Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for TPP

[ag]

Good news.

Great news.

[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).

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Correction: The governments of the other countries are willing to take this sh**t. That doesn't mean it's good for their citizens, many of whom oppose this treaty. Plus, I already pointed out that Americans are affected by the foreign adoption of these laws this as well.

I find it strange how you emphasize "your government" as if I personally have some sort of connection with its positions on these matters. I already advocate the repeal of these measures here; it only makes sense that I would oppose efforts by MY GOVERNMENT to extend them to foreign countries as well.

You live in a democracy, don´t you?

Well, as a citizen of Mexico, I would like to have as many of these treaties as possible. Because free trade is good for us.