http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...rade-deal.html
Finally some real news
Good for Bernie
It was dead anyway. But BigCorp/BigPharma will bring similar back later.
Bernie Sanders supports Trump's TPP order while McCain criticizes opting out
https://www.theguardian.com/business...rs-john-mccain
The parallel b/w both as far as trade agreements is why I would've been okay w/ Bernie at the helm. The corporate money mainly driving those interests has butt ed this country for years. Glad to see is changing.
Nice move by Trump, the TPP.
glad to see Trump follow through on this. I'm sure if Shillary was elected she would be backpedaling on her election TPP stance right about now.
Good news.
Now let's see if Trump doesn't actually make an even worse deal out of this to benefit his rich friends.
How are his rich friends going to help him? It's the voters who'll get him re-elected if he does what he campaigned on and helps the forgotten man/woman.
A bunch of billionaires in his cabinet are working for the forgotten man
Yup.
This might be an unpopular opinion here but IMO this was a lost opportunity for the US. Corporations are in any case going to try and move jobs to cheaper locations, with or without trade agreements. TPP would at least have set a few common standards for member countries such as minimum wages, occupational safety, patent protection, telecom tarrifs etc.
The relationship between free trade agreements and outsourcing is one of correlation, not causation. Example: the US doesn't have free trade agreements with either India or China, but US corporations outsource heavily to both countries. Populism, however, does not need to adhere to rational arguments.
"set a few common standards" these have been ignored, unenforced in previous trade agreements, it's all bull , and BigCorp doesn't care.
BigCorp/capital doesn't give a about labor, it's all about exploiting labor
TPP was pushed for BigPharma, ISDS, BigFinance, not for protecting labor.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/do ents/BrokenPromises.pdf
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-24-2017 at 08:57 AM.
Great news for China they can increase their influence in the Pacific and even make their own version of TPP.
Smart of them to celebrate quietly
I like Elizabeth Warren's activism against corporate interests, but in this case she is making perfect the enemy of good. Yes, enforcement of standards is difficult, but the alternative is no standards. With no standards, you get the worst case scenario - like the fire in a Bangladesh garment factory that caused over 100 workers to die.
Corporations aren't going to adhere to standards if their compe ors can get away with bad practices. And while there is a tendency to portray all firms as soulless vampires, in my experience many organizations have beefed up their compliance functions in the wake of legislation (E.g client money segregation for banks, labeling and product information standards for pharma etc).
"alternative is no standards" which is just fine with BigCorp
standards, regulations, liveable wages cost money meaning BigCorp will lose profits so foreign factories, 1000s of miles away, have standards.
The whole point of BigCorp off-shoring is to avoid the domestic costs of USA having standards, worker/environmental protections, "somewhat" liveable wages.
BigCorp capitalists seek only more profit, and have no morals or ethics written into their corporate charters. BigCorp is immoral, or at best amoral.
He said while slurping his Starbucks coffee, listening to his iPod and wearing Jordan sneakers.
Liberals LOVE Blood on their products. Disgusting you are.
setting up standards for wages, occupational safety, etc for a bunch of countries not including china does next to nothing tbh
different issue/same problem as the kyoto protocol. thats why paris accords were a big deal
US designed TPP as a counter balance to China’s economic might (China was excluded from TPP); now they pulled out, China designed RCEP to exclude US instead.
In 2016, prospective RCEP member states accounted for a population of 3.4 billion people with a total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $21.4 trillion, approximately 30 percent of the world's GDP.
So half of the world population and 30% of world’s economy will trade freely while American exporters must pay tariff to enter this market.
The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a so-called mega-regional economic agreement being negotiated between the 10 ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) governments and their six FTA partners: Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.
"US designed TPP as a counter balance to China’s economic might"
That was the smokescreen, the "pivot" bull .
The real motivation was enhanced ISDS with more countries, and enhanced patent bullying in more countries.
It wasn't even about lower tariffs because tariffs are already low if existent between the TPP countries. And it certainly wasn't about "improved labor protections" in foreign countries.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2...whats-big-dealOn the basis of size alone, TPP would have been important, the largest regional trade deal in history. It encompassed 12 Pacific countries, including America, Japan and Canada (see chart). Together, they account for two-fifths of the world economy. But what made it all the more significant was its strategic intent. Notably absent from the membership was China. Economically, this made little sense. Studies indicated that including China, the world’s biggest exporter, would have substantially expanded the benefits of TPP. But America wanted to show that it could set Asia’s economic agenda. China might eventually have been invited to join TPP, but only after America had written “the rules of the road”, as its negotiators liked to say.
Rather than a conventional focus on cutting tariffs, TPP emphasised stronger safeguards for intellectual property, the environment and labour rights (detractors felt it went too far on the first and not far enough on the other two). Matthew Goodman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, considers its collapse a “body blow” to American economic policy in Asia.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2...a-trading-down
The prime beneficiary of this is China.
Careful what you wish for, Snakeboy, because what will replace it will be even less to your liking, which will be a set of rules dictated by China, that benefit China. I am guessing you are largely ignorant of what the TPP actually is or does.Over the years rich countries have cut tariffs to the point where the main obstacles to commerce now lie in regulations that discriminate against foreign companies. TPP took aim at barriers hidden in government-procurement guidelines and investment restrictions. It would have raised the bar for future trade deals, says Jayant Menon of the Asian Development Bank: “That’s where the biggest loss lies.”
Trump is seeking to dismantle a lot of the international ins utions built by our country over decades, that give us a very large say in what goes on.
Replacing that framework with "bilateral" agreements will mean that large groups getting together that can act as trade blocks will be able to out leverage the US. China is working to build that alternative framework, and Trumps alienation of allies and foes alike will drive other countries to join.
But hey, maybe Teleprompter Boy will surprise us.
I see you agree with Snakeboy: the TPP is a bad, bad thing.
And that Haley woman, the new UN Ambassador laid the law down this morning. "And for those who do not have our back. We'll be taking notes."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
