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.

30 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. False decisiveness. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:False decisiveness. by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Scary, because that's how we got into Ireq: "We are doing something about terror!" (Alternative spelling intentional.)

    2. Re:False decisiveness. by snookiex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know if this is false decisiveness, but he has to do something, be it a stunt or not. He's already getting a lot of heat from almost half of the country. He needs to consolidate and keep calm his electoral base at least. Politics, just like economy, is more about emotions than technicalities.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  2. Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *EVERYONE* here was bitching about TPP until Trump decided to do away with it.

    Because Trump.

    1. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not a Trump supporter, but I see this (dumping the TPP) as good news.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!
    3. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be me. I'm a non-Trump supporter. I'm on the middle to left. TPP was extremely bad. Want to protest human rights violations by LG? TPP was bad.
      Want to boycott those lead laced toys from Shanghai? TPP was bad. If you like pirated content, TPP was bad.
      The only people that benefited from TPP were IP holders and large corporations like Walmart and Amazon.
      But bluegutang is right, I'm doubtful if Trump understands why educated members of the left are against TPP. Unless my conspiracy theory holds true and Trump is secretly a Marxist.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  3. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What replacement for Obamacare exactly? The one where you pay more and only save by not having medical procedures done?

  4. Why EFF has opposed TPP by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Great for China! by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Japan and Taiwan are dirt poor? News to me.

  6. Congress will ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.
  7. No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:No principles. by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know, man. Personally, I absolutely detest Trump and I think that at a social level he's pretty bad for us. Opinions will, of course differ. But I thought the TPP was a terrible deal for the US and that the Democrats pushing it (hello Obama and "I was against it after I was for it" Clinton) were working primarily in the interests of the moneyed elites. Trump's made a bunch of decision since being elected that I don't like (e.g. Bannon, and having his kids in heads-of-state meetings), but him coming out against TPP? Yeah, that's a good one. I appreciate and support that. It's easy, I think, for us to become so partisan that literally everything the other side does is obviously evil. We saw that, I'd argue, with the Republicans and Obama. We can do better than that. I will support and applaud actions that Trump takes that are good, and fight aggressively against the other ones.

    2. Re:No principles. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is wrong with Bannon? So far the only argument I've seen is the left wing media classic "he is an "ist" and a bad bad man!" in this case an anti-semite over of all things an article 1.- He didn't write, 2.- That was written by a pro Israel Jew, 3.- Which called a Jewish man on the left a "renegade Jew" (the writer of the article says if he had it do over again he would have used traitor) for supporting policies that helped Iran and Hamas, both sworn enemies of Israel.

      So I'm sorry but if that is the best they can come up with? Its just more SJW shit, instead of debating the policies just call someone an "ist" and think you can silence them with name calling. We saw this all through the election with the MSM quick to call anybody who didn't support HRC an "ist" and called Trump an "ist" multiple times while completely ignoring how HRC said black teens were "super predators" who should be "brought to heel" like dogs and pushed through 3 strike laws that were specifically targeted at blacks, for example how you'd get a strike for crack but not for powder coke. Anybody wanna bet if it was someone on the right who had said and done those things we'd have heard a dozen times a day how much of an "ist" they were?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:No principles. by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Funny
      It's interesting to me that in response to a relatively conciliatory "measure the policies, not the man" post on my part, you're choosing to find some other approach to find a fight where none exists.

      You want to talk about HRC's "super-predators" comment? Yeah, let's talk about that. I have a Black son. I hate that she made that comment, and I hate that she never even bothered to apologize for it. I found HRC, on a personal level, totally odious. I've said so to other Liberal friends (I do still consider myself a pretty ardent Liberal). And I voted for Sanders, and would have happily voted for him in the General Elections if I had a choice.

      And it's also worth noting that HRC's super-predator comment was made 20 years ago. You can find odious things she's done from this decade :).

      As for Bannon being racist or not ... man, I don't think there's going to be any way to talk about this that will convince you, because you'll find reasons to discount any evidence I throw at you. I think that if Bannon were to personally lynch some Jews you'd probably argue that it wasn't that he hates Jews, it's just that those guys happened to have ripped him off. But here's a link for other people who are interested in making up their own mind:

      http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

      (Yes, that's his ex-wife talking, so obviously she's biased; and yes, that's Mother Jones, which is obviously biased. You'll be able to discount anyone who disagrees with you as obviously biased. Enjoy your bubble).

    4. Re:No principles. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I don't want is the continuing idea that globalization and trade are killing jobs. Automation and recycling have killed 5-6 jobs IIRC for 1 job lost to globalization.

      Dude, come all the way over already.

      "Automation" is a fancy new scare name for technical progress. Technical progress and trade are essentially the same: they create wealth.

      Technical progress lead America from a labor force of 90% farm workers in 1790 to 26% in 1900, to 12% in 1950, and to under 2% today. Do you see 88% of our labor force unemployed? Of course not. Neither the farm tractor, nor fertilizer, nor GMO, nor the wooden shipping pallet destroyed all jobs forever; these things freed up labor to perform other tasks. That's why food costs in 1900 were 40% of the median American family's income, in 1950 33%, and today around 12% even though we eat outside of home a lot more. We essentially pay servants to cook and serve our food, and still pay about 1/3 as much to eat as we did 60 years ago.

      The threats are a matter of rate. All of them.

      If you unemploy 30% of the labor force in one six-month swoop of the guillotine, your economy falls apart. Mass-unemployment means a collapse of consumer purchasing power, removing the revenue streams required to pay other workers, terminating more jobs. Eventually the dust settles on a country that can't raise enough taxes to carry the unemployed because they're all not working--no labor, no production, no wealth. Money represents what's made and sold, and the making and selling requires labor; technical progress reduces that labor, and half the labor means half the wage paid, thus less money cost, which is how prices eventually fall--with the help of ever-mounting economic pressure.

      Unemploy people at a slower rate than those pressures drive prices down and you find consumers gaining additional buying power: wages don't decrease, but wage-hours paid for products do, and the few unemployed are easily supported by our welfare system with only a tiny portion of our gain. We seek to buy new things with the money we have--and the force of hundreds of millions of consumers with just TEN DOLLARS now-unspent means billions of revenue for new products (including buying more of the same old products). One billion dollars represents roughly 60,000 minimum-wage jobs, or nearly 0.04% of the labor force--every 1% swing requires a $150 reduction of expenses per consumer to recover the lost jobs.

      That goes for both trade and technical progress. Self-driving cars and flying delivery drones? You want the Government to get regulation out to enable that PDQ. If the technology develops to the point where we know it's ready-to-go, but the Government hasn't given the green-light, eventual regulation to allow it will result in rapid replacement of delivery drivers, freight trucking drivers, and all form of mail carriers. Put up the regulation before anyone's ready to do it, and those job losses will come in patches here and there as the technology develops, as suitability increases, and as businesses individually become comfortable with the risks at different times. Once someone's job is gone, you have to wait for the business to be unable to keep prices at a point to simply take profit--they're certainly not unwilling--and that will happen, but not on the same damned day.

      The obsession with creating jobs is a tricky one. I've notated it before. It's both good and bad, depending on your goals. The long-term consequences of Malthusian growth erase either: an increase in unemployment will vanish in several years if the economy doesn't get worse, thanks to more early retirement, longer delays to enter workforce (that whole "everyone goes to grad school in a recession" thing), death of the poorest (sucks), and, ultimately, slower birth rate; while a decrease in unemployment will vanish due to later retirement, faster entry to the workforce, and higher birthrate

  8. Re:I'm confused by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:I'm confused by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Trump isn't Republican or right wing. He is a NYC Democrat. Just look at his history.

    It's hard to tell what Trump is. It's true that he was a Democrat. It's also true that he has been a (registered) Republican since April 2012. But he has changed his party affiliation at least five times since the late 1980s.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  10. Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by McGregorMortis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >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.
  11. Eminent public domain by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Trump's not really changing anything by Jodka · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  13. Re:Great for China! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The chief reason for TPP was to create a trade alliance to stand up to China, as part of a much larger effort to counterbalance China's growing influence through the rest of this century.

    Indeed. TPP excluded China, although China is the biggest trading partner of many of the members of TPP. The often-stated intention was to negotiate and adopt TPP, and then let China join afterwards, so they would be accepting the terms negotiated under American leadership, without being able to tilt the agreement in their favor.

    That is obviously not going to happen now. Instead RCEP will be negotiated under Chinese leadership, and if/when America joins, we will have to accept those terms.

    As America economically withdraws from the world, Chinese led institutions like AIIB will gain influence. Eventually, the dollar may even lose its status as the world's primary reserve currency, with big negative consequences for the American economy.

  14. Re: Great for China! by Jhon · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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 UCLA Anderson Forecasters first raised eyebrows with a recession forecast one year ago (December 2000), at a time when such a pessimistic view was deemed at best, premature and at worse, wrong, by other national forecasters.

    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.

  15. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's my view completely. Western economies are in many transition, and really, have been for a while. If I blame governments for anything, it's for not better preparing workers in these areas for the decline, and for the what they will do in the post-decline. The fact is that the pace of automation has been picking up for several decades now, and the vision of many industries has been to minimize the number of workers on the floor. In some cases, like Japan, this has as much to do with a shrinking population and a lack of actual workers, but in other jurisdictions, it is really about profitability. Even Foxxcon is retooling in China, with more automation, which means all those Asians that the Trump squad believe stole their jobs will soon be on the unemployment line themselves.

    I grew up and still live in a manufacturing town in British Columbia, here it's forestry. When my father got his job at a sawmill in the late 1960s, the mill itself employed something like 700-900 people. When the first major retooling came in the late 1970s, with the then state of the art computers, there were significant job losses. The recession of the early 1980s saw those numbers drop due to economic circumstances, and by the time the economy recovered, most of the lost jobs never came back. Now, forty years after the first automation systems were brought in, the mill has less than one hundred full time employees (I think it's below 80 now), and each iteration brings that number down. In my town, the only real solution has been a drop in population, which is normal.

    In reality, the town's population had grown massively during the 1940s as the forest industry became a major employer, but of course for many of the workers in their 50s, who came in to the industry at the cusp of the changes, they don't see the big picture, that they came in at the end of a manufacturing bubble, and they do the same thing up here in Canada that Trump's supporters do in the States, just lash out at the immigrants and the Asians. They want to hear politicians that will tell them nice fantasies about how the elites are out to get them, because that's better than facing the fact that, at the end of the day, we all have to bear responsibility for our life choices, and any of us who found good pay in what amounts to a relatively low skill position, well, that was lucky, but the luck has run out, and no amount of posturing by politicians will make those jobs come back.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.