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
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: Anyone want to try and defend the President on the TPP? [View all]BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)162. Anyone? Yep, here's Bill Watson of the CATO institute
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1269&pid=230
I mainly think his reasoning is laughable. It may make sense if you just forget history, like NAFTA. Luckily, in the debate he is countered by Lori Wallach of Public Citzen.
Thank you cali for a thread pointing out that there IS no defense worthy of the name.
BILL WATSON: Well, we need to remember, whenwhen we see some of these reports about the intellectual property chapter, we need to remember that the free trade agreements are about fundamentally something very different: They are about free trade. And the value of free trade, I think, is really incontrovertible. The United States has been lowering its barriers for 50 years to engage in the global economy in a way that increases growth economically, that improves the quality of life of people in the United States. We still have a number of protectionist measures in the United States that an agreement like the TPP will address. Particular to Asia that are at interest in this agreement are tariffs, quotas and subsidies dealing with things like footwear and clothing, consumer items that these barriers really act as taxes on the poor, mostly, who end up paying a larger portion of their income to support an economic policy that benefits a select few.
The protectionist measures in place, these trade barriers, are special-interest handouts to big businesses that have good lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C. The purpose of a free trade agreement is to overcome an inherent political difficulty in getting rid of those barriers. We know we want to get rid of the barriers, but its hard to counteract these special interests because they have a lot of influence in Congress. So, the idea of a reciprocal free trade agreement, where the U.S. lowers its barriers and, in exchange, other countries lower theirs, is a way to gaintoreally, to gain special-interest support for the free trade agreement that U.S. industries that benefit from export access abroad will lobby. They have a concentrated benefit in the agreement. And so, they will counteract the special interests that are supporting the existing barriers. The end result, ideally, is open markets at home and abroad. And this is a very good outcome.
The protectionist measures in place, these trade barriers, are special-interest handouts to big businesses that have good lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C. The purpose of a free trade agreement is to overcome an inherent political difficulty in getting rid of those barriers. We know we want to get rid of the barriers, but its hard to counteract these special interests because they have a lot of influence in Congress. So, the idea of a reciprocal free trade agreement, where the U.S. lowers its barriers and, in exchange, other countries lower theirs, is a way to gaintoreally, to gain special-interest support for the free trade agreement that U.S. industries that benefit from export access abroad will lobby. They have a concentrated benefit in the agreement. And so, they will counteract the special interests that are supporting the existing barriers. The end result, ideally, is open markets at home and abroad. And this is a very good outcome.
I mainly think his reasoning is laughable. It may make sense if you just forget history, like NAFTA. Luckily, in the debate he is countered by Lori Wallach of Public Citzen.
Thank you cali for a thread pointing out that there IS no defense worthy of the name.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
192 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
Cali, thanks for your passion for truth and justice. Sorry about the jury decision and bullying.
chimpymustgo
Nov 2013
#17
I totally agree. It's more harmful than useful, or has gotten to be so over time.
Whisp
Nov 2013
#142
Your schtick is more like the abbreviation of your heading...here let me help...
Sheepshank
Nov 2013
#46
LOL. Like commenting on a thread at DU has any impact on whether or not it gets done.
MH1
Nov 2013
#184
I woulda thought a progressive board would be the right place to oppose corporate power grabs.
NuclearDem
Nov 2013
#141
I've researched the TPP and either I've missed something or not understood it well because..
BlueJazz
Nov 2013
#6
"intense pressure to do it from both our oligarchs and from powerful members of the Party"
L0oniX
Nov 2013
#41
You nailed it. The "angry black man" fear hits to the heart of his leadership style. I agree with
ancianita
Nov 2013
#186
"wait and see how this plays out." As we see the results of THAT attitude in the President's ACA
WinkyDink
Nov 2013
#111
TPP is indefensible. Like Laelth I hope the president steps up and does the left thing
Doctor_J
Nov 2013
#18
Is this ANOTHER... ANOTHER.. ANOTHER deal where Obama hates America but ends up not? regards
uponit7771
Nov 2013
#19
For better or worse, the TPP will be a renegotiation of NAFTA since Canada and Mexico are members.
pampango
Nov 2013
#155
IF (a big if) it contains enforceable provisions on labor rights and the environment,
pampango
Nov 2013
#26
I can't tell if you' re trying to be wry, sarcastic, realistic or are a little naive
Sheepshank
Nov 2013
#68
So Cali, what's the likelihood of the Teapartiers voting to give Obama fast track authority?
KittyWampus
Nov 2013
#75
Over 600 corporate tools involved with this "secret" TPP bull shit. Where is the peoples voice?
L0oniX
Nov 2013
#154
It's pretty obvious it's big international corporations that are behind the whole push, but I'm
Cleita
Nov 2013
#145
There is no defense. It is an unconscionable betrayal of America and Americans.
woo me with science
Nov 2013
#104
Alas, they're busy defending drones, fracking, and the pursuit of whistleblowers.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Nov 2013
#137
This thread is just... something. Yet ANOTHER jury hide. Was it worth the whopping 34 recs
Number23
Nov 2013
#157