HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » At long last, 11-member P...

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 05:12 AM

At long last, 11-member Pacific trade deal takes effect

Source: Japan Times

The 11-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact entered into force on Sunday, creating a free trade area covering more than a tenth of the global economy.

The trade deal, signed in March, will cut tariffs on agriculture and industrial products, ease investment restrictions and enhance protection of intellectual property.

The 11 countries hope that the CPTPP will serve as a counter to growing protectionism as China and the United States engage in a trade war.

The U.S. had been a member of the original pact but Washington withdrew just days into the administration of President Donald Trump.

Read more: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/30/business/long-last-11-member-pacific-trade-deal-takes-effect#.XCiZR1VKg5k



Looks like they kept the minimum wage and unionization requirements for Vietnam and Malaysia, fortunately.

96 replies, 3486 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply At long last, 11-member Pacific trade deal takes effect (Original post)
Recursion Dec 30 OP
pazzyanne Dec 30 #1
brooklynite Dec 30 #11
pazzyanne Dec 30 #12
Demsrule86 Jan 4 #94
pazzyanne Dec 30 #13
Demsrule86 Jan 2 #37
allgood33 Jan 2 #56
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #58
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #27
pazzyanne Jan 2 #38
djacq Dec 30 #2
Maxheader Dec 30 #3
Recursion Dec 30 #4
NCjack Dec 30 #5
Yavin4 Dec 30 #6
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #28
Yavin4 Jan 2 #41
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #42
Yavin4 Jan 2 #52
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #54
Yavin4 Jan 2 #55
Demsrule86 Jan 4 #92
Yavin4 Jan 4 #93
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #71
Yavin4 Jan 3 #73
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #74
Yavin4 Jan 3 #75
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #77
ucrdem Jan 3 #81
Demsrule86 Jan 4 #88
ucrdem Jan 5 #95
Demsrule86 Jan 7 #96
FakeNoose Dec 30 #7
Firestorm49 Dec 30 #8
Firestorm49 Dec 30 #9
Recursion Dec 30 #10
Doitnow Dec 30 #14
Recursion Dec 30 #15
GulfCoast66 Dec 30 #16
Doitnow Dec 31 #20
GulfCoast66 Dec 31 #21
Doitnow Dec 31 #24
still_one Jan 2 #26
karynnj Jan 3 #68
GulfCoast66 Jan 3 #76
ucrdem Jan 3 #82
karynnj Jan 4 #83
ucrdem Jan 4 #85
karynnj Jan 4 #86
Demsrule86 Jan 4 #91
karynnj Jan 3 #66
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #29
ucrdem Dec 30 #17
Recursion Dec 30 #18
ucrdem Dec 30 #19
GulfCoast66 Dec 31 #22
SkyDaddy7 Dec 31 #23
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #30
JHan Jan 2 #25
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #31
JHan Jan 2 #32
Recursion Jan 2 #33
Demsrule86 Jan 2 #35
Recursion Jan 2 #39
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #46
Recursion Jan 2 #50
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #57
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #59
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #72
karynnj Jan 4 #84
Demsrule86 Jan 4 #87
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #43
Recursion Jan 2 #44
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #47
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #60
Demsrule86 Jan 2 #36
Recursion Jan 2 #40
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #48
Recursion Jan 2 #51
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #53
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #64
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #61
Demsrule86 Jan 2 #34
Recursion Jan 2 #45
Farmer-Rick Jan 2 #49
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #63
Blue_Tires Jan 3 #62
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #65
Blue_Tires Jan 3 #67
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #69
Blue_Tires Jan 3 #78
Demsrule86 Jan 4 #90
Demsrule86 Jan 3 #70
ucrdem Jan 3 #79
Demsrule86 Jan 4 #89
ucrdem Jan 3 #80

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 06:56 AM

1. It is good to know there are some sane, knowlegable people still in the world.

Good on them, sad for us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pazzyanne (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 02:27 PM

11. I can recall when TPP was a hated term here...

Evil global corporatism, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 04:11 PM

12. Just like Obamacare was hated,

until people found out that it had some very good points to benefit them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pazzyanne (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 01:46 PM

94. Not even close to the same thing...the TPP provided benefits to rich globalists and

would cost jobs for US employers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #11)


Response to brooklynite (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:43 AM

37. The TPP is evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 05:32 PM

56. Only if you haven't read it and don't understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allgood33 (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:03 AM

58. Slavery is never good in an context. But I have read it actually...and it is as bad as I thought.

I have read as much as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pazzyanne (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:19 AM

27. This treaty aint all that good.

The secret courts run by corporate lawyers that are only accessed by giant multinational corporations don't help anyone but the uber rich. Despite the lifting of tariffs, countries have other ways of adding in taxes that support their home businesses, unlike the US.

It's still BS...free trade, there is NO such creature. No trade can occur without the protection of the state. Without governments and armies, police and courts there can be no trade.

Any environmental and labor protections in the treaty are in words only with NO fines or punishment for corporations constantly ignoring them.

These treaties are capitalism on steroids with no barriers to constant corporate abuse of labor and rigged markets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:53 AM

38. I remember Minnesota farmers and Jesse Ventura

back in the late 90's doing trade missions to China and other countries to encourage trade for their products. Their work went down the tube along with the TPP because of tRump's tariffs Soybean sales are in the crapper here in Minnesota, and they were a major contributor to agricultural income for a number of years. I don't think that this is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 08:24 AM

3. May not be a good deal for everyone...


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/us-farmers-helpless-as-tpp-boosts-aust

US farmers are upset that Australia and Canada will soon get a leg up on them under the TPP trade pact, with reduced tariffs selling wheat to Japan.

American farmers are facing the "imminent collapse" of key markets and fear uneven trade playing fields as Australian, Canadian and other rival nations take advantage of the soon-to-be implemented Trans-Pacific Partnership.

After President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the TPP on just his third day in the White House in 2017, the States will be left on the sidelines when the re-shaped TPP-11 comes into effect 12am on Sunday AEDT.

Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore were the first nations to ratify the agreement, formally titled the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement. Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Peru and Malaysia are set to follow in coming months

US farmers, already hit hard by Trump's tariff battle with China and the lack of a free trade agreement with Japan, are bracing to immediately lose market share.

American wheat and beef producers have been particularly vocal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maxheader (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 09:18 AM

4. When we were in it, it was supposed to be an anti-China bloc

Now it's going to function as an anti-China, anti-US bloc. Awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 10:03 AM

5. Thank you (not), 0range 45, for another ham-fisted adjustment to

help USA in global markets. And, let's remember to thank (not) his drugstore cowboys, TV economists, and TV lawyers for the damage they have done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 10:10 AM

6. The global economy is a reality that everyone has to come to terms with

Nations cannot economically isolate themselves without experiencing sharp economic declines. See Brexit. Yes, some workers will be displaced, but other workers will benefit. The solution is real assistance to displaced workers, not economic isolation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:31 AM

28. The solution is courts open to Unions and Environmental Groups NOT JUST Corporations

The secret is real living minimum wages and benefits with fines and punishments for violating them; not just flowery words and talk.

Yes, we live in an out of control capitalist trade environment. It doesn't mean we have to make it worse either. Trump's solutions are so stupid and childish that they are more like a ham fisted mobster trying to get protection money from a poor store owner. He would rather the owner go bankrupt then let him continue without paying up.

Things will get real bad before people realize the corporations and uber rich are NOT cutting you any breaks by getting your nations to sign on to these one sided deals. Free trade is just another scam brought to you by the RepubliCON party.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 10:57 AM

41. As consumers, we benefit from this "out of control capitalist trade environment"

No one talks about that side of the equation. No one wants to give up ordering low cost goods on Amazon, and construction companies, which employ thousands, love buying low cost steel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 01:43 PM

42. I feel you

It pisses me off to no end when customers complain about my organic produce and pasture raised meat prices. I work real hard, harder than most chemical farmers, to raise healthy, delicious and artificial chemical free foods. And by complaining about my prices they are telling me I don't deserve my salary.

We are just so use to cheap, cheap food; cheap, cheap labor; cheap, cheap products. But there is a down side to that. Cheap is unhealthy, cheap means low, low wages for you. Cheap means bad quality. And eventually, when the big guy has eaten up all the little fish even the crappy poor quality stuff will sell for more, and more and more.....just like all our medicines, pharmaceuticals and health care costs.

There are other ways to do it. Why do most corporations and the uber rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth than the middle class and poor? Where is all our tax money going? Why are we only subsidizing the richest, the biggest, the most powerful corporations on the planet while I, an organic small farmer, get beaten up by the whims of the market?

Something is not right here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 05:10 PM

52. Just came from Best Buy

They have 4K, flat screen TVs for $1500. For that TV to be made entirely here in the US--without ANY component parts imported, it would cost $15,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 05:17 PM

54. Perhaps

But that is only because all our manufacturing infrastructure has been shipped to cheap, cheap labor countries. If we had the infrastructure here, Americans could make it better and cheaper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 05:27 PM

55. It's not just the manufacturing that's the issue

It's the actual components as well. Samsung and Apple just compile the individual components into the finished product. They sub-contract out the parts and materials to make them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 11:04 AM

92. without jobs you can't buy stuff so jobs are more important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #92)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 11:19 AM

93. But there are jobs that come from globalization

Not ALL jobs are lost to globalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 12:31 PM

71. Signing onto bad deals that hurt our manufacturers is not the answer...we

need to stop this shit. And forge good agreements. It would help if trade wasn't used a tool of foreign policy. If Dems favor agreements like the TPP, it will destroy our election chances in 20.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 12:36 PM

73. How do you define "bad deals"?

Farmers would disagree with you. Construction workers would disagree with you, and consumers would disagree with you. Yes, some workers have been displaced, but workers get displayed more by automation and general advancements in technology than they do by trade deals. Think taxi drivers in NYC.

Protectionism does more to destroy our economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 12:44 PM

74. Workers have not been displaced their jobs were shipped out to countries with low wages. We can not

compete with such companies without strong agreement to raise wages in those countries which doesn't happen. I saw Delphi send thousands of jobs to Mexico where the workers were paid on average 1.00/hour...it is madness to expect American workers to prosper with such agreements ...these were jobs lost because of low wages period. I am against globalization as practiced today for the benefit of a few super rich individuals and corporations and the ruin of many...including the American middle class. Sen. Sanders was against the TPP and in this he was correct. This country is being destroyed with this misguided policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 01:08 PM

75. Not ALL workers. That's the problem.

Not every worker has been displaced. Some workers have benefitted including workers in mfg as component parts have gotten cheaper.

Also, you're forgetting consumers. Purchasing power by consumers have risen dramtically because of globalization. We have smart phones, better cars, TVs, etc. all because of globalization. Have you ever purchased something on Amazon? Do you have an iPhone?

If you want to see the effects of isolation, look at Brexit. They're literally talking about stock piling food because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 02:28 PM

77. Few have benefited compared to the loss of good paying jobs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 07:34 PM

81. US unemployment fell steadily from 1994 to 2000, and real wages steadily rose:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #81)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 10:44 AM

88. Really, take a look at Gary Indiana , Detroit or Youngstown Ohio...and now white collar jobs are

being sent overseas. Trade agreements never work for the Midwest...and Democrats will face steep election odds if they don't consider manufacturing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #88)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 04:01 PM

95. NAFTA didn't kill those rust belt jobs and pulling out of the TPP won't bring them back.

Those jobs started moving offshore after WWII and Detroit was in a crisis long before the Clintons took charge. I remember the popularity of Datsuns and Toyotas in the 1970s and Clinton was elected in 1992. NAFTA is an easy target but it's not the cause. The steel production that went to China for example -- China isn't a TPP signatory and wasn't part of NAFTA. But the jobs went there anyway. What good trade deals do is place some regulations on the countries we trade with and open up new markets for US products like produce and software. The old car and TV factories aren't coming back because those technologies are out of date. We need to keep innovating and we needed TPP to protect the intellectual property that makes US prosperity achievable for all workers and that includes green technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #95)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 12:58 PM

96. GM sent a new truck to Mexico a month ago...and trade agreement are killing our jobs...NAFTA

always sucked...it shutdown Delphi here among other companies...so spare me this.I promise you NAFTA has destroyed jobs here and elsewhere...so it gave a few agriculture jobs and what not...not even close to what was destroyed. I have lived it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 10:20 AM

7. Another sabotage of Obama's policy



The orange asshole is cutting off his nose (and all of ours too) for spite. I have a feeling the Walmart clan are really regretting the money they donated to Cheeto's campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 11:26 AM

9. Too many unknowns.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is bad legislation and I’m glad the US backed out.

Early in the conceptualization stages of this highly secretive act, it became known that the TPPP, largely designed and crafted by the corporations who stand to gain the most, would establish their own judicial court system to address violations of the act. The court system would not be the International Court, as one would expect, but rather be adjudicated by their own panel of judges, comprised of a rotating list of lawyers from the biggest corporations who seek to gain the most, thereby sidestepping universally recognized standards of law and creating their own terms of justice and settlement. Obama was a big promoter of this partnership, for which I am still puzzled. There were far too many unknowns then, as now. This act stinks. Until more is known about the fine print, I would avoid it like a bad fart, and I’m glad we’re out.

If a participating member exploits child labor, sends contaminated food through the pipeline, steals proprietary information or property, or in any way knowingly violated International standards set up for the protection of the masses, (you know, dupes like us) the TPPP Court would handle the issue, not the International Court. It’s not like any or all of this doesn’t happen in America right now - it does, largely due to the corrupt and greedy nature of the Republican Party (we don’t need no stinking regulations). By the way, have you noticed how every week we seem to have contaminated food being distributed? But at the very least, we have accepted legal standards to deal with the situation. The TPPP Courts and the TPPP charter would be a farce.

This is not a good agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firestorm49 (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 12:55 PM

10. You swallowed the Russian talking points very well

That is an excellent summary of the position Putin was paying to flood the Internet with 2 years ago.

Trade agreements have *always* had tribunals to adjudicate cases (and it is an international court, and you're just flat wrong about how the judges are selected). It was mind-boggling how crazy people got about that when it's been working for 50 years now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 07:03 PM

14. Well, how come Obama, the Dems or the media never told us that

it was just a false story propagated by the Russians. I'm just an average person who tries to keep up with what's what and I never heard them tell the story you are telling now. Gets to where the average person doesn't get to know the truth about anything till it's too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doitnow (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 07:13 PM

15. Obama did, nobody listened

He gave several speeches on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doitnow (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 08:00 PM

16. Guess you weren't listening.

Or heard what you wanted. President Obama fought hard and argued the Benefits endlessly.

But the anti-globalist left, rallied by Bernie Sanders, insured it was not popular with the majority of democrats. Facts be damned. This is not an attack but exactly what happened.

Hopefully the antiglobalization spasm has left our system and we can regain our place as the mature party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 12:31 AM

20. I heard him supporting thr tpp but never heard him refute

the assertion that the judges were named by corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doitnow (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 12:45 AM

21. God god man(or woman).

His whole campaign was built on opposition to things like the TPP and NAFTA. And Millionaires and Billionaires.

Claiming Sanders, or most people on DU supported TPP is re-righting history. Supporting it here about got many run off 2 years ago. I know.

President Obama was correct in his building and supporting it. The left wing of our party put a stake thru it’s heart.

Hopefully the anti-globalist, nationalist side of our party are learning there is a reason that FDR supported deals like that TPP. Obama sure did.

When in doubt, ask yourself, what would Obama do.

Coming here claiming that Sanders supported TPP is just incorrect.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:01 PM

24. Sorry if I misled you, but I meant that I never heard Obama refute

the claim that the TPP contained the implication that corporations would name the judges. That was why Sanders opposed it. I should have been clearer. I heard Obama supporting it and it seemed to me so inconsistent with all that I thought of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:15 AM

26. Part of the reason we are where we are today are because of those who subscribe to the all or

nothing principle

That is rarely how things work.


Ironically, the ignoramus who occupies the WH embraces that principle, and enough people were duped by it, still are, in spite of the constant lies and dishonesty that this administration continues to propagate.

As for the U.S. farmers, auto workers, and other industries adversely affected by the trade wars, and policies of this administration, I have very little sympathy for them. They should have learned their lesson after Reagan, and his failed trickle down economics. Even with the election of George W. Bush, and the economic implosion that occurred from that fiasco, they failed to learn lessons of the past.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:47 AM

68. Bernie long led that argument, but the blow that likely killed things was Clinton joining the

anti TPP call. The Obama administration did not stop explaining TPP, but they did shift where they spoke out.

I really wished then that Clinton had argued that TPP was good, but needed some fixes that she has President would get. Her experience and involvement as SoS would give credibility to that statement. It also could have been seen as something that would counter one of the most negative memes against her and Bill Clinton - that they were led by polling and triangulating. I doubt that doing that - rather than announcing the 180 degree shift - could have cost her the primary.

I suspect it could have helped her in the general election. It would have made the release of the GS transcript less damaging because her position on TPP would have been very consistent. (As it was the RW spun it as if she said one thing in private to GS, the opposite to the public -- when in fact, what she said in 2013/2014 was the same in public and in private.) Not to mention, it could have gained her more of the Republicans troubled by Trump. For people voting on this issue as their voting issue -- I think she lost them to both Bernie and to Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 01:57 PM

76. I can't disagree with your political theory.

I was disappointed when she seemed to shift her beliefs on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 08:06 PM

82. Barack signed it into law in 2015. The blow that killed it was electing Trump.

And that was not Hillary's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #82)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 06:34 AM

83. It never passed the Senate

The vote in 2015 was to give it fast track, meaning among other things, that when it came to a vote it could not be amended. Once Clinton declared against it, it would have been impossible for Obama to push for a vote pre election.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #83)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 09:33 AM

85. The US and 11 other nations formally signed the deal on Feb 4, 2016.

That initiated a 2-year ratification period that was still in progress when Barack left office. Trump ended our participation and killed the original deal, which took five years to negotiate, thus satisfying the demands of his many fans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-11-nations-formally-sign-largest-regional-trade-deal-in-history/2016/02/03/2db4ab26-caa4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html?utm_term=.17d0a3674249

Hillary had no formal role in the ratification process. She expressed reservations about the lack of currency manipulation controls, which could have been added in a side agreement. It never came to her desk to sign. She did not spend years campaigning against the TPP. She did not fund raise off her opposition to it. She did not hold rallies to vociferously object to giving Barack Obama fast-track authority, which Congress voted to give him anyway. She did not demagogue against free trade and she did not agree with Trump that "“We are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.”

Trump statement here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/17/this-is-what-trump-and-sanders-get-wrong-about-free-trade/?utm_term=.d7434f8d310e

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #85)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 10:06 AM

86. Nothing I said disagrees with that

The President always formally signs trade deal, but then needs to get them ratified. On TPP, Obama did win one vote - the one for fast track. The administration never pushed for a vote, though there were many articles in 2016 suggesting it would be taken up in the lame duck session because Obama wanted it passed while he was President. Hillary was not in the government in 2016, however, I think the nominee of the party certainly has influence.

I did not say she spent years campaigning against TPP -- in fact, she praised it even after she was President in her book, "Hard Choices". It was a key element of the "switch to Asia". She also praised it in the controversial GS talks given in 2014. It was in October 2015, as Sanders surged, that she came out against it -- even though she was still comfortably ahead. Not to mention, the agreement by October 2015 was stronger and better than it was earlier in the negotiations - including on the various issues she listed.

It is one thing to defend her and accept her explanation in 2016, but there is no reason to do so now. I think her decision there was both political and likely ultimately hurt her as it reinforced memes that she was "triangulating".

No, she was not the demagogue that Trump is -- or --- the ideologue that Sanders is. However, her shift likely played into Obama not pushing the issue in 2016. It impacted the number of Democrats who Obama would lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 11:03 AM

91. No it wouldn't have helped her. The TPP was very unpopular...for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doitnow (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:33 AM

66. Obama and many in his administration, including John Kerry explained TTP

and advocated for it at the point where they got the vote to "fast track" legislation. I think that things became trickier in 2016 when the Democratic nominee unambiguously changed her position - from it being the gold standard to being against it. Obama administration people continued to back it and explain it -- but they did so at think tanks. Example - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/secretary-state-john-kerry-makes-the-case-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp These talks would be heard by Senators, Congressmen and their staffs, but would be low key enough not to generate articles speaking about the disagreement between the popular President Obama and nominee Clinton.

Since Trump pulled out, Kerry has made a good point -- if Trump really was the best deal maker as he has claimed, he could have gone to the other countries and demanded some specific changes -- and he likely would have won on at least some. (However, Trump has used many TPP improvements on NAFTA in his new US, Canada and Mexico agreement.)

One good thing about the other countries taking this live is that when we win in 2020, a Democratic President could propose the US joining it. We will still have lost because we were not there now. Some contracts that we lose now will never be regained if the other provider keeps the consumers happy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:39 AM

29. That is NOT true

Go read the agreements. I have.

The parts that got out actually describe the tribunals. ONLY Corporations and governments have access to them. There are NO penalties for failing to pay fair wages or destroying the environment. It's just a bunch of pretty words about labor and the environment with NO teeth.

Yes, there are tribunals in other agreements and they are just as bad as these are. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Go read up on some of the results of the tribunals under NAFTA or CAFTA. These monstrous give away of our national sovereignty have never worked except to benefit the owners of large corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 08:37 PM

17. Where are they now

Robert Reich, Lori Wallach, Jules A and assorted other TPP naysayers?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 08:49 PM

18. Reich was more a "meh" sayer

He didn't like some of the IP provisions (I didn't either, for that matter). I got the feeling he came out moderately anti- just to avoid the backlash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 30, 2018, 08:54 PM

19. Jan 19, 2014: "The TPP is NAFTA on steroids."

“STOP THE TPP. Congress is poised to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (that is, move it through both houses without opportunity for amendment).”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/01/29/robert-reich-for-fast-track-before-he-was-against-it/?utm_term=.d901f0df5fb1

That was Reich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 12:48 AM

22. Right! The attemt to re-right history on DU is astounding.

Anyone who tried to support it here 2-3 years ago got run out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 05:23 AM

23. Without a Doubt!!

You’re 100% correct!! …3yrs ago there was ZERO TOLERANCE on DU for the TPP & even less for anyone who dare break from group think & say the TPP had far more positives than negatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:42 AM

30. You are correct.

And now everyone is for the TPP.

The agreements are still bad but at least they are predictable and benefit large monopolies and corporate kings. Trump only benefits organized crime and himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 07:34 AM

25. Relieved they kept the unionization requirements for Vietnam,

This is what every expert on trade said would happen but fuck the experts right? Trade deals happen with or without us, it's whether we want in or not. President Obama wisely knew the ramifications, and due to ignorant attacks from the left and right, the TPP became so politically toxic, people just lost their damn minds on anti-establishment bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:45 AM

31. Requirements???????

There are no requirements in that trade deal. Just flowery words and pretty talk. There are no penalties to corporations or organized crime for abusing labor. They can undercut wages and take away benefits and NOTHING happens to the corporations or crime families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:51 AM

32. sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:23 AM

33. You need to read it, because you clearly haven't

Vietnam and Malaysia's annexes require the introduction of minimum wages, recognition of international union affiliation, and local election rather than appointment of union representatives.

Seriously. You need to read the treaty; you claim to but you're making it clear you haven't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:37 AM

35. So did NAFTA and none of it will ever be enforced.

This was drafted by business behind closed doors...Globalist. While a trade deal would be good...not this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 10:23 AM

39. It's been enforced by NAFTA, FFS

AFL-CIO has successfully sued Mexico multiple times over the unionization implementation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 01:58 PM

46. NO, NO Union has ever sued under any free trade agreements

They don't have standing in the tribunals. Countries and nations have sued, they have standing, (perhaps on behalf of Unions, perhaps NOT) But Unions and Environmental Groups have absolutely NO Standing in these trade courts. Only Corporations and Nations can use these courts.

If a union objects, they have to go and convince an executive level politician to take up their cause and file a complaint for them. Obama did several times. If a corporation objects, they go right to the court or tribunal, do not pass go, do not collect $200. They have special standing.

So, no matter what the right wing propaganda tells you, Unions, labor, environmental and citizens groups have to convince someone in their country that they are being abused. AND if corporations want to, they can go the political route too. But a corporation has an extra special court they can use anytime their little heart desires. WHY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 02:20 PM

50. You're just factually wrong. You need to do some reading on this

Stop just believing talking points

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 05:33 PM

57. Read the documents they are everywhere.

ONLY Investors (corporations) AND states can dispute......

From the UAW: https://uaw.org/solidarity-magazine/president-nafta-must-work-workers/

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in NAFTA must be eliminated. ISDS gives corporations and investors the right to sue governments that pass laws that affect profits. An ISDS claim sidesteps the country’s legal system and allows an ISDS tribunal to decide the case based on the rules of NAFTA. This process lacks transparency and undermines the whole idea of democracy because corporations are given special powers that put them in the driver’s seat above laws and regulations passed by our lawmakers.

The new NAFTA must include punitive duties for labor violations. We can’t allow labor violations to be settled using a weak dispute settlement system that fails to hold violators accountable. Taking into account the decades long suppression of labor rights in Mexico, labor violations should be subject to punitive duties, such as tariffs. Labor unions in all three countries should have standing to bring charges of labor abuses — regardless of whether the union represents the workers.

This was written in August 2017. I'm pretty sure he didn't get what he wanted in the last paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:06 AM

59. No it hasn't . My hubs worked in autos for years...and Mexico did not enforce any of

those sort of rules...they got a new GM truck this year because they their pay is so shitty...Americans forced to compete with very badly paid workers...that is what these agreements do. I thank God we are not in the TPP...it was a bad agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 12:33 PM

72. Successful? I don't think so...how about a link.

And Mexico has violated workers rights since NAFTA was signed...with no accountability. 500,000 auto job is a conservative number of auto jobs lost because of NAFTA- I saw brand new Delphi presses sent to Mexico along with thousands of jobs just a couple of years ago- so spare me the global love. It is not so....and the TPP allows korea and Japan to continue screwing the US autos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 06:39 AM

84. No NAFTA did not have those provisions

Clinton promised them as side agreements, which he backed, but which never were agreed to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #84)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 10:41 AM

87. Not really true.

NAFTA was supplemented by two other regulations: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). These side agreements were intended to prevent businesses from relocating to other countries to exploit lower wages, more lenient worker health and safety regulations, and looser environmental regulations.

NAFTA did not eliminate regulatory requirements on companies wishing to trade internationally, such as rule of origin regulations and documentation requirements that determine whether certain goods can be traded under NAFTA. The free-trade agreement also contains administrative, civil and criminal penalties for businesses that violate any of the three countries’ laws or customs procedures.


These agreements are worth nothing and always cost American jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 01:46 PM

43. And what are the penalties for failure to comply????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 01:55 PM

44. They're set by those tribunals you seem so horrified by.

They're generally either direct monetary damages or granting the right for partner countries to implement tariffs in retaliation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 02:03 PM

47. Only if a country or nation takes up their cause for them.

They CAN NOT go to the tribunal and file on their own behalf. Only Nations and corporations can do that. AND a corporation can also get an executive level politician to file on their behalf too. So, corporations have 2 access points to the courts (and some people say 3 but that is another story) while you and I, unions and citizens have only one way and it is a political route that frequently is unsuccessful.

Also by the way, there are specific penalties describes in the agreement for countries if they fail to follow the agreement. NOT so if corporations fail to pay minimum wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:07 AM

60. Yep the tribunals are a joke and the US will win well never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:39 AM

36. No enforcement mechanism...all these great 'rights' and no way to make it happen...and that

treaty allows slave labor. Congress tried to get it out with a law...

That measure would bar governments considered to be complicit in human trafficking from receiving the economic benefits of a fast-tracked trade deal. Menendez, the author of the provision, has described it as a human rights protection that will prevent U.S. workers from competing with modern-day slave labor.

The administration has pushed against the provision, saying it would prevent Malaysia from participating in the deal, and eliminate incentives for the country to upgrade its human trafficking enforcement. Human rights advocates strongly support the language that passed the Senate on Friday.

The president argues that if the U.S. doesn’t cut deals with these partner countries, China will, to U.S. disadvantage.

I completely disagree with Pres.Obama's stance on this..although I adore him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 10:23 AM

40. This is hilarious: you complain about the tribunals, and then complain there is no enforcement

The tribunals are the enforcement mechanism. That's what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 02:06 PM

48. ONLY Corporations and nations have standing to use the tribunals. NOT Unions, NOT citizens,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 02:21 PM

51. You should really learn more about NAFTA

Because you really don't understand how the dispute resolution system works

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 05:14 PM

53. You don't either if you think Unions are taking their cases

for resolution to the tribunals. They are NOT.

Read the blasted documents. They are posted everywhere.

ONLY Nations and Corporations/investors can use the tribunals.

Here is a summary:
What types of disputes do they handle?
These bodies broadly deal with two types of disputes: state-state, in which governments challenge the trade policies of other governments, and investor-state, in which individual investors file complaints against governments.

State-State. Most state-state disputes are handled by the WTO system, the primary body governing international trade. Each of its 164 members have agreed to rules about trade policy, such as limiting tariffs and restricting subsidies. A member can appeal to the WTO if it believes another member is violating those rules. The United States, for instance, has repeatedly brought WTO cases against China over its support for various export industries, including one in early 2017 alleging that Beijing unfairly subsidizes aluminum producers. While that case has not been decided, the Trump administration retaliated by unilaterally imposing tariffs on some individual Chinese aluminum producers as well as broader tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports to the United States that are also meant to target Chinese overproduction.

Investor-State. Known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases, these disputes typically involve foreign businesses claiming that a host government abused them by expropriating their assets, discriminating against them, or otherwise treating them unfairly. For example, a Canadian gold mining company claimed that Venezuela’s nationalization of the gold industry in 2011 violated an investment treaty between the two countries. A tribunal found that while Venezuela had the legal right to nationalize private sector industries, it failed to properly compensate the company for the expropriated assets.

Notice that citizens and Unions are never mentioned. But some fat rich dude who wants to make money off of selling you crap sure is.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-are-trade-disputes-resolved

And I think the CFR is a right wing mouth piece, yet they have nothing but positives to say about it. Someone should warn the Russians that their bribes are going to promote free trade agreements.

But you can clearly read between the lines. The capitalist trumps labor every time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:22 AM

64. No it doesn't...hubs worked in more than a few auto plants over the years...and many closed because

of agreements like NAFTA and the TPA...I well remember one incident which was in Europe....and the trade agreement required Germany to take a certain number of Autos. The took half the number required. The rest had to be scrapped at great expense. The government under Bush II refused to enforce the Trade agreement...things like this happen all the time. The Lordstown plant that was shut down was competing with Mexico workers who make the hatchback version of the Cruze and Cruzes for the "Mexican" market...these agreements are abused for great profits and there is no enforcement. Those who crafted these things made sure of it. You see it is the exploitation of third world workers that provides the profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:08 AM

61. FAKE enforcement. Tribunals are a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:36 AM

34. That is a bad treaty. It allows slave labor.

I have no regrets about not signing on to that deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 01:55 PM

45. It does not allow slave labor

These are nonsense Russian-funded talking points. It absolutely does not allow slave labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 02:10 PM

49. It has absolutely NO penalties if a corporation uses slaves.

Maybe a country will file for the abused worker maybe NOT. I can't imagine Russia filing a complaint if their people are used as slaves....not if little Putin's palm is greased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:15 AM

63. Really...Malaysia was allowed to be part of the TPP ....there was a big argument about it because

they are a slave owning country complete with slave camps...this is not Russian talking point. And if one has to deny the truth about the TPP and blame Russians, it shows how bad this agreement is.

"The governments in Malaysia and Indonesia rely on palm oil to stimulate economic development, providing little financial incentive for government crackdowns on the industrie’s use of forced labor. Meanwhile laborers face harsh and dangerous working conditions with little to no access to justice.

Workers struggle to survive and sustain their families as plantation owners pay them little to no wages. Palm oil producers often utilize financial punishments when employees make mistakes or fail to meet arbitrary work targets. Laborers interviewed by Amnesty International admitted to needing to make their children and spouses join them in the fields to meet targets for work to avoid these financial consequences.

Children involved in palm oil production are made to carry large loads of heavy fruit, weed fields, and spend hours every day bent over collecting fruit from the plantation floor. Heat exhaustion as well as cuts and bruises from climbing thorny palms are commonplace. To avoid being culpable for profiting from child labor, companies do not officially recognize children as laborers and the children receive little or no pay for their grueling work." Malaysia should never have been allowed in until the issue of slavery was addressed...child slavery no less.


https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/slavery-palm-oil-industry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:08 AM

62. Assange killing the TPP single-handedly was

an even more deftly pulled stunt than the 2016 election...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:25 AM

65. And how did that happen? I am not an Assange fan but

when people saw what was in the secret agreement written by the powerful...it was show for what it was ...a bad treaty. If the treaty was so great why the secrecy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 09:45 AM

67. Because trade negotiations are usually done "in secret"?

Because a bunch of other similar international trade deals have been signed by other nations since 2015 and the self-appointed "human rights/transparency/corporate-globalism-is-bad-as-long-as-we-aren't-talking-about-my-iPhone" activist crowd (who Assange played like a 5-cent flute) has been oddly silent about them?

Nevermind the fact that this thing was fishy from the start especially given that Assange wasn't going to be affected either way... And when you ask yourself "Exactly who benefits the most from the TPP being killed (or better yet, the TPP being passed with the U.S. excluded)? It all becomes clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 12:23 PM

69. The TPP was fishy which allowed slave countries like Malaysia to join...sorry it was a bad agreement

Just because Trump opposed it doesn't mean it was a good agreement. It wasn't. It was another bend over Americans workers, you are about to be screwed over once more. There are all sorts of high minded rhetoric in these things but no reasonable enforcement mechanisms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 04:30 PM

78. The same Malaysia that's angling for an FTA with the EU?

That Malaysia?

And please illustrate to me how much better things have gotten for the American worker since we pulled out of the TPP...

You don't think it's the slightest bid odd that the global online activist community stopped caring about the impact of free trade on human rights and not knowing what's in trade negotiations after the TPP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #78)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 11:01 AM

90. Trump is an idiot...which doesn't mean that the TPP was a good agreement ...it was a bad

agreement and would not have passed if Hillary Clinton had become president. There was much opposition to it in the US...and I stiil oppose it. As for the EU...if they want to do business with a slave owning country that uses child labor...so be it...they will destroy their own workers in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 12:27 PM

70. You have provided no evidence to show your talking points are correct.

Slavery in TPP countries exist and was a big deal when it was discovered...not a Russian talking point...this terrible agreement was created to destroy American workers and allow global corporations to exploit third world workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 07:13 PM

79. "The participating nations will scrap tariffs on most products."

"Japan, for its part, will eliminate import duties on 95 percent of items." That's from the link in the OP. That would have been good news for US farmers, also software and electronics manufacturers. Cars too. The results of pulling out and getting into a trade war with China instead are becoming ever more apparent as the inevitable recession deepens.

Malaysia: Malaysia hasn't actually ratified the treaty just yet, though it's a signatory, but its migrant worker problem was addressed directly in the original TPP. From the 2015 USTR fact sheet:

ͦ Malaysia. We have worked closely with the Malaysian Government
and stakeholders in the international community to fight trafficking in
persons—and in July 2015, Malaysia passed significant reforms to its
Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants (ATIPSOM) law
that improves protections and support for victims of trafficking. TPP
requires that these legal reforms be supported by additional legal and
institutional reforms to protect migrant workers’ rights and strengthen
the enforcement of Malaysia’s laws.


https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Standing-Up-for-Human-Rights-Fact-Sheet.pdf

More details at the link. Whether all the human rights provisions remain I don't know, but the OP article says Malaysia "signed the CPTPP, a revised version, after suspending some provisions in the original agreement." So our pulling out didn't accomplish much in that department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 10:53 AM

89. Japan doesn't stop us with 'tariffs' they use false 'safety' bullshit and fees ...they dump on our

market and make it up in the home marked...a closed market. And Korea will allow no cars to be sold unless they are manufactured there...so none of what you say happens. Malaysia has done nothing to stop slave labor in the palm oil industry...so your post shows how trade agreements are giant lies. Malaysia should not have been admitted to the treaty until they ended slavery and child slavery in many cases too. Oh and GM makes Buick for the Chinese market in China because they could not be manufactured here and sold there and China owns 51% of all companies...and when a company decides too return to the US from Mexico or a number of other countries including China, they can leave but the presses and equipment must be left behind...spare me the Trade agreement double talk which mostly is a pack of lies that will make a few rich and destroy workers US workers while exploiting third world workers. Cell phones are made essentially with slave labor...consider the workers locked up in giant dorms with no freedom to leave who work seven days a week and have killed themselves leading to giant suicide prevention nets. These agreements are worthless and not enforceable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 07:27 PM

80. WaPo: "Why Obama's key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers"

from March 12, 2015:

But if the TPP has little downside for the U.S., what’s the upside? Why bother with the deal at all? The reason is that the TPP is about much more than manufacturing. Most notably, it promises to liberalize trade in services and in agriculture, sectors in which the United States runs large trade surpluses, but which the World Trade Organization, despite 20 years of trying, has failed to pry open internationally. Successfully exporting information and computer services, where the U.S. maintains substantial technological leadership, requires more than low tariffs. It also requires protecting patents against infringement and safeguarding business assets and revenues against expropriation by foreign governments. To the extent that Obama succeeds in enshrining these guarantees in the TPP, the agreement would give a substantial boost to U.S. trade.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026716674

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread