Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for TPP

[H. Ross Peron]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/obama-trade-legislation-fast-track-authority-trans-pacific-partnership.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[free my dawg]

I feel like I'd be more outraged if I didn't leave the Democratic Party for abandoning the common folk.

[Türkisblau]

I think the Democrats have taken labor for granted for way too long. I'm glad that Trumka and co. are willing to put a good fight this time around.

[Sumner 1868]

Typical example of Obama's "change." Although it's nice to see congressional Democrats saying no for once.

[free my dawg]

Typical example of Obama's "change." Although it's nice to see congressional Democrats saying no for once.

Of course not. "Change" in the Democratic Party today means having a feel-good circlejerk about tolerance and equality while doing nothing to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

[RogueBeaver]

Good news.

[ag]

Good news.

Great news.

[KingSweden]

I'm probably one of the lone Democrats on this forum who thinks this is a good thing, all in all. It's not like production hasn't been moving out of the US and Canada for years already even without TPP, and I think NAFTA's effect on US industry is dubious at best. I support organized labor's goals for the most part, but protectionism and tariffs do not help consumers and won't stop cheap Chinese goods from flooding the market anyways like they already do.

Or maybe I've been reading The Economist too much.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was just complaining today about Clinton's betrayal of labor with NAFTA. It's time to rid ourselves of these worker hating neoliberals who call themselves Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, how the hell is this not a treaty and the Iran deal is?

[ag]

Also, how the hell is this not a treaty and the Iran deal is?

Neither is. Both are agreements. One is a congressional-executive agreement (like pretty much all free-trade deals), the other is simply an executive agreement.

Very simply:

A treaty requires a ratification by 2/3 of the Senate (no role for the House), but cannot be amended by it: it is an up-or-down vote.

A congressional-executive agreement needs only a simple majority in both houses, but can be amended, as it is, effectively, enacted as a simple US law.  In this particular case (as in pretty much every other recent case of a free-trade agreement), Congress simply adopts a procedural rule promising not to introduce amendments during the legislative process if it ever gets to it. It is still going to do an up-or-down vote, and, in fact, by both houses.

An executive agreement does not need a congressional vote, as it does not require changes in US laws (the case of the Iran agreement).

[Brewer]

Proud of my representative for being vocally opposed to this.

[ag]

If anybody here should be upset, it is me Because if anybody is going to get hurt, it is Mexico: we are going to loose some of the privilleged access given by NAFTA (it will have to be shared with others).

But I am happy.

[Beet]

If anybody here should be upset, it is me Because if anybody is going to get hurt, it is Mexico: we are in a direct competition with China, and we are going to loose much of the privilleged access given by NAFTA.

But I am happy.

China is not a part of this deal, thankfully. In fact, I think the main reason Obama is for it is that it draws America's East Asian allies into a closer multilateral cooperation with us, while the economic consequences are a wash. He wants to deter China from trying to push the U.S. out of the region.

[ag]

Typical example of Obama's "change." Although it's nice to see congressional Democrats saying no for once.

Of course not. "Change" in the Democratic Party today means having a feel-good circlejerk about tolerance and equality while doing nothing to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

Well, free trade agreements are exactly the ticket for doing something "to bridge the gap between the rich and poor". Trade restrictions help create monopoly rents for the benefit of the rich, while increasing the cost of living for the poor.

[ag]

If anybody here should be upset, it is me Because if anybody is going to get hurt, it is Mexico: we are in a direct competition with China, and we are going to loose much of the privilleged access given by NAFTA.

But I am happy.

China is not a part of this deal, thankfully.

Yeah, I first wrote and then checked. Unfortunately, it is not

[ag]

I feel like I'd be more outraged if I didn't leave the Democratic Party for abandoning the common folk.

Since when is having common folk have access to cheaper prices and better goods is "abandoning" it?

[ag]

I was just complaining today about Clinton's betrayal of labor with NAFTA.

You really hate brown people and the poor in general, don't you?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was just complaining today about Clinton's betrayal of labor with NAFTA.

You really hate brown people and the poor in general, don't you?

What?

[ag]

I was just complaining today about Clinton's betrayal of labor with NAFTA.

You really hate brown people and the poor in general, don't you?

What?

Exactly what I have written. I mean it.

[free my dawg]

I feel like I'd be more outraged if I didn't leave the Democratic Party for abandoning the common folk.

Since when is having common folk have access to cheaper prices and better goods is "abandoning" it?

I mean if common folk means 25-year-old yuppies being able to enjoy their lattes after closing a big stock deal, then sure.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Typical example of Obama's "change." Although it's nice to see congressional Democrats saying no for once.

Of course not. "Change" in the Democratic Party today means having a feel-good circlejerk about tolerance and equality while doing nothing to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

Well, free trade agreements are exactly the ticket for doing something "to bridge the gap between the rich and poor". Trade restrictions help create monopoly rents for the benefit of the rich, while increasing the cost of living for the poor.

A more accurate statement is that trade restrictions helps create monopoly rents for the benefit of segments of the population at the expense of other segments of the population. Another accurate statement is that free trade agreements tend to increase productive capacity of both nations who sign the agreement, which creates a net economic benefit for both parties, but that the distributional effects of free trade agreements can be quite devastating for the working class and the working poor.

Economists would be better respected in society if they didn't intentionally obfuscate information. While comparative advantage is an elegant/powerful theory, it's not all that useful in the context of policy discussions. I think there are cases when it's perfectly acceptable to forego net economic gains in favor of maintaining an equitable distribution of wealth.

edit: I forgot to mention that a lot of arguments against the TPP are hilarious. I read an article claiming that a higher trade deficit necessarily means that full employment will be harder to reach. Apparently, these hacks forgot about the late 90s...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The idea that "free" trade helps the average American much is hysterical. The government has certainly not been trying to help American businesses, either. It's cheaper to mail some one ounce thing from China to the United States, with USPS delivering it than it is to mail the same one ounce thing from the US to the US. The USPS clearly has favored Chinese businesses over American businesses.

[Ebsy]

Free trade probably polls well though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Free trade probably polls well though.

Probably because it has a nice sounding name like Right to Work, Patriot Act, or No Child Left Behind.