The TPP trade deal

[Jango]

I guess this is an issue that divides Democrats. Obama is for it, but Elizabeth Warren is against it (more broadly, businesses seem to mainly be for it, with some exceptions, while labor and environmental groups are against it). Me, I'm generally in favor of freer trade and lower barriers to trade, and against protectionism because I think the benefits outweigh the costs. However, the benefits can be harder to see than the costs, which is why populist arguments for protectionism seem to sway a lot of people.

This article is from the Boston Globe:
Warren, Mass. business groups at odds on trade pact



On the other hand, I think Warren has a good point to make about the deal: why is the fine print secret? Here she is in her own words:

You can't read this



Even though I am generally in favor of free trade, I find this argument persuasive: Why can't we see what's in the deal? Why can't we see the fine print? If someone asked you to sign a contract, but told you you can't read the fine print, would you sign it? What sorts of things did corporate lobbyists put in the fine print? I want to know before I sign on to it.

This isn't the side of the issue I want to be on, but I want to do my due diligence, and if the fine print is secret, I simply can't support it.

Nor should any rational person. The "Trust me" appeal should already be a thing of the past. We're expected to back up what we say. The same logically applies for them too. Too many millions of Americans are not thinking about this issue like this, if at all. Hell, whenever I download a new program or app, there are license agreements up the ass. I read through them. I read the fine print. But I don't see a dominant percentage of Americans taking the time to read through a whole bunch of stuff they're going to need to Google to understand because the majority of Americans don't understand legalese nor do they have the desire to learn how to do so. They click 'next' and 'next' until they can click 'install now' to wait a few dreaded moments before they start using it. Overt secrecy of this nature is not new nor is it uncommon. The Air Force space drone is another recent example of this phenomenon. We know that it exists and we know that it goes into space. Outside of that, we don't know what it does. There simply is not enough people that care about transparency.

 

[Brainster]

Somehow the Republicans seem to have forgotten that Obama is a black man:

A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight in the House, where it faces more entrenched opposition from Democrats.

 

[Random]

Somehow the Republicans seem to have forgotten that Obama is a black man:

The GOP seems to be willing to forget about the President's Blackness if it means screwing over the American people to help multi-national corporations.

I have mixed feelings about that...

 

[Trakar]

...Even though I am generally in favor of free trade, I find this argument persuasive: Why can't we see what's in the deal? Why can't we see the fine print? If someone asked you to sign a contract, but told you you can't read the fine print, would you sign it? What sorts of things did corporate lobbyists put in the fine print? I want to know before I sign on to it.

This isn't the side of the issue I want to be on, but I want to do my due diligence, and if the fine print is secret, I simply can't support it.

As a progressive Republican, I think that "Free Trade" is more oxymoron than policy, no one enters a trade deal without seeing profit to their doing so, trade is not free. What I do promote is well-regulated and equitable trade agreements. International trade agreements should be equitable in the best interests of the populations of the individual nations involved, not primarily focused on a few private interests in those countries.

The most persuasive part of Warren's argument to my ears, is the record of unpunished violations and breaches in trade agreements sought and made by Democratic and Republican administrations over the last 3-4 decades and the lack of willingness to prosecute/enforce the trade standards and rules leaving them toothless. Is it any wonder while this demonstrated fact combined with secretive concealment of terms conditions and enforcement regarding this agreement should bother American citizens and law makers?

 

[Corsair 115]

The most persuasive part of Warren's argument to my ears, is the record of unpunished violations and breaches in trade agreements sought and made by Democratic and Republican administrations over the last 3-4 decades and the lack of willingness to prosecute/enforce the trade standards and rules leaving them toothless.

I would point out that it isn't a case of the United States always being the honourable party in a trade agreement and the other signatories violating the terms. Sometimes it's the U.S. which violates the terms of a trade agreement, usually when domestic politics makes it expedient to do so.

 

[Trakar]

Somehow the Republicans seem to have forgotten that Obama is a black man:

The GOP seems to be willing to forget about the President's Blackness if it means screwing over the American people to help multi-national corporations.

I have mixed feelings about that...

I would point out that it isn't a case of the United States always being the honourable party in a trade agreement and the other signatories violating the terms. Sometimes it's the U.S. which violates the terms of a trade agreement, usually when domestic politics makes it expedient to do so.

I know of no compelling argument to refute this statement.

 

[Puppycow]

Somehow the Republicans seem to have forgotten that Obama is a black man:

But Matt Drudge hasn't!

 

[Trakar]

I know of no compelling argument to refute this statement.

must have been about to jump into a part of the discussion I thought better of!

Didn't mean to include the other quotes in my response to Corsair.

 

[Corsair 115]

Didn't mean to include the other quotes in my response to Corsair.

It wasn't clear to me if your statement was meant to include the U.S. sometimes not playing by the rules of a trade agreement (it could be read that way but I was unsure) so I thought I'd just offer it as an explicit statement.

Domestic politics can play havoc with international relations, trade or otherwise...

 

[bit_pattern]

But Matt Drudge hasn't!

Ugh. That moment where you find yourself nodding in furious agreement with Drudge. I feel so dirty

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I guess this is an issue that divides Democrats. Obama is for it, but Elizabeth Warren is against it (more broadly, businesses seem to mainly be for it, with some exceptions, while labor and environmental groups are against it). Me, I'm generally in favor of freer trade and lower barriers to trade, and against protectionism because I think the benefits outweigh the costs. However, the benefits can be harder to see than the costs, which is why populist arguments for protectionism seem to sway a lot of people.

This article is from the Boston Globe:
Warren, Mass. business groups at odds on trade pact



On the other hand, I think Warren has a good point to make about the deal: why is the fine print secret? Here she is in her own words:

You can't read this



Even though I am generally in favor of free trade, I find this argument persuasive: Why can't we see what's in the deal? Why can't we see the fine print? If someone asked you to sign a contract, but told you you can't read the fine print, would you sign it? What sorts of things did corporate lobbyists put in the fine print? I want to know before I sign on to it.

This isn't the side of the issue I want to be on, but I want to do my due diligence, and if the fine print is secret, I simply can't support it.

I haven't really read much about it, but judging by the comments various loony tunes are making online, the TPP will destroy American just like NAFTA was supposed to do 20 years ago.

 

[Trakar]

I haven't really read much about it, but judging by the comments various loony tunes are making online, the TPP will destroy American just like NAFTA was supposed to do 20 years ago.

I think the point that most progressives make, is that TPP possesses the same types of flaws inherent to NAFTA that addressing these flaws instead of hiding them would produce better results than passing another such flawed trade agreement. Making it easier for US companies to earn higher profit margins, isn't, or should not be, the primary overriding goal of U.S. trade policies and treaties.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm

Nafta and labor
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22823.pdf

Nafta and the Environment
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/10/mm1093_03.html

Labor
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/ustr_must_press_enforcement_of_labor_violations_in_mexico

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/nafta.pdf

Why nafta failed and what's needed to protect workers' health and safety in international trade treaties. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17208827

Rethinking NAFTA’s Environment and Labor Agreements - http://www.globalization101.org/rethinking-naftas-environment-and-labor-agreements-2/

 

[stevea]

I think the point that most progressives make, is that TPP possesses the same types of flaws inherent to NAFTA that addressing these flaws instead of hiding them would produce better results than passing another such flawed trade agreement. Making it easier for US companies to earn higher profit margins, isn't, or should not be, the primary overriding goal of U.S. trade policies and treaties.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm

Huh - I didn't know that about.com was a Progressive website.

But look at this argument ....

Disadvantages of NAFTA:

NAFTA has many disadvantages. First and foremost, is that NAFTA made it possible for many U.S. manufacturers to move jobs to lower-cost Mexico. The manufacturers that remained lowered wages to compete in those industries.

The net advantage of free trade is exactly these sorts of dislocations of of production to where is is most efficient. That is exactly what Krugmans (IMO derivative) nobel work was based on.

The correct take-away is that anti-free-trade paranoia and econo-ignorance of the general population is likely to kill any free-er trade agreement. If you can't distinguish advantage from disadvantage there is an excellent chance you'll make a dumb choice.

 

[Trakar]

Huh - I didn't know that about.com was a Progressive website.

What leaves you to believe that all progressive positions and arguments are based upon information only from progressive websites?

But look at this argument ....

The net advantage of free trade is exactly these sorts of dislocations of of production to where is is most efficient...

Cheap, especially when it incurs much greater externalities that must be born by the consumer regardless of where the trade-off between price and environment, mistreated workers and economic inequality is sacrificed, is not necessarily equitable to efficiency.

 

[bit_pattern]

Not sure why this thread is hidden away in the US section when it is an transnational issue, but anyhoos...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-reveals-new-trade-secrets-20150603-ghfycx.html

Highly sensitive details of the negotiations over the little-known Trades in Services Agreement (TiSA) published by WikiLeaks reveals Australia is pushing for extensive international financial deregulation while other proposals could see Australians' personal and financial data freely transferred overseas.

The secret trade documents also show Australia could allow an influx of foreign professional workers and see a sharp wind back in the ability of government to regulate qualifications, licensing and technical standards including in relation to health, environment and transport services.

In its largest disclosure yet relating to the TiSA negotiations, WikiLeaks has published seventeen documents including draft treaty chapters, memoranda and other texts setting out the overall state of negotiations and individual country positions in a secret bargaining on banking and finance, telecommunications and e-commerce, health, as well as maritime and air transport.

The leaked documents were to be kept secret until at least five years after the completion of the TiSA negotiations and entry into force of the trade agreement.

 

[jakesteele]

I guess this is an issue that divides Democrats. Obama is for it, but Elizabeth Warren is against it (more broadly, businesses seem to mainly be for it, with some exceptions, while labor and environmental groups are against it). Me, I'm generally in favor of freer trade and lower barriers to trade, and against protectionism because I think the benefits outweigh the costs. However, the benefits can be harder to see than the costs, which is why populist arguments for protectionism seem to sway a lot of people.

This article is from the Boston Globe:
Warren, Mass. business groups at odds on trade pact



On the other hand, I think Warren has a good point to make about the deal: why is the fine print secret? Here she is in her own words:

You can't read this



Even though I am generally in favor of free trade, I find this argument persuasive: Why can't we see what's in the deal? Why can't we see the fine print? If someone asked you to sign a contract, but told you you can't read the fine print, would you sign it? What sorts of things did corporate lobbyists put in the fine print? I want to know before I sign on to it.

This isn't the side of the issue I want to be on, but I want to do my due diligence, and if the fine print is secret, I simply can't support it.

Here's a bunch of vids of Alan Grayson blasting the TPP and the administration.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=youtube+alan+grayson+tpp

 

[jakesteele]

I am also opposed to the TPP because of the secrecy but Obama did make one good argument. If we don't reach some agreement, others (read, China) will make some agreements and those won't have any financial, labor or environmental limitations at all. Is something better than a worse alternative? I really don't know the answer.

The secrecy part really bothers me especially since Obomba, while campaigning for office the first time told people that his administration was going to be transparent. It's obvious that he has been less than forthcoming on a number of things like TPP and his Obama Health Care Plan to name a couple.

I remember what Ross Perot said about Shafta, that if it went through you would hear a big whooshing sound of all of the jobs leaving America. He turned out to be right.

 

[luchog]

The secrecy part really bothers me especially since Obomba, while campaigning for office the first time told people that his administration was going to be transparent. It's obvious that he has been less than forthcoming on a number of things like TPP and his Obama Health Care Plan to name a couple.

The Obama administration has been one of the most opaque in recent history. The only thing "transparent" about this administration has been its constant lies and pandering to the Wall Street bosses.

I remember what Ross Perot said about Shafta, that if it went through you would hear a big whooshing sound of all of the jobs leaving America. He turned out to be right.

The last couple decades have been one big, extended "giant sucking sound". Doesn't change the fact that Perot was still a nutcase; pretty much anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could have foreseen that. Problems is, Americans have a hard time finding their brain cells when it comes to politics; and the politicians don't give a crap how badly they screw the populace as long as they can line their own pockets in the process.

 

[Corsair 115]

I remember what Ross Perot said about Shafta, that if it went through you would hear a big whooshing sound of all of the jobs leaving America. He turned out to be right.

Funny thing about that. Most Americans don't remember this, but before NAFTA there was FTA—the free trade agreement between the United States and Canada. It was barely a blip in the U.S. at the time it was being negotiated, but here in Canada it was a major issue. With many of the arguments made against it quite similar to those made in the U.S. against NAFTA.

The matter of the FTA was so contentious, in fact, it became a focal point of the 1988 federal election. The [Progressive] Conservatives won that election handily, FTA was later passed into law, and came into effect in 1989. Contrary to the claims of some, Canada didn't cease to exist, our sovereignty didn't disappear, and businesses and people got along fine afterwards.

 

[Random]

Funny thing about that. Most Americans don't remember this, but before NAFTA there was FTA—the free trade agreement between the United States and Canada. It was barely a blip in the U.S. at the time it was being negotiated, but here in Canada it was a major issue. With many of the arguments made against it quite similar to those made in the U.S. against NAFTA.

The matter of the FTA was so contentious, in fact, it became a focal point of the 1988 federal election. The [Progressive] Conservatives won that election handily, FTA was later passed into law, and came into effect in 1989. Contrary to the claims of some, Canada didn't cease to exist, our sovereignty didn't disappear, and businesses and people got along fine afterwards.

Not all free trade programs are the same. Canada and the US have similar standards of living, and US and Canadian workers can compete on an even playing field with relatively little disruption. When NAFTA came around, they threw Mexico into the mix. Then came the great sucking sound as the much lower labor standards of Mexico kicked in. As I said at the time, “I have no problem with NAFTA, but why are we letting Mexico in it.”

TPP looks like it will have US workers competing for cost effectiveness with Malaysian slave workers.