Obama blasts Warren on TPP

[Zioneer]

I still don't understand why Obama wants the TPP so much. Even if it is a good deal, it doesn't seem worth expending the effort on it. Why exactly is he so passionate about it?

[Beet]

Unusually, I still don't have an opinion on TPA, but trade is really where the left allows itself to wallow in Pat Buchananite-style xenophobia and flag-waving nationalism with impunity.

[Simfan34]

The worst thing about the TPP is bad for other countries, not us, so it makes sense that most of the American opposition to it would be sort of nonsensical compared to opposition in, say, Japan.

The only people it'll impact adversely (in economic terms at least) are the Chinese. Which I'm not sure we can really call a bad thing. Yes, it honestly won't benefit us all that much, but it will make a substantial impact on other regional economies, which is very much a good thing in both economic and political terms. I'd argue that the main benefit of the TPP is not the direct impact it would have on the American economy but the political consequences of the economic gains made by the other participating countries.

Anyway, good on the President for talking some sense.

[Beet]

The leftist approach to foreign policy can be summed up as follows:

Terrorists plotting to kill us/dictators killing people? It's all America's fault! We're eeeevil imperialists, no wonder they hate us! The CIA!
Vietnamese worker wants a job for 56 cents an hour so America's poor can get a cheaper t-shirt? Oh no, can't have that. It's a corporatist conspiracy!

[Mechaman]

Unusually, I still don't have an opinion on TPA, but trade is really where the left allows itself to wallow in Pat Buchananite-style xenophobia and flag-waving nationalism with impunity.

Yes, it's like people have forgotten that protectionism, when actually implemented, resulted only in record profits for owners while raising prices on consumers.

You might have heard of this phenomena, it's called Gilded Age for a reason and why every Democratic President since Cleveland has advocated freer trade despite how illiterate much of their GMO WHOLE FOODS FAIR TRADE base is on it.

Which isn't to say that the TPP is perfect or even that I agree with it, especially given the lack of details given by the administration.

[Mechaman]

Unusually, I still don't have an opinion on TPA, but trade is really where the left allows itself to wallow in Pat Buchananite-style xenophobia and flag-waving nationalism with impunity.

Yes, it's like people have forgotten that protectionism, when actually implemented, resulted only in record profits for owners while raising prices on consumers.

You might have heard of this phenomena, it's called Gilded Age for a reason and why every Democratic President since Cleveland have advocated freer trade.

While I support free trade, protectionism also likely increased wages for American workers indirectly. Unless you're telling me the US was going to be able to compete directly against Britain in the 1800s without protectionism.  

That's not entirely my point, just that the kind of protectionist wet dream the U.S. went through in the late 1800s is exactly why it should be avoided now days.

And a lot of those raises could be linked more with union and worker involvement than directly to high tariffs.

Even I am realistic enough to admit that at times in the early 1800s a 20% tariff might have been necessary.

[King]

Protectionism also helped in the roaring twenties...

If the left really cares about climate change and the military industrial complex, they'll support free trade. It really makes it hard to be diplomatic while also drowning other nations economically.

[Simfan34]

I had also meant to post this illustrative chart:

[Mechaman]

Unusually, I still don't have an opinion on TPA, but trade is really where the left allows itself to wallow in Pat Buchananite-style xenophobia and flag-waving nationalism with impunity.

Yes, it's like people have forgotten that protectionism, when actually implemented, resulted only in record profits for owners while raising prices on consumers.

You might have heard of this phenomena, it's called Gilded Age for a reason and why every Democratic President since Cleveland have advocated freer trade.

While I support free trade, protectionism also likely increased wages for American workers indirectly. Unless you're telling me the US was going to be able to compete directly against Britain in the 1800s without protectionism.   

That's not entirely my point, just that the kind of protectionist wet dream the U.S. went through in the late 1800s is exactly why it should be avoided now days.

Even I am realistic enough to admit that at times in the early 1800s a 20% tariff might have been necessary.

Fair enough, I actually agree with you, but there are enough people who kneejerk against any tariff that was there based on modern standards that I had to raise the question.

However, now I would say it's correct to kneejerk against tariffs. I mean, look at the Bush steel tariff, which hurt the economy and was just useless in general.

As it relates to the TPP partnership, I only see positive economic growth occurring, with workers not being hurt.

I mean as it regards TPP I am undecided (unfortunately I accidentally submitted the post when I was only halfway through it).  There are some reasonable objections, but I also feel that there are more than knee jerker to warrant the assessments made by myself and a few others.

Composition wasn't necessarily my strong suit in high school.

[KingSweden]

lol @ Warren. Get em, Obama!

[Bacon King]

I agree entirely with Nix. The only defenses I've seen of TPP are simple straw-man attacks against protectionism that don't even acknowledge the legitimate concerns specific to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I'd be much more amenable to an actual free trade agreement that simply removes tariffs and such. I am very wary, however, of expanded intellectual property restrictions, the serious potential for bias inherent to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, and the lack of safeguards against currency manipulation by treaty members. Many people have other specific concerns as well but I'm not familiar enough with the details to comment on those.

The only responses my concerns have ever gotten have been little more than canned arguments about how bad trade barriers are. I believe most opponents to the TPP have substantial and specific concerns like these, and if the treaty's proponents can't offer substantial reassurances about the treaty's details then I think it will have a surprisingly difficult time passing Congress.

[Simfan34]

On the other hand, most criticism of the TPP I've encountered deals with unsubstantiated fears of job losses and claims of economic benefits going unrealised, topped off with anti-corporate fearmongering. Caricature or not, it's what what most of the criticism is founded on. Meanwhile, the economic and political benefits are clear and appreciable.

Aside from currency manipulation I am not sure whether the United States would be negatively impacted by the things you mention. Nor I have read anything to suggest they'd be particularly consequential in the grand scheme of things. But I'm open to new information.

[Simfan34]

I realise that what I wrote might sound overly dismissive, but one should easily be able to see that much if not most of what has been written opposing the TPP is genuinely pure, unmitigated nonsense. To claim that most of what is out there is neither "economically nor as politically ignorant" as it comes across simply runs counter to the myriad articles I've read that were devoid of any kind of logic or sense.

Sure, there may be more incisive critiques, but to write-off those less substantive arguments as mere strawmen used by defenders ignores the fact that they probably comprise most of what's being said against the TPP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So who is Mrs. "Hard Choices" going to side with?

*crickets*

[Beet]

As to why Obama is so invested in this, let's face it, without this agreement, what had his much vaunted "pivot to Asia" really amounted to? He has a climate agreement with China consisting of measures they would likely have taken anyway. Besides that, from where I'm sitting, it has been pretty much a bust.

No one in the left has noticed, perhaps because they, too hate China. But American troops have been deployed to Australia and the Philippines, the U.S.-India anti-China alliance has advanced another step, and the Pentagon had drawn up "AirSea Battle", a complex offensive strategy whose main innovation seems to be bombing mainland China. Meanwhile, North Korea has more nukes and hostility than ever, and the incipient Cold War with China marches forward. He needs TPP to draw together his string of pearls on the Pacific Rim, and has been heavily dog whistling to that effect.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The worst thing about the TPP is bad for other countries, not us, so it makes sense that most of the American opposition to it would be sort of nonsensical compared to opposition in, say, Japan.

The only people it'll impact adversely (in economic terms at least) are the Chinese. Which I'm not sure we can really call a bad thing. Yes, it honestly won't benefit us all that much, but it will make a substantial impact on other regional economies, which is very much a good thing in both economic and political terms. I'd argue that the main benefit of the TPP is not the direct impact it would have on the American economy but the political consequences of the economic gains made by the other participating countries.

By 'the worst thing about the TPP' I'm referring to the export of the United States' ridiculous copyright regime all around the Pacific Rim.

[badgate]

I still don't understand why Obama wants the TPP so much. Even if it is a good deal, it doesn't seem worth expending the effort on it. Why exactly is he so passionate about it?

What else could he realistically expend a good deal of his final capital on? Sure he could make another doomed push for immigration reform or another jobs bill, but with the TPP he's a lot more likely to actually get 'er done.

[Simfan34]

You might suspect, Averroes, that I would respond to all of your points. You would be correct. I've broken up my would-be post for the sake of preventing it from getting to a length where people would just not bother reading it. I'll intersperse it between other posts as they come along.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure what the response to those talking points is meant to achieve. If the goal is to make a substantively correct argument, the response should address the deal's most coherent critics rather than the most hysterical anti-TPP applause lines. If the goal is to make a politically appealing argument, lamenting the ignorance and illiteracy of the masses is unlikely to win sympathy except by flattering those who already agree. None of this is unusual: Most popular arguments on any policy topic are thinly-veiled appeals to bias and identity under the guise of common sense.

To respond to your other post, the most compelling points of criticism that I've seen come from policy writers like Jared Bernstein, Paul Krugman, and Matthew Yglesias.

That being said, one cannot simply downplay the prevalence of such “hysterical anti-TPP applause lines” in the discussions about the TPP. Cogent or not, such rhetoric on how the TPP shall let loose unbridled corporate greed, leading to mass job losses, exploitation of workers abroad, increases in global inequality, and so forth, are what is driving most of the debate. Most claims of these sort are at best ill-founded and frequently downright inane, and as a result easily disproven (without resorting to insulting the general public, I imagine). It should be understandable why TPP defenders might come across as condescending or overly dismissive of criticism when most of the anti-TPP arguments one encounters are of that sort.

I'll try to read what Krugman, Yglesias, and the others you mentioned have written once I have more time after finals. I look forwards to it. I did come across some other articles (maybe the same ones you're thinking of) via Marginal Revolution that I haven't had time to read either.

I have actually come across some critiques that do make arguments requiring meaningful consideration, but not many; concerns with overly generous intellectual property rights- particularly in regards to pharmaceuticals (I did read a piece that pertinently argued that stricter patent laws would lead, counter-productively, to China expanding its market share with generic drugs that TTP members were forbidden from producing- although I don’t see why this couldn't simply be solved with a tariff) were one.

Another was with the potential diversion of trade away from other low-income countries in the region (e.g. Bangladesh, Cambodia, or Sri Lanka) to Vietnam. Aside from the inherent (and incorrect) assumption that trade deals only result in the diversion, rather than creation, of trade, the obvious solution is to bring them into the TTP and allow them to share its benefits. The Chinese are themselves seeking out outsource low-cost manufacturing so I suspect the pie will be large enough for everyone (including Africa, mind you!).

(An aside- the apparent inability of export-oriented manufacturing in Bangladesh to raise incomes and produce economic growth as vigorously as was able to in other countries in the region, in my opinion, could present worrying challenges our understanding of the positive impact  “sweatshop labor” has on both the macroeconomy and standards of living. I don’t know the particulars of the Bangladeshi case, but I am tempted to attribute insufficient gains to a high population growth rate and more importantly political reasons- but I couldn't say much more without veering off onto things like debating the merits of Partition or a United Bengal or other largely irrelevant ruminations that would only serve as embarrassments. But the effects of politics on growth can be clearly observed elsewhere in the region, namely in Thailand, where it is estimated that GDP would be 50% larger today had it avoided its recurring political crises.)

[Ebowed]

The only defenses I've seen of TPP are simple straw-man attacks against protectionism that don't even acknowledge the legitimate concerns specific to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

^^

It's especially frustrating for me because in the other threads, I hoped to provide a clear rationale as to why this would have a negative humanitarian impact on countries outside the US that sign this deal.  I don't identify as a protectionist, so these posts mean nothing to me.  Granted, I won't be able to convince many people if it won't necessarily affect them, but it's sort of like reading the same thing over and over, 'anyone who opposes this is crazy!'  There are plenty of posters right here on this forum making cogent arguments against the TPP from a number of perspectives.

[Simfan34]

One of the most compelling pro-TPP points that I've heard is that it will probably to have an appreciable positive effect on wages in Vietnam. Otherwise, and particularly in the United States, the effects seem more likely to be minor.

In every empirical appraisal I’ve read (note: this is a figure of around three reports), the effect in the United States, on both GDP and net exports, was invariably positive. First, then, this suggests that (as said before) fears of mass job losses and an explosion in the trade deficit are without basis. Second, yes, while we’d have the largest gains of any country in dollar terms, proportionally the gains would not be all that large. Still, a 4.5% increase in exports and a 0.5% increase in GDP is certainly not bad news. I’m getting these figures from this table, which shows projected changes in GDP resulting from various configurations of the TPP.

But yes. As the data shows, the greatest gains would be made by other countries. Which is obviously good for them. Importantly, however, it’s also good for us; indeed I would say that the primary benefit of the TPP is not the direct economic gains we’d see, but the political benefits it would have for our position in the region and by extension in overall terms.

Obviously, Obama cannot go around saying that the TPP is good because it will help the US maintain global hegemony, although to his credit he did try to promote the deal by framing it as a national security issue, which predictably did nothing to win over protectionists. (Apparently he said it was “because the unions on principle, regardless of what the provisions are, are opposed to trade”, which earns him massive respect from me!)

It might shave off 0.5% of China’s GDP, yes, but the more consequential impact is that it would raise the GDP of all of the Asian participants by more than 1%, and particularly those in Southeast Asia (if the deal is the TPP-16, which would include several major economies in that region- something that should be considered a top priority). Vietnam (with a 14.3% increase in GDP) would lead the pack, yes, but the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia would all see sizable gains (with increases in GDP of 6.9%, 7.6%, 7.0%, and 4.0%, respectively).

This would have a number of positive effects for us. It would prevent the region’s states from being drawn closer into Beijing's orbit by way of trade dependency, and instead draw them closer to us and each other. It would increase their capacity to counter Chinese designs in the region, particularly in Southeast Asia and with regards to the South China Sea, due to the greater defence expenditure a larger economy allows combined with again, closer ties with the other participants. It would not so much be containment of China as it would be strategic expansionism of our own.

Indeed, I’d say, while Vietnam would make the greatest gains economically, it is with Vietnam that the US would likely make the greatest strategic gains; the economic gains Vietnam would make from trade would likely weaken the position of the pro-Beijing faction within the Communist Party to the benefit of its anti-Chinese and reformist faction, which would mean the diminution of their policy of “hedging their bets” diplomatically (while pursuing closer ties with the US, they recently agreed to allow Russia to re-open a former Soviet naval base) in favor of a firmly pro-American stance. This would help counter Chinese designs in the South China Sea. Indeed, it might just even lead to a democratic transition taking root in the country.*

Now, you might be someone who sees no value in the United States retaining its status as the global hyperpower, and indeed might even see it a bad thing. If you are one of those people, I would simply refer you to a point TheDeadFlagBlues’ made recently about American fiscal policy, which was that “America is uniquely positioned to run fairly high budget deficits ad infinitum” since, I assume, people will always consider US sovereign debt and the US Dollar as the safest of assets (which they do). Now while I believe that perpetually increasing our proportional debt burden is neither advisable nor actually feasible, the primacy of the dollar and the Treasury is beyond dispute... because of our status as the world’s hyperpower. If that were to no longer be the case, so would our ability to run large deficits in perpetuity, which would probably lead to a fiscal tightening whose severity the word “super-mega-austerity” could not fully convey. So that alone makes it in our interest to retain our place on top of the pole. (As do myriad other less snappy reasons).

As to why Obama is so invested in this, let's face it, without this agreement, what had his much vaunted "pivot to Asia" really amounted to? He has a climate agreement with China consisting of measures they would likely have taken anyway. Besides that, from where I'm sitting, it has been pretty much a bust.

No one in the left has noticed, perhaps because they, too hate China. But American troops have been deployed to Australia and the Philippines, the U.S.-India anti-China alliance has advanced another step, and the Pentagon had drawn up "AirSea Battle", a complex offensive strategy whose main innovation seems to be bombing mainland China. Meanwhile, North Korea has more nukes and hostility than ever, and the incipient Cold War with China marches forward. He needs TPP to draw together his string of pearls on the Pacific Rim, and has been heavily dog whistling to that effect.

You would be correct. So far, the “pivot” has more or less been a flop. The TPP would pave the way for a transformation of the US’s role in Asia which would, potentially, frustrate completely Chinese efforts to attain regional hegemony and establish some pseudo-revival of the tributary system. If its potential is realised in full, President Obama’s will have left a legacy whose impact on global balance would be truly immense.

*Vietnam’s political system is already surprisingly open, if by the standards of one-party socialist states, particularly when compared to China. In short, it is possible for an official to be publically criticised without it meaning he is about to be purged. The Prime Minister and the General Secretary have openly criticised each other in public.There are already competitive elections (between pre-approved members of the Communist Party) for the National Assembly, which is not completely the rubber-stamp body that legislatures in such countries tend to be- they actually can reject government proposals or appointees, subject ministers to fierce criticism at hearings, and have begun holding regular “confidence votes” on government officials, who must resign if they fail (none have, so far, but they’re far, far from unanimous approvals). The Central Committee likewise has on occasion actually reversed appointments made by the Politburo, and their plenary sessions are accompanied by a flurry of critical if ritualised public commentary. When debating a new constitution in 2013, it was even publically debated whether or not to change the official name of the country back to the “Democratic Republic of Vietnam”, as it was named by the first North Vietnamese constitution of 1946- which had set up a multiparty system- in order to emphasise the republican and democratic nature of the state.  It was declared a few years ago that the government intended to privatise all SOEs- they haven’t actually found buyers but still intend to do so. In summary, they make the Chinese look like orthodox hardliners in comparison, and seem to only profess Marxism-Leninism due to sheer inertia. And that might change.

This was a useless aside.

[Beet]

So, yeah. On the one side you have the New Cold Warriors (let's funnel money to Vietnam so they can buy our missiles! China = evil!) and on the other side you have the knee-jerk protectionists (OMGZ, cheap colored labor! Neoliberalism!). Then you have the "substance of the bill" folks like Averroes here, fighting a losing battle against ignorance. To be perfectly frank, there are arguments for or against the bill (TPA, which is up for a vote, not TPP; but this applies to TPP also) on substance but the balance of all of them added together does not tilt significantly enough in either direction for me to care much one way or the other. So it looks like tomorrow is going to be popcorn day for me. A heartfelt pox on both houses.

[Simfan34]

Are you calling me a "new Cold Warrior"? Because I support improving our relations with countries in Southeast Asia? Anyway...

The worst effects of the deal will be felt outside of the United States. But I'm not about to deny non-US citizens standing; I think it's self-evident that their well-being deserves consideration. Moreover, the deal's distributional effects within the United States remain murky at best. I'm not interested in economic growth if it makes people who are already doing poorly even worse off.

It would appear, as mentioned before, those who stand to make the greatest gains are the poorest nations participating in the treaty, meaning it would have an equalising effect on the global income distribution. Again I have to assume you are deriving your concerns about the welfare of people overseas for reasons different from what I’ve seen given to justify such thought.

A particularly inane article I read in the Grauniad (they’re really quite bad, actually- the amount of sheer nonsense in it, as a proportion of its content, is far greater than in any other “respectable publication”, which it supposedly is) told a sad story of underpaid and overworked workers in a Nike factory in Indonesia, and how these sorts of conditions would spread rapidly under the TPP. At no point was it asked why people were willing to voluntarily submit to such exploitation. I won’t even mention the article about NAFTA that blamed it for both illegal immigration and job losses in the United States while completely glossing over the maquiladoras.

As for its effects on income distribution, it has to be said that, assuming that its overall impact on the American economy is, as you say, minimal, then whatever adverse effect it would have on people would likewise be minimal. It would also be countered by, yes, an appreciable positive gain for a few at the top, but a modest gain in net welfare for the population at large. Whatever effect it has on income distribution in the United States, it would be marginal relative to its overall impact.

Also, as someone who cares about the political prospects of the Democratic Party, I'm not happy about having a lame-duck president pushing a proposal that's clearly divisive for the Democratic coalition and unpopular among voters whom the party should be doing its best to win over. Even if I were entirely confident in the TPP's economic benefits, I would be concerned about the political effects of the agreement.

As someone who does not care in the least about the political prospects of the Democratic Party, I must say that I am pleased that the President is pursuing a policy that is overwhelmingly in the strategic interest of the United States and most likely in its immediate economic interests as well. To sound like a Lib Dem apologist, leadership demands putting the national interest ahead of political expediency.

[Beet]

Are you calling me a "new Cold Warrior"? Because I support improving our relations with countries in Southeast Asia? Anyway...

And why are we so invested in improving relations with Southeast Asia all of a sudden?

[Gass3268]

Looks like fast-track is going to fail in its first attempt at a vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/fast-track-trade-bill-faces-170454700.html

Update: Cloture voted failed 53-45. Tom Carper was the only Democrat to vote for cloture.

[Beet]

Wyden is the leader of the "pro trade" Democrats and he wants a bunch of other bills advanced at the same time. This is just round 1.