Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The TPP is as bad or worse than NAFTA. The President is pushing it hard. [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)72. Likely components of the administration's economic policy towards China
The first will likely be more complaints about Chinese subsidies and trade practices filed with the WTO, given the presidents campaign promises and his record during his first term. Washington has been relatively successful with such cases in the past, and pursuing multilateral dispute settlements has the added advantage of avoiding a direct bilateral confrontation with China.
The second will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. One of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administrations avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high especially rules regarding labor rights, environmental standards and the behavior by state-owned enterprises that China could never join without transforming its economic system. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.
The 2013 launch of a U.S.-European Union free trade negotiation effectively a Trans-Atlantic Partnership, a bookend for the TPP primarily reflects majority (58%) sentiment in the United States that increased trade with Europe would be a good thing for the United States. But it can also be seen as an attempt to establish U.S.-European, rather than Chinese, technical and regulatory standards as global business norms.
The Obama administration is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator, which is something Mitt Romney promised he would do on his first day in office. In Obamas first term, the White House had multiple opportunities to do so and declined, even though the renminbi was weaker against the dollar than it is now.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/
Democrats are more supportive of trade than republicans.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/160748/americans-shift-positive-view-foreign-trade.aspx http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/09/americans-are-of-two-minds-on-trade/
The second will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. One of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administrations avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high especially rules regarding labor rights, environmental standards and the behavior by state-owned enterprises that China could never join without transforming its economic system. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.
The 2013 launch of a U.S.-European Union free trade negotiation effectively a Trans-Atlantic Partnership, a bookend for the TPP primarily reflects majority (58%) sentiment in the United States that increased trade with Europe would be a good thing for the United States. But it can also be seen as an attempt to establish U.S.-European, rather than Chinese, technical and regulatory standards as global business norms.
The Obama administration is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator, which is something Mitt Romney promised he would do on his first day in office. In Obamas first term, the White House had multiple opportunities to do so and declined, even though the renminbi was weaker against the dollar than it is now.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/
Democrats are more supportive of trade than republicans.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/160748/americans-shift-positive-view-foreign-trade.aspx http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/09/americans-are-of-two-minds-on-trade/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
142 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The TPP is as bad or worse than NAFTA. The President is pushing it hard. [View all]
cali
Sep 2013
OP
Thanks for the background info, Octafish...and thanks to Greg Palast, of course.
Raksha
Sep 2013
#120
Or "professional Liberals". I've heard that laughable insult on DU as well. nt
99th_Monkey
Sep 2013
#123
I haven't seen an actual document related to the TPP. Is all this just based on rumors?
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#21
Why don't you just ask President Obama for a copy? I am sure he would be transparent in his
Vincardog
Sep 2013
#23
He has released them to over 600 CORPORATIONS. I wonder why the corporations can have access
Vincardog
Sep 2013
#25
What they are negotiating is being kept secret from you and me. If I was to post a link to the
Vincardog
Sep 2013
#29
You are asking for verifiable proof of a secret negotiation. The constitution gives the powers to
Vincardog
Sep 2013
#32
Right. You don't know anything about the "600 corporations." You were just making that up.
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#37
I'm not going to wander over that whole site looking for a clear answer to my question.
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#58
It is on the first page. Again you seem willfully dim, or maybe your mind in incapable of change.
Vincardog
Sep 2013
#66
So let us guess your point. Because we the masses havent seen it must mean it will be
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#62
Respectfully, I don't think that they ever really thought that "free trade is a net gain," or at
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#40
You cannot get a full perspective on something based on leaked information
Cali_Democrat
Sep 2013
#12
The only people speculating are those that are skeptical of our government.Those that blindly follo
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#63
The corporations privy to closed TPP negotiations are not objecting, are they, "my dear"?
Divernan
Sep 2013
#36
I will delete my expletives and proceed. What does the TPP have to do with trade? A lot.
pampango
Sep 2013
#102
Put that way I guess I'll have to believe ( unfortunately ) he'll sign it
Populist_Prole
Sep 2013
#59
Obama is playing ninth-level ninja-mind chess and you are still playing checkers...
truebrit71
Sep 2013
#50
Mexican ag was destroyed by NAFTA; American ag did great. Which was the point
Recursion
Sep 2013
#94
Responses to this are very interesting and heated. Sherrod Brown & other liberals have warned us
emsimon33
Sep 2013
#81
Brown said that TPP "represents an opportunity for American workers and businesses" but "American
pampango
Sep 2013
#103
The decline in manufacturing jobs started in the 1950's while output has increased steadily.
pampango
Sep 2013
#137