General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Trans Pacific Partnership. TPP Do you support it or not.
President Obama has been pushing this as well as Hillary Clinton
Do you think this is a good idea or not?
I, for the record, think it will be a disaster for the middle class in the US

2naSalit
(94,925 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)It's a disaster for American democracy as well as our economy. It gives big corporations veto power over environmental and labor protection laws, to start with. It will be another giant step for corporatocracy.
vlakitti
(401 posts)It's the corporate democrat's ultimate betrayal of their working class and middle class base, for one thing.
GoneOffShore
(17,692 posts)JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)I think this is another step in the loss of our freedom an the loss of control of our country.
Where are the pitch forks and fire brands?
We have no idea what is in it, we have to wait and see
Don't you want to help poor people in other countries?
We can't trust what Wikileaks has released because we hatesssss Wikileaks and Assange
Even with lovely links, we don't think Hillary has mentioned her feelings on the TPP
You never loved Obama
Haha - Obama did not actually use the exact words "fast track" in the SOTU speech, so he isn't asking for fast track
Anyway, if, by some miracle, the TPP is sunk, it will turn out Obama was just messin' with us and wanted it to fail all along.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)"We have no idea what is in it, we have to wait and see"
To me, that's a show-stopper right there. NOBODY knows what's in it, because it's still being negotiated. To claim that you do is disingenuous.
How can you say you are for or against something if nobody knows anything about it?
djean111
(14,255 posts)don't like what we see so far.
I don't know how anyone can be "for" it, except the people who have access to it. pretty secretive.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for the industries and businesses in our state. That's code for the businesses will make out but the workers will be screwed. In fact, one of the Senators included the reassurance that she supports assuring that those put out of work (kinda admitting workers will in fact be put out of work), will be retrained for other jobs. She didnt include that the taxpayers will foot the bill (not the businesses that will benefit from the TPP) for the retraining for jobs that dont exist.
TPP will bring cheaper (and less expensive) products to the USofA, but who will buy if they are out of work?
Globalization means leveling the standards of living around the world as well as providing the 1% tools to rape the lower classes.
"The wealthy dont wish us to die, they just dont give a crap if we do."
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And we know that never has a "free trade agrement" of any sort , cause anything BUT harm, for the working people of those countries involved, for the massive gain of the top half-percent.
Ask Mexicans how well NAFTA worked out for them - Bonus points of the Mexicna you asked is available for you to ask because they're hauling ass away from the smoldering ruin of an economy that nation has.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Some people, at least, know what's in it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4424473
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)We need to help the poor people in this country first before helping poor people abroad.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Those imaginary lines on the maps are really important to a lot of people. Guess religion's not the only imaginary thing we let dictate our ethics and treatment of others.
(this is where a juicy yet fallacious distinction without a difference is inserted... or instead, my favorite bit: "my imaginary crap is more important than other imaginary crap...!!!"
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)not simply nationalism for nationalism's sake. We are Americans. I always try to fix the problems in my own house before I go out and cure the ills of my neighbors.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)The first of the minions to come is already here1
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Hate the fact she supports this. It is no surprise to me though. On almost all economic issues she and Obama are conservative. As much as I love Hillary, I will not vote for her in a primary. Just because I love her doesn't mean I want her running the country. I like Grayson too, but I hope the guy never makes it to the White House. Politically, I am extremely impressed by Clinton and Obama. Politics are shady and so are both of them. Nature of the beast. They have both found extreme power. That power has been financed by the 1%.
Obama and Hillary/Bill play the game better than anyone since maybe Regan.
840high
(17,196 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)An attempt to create a Pacific trade block that excludes China is interesting, but our trade with TPP members (other than Canada) will still be absolutely dwarfed by our trade with China.
To the extent that it has much of an effect, it's just going to reinforce the trends trade is already responsible for:
* American heavy manufacturing will increase, as we keep building the machines and factories other countries use to do light manufacturing
* American light manufacturing will decrease, as we keep buying the light manufactured goods that those other countries produce more cheaply
* American ag will continue to consolidate and export a lot, even at the expense of domestic consumption (see the thread about alfalfa from the other day)
* China will continue to buy dollar-denominated debt to keep the renminbi down
We'll sell slightly more soybeans, cattle hides, and heavy plant, and buy slightly more cheap plastic crap, but still not enough to remotely eclipse China or Canada as trade partners (and Canada is probably going to sign on to the TPP anyways, for largely the same reasons we will).
I'm with Krugman that it's not really going to have the positive effects the pro-TPP people claim or the negative effects the anti-TPP people claim, particularly since we already have similar bilateral agreements with AFAIK every potential member.
djean111
(14,255 posts)where they can sue other countries if those countries have any regulations that will adversely affect profit. And the court will be populated by the investors' lawyers. So then either sovereign laws/regulations must be overturned or taxpayers must pay the investors the amount of profit they decided they would have made.
In addition, I understand that the TPP will block the sale of cheaper generic drugs, which means that health care costs will continue to spiral until they approach MIC proportions. IMO.
Things like that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't know why people noticed the arbitration policies in the TPP, but not in... oh... every trade treaty since Bismark's time.
So then either sovereign laws/regulations must be overturned or taxpayers must pay the investors the amount of profit they decided they would have made.
Yup. That's what a treaty is: countries agree to give up some of their sovereignty in return for other countries' doing the same thing. A country that passes a law in contravention of the TPP can be penalized through a tort.
So, for instance, the similar investor-state arbitration policy we already have with Australia allowed Phillip Morris to sue Australia over its packaging laws. But the deciding court is... the Australian supreme court. Phillip Morris didn't do very well at that trial, obviously.
In addition, I understand that the TPP will block the sale of cheaper generic drugs
Importation of generics is already blocked, and the TPP doesn't deal with intranational issues like a country producing its own generics. What it would allow, which would be awesome, is for foreign companies to sue against bad US drug patents to allow importation of the drugs they make.
Lasher
(28,567 posts)We already have trade agreements and low conventional trade barriers. So what is to be gained from doubling down on new mega-trade agreements like these? The focus of these deals will be on non-conventional barriers, meaning various regulatory practices.
These trade agreements are not about promoting prosperity for all, but for powerful industry lobbies to dodge regulation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/15/us-trade-deal-with-europe-hype
Contemporary so-called free trade agreements are not the same as every treaty since Bismark's time.
sabbat hunter
(6,921 posts)free trade when the countries pay scales, regulations, etc are fairly equal. For example the EU (and prior to it the common market) works well because all of the countries involved are on a fairly level playing field. I think it has benefited most of the countries involved.
So when you have countries like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United States, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea involved, you have countries that have fairly similar pay scales, regulations, etc. So having tariffs drop among them would be beneficial to all, as none has any glaring major competitive advantage over another. As a result by a place like South Korea dropping tariffs on foreign cars, would benefit companies like GM, Chrysler, Ford in bringing in their cars to South Korea and competing with Hyundai.
The situation gets a lot more tricky when you involve countries that have large advantages due to government owned corporations (like Vietnam has),where the Vietnamese government is not afraid to try and sell its goods at a loss abroad, in an effort to put competitors out of business. In cases like that a tariff barrier levels the playing field, by bringing up the costs of goods from Vietnam close to goods made in the US.
In many cases of countries involved in the TPP, there are already bilateral trade agreements in place (like with the US and Chile), so a lot of the issues I described above are already being dealt with.
So for that part I do not think it would be a disaster for the middle class.
The bigger issue with the TPP is the intellectual property issues, like drug companies trying to get provisions put in place so that brand name drugs have to be in place for longer times before generics are allowed (this would affect countries like Chile, Vietnam more than the US). It would also make it harder to self publish in some places, would forbid or restrict the importation of things like DVDs in to a country where there is already a licensed distribution partner (like buying movies from japan and shipping them here. instead you would be forced to buy from a local distributor, which could raise prices)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership_Intellectual_Property_Provisions
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would be far more beneficial to the US, as it would give the US more access to the EU market for our goods.
In both cases I oppose fast track approval and instead would want it to go thru full approval and vetting by the Senate and a greater public transparency of TPP.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)jazzimov
(1,456 posts)It's still being negotiated. I would prefer to see what's in it before I say I do or do not support it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The time between "too soon to say anything" and "too late to matter" is about negative three months at this point.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)They actually believe (and not without justification) that this will work again.
merrily
(45,251 posts)By the time the term "TPP" came into our consciousness, it was already too late for us to matter.
When do our opinions change minds in DC anyway? For example, I give you the public option, Keystone, troops in Afghanistan, etc.
I think the Vietnam War --and the draft-- ended because conservatives, many of them neocons, wanted it to end, not because liberals had been demonstrating for ten or more years. And I don't think a few phone calls from us stopped Obama re: Syria, either. Again, that was a movement begun by conservatives and joined by many Democrats in Congress, some of whom had already sued Obama over Libya, plus Boehner,
merrily
(45,251 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)there is attempt here to create a bandwagon.
neverforget
(9,481 posts)F the TPP!
CaliforniaPeggy
(152,839 posts)And the fact that Hillary does makes me not want her to be President of anything.
Obama's support is just one of the reasons I am so disappointed in him.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
frwrfpos
(517 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)p.s. I live in Mexico and can tell you that NAFTA was an effin' disaster for this country too. The only "people" who benefited were the corporate variety.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of the overt over-the-top showmanship produced by the republican troop of the DC Circus ©.
He fucked us and fucked us good. The kind of fucking that we won't get over for generations, if ever.
GReedDiamond
(5,396 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)They are a power grab by those who want the only laws to govern the world to be the laws of the most ruthless forms of capitalism. No checks and balances from civil society. No competing social or ethical values.
We've seen the results. Who in their right mind can think the decimation of the middle/working classes is a good thing?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
Not only my brain but my whole body hurts.

-p
MindMover
(5,016 posts)I WANT FAIR TRADE, NOT FAKE TRADE DEALS ...
Where are our negotiators and why does our President have so much power in these negotiations ... ???
No one man should have the power to make these trade decisions for an entire countries business community ...
jsr
(7,712 posts)SamKnause
(13,988 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)And supporters should just spare us the "we don't know what's in it" bullshit. Thanks to leaks, we do know some of it, and so far there is absolutely not a single good feature.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Warpy
(113,131 posts)and kept in such extreme secrecy that members of Congress don't know all of what is in it.
I guess that means I'm vehemently against it. So much for Obama's promise of transparency.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)disaster zone. I would like to see us return to a position in which we have freedom as a sovereign nation and are not subjugated to international trade courts. The TPP will be yet another blow to our democratic government.
roody
(10,849 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)No.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)But they will try to ram it down our thought and make us like it.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)And yes it would be a disaster for this country! This is total insanity!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)City Lights
(25,507 posts)I also think it will be a disaster the for US middle class.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)highmindedhavi
(355 posts)President Obama and Hillary Clinton are not "pushing" the TPP, they are merely puppets of the Banks, Wall St, and corporations. When are we going to wake up and stop voting candidates who take bribes during their campaigns?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Just ones like NAFTA and the TPP.
Many things could be done with a trade agreement that would benefit so many. unfortunately, the last three Presidents seem to be interested in the few.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote..."
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,376 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)We should actually be doing the exact opposite of just about everything in the TPP.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Yep, that's pretty much exactly what we see.
No way.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and attempting to convince people to support it after the disaster that was NAFTA is a fool's errand.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)No, no, and NO!
past history shows how god awful free trade agreements affects the middle class, why would one think doing it again is going make things better?
-p
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)frwrfpos
(517 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I would say more, but just the thought of what they are up to almost makes me speechless.
..