 180 degrees off of reality.
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:02 PM
May 2015

Disagree with his position, but don't be one of those hothouse flowers who, the moment they disagree with him about something, forget all of history and decide he's the Bad Guy.

Have you ever been wrong? Ever taken a position that turned out to be flawed? That might be happening right now in your case as much as it might be in Obama's. But he shows superb judgment in so many other instances that his arguments need to be taken seriously, not just crapped on because he's not using the proper shibboleths.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
47. Of course it's my opinion. Who else's opinion would I be advocating?
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:45 PM
May 2015

The point is that I can defend it, while you're basically just regurgitating emotional reactions to superficial appearances of a deal that hasn't even been written.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
49. It's not a valid basis for drawing conclusions about a Presidency.
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:52 PM
May 2015

Unless it's equally valid for Republicans to assert Ronald Reagan was America's greatest President because his speeches gave them warm fuzzies while he sold missiles out the back to America's enemies.

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
52. The Emotional Upheaval And Main Street Impact Of NAFTA Can Be See On Many Streets In The US
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:56 PM
May 2015

Many reject reason alone because they have lived through the lies pandered as truth from the past.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
55. Where is the evidence that NAFTA caused those job losses?
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:03 PM
May 2015

They started under Ronald Reagan because he cut top-level taxes so massively they had the cash to relocate factories.

Remember Michael Moore's first documentary, "Roger & Me"? About how Flint, Michigan had been gutted by car companies relocating South of the border in the '80s? Apparently they didn't need NAFTA to do that.

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
58. Now One Now Has To Question Your Reason - Studies Galore About The Impact Of NAFTA
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:15 PM
May 2015

Do your homework - This one will not do your legwork for you.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
60. So you're refusing to justify your position with evidence? Fine by me.
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:22 PM
May 2015

But you must be aware that's the opposite of persuasive.

And if you do decide to provide evidence, please provide some that actually demonstrates causation, not just says "Since NAFTA passed, we have lost X number of jobs." As I noted, we had started losing manufacturing jobs by the bushel during the Reagan administration, a decade before NAFTA, because of tax policies that rewarded businesses for relocating factories.

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
61. No - I am Not Willing To Do Your Homework For You - There Is A Difference
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:26 PM
May 2015

You must do your own homework - in return it will have more meaning once the truth is learned.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
102. Who's doing the negotiating?
Mon May 11, 2015, 10:21 AM
May 2015

Are there representatives from environmental groups, consumer advocates, and unions? No. That tells me all I need to know about who's going to benefit from TPP and who's going to get screwed.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
81. You can argue for it, but you fail to persuade me
Sun May 10, 2015, 04:55 PM
May 2015

On the national security part of it. China can manipulate their currency to any point they want and still be a powerhouse. With over 1 billion in population, any job, no matter what it pays, is a good job.

Add to the fact of how much money we owe China and we are always going to be at a disadvantage.

China will grow militarily with or without this agreement.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
82. I disagree. China's growing power is not some fundamental law of the universe.
Sun May 10, 2015, 04:58 PM
May 2015

It's something with specific causes, and specific solutions.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
86. However, it can be a beginning toward a solution. Can be.
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:18 PM
May 2015

By distributing exported capital more widely, among more countries, allowing the US to have more leverage with each of them than with a single all-devouring counterpart with superpower ambitions.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
92. Having the most money does not make one a superpower. They're not even close.
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:39 PM
May 2015

Twenty, thirty years maybe - if nothing goes wrong.

And again, it's not a matter of putting the genie back in the bottle, but of releasing it from China's control.

Also, I've seen pretty persuasive arguments that trade is already pretty loosely regulated, and not much will necessarily change with the agreement, so that could be a third possibility. That all this is much ado about nothing.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
99. If you don't believe they're a super power, then you live in
Sun May 10, 2015, 06:27 PM
May 2015

a world of denial. They may be a little behind militarily, but with Russia's help they are closing the gap fast.

Ask anyone in Congress the one country they don't want to go to war with, and if they are being honest, they will say China.

They have nukes. They have foreign bases. They have technology. They are first in the world in economic growth. They are first in the world in annual college graduates. They are first in the world on building infrastructure. They are first in the world in exports.

The foreign base part is where they are making their mark. China is starting to build bases in the middle-east, what happens when neighboring countries are housing the two economic behemoths?

In the 60s to the 80s it was Europe where America clashed with the USSR.

It is shaping up that after the next 5 years it will America and China battling over the middle-east.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
34. Oversimplification
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:42 AM
May 2015

You've deemed NAFTA to be bad, so all trade deals throughout all of history are bad.

Not much of an argument.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. ooh, I'll play. Let's parse:
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:29 AM
May 2015

China already has a trade agreement with 10 other regional neighbors, including Malaysia and Vietnam- as well as Indonesia and the Philippines. It was finalized, I believe, in 2011. Nothing in the TPP prevents China from forging other trade agreements. There are absolutely downsides to this particularly deal vis a vis Malaysia and Vietnam. For one thing, this agreement does nothing to address Malaysia's HIDEOUS (one of the world's worst) human trafficking problem which results, essentially, in a lot of slave labor- thus Menendez trying to include this in the TPA. Oh, and no 4.5 points in 15 years re the Human Development index is hardly the big deal you're making it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN%E2%80%93China_Free_Trade_Area

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026649869

you use a faulty basis and a lot of bullshit assumptions to make your largely fact free assumptions.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
13. In other words, we're falling behind China in trade with SE Asia.
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:00 AM
May 2015

Nothing prevents China from taking additional steps, but nothing prevents us from taking still further ones. That's what a competition is. If your solution is just not to play and have the United States become economically isolationist, I just can't agree.

Of course there are downsides. Downsides happen when you balance the interests of diverse parties. What I am not persuaded of, one way or the other, that there is anything inherently wrong with pursuing a Trans-Pacific Partnership. I am not a Hooverist where trade is concerned.

I would have written the history of trade deals differently, but progress can only be made by moving in the right direction from where we are, not making demands that partner negotiators would dismiss out of hand.

As for human trafficking, it's fine to try including provisions related to that, but given that's a region- (and world-) wide problem, I don't see how the failure to introduce such language is a showstopper to other potential advantages.

YES, rising 4 places in the HDI rankings over 15 years is definitely a major accomplishment for a nation of over a billion people whose grandparents starved to death by the tens of millions and whose parents rode bicycles to work on collective farms.

And while the post to which you link makes sound points - addressing China will definitely require dealing with its currency manipulation, for instance, which we are aggressively pursuing through WTO actions - it seems to forget its own premise by mentioning that China has cheap labor and raw materials. That's the whole point!

We built them up into a country whose cheap labor and raw materials could be reliably exploited, thus attracting capital, but before that they were unattractive for many reasons. Working to advance Vietnam and Malaysia in a similar way can reduce some of the regional advantages we gave to China. Which, even if it doesn't necessarily help us directly (which is why I'm not endorsing TPP at this point), certainly weakens the ability of China to hurt us.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
17. China has a population of nearly one and a half billion people. It is
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:26 AM
May 2015

already the largest economy in the world. It is the dominant force in that part of the world, just as the U.S. still is, (though not as much) in our part of the world. Spheres of influence. None of that is going to change.

The binary thinking you indulge in, as evidenced by your expressed opinions on this subject, lead you to believe that it's an either/or regarding trade. It's not isolationism vs trade agreements that hugely favor corporations over any segment of the population or sector.

I've read the three leaked chapters (late drafts) of the tpp and analysis of those chapters and leaked process documents. Had they not been so lamentable regarding vital issues like the environment and investment rights, I can see having a different opinion.

Look, China as boogeyman, doesn't sway me- though it obviously factors into how you think. And you provide no evidence whatsoever that the TPP significantly weakens China.

Ack.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
21. Your sense of fatalism about Chinese power is very strange.
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:39 AM
May 2015

While they do indeed have natural advantages because of their population and resources, the sheer size of their power is only a result of an imbalance in development between themselves and most of the rest of East Asia. An imbalance created by US policy, and that therefore can be undone by US policy.

I've read the three leaked chapters (late drafts) of the tpp and analysis of those chapters and leaked process documents.


Were these draft elements things that had been settled, or still proposals?

Had they not been so lamentable regarding vital issues like the environment and investment rights, I can see having a different opinion.


We're not going to get much traction on the environment. You don't demand that a poor country prioritize its people's long-term health over their immediate ability to eat, and certainly not broader problems like climate change and wildlife protection. Almost anything we did extort from them on that front would just be ignored in practice anyway.

And you provide no evidence whatsoever that the TPP significantly weakens China.


Either it weakens them or it doesn't weaken us. There's no other interpretation on that point: Either it would cause capital flow toward Vietnam and Malaysia or it wouldn't. If it would, then some of that would be from China whether it likes that or not. If it wouldn't, then it wouldn't come from us either and it couldn't hurt American jobs. The devil is in the details of who is affected most in what ways.
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
23. a knowledge of history is helpful
Sun May 10, 2015, 09:53 AM
May 2015

regarding why Chinese economic and thus political power, will increase.

The draft chapters are late drafts and both the WH and USTR have said that there are only a few issues remaining to be worked out. Have they changed? That's possible, but so much was wrong in these chapters (read the joint analysis by the WWF, NRDC and the Sierra Club on the environmental chapter) and the process was evidently so flawed (according to foreign sources; tpp nation-partner leaks) as well as process document leaks, that it's difficult to see a whole lot changing. For instance, within the intellectual property rights chapeter are extended patents for pharmaceutical companies. It's called "greening" and it makes producing generics much more difficult- which oddly enough- benefits China (I posted a thread about this). The U.S. pushed for this. The U.S. is very unlikely to have changed it- and President Obama has obliquely referred to it and defended it.

As for the environment, oceans and overfishing are one big honking problem, and that doesn't impact just one nation. And in the past, the prime offenders of environmental health have been corporations. And some of it has been truly gruesome.

Look, I advise you to do a lot of research- read the draft chapters and analysis of them. Read analysis of the new 114 page tpa. Read about ISDS cases in Central and South America. Read the pro stuff- from the USTR, the White House and other sources.

Oh, and here's Al Gore and Perot's debate, in which Gore uses arguments we hear echoed in today's debate.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
28. Fair enough. I'll look more deeply.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:28 AM
May 2015

But consider this:

The question is not whether NAFTA or any free trade deal delivers what's promised in selling it. The question is whether it delivers more than what would have resulted in its absence, due to global economics moving while we stand still.

Any persuasive argument, one way or another, has to reflect understand that that is the nature of the question.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
33. but is the choice actually only between standing still
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:38 AM
May 2015

and what many consider to be a bad trade agreement? Is it possible that the US is responsible for some of what is bad? Are our trade priorities too influenced by corporate interests?

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
37. Our entire economy is too influenced by corporate interests.
Sun May 10, 2015, 11:09 AM
May 2015

Which means that whether or not a trade agreement helps our economy, it's necessarily far too influenced by corporate interests. Trade negotiations are far removed from anything capable of addressing that. Domestic political reform has to occur first.

Luckily that's a lot easier than getting a bunch of un- or semi-democratic foreign countries to agree to liberal reform in their own economies.

These poor, under-developed countries can't help us, and we can't expect them to sign anything that doesn't benefit them a lot more than it does us. Or at least benefit their elites, but as I mention in the OP, the Chinese people have benefited somewhat despite a similar state of affairs.

And I really doubt that if we corrected the other huge economic problems we have - most especially rich people paying obscenely low tax rates - that problems with trade policy would do much economic damage.

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
7. Some may think it protects our jobs here.
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:32 AM
May 2015

In a trade agreement that more easily allows foreign investors into the American market, and with pressures and incentives to compete with lower wage countries, why would the new majority owners not restructure, shit-can the existing employees, hire temps or lower wage staff, and claim that the new hires were jobs created by the trade agreement?

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
24. No problem, most of the time I don't say things right the first time.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:02 AM
May 2015

I'm not well versed on TPP, however hearing that investment is also part of the TPP, the question of foreign investment into a domestic company arises.

If a privately owned business, with a portion of exported product and under the umbrella of the TPP, after being sold to foreign investors, be able to summarily terminate its work force? If yes, would the positions hired for resuming production be considered jobs created under the program? Would a supporter of the TPP say, look, we just created 100 new jobs?

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
29. Too detailed a question for my pay grade.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:33 AM
May 2015

I would seek out answers from both pro- and con- positions, and ask to be walked through how it does this or that, or why it doesn't do this or that. And listen to the back-and-forth.

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
31. Ha - good answer!
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:37 AM
May 2015

I'm gonna put the coffee away now...

What Captain Bligh says to Lt Christianson in Mutiny On The Bounty applies to me also, don't think, it seems to confuse you

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
10. I think these are reasonable arguments although I am sure many will dispute them.
Sun May 10, 2015, 08:48 AM
May 2015

Its my feeling that overall this deal will help more than it hurts.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
25. I tend to look at things from a more global perspective.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:02 AM
May 2015

My feeling is that more free and fair trade is usually good for the world over the long run. However there is no doubt this deal will hurt some workers and some companies here in US but no doubt it will also help many others both here and abroad. I suspect the net effect will be positive. Also, I cant imagine this President selling us a bill of goods. I think he is the most intelligent, reasonable and trustworthy President in my lifetime.. and I have been voting since Carter.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
30. Indeed, my trust in Barack Obama's motives and values is 100%.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:36 AM
May 2015

But I also know he is surrounded all day by people who miss the trees for the forest, while we activists tend to have the opposite problem.

Fortunately, I'm comfortable with ambiguity and delaying making an opinion until I know enough that forming one is warranted.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
56. ah, now I better understand.
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:05 PM
May 2015

I don't see how anyone who makes the claim of 100% trust in a politician, can also make the claim that they're comfortable with ambiguity.

I do have a book recommendation for you though:

Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity published in 1930. It's a seminal work on literary criticism but has broad implications.


Seven types

The first type of ambiguity is the metaphor, that is, when two things are said to be alike which have different properties. This concept is similar to that of metaphysical conceit.
Two or more meanings are resolved into one. Empson characterizes this as using two different metaphors at once.
Two ideas that are connected through context can be given in one word simultaneously.
Two or more meanings that do not agree but combine to make clear a complicated state of mind in the author.
When the author discovers his idea in the act of writing. Empson describes a simile that lies halfway between two statements made by the author.
When a statement says nothing and the readers are forced to invent a statement of their own, most likely in conflict with that of the author.
Two words that within context are opposites that expose a fundamental division in the author's mind.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Types_of_Ambiguity

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
59. Hmm, too abstruse for my limited attention span.
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:20 PM
May 2015

But I think you mistake my meaning on the earlier point. Here is a quote that captures the spirit of it:

“To believe all men honest is folly. To believe none is something worse.”

-John Adams


As far as I'm humanly capable of judging character, Barack Obama is a consummate progressive and highly intelligent, insightful leader. It's why I joined his original primary campaign so early. I could tell what he was he about, and that it's what I'm about: "Reality-based politics" in contrast to the medieval irrationalism of George W. Bush, and implicitly also a rejection of the irrationalism of those who had proven incapable of defeating him or who were even collaborators with him (e.g., Hillary Clinton).

If he's wrong, he's wrong - it happens to the best of us - but if so he's following in very august company given that modern free trade is a process that began under FDR with the Bretton Woods Conference, and that consensus political support for that kind of trading goes back well before corporations and rich oligarchs took over American politics.

Either he doesn't see the trees for the forest, or opponents don't see the forest for the trees. Or both could be true.
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
64. actually, it's quite a good read.
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:31 PM
May 2015

As far as I'm humanly capable of assessing character, Barack Obama strikes me as an intelligent, gifted, nice man with both progressive impulses, conservative impulses, an impulse to find common ground with even those most opposed to any form of progressive government and philosphy, and impulses to achieve certain goals regardless of any progressive sentiment. In other words, he's a complex person.

More importantly, I prefer to look at actions as well as rhetoric and whatever gut feeling I may have regarding character.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
70. My definition of "progressive" is someone committed to making progress.
Sun May 10, 2015, 03:07 PM
May 2015

It has nothing to do with rhetoric, and nothing to do with the superficial form of the vehicle through which progress occurs. I consider Eisenhower a progressive, even though his politics were superficially conservative.

And I know the difference: I do not consider Hillary Clinton progressive, despite some of her positions being anecdotally on the left, nor do I consider someone like Dennis Kucinich progressive, because he squanders a political platform to make vain speeches instead of actually do anything that other people in politics could possibly get on board with.

A lot of people on the left are basically art critics who think that makes them artists, and a lot of people in the center think obsessing on excuses not to do something is the same thing as realism. Neither strike me as progressives. The people who speak the language of achievement, not of fantasy and not of fear - that's the signal of a progressive mind.

Barack Obama is not a member of anyone's cult, nor is he interested in leading his own. He's merely an American President. Like all the great ones were.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
50. One of my biggest issues with TPP is from the viewpoint of the smaller less powerful nations. What
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:53 PM
May 2015

makes you think the people of those countries are going to get any help by giving corporations more power? I do not for one minute believe that many of the worlds leader are actually speaking for the people of their own country anymore than I think that the rw congress we have now is speaking for the majority of people in our country.

If corporations are buying our government what makes you think they do not own other governments - like China where they have moved their factories to? IMO I think that China and other countries that are hosts to international corporations are not in control of "signing" onto these agreements in the name of the people.

An example from NAFTA - after the signing many corporations moved their factories across the border to Mexico - in fact they moved JUST across the border to avoid environmental and labor laws. It did not take long for us to begin hearing about the pollution and disease caused by their lack of compliance to laws they had to adhere to in the USA. I have not heard much about that lately but I wonder if that was ever fixed?

Giving more power to international corporations may hurt us but it is certain to hurt those little countries - their poor. The international corporations in Vietnam pay a worker less than $1. And they tell us they are better off - yes just like the working poor in the USA are better off without a pay increase. I do not believe the goal of the elite and the international corporations is to make the lives of the people better. Their bottom line is profit. TPP for profit.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
85. Globalization has helped many in developing nations out of poverty.
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:09 PM
May 2015

Expanded trade under the TPP will likely result in even more.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
89. So less than a $1 an hour will lift someone out of poverty? I doubt it. And also why do we have all
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:29 PM
May 2015

these reports of companies like Nike abusing and misusing the labor force not to mention child labor. I have my doubts. Why is it that so many are moved into cities to live in poverty and off their former small farms where they were able to support their families? So some corporation can use that small farm to grow crops for export. There is too much that says that what you are claiming is not true. So I have my doubts.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
93. Of course there are a few who rise. But is it a real reform for the people? By the way, our jobs are
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:46 PM
May 2015

over there now and they are not coming back anytime soon. I would just like to see the rest of them say here.

I remember the idea we talked about in the 60s about how big business needed to keep people poor in our own country so that they could have a lot of people looking for work in order to keep wages from rising and keep the power of unions down. You know surplus workers. Supply and demand for jobs. I wonder if that has stopped in these poorer countries.

I suspect that there are many more who are still very very poor than who are better off. These international corporations are not there to help the people of the country - they are their for profit.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
94. It's more than a few..
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:56 PM
May 2015

but I agree that the corporations are clearly taking advantage of the situation and making tons of profit. However there are many small operations that are also doing well. Of course much of this is mostly at our expense.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
97. I was just trying to show that more power to the powerful was not going to be good for any of us.
Sun May 10, 2015, 06:06 PM
May 2015

RDANGELO

(3,535 posts)
27. If what this is really about, is limiting the influence of China,
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:20 AM
May 2015

then who is going to pay for that? The average Americans are the ones who lose their job. The people at the top make bigger profits and bigger incomes at their expense. You know there is not going to be anything to offset for the disparity in wages, such as a vat tax or Higher taxes on the wealthy.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
35. It's one possible aspect, but that doesn't mean it's the only one.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:44 AM
May 2015

Also, I'm not convinced that we lose net jobs - or quality of jobs - because of FTAs in general (even if some deals were shit). I think most if not all of the economic damage we've sustained during the past decades has been due to rich people not paying high enough taxes.

The fact that corporations started relocating factories to Mexico under Reagan, long before NAFTA, suggests that it was the surplus of cash they got from paying low taxes that allowed them to do that, not trade regulations.

Also, one of the FDR administration's main priorities was reestablishing trade relations that Hoover had crippled in an attempt to protect remaining US jobs, and Roosevelt did so while massively raising top-level taxes. The combination appeared to work pretty well.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
51. FDR's trade deals were about trade. From everything we have so far seen about TPP this is not
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:55 PM
May 2015

about trade - it is about international corporate profits.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
53. Can you elaborate the distinction between trade and international corporate profit?
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:57 PM
May 2015

I realize there is a distinction, but what precisely do you mean?

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
57. Trade = export of US products. International corporations = import of foreign made products to the
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:07 PM
May 2015

USA.

We had trade deals that actually represented the deals to export and import goods on a global basis.

Now the deals mostly speak of the rights of the international corporations - the investment chapter - the environmental chapter - the labor issues and human rights issues. It is like letting the companies move across the border was not to help the people of Mexico - it was for corporations to escape responsibility. NAFTA did not include a provision for Mexico to toss them out on their ears for doing that it actually allowed it.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
68. Then we agree on definitions. My problem with FTAs as currently configured
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:52 PM
May 2015

is that they mobilize the underlying capital of an economy rather than keeping it fixed and then trading the output.

The justification for free trade is comparative advantage: The idea being that if a country isn't good at making one thing, it will reconfigure its productive capital to make something else.

But the way the global system works completely sabotages that. Instead of a country's capital reconfiguring, it's liquidated and the entire capital relocate to a lower-price region, with nothing replacing it.

That all already happened, and simply reversing it isn't practical. But right now the capital we lost is in China, and pretty much only China. So we have a chance to spread it out to more countries, which would make our own position stronger relative to each of them. And that would give some leverage to begin gathering capital back over time.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
69. I hear what you are saying - don't know if it would work. Emmanual Todd in his book "After the
Sun May 10, 2015, 03:02 PM
May 2015

Empire" wrote that after the wall fell in Berlin and the USSR disappeared the world had one power left - the USA. He predicted that eventually the world would rise up as regional powers that would then represent their own areas as leaders and powers.

As examples of this he talked about China and the other countries of the east uniting in a common goals for the area. He also talked about China taking responsibility for handling N Korea. Freeing us from doing it.

He also discussed the ME/Africa, South and Central America, and EU/Russia in this context. The one I think he is most wrong about is the EU and Russia. However Russia has the energy that EU needs so who knows.

At the time NAFTA was passed I thought about this book. Now I am wondering about it again.

He was mostly thinking of a three way balance of power that would replace our US Empire which has become a corporate empire including international corporations and MIC. One of the problems of the book is that he did not suggest the Mexico, Canada and the US were going to be united in their area.

Since I am not in favor of empire I was very influenced by they book. Still am.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
36. Japan is a high wage, high population, high consumer partner, dwarfing the other nations economies, good to remember that.
Sun May 10, 2015, 11:04 AM
May 2015

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
39. Indeed, and China was apparently quite irked when Japan signed on to TPP.
Sun May 10, 2015, 11:25 AM
May 2015

It would be hard to reconcile that reaction with TPP not being a challenge to their economic dominance of the region.

TheKentuckian

(25,760 posts)
62. The Chinese being irked puts what into my pockets and presents me with what opportunities?
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:26 PM
May 2015

Does it provide me with wholesome food, fertile soil, clean air, or potable water?

Does it strengthen my civil liberties or make my vote more impactful or more likely to be counted.

Does it strengthen the hand of the citizen?

Does it weaken the power of the corporations?

I'm thinking I have nothing to gain and opportunities for further loss so all the rest of it can go to the devil.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
65. These are very good points.
Sun May 10, 2015, 02:38 PM
May 2015

Unfortunately, they don't change the fact that the absence of a trade deal does not mean the status quo continues, so you have something to lose no matter what - which fortunately also means you have something to gain no matter what. The world moves whether or not you move with it.

Moreover, I would be more concerned with tax policies than trade policies. Reaganomics is what destroyed the US manufacturing sector; trade just allowed us to work with the loss by benefiting from cheaper goods instead of going through some agonizing Lost Decade trying to recreate industries from scratch.

Fix the domestic policies, and you'll have an answer to your questions - the trade will take care of itself.

TheKentuckian

(25,760 posts)
103. I'm concerned with both. You get the domestic issues that you claim will fix trade problems and
Mon May 11, 2015, 05:58 PM
May 2015

I'll be happy to reevaluate my positions on trade but in the current reality all I hear is the bark of snake oil salesmen trying to hustle me yet again.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
77. Um, no
Sun May 10, 2015, 03:26 PM
May 2015

1. China has never been expansionist
2. China's average income is about the same as Mexico's, even though they are one of the richest countries on earth. China's GDP has increased 6 fold since 1998, yet they have only moved from 91st to 94th. That is just pathetic.
3. Trade deals make the oligarchy in third world countries richer and more powerful. They don't give a shit about their citizens.
4. You are saying our trade deficit would shift to other oligarchies that pay even less than China. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
5. Too laughable to comment on
6. "If China makes the deal, the profits will go to its millionaire and billionaire elites rather than ours" You gotta be kidding me.

You make a very good set of arguments AGAINST the TPP

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
78. Umm, yes.
Sun May 10, 2015, 03:41 PM
May 2015

1. Yes, it has been expansionist. Repeatedly. Ask the Tibetans. And it's expansionist now, because it can afford to be.

2. China's per capita income in the decades before trade was closer to sub-Saharan Africa than Mexico.

3. Doesn't matter whether the oligarchy give a shit about their citizens. The money they make comes out of factories, not stock gambling or interest rates. That kind of investment changes an economy for the better. It's how European investment drove the industrialization of the United States in the 19th century.

4. No, I'm saying the trade deficit would spread out among more partners, giving the US proportionally more leverage with each of them than it would otherwise have.

5. In other words, an obvious truth you can't dispute, but are too petulant to simply concede it.

6. You have a very high opinion of Chinese billionaires.

I'm not making arguments for or against, I'm making points that need to be taken into consideration. But since you already know everything, feel free not to judge us mere mortals who have to actually invest thought before we form an opinion.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
100. Hilarious!
Mon May 11, 2015, 03:12 AM
May 2015

Especially your 'answer' to number five, where you claimed the participating countries must keep the deal secret from each other!!

"How can they tell us what's in it when they MUST KEEP IT SECRET FROM EACH OTHER!!2!



True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
83. I do trust him, I just don't know if I agree with him on this.
Sun May 10, 2015, 04:59 PM
May 2015

But I definitely know people aren't giving the subject much actual thought, just kind of reacting in knee-jerk fashion.

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
87. Give the track record of agreements and the nature of the opposition
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:18 PM
May 2015

I don't think it's Knee Jerk.


Just one of many examples.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026649870

Plus really look at whose FOR it.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
91. A lot of it is knee jerk. That particular concern, however, sounds very credible.
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:35 PM
May 2015

If something like that is in the ultimate agreement - if - then there could be constitutional problems with it.

Plus really look at whose FOR it.


Who?
 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
95. Let me rephrase. It doesnt matter if it's knee jerk.
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:57 PM
May 2015

There are enough issues with TPP and red flags raised by it and past trade agreements to warrant any and all amounts of opposition.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
96. I'm not convinced that trade agreements are what hollowed out our middle-class.
Sun May 10, 2015, 06:03 PM
May 2015

It seems pretty clear that decades of Reaganist tax policies did that.

And arguing against TPP as a general concept is basically just arguing for a status quo that disproportionately favors China.

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
98. Whatever. People have been sending links above, posting valid arguments and you simply ignore them.
Sun May 10, 2015, 06:24 PM
May 2015

You want to dwell in a bubble no big deal.

End result the middle class is still hollowed out and continues to be hollowed out.

Who knows eventually it may reach you.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
101. My views.
Mon May 11, 2015, 04:10 AM
May 2015

1. Will refocus some Eastern hemisphere trade away from China and toward SE Asia.

And what does that do for out-of-work or underemployed Americans? What in the world does that have to do with the US? China is huge. Our trade with China is what has enabled it to build its military strength. While we are rejecting TPP, why don't we reject trade or control or limit trade with China. Why don't we tie the amount of trade we have with China and other countries to the size of our trade deficit? If our trade deficit grows, we trade less. CORRUPTION

The problem is not whether China will trade more with other countries. The question is whether our practice of importing so much more from China and other countries than we export is weakening our economy and therefore our ability in years to come to defend ourselves? CORRUPTION.

While under some circumstances increasing trade can make for a more peaceful world, it is quite likely to lead to war if we find ourselves to be an angry debtor nation forced increasingly into austerity at home because we are buying necessities like socks and shoes and pillowcases and even food on the international markets on borrowed money that we cannot repay because we no longer have the factories to produce goods that other countries want to buy. CORRUPTION. Heat up a cold war with China. More money for "defense industries." When we started to trade with China, it was to make friends and not have a war with China. That appears to have been a stupid plan. So now we want to make more friends (translate buy more friends with money we don't have) and that is supposed to prevent war with China. That's like the drunk getting up in the morning and taking another drink so he won't have such a headache. We are simply drunk on free trade. And our CORRUPT politicians and cynical corporations are plying us with the drink that made us sick in the first place.

Your first question assumes a lot of things about how the world works that are simply false. There is no reason to think that China will fail to trade a great deal with other third world countries simply because we sign the TPP which on paper sets rules (unenforceable as to labor and environment no matter what Obama says) that are likely to lead to a greater trade deficit for us. The first item is based on so much empty speculation about what might happen if that it is just silly. Sorry to be insulting, but the first point is so much hot air and speculation. Frightening speculation. But speculation nonetheless.

2. Why would a poor, developing country sign an agreement with us if it protected our jobs at their expense?

Good question. Why should a country such as ours with a huge and growing trade deficit sign such an agreement. I can think of no reason other than corruption among those negotiating and pushing for the signing of the agreement. No possible explanation other than corruption. Big corporations corrupting just about everyone and everything they come near much less touch. CORRUPTION.

3. Why would a poor, developing country sign an agreement with us if it protected our jobs at their expense?

Good question. Why would we sign an agreement with a poor country if it transferred our jobs to that country at the expense of American working people and our society and national sovereignty? CORRUPTION. That's why. Pay-offs to top level politicians. Politicians who represent, work for, are paid by and advocate for the interests of multinational corporations and not for the people of the developing country/US. CORRUPTION


4. In a financially multipolar world, TPP would not fall as heavily on the shoulders of the US as China trade did - China would also pay, whether it wants to or not.

Only because we have already lost so many jobs. Let's focus on reviving our industrial base and using alternative fuels to do it. Let's set the example for the world before we so impoverish ourselves that we ourselves are ranked among the "developing" nations of the world. CORRUPTION. And again, this point is completely speculative. We heard all the speculative reassurances that NAFTA would be so good for our economy. It and the other trade agreements we already have entered into have nearly destroyed our economy and our industrial base. Why in the world would we want to get tangled up in yet another trade agreement when we haven't yet managed to sustain our industrial development with the agreements we have? And we should exit our agreement with China and reconsider our agreement with NAFTA. The world is taking advantage of us and our leaders are either too stupid or too CORRUPT to work for our benefit.

5. Negotiations involve bargaining positions one doesn't necessarily intend to see in the actual deal, so don't get hysterical over every leaked proposal.

If the agreement has not been completely negotiated or at least not negotiated to the point that a draft of the entire agreement can be published for all of us to read, then drop the pressure about fast-trac. It looks very much as though Obama is pressing for fast-trac to please his corporate masters. It looks very much like CORRUPTION. And the pressure being placed on members of Congress to vote for this hideous agreement and for more trade when we have a huge balance of trade deficit can be nothing but CORRUPTION. Let's rebuild American infrastructure and the American industrial base with alternative energy and then maybe we can trade with other countries and set an example of a good economy and a good, strong, democratic society that other countries will want to emulate. Trade is not the way. We have had NAFTA and GATT and other trade agreements in place for over 20 years now and our economy is worse off than it was when we entered into those agreements. Let's lay off the trade agreements until our economy is stronger and until we no longer have such a huge trade deficit.

6. If we aren't willing to make such deals, China is.

So, let China run up a big trade deficit. We don't need to. CORRUPTION.

AND I SAY IT ONE MORE TIME: CORRUPTION. Let's find out who is paying whom to get these trade agreements that have harmed America and Americans.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Without endorsing TPP, so...