Trump ends TPP deal. Sanders praises.

[politics_king]

I haven't cared about TPP in over a year, it was clearly never going to be a thing.

No they did. I think Hillary would've signed it into law eventually because she negotiated a "great deal'. She's a neo-liberal (neo-conservative but on the other side on social issues). I don't think TPP is the worst thing ever either, because having access to trade with Japan and Vietnam would help against China and their manipulation of the markets. Most economic experts see what China is doing, build to just build, be damned if people are there. Just look at "Ghost Cities" in China, it's a real thing. China created a bubble, once it pops and that may take a long time, it benefits us in the long run. But being a complete protectionist of our interests doesn't help because we haven't gotten ourselves out of the debt-hole we've created. Like any responsible person, if your debt is high, eventually we need to pay it off, the ones we can before we can't get massive debt resolved.

[politics_king]

Hopefully Trump shows how dumb protectionism is.

I don't want to see an actively protectionist US, but the TPP was awful from start to its well-earned end.

And while I don't like Trump a bit, credit where credit is due: I'm damned glad to see this thing die, and I was not confident Clinton would have put a stake through its heart. (Now to see if Trump starts trying to raise it from the dead the same way I  expect she would have, and whether it looks any better. No secret negotiations would be a positive start.)

My understanding is the Trump vision is multiple bilateral deals rather than a big regional accord. There'll still be FTAs just tailored country by country

"This executive action ushers in a new era of U.S. trade policy in which the Trump administration will pursue bilateral trade opportunities with allies around the globe. This is a strong signal that the Trump administration wants free and fair trade throughout the world....The beautiful thing about a bilateral agreement is that if any one of the true parties in the agreement decides at any time they want to get out of the agreement, or they're not being treated fairly, they can renegotiate much easier. In a multinational agreement, that's not the case. In many cases, all of the other countries have to agree to an action or to let somebody out. That's not putting the U.S. interest's first."- Sean Spicer @ 1/23 press briefing.

That appears to be the case. I think it's a smart move. Why put your own economic interest at the mercy of 11 smaller GDPs. It's smarter to enter bilateral FTAs with each country so you have ultimate veto power in each one.

From an international perspective, it's good because you are in the good-graces of other countries. Vietnam is a "threat" to China, which is why they pushed hard against these deals and help us get fairer deals. They were bad deals though don't get me wrong, because it allowed Big Corporations to exploit poverty stricken workers and pull the rug under decent-paid American workers. How long until they try to rid the minimum wage to keep pace with the rest of the world? It's only going to hurt the American worker into accepting crappy waged jobs at the expense of fat-cats.