What do you like or not like about the TPP?

[puffy socks]

I don't mean the supposed "secrecy" while negotiating.

I would like to hear people's thoughts on actual pieces of the agreement or why you may or may not want any trade agreements at all.
Thanks



Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-making-process/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership

Summary from US Gov
https://ustr.gov/tpp/#facts

Pros and Cons
http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm

[yallerdawg]

1. The Trans-Pacific Partnership...

is a trade alliance among 12 Pacific-rim nations - and includes fair NAFTA-revisions regarding Mexico and Canada.

It includes recognizing the need for and helping to improve worker rights, labor and environmental standards, and leveling the playing field for all the members.

The US cannot thrive under protectionism and isolationism. Our economic and social ties with other nations give us a more stable, peaceful world.

Raising living standards for the world has been an outcome of our free trade agreements, too! In a global economy, we can be a part of it or a bystander.

Many economists tell us, taken on the whole, the good outweighs the bad.

I'll stick with any Democrat who puts our future above posturing!

But no Democrat can go wrong opposing "imperfect" trade agreements.

[procon]

2. Its not about "like or not like".

Its way to complex a topic to reduce it to such simplistic terms.There are few enough experts that understand the complicated treaty, and I doubt that anyone here has knowledge of its entirety, or even the overall impact. Its pointless to out snippets and pieces that seemingly sound good or bad on their face value, because everything is tied together.

It drives me nuts when the cafeteria christians cherry pick pieces of scripture to back up their hate and bigotry, while ignoring the enduring philosophical message of the whole book. This treaty is getting the same short shrift treatment.

The best I can do is listen and evaluate, and then make an informed opinion based on what the experts involved are saying. They come from several different countries, each with their own needs and agendas, and they are the only people who have direct knowledge of what they negotiated and their intent in writing the various clauses that make up the deal.

Everything else is 2nd and 3rd hand reinterpretations of the treaty's original signers, and suspect from the start.

[puffy socks]

7. Its not about "like or not like".

Actually it is.
Its complicated but that's precisely why the pieces need to be analyzed in detail as well as the whole picture.

[Coolest Ranger]

3. I don't think this is the place

to have this type of discussion. This needs to go to General Discussion primary

[puffy socks]

5. I'm sorry.

The reason I posted it here is because when I asked this question earlier I got answers like :
It sucks because corporate America did it! and Hillary is a corporate shill beholden to them..blah blah
Or
"It was negotiated behind closed doors and we can't see what's in it!" or " Corporate America is screwing us , Hillary is a corporate shill!"
Simply asking the question and pointing out some positives gets one labeled a Republican.

GD-P is just a jab fest until the primaries are over. I post there for entertainment purposes because that's all its worth until then.

There's nowhere else to actually discuss the issues honestly and openly. That's why I posted it here.

[LisaM]

8. Boy is that on target!

It's impossible to bring up almost anything without getting responses like the ones you describe above.

[jmowreader]

11. The biggest problem with the "behind closed doors" thing...

98 percent of the people here, on both sides of the fence, have never seen a trade treaty and wouldn't know how to read one if they had it. I know I couldn't. This might actually be a great treaty, but the people who can't read the thing but know it's bad because it was negotiated by corporate shills/Hillary likes it/there's nothing in it about banning glyphosate, GMOs, aspartame, GMO avocados or glycine/it's Tuesday and A&W is out of coneys are going to say it's horrific regardless.

[puffy socks]

13. I just think

negotiating with doors open leaves too much room for hyper critcism from the public that could cause real problems with ever getting a deal at all.
Trade deals are the only way to get any benefits for labor at all internationally and, whether we like it or not a ton of middle class people work for corporations.
Our lives do depend on the success of the corporation. They're just getting screwed by those that control the purse strings.
That's a problem I think best solved domestically.

[LAS14]

16. Hear hear!!

The differences between the Hillary group and GDP are so glaring it hurts my eyes. I posted a question about the NC HB2 issue in GDP and cross posted here. In GDP I mostly got ad hominem attacks because I asked the question. Here I got discussion and answers.

[Starry Messenger]

4. Obviously we need trade agreements.

What always makes me nervous about this one is the stout assertions we hear that it has labor protections so we should shut up and be happy. Making that stuff have actual teeth usually falls on labor itself, and we already have enough headaches.

It's been awhile since I read about it, but I seem to remember there is hinky stuff about copyrights, and also issues of corporate immunity for US companies to protect against lawsuits in other countries, which sounds bad too.

OTOH, I know some folks who just went as a delegation to Vietnam, and the Vietnamese are happy about the TPP, as it helps them participate in global trade. These things are always complex.

[puffy socks]

6. " These things are always complex. "

True. How much should we expect to get?
What are the consequences of not making an agreement and allowing businesses to operate under the current laws (international, federal, state etc.)?

"and also issues of corporate immunity for US companies to protect against lawsuits in other countries, which sounds bad too"


That bothers me as well...and this part is being kept secret.

Under the accord, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0

[Starry Messenger]

10. That's literally all I really know about it.

I get emails from the AFL-CIO about opposing it, but it fell off my radar.

[wysi]

9. Several things I don't like

1. Investor - State dispute process is heavily weighted toward corporations

2. Unreasonable expansion of copyright and patent terms, which stifle creativity and innovation

3. It's a bad deal for developed countries that are not the United States (such as New Zealand, where I live... the price of medicines is going to skyrocket).

4. Interference in the legislative processes of sovereign nations

I can understand why Obama was in favor of it, and it's probably a good deal for Americans living at home, but I''m an overseas American who will likely be adversely affected. I'm against it.

[fleabiscuit]

12. Hi Global Citizens!

[ismnotwasm]

14. I like this OP

Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I like your links. In a nutshell then, I like stronger environmental and worker protections, dislike the loophole in drug pricing, and the burden of a global economy placed on the poor.

Trade agreements, by their nature are problematic, as they deal with multiple countries, each with their own trade cultures and trade law. The United States has to have trade agreements, is one thing, and as President Obama has said, it's better for our country to have a strong say in what is acceptable, and what is not. We are not going to rip it down and start all over, trade agreements contain delicate negotiations that can take decades, and are never, ever going to make everyone happy.

The trade agreement I think is a disaster is CAFTA--pitting one poor country against another. The further down South America you go, the lower the GPA. I'm not sure how go about fixing it either.

[LAS14]

15. What I do with incredibly complex...

... issues like this is trust the people I've come to know over time. The tricky part here is that Obama and Hillary disagree. So I'll just go with the flow on this one.

[BootinUp]

17. Good answer

My thoughts are that certain parts of it should be revisted at scheduled intervals. The parts I am thinking of are wherever market changes in the future would make current assumptions no longer valid.

[DemonGoddess]

18. I don't know enough about this to

like or dislike it. We need trade agreements, full stop. Whether or not this is a good one, I'll leave to the experts.