Slashdot Mirror
Trump: I'll Ditch TPP Trade Deal on Day One of My Presidency (arstechnica.com)
US President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that the U.S. will pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) -- a trade deal involving 12 Pacific Rim nations -- "on day one" of his presidency. From a report on ArsTechnica: Trump, in a YouTube video outlining plans for his first 100 days in office, said: "I'm going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster for our country." He added: "Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back on to American shores." An emphasis on bilateral trade deals may call into question both the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), involving dozens of nations, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Although the latter is between the US and the European Union, the complex political structure of the EU means that effectively 28 nations are involved and can influence the outcome of the deal. This was demonstrated by the dramatic intervention of the Walloon regional government in the signing of CETA, the bloc's trade deal with Canada.
If there are truly bad aspects to the TPP, then spell those out
Electronic Frontier Foundation has spelled out the TPP's truly bad aspects in a category of articles on its site.
*EVERYONE* here was bitching about TPP until Trump decided to do away with it.
I haven't yet seen any non Trump supporters lamenting the passing of TTP. So, your outrage appears misplaced. And no, finding one or two crazy ACs doesn't really prove anything except that AC is anonymous.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Is the right pro, or against globalization? I thought free trade capitalism was an economic right-wing staple. It was only the looney leftist occupy-wall-street nutters that were against free trade.
I haven't yet seen any non Trump supporters lamenting the passing of TTP.
All that means is that you haven't been paying attention. Please leave this to those of us that are. Thanks so much.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Without the TPP, Congress could roll back Hollywood's bought and paid for copyright law changes. For example, Congress could make some of the exemptions from anti-circumvention law pursuant to LoC's triennial rulemaking permanent. Or it could expand compulsory licenses for orphan works. Or it could establish an "Eminent Public Domain" program that allows free use of a work of authorship while compensating its author, by estimating a copyright's fair market value and letting the people crowdfund a "taking" pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.
But with the TPP, Congress's hands would be tied.
Well Trump is throwing out one prospective trade deal and substituting other prospective trade deals without actually modifying current trade relations in any way. So this looks like a prima facie attempt to honor a campaign promise without, in fact, making a change. Either his anti-trade campaign messages were empty demagogic promises or his new Republican allies educated him on trade.
The latter would be a good thing. People's intuitions about trade are often mistaken:
- They believe that employment is zero sum, that is, that the total number of jobs is fixed, so that if a foreigner gains a job, a U.S. citizen must necessarily lose a job. This is incorrect. Foreigners to not "steal" jobs from Americans. In fact, global employment levels can and do fluctuate.
- They overlook that every producer is also a consumer. If you are employed and make something and sell it, you then have an income with which to purchase goods and services produced by others. As with employment, global production and consumption are variable, not fixed. The more people work, the more goods there are to go around. "Getting rid of those foreign slackers," is just as disdainful of others as "Those damn foreigners are stealing our jobs," but, pragmatically, is more likely to lead to socially beneficial policy outcomes. Consider improvements in the quality of life and reduction in our tax burden if Africans had productive jobs instead instead of relying on the industrialized world to support them with foreign aid.
- They are unaware of the law of comparative advantage, which tells us that both those with an absolute advantage and those with an absolute disadvantage benefit from trade. The naive and incorrect assumption is that those producers with an absolute advantage displace all others.
- They forget that trade is an exchange. They give us stuff and we give them stuff in exchange. To give them stuff, we have to have stuff to give them. Who makes that stuff? Employees. You can not trade goods without having domestic employees to manufacture the goods which you produce to trade.
- They are unaware of the balance of payments and fear that all the money will end up abroad. Foreigners hoarding cash is a benefit to the U.S., because when foreigners hoard U.S. dollars they give us cars, televisions, and computers and all we have given them in trade is little pieces of paper with drawings of our presidents. Less that beneficial-to-us cash hoarding, over time all purchases are reciprocated, so that for every sale to the United States by a foreign entity there is a sale to the foreign entity by from the U.S. There has to be, because when we buy something from a foreign nation the foreigners are left holding U.S. cash which is only of value if spent in the U.S., or traded to someone else. That someone else can only exchange U.S. cash with others or redeem it for U.S. goods. If it is traded abroad perpetually and never redeemed, that is cash hoarding and we benefit.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
"uh... remember the Great Recession under Bush?"
That recession was going to happen no matter what. And guess what -- It was predicted by the Anderson Forecast in 2000. Guess who's administration that was under? Wasn't Bush.
http://www.uclaforecast.com/co...
The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later. That was a HUGE blow to our economy.
" and now that economic growth is going well, unemployment is down, inflation is nil, people vote to go back to that"
What's the rate of underemployed? What's the number of people who are no longer being COUNTED as unemployed? They didn't vote to go back to that -- they voted because they are hurting and the last 8 years did nothing to fix their hurt.
I'm not saying Trump is the answer -- I honestly don't know who was worse -- Trump or Clinton (I voted for neither) but your blinders are not really helping you see reality. You might want to lift them off a bit and take a peek.