You know, of course, that the TPP is already a done deal., But we should fight it anyway.

[MADem]

70. Well, free trade is a complex matter.

On the one hand, everyone says they want to help the poor disadvantaged people in far off Mexico or Canada (heh), but they don't want to give up a chunk of their own protectionist advantage to open a market in return--that's the NAFTA gripe, pretty much. So, too, with this TPP, apparently--though as I said elsewhere, there are a lot of "Not Poor" players (like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Brunei, New Zealand, etc.) in the mix. Not only are these countries "not poor" -- many of them -- they could be said, in some regards, to have a "better" standard of living than USA--all the ones I mentioned, save Brunei, which doesn't have a minimum wage, pay MORE to their "wage slave" workers than we do. So the question needs to be asked: What's in it for THEM? Why are they so willing to play?

As I said, some of my reading is telling me (and I don't know enough about this subject, I am still digging around and reading up) that the goal of this TPP is more about answering CHINA's influence in the Pacific--the old Safety in Numbers game.

I don't pretend to have the answers--I'd just like people to talk about the actual issues, the actual PURPOSE and EFFECT of this thing (if we know--and clearly, we don't) rather than just parrot the same old protectionist sound bites. The whole idea behind "free" or "freer" trade is that we give a little, we get a little. If we aren't "getting" as good as we're "giving" then there needs to be a discussion about that. Of course, when I start looking around, I can find arguments on both sides--and this issue is NOT one that is divided along party lines. Where one stands depends on where one sits. If you're a grocer, for example, it's great to get produce from South America in the off season to get people into your store, and it's great for that consumer who wants to make that spring fruit medley in February. However, if you're in an industry that saw your job making a non-technical item, like, say, a washing machine or a fridge,slink off to Mexico, you're gonna be resentful and hate the idea of a) losing your livelihood; b) having to find a new line of work in an iffy economy.

It is a decidedly liberal trait to want people who live in poverty to be lifted out of it. That said, it becomes more of a challenge to hold true to those beliefs when the people being lifted out of poverty are doing it by taking some of those American jobs, and segments of our own economy are being forced to retool and reinvent themselves.

And we know that most jobs, once they go, don't come back, at least not in the same way. If the foreign competitor can't keep the quality levels up, or if the American producer can find a way to include a "boutique" or other "value added" aspect to the product, OR if it turns out it's no cheaper to have a far-flung factory with workers who don't give a shit, the occasional job might come home, but those are generally the exception rather than the rule.

The other thing I've noticed, is that the more "consumer-ized" these "poor" countries become, the more the workers demand higher wages. And the more those wages go up, the more demands manufacturers make with regard to quality. It's one thing to get five cheap-ass plastic bowls Made In China for a buck at the Dollah Store, it's another thing to spend twenty bucks for the Martha Stewart bowls Made in China that crack in the dishwasher (that's an invented example, just for illustrative purposes, mind you)--people won't put up with that shit, and maybe then Martha will find a bowl maker who can do a better job in Mexico...or Canada...or the USA.

So yeah, it is complex. But as for this particular agreement, we won't know HOW complex until we get a peek at it.