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?
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.
You an ratify anything you want. You can also pull out at any time. And Republicans won the next Congress, so say bye bye to the TPP (good).
... 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.
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.
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!
Foreign policy is broadly an executive function, but none of it is binding on us until the senate ratifies a treaty.
TPP is just a group attempting to write a treaty. Eventually, the completed treaty would be presented to the member governments to ratify. They aren't at that stage yet, so the president is free to tell the working group that we aren't going to participate any more. In theory, they could continue working on the treaty and present it to us anyway, but I think everyone understands the futility of that.
If there was a treaty, and there isn't, then yes, the senate could ratify it while Obama is still in office. But even if there was a treaty, the Democrats don't have enough votes. It takes 67 votes, and they have less than 50.
See that "Preview" button?
Your argument is quite literally argumentum ad hominem. You people are down to arguing that literally anything Trump does is suspect because it is Trump doing it. He could personally drive an ambulance full of injured kids to the hospital and cover their stay in cash and you'd probably question his motives.
Bernie Sanders' supporter here. I didn't vote on Nov. 8th, because I simply couldn't back a lobbyist like Clinton. By killing the TPP, and maybe also TiSA and TTIP, Trump has just taken the most progressive political choice in the last 40 years, it's the first real reversal of the globalization process, something unthinkable until a few years ago. Clinton would have surely "renegotiated" the TPP, and after few useless and cosmetic changes, passed it. After all, it was "the gold standard" for her. Obama himself wanted it, and he's technically supposed to be more progressive than Clinton.
Surely I don't like many of Trump's proposals (slash taxes also for the rich, "clean" coal...), but on trade he could be the most "leftist" president in decades.
Instead of complaining, next time choose the right candidate at the Democratic primaries.
Wrong. White women without college degrees chose Trump . In fact, educated folks generally voted for Clinton, regardless of race or gender.
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.
The range over which ACA tax subsidy phases out depends on the size of your tax household: Someone with income at the federal poverty level gets the full subsidy, decreasing toward 4*FPL which gets none. (Below FPL, you instead get either Medicaid or an exemption from the ISR tax, depending on how red your state is.) So it mostly depends on how many dependents you have. If AC #53339571 is single with no dependents, 4*FPL is close to $48,000. But if you're married with two dependents, it's about twice that. So if your spouse has no significant income, and you have two dependents also not earning (especially due to child labor laws), a $65,000 income still qualifies for a subsidy.
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.
I hope when Trump exits the TPP that the rest of the signatories will go back and strip out all the parts the US lobbied to put in that nobody else wanted, like the changes to copyright laws. No need for them to be in there anymore.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...
May end up being a much better agreement without the US.
Your mistake is believing that Trump understands how government works. This would be a common error as his supporters likely believe he does as well. He probably believes that as president he has unlimited authority to do things our constitution doesn't allow him to do. He does have authority to change how government works a little bit, but he doesn't have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the US from ratified treaties or any of the 99% of things he's promised.
Hell he might actually understand that, but liars will promise you the moon then blame someone else when they can't deliver.
The TPP was negotiated over a very long time time between governments and large corporate interests. While the public was cut out of knowing what was being negotiated, Large corporate interests were sitting at the table through their lobbiests, which added the worst parts of the agreements. The continued drumbeat of longer copyright rules, thanks to the MPAA, is just one example. If you want to see from a Canadian perspective why this deal is a steaming pile of waste http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ shows 50 reasons. And the great irony here, is most of the shit in this deal comes from the U S of A. I dont want to be part of any more trade deals, if the US is at the table, because your guys are the fkn worst in the room.
The president has control over the economy but not in the sense of controlling it year to year.
The president generally speaking has very, very little direct control over the economy. Even indirectly he doesn't really control much. Congress controls the budget, the Federal Reserve controls the money supply. All the president can do is direct the treasury, work on trade policy and foreign relations and a few other minor levers but if the economy goes in the tank there isn't much the president can do about it.
However, the push to expand the national debt will effect the U.S. economy greatly in coming years. In effect, the U.S. borrowed against future prosperity.
Congress controls the budget not the president. If we are spending beyond our means that is 100% the fault of Congress.
What replacement for Obamacare exactly? The one where you pay more and only save by not having medical procedures done?
You do realize that people buying from exchanges have seen their premiums go up dramatically over the last couple of years, right? Health insurance is now more expensive for almost everybody than it was before Obamacare. The only thing Obamacare does, besides making health insurance more expensive, is let the federal government fine you if you don't get health insurance. Lovely.
Do you have ESP?
Could someone ask him to dump the TTIP as well?
As far as the world is allowed to know, it is pretty much the same thing but across the Atlantic instead.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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.
As an Australian, Trump killing the TPP is a good thing. There are some parts of the TPP that would have forced some crazy laws on us, without opening up enough trade opportunities. Stripping out everything that US wanted in the TPP and the other countries involved going ahead with a new agreement should be relatively easy. The US is probably not going to be hurt by not being involved and most of the other countries involved will do better, with the likely exceptions of Canada and Mexico.
The Australian economy depends more on trade with China than with the US and we already have a free trade agreement with China, although China still has too many tariffs. China is already pushing their own broad alternative to the TPP which might mean further tariff reductions. A trade war between the US and China could have some positives for the rest of the world.
Makes sense to me. I can see where someone would prefer to suffer 4 years of Trump and hope to change the DNC for the future, rather than support the status quo.