Slashdot Mirror
Trump Proposes Rejoining Trans-Pacific Partnership (nytimes.com)
According to The New York Times, "President Trump told a gathering of farm state lawmakers and governors on Thursday morning that he was directing his advisers to look into rejoining the multicountry trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source)." The TPP was a contentious issue during the 2016 presidential election as both Democrats and Republicans attacked it. After signaling during the election that he would pull out of the trade deal "on day one" of his presidency, Trump followed through with his plans. From the report: Rejoining the 11-country pact could be a significant change in fortune for many American industries that stood to benefit from the trade agreement's favorable terms and Republican lawmakers who supported the pact. The deal, which was negotiated by the Obama administration, was largely viewed as a tool to prod China into making the type of economic reforms that the United States and others have long wanted. Both Democrats and Republicans attacked the deal during the president campaign, but many business leaders were disappointed when Mr. Trump withdrew from the agreement, arguing that the United States would end up with less favorable terms attempting to broker an array of individual trade pacts and that scrapping the deal would empower China.
Mr. Trump's decision to reconsider the deal comes as the White House tries to find ways to protect the agriculture sector, which could be badly damaged by the president's trade approach. The risk of an escalating trade war with China has panicked American farmers and ranchers, who send many of their products abroad. China has responded to Mr. Trump's threat of tariffs on as much as $150 billion worth of Chinese goods by placing its own tariffs on American pork, and threatening taxes on soybeans, sorghum, corn and beef. Many American agriculturalists maintain that the easiest way to help them is to avoid a trade war with China in the first place. And many economists say the best way to combat a rising China and pressure it to open its market is through multilateral trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which create favorable trading terms for participants.
Mr. Trump's decision to reconsider the deal comes as the White House tries to find ways to protect the agriculture sector, which could be badly damaged by the president's trade approach. The risk of an escalating trade war with China has panicked American farmers and ranchers, who send many of their products abroad. China has responded to Mr. Trump's threat of tariffs on as much as $150 billion worth of Chinese goods by placing its own tariffs on American pork, and threatening taxes on soybeans, sorghum, corn and beef. Many American agriculturalists maintain that the easiest way to help them is to avoid a trade war with China in the first place. And many economists say the best way to combat a rising China and pressure it to open its market is through multilateral trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which create favorable trading terms for participants.
This is why I don't worry about President Trump if the democrats recover the house (and in in the unlikely event they recover the senate too).
He will immediately throw the republican party under the bus to join the winning side.
He has no principles except, "Make money for Trump", "Avoid russia revealing whatever it is they have on Trump", and "Have affairs with women who look like Ivanka as long as I can get it up."
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The entire purpose of TPP was to create a countervailing economic force against China's influence in Asia and the world economy. That was obvious to anyone who read even a few pages about TPP, but of course that's too much to ask of someone who is unwilling to read even a single page of non-bulleted text:
"Trump said he likes his briefings short, ideally one-page if it's in writing. "I like bullets or I like as little as possible. I don't need, you know, 200-page reports on something that can be handled on a page. That I can tell you."
He thought that he could do better deals with each country individually. But those countries prefer a collective deal like TTP, because it stops one country making big demands.
In other words, they like TTP because it protects them from crappy, one sided Trump-style deals.
Trump seems to have realised this.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
...how he thinks the other 11 countries, who went ahead without the US and have completed a deal of their own, are going to suddenly reopen negotiations just because he wants them to.
You can never predict, from week to week, what his position on something will be. So before we all overreact - either in favor, or against - let's see if this actually is a sign his position is changing, or just another off-the-cuff remark his assistants will be walking back in the next few days.
#DeleteChrome
Pulling out of the TPP was the one thing that i actually agreed with Trump on and that i was happy he followed through on.
However my concern was about the IP chapter of the provisions, which the EFF (among others) took a firm stance against.
However since the US pulled out of the TPP the remaining countries had to negotiate a new treaty, the "Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership", or CPTPP.
At first glance it seems like most of the offensive portions on IP law were removed from the CPTPP. (Which isn't that surprising, since most of those items were favored by the large media conglomerates located in the US, and with the US out of the deal they probably no longer had a strong champion.)
_If_ that is indeed true, and _if_ the negotiations necessary for the US to join wouldn't involve reinstating those terms, i would tentatively be in favor of this, but it wouldn't break my heart if Trump flip-flops on the issue again or the other signatories no longer have any interest in letting the US in.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Pretending Democrats have anything to do with anything even remotely left wing is the real crazy here.
To be fair, all the other TPP countries heaved a huge sigh of relief when Mr. Trump pulled the US out of the deal, as all the bits that were impossible to sell back home came from the US.
From what I understand mostly around particularly harsh copyright nonsense. It's hard to know though, because of the secrecy surrounding the whole deal, as if the people involved were ashamed of it or something.
The TPP is an economic alliance with (originally) the US learning from its trade in China and specifically putting provisions in to try and stop the emerging SE Asian economies from repeating a China. Specifically:
1. They need environmental standards. No more maxing out pollution to be competitive.
2. Labor standards. No more practical slaves to be more competitive.
3. Investor-state dispute. People (especially hard-liberals) see companies-able-to-sue-governments and turn on their "burrrr corporations baddd!" brain. But this is exactly what would've been needed in all the cases where China stole US company IP. Or required joint-ventures. Or subsidized and/or spied for their own domestic companies.
You had 2 opponents of the TPP:
1. People who just think globalization is bad because reasons.
2. People who thought the pacific rim countries were just backwards sh*tholes nobody needed.
Of course, Malaysia and Vietnam are some of the fastest growing tech and manufacturing economies right now. Even China recognizes they can't compete and is moving to shift to services and to bind these countries under trade agreements.
The mouthbreathers (and their elected President) threw away the last chance we had to really contain China.
I mean, I'm ok with that I guess. Despotism isn't my favorite form of government but ruthless as he might be, Xi at least seem interested in stability and prosperity and is actually smart enough to make it happen.
s/our country/your country/g
Honourable Members of the Committee,
There is no more appropriate framing for context for the TPP than an anonymous poem from the 1700's:
They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common
But let the greater villain loose
That steal the common from the goose
This surprising wisdom from our past innocently unveils the nature of the TPP which, disguised as a trade agreement, contains a scaffolding for laws that converts the rights of ordinary citizens to capital. Indeed, optimal implementation of the TPP and it's associated agreement TISA seek the right for Limited Liability Companies, Incorporated businesses and Corporations to convert "The Common" into capital.
It's very construction has sought to avoid any public scrutiny and has been carried out in secret for years. It's product is a monolithic 6000 page agreement presented to the Parliament in a manner, rushed if possible, that has sought to avoid the scrutiny of Government bodies whose purpose is to analyse if it is in the Public good. With impunity the purveyors of the TPP have desperately sought to avoid the scrutiny of the general public and many organisations committed to maintaining many public interests.
How can any reasonable person conclude that such an agreement has been constructed with good will towards the very communities it seeks to interact with, the populous of our country and indeed the populous of every country that is a signatory.
It is disappointing that our elected representatives have passed this treaty without allowing the public more time to absorb it's ramifications. This entire treaty should be rejected and removed from further consideration as a treaty that our country has to abide by.
Our Constitution says that we are to be governed by the principles of 'Responsible Government'. How can ratifying a treaty into law that allows for profit entities to bypass the community standards be 'Responsible Government'? Indeed, from that perspective how is implementing the TPP compatible with the principles of our Constitution? Is it responsible to pass a treaty that has avoided the scrutiny of the many competent organisations that have the capability to asses it? How can it be Constitutional to allow corporate members of the community to bypass the Judicature of our country in a manner that effectively abdicates our sovereignty? The TPP seeks to do this by introducing articles that seek to control the behaviour of our nation's government via mechanisms that punish the taxpayer for passing law made for the good of the community.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
it was bad for workers, and Trump ran on a pro worker campaign. It'll lead to more outsourcing, which was his #1 issue.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The US can't win against China, but they can choose how much to lose. That was what (the original) TPP was about, accepting a small loss over a big one. The legacy of the US century is that that the US owns a substantive amount of IP - that is what the US sought to protect via the TPP. They made concessions on labour because they are going to lose that battle anyway. Pick the battles you can win. Without the TPP, Asian labour is still cheaper, and they still outcompete the US on every export market. IP is money for nothing. And Trump threw it away.
Most "developing" countries have environmental/safety/labor laws in the books, the problem is that they are rarely and selectively enforced, usually because of a incident that made widespread news or simply to hurt company owners backing political rivals.
So, you are impressed because you don't understand math? He saved ~$15 million by passing tax cuts for himself. That alone will cover more than his salary. He's a con man, and an essential component of any con is misdirection.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
3. ...
Except that's not what it's for at all, it's for companies to sue gov'ts when they change laws to the detriment of companies, even if those laws are to protect the environment, public rights, public health etc etc and Investor State Disputes have already done this and awarded large payouts to companies who wanted to do shit things, they then got compensated because they couldn't. This has nothing to do with being competitive because it effects all companies equally being that it's typically global corporations that are doing the suing . And these cases are settled in kangaroo courts by people who work for the very same corporations (revolving door etc) so they are extremely biased.
Treaties like TPP do f*** all for citizens, they screw people over completely, treaties like this are literally written by corporation's lawyers to benefit corporations.
When's the last time we had an effective treaty that improved labour conditions or stopped tax avoidance?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
The thing is, from the point of view of some countries (mostly European)...
1. They need environmental standards. No more maxing out pollution to be competitive.
2. Labor standards. No more practical slaves to be more competitive.
...that's exactly how the US looks to us.
(And you could add "health-safety" as an laternative sub-point to number 1.
"No more mixing hazardous substance to keep competitive prices".
From the US perspective : see all the shit that can be mixed into Chinese plastics
From the EU perspective : see US attempting to reverse some bans against tobacco products).
And that's where your number 3 kicks in :
3. Investor-state dispute. People (especially hard-liberals) see companies-able-to-sue-governments and turn on their "burrrr corporations baddd!" brain. But this is exactly what would've been needed in all the cases where China stole US company IP. Or required joint-ventures. Or subsidized and/or spied for their own domestic companies.
To the US, this looks like an useful tool to sue whole countries like China that don't give a fuck about pollution/health safety/legal quasi-slavery.
(yeah, and also the bits about patents).
To the EU, this looks like an open door for corporations to sue European countries which have much higher standards regarding pollution/health safety/legal quasi-slavery. (Again, see precedent of US companies acting against tobacco bans).
And would also give a way to US companies to complain about controversial IP laws (like software patent. US companies having a way to sue country on IP grounds would open a way to bring more (the non hardware parts) of the H265/HEVC patent madness to Europe).
1. People who just think globalization is bad because reasons.
Above are a few example of the reasons.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]