Democrats are actually more enthusiastic than Republicans about trade

[BrentWil]

I think it is only wise to enter into the TPP. The world will become one economy and we should shape it. However, that seems disconnected from the view here. But is the view here disconnected with democrats in general? If so why?

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8607771/trade-poll

[mmonk]

1. Because all of our labor, enivironmental, and other standards should not be lowered

and determined by an international tribunal. Any other questions?

[Fred Sanders]

2. How come high wage, high consumer, massive GDP Japan is good to go then? You prefer China and

India do the trade deals?

[mmonk]

7. We already have free trade with 80% of the countries in this agreement.

The major addition is the tribunal situation.

[Fred Sanders]

9. The major addition is Japan, all other countries economies involved are dwarfed by Japan.

Japan is not afraid of the TPP and neither should America.

[cali]

11. lol you don't think we trade extensively with Japan now?

and just wait until our tariffs on auto parts are removed. Tariffs by the way, are historically low.

[BrentWil]

15. Agreed

The fact they are at an historic low makes having free trade agreements a no brainier. Have other states have similar tariffs and similar labour and environmental rules.

[cali]

8. they aren't good to go. there are major sticking points.

they aren't even close to being the big consumer, massive GDP nation we are. And nothing about the TPP will stop China from continuing to forge their own trade deals.

[House of Roberts]

3. The purpose of the TPP is so that money trumps everything else.

Our workers will soon be paid what the cheapest workers in the world will work for.

[rogerashton]

4. It's not about trade.

The TPP is about "intellectual property" -- that is, trade-marks, copyright, patents -- and that is: about monopoly. To use Stiglitz' language, it is "rent seeking behavior." Crony capitalism.

[Hoyt]

5. Good to read. I'm sure Matt Y will become unwelcome here too with his views on trade.

[cali]

6. huh. forget the poll for a moment. public opinion is only one factor.

First of all, what do you even mean by "The world will become one economy"? How so? In detail, please. The view here is connected to: Public Interest Groups from EFF to the NAACP. It's connected to every major Environmental Org in the world from NRDC to the World Wildlife Fund. It's connected to the overwhelming majority of Congressional Dems. It's connected to NGOs like Medecins Sans Frontiere. It's connected to the expert opinion of Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist, former chief economist for the world band and former chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, as well as to Nobel prize winning economist and columnist Paul Krugman. It's connected to legal experts who oppose the ISDS. And on and on and on.

Why should I side with some of the worst corporate players in the world, banksters, the chamber of commerce and vile pigs like Ted Cruz?

Opposing the TPP is not synonymous with opposing trade. We already have ftas with the majority of the tpp nations. And world's economies have already been shaped- largely for the ill- by NAFTA style ftas, which have promised much and delivered little, except for corporations and the wealthy. China is already a major forger of economic practices within their sphere of influence and beyond. They already have an FTA that includes such nations as Malaysia and Vietnam as well as Indonesia and the Philippines, finalized in 2011.

[lovemydog]

12. The other side of that argument is that plenty of vile folks oppose it.

Tea party republicans and extreme isolationists and democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan, for example.

I'm specifically interested in the argument about higher tariffs. Are you in favor of that and if so, why? I'm asking you because you've made some compelling arguments against it. So I'd appreciate it if you could explain your position further.

I want to strengthen unions and increase wages in the U.S. I'm also interested in the environment worldwide. I don't think we should bury our heads in the sand regarding trade with other nations. If we can help provide jobs in the U.S., boost the U.S. economy, improve the lives of workers around the world along with improving environmental and unionization standards worldwide, all with a deal negotiated primarily by a democratic President, then it may be a risk worth taking, even though past trade deals haven't lived up to what we were promised.

But also, my understanding is that this particular trade deal involves more intellectual property strengthening, and I oppose that.

If you can provide me with some more information I'd appreciate it. I enjoy learning more about it. I don't really understand why the opponents are so vehement, since this just doesn't seem like that big of a deal (Thomas Friedman said that) and doesn't really affect that much. Why are opponents turning this into a sort of Waterloo? Why not make raising of the federal minimum wage their Waterloo? Or stopping police brutality? Or any number of other issues?

[cali]

13. that appears to be a false equivalency. List the vile groups and organizations

that stand in opposition to the TPP.

I'm not sure what argument of mine re higher tariffs you're referring to. I think, for good or for ill, placing high tariffs on products is a practice of bygone days. The issue is no longer about tariffs so much as it is about non-trade barriers.

Of course we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand regarding trade. And we haven't. Trade flows pretty damn freely across the globe. I agree that we should forge agreements that address the environment all over the world- and workers rights. FTAs, on balance, don't seem to have done that. The hazards are built into the agreements themselves; no matter what lip service you give the environment and labor rights, if corporations are increasingly given more power, and enforcement isn't given enough, you end up with an equation that spells damage to the environment and to labor. We've seen that all too often. Colombia re labor is a stark and tragic case study. When American corporations (or others in other trade agreements) team up with governments to terrorize and murder labor activists, as happen in Colombia, we take a significant step backward.

Yes, the leaked IP chapter contained provisions pushed by USTR negotiators that amounts to nothing more or less than protectionism, like extending drug patents through the dubious practice of "evergreening"- making slight shifts in how a drug is manufactured. It's ironic that trade which is supposed to be about breaking down barriers should raise them like this.

I find Friedman to be one of the shallowest public thinkers on the scene. I put down his cliche ridden "The World is Flat", in disgust. This is a big deal. The implications are enormous. Think about extending drug patents for a moment: It directly impacts whether people will be able to get affordable drugs as it pushes generics off the market. Or think about the implications for the internet or food safety or the health of the pacific ocean- of significant concern to environmental orgs who wrote about that in their analysis of the leaked Environment chapter.

Sorry to go on like this, hope I addressed your questions.

[mmonk]

14. They will never get it. A follower seldom does.

If a "leader" says you should follow, follow. Real trade is reciprocity. Trade agreements today aren't about that but repatriating capital. As long as they don't know, the NEW DEMOCRATS derived from the Reagan presidency and the envy around that will keep them confused as a dog on acid.

[mmonk]

10. If not now, when? When will you stand up?

When will you fight?