If you are against the TPP as it currently is, what specific changes to what areas within it,

[Egnever]

7. Thanks for the post

Now having said that the first anti is nonsense. No evidence of any of their claims other than "it's worse than we thought!" When you do go to the links it does have it gets worse.

Here is just one example...

The TPP would make it easier for corporations to offshore American jobs. The TPP includes
investor protections that reduce the risks and costs of relocating production to low wage countries.
The pro-free-trade Cato Institute considers these terms a subsidy on offshoring, noting that they lower
the risk premium of relocating to venues that American firms might otherwise consider

I guess if you consider protections from trade agreement changes that were agreed to when the deal was put into place you could frame it the way this article tries to. That is clearly ridiculous as what it is really attempting to do is assure that trade is not subject to government interference through preferential treatment for state owned companies or by creating barriers that favor one company over another through separate legislation put in place after the investment is made. I supoose you could call that a subsidy on offshoring if you stretch the truth to near breaking levels but it is far from honest. Without the TPP are we suddenly going to stop buying crap from China? Of course not, manufacturing loses to other countries is unavoidable. TPP or no TPP we like cheap crap no matter how loud we want to scream about loss of manufacturing jobs try raising the price on the cheap crap and watch the howling begin.

Yup the TPP ensures companies don't invest millions into a country only to see their investment destroyed by legislation after the fact. I suppose you can call that a corporate subsidy but you would be stretching the truth.


Second anti article was written before the text was even released so that one should be discounted immediately. Third is the same. And the fourth is just a blurb on New Zealand seeking clarification woith no substance at all. The fact that you are having trouble finding anti articles from after the text was released should tell you something.

Having said that I am open to see some valid criticism with more than just it's bad maybe some actual breakdown of the sections that are so troubling would be helpful.

On the pro side notice both the white house link and the ustr.gov link both break down the actual agreement. Something completely lacking in the Anti sites. The third pro link from the chamber is useless. Just like the anti it is rah rah with no substance, as is the final pro link.

I hope that is not an example of what formed your opinion. With exception of the two government pro links you posted the rest are substance free rah rah from one side or the other.