General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts)

6. The only plausible advantages would result from high standards on labor rights and

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 06:32 PM

Feb 2014

the environment. Several years ago I saw reports that was going to be Obama's strategy for dealing with China and other low-wage, poor-environment countries, while offering trade benefits as the "carrot" to those who would play by those rules.

AFAIK, the labor chapter has not been leaked yet, but the environmental chapter - which was leaked recently - does not look good. (I have seen conflicting takes on whether the Obama administration is fighting for tough environmental standards and losing to other countries' opposition or is actually undermining these standards itself.)

If we could get trading partners to play by the same labor rights and environmental rules that would be a huge progressive win. From what we have seen so far, although nothing is final yet, that is not how it is unfolding.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What's your position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? [View all] rhett o rick Feb 2014 OP

kick rhett o rick Feb 2014 #1

I am very troubled by the way it is being presented el_bryanto Feb 2014 #2

+1. And it won't be fast tracked. Hoyt Feb 2014 #18

I think the mix will be more on the turdy side Armstead Feb 2014 #44

Indifferent. TheMathieu Feb 2014 #3

Can you help me find the WH promoting the TPP? As far as the histrionics rhett o rick Feb 2014 #4

The only plausible advantages would result from high standards on labor rights and pampango Feb 2014 #6

Negative. Aerows Feb 2014 #10

That could be why China and Bangladesh are not part of the TPP. pampango Feb 2014 #13

Oh boy Aerows Feb 2014 #14

Well Done. bvar22 Feb 2014 #15

Did you read that reply? Aerows Feb 2014 #17

Farmers in Hokkaido (Japan) and workers in related industries Art_from_Ark Feb 2014 #40

Did you see my post of the rhetoric Sen Cantwell sent me when I asked rhett o rick Feb 2014 #23

You just wrecked your own argument, and reinforced mine Aerows Feb 2014 #16

If we could put together a high standards agreement like European countries have pampango Feb 2014 #19

How can we "put together a high standards agreement" when only corporations are involved? nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #28

Bingo Armstead Feb 2014 #45

Unfortunately (because I support such an agreement), I agree. We can't. n/t pampango Feb 2014 #53

Do you REALLY think that those corporate types who are the only ones writing this will do this? cascadiance Feb 2014 #41

I think most treaties are negotiated in secret, at least on the most contentious issues. pampango Feb 2014 #54

And whistle blowers like Wikileaks receive leaked documents and post them for the public sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #5

Devastating, no if's and's or but's. Aerows Feb 2014 #7

Well, we can't vote Obama out. zappaman Feb 2014 #8

I recall that there are 535 members of Congress to threaten Aerows Feb 2014 #11

Do you have anything to add to this discussion one way or the other? Do you support the TPP? nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #21

Can you tell me what exactly the TPP says? zappaman Feb 2014 #22

You guys never commit yourselves do you? Always have a rationalization for not committing. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #24

Nice try, dude. zappaman Feb 2014 #30

Again you are trying to rationalize why you wont commit on the TPP. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #34

Hilarious! zappaman Feb 2014 #36

Another substance-less post. But this time you went for Sid's rhett o rick Feb 2014 #37

Double funny! zappaman Feb 2014 #38

Do you get extra credit for every time you use the ROFL emoticon? rhett o rick Feb 2014 #39

THATS THE FUCKING POINT, Armstead Feb 2014 #46

I'm waiting too. Just maybe it's not another NAFTA. Whisp Feb 2014 #79

We need to primary OUT anyone who votes for TPP. Thom Hartmann's message: Sparky 1 Feb 2014 #9

Precisely Aerows Feb 2014 #12

Whatever Obama says. bigwillq Feb 2014 #20

I want whatever kool-aid you're drinking. nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #26

It's yum, yum, yummy! bigwillq Feb 2014 #59

Yikes, you're not a member of the ROFL brigade are you? nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #61

The scary thing is, it seems like we, the people, have no voice here. Skip Intro Feb 2014 #25

You raised a great question. Why does the admin want this? I dare one of the Loyalists to answer. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #29

"...it seems like we, the people, have no voice here." Wow. The irony stuns. "We the people..." cherokeeprogressive Feb 2014 #47

Oh, I'm assuming the position 1000words Feb 2014 #27

#%^*. You basically beat me to it. MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #31

Your's is far more .... um, poetic. 1000words Feb 2014 #32

"awaiting its might thrust".....Oh gawd, I need a new keyboard neverforget Feb 2014 #33

It's as good of an idea as any other free-trade agreement krispos42 Feb 2014 #35

I think it's very telling that at this point with 82 votes, 100% agree that the TPP rhett o rick Feb 2014 #42

I saw my job eliminated by unfair trade laws. It doc03 Feb 2014 #43

I wish I knew more about it. Xyzse Feb 2014 #48

Rick can tell you all about it. zappaman Feb 2014 #49

Ok... Xyzse Feb 2014 #50

Wikileaks already told us what is in part of it. Thanks Wikileaks, our own Congress sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #65

Paul Krugman thinks it's not a big deal at all. But Nobel schnobel, what does he know. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #51

Yeah, the "Paul Krugman knows nothing on TPP" is amazing as is Hoyt Feb 2014 #56

Do you always agree with Mr. Krugman or just when it suits you? rhett o rick Feb 2014 #63

I remember watching the NAFTA debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #64

Even I loved the TPP, which I don't, I am against it fadedrose Feb 2014 #52

106-0-0-0-0 Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #55

I see the DU globalists haven't voted yet. B Calm Feb 2014 #57

Hey, you can be a 'globalist' and not support the TPP. pampango Feb 2014 #58

If they were "globalists" they would speak up. But it doesnt look like DU has any globalists. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #62

I just spoke up in the post right above yours. pampango Feb 2014 #67

I disagree with you, but I respect that you are actually engaged in the issue Armstead Feb 2014 #71

Thanks for the response. n/t pampango Feb 2014 #73

I guess I didnt recognize you as "a globalist" your exception proves the rule. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #74

I think you're right. On the left "globalization" has become a code word for corporatization. pampango Feb 2014 #75

HAHAHA!! PowerToThePeople Feb 2014 #60

Don't have a position yet, because it hasn't been released. Krugman isn't that msanthrope Feb 2014 #66

I trust Krugman on most economic issues -- but not trade Armstead Feb 2014 #69

According to what I just heard today on the radio, it will give companies the right to Cleita Feb 2014 #68

Maybe not exactly match. but that's the general direction these things go --- Down Armstead Feb 2014 #70

I'm going to insist it'll never happen, and if it does, find a way to defend it whatchamacallit Feb 2014 #72

Oil will be transported one way or the other. Rail, truck or pipeline. I support the lessor of the Purveyor Feb 2014 #76

This thread is about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Were you addressing the XL-Pipeline issue? nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #77

Oh my? I hate it when that happens... eom Purveyor Feb 2014 #78