Obama has shown himself to be a principled individual for the most part. I hate to think he's doing favors for corporations instead of serving the interests of the American public. We know Bernie Saunders was vehemently opposed to the deal.
So instead of "who cares," I'm finally taking the time to read up on the TPP. It seems one reason why it's desirable to American political leadership is to bolster U.S. trade in Asia while preventing China from seizing too much economic influence in the region.
However, it's troubling to find out that the pact has essentially been negotiated in secret. Here's a detail made public that doesn't sound promising:
Senator Elizabeth Warren has criticized its provisions for “investor-state dispute settlement.” I.S.D.S. allows corporations to sue governments over laws that may adversely affect “expected future profits.”
And here's the concluding paragraph of the same article from the New Yorker:
Maybe it’s a better agreement—better for the American middle class, for American workers—than it seems in the leaked drafts, where it appears bent to the will of multinational corporations. John Kerry, the Secretary of State, and Ashton Carter, the Secretary of Defense, co-authored a column on Monday in USA Today arguing, in evangelical tones, that the T.P.P. will usher in a glorious new era of American-led prosperity, a “global race to the top” for all parties. Meanwhile, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. sees only a race to the bottom. Organized labor, by all accounts, plans to punish any elected Democrat who supports the T.P.P., or even supports fast-track for Obama, in the next campaign. It’s difficult, again, to evaluate the agreement when we can’t see it. And it will be difficult for Congress to do its job if its members can’t study each part of the many-tentacled T.P.P. on its merits, but must simply vote yes or no on the whole shebang. What’s the rush? Is it simply Obama’s wish to make his mark on history and to complete his pivot toward Asia before his time is up? Politicians are often accused of supporting pro-corporate policies to please wealthy backers, looking toward the next campaign. That can’t be Obama’s motive now.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-does-obama-want-the-trans-pacific-partnership-so-badly
On the other side of the coin, this column authored by a couple of economic scholars makes a case for the TPP:
The agreement promises huge benefits for the U.S. economy and furnishes the economic pillar for U.S. geopolitical strategy in Asia. Economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer estimate that implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership would increase real incomes in the United States by $131 billion annually, or 0.5 percent of GDP, and U.S. exports by $357 billion or 9.1 percent over baseline projections. Equally important, a substantial majority of Republicans in Congress endorse the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and they are joined by a significant number of Democrats in Congress, whose critical support ensured the passage of Trade Promotion Authority “fast track” legislation earlier this year.
This is why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is critical. The pact shows that major countries are prepared to slash many existing trade and investment barriers and promise not to erect new ones. Once ratified, the trade deal will become a magnet for more countries to join — Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and others. It will inspire “competitive liberalization” — a race to remove barriers — not only in Asia , but also in Africa and perhaps even South America. With inspiration from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the world economy could again be paced by fast trade and investment growth.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-why-the-trans-pacific-partnership-isnt-a-bum-deal/
Although there's much more to learn, at least that scratches the surface.
= new reply since forum marked as read