US announces withdrawal from TPP

[NWCorona]

Source: Asia.Nikkei

Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, his administration announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact championed by former President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The White House on Friday also wasted no time in declaring a renegotiation of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Trump is expected to take a more isolationist, protectionist stance, and the international community is concerned that the U.S. will continue to draw inward.

Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the U.S. on Friday, repeating his campaign pledges of putting American interests first and restoring national glory to a deeply polarized public.

Trump had the lowest approval rating of any incoming president at around 40%, and at least 60 Democratic legislators boycotted his inauguration. Though the Republican Party took back the White House for the first time in eight years and holds a majority in both houses of Congress, the administration's future path depends on how much public support it receives.

Read more: http://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Trump-era-begins/US-announces-withdrawal-from-TPP

---

I'm actually not sad to see this fail.

[retrowire]

1. It was an objective that I and Bernie wanted.

So, to that end, I'm okay with this. It will never make me happy with Trump though.

[NWCorona]

2. Agreed

[Rural_Progressive]

12. Here, here but then yuck

[tenorly]

19. Same here.

As with everything in life, we take the good with the bad.

[cstanleytech]

20. Problem is protectionism can sometimes make things worse like it did after the

Great Depression started and the US instituted high tariffs which caused the Depression to last longer than it need have as other countries like Canada retaliated with tariffs of their own on US goods to counter the US tariffs, the only ones that it didnt hurt were those who were wealthy enough to ride it out.

[marybourg]

63. Too true. nt

[kennetha]

26. stupidest move in a post WW2 history.

It will go on with or without the US and China will dominate the pacific rim because of it.

Stupid, short-sighted, ignorant move.

[Trust Buster]

35. I agree 100%. China will now dominate the largest consumer market of this century - Asia.

[NotThisTime]

42. This cannot be understated. They will also have all of Australia.

[Trust Buster]

58. Agreed, and the shortsighted America will see higher prices and a loss of potential American jobs

related to the dynamic Asian economy. This would be akin to America refusing to participate in the past Industrial Age. Terribly foolish IMO.

[Hoyt]

51. Exactly. We will be sorry one day.

[Freethinker65]

57. Agree. Hate to agree, but agree

Do not love NAFTA nor TPP as currently proposed, but a global economy is far better for the US than an isolationist one. China is being very very smart.

[Sunlei]

73. agree. I feel for all the small asian pacific countries who loved the idea of their own free trade

loved the idea of their own free trade with a few decent rules- instead of ALWAYS having to sub-contract to China as slave labor.

[yardwork]

75. We will regret this but people won't even inform themselves.

[retrowire]

29. I'm certain you're about to be banned but

Yes there are parallels and common ground to be made, but trump gets no credit from me for his bigotry and insolence. Draining the Swamp? And now he's got a Goldman Sachs cabinet. That invites only more corruption and big money into our government. If Trump supporters can't see that, then I don't know what to say.

Otherwise, thank you for your very respectful discourse with me and I hope your home on the web comes back in working order soon enough.

We may be on opposing sides, but we Americans won't progress at all by refusing to communicate and reason with one another. Thanks for your time.

EDIT: And so you've been banned, but those are the rules here. And just to add and reiterate on my point regarding the Goldman Sachs cabinet, your username was disestablishmentarian. How much more "establishment" can you get with a cabinet like that? How stupid can you get with selecting foxes to watch the hen houses of all our departments?

From what you wrote, I could see that you liked everything Bernie had to say except for those "differences" you mentioned. Like, immigration, muslims, definitions of socialism and whatnot. I won't call you racist for the immigration problem you have, that can be justified without racism, but the muslim problem? Sorry. It's racism.

Muslims have been around for thousands of years without many problems, but now that an extremist group has the world by the balls, the right wants to stereotype the entire religion? And set up lists for them? Sorry, it's racist to define a wide group based on the actions of a few. And ISIS is the few.

I hear you on listening to Trump but, I heard enough of him. And your suggestion that I give him advice? We did. Look, we're the majority. 3 million more of us than what voted for him. You think he actually wants to listen to us? We're shouting from the top of our lungs and we're being referred to as "fake news". We're saying, "Where's your tax returns" and he's saying, "Well I won and I don't think the American people care about that anymore."

Again, thanks for posting.

[ZM90]

30. I 100% agree I like Obama but I hated the TPP. I miss Obama already though :(. n/t.

[Raine]

46. Me too, I'm glad...

still hate him but this I'll take.

[Nick Otean]

74. Let's now sit and see the jobs pour in

Hurray!

[Squinch]

77. Not.

[underpants]

3. We'll see

Obviously I'm not a fan of TPP.

[secondwind]

4. They also want to renegotiate NAFTA... I wonder how that will play out. n/t

[Zorro]

5. Say hello to higher prices on imports

[SledDriver]

8. yup...

bye bye walmart, target, five below, etc...

[jalan48]

16. Sounds like a step in the right direction.

[cstanleytech]

22. No, the problem is not that they need to go away as retailers employee alot of people the problem is

that retailers often shit all over their workers on hours and on pay in order to keep their profits artificially high and that is what needs to stop.

[jalan48]

24. The bigger problem to me is that most of their products are made in Third World countries where

workers are really shit on. Horrible conditions, forced labor (children too). All so that we special snowflake Americans can please ourselves.

[Hoyt]

52. So now the can go back to rice paddys and dirt farms at much less pay.

That makes a lot of sense. For the most part, people have treated poor workers in developing nations as scabs.

[jalan48]

55. Yeah-those sweat shops are so much better than what they have been doing for centuries.

I don't think it's the people-it's the corporate owners and share holders who see a way to boost their profits by billions. It has nothing to do with helping the people, the companies will cut and run as soon as a cheaper source of labor appears on the scene or the resources are used up.

[Hoyt]

56. No one made them leave the rice paddy. They choose a chance to learn

a skill that might make things better. Now Trump, his supporters, and some others have said screw you we are going to trade among ourselves, believing that will make things better here long-term. It won't, but greedy Americans don't care. Most TPP opponents never looked at the worker protection in TPP. Nationalism, American Firstism are no one's friende.

[jalan48]

59. Actually, in Mexico workers were forced off their farms and into manufacturing centers.

The Commons in old England were privatized forcing workers into the industrial centers of England in the 1700 and 1800's. That's how it works, freedom is an illusion in these instances. I'm not sure about worker protection under the TPP but I have a feeling if the protections affect profit they will become an illusion as well.

[Hoyt]

60. Sure. $8 an hour at an Audi plant forced them from the 50 cent a day dirt farm.

Now if you want to tax corporations that benefit from foreign trade, I'm all for it. But to say, we Americans were glad to share some of the wealth and resources we took from the world for awhile, but greedy white wing racists think it's gone to far, is just wrong and will hurt us long-term.

[cstanleytech]

83. Exactly, taxes on the corporations are a way to balance things out.

In fact I wouldnt mind an international sales and income tax on corporations as to many shirk their tax obligation by moving to low tax havens like Ireland and it ends up screwing over the countries where they are doing the majority of their business.

[mdbl]

62. Exactly

Capitalism knows no loyalty. If another developing country can be exploited even cheaper, they'll go there.

[madville]

43. That's good in many ways

It will make it more economical to manufacture things here if imports rise in price.

[delisen]

6. China happy? n/t

[Yavin4]

7. Great. Now China has ALL of Asia on a silver platter.

Nice work geniuses.

[OKNancy]

11. thanks for a true and rational post

[Yavin4]

15. Are you being sarcastic?

The whole point of the TPP was to check China's dominance in Asia. Without it, China, not the US, will rule the entire region. Good luck competing with Asian made air conditioners that can sell on the global market for a fraction of the price that Carrier can sell it at.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

[OKNancy]

17. not at all. I agree with you

Some on the left are just blind to rational trade policy.

[Yavin4]

18. Okay. Sorry.

Yes, they don't understand that we live in a global economy and we cannot isolate ourselves from global competition. We can only adapt.

[Trust Buster]

36. I agree. This is an extremely short sighted and emotional move.

[tammywammy]

13. Exactly

We just handed Pacific trade over to China. They won't request any environmental or worker protections in exchange for free trade.

[Ken Burch]

32. TPP would have made no difference.

China would just find some other way.

It was never worth putting workers and the environment at risk.

[Rural_Progressive]

14. Maybe, but being able to pass our own laws and regulations

regarding environmental and workplace safety is something many of us were not to keen on giving up.

I know an awful lot happens so quickly these days that it's tough to remember what happened even a few months ago. Pork processors in Canada and Mexico went to NAFTA to complain about the country of origin labeling regulation we used to have, now it's gone. You think meat and produce are raised and processed badly in this country you ain't seen nothing compared to other places in the world. Kinda' nice if we the people want to know where our food is coming from to not have an international tribunal declare that we don't have the right to know.

[JHan]

25. The TPP was never going to take those things away.

The TPP cannot override domestic laws - the environment and labor stipulations are non-binding.

[Rural_Progressive]

38. How can you possibly make that statement

unless you've got a link to the whole agreement that I don't know about.

Last time I looked no one other than some Congress critters had been allowed to see the text of the whole thing. They were only allowed to see it alone without even a pencil and paper to make notes about it.

The whole purpose of these "trade" agreements is to override domestic laws for the benefit of large corporations. My understanding of the TPP is that's NAFTA on steriods and I know how well that has worked out for farmers and people who have to buy food in this country.

[JHan]

40. Check on this link:

It gives a balanced view of both sides:http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/04/election-2016-tpp-trade-nafta

And no Trade Agreement can overrule congress.

It's fairly common knowledge those things are not binding - it's the argument critics of the agreement used to crap on the provisions requiring countries in the TPP region to unionize.

[Rural_Progressive]

66. Not what I asked for and you didn't provide it because you can't

Since no one but congress critters have ever seen the thing in its totality.

If that didn't send up red flags for you then you are much more trusting person than I am.

[JHan]

67. Actually other stakeholders have seen it:

There have been meetings with consumer groups, trade associations, labor unions.Here is the full list: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2014/February/a-note-on-stakeholder-consultation

Fact sheet on transparency: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/january/fact-sheet-transparency-and-obama

Congress established a system of Advisory Committees to get input from affected industries. The Obama Administration has grown the size and membership of our trade advisory committees to add voices that were initially left out of the process. In doing so we have worked to ensure strong representation from:

Labor unions,
Environmental groups,
Faith organizations,
Public health and consumer advocates,
Consumer organizations,
Local and state officials,
Farmers, ranchers, small business, and many more diverse interests.
These advisors receive full and equal access to U.S. negotiating proposals and work with our negotiators in an interactive process that includes regular updates on the negotiations, the opportunity to review U.S. proposals before they are tabled, and the chance to provide meaningful input into negotiating proposals and decisions. Over the past year, USTR has been soliciting additional nominations for candidates to further represent labor and non-industry interests, as well as further representatives of agriculture, services, and other sectors of the economy. We welcome additional participants and are open to new ideas on how we can expand input.

We are always looking for new ways to engage the public and to seek views that will help inform and guide our trade policy, and enhancing transparency will remain a priority, consistent with the ability to deliver on our ultimate mission, which is to deliver agreements that achieve the maximum possible benefit for the American people. That’s our focus.

"WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH CONGRESS, THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES

The administration has worked closely with the people’s representatives in Congress as we pursue our ambitious trade agenda. This has included:

Providing access to the full TPP negotiating texts for any Member of Congress, including for Members to view at their convenience in the Capitol, accompanied by staff members with appropriate security clearance.
Holding nearly 1,700 Congressional briefings on TPP alone, and many more on T-TIP, TPA, AGOA and other initiatives.
Providing Members of Congress with plain English summaries of TPP chapters to assist Members in navigating the negotiating text.
Previewing U.S. proposals with Congressional committees before taking them to the negotiations.
Working with Congress to update them on the state of the negotiations and get feedback every step of the way."

It's pretty standard for negotiations to be secret, it doesn't mean evil bad stuff happened behind closed doors. What would have happened if this had reached Congress, is that all deliberations would have been made public and the President would have had to make the entire trade agreement public. This is a requirement of the TPA :https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf

[truebluegreen]

61. Do explain how and why Trans Canada is suing the US

not only for money they spent on the Keystone Pipeline but on predicted future profits from the Keystone pipeline. And then explain, since you know so much, how TPP would not permit that.

[JHan]

64. "since you know so much" - it's a massive agreement..

I don't know everything there is to know, but I have tried to assess it objectively.

We've never lost to a foreign company in these tribunals. Politics impacted the project because of delays and poor communication with the main stake holders - the Tribes.

When we enter agreements, we have to uphold what is expected on our end.. Clearly mistakes were made. If you're really interested in the complexities you're welcome to read this blog: : http://www.energylawprof.com/?p=691

"On November 6, the current Secretary of State, John Kerry rejected the Keystone XL pipeline after seven years of review. The official U.S. Record of Decision stuck by the State Department’s controversial previous conclusion that the pipeline would improve U.S. energy security, benefit the economy, and would be unlikely to increase greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. (It also suggested that the pipeline might even decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by moving oil transport from railroads to pipelines, making oil transport more efficient.) But the U.S. concluded that the pipeline was ultimately not in the national interest because it could undercut the nation’s leadership in climate talks because the pipeline was “perceived as enabling further [greenhouse gas] emissions globally.”

"TransCanada’s key argument is that, in the absence of any law, the President does not have unilateral authority to reject an international oil pipeline based on this kind of consideration. Although Presidents have claimed power to decide whether a pipeline is in the national interest since President Johnson in 1968, TransCanada argues that this power has never been fully tested because the President has never rejected an international pipeline.

This creates something of a puzzle: if Congress has never passed a law governing international oil pipelines and the President does not have authority to reject an oil pipeline, then who may, in fact, regulate pipeline border crossings?

One possible answer is that international oil pipelines are primarily regulated by the states, just like domestic oil pipelines. The U.S., unlike Canada, primarily relies on state-by-state regulation for interstate oil pipelines. That is, if no law has been enacted governing international oil pipelines, then the only laws that govern them are the same ones that govern domestic oil pipelines.

President Obama’s administration will raise several counterarguments. First, it will argue that the President has inherent and unilateral constitutional authority to control the nation’s borders, so he must have some kind of ability to control international border crossings. Second, if Congress has not established any criteria for the President to use in this decision, then he is free to create his own criteria. Third, President Johnson established this process almost fifty years ago and it has been frequently used to approve pipelines so Congress has, with the passage of time, acquiesced to this process. Fourth, federal district courts have upheld the President’s unilateral decision to approve international pipelines."

If the TPP had reached further, this case would have taken front and center for law makers.

[truebluegreen]

69. Canada has lost.

How often have we been sued before? How often have we denied something like Keystone before?

But I do agree that we need to uphold the agreements we enter into, which is precisely why we shouldn't do TPP.

[JHan]

71. I get the reticence..

And I was originally a TPP Skeptic. I wished there was greater communication from President Obama to counteract any myths or misconceptions about the deal - and he needed to sell it better. There are things in the agreement I'm concerned about - for example copyright over-reach. But back to the States, from what I've read the TPP gives States room to set their own rules so to avoid triggering a lawsuit. States can't be sued so we would not have seen the sort of tensions that happened with NAFTA.

As for the things I do like - the option as I saw it was either support TPP - and its provisions which would have created some good ( since it tried to address the concerns of Human Rights Watch and other groups) vis a vis not signing it and that opportunity missed because of the hypothetical possibility those provisions won't be adhered to.. If that makes sense.

[JHan]

23. Pretty much. SMH.

[bravenak]

27. Yep

[MBS]

53. I agree with you that this is a mistake.n/t

[Squinch]

78. Aaaaaand there it is.

[elmac]

9. can you say DOW 9000

lookout belooooooooooow

[Talk Is Cheap]

10. Great news!

[PatrickforO]

21. Good. The guy is still a fascist, but getting out of TPP and renegotiating trade agreements

is part of what needs to happen if the American middle class is again to be built up.

[Ken Burch]

31. So it was pointless to keep the platform ambiguous on this.

Helped cost us the election...for no good reason.

[roamer65]

33. That means Mexico can ask for renegotiation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

There is a Mexican senator threatening to reopen it if we reopened NAFTA.

[Penn Voter]

34. It will be problematic

if our government issues a high tariff on certain finished goods from China where the raw materials are imported from the U.S. China could, in turn, place high tariffs on these U.S. exports hurting American companies and eliminating jobs. I would hope that Washington D.C. would put a little thought into trade policy but I am not very hopeful.

[Trust Buster]

37. You are correct. This will be a two way street that will increase price and cost U.S. jobs.

[kennetha]

39. The thing that most bothered me about Sanders

Last edited Sun Jan 22, 2017, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)

was his simplistic talk on Trade. Leftist shouldn't at all be against free trade, especially if it is rightly done. Free trade is the key to eliminating poverty around the world. it's the key to a global middle class. Of course, you have to structure trade so that it doesn't simply favor capital over labor. It has to impose global labor standards, global environmental standards. TPP was trying to do just that. Obama was right on this one. Clinton, in her heart of hearts, knew that TPP was the right approach too. But with the Donald and Bernie spewing nonsense about the evils of free trade -- as if free trade and NAFTA, of all things was responsible for the hollowing out of the Midwestern industrial might -- no way TPP had a chance.

For the record the first thing to effect Midwestern auto related manufacturing was the lousiness of American cars during the oil crunch of the 70's. Japanese cars were at the time not well engineered but were much more fuel efficient. Americans all over the country were hungry for fuel efficient cars. As the Japanese got better and better at making their cars and more cheaply, Detroit was slow to respond. That had a huge effect on not just the auto manufacturers but for US steel -- since the US auto industry was a huge consumer of US steel.

Then came automation. I worked as a spot welder in a Ford assembly line summers in college. Made good money doing it. Enough to pay my entertainment bills for an entire academic year. No human in the world has the job I used to do, It's all done by robotic spot-welding bays. It just takes a lot fewer humans to make a car than it once did.

Not that some jobs didn't "move" overseas, but before they did that en masse, they fled to the poorly unionized and sometimes downright anti-union South. look at the patterns of population growth and decline in the old Rust Belt vs the Sun Belt if you don't believe me. Long before Nafta, population was shifting from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt, largely in search of working class jobs.

The next big threat to jobs is AI technology. Think self-driving vehicle technology. Did you know that the largest single source of employment for working class males is driving and delivering things -- in cars and trucks and other modes of transportation. And it's not just the largest single source of employment, it's the most lucrative source of employment. And the thing is, it can't be outsourced. You can't get a guy from China to drive your Budweiser delivery truck from one place to the next in the good ole USA. But you know what you can do? You can replace the human driver with a self-driving truck.

What you going to do about that, while you're withdrawing from TPP and letting China dominate the Pacific Rim?

[llmart]

65. Good post.

Even among liberals, there's some idealistic notion that things will go back to the way it was in the 50's and 60's. That's not going to happen. We are now just a part of the global economy and isolationism is not the answer.

Can't wait to see what the tRump voters are going to do without cheap stuff at Wal-Mart. Once again, they will be the ones hurt the most (hopefully).

[Squinch]

80. Many on the left refused to acknowledge what you talk about here, and contributed

to the vilification of trade deals that in turn contributed to Hillary's vilification and loss.

[Hayabusa]

41. What's that they say about "broken clocks"?

[NWCorona]

45. Exactly

[jmowreader]

44. "This reduces the wholesale price of Melania and Ivanka's cheap, tawdry crap by at least 30 percent"

Except for the "MAGA" hats, does any Trump sell anything made in the US?

[Quackers]

47. Good! nt

[rtracey]

48. well

Well, I'll give this one to Fuckump

[m-lekktor]

49. Outstanding! This will piss off the establishment in both parties. nt

[harun]

50. Good, this will piss off the 1%'rs

[tirebiter]

54. FDR established free trade as a fundamental of sound economics

Look up Smoot-Hawley.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/07/news/economy/trump-trade-smoot-hawley/

They were trying to protect American jobs from global trade.

In 1930, Congress slapped tariffs on all countries that shipped goods to America in an effort to shield U.S. workers.

It was called the Smoot-Hawley Act, named after two Republicans Congressman, Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley.

And it is widely accepted that it made the Great Depression worse than it would have been.

"Smoot-Hawley really demonstrated what a bad idea tariff increases are," said Alan Deardorff, a trade expert at the University of Michigan.

[hollowdweller]

68. Free Trade is a toxic issue. Has been for a while.

People could have gotten behind it had we been able to figure out a way to see that all the money made from it benefited everyone.

However during most of the time of the acceleration of free trade we also saw the deterioration of the social contract between the working class and corporate Amerika.

Initially wages were still high enough that the flood of cheap goods actually blunted the effect of people's salaries not going up. Mass produced agricultural goods and cheap electronics, the internet and cable TV was our version of bread and circuses.

Anybody watching though could see we were heading to a point where eventually our salaries were dropping to the point that the cheap consumer goods were going to cost the same proportion of our income as the US ones used to. We are there now.

[Sunlei]

70. ALL TPP countries love the extra billions in trade & China is happy to take USA Asian Pacific seat.

Those other TPP signer countries include Mexico & Canada, they move on without USA. perhaps they'll hire some usa workers at $7 an hour to build parts for their trade items and box them for shipping. Or perhaps they'll contract with USA Corps 20 cent an hour prison slave workers instead

[brooklynite]

72. The Chinese are quivering in their boots...

...then they packed the boots on a train and sent it all the way to the UK.

Trade will continue.

[Squinch]

76. And middle America begins blaming Obama for the resulting inflation in 3..2..1...

[Squinch]

79. I'll be curious to see if all those here extolling this move "because Bernie" will admit that

they were wrong when it results in no uptick in jobs, and a reduction of our exports to other countries.

If that doesn't happen (though it necessarily will) I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.

Wonder if they will to the same.

[NWCorona]

81. I've admitted here before when I was wrong.

[SteamAddict]

82. What we are seeing is the unravelling of progress

70 years of creating a peaceful globe flushed down the toilet.