libertarian Party was looking attractive

[Jhhnn]

Normally everybody thinks you run with Stupid perpetually set to 11. It's nice when you occasionally show us that you can kick Stupid into overdrive when you wish. It's like when a gang murders a whole family and we think "Gee, I'm glad they usually just murder one or two people at a time." Except with stupidity instead of guns of course.

Empty derision that fails to address the content of my post.

The are 3 loci of power in the modern world- Wealth, Religion & egalitarian democracy. Prior to the Enlightenment & the creation of our Republic, there were only 2. Diminish any one and the others will fill the void.

 

[Exophase]

Yeah, your analogies are always amusing. Unfortunately, I will continue to be unimpressed by arguments for or against this trade deal until I see a case made from reasonable evidence. In particular, I refuse to conform to the zeitgeist against trade agreements largely because the last time around with NAFTA, after all the doomsaying and bellyaching, the evidence suggests we didn't really lose net jobs from it. I'm open to persuasion about the TPP but the opposition right now feels ideological rather than evidence based.

Like you said before, the economic arguments have been very varied and contradictory. Because any economic model is going to include many assumptions. It's also difficult to really draw conclusions from previous trade deals because there have been so many other variables that went with them. I disagree with you that the evidence doesn't show a net loss in jobs - some studies don't, some do. We shouldn't stop there and just take that to mean they cancel each other out. There's at the very least a component of reasonable risk.

Pretty much everyone, including most in favor of the TPP, acknowledge that some American industries will suffer. That's kind of a given when they're opened up to competition at much cheaper prices. The argument is that other industries will grow enough to compensate. I don't know if that's a given. There's something less than intuitive about the notion that the growth in the import job industry generates jobs the same way the production industry does. And it's not like the people who lose those jobs will all be able to work at the new jobs.

There's also something of an ideological disconnect between the American left generally supporting a big minimum wage hike but being comfortable with American companies paying foreigners well under $1 an hour for the same work. Maybe if we at least pushed for trade deals that ensured that American companies can't simply use them to exploit cheaper labor and had to pay the same minimum everywhere this would be a different discussion. But that doesn't seem to be a direction anyone is really looking at, not something that the TPP addresses and not something that would be very enforceable anyway.

But the economic implications are really not the entire story and ultimately I'm more concerned about other issues it brings. For example, involving intellectual property. TPP would spread America's standard of copyright terms of author's death + 70 years to all of the member countries. I don't know about you, but I find American copyright law to be utterly onerous, with terms that allow your grandchild to collect on your works into their old age. These terms have clearly been negotiated by corporate lobbyists and are not in the favor of society at large. TPP also makes it worse by increasing criminality, meaning you can go to jail for non-profit copyright violations. By making these things part of TPP this means that no country can unilaterally push against these restrictions; they have to agree as a collective which is a very difficult standard. And they will have an international tribunal that exists outside of any country's judiciary system for trying offenses.

There are similar issues with the environment, safety, etc. Countries can't impose new environmental regulations (eg, carbon tax, ban on fracking) if they inhibit another member country from doing business. There are already lawsuits ongoing over earlier trade deals. TPP has some environmental requirements but it sets a very low bar. For those of us looking at even incremental progress in safeguarding against climate change and moving to more environmentally friendly energy this is a huge, huge impediment.

You can make a philosophical argument about free trade, how it overall increases efficiency, and you can look at studies of possible economic benefit of TPP but please don't fall into the trap that all free trade deals are the same or don't come with dangerous provisions tacked on. The secrecy of TPP's drafting has been mentioned before - I will say that this alone doesn't necessary make it bad, but politicians should not be endorsing let alone speaking of fast tracking trade agreements that are handled in secret and shrouded in speculation and information brought only by leaks. And frankly, there's no good reason why something like this should not be developed publicly and transparently, except to protect corporate interests. More than a few commentators have said that the leaks look like a Christmas wish list for big global corporations and it's not hard to see how.

 

[TheGardener]

The slogan of the Libertarian Party is Minimum Government and Maximum Freedom. But that has nothing to do with 80% of the people who consider themselves Libertarians. All they want is dope. They want to legally get high and stay high. Whether you agree with legalizing pot or not, the fact remains its what their membership wants. Most Libertarians could care less about any other issue that concerns people who post here. Years ago I wanted an alternative to the Dems and RINO's. I checked out Harry Browne who was the Libertarian candidate. On TV shows with talking heads, he espoused his views regarding limited government. But when I listened to him give speeches to his followers, all he talked about was legalizing pot. So that's how I know about what Libertarians want.

I am familiar with Bill Weld, Johnson's VP choice. He's a RINO and political hack, who did little as governor of Mass. He's been a alcoholic for decades.

 

[agent00f]

Like you said before, the economic arguments have been very varied and contradictory. Because any economic model is going to include many assumptions. It's also difficult to really draw conclusions from previous trade deals because there have been so many other variables that went with them. I disagree with you that the evidence doesn't show a net loss in jobs - some studies don't, some do. We shouldn't stop there and just take that to mean they cancel each other out. There's at the very least a component of reasonable risk.

Pretty much everyone, including most in favor of the TPP, acknowledge that some American industries will suffer. That's kind of a given when they're opened up to competition at much cheaper prices. The argument is that other industries will grow enough to compensate. I don't know if that's a given. There's something less than intuitive about the notion that the growth in the import job industry generates jobs the same way the production industry does. And it's not like the people who lose those jobs will all be able to work at the new jobs.

There's also something of an ideological disconnect between the American left generally supporting a big minimum wage hike but being comfortable with American companies paying foreigners well under $1 an hour for the same work. Maybe if we at least pushed for trade deals that ensured that American companies can't simply use them to exploit cheaper labor and had to pay the same minimum everywhere this would be a different discussion. But that doesn't seem to be a direction anyone is really looking at, not something that the TPP addresses and not something that would be very enforceable anyway.

But the economic implications are really not the entire story and ultimately I'm more concerned about other issues it brings. For example, involving intellectual property. TPP would spread America's standard of copyright terms of author's death + 70 years to all of the member countries. I don't know about you, but I find American copyright law to be utterly onerous, with terms that allow your grandchild to collect on your works into their old age. These terms have clearly been negotiated by corporate lobbyists and are not in the favor of society at large. TPP also makes it worse by increasing criminality, meaning you can go to jail for non-profit copyright violations. By making these things part of TPP this means that no country can unilaterally push against these restrictions; they have to agree as a collective which is a very difficult standard. And they will have an international tribunal that exists outside of any country's judiciary system for trying offenses.

There are similar issues with the environment, safety, etc. Countries can't impose new environmental regulations (eg, carbon tax, ban on fracking) if they inhibit another member country from doing business. There are already lawsuits ongoing over earlier trade deals. TPP has some environmental requirements but it sets a very low bar. For those of us looking at even incremental progress in safeguarding against climate change and moving to more environmentally friendly energy this is a huge, huge impediment.

You can make a philosophical argument about free trade, how it overall increases efficiency, and you can look at studies of possible economic benefit of TPP but please don't fall into the trap that all free trade deals are the same or don't come with dangerous provisions tacked on. The secrecy of TPP's drafting has been mentioned before - I will say that this alone doesn't necessary make it bad, but politicians should not be endorsing let alone speaking of fast tracking trade agreements that are handled in secret and shrouded in speculation and information brought only by leaks. And frankly, there's no good reason why something like this should not be developed publicly and transparently, except to protect corporate interests. More than a few commentators have said that the leaks look like a Christmas wish list for big global corporations and it's not hard to see how.

For IP rights or similar high end property, they benefit the owner/bourgeois classes. To clarify, in order for the US or such to continue prosperity, more of their citizens need to become the bourgeois in the greater scheme of things. Meaning they own the property/capital that the rest of the world consumes.

To be effective for more americans instead of just the current relatively few producing that property, long term strategic investment is necessary in education & such for future generations. That's the meaningful work on ground that produces results, in contrast to the generalizations & stats which at best only show where the problems might lie.

 

[Jhhnn]

How can you have maximum freedom w/o legalized cannabis?

 

[TheGardener]

How can you have maximum freedom w/o legalized cannabis?

Tell Hillary. Maybe her staff can write a 200 page policy statement on this.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The slogan of the Libertarian Party is Minimum Government and Maximum Freedom. But that has nothing to do with 80% of the people who consider themselves Libertarians. All they want is dope. They want to legally get high and stay high. Whether you agree with legalizing pot or not, the fact remains its what their membership wants. Most Libertarians could care less about any other issue that concerns people who post here. Years ago I wanted an alternative to the Dems and RINO's. I checked out Harry Browne who was the Libertarian candidate. On TV shows with talking heads, he espoused his views regarding limited government. But when I listened to him give speeches to his followers, all he talked about was legalizing pot. So that's how I know about what Libertarians want.

I am familiar with Bill Weld, Johnson's VP choice. He's a RINO and political hack, who did little as governor of Mass. He's been a alcoholic for decades.

As a Mass guy I kind of agree. He wasn't a bad Governor he was good at gaining consensus however he definitely is a drinker. Remember people leaving the Governors house after playing cards with him and they get charged with OUI. I think it happened more than once too but I'm not sure.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, your analogies are always amusing. Unfortunately, I will continue to be unimpressed by arguments for or against this trade deal until I see a case made from reasonable evidence. In particular, I refuse to conform to the zeitgeist against trade agreements largely because the last time around with NAFTA, after all the doomsaying and bellyaching, the evidence suggests we didn't really lose net jobs from it. I'm open to persuasion about the TPP but the opposition right now feels ideological rather than evidence based.

It isn't JUST that we lost net jobs from it, it's that we lost good-paying manufacturing jobs and replaced them with Walmart shelf stocker jobs. Not all jobs are equal, and while this may not directly affect you or I, it affects the hell out of good people who don't possess good educations but do possess good work ethics.

Empty derision that fails to address the content of my post.

The are 3 loci of power in the modern world- Wealth, Religion & egalitarian democracy. Prior to the Enlightenment & the creation of our Republic, there were only 2. Diminish any one and the others will fill the void.

I'm not sure if it's more amusing or frightening to think that you might actually believe your post had content. Obviously sad is number one, but after sad I'm torn between amusing and frightening.

 

[woolfe9998]

Like you said before, the economic arguments have been very varied and contradictory. Because any economic model is going to include many assumptions. It's also difficult to really draw conclusions from previous trade deals because there have been so many other variables that went with them. I disagree with you that the evidence doesn't show a net loss in jobs - some studies don't, some do. We shouldn't stop there and just take that to mean they cancel each other out. There's at the very least a component of reasonable risk.

Pretty much everyone, including most in favor of the TPP, acknowledge that some American industries will suffer. That's kind of a given when they're opened up to competition at much cheaper prices. The argument is that other industries will grow enough to compensate. I don't know if that's a given. There's something less than intuitive about the notion that the growth in the import job industry generates jobs the same way the production industry does. And it's not like the people who lose those jobs will all be able to work at the new jobs.

There's also something of an ideological disconnect between the American left generally supporting a big minimum wage hike but being comfortable with American companies paying foreigners well under $1 an hour for the same work. Maybe if we at least pushed for trade deals that ensured that American companies can't simply use them to exploit cheaper labor and had to pay the same minimum everywhere this would be a different discussion. But that doesn't seem to be a direction anyone is really looking at, not something that the TPP addresses and not something that would be very enforceable anyway.

But the economic implications are really not the entire story and ultimately I'm more concerned about other issues it brings. For example, involving intellectual property. TPP would spread America's standard of copyright terms of author's death + 70 years to all of the member countries. I don't know about you, but I find American copyright law to be utterly onerous, with terms that allow your grandchild to collect on your works into their old age. These terms have clearly been negotiated by corporate lobbyists and are not in the favor of society at large. TPP also makes it worse by increasing criminality, meaning you can go to jail for non-profit copyright violations. By making these things part of TPP this means that no country can unilaterally push against these restrictions; they have to agree as a collective which is a very difficult standard. And they will have an international tribunal that exists outside of any country's judiciary system for trying offenses.

There are similar issues with the environment, safety, etc. Countries can't impose new environmental regulations (eg, carbon tax, ban on fracking) if they inhibit another member country from doing business. There are already lawsuits ongoing over earlier trade deals. TPP has some environmental requirements but it sets a very low bar. For those of us looking at even incremental progress in safeguarding against climate change and moving to more environmentally friendly energy this is a huge, huge impediment.

You can make a philosophical argument about free trade, how it overall increases efficiency, and you can look at studies of possible economic benefit of TPP but please don't fall into the trap that all free trade deals are the same or don't come with dangerous provisions tacked on. The secrecy of TPP's drafting has been mentioned before - I will say that this alone doesn't necessary make it bad, but politicians should not be endorsing let alone speaking of fast tracking trade agreements that are handled in secret and shrouded in speculation and information brought only by leaks. And frankly, there's no good reason why something like this should not be developed publicly and transparently, except to protect corporate interests. More than a few commentators have said that the leaks look like a Christmas wish list for big global corporations and it's not hard to see how.

I know that every trade deal is different. The reason I brought NAFTA into the discussion is because it's more or less the same people complaining about TPP who were complaining about NAFTA. Which is why they have little credibility unless or until they present evidence to back their point. We did, after all, hear endlessly about how many jobs were lost to NAFTA. So when these same people are complaining about a new trade deal, it sounds a bit like chicken little to me. Then when I hear them complaining again, it sounds like ideology rather than something fact based.

So far as what the NAFTA studies show, yes, there are varied results. However, what my link shows is that averaging them out produces something around zero net effect on jobs. In order for the NAFTA complainers to be correct, the biggest negative study, which is essentially an outlier, would have to be right on the money. While that is possible, it is more sensible to average them out unless you have a good reason to pick one over another.

Yes, there will always be winners and losers with anything significantly effecting the economy. One industry will lose jobs. Another may gain. If we import and export more goods, we may also gain jobs in retail, trucking, and dock working. There are many variables. I don't know how it all tallies up but I refuse to go off a theory or a feeling.

Some of these other concerns about the TPP seem possibly legit. I don't know the extent of negative effect this could have on the environment, for example. I'd like to see some analysis. That issue might persuade me to oppose it since AGW is a top concern for me.

 

[woolfe9998]

It isn't JUST that we lost net jobs from it, it's that we lost good-paying manufacturing jobs and replaced them with Walmart shelf stocker jobs. Not all jobs are equal, and while this may not directly affect you or I, it affects the hell out of good people who don't possess good educations but do possess good work ethics.

Oh I understand that not all jobs are equal. In post #34, which was my initial inquiry, I specifically asked about "jobs and real wages." Meaning numbers of jobs and quality of jobs.

Now, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I need evidence of a decline in real wages caused by NAFTA or projected to be caused by the TPP. I'm not going to accept it as an article of faith.

 

[Exophase]

I know that every trade deal is different. The reason I brought NAFTA into the discussion is because it's more or less the same people complaining about TPP who were complaining about NAFTA. Which is why they have little credibility unless or until they present evidence to back their point. We did, after all, hear endlessly about how many jobs were lost to NAFTA. So when these same people are complaining about a new trade deal, it sounds a bit like chicken little to me. Then when I hear them complaining again, it sounds like ideology rather than something fact based.

So far as what the NAFTA studies show, yes, there are varied results. However, what my link shows is that averaging them out produces something around zero net effect on jobs. In order for the NAFTA complainers to be correct, the biggest negative study, which is essentially an outlier, would have to be right on the money. While that is possible, it is more sensible to average them out unless you have a good reason to pick one over another.

Yes, there will always be winners and losers with anything significantly effecting the economy. One industry will lose jobs. Another may gain. If we import and export more goods, we may also gain jobs in retail, trucking, and dock working. There are many variables. I don't know how it all tallies up but I refuse to go off a theory or a feeling.

Some of these other concerns about the TPP seem possibly legit. I don't know the extent of negative effect this could have on the environment, for example. I'd like to see some analysis. That issue might persuade me to oppose it since AGW is a top concern for me.

You seem to be asking for a high standard of evidence to show that the TPP is harmful. I would argue that it should be the opposite. We're talking about a really major deal, the largest in history, that is absolutely covered in red tape. There should be definitive evidence and analysis that shows that it'll be beneficial and that the several concerns raised are non-issues. Not the other way around. You don't enter these things haphazardly.

You've asked people here to help convince you why we shouldn't pursue TPP, a position the top four presidential candidates have all taken. Now I'm going to ask the same of you. Convince us we why should. You're going to need to do better than citing that major academic studies don't all show issues with it. I could give you analysis that shows for example that the enormous copyright terms currently employed are not anywhere close to the economic sweetspot which is more around 10-20 years, but frankly I find that to be enough of a common sense position that I'd rather put it on you to defend death of owner + 70 years.

Furthermore, the top four presidential candidates oppose it, I'm going to assume you support one of them, so maybe start with why they're wrong.

 

[woolfe9998]

You seem to be asking for a high standard of evidence to show that the TPP is harmful. I would argue that it should be the opposite. We're talking about a really major deal, the largest in history, that is absolutely covered in red tape. There should be definitive evidence and analysis that shows that it'll be beneficial and that the several concerns raised are non-issues. Not the other way around. You don't enter these things haphazardly.

You've asked people here to help convince you why we shouldn't pursue TPP, a position the top four presidential candidates have all taken. Now I'm going to ask the same of you. Convince us we why should. You're going to need to do better than citing that major academic studies don't all show issues with it. I could give you analysis that shows for example that the enormous copyright terms currently employed are not anywhere close to the economic sweetspot which is more around 10-20 years, but frankly I find that to be enough of a common sense position that I'd rather put it on you to defend death of owner + 70 years.

Furthermore, the top four presidential candidates oppose it, I'm going to assume you support one of them, so maybe start with why they're wrong.

I'm sorry but you've completely misunderstood my position. I am neither a supporter nor a detractor of the TPP. I just want people to prove assertions that THEY'VE MADE about it. That's how it works. Those who make assertions have the burden of proving them. Your post above would make sense if I was saying I thought it would create jobs, improve wages, etc. etc. But I'm not saying any of those things. If you look back through my posts, you'll see I've said nary a single positive thing about the TPP. For all I know it could be single worst agreement ever inked.

I'm not playing games or hiding the ball here. My view is that trade agreements really are quite complex and I'm not certain how to evaluate them. Most issues I have a firmer opinion on. I ask questions because I believe people should be accustomed to backing up their opinions, but also because I am seeking knowledge.

 

[werepossum]

Oh I understand that not all jobs are equal. In post #34, which was my initial inquiry, I specifically asked about "jobs and real wages." Meaning numbers of jobs and quality of jobs.

Now, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I need evidence of a decline in real wages caused by NAFTA or projected to be caused by the TPP. I'm not going to accept it as an article of faith.

Not sure what you consider evidence, but I'll try this:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...bs-manufacturing-employment-down-37-1979-peak

(CNSNews.com) - The number of jobs in manufacturing has declined by 7,231,000--or 37 percent--since employment in manufacturing peaked in the United States in 1979, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The real median household income of Americans who have completed high school--but have not attained a higher degree--also peaked in the 1970s and has declined since then.

In fact, according to the Census Bureau (Tables H-13 and H-14), the real median household income of an American householder who has completed four years of high school peaked in 1973 at $56,395 in constant 2013 dollars. By 2013, it was down to $40,701. That is a drop of $15,694--or 27.8 percent. (The Census Bureau's Table H-14 publishes the annual median household income from 1960 through 1990 of householders who have "completed" four years of high school. Table H-13 publishes the annual median household income of householders who have 'graduated" from high school or its equivalency from 1991 through 2013.)

According to the BLS’s seasonally adjusted employment numbers, employment in the U.S. manufacturing sector hit a peak of 19,553,000 in June 1979. In April 2015, there were only 12,322,000 employed in the manufacturing sector. That is a decline of 7,231,000—or 37 percent.

The decline has even been greater as a share of the civilian noninstitutional population, which includes all U.S. residents 16 and older who are not on active duty in the military or in an institution such as a prison or nursing home. (This is the population number that forms the foundation of the BLS’s employment numbers.)

In April 1973, the year median household income peaked for householders who have completed high school but not earned a higher degree, there were 146,459,000 in the civilian noninstitutional population and employment in manufacturing was 18,359,000—or 12.5 percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

In April 2015, there were 250,266,000 in the civilian noninstitutional population and employment in manufacturing was 12,272,000—or 4.9 percent of the civilian population.

In 1973, manufacturing employment as a share of the civilian noninstutional population was 2.5 times what it is today.

http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/defaul...workers-as-measured-by-federal-statistics.pdf

Historically, manufacturing jobs have offered relatively high pay. However,
there is not a consensus on the size of the pay premium for manufacturing jobs
relative to the economy as a whole or even whether a premium continues to exist.
This report turns to evidence to answer those questions, using ten federal datasets,
each of which allows us to calculate and compare the average pay of manufacturing
workers and the average pay of workers overall. The following datasets are
included:
 American Community Survey
 County Business Patterns
 Current Employment Statistics
 Current Population Survey
 Economic Census
 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
 National Income and Product Accounts
 Occupational Employment Statistics
 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
 Quarterly Workforce Indicators
In addition, these datasets allow us to examine comparisons of average pay that
control for various factors that could affect the estimated pay premium, such as
whether the data measures pay on an hourly basis or for some other period, and
which workers are included in the pay premium estimate. Generally, we find
evidence of a pay premium regardless of which dataset we examine. However, the
size of the premium is increased or decreased by various factors.
Key findings from the analysis include:
 Based on hourly wages and salaries, manufacturing workers earn more on average than the overall average worker: using data for 2013, estimates of the hourly pay premium vary from 2 to 9 percent, depending on the dataset used.
 When hours worked in a week or over the course of a year are taken into consideration, the estimated premium increases. Estimated premiums using weekly or annual pay data are as high as 32 percent. This larger premium is because manufacturing employees work longer hours per week and more hours per year on average.
 Because the manufacturing sector has a high proportion of full-time workers relative to other private sector industries, the pay premium is smaller when the estimates are restricted to full-time workers, in one case declining from 32 percent for all workers to 12 percent for full-time employees.

There are some factors which tend to increase manufacturing jobs - wage advantages, favorable regulatory burden, proximity to market, import tariffs and other obstacles, high shipping costs - as well as some factors which tend to decrease manufacturing jobs - automation and other productivity gains, wage disadvantages, unfavorable regulatory burden, lack of tariffs and other obstacles, low shipping costs. Any time we remove obstacles and lower costs of importing manufactures, we drive away manufacturing jobs by making it more attractive to manufacture in other nations. This should be axiomatic; it after all why we negotiate trade agreements. Now in theory, all these trade agreements are for our own good, and they certainly give us cheaper goods. But government has been helping us since Nixon opened up China and manufacturing has formed an ever-decreasing portion of our workforce and our economy whilst other, cheaper nations' manufacturing is blooming largely based on imports into America. You do the math.

By the way, none of this is even really contested; the only counterargument is that we're better off ceeding ever more power to government and with ever fewer better-paying jobs because we get cheap stuff.

 

[agent00f]

You seem to be asking for a high standard of evidence to show that the TPP is harmful. I would argue that it should be the opposite. We're talking about a really major deal, the largest in history, that is absolutely covered in red tape. There should be definitive evidence and analysis that shows that it'll be beneficial and that the several concerns raised are non-issues. Not the other way around. You don't enter these things haphazardly.

You've asked people here to help convince you why we shouldn't pursue TPP, a position the top four presidential candidates have all taken. Now I'm going to ask the same of you. Convince us we why should. You're going to need to do better than citing that major academic studies don't all show issues with it. I could give you analysis that shows for example that the enormous copyright terms currently employed are not anywhere close to the economic sweetspot which is more around 10-20 years, but frankly I find that to be enough of a common sense position that I'd rather put it on you to defend death of owner + 70 years.

Furthermore, the top four presidential candidates oppose it, I'm going to assume you support one of them, so maybe start with why they're wrong.

The top candidates oppose it for largely circumstantial political reasons. Sanders opposes it because that's expected mandate of a leftist candidate, Clinton now opposes it to grab some thunder of Sanders's success. Trump opposes it because his base consist of angry rubes who just found out they've been getting hosed by their leaders (a la brexit, basically a protest vote).

That isn't to say they're right or wrong, they're really more not even wrong because the basis of their decision aren't rooted in the specific merits of the deal itself.

 

[Exophase]

I'm sorry but you've completely misunderstood my position. I am neither a supporter nor a detractor of the TPP. I just want people to prove assertions that THEY'VE MADE about it. That's how it works. Those who make assertions have the burden of proving them. Your post above would make sense if I was saying I thought it would create jobs, improve wages, etc. etc. But I'm not saying any of those things. If you look back through my posts, you'll see I've said nary a single positive thing about the TPP. For all I know it could be single worst agreement ever inked.

I'm not playing games or hiding the ball here. My view is that trade agreements really are quite complex and I'm not certain how to evaluate them. Most issues I have a firmer opinion on. I ask questions because I believe people should be accustomed to backing up their opinions, but also because I am seeking knowledge.

What I'm saying that asking people to PROVE that the TPP is a bad idea is a really high bar and that is not something we need to justify holding positions against it. Even if you're neutral towards it, why would you set the starting position as people needing to prove that it's detrimental - only because people have said they don't support it? Simply showing how it has provisions that are in opposition to fairly standard political stances should be sufficient to justify an opinion against it.

I feel like I have backed up my opinions and shown that they're not arbitrary, and I feel like you've taken that response and said that it's not good enough. I don't think I really owe any further argument on this. You can't possibly prove an outcome on this.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not sure what you consider evidence, but I'll try this:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...bs-manufacturing-employment-down-37-1979-peak


http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/defaul...workers-as-measured-by-federal-statistics.pdf


There are some factors which tend to increase manufacturing jobs - wage advantages, favorable regulatory burden, proximity to market, import tariffs and other obstacles, high shipping costs - as well as some factors which tend to decrease manufacturing jobs - automation and other productivity gains, wage disadvantages, unfavorable regulatory burden, lack of tariffs and other obstacles, low shipping costs. Any time we remove obstacles and lower costs of importing manufactures, we drive away manufacturing jobs by making it more attractive to manufacture in other nations. This should be axiomatic; it after all why we negotiate trade agreements. Now in theory, all these trade agreements are for our own good, and they certainly give us cheaper goods. But government has been helping us since Nixon opened up China and manufacturing has formed an ever-decreasing portion of our workforce and our economy whilst other, cheaper nations' manufacturing is blooming largely based on imports into America. You do the math.

By the way, none of this is even really contested; the only counterargument is that we're better off ceeding ever more power to government and with ever fewer better-paying jobs because we get cheap stuff.

Thank you for your reply and sourcing.

The topic is whether trade agreements have cost us net jobs and/or lowered real wages. So far as I know, our earliest trade agreement is dated 1984 and is with the singular country of Israel. NAFTA comes next, in 1994. So if manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979 and began a decline, at least initially it couldn't have been caused by trade agreements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements

So far as real wages, there are two problems here. The first is the correlation/causation problem. It's also a problem with manufacturing jobs lost but there it's pretty clear at least some of it is due to globalization. But with real wages, there are just so many variables which can affect it. A second problem is that AFAIK real wages haven't actually declined, or if so, not by much. Real wages have been simply stagnant for decades now. Perhaps off-shoring is part of what is causing the stagnation?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Not sure what to make of that but there are many theories about it. You may be surprised to learn in my googling I discovered that both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress have written on the issue and they do not seem to agree as to the causes.

 

[woolfe9998]

What I'm saying that asking people to PROVE that the TPP is a bad idea is a really high bar and that is not something we need to justify holding positions against it. Even if you're neutral towards it, why would you set the starting position as people needing to prove that it's detrimental - only because people have said they don't support it? Simply showing how it has provisions that are in opposition to fairly standard political stances should be sufficient to justify an opinion against it.

I feel like I have backed up my opinions and shown that they're not arbitrary, and I feel like you've taken that response and said that it's not good enough. I don't think I really owe any further argument on this. You can't possibly prove an outcome on this.

People need to prove it's detrimental if people are SAYING it's detrimental. It's just that simple. If people were merely opposing it because there is no prove of its benefit, I might consider that a reasonable enough point and not pursue it. But when you make an affirmative claim, you have the burden of proving that claim. It's like with atheists and theists. The "positive atheist" asserts that there is no God. That person then has the burden of proof. But the "negative atheist" says that there is insufficient evidence of God. That is not an affirmative claim that needs to be proven, the burden being on the theist in that case. Claiming that TPP will have this bad effect or that is more like the former than the latter. It's an affirmative claim that carries with it a burden of proof.

So far as your responses, like I said, some of the issues you've raised may be legit. I'm open minded. If I knew more about how TPP would affect things like the environment, I could comment in more detail. At this point I'll say that I do have concerns.

 

[Exophase]

People need to prove it's detrimental if people are SAYING it's detrimental. It's just that simple. If people were merely opposing it because there is no prove of its benefit, I might consider that a reasonable enough point and not pursue it. But when you make an affirmative claim, you have the burden of proving that claim. It's like with atheists and theists. The "positive atheist" asserts that there is no God. That person then has the burden of proof. But the "negative atheist" says that there is insufficient evidence of God. That is not an affirmative claim that needs to be proven. Claiming that TPP will have this bad effect or not is more like the former than the latter.

So far as your responses, like I said, some of the issues you've raised may be legit. I'm open minded. If I knew more about how TPP would affect things like the environment, I could comment in more detail. At this point I'll say that I do have concerns.

It's not possible to prove that TPP will be detrimental or beneficial. Literally anything can end up being either by unforeseen circumstances. I don't know if you're colloquially using the word to mean something it doesn't, but if you are you should clarify.

I just don't really understand what kind of analysis or study you're expecting to support my opinions on things like locking in long copyright terms or allowing other countries to block environmental regulations. Do you want me to show how these features are merely present in the TPP, or do you want me to actually provide outside sources to further argue my opinion that these are negatives?

 

[agent00f]

Thank you for your reply and sourcing.

The topic is whether trade agreements have cost us net jobs and/or lowered real wages. So far as I know, our earliest trade agreement is dated 1984 and is with the singular country of Israel. NAFTA comes next, in 1994. So if manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979 and began a decline, at least initially it couldn't have been caused by trade agreements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements

So far as real wages, there are two problems here. The first is the correlation/causation problem. It's also a problem with manufacturing jobs lost but there it's pretty clear at least some of it is due to globalization. But with real wages, there are just so many variables which can affect it. A second problem is that AFAIK real wages haven't actually declined, or if so, not by much. Real wages have been simply stagnant for decades now. Perhaps off-shoring is part of what is causing the stagnation?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Not sure what to make of that but there are many theories about it. You may be surprised to learn in my googling I discovered that both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress have written on the issue and they do not seem to agree as to the causes.

There's no doubt at least that manufacturing has left the US. For example there used to be a textile industry here. The general difference in net import/export as a result can be seen in the trade deficit.

However some perspective is necessary to understand how the money moved around. When a factory in china makes a jacket for example, it provides local (low-paying) jobs, but doesn't actually make much money for them because margins are very low for commodity manufacturing. Most of the (now often higher) margins within the retail price it sells for in the west goes to the designer/brand or retailer/marketing etc. So those services people are still getting their cut, just not the person working the sewing machine.

Those services folks then go spend their salary on a greater amount of now cheaper goods, and you see where this is going. In sum, the west is generally getting the better end of these deals, relative to the competition. The cost is in the jobs getting outsourced; a classic case of conflicting interests: greater profits for some vs salary for others.

By the way, none of this is even really contested; the only counterargument is that we're better off ceeding ever more power to government and with ever fewer better-paying jobs because we get cheap stuff.

Hilarious given there are by definition no protectionist tariffs in a market free from government, a free market that american conservatives all sought until some of them lost their jobs from it. These people are basically in the business of shitting the bed then blaming it on everyone else.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's not possible to prove that TPP will be detrimental or beneficial. Literally anything can end up being either by unforeseen circumstances. I don't know if you're colloquially using the word to mean something it doesn't, but if you are you should clarify.

Studies have been done projecting its impact on jobs and real wages. Two studies, actually (that I know of). They came out opposite. I realize that it's a complicated issue for economic modelling so no system is going to be perfect. But that is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Another, for example, would be if someone had performed an analysis of the environmental impact.

I just don't really understand what kind of analysis or study you're expecting to support my opinions on things like locking in long copyright terms or allowing other countries to block environmental regulations. Do you want me to show how these features are merely present in the TPP, or do you want me to actually provide outside sources to further argue my opinion that these are negatives?

No, you don't need to do any of those things. I originally asked about studies pertaining to jobs and real wages, because the core contention against these trade agreements is typically that they cost jobs and depress wages. You responded by expressing other concerns, which is fine. I'm not saying I need more information about those concerns. I'm just saying I haven't read enough about them to really evaluate them.

For example, I recall reading in one article that the agreement has an extensive chapter on environmental issues, and that it reads well but is essentially toothless. I don't know if that is correct but it wouldn't surprise me. It's difficult to force foreign countries to adopt laws and regulations, especially when we can't lead by example because half our population thinks there isn't even a problem. Anyway, what I'd like to know is whether this is going to cause a lot of pollution or not very much. I suspect it's quite possible to estimate such things and perhaps someone has already done it.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Libertarian = Corporatist.
Just look at Peter Thiel.
He's all "libertarian" but if you exercise your own 1st Amendment liberty, he'll use his money to sue you into bankruptcy.

You no fucking idea what corporatism means as you lack the understanding that corporations are antithetical to Libertarian views on the marketplace. Essentially corporations only exist due to government intervention. I.e, they are the classic example of skewed and distorting government protectionism in the marketplace that Classical Libertarians loath.

 

[agent00f]

You no fucking idea what corporatism means as you lack the understanding that corporations are antithetical to Libertarian views on the marketplace. Essentially corporations only exist due to government intervention. I.e, they are the classic example of skewed and distorting government protectionism in the marketplace that Classical Libertarians loath.

Just FYI, classic libertarians are anarcho-socialist/communists.

In contrast, contemporary american libertarians are basically corporatists who don't care for the social issues of the GOP.