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.
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
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.
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.