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.
They are already planning an Asian trade partnership under their leadership. (Forgot its name, look it up yourself.)
I would plan for a lot of this sort of thing from him. False shows of decisiveness. A lot of people seem to think that "doing something" is what a leader does, even if that "something" isn't well thought out or planned.
He doesn't know how to fix Obamacare but he'll "do something", lol.
I expect Trump to be worse than his base expects, but better than the melting down, hysterical media and left cries about.
*EVERYONE* here was bitching about TPP until Trump decided to do away with it.
Because Trump.
What replacement for Obamacare exactly? The one where you pay more and only save by not having medical procedures done?
... not Trump.
They weren't going to approve it anyway.
It's like Trump declaring that, on day one, he'll adjust the atmospheric composition to be 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.
Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!
Neoconservatives are pro-globalization. Traditional conservatives are anti-globalism, pro-nationalism. Whatever Trump is, he's an economic nationalist, so he gets the support of traditional conservatives, like the Tea Party voters (note this is distinct from how the Tea Party candidates like Rubio got co-opted into the Neocon establishment. The story of the Tea Party is voters worker their asses off to get "their" people into office in 2010 - 2014 only to be met with immediate betrayal, resulting in the seething, frothing anger that enabled Trump).
Hopefully with the election of Trump and the destruction of the Republican and Democrat establishments we can relegate neoconservatism to the ash heap of history, along with the worst of leftist identity politics.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I didn't vote on Nov. 8th, because I simply couldn't back a lobbyist like Clinton.
If you can't be bothered to vote then nobody gives a shit what you think. You chose to neglect your civic responsibility by not participating in the process. So shut the fuck up if you don't like the outcome. What you think doesn't matter.
The Rust Belt had already been in decline for over a decade by the time the WTO agreements were made. And you're forgetting that before WTO was GATT, so it's not like there weren't multilateral trade agreements.
So I'll ask again, what do you propose to replace it with? Do you wish to have American goods disadvantaged on the international markets? And what if the rest of the world decides to enter multilateral agreements, and larger trading partners like the EU and the Asian nations start throwing up trade barriers to US goods?
What's more, all those jobs you reference are going to disappear no matter what. Automation is increasingly going to reduce employment, even in those countries where many such jobs have gone. Once again we see how the "anti-globalist" types are little more than naive luddites.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just curious why you think people in your country need jobs more than people in other countries do?
Just curious, why do you think it's my responsibility to create a jobs program in other countries?
Translation: I don't like people who disagree with me, therefore I'll just reject them and believe in my fantasy.
First of all, I doubt very much that Trump is going to dump all trade deals. I doubt he's even going to dump NAFTA, the US, Canadian and Mexican economies are too integrated now to imagine throwing up monster tariff walls would do anything but harm American interests.
Second of all, your forty years too late to save the Rust Belt, and the Rust Belt is hardly the first manufacturing area to go into a long-term decline. That's what happens.
The fact is that the only illness here is a lot of peoples unwillingness to accept that life is about change, and a few crafty politicians that have sold them a load of shit. Do you seriously think that Apple is going to decamp its manufacturing back to the US? The only thing that will happen is that any attempts at increasing tariffs on foreign-manufactured products like electronics will lead factories in Asia to further automate to bring price points down. And really, that would just hasten what's already happening.
And that's the reality. Those Chinese and Mexican workers undercutting your much vaunted half-century old wages are a decade or two from being in the same place. Your real war ought to be with the robots, but then again, that would make you little different than all the fletchers angry that cannon and musket put them out of business, or all the proverbial buggy whip manufacturers put out of business by Henry Ford.
I actually pity you, that you imagine that a mere politician has the power to restrain progress for any great length of time. My tip to you is rather than moan because you can't get a good job in manufacturing like your old man did, is to get an education. And that is where the government could help, but it won't help anyone by tariff wars that will only end up hurting domestic interests.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?
If you're not with us, your agin' us!
Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!
No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist. Equating resistance to Trump with resistance to politicians like Clinton, Bush, or Obama is what creates a climate where average voters cannot tell the difference between a partisan politician and a demagogue. If you can't call Trump a bigot then the word loses all meaning.
Trump is the US version of Mohamed Morsi, and he shows that the US is not immune to the same populist failings of democracy we see in younger governments around the world. Our country made it through the Civil War, and we will almost certainly make it through a Trump presidency as well, but it is still a very dark time for the free world. There is still a chance that Trump won't follow through with his worst rhetoric, but currently each staff appointment is making this optimistic view less likely.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I actually pity you, that you imagine that a mere politician has the power to restrain progress for any great length of time.
This is exactly the case, 100%. Trump sold a bill of goods saying he'll bring jobs back and people bought it. There's actually a really great article over at Cracked about Trump's popularity. The TL;DR summary is that "Make America Great Again" means "bring back the manufacturing jobs", not necessarily "let's have racism again". At least that's the theory, anyways.
But those jobs are gone and not coming back, no matter what Trump does. Or if Hillary or Bernie or Stein or Vermin Supreme or anyone else who happened to win would be able to do. Progress isn't partisan and doesn't care who the President is.
Trump's "clean coal" bit? Even if Congress rubber stamps everything he proposes, the coal industry is still doomed, jobs wise. The coal industry is set to drop half its workforce through automation over the next 10 years. That's not theoretical either. The tech is already there. Coal industry will drop 300,000 jobs at least over the next decade, and nothing can stop it. If some crazy "mandatory-buggy-whip-for-each-automobile" type law gets passed here mandating mines can't use robots - still doomed. All that would do is drive up the price of our coal as the rest of the world digs it up cheaper and cheaper.
Best thing we can do is accept it and move on. And plan for it. You're right - people should be *far* more worried about robots than the Chinese. Nobody is talking about how the coal industry is set to drop those 300,000 jobs. Everyone in the rural areas are all aglow with Trump getting elected. They're about to be sorely disappointed though when the robots take over those jobs. Don't think I'm bashing Trump there either - I'm not. Again, it'll happen no matter who the President is. It's just that with Trump he promised to fix things, and he can't. It'll be more bitter.
And the worst is yet to come. Nobody is talking about Google's self-driving car and what stands to happen when that gets perfected. We have 3,500,000 truck drivers employed in the USA. It's the most common profession today, truck driver. And pretty soon most of those people will be unemployed too. It absolutely will happen. What then?
We need to focus more on the future, what we know it will hold, and make our plans for it in the here-and-now.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
We can also stop giving stop giving tax cuts without restrictions to corporations who shift jobs overseas. If they want a tax cut, they need to invest here.
Everybody has the right to demand good government, and complain if they don't get it. Even people who didn't vote.
A just and fair government does not have to be earned by voting or miltary service or paying taxes. It is the birthright of every person.
This is the kind of argument I would expect a child to make. If you want something, you need to go out and do your part to make it happen - otherwise, you are just being a petulant child when you are upset $X didn't happen. "Why didn't $SOMEONE_ELSE make what I wanted to happen, happen? It's not fair!"
Welcome to the real world - it isn't all puppies and rainbows.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
>more products are purchasable when labor costs are low
Unfortunately that's only true initially - because labor are the people buying goods, and the flip side of low labor costs is low consumer income, which means that people aren't making enough money to buy the products they're producing. That was Henry Ford's genius - paying his workers enough to be able to buy his product. Unfortunately, the cumulative effect of short-term rational decisions by all parties (manufacturers lower wages and/or move overseas, consumers buy cheaper imported products) is the gradual collapse of our nation's economic engine as wealth flows steadily overseas. A classic tragedy of the commons, solvable only by large-scale education / behavioral modification campaigns (such as the Made in the USA program) and/or government intervention to level the playing field (i.e. tariffs,etc).
I was also talking *wealth* not purchasing power, which is why I explicitly stated "as distinct from income". Income has largely stagnated, while real wealth has diminished thanks to, among other things, the financial crimes of bankers and other wealthy individuals - holdings of real estate, stocks, cash reserves, etc. have all fallen among the 99%. Purchasing power may be technically the same, but with less of a financial safety net short-term benefits such as lower immediate cost become more compelling.
>technical progress lowers the cost of goods and services, spreading the same labor out to make more things
Agreed. However, that's only of an obvious net benefit if you still employ the same number of people at the same (inflation adjusted) wage. If technological progress lets one person do the work of two, and the first person gets paid the same while the second loses his job and takes a low-paying service-sector job instead, while the CEO, shareholders, etc. pocket the difference (which is the case - something like 98% of all new wealth generated in the last several decades has gone to the 1%), then the median purchasing power of the population has fallen substantially.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.