Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for TPP

[t_host1]

Is this trade more about banking or who chooses to work for an agreed wage and the one that takes risk on that agreed wage doing tangible things? All things require banking.

 http://www.wsj.com/articles/tpp-momentum-on-trade-deal-bolsters-u-s-japan-efforts-to-counter-china-1429249448?mod=asia_home

[ag]

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.

Yes, of course, US government and both parties have sold America to China, Mexico and all the other non-white peoples too numerous to mention. TREASON!

I love it how the "left" becomes jingoist whenever trade  comes up.

[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?

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

No, common folk means a guy getting 10 dollars an hour and trying to buy his groceries and equip his child for school. You might despise him, but he still wants to live.

[traininthedistance]

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?

It's abandoning common people when they're forced to access those "cheaper" prices and "better" goods because they lost their well-paying jobs because they can't compete with low-wages and lack of regulations (affecting the cost of doing business) present in other countries, and thus need to shop around for the cheapest goods that fit their now-reduced budget.

Cheaper =/= better. Often what happens with poor people who purchase second-hand and cheaper goods is that those things are unreliable, and if they break it will end up costing more in the long-run when they have to pay to repair it or purchase an entirely new one after a the warranty period expires. It also costs them valuable time, for example, when a cheap, imported car breaks down and they have no way to get to their job that pays them by the hour.

These treaties undercut health, safety, and environmental regulations and protections, allow countries like China to exploit weak country-of-origin laws, will probably drive up the costs of medicines by extending monopolies from 5 years to 12 (blowing huge holes in government medical program budgets), in addition to probably opening the door for corporations to sue governments directly over changes in law and policy. It also does nothing to address currency manipulation.

So yeah, our stores fill up with more poorly-made, unsafe, cheap garbage, while the price of medicines go up, government healthcare budgets are wrecked, farmers are undercut, environmental pollution worsens, wages are depressed, and the trade deficit balloons, but hey, as long as corporate profits go up and the rich get richer, who's complaining?

The TPP is an objectively bad deal, unless your goal is to empower corporations more and allow inequality to get worse.

One argument that I've heard in favor of the TPP is that those labor and environmental provisions that people hate would be far, far worse if we weren't at the table, because then China would be the only big power in the room and use their influence set up something with even fewer protections.

I can't speak to how accurate that take is, not having paid that much attention to this issue, but it seems plausible, and I would hope that opponents of the TPP could at least seriously address that counterfactual.

[Simfan34]

"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.

^^^

The TPP must be destroyed at all costs.

"Moderate".

Excellent news.

[Sumner 1868]

Free trade probably polls well though.

Actually, no. The vast majority of Americans opposed both NAFTA and WTO a the time they were proposed, and the last poll I saw in 2012 show a majority still in opposition.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Are supporters of this at all concerned about the ISDS courts granting power to multinational corporations over governments (for instance, under the ISDS portion of NAFTA, US-based Lone Pine is suing the Quebec provincial government for banning fracking due to the loss of expected future profits) and/or the massive surveillance and censorship power granted to the owners of IP? Or that pharmaceutical companies can now renew medical patents, making cheaper generics less available? There was even a provision to patent certain surgical procedures, though this was thankfully removed.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

Yes, of course, US government and both parties have sold America to China, Mexico and all the other non-white peoples too numerous to mention. TREASON!

I love it how the "left" becomes jingoist whenever trade  comes up.

LOL, it's jingoist to point out that it's cheaper to ship from China to the US than from US to the US?

[Deus Naturae]

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.

Yes, of course, US government and both parties have sold America to China, Mexico and all the other non-white peoples too numerous to mention. TREASON!

I love it how the "left" becomes jingoist whenever trade  comes up.

LOL, it's jingoist to point out that it's cheaper to ship from China to the US than from US to the US?

No, but suggesting that's it's part of a conspiracy to destroy American businesses and support foreigners kind of is.

I'm against the TPP though. Tariff reduction may reduce the cost of goods, but the IP provisions will do just the opposite while also cracking down on online freedom.

[Beet]

I'll have to admit, the way some progressive wave "CHINA" like a red flag makes me uncomfortable, and seems out of step with the friendly attitude that progressives take towards other countries traditionally seen as potentially hostile to the U.S.

[ag]

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.

Yes, of course, US government and both parties have sold America to China, Mexico and all the other non-white peoples too numerous to mention. TREASON!

I love it how the "left" becomes jingoist whenever trade  comes up.

LOL, it's jingoist to point out that it's cheaper to ship from China to the US than from US to the US?

It is jingoist to be concerned about it.

[ag]

I'm against the TPP though. Tariff reduction may reduce the cost of goods, but the IP provisions will do just the opposite while also cracking down on online freedom.

Well, IP provisions are the ones, actually, pushed for by the US government. The other partners would happily avoid them.

[ag]

I'll have to admit, the way some progressive wave "CHINA" like a red flag makes me uncomfortable, and seems out of step with the friendly attitude that progressives take towards other countries traditionally seen as potentially hostile to the U.S.

Unfortunately, they do it here in Mexico as well

[SWE]

The TPP is an objectively bad deal, unless your goal is to empower corporations more and allow inequality to get worse.

Signature: Bruce Rauner: Ultimate FF

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'll have to admit, the way some progressive wave "CHINA" like a red flag makes me uncomfortable, and seems out of step with the friendly attitude that progressives take towards other countries traditionally seen as potentially hostile to the U.S.

Unfortunately, they do it here in Mexico as well

If anything, Mexico is worse than the US.

[ag]

I'll have to admit, the way some progressive wave "CHINA" like a red flag makes me uncomfortable, and seems out of step with the friendly attitude that progressives take towards other countries traditionally seen as potentially hostile to the U.S.

Unfortunately, they do it here in Mexico as well

If anything, Mexico is worse than the US.

Have to acknowledge, this is true. Fortunately, there is a lot less direct interaction, though. But wherever there is, it is often painfull.

[ag]

Are supporters of this at all concerned about the ISDS courts granting power to multinational corporations over governments (for instance, under the ISDS portion of NAFTA, US-based Lone Pine is suing the Quebec provincial government for banning fracking due to the loss of expected future profits) and/or the massive surveillance and censorship power granted to the owners of IP? Or that pharmaceutical companies can now renew medical patents, making cheaper generics less available? There was even a provision to patent certain surgical procedures, though this was thankfully removed.

Weakening national corporations and governments is the best thing about these agreements

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

So foreig investors should be more powerful than elected governments? Strikes me as incredibly undemocratic.

[ag]

So foreig investors should be more powerful than elected governments? Strikes me as incredibly undemocratic.

They are not. And have never been.

Governments use these agreements to commit not to do stupid things. Like protecting corporations.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, the export of the United States' hitherto almost uniquely terrible intellectual property regime all over the Pacific Rim really is the most intolerable and indefensible part of this, and it's (obviously) one for which this country has nobody but itself to blame.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Quebec wants to ban fracking within its borders and is being sued by a private American corporation--not because of income loss but because of loss of expected future profits.

[ag]

Quebec wants to ban fracking within its borders and is being sued by a private American corporation--not because of income loss but because of loss of expected future profits.

Well, banning fracking is another stupid thing that a government might want to commit against doing

[ag]

Yeah, the export of the United States' hitherto almost uniquely terrible intellectual property regime all over the Pacific Rim really is the most intolerable and indefensible part of this, and it's (obviously) one for which this country has nobody but itself to blame.

Exactly. In any case, it will do no further harm inside the US: all the harm has already been done.

[Deus Naturae]

Yeah, the export of the United States' hitherto almost uniquely terrible intellectual property regime all over the Pacific Rim really is the most intolerable and indefensible part of this, and it's (obviously) one for which this country has nobody but itself to blame.

Exactly. In any case, it will do no further harm inside the US: all the harm has already been done.

It will do harm to American consumers of goods from other signatory nations. And, even if it would do no harm to the US, that still isn't an argument in favor of US participation in it. If a war harmed other countries but made no difference or benefitted to the US, that wouldn't be an argument in favor of US participation in the conflict.

[ag]

Yeah, the export of the United States' hitherto almost uniquely terrible intellectual property regime all over the Pacific Rim really is the most intolerable and indefensible part of this, and it's (obviously) one for which this country has nobody but itself to blame.

Exactly. In any case, it will do no further harm inside the US: all the harm has already been done.

It will do harm to American consumers of goods from other signatory nations. And, even if it would do no harm to the US, that still isn't an argument in favor of US participation in it. If a war harmed other countries but made no difference or benefitted to the US, that wouldn't be an argument in favor of US participation in the conflict.

The other countries are willing to take this sh**t, because US repays them with market access. If you do not want these IP provisions, just fight against them domestically - everybody else would be happy. We are willing to take this even in package with the IP sh**t - we would be much happier without. But saying that you are against an agreement because of the provisions YOUR GOVERNMENT insists upon, and so you will fight against the agreement, rather than against your government insisting on those provisions - is, at best, strange.