Sanders or Clinton folk regarding TPP, what do you think?

[Moonbeam]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/polit...-minimum-wage-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/

"Hillary Clinton supporters rejected an effort by Bernie Sanders' allies Saturday to add explicit opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal to the Democratic Party's 2016 platform.

Sanders supporters shouted "shame!" and "fake progressive!" at Clinton backers on the Democratic National Committee's platform panel here as the party met to finalize its official positions on issues ahead of its convention later this month in Philadelphia."

So should the trade deal be opposed or not? Personally, I think myself too ignorant to judge. I listened to an interview with William Kristol speaking at the Commonwealth Club and he seemed alarmed at the thought that a Socialist and Trump had such high voter support. His point seemed to be that on the trade issue things are complex, that the world in general has improved with open trade and that it would be silly to open up a tariff trade war.

Anyway, I take it the answer isn't simple. What do you think?

 

[senseamp]

I think currency manipulation is too complex of an issue to have it on the Democrat platform. It's also kind of ridiculous considering all central banks are doing crazy currency manipulation now trying to reflate the bubbles they've created again, including the Fed.

 

[compuwiz1]

I think currency manipulation is too complex of an issue to have it on the Democrat platform. It's also kind of ridiculous considering all central banks are doing crazy currency manipulation now trying to reflate the bubbles they've created again, including the Fed.

They have to pass it, to find out what's in it, kind of like Obamacare. Most of us citizens don't know what's in it. My take on it is, if they are trying to pass it in the night, without us knowing what's in it, it's most likely bad.

 

[ivwshane]

They have to pass it, to find out what's in it, kind of like Obamacare. Most of us citizens don't know what's in it. My take on it is, if they are trying to pass it in the night, without us knowing what's in it, it's most likely bad.

It's been public for a while now. Sounds like its time for you to get some new news sources.

 

[Victorian Gray]

They have to pass it, to find out what's in it, kind of like Obamacare. Most of us citizens don't know what's in it. My take on it is, if they are trying to pass it in the night, without us knowing what's in it, it's most likely bad.

Here ya go. The full text. Have fun.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/polit...-minimum-wage-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/

"Hillary Clinton supporters rejected an effort by Bernie Sanders' allies Saturday to add explicit opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal to the Democratic Party's 2016 platform.

Sanders supporters shouted "shame!" and "fake progressive!" at Clinton backers on the Democratic National Committee's platform panel here as the party met to finalize its official positions on issues ahead of its convention later this month in Philadelphia."

So should the trade deal be opposed or not? Personally, I think myself too ignorant to judge. I listened to an interview with William Kristol speaking at the Commonwealth Club and he seemed alarmed at the thought that a Socialist and Trump had such high voter support. His point seemed to be that on the trade issue things are complex, that the world in general has improved with open trade and that it would be silly to open up a tariff trade war.

Anyway, I take it the answer isn't simple. What do you think?

I'll go with too ignorant to judge, myself. It's obvious that many of the opinions about it are of the propagandistic knee jerk variety, however.

We've opened ur own markets already in a lot of ways so if this serves to open theirs to American products it could be a good thing.

 

[LunarRay]

The TPP seems to have an underlying importance. The US might be trying to generate a wall against the China endeavors in the wide ranging region of the South China Sea.

The economics are a two sided sword. TPP will generate some exports but significantly more imports from the new buddies. However, it should reduce the imports from China so a sorta net zero economically from that side of the sword. It, on the other side of the sword, reduces our cost of thwarting China in the important strategic arena so I'd say that at the moment I'd support the TPP.

I would argue that you don't willy nilly increase imports without an increase in demand and that don't or won't happen unless disposable income increases.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'll go with too ignorant to judge, myself. It's obvious that many of the opinions about it are of the propagandistic knee jerk variety, however.

We've opened ur own markets already in a lot of ways so if this serves to open theirs to American products it could be a good thing.

It's a treaty designed by corporate interests for the benefit of corporate interests.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a treaty designed by corporate interests for the benefit of corporate interests.

So it's about more jobs and increasing tax revenues????

 

[Victorian Gray]

So it's about more jobs and increasing tax revenues????

Sure, that sounds about right.

 

[Charmonium]

I don't know anything about the tpp per se but as a general rule, trade agreements reduce tariffs and therefore encourage the free flow of goods and resources.

On the largest scales, that is a good thing since it encourages the efficient allocation of resources, including labor. The problem however is that it creates problems for the partner who is outsourcing jobs.

This wouldn't be that much of an issue if we had free education and retraining like they do in say Switzerland. In that case, the former drill press operator can be retrained to do build or maintain the robots that will probably put him out of work first.

Of course if the total number of jobs declines, then a lot of people get screwed regardless. Fortunately as long as your economy is growing, almost by definition, so are the number of jobs. Sure they might be in shitty service sector jobs, but at least it's a job.

 

[Indus]

They have to pass it, to find out what's in it, kind of like Obamacare. Most of us citizens don't know what's in it. My take on it is, if they are trying to pass it in the night, without us knowing what's in it, it's most likely bad.

LYING FROM A RACIST BIGOT just like his god Fuhrer Trump.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[Jhhnn]

The TPP seems to have an important underlying importance. The US might be trying to generate a wall against the China endeavors in the wide ranging region of the South China Sea.

The economics are a two sided sword. TPP will generate some exports but significantly more imports from the new buddies. However, it should reduce the imports from China so a sorta net zero economically from that side of the sword. It, on the other side of the sword, reduces our cost of thwarting China in the important strategic arena so I'd say that at the moment I'd support the TPP.

South China Sea? We have no claim to the region, no legitimate interest beyond freedom of passage. Those who do can find a way to sort it out. China is the only party doing any development to speak of so their interests will likely prevail for the most part.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The problem with "open trade" the way tpp is it only addresses our responsibilities and not other countries. There is nothing in place to keep other nations from limiting imports, setting tariffs or, jobbing done by foreign governments. We have lived with huge trade deficits for years with Japan and we suddenly think the rest of the world will treat us better?

 

[LunarRay]

South China Sea? We have no claim to the region, no legitimate interest beyond freedom of passage. Those who do can find a way to sort it out. China is the only party doing any development to speak of so their interests will likely prevail for the most part.

We seem to have taken an interest in the area. I've seen reports of our fleet ships being 'buzzed' by our Chinese friends.
IF we develop economic ties then we have developed reason to stick our nose into what ever goes on in the area.

 

[Perknose]

Imho, this is the best non-hysterical analysis I've yet to encounter:

The TPP seems to have an important underlying importance. The US might be trying to generate a wall against the China endeavors in the wide ranging region of the South China Sea.

The economics are a two sided sword. TPP will generate some exports but significantly more imports from the new buddies. However, it should reduce the imports from China so a sorta net zero economically from that side of the sword. It, on the other side of the sword, reduces our cost of thwarting China in the important strategic arena so I'd say that at the moment I'd support the TPP.

Because this:

It's obvious that many of the opinions about it are of the propagandistic knee jerk variety, however.

I guess I'll have to try and decipher in depth this:

Here ya go. The full text. Have fun.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

Wish me luck!

Because:

I'll go with too ignorant to judge, myself.

What I know: The international marketplace for both labor and goods is upon us, whether we like it or not. Economic isolationism is as dead as the dodo, don't let anyone bray at you differently.

What I believe Obama is trying to do is to get out in front of this in Asia re: China, to limit the damage by erecting frameworks which trade some protections and procedures for none, or those dictated by others, like China, later.

But, again, at this point:

I'll go with too ignorant to judge, myself.

 

[LunarRay]

The problem with "open trade" the way tpp is it only addresses our responsibilities and not other countries. There is nothing in place to keep other nations from limiting imports, setting tariffs or, jobbing done by foreign governments. We have lived with huge trade deficits for years with Japan and we suddenly think the rest of the world will treat us better?

Either we increase debt spending or increase income here in order to consume imports... Imports just don't get consumed out of thin air. I don't see either happening soon. It is possible to consume TPP stuff but at the expense of some other import... I'd argue.

 

[compuwiz1]

It's been public for a while now. Sounds like its time for you to get some new news sources.

Part of me was just echoing Pelosi, back when she said we had to pass it to find out what's in it. (sarcasm)

And thanks for pointing out that the TPP docs are out there. I hadn't looked in a while and my bad.

That's a shitload of bloat to read!

 

[Victorian Gray]

I guess I'll have to try and decipher in depth this:

Wish me luck!

Here's someone who I think is worth listening to on this issue. He's done yoeman's work analyzing the TPP. Here's his blog:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

 

[Moonbeam]

Here's someone who I think is worth listening to on this issue. He's done yoeman's work analyzing the TPP. Here's his blog:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

I found the narrowness of his focus to be of little help to me.

 

[ivwshane]

South China Sea? We have no claim to the region, no legitimate interest beyond freedom of passage. Those who do can find a way to sort it out. China is the only party doing any development to speak of so their interests will likely prevail for the most part.

That's kind of the point and why Obama was taking the lead on this and why China wasn't included in the talks. The goal is to get American influence in the region, not Chinese.

 

[LunarRay]

I found the narrowness of his focus to be of little help to me.

The agreement is really dependent on the parties to it. There are 12 who are negotiating atm. China is absent. We probably want all the Pacific Rim folks involved along with folks not part of that area like Canada, Mexico and etc. who are already among the 12 if I recall right.
We need to have the strategic value of TPP in order to stymie China. China has to expand in order to bring its economic health back to what seems to be necessary at least to them.

At the same time we should invest about 2T$ into infrastructure activity. I recon that increase in employment and employment transition (from McDonalds to Construction stuff) would mostly be used to stimulate other US activity like home building and the like. The balance of the increase would flow to disposable funds which would - hopefully - be used to purchase US made vehicles etc. and an increased purchase of imported goods.

Nothing like making folks dependent on you to being able to control them short of war.

 

[1prophet]

I think currency manipulation is too complex of an issue to have it on the Democrat platform. It's also kind of ridiculous considering all central banks are doing crazy currency manipulation now trying to reflate the bubbles they've created again, including the Fed.

One of the greatest tricks of the elite 1%, tell the little people that they are just to stupid to understand that the ass rape they are about to receive is in their best interest.

 

[Perknose]

Here's someone who I think is worth listening to on this issue. He's done yoeman's work analyzing the TPP. Here's his blog:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

I found the narrowness of his focus to be of little help to me.

Same here. The most I gleaned from him was, for Canada:

For example, a recent C.D. Howe study found that the Canadian gains may be very modest, with some gains offset by losses on issues such as copyright and an outflow of royalties.

So . . . I'm not sure how you got to the below from the above:

It's a treaty designed by corporate interests for the benefit of corporate interests.

 

[1prophet]

That's kind of the point and why Obama was taking the lead on this and why China wasn't included in the talks. The goal is to get American influence in the region, not Chinese.

A day late and a dollar short, these brilliant corporations who thought the Chinese slave was going to be their saving grace against unions, OSHA, EPA, Labor laws while at the same time respecting their trade secrets and intellectual property and not turn on them are now realizing the folly of it all, and this is the latest attempt to remedy it by squeezing the little people more under the hand of US based corporations.