Forget the DU created issues. How does Hillary not have an opinion on TPP?

[morningfog]

“Hillary Clinton can be for the trade agreement — the president is. She can be against the trade agreement — I am, Elizabeth Warren is, many of us are. I just don’t know how you don’t have an opinion on this enormously important issue, which is her view.”

Sen. Sanders' most direct challenge to Madam Secretary yet.

[arcane1]

1. I'm not going to be impatient waiting for one.

I expect some words about trade agreements in general, and that they "should" do this or that, but I am not at all expecting any clear stance on TPP. If it happens, it will probably be delayed as long as possible.

[upaloopa]

2. Suppose Hillary didn't want to step all over

President Obama's position since she is not an elected official. Some say that is her motive. If so, stepping on President Obama's position would be being against what he is for.
I don't see a problem here only that Bernie folks need more anti Hillary talking points because they can't win on his platform alone.

[morningfog]

3. No candidate can win on platform alone.

That is American politics. You have to criticize and go negative on your opponent. It is stupid and naive to think otherwise.

What shouldn't be done, in the primary at least, is personal shots and mudslinging. There's a distinction.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Since she's no longer part of Obama's administration

she's perfectly free to take a position in opposition to his. It's a fair question. TPP is a very big deal and it's reasonable to ask where she stands.

[PatrickforO]

8. Well, I here what you're saying, but...

the TPP is a really big deal. Having worked on both of Obama's campaigns as a volunteer, I am appalled that he is pushing this new trade agreement. I read what came out on WikiLeaks and it is really bad - corporate lawyers trying deliberately to be obtuse and misleading, but once you wade through the thing, you see the bottom line is that Obama and his Republican allies (never thought I'd say THAT) are giving away the power of the United States government to international corporate arbitrators with no recourse in American courts once the decision is made. The TPP has horrible adverse consequences for the American middle class, our environment and the rule of law we depend upon to make life at least somewhat predictable.

Not having a position will seriously hurt Clinton's campaign moving forward.

I mean, think back to 1993 when Bill Clinton sold us on NAFTA. Sounded like a good idea at the time, right? But the USA lost over 800,000 jobs at a conservative estimate. We still have an expensive retraining program called TAA that pays regular unemployment payments and up to $14,000 for two years of postsecondary occupational education for people who can prove they lost their jobs due to NAFTA - and you know what? We're STILL getting those people in!

If you want to make a wise judgment as to the merits of TPP, a good place to begin is to look at who has come out against it and why, and who it for it and why.

At the end of the day, Clinton isn't going to be able to be a mug-wump on this thing. She is going to have to choose a side.

[frylock]

11. She didn't have a problem stepping on President Obama's foreign policy decisions.

[TheNutcracker]

86. What about stepping all over workers all over the place?

[KamaAina]

4. Perhaps she has one but does not wish to express it

because it doesn't focus-group well.

[JDPriestly]

101. You hit the nail on the head.

[AtomicKitten]

6. It's kabuki theater.

She participated in writing the TPP, gave speeches promoting it, and the Clinton Foundation has received millions in donations from the TPP promoters. She's just too much of a coward to come out and own what is glaringly obvious. I'm rather enjoying her twisting in the wind on this.

[Scuba]

111. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[woo me with science]

118. [phone]

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. She's going to tick off SOMEONE, no matter WHICH side she comes down on.

And coming down on NO side carries its risks, too.

I don't envy her the position she's in. But I'm sure TeamHillary is busily crunching the numbers to see which position is going to cost her the FEWEST votes (or money).

Mostly, though, I'm sure they hope that a vote in the House happens pretty soon so it can all be dismissed as moot. Not exactly a "Profile in Courage," but it may be the least damaging.

[MFrohike]

25. Profiles in Polling?

Profiles in Marketing?

[HooptieWagon]

36. She can't triangulate out of a circle. Nt

[eloydude]

46. Thus the catch-22. She has to say something now, or be accused of wafling.

The current hot topic that is burning through Congress is TPA fast track authority, which involves TPP.

She has to make a stance now, and waiting too long would accuse her of waffling through the issue. She has to say if she is for it or against it and stick with it.

[Doctor_J]

9. She's hoping to hide all of her opinions except the really innocuous ones

She aligns with the republicans on most of the economic issues - taxes, military spending, drilling, fracking, for-profit health insurance, medicare cuts (I assume she's with her husband on this), social security cap, TPP, XL, replacing public education, and some others. So when she gets to the GE campaign, the only thing to differentiate her from her opponent will be the social issues, and whoever that opponent is will be bat shit crazy, so she will coast to victory.

It's a pretty foolproof strategy for winning, but we're going to end up with more corporatization of the country with her in the WH.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. That does seem to be the strategy, all right

And yeah, more corporatization. Blech.

[raouldukelives]

112. Being a citizen means less to most politicians these days than being a shareholder. nt

[ibegurpard]

10. Because the money she's raising is from people who have a stake in its passage.

That's how.

[Autumn]

12. Everyone who knows about the TPP has an opinion.

If they don't want to divulge that opinion it's because they don't want to take a hit on it with their constituents or they are afraid their opinion will not be well received by people and they could lose popularity points.

[DanTex]

13. Pretty sure she does have an opinion, she just doesn't want to say it.

It's a political calculation.

[eloydude]

48. A dangerous one - it is an immediate issue, and she has to say SOMETHING now..

or risk losing any capital she has had...

[brooklynite]

15. Answer: there isn't a TPP to have an opinion on...

...it's still in negotiation. Perhaps we should wait for the 60 day review period to opine.

[Art_from_Ark]

20. What a pantload

It's not still in negotiation. It's a done deal. The problem is, how the other signatories are going to sell this festering pile of fetid pig dung to their constituents.

[Jim Lane]

24. There IS a TPA to have an opinion on, but she's been silent on that, too.

TPA: specific text now before the House, in what's expected to be a close vote; Clinton could speak out and use her influence one way or the other.
TPP: still in negotiation but the drafts that have leaked -- after more than four years of negotiation -- are likely to be very close to the final.

Furthermore, on two issues that Clinton herself has identified as important, we know what the final TPP will look like, because Obama administration people have told us. We know that it will include ISDS and will not include currency manipulation. It's disingenuous for anyone to say "I'll opine on TPP when I see whether those provisions are included" when, in both instances, it's absolutely a done deal.

[Recursion]

63. Yeah, there's trade authority that every President since FDR has had

We know that it will include ISDS

Just like our current bilateral agreements do. Stopping TPP leaves ISDS in place.

[Jim Lane]

73. If Clinton thinks the TPA bill is no big deal and should be approved, let her SAY so.

I'm addressing the dissatisfaction arising from Clinton's ducking the issue.

Put aside the subject you raise -- the extent to which this TPA is similar to or different from past such bills. Also put aside the argument that, even if it's identical to what's been in place since FDR, that doesn't mean we have to continue the past procedure if we now conclude it was a mistake.

My point is that Clinton could easily say, "This bill implements trade authority that every President since FDR has had. I think it's a good way to handle proposed international trade agreements, so I urge the House to approve the bill." I wouldn't agree with her, but at least I'd know where she stood. Of course, she could also come out against it. As it is, with regard to this major current issue in public policy, I know more about the stances taken by you and several other DUers than I do about Clinton's -- yet she's the one running for President.

With regard to ISDS, I pointed out that Clinton had mentioned it as a subject of concern. Here again, she could say that she'll oppose TPP because it obviously will include ISDS, or she could say that we have ISDS in place now so it's not a basis for rejecting TPP. She's done neither. Instead, she's voiced vague concern about ISDS, so as not to cost herself votes among those of us who consider it a big negative, but she's refrained from saying it's a TPP deal-breaker, so as not to cost herself votes among people who agree with you that it isn't a big negative.

That kind of caginess is the standard political wisdom for how a candidate should act with a big lead in the polls. It does, however, leave her legitimately open to the charge of trying to work both sides of the street.

[Recursion]

76. Bluntly, activists in our party are going insane for no reason and it's hard for her to respond to

In the past couple of years, activists on the left have hit an enthusiasm gold mine that we've been searching for for years. Unfortunately, the two issues we hit gold on were:

1. The shortening of an existing oil pipeline (Keystone XL), and
2. The standardization of existing bilateral trade agreements among several minor countries (TPP), and I suppose
2a. The resumption of executive authority to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can then accept or reject as-is within a fixed time period (TPA)

My non-scientific sample of my mostly-politically-turned-on FB feed is that most opponents of Keystone XL don't know it's shortening an existing pipeline (or even that there is an existing pipeline), and that most opponents of TPP don't know that we have existing FTA's with the negotiating parties, or that China is not included.

I'm glad to see this enthusiasm on our side, but when so much of the activist wing has chosen these particular two (rather pointless) hills to die on, I'm sympathetic to a politician who just wants to keep her mouth shut about them.

[Jim Lane]

91. Thanks, I see where our difference is.

You write:

I'm glad to see this enthusiasm on our side, but when so much of the activist wing has chosen these particular two (rather pointless) hills to die on, I'm sympathetic to a politician who just wants to keep her mouth shut about them.

There's the obvious point that I attach more importance to these issues than you do, but our real difference is in assessing a candidate's silence. I'm more exigent in looking for leadership, so that my opinion of Clinton would in some ways go up if she expressly endorsed TPA, TPP, and Keystone, or even downplayed them as issues by agreeing with your rationale. You, by contrast, are more inclined toward charity, being sympathetic to a candidate who finds herself in a difficult situation.

One obvious possible explanation for the difference is that you're a nice guy and I'm sometimes a prick. For the latter hypothesis there is other evidence as well.

[JDPriestly]

102. The problem with the XL pipeline is where it goes -- through really important farmland that

feeds many people. It's not needed and not good for our country. Another problem with it is that it won't really create many jobs in the long-term. And yet another is that the oil passing through it will be extremely dirty and will be headed overseas. If Canada wants to ship its filthy oil through its farmland, so be it. But we don't want it through ours.

We don't want any more trade agreements. We have lost too many jobs with the ones we have.

We also don't want the ISDS trade arbitration courts or longer patents and copyrights.

And above all, we don't want to have powers, authorities that our Constitution grants to Congress taken over by the trade arbitration courts and this international agreement.

The previous agreements have cost us too many jobs and too much tax revenue and economic activity.

[Recursion]

104. No, you're just wrong there. Sorry, but you're blaming the wrong countries

We have lost too many jobs with the ones we have.

No, we net gained jobs from NAFTA and CAFTA (700K lost vs 900K created, so it wasn't very many). The countries that "took our jobs" were China, India, and Bangladesh, countries we don't have free trade agreements with. Because we don't have free trade agreements with them, they are free to lower labor standards all they want, and businesses were more than happy to move to them for that.

We also don't want the ISDS trade arbitration courts or longer patents and copyrights.

I'm sympathetic to the copyright/patent argument (if I end up against TPP it will probably be over that, though again I have to see the damn thing first). But the ISDS ship sailed 20 years ago. They're already there, doing their thing. US and Canada sue each other dozens of times each year through them. AFL sues Mexico and Honduras through them.

[JDPriestly]

107. We need to get out of NAFTA in order to get out of the ISDS court.

We have a special trade deal with China. We have free trade with India and Bangladesh even without agreements, and that trade including the trade with China has all but wiped out our top-level manufacturing industry. It's really bad.

The ISDS has to go.

[Recursion]

109. China, India, and Bangladesh all have a "lesser" form of MFN

That is, they're "permanent" normal trade relations that aren't permanent.

We have a special trade deal with China.

True, in that we subject China to more scrutiny than other MFN nations (ditto India and Bangladesh).

And, hey, if you want to argue that we should de-list Chindia from MFN, that's an argument I'm sympathetic to (particularly China).

That has nothing to do with NAFTA or the TPP.

[JDPriestly]

115. We should end any agreement that allows corporations to sue any sovereign state in any

court or arbitration court that is international.

Corporations, like people, should only be able to sue for money damages in courts with judges appointed or elected by the people of the country being sued or its democratically elected government.

In my response in this thread to Papango, I discussed the situation in El Salvador which has been sued in an ISDS by a company that wants to mine gold in El Salvador which puts dangerous chemicals into the water. The very idea that a corporation can sue a people, a nation, for the "right to pollute" the water of that nation is abhorrent. The idea that a very large or wealthy corporation can sue a poor nation for the "right to pollute" is downright devilish.

There should be no right of a corporation to sue a nation, a people, in any court outside the nation being sued.

[pampango]

113. Leaving NAFTA would leave us in the US/Canada FTA which preexisted NAFTA? If we drop out of that too

we would be back to having WTO rules apply to our trade with Canada and Mexico. Of course, the WTO has an arbitration-based dispute resolution process as well. We can't get away from multilateral trade dispute resolution unless we go back to the Coolidge/Hoover system of the 1920's which FDR trashed.

"We have a special trade deal with China."

What is it? The WTO? There are 161 countries in the WTO. Does that mean we have a "special trade deal" with all 161 of them? What is 'special' about the rules that apply to essentially the whole world?

One could make the case that those who want the US to be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world are the ones who want a "special trade deal". That is why withdrawing from the WTO (as well as the UN and every other international agreement and organization) is routinely part of state GOP party platforms and promoted by their far-right fringe.

[JDPriestly]

114. We should go back to unilateral trade agreements until we get our balance of payments system

under control and until there is some way to appoint judges that gives ordinary people some input, even if remote.

The trade courts are not a democratic institution. Neither is the WTO.

And they are bound to fail America.

Those arbitration courts are inconsistent with American values. I understand the idealism of the Rockefellers and the Roosevelts and Wilsons who wanted world government. I know the history. But the fact is that the trade courts are incompatible with our representative democracy. What is more important? World trade? Or our democratic institutions?

Let's just write the experiment with the international trade courts including the WTO off as a learning experience.

Fact is, that in recent years, corporations have discovered the means to circumvent local, democratically passed laws through the trade courts. They are doing tthis not just in the US and Canada but in countries like El Salvador where a gold-mining company sued to be able to ruin the water the Salvadorians drink.

If we don't end the trade court or limit the trade court authority, we will end up with a world dominated by corporations, rogue corporations who control governments such as our own and bypass democratic institutions.

I realize that is not precisely the case now, tut that is where we are headed.
. . . .
Nearly thirty years ago, the Wisconsin-based Commerce Group Corp. purchased a gold mine near the San Sebastian River in El Salvador and contaminated the water. Now, according to Lita Trejo, a native Salvadoran and school worker in Washington, DC, the once clear river is orange. The people who drink from the arsenic-polluted river, she says, are suffering from kidney failure and other diseases.

. . . .

An Australian-Canadian mining company, OceanaGold, is suing the Salvadoran government for refusing to grant it a gold-mining permit to its subsidiary, Pacific Rim. Manuel Pérez-Rocha, a researcher at the Institute for Policy Studies, explained the situation: “OceanaGold is demanding more than $300 million from El Salvador. They are saying, ‘If you do not let us operate in your country the way we want, you must pay us for the profits that you prevented us from making.’”

That sounds absurd, but it’s true: The company is claiming that under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, it has the right to sue the Salvadoran government for passing a law that threatens its bottom line.

El Salvador is now defending its decision to prevent OceanaGold/Pacific Rim from operating the El Dorado mine near the Lempa River before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, a little-known World Bank–based tribunal.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/181717/fight-keep-toxic-mining-out-el-salvador

It's a real problem. These courts are now disenfranchising, depriving of local rule, only people in a few countries. But the potential that these courts and that system of resolving disputes between corporations and countries is menacing. We do not need those courts.

The gold mining company in El Salvador, for example, should accept the decision of the Salvadorian people to reject their gold mine endeavor.

The international trade courts have the potential and it is a very real potential to deprive people all over the world of human rights. The trade courts are designed at this time to placer CORPORATE RIGHTS above HUMAN RIGHTS.

And that is why I object to the trade courts.

Corporations should only be able to sue a country when that country allows it. I could understand trade courts in which a country sues a country. But the ability of corporations to bring claims in the trade courts is anti-democratic. That procedural possibility needs to be ended. Corporations are merely legal constructs. They should not be participating, much less, interfering or threatening, democratic institutions and values.

[pampango]

117. You do want to go back to the Coolidge/Hoover days? No WTO, no trade agreements,

only "unilateral trade agreements"? (Which is what exactly? Unilaterally imposed trade agreements?) Not even "bilateral" agreements between two countries?

FDR tried so hard to get nationalism out of the international trade system and substitute multilateral planning and enforcement to prevent a return Coolidge/Hoover thinking. He would probably not be surprised that GOP party platforms in Texas, Iowa and other states support US withdrawal from the WTO. Republicans opposed his trade (and other) policies all through the 1930's and 1940's (when Truman continued them). He would not be surprised that it continues today.

OTOH, he might be surprised that some Democrats want to go back to the Coolidge/Hoover days of ultimate economic nationalism. Thankfully Europe makes FDR's policies work today. Strong middle classes and world-class income equality, two things that did not exist under the economic nationalism of Coolidge and Hoover. They did indeed treat FDR's ideas as a "learning experience".

Arbitration is not inherently anti-democratic. It works in progressive countries everywhere where people see cooperating with other countries as preferable to "my way (trade rules) or the highway (no trade for you)" politics.

[JDPriestly]

120. I know A LOT about arbitration. It can be great for disputes between equals, such as two

corporations or even two nations. But it is a terrible way to resolve disputes between a very powerful entity and a very weak one such as a large corporation and a developing nation.

Bilateral (unilateral) trade agreements are best because they do not make individual countries i a group of countries extremely dependent on the group if it wants to exercise a moral or economic decision to refuse to trade with a country with which it for one reason or another decides it doesn't want to trade.

You paint an overly optimistic picture of the European trade zones. Think of Greece (and Spain and other countries that are, in the European trade zone, the debtor countries as we are in NAFTA). Think of the controversy over Ukraine. If Ukraine could have trading agreements individually with other countries rather than joining this trade bloc OR that one, it would be able to develop its democratic institutions more peacefully. The decision not to join or to join one or another trade group when members of the two trade groups are not getting along is a dangerous one as we see in Ukraine. And Ukraine has not even made a choice yet. It's just the idea of the Russians that Ukraine might choose Western Europe rather than Russia that is such a terribly unacceptable idea to the Russian government.

These huge trade agreements limit the rights and participation of individuals in the member countries.

And these limitations will increase as corporations test and expand their ability to bully countries with the trade courts.

[pampango]

123. Europe has its problems. What country or continent does not? But they have the best income equality

in the world, the strongest middle class and unions in the world.

These huge trade agreements limit the rights and participation of individuals in the member countries.

That is what the right-wing parties like UKIP in the UK, the National Front in France and in many other European countries say. That is why they are the political force that wants the UK and France to withdraw from the EU. That does not make it true. If it were, it would be the left wing parties pushing to break up the EU, not those on the right.

[JDPriestly]

121. We will never "go back" to the environment that existed at the time of Coolidge and Hoover.

But we have to honestly realize that the very idealistic aim for which Eleanor Roosevelt and FDR (and more recently the Rockefeller and other right-wing foundations and think-tanks) have advocated has failed the US.

It may be as you suggest and as I tend to agree that the US failed to institute the internal social and economic changes that would be necessary to make it work. But I am inclined to believe that the concept of the ISDS courts (and Elizabeth Warren, a professor of law at Harvard and Stiglitz, a great economist and brilliant thinker agree, I believe, with me) is flawed. The courts do not further democracy or democratic institutions. They weaken democracy and destroy the authority of democratic institutions including courts that emphasize due process and the rule of law (democratically passed laws). They also weaken the authority of legislative bodies. And the weakening of the authority of democratically elected legislative bodies is perhaps the worst result of international and multinational trade agreements including the WTO which impose super-national courts on the members of the agreement.

We made a mistake. FDR did not foresee the damage that the multinational trade agreements would cause.

And that damage is just starting to become evident. It is causing disputes between parties to the agreements and unrelated trade groups rather than bringing peoples of the world closer to peace.

And within the US because of our very "you are on your own, no matter how poor you are" mentality of our very strong, nearly Fascist right-wing and its success in our electoral system because of the influence of corporate money, the trade agreements are causing an undue amount of unemployment and underemployment, And so far there is utterly no moral or social consciousness to rectify the injury that the trade agreements are causing in our country. I suspect that Mexico also is having serious problems as are the countries in Central America due in great part to the displacement caused by the trade agreements.

There has to be a better way to trade that has a moral and ethical component that serves the PEOPLE of the world and not just the corporations.

[pampango]

124. If we do what you suggest we would be well on our way. There was not GATT/WTO. There were no

"multinational trade agreements". There were no international trade organizations or agreements at all, just high tariffs - lots of 'protection' for American companies, lots of poverty for Americans. We already have the rest of the Coolidge/Hoover legacy - historic income inequality, low taxes on the rich, anti-unions laws and actions, a weak safety net and an intentionally ineffective regulatory system.

If the ghosts of Coolidge and Hoover come back for a visit that would all look quite familiar. What would keep their ghosts up at night would be the amount of international trade (small by the standards of modern progressive countries but something the C/H would have hated) and US participation in international organizations like the UN (republicans kept us out of the League of Nations, many of them want us out of the UN now), the WTO (not consistent with C/H's desire to 'protect' their American corporate masters from foreign competition and provide the revenue - on the backs of the working class - that could replace lowering taxes on the rich) and many other international organizations the FDR created or created political support for by his commitment to internationalism.

[JDPriestly]

122. Sorry. I post an answer and then realize that is it is not complete.

When I say we can never go back to the environment of Hoover and Coolidge, I am referring to the fact that in terms of technology and population growth, we can never return to the isolation we sought at that time.

We have modern transportation, modern communication and modern healthcare among other things. They bind the world in ways that could not have been known at the time of Hoover and Coolidge and even FDR. The radio was new at least new in the homes of ordinary Americans at the time of FDR. Today, we communicate via Skype. We call our friends and family in foreign countries routinely.

So without the multinational trade structure and agreements, we would still have more international interaction and even trade than we dreamed possible under FDR.

I remember when I saw my first television set. I was in the fourth grade. It was something new that most of us could not afford.

I remember Sputnik. I remember wall phones and my grandmother yelling into the phone thinking that she would not be heard unless she talked really loudly. I remember my aunt sitting in the telephone office connecting wires. She was "Central." We will never return to that kind of isolated life.

We do not need these multinational trade agreements. We should be free to set tariffs and protect our labor and environmental standards as we wish. Same for other countries.

We should be free as should other countries, as a people, to decide whether we want certain types of investments, certain types of exploitation of our resources, etc. or not.

I am just waiting for a multinational corporation to go to a trade court and challenge our national park system and our protection of federal lands. Bound to happen. We should not submit ourselves and give up our sovereignty to the government by corporations that will be the ultimate outcome of our chaining ourselves to these trade agreements and trade courts. We have damaged ourselves enough with them already. If we, for instance, want international standards on air traffic and insurance of air traffic, let's agree to that independently of other kinds of agreements. Let's agree independently with each country with which we wish to agree.

[pampango]

125. FDR would have thought the US would be what modern Germany is. Highly-paid workers, strong unions,

an excellent safety net and a trade giant (70% of the German economy is trade) connected to the rest of the world.

I imagine that he could not have predicted that we would actually go back to the Coolidge/Hoover policies of low taxes on the rich, anti-union laws and attitudes, weak regulations and a poor safety net. And he would been shocked that liberals would blame our weak middle class and terrible income inequality on trade (23% of our economy or 1/3 that of Germany) which he promoted over republican objections rather than on all those regressive C/H policies that he worked so hard to reverse and have come back to haunt us now.

We do not need these multinational trade agreements. We should be free to set tariffs and protect our labor and environmental standards as we wish.

FDR would disagree. The reason he promoted "multinational trade agreements" was precisely because he knew that national governments, being political entities, will 'protect' their 'constituents' (either the common citizens or the rich and powerful in their country, depending on our 'pure' you view democracy in many countries). He believed that spending your political energy 'protecting' "US" Americans from "THEM" foreigners actually provides little 'protection' (witness the 1920's and its still historic level of income inequality) and leaves little energy to cooperate with those same other countries on issues of international importance.

Even in a "pure" democracy without undue corporate influence, people have the right to choose to join other people in organizations if they feel they will be beneficial. Support for the EU is quite high in Europe except on the political right which is a growing worry. On the right, they want their country to be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to whomever it wants without regard to what people in other countries think. The ghosts of Coolidge and Hoover would approve. FDR's, not so much.

We should be free as should other countries, as a people, to decide whether we want certain types of investments, certain types of exploitation of our resources, etc. or not.

Fair enough. And we should be free to join international organizations and sign international agreements when we think that is the best way to achieve those goals.

FDR and Truman had labor rights, business regulation, investment protection and a commitment to full employment in the International Trade Organization. (If the environment had been a big issue back then, it would have been in there too.) They believed international negotiation, agreement and implementation was the way to achieve those goals and bring the world together. To say the least, republicans fought them hard on this weakening of national sovereignty and won. When congress rejected US membership in the ITO, it died.

[JDPriestly]

126. I agree that the reason we, the US do not compete well or work together well with the international

trade community, is that we do not have the social infrastructure and safety net to respond and retool to the lost jobs and the changes that globalization requires.

But I have a more serious objection to global trade.

The corporate form of business organization is useful. It encourages efficient investment, allowing capital to flow into useful purposes and be used well to develop new products and services for the benefit of our society.

But corporations are not organized democratically. Corporations are autocratic, dictatorial institutions by nature. They are specifically and clearly organized in order to limit the social responsibility, even the potential indebtedness in case of failure of the corporation to its creditors. They can be useful means of development for democratic societies as long as the corporations are regulated by and answer to the democratic will as expressed in government. But corporations are by definition, by organization, by law, structures that avoid or limit responsibility.

In addition, human beings are limited by nationality (dual nationality, maybe even triple nationality is possible but people are still limited by national affiliation and their geographical location) while corporations today are often multinational.

Thus individual human beings who are limited and defined by geographical and national limits and who form governments, hopefully in a democratic fashion are now living in a world in which corporations, irresponsible (by design), undemocratic (by definition) and in need of regulation are organized as multinationals, huge multinationals with large amounts of capital and an irresistible drive to dominate, to compete, to govern selfishly and recklessly, irresponsibly and to get what the corporation wants in spite of the needs of people and nations.

And these corporations, which could and do serve an essential role in our society, are because of and via our trade agreements overwhelming our democratic institutions and replacing them with the autocratic, dictatorial institutions of corporations.

And that i view as an insurmountable drawback to the trade agreements and the ISDS courts.

Corporations are not perhaps intentionally conspiring to take over the world via these trade agreements. But that will be the result of the trade agreements.

I do not think that it is possible to have international regulation of these huge corporations that is compatible with democracy and the local law-making, local rule, local government that is necessary if democratic institutions are to thrive.

China, a Communist dictatorship, has found a way to deal compatibly with the corporate investment model. But it is still not a democracy. It is a nation ruled by one party, the Communist Party. interestingly although not surprisingly because of its huge population, it is the biggest exporting nation in the world.

It is proof that international trade is no impediment to dictatorship.

The US, a democracy for well over 200 years, on the other hand has a large trade deficit, has seen its steel sector, and other industrial sectors such as furniture production, etc. nearly shut down. We are unable to compete.

The corporate model is a dictatorship. If we value democracy, we need to protect it at all costs, even by entering into one-on-one trade agreements with other countries rather than these multi-national trade agreements through which the corporations, which are not limited by geographical location or national affiliation, outmaneuver us and destroy us and our democratic ways of life.

I note that even Germany which, with its amazingly effective training and retraining system (I've lived there and know it well) which its wonderfully efficient and skilled labor force, with its long tradition of labor guilds and now unions and good relationships between employers and employees, is under pressure from corporations that want to force it to accept nuclear power that it does not want.

So, I oppose these corporate-dominated, sociopath, supernationa, undemocratic trade deals including but not limited to the TPP.

[morningfog]

40. Obama is for it. Warren and Sanders oppose it. Hillary? Eh, she'll tell you after its too late.

What a leader.

[woolldog]

16. What difference does it make if she's for it or against it?

We need to vote for her regardless. She's the only Dem who can win. It's best if she's not forced to take policy positions now that she may have to be confronted with in the GE.

[Art_from_Ark]

23. It makes a hell of a lot of difference to me

Especially after what I learned about it earlier this week.

[woolldog]

37. you're not thinking this through.

ok let's say she's rabidly in favor of it. What are you going to do about that? Vote Republican? They're also in favor of it.

Oh you'll vote for Sanders you say? Well sorry to break it to you but Sanders ain't winning the GE. So your support of him, while making you feel all warm inside, will have no effect on TPP.

If she's against TPP, then why does she need to say so now? To make you feel less anxious about her inevitable nomination?

We have to vote for her anyway, so it doesn't make sense to ask her to stake out a whole bunch of policy positions that might come back to haunt her in the GE

[Art_from_Ark]

42. I am thinking this through

The TPP is a goddamn abomination that could have a major negative impact on my life. And you don't know any more than anyone else about who is going to win the GE.

[Recursion]

96. How?

could have a major negative impact on my life

What impact would it have on your life? (This is probably a good lead for your "I oppose the TPP" elevator pitch, btw.)

[Art_from_Ark]

97. I will explain that later on, in an OP

And yes, there are informed people who DO have legitimate opinions and concerns about TPP.

[Recursion]

98. I look forward to it!

And I mean that. I'm still "meh" on the TPP personally, I just get tired of people who ignored international trade for 20 years and suddenly believe whatever meme they read on Facebook. (I also dislike when people flat-out lie about what happened after NAFTA, and try to roll China, India, and Bangladesh into discussions of FTA's, but that's a separate problem...)

[JDPriestly]

103. It will hurt our economy.

[Recursion]

105. NAFTA didn't. Why would TPP? (nt)

[JDPriestly]

106. NAFTA has severely harmed our economy.

I was born in this country. I am 72 years old now, and I remember what our country was like -pre-China, pre-Reagan, pre-NAFTA, pre-trade agreements.

We have gone downhill since we started the trade agreements. Technology has improved drastically, but our benefits from it are far less than they should be thanks to free trade.

Back in the early 1970s, i worked as a service representative for our phone company in the area in which I lived. That work is now done overseas. My service rep job paid well, required a good education and was interesting. Now most of that work is gone. Why can't people in other countries provide service to consumers in their countries and let Americans provide service to Americans. That makes sense. Having someone in India or the Philippines pretend they care about your service is just absurd and takes good jobs from Americans. We don't provide service representation to people from the Philippines or India. Why should they be answering our complaints and collecting our bills?

As Bernie Sanders points out, the real unemployment in the US is much higher than the official numbers indicate. We need more jobs. Our trade agreements have, each of them, taken jobs out of the US.

[Recursion]

108. You aren't making an argument

I remember what our country was like -pre-China, pre-Reagan, pre-NAFTA, pre-trade agreements.

Which one?

Pre-Reagan would be 1980 or before. Pre-China (I assume you mean MFN status?) would be pre-2000. Pre-NAFTA would be pre-1993 (things are much better now than then). Pre-trade agreements would be pre-1789 or so.

i worked as a service representative for our phone company in the area in which I lived. That work is now done overseas.

In a country we don't have a free trade agreement with.

If you want to argue that PNTR status of China was a bad idea, I largely agree. India and Bangladesh don't have full MFN status, though like China they have a simulacrum, and I'd agree we should probably limit that.

What you haven't done is show a concrete way that NAFTA harmed the US economy; you're simply using it as a punching bag for globalized trade in general.

[JDPriestly]

116. We losgt manufacturing and jobs to Mexico in particular.

I am an ordinary citizen. I have seen the damage. When I look at the jobs that used to be filled within the UIS to serve our US market and then at all the imported sloppily made junk that fill our stores, I am horrified. It is not only bad for the environment to produce so much throw-away junk. It has left many, many Americans without meaningful, productive work. We can only eat so many McDonalds hamburgers in this country. We can produce only so much military hardware.

When I look at my pre-NAFTA, pre this mania for "free trade" well-made Maytag washer and drier that I bought second-hand in 1985, and then see that the new "deluxe" model washers and driers my children have purchased at outrageous prices have already broken down or needed repair in far fewer years than I have had my washer-drier, I am incensed at the waste.

"Free trade" is in many respects one huge scam, a fraud.

And maybe the worst of it is that Americans don't learn and don't know how to do useful trades like making furniture, manufacturing steel, textiles, clothing, etc.

If you talk to most Americans, they will agree with me but continue to buy at import stores because of the prices. And those prices are so low because of the exploitation of near-slave labor and currency manipulation. It's dishonesty. And the trade courts are desired by corporations so that they can continue to indulge their sociopathic greed and dishonesty and enrich themselves in the process. It is unconscionable.

[840high]

67. Makes a big difference to me.

[MFrohike]

27. Is this serious?

If you are, you clearly don't understand the first fucking thing about America. I don't mean the political class and the economic elites, I mean the actual mass of Americans who make up this country. You know, those people who read Lincoln's Second Inaugural or the Constitution of the United States and think it's more than just a goddamn bookmark? What is the point of having an election if the candidates follow your advice and duck and run? Hell, we might as well let a monkey throw darts to pick the winner. It'd be more entertaining and we'd have a better shot of getting someone worthwhile.

[woolldog]

38. serious as a heart attack

America is about WINNING, first and foremost. She gotta do what she's gotta do to WIN. That's all I care about. This country can't afford to elect a Republican President, especially now that the GOP controlls congress and the Supreme Court. The stakes have never been higher. This isn't about entertaining you. It's about winning and the goddamn future of this country.

[eloydude]

54. I hate to break it to you - The nomination process isn't American Idol

You have to listen and understand the issues, not who should win. Fuck that. I'm done with voting for the lesser of two evils - and if Bernie isn't the nominee, I won't do anything for Hillary but give her my vote when my ballot arrives in the mail.

[MFrohike]

61. Horseshit

If a candidate doesn't have the backbone to state where he or she stands on an issue, that candidate is too fucking spineless to hold office. That Madison Avenue, focus group bullshit is the primary cause of the state of the country today. Rather than dedicate ourselves to the actual principles of self-government and making it so people aren't oppressed and have the means to enjoy it, you'd rather we go with dishonesty and cowardice. To hell with that, sir.

There's no point in winning if you don't stand for shit. If you all do is win and don't constructively use the power for the betterment of your employers, the citizens of the United States, then you aren't worth spitting on if you catch on fire.

Your position may seem utterly pragmatic to you, but it's nothing but sterile amorality. Sure, that plan might well get you into office, but so what? What do you do then? Flounder about and try to cut deals? Sit around like Grant and hope Congress doesn't screw up? Maybe you just let out inane platitudes periodically and hope historians are too blinded by the trappings of power so they don't notice that your legacy is essentially "took up space." Give me a break.

I'll leave you with a final thought. Not long after he assumed the office, LBJ was in a meeting with his advisors. The topic of a voting rights bill came up and one of the advisors argued against pushing for it, saying that a president only had so much capital to spend and should save it for bigger things. There was a moment of silence and then Johnson replied, "Well, what the hell's the presidency for?"

[woolldog]

69. That's a nice anecdote.

Seriously. Not being sarcastic. But there's one thing you're missing: she's not President yet. Once she wins you can criticize her all you want for not doing enough to advance progressive values and persuade her to your agenda. And I guarantee you she will be a lot more amenable to your priorities than a GOP President. She is to the left of all those clowns on the other side. But she's got to win first! Let her do what she's got to do to win! Have faith.

[MFrohike]

72. There's where we differ

I have no faith or trust in elected officials. They are our employees and their track record frankly sucks. It's our responsibility not to believe in them or whatever, but to hound them into doing right by us. That is the essence of self-government and that is why I said a candidate who can't give a position is too spineless to hold office. They owe us because the power they exercise comes from us.

[morningfog]

41. I hate to break it to you. There is a contested primary.

She is owed nothing. She is entitled to nothing. She is not above it. She has to go through the democratic process just like every other candidate. She is not special.

[eloydude]

52. TPP has a provision that Malaysia hates - restricting sex trade

Malaysia may not agree to the TPP, and Japanese citizens are revolting (and filing lawsuits against it - Art from Ark can correct me if I'm wrong) about their involvement. If it's that bad, then TPP should not even be considered as a fair trade proposal for citizens.

[Recursion]

77. You're against restricting the Malaysian sex trade because Malaysian citizens want it to continue?

[eloydude]

80. No. I'm for TPP being dumped

I don't care what the reasons are.

[Recursion]

81. So you prefer our current free trade agreement with Malaysia?

The one that doesn't address sexual trafficking (and still has ISDS)? That's pretty astounding.

Our current trade agreement with Malaysia is about 10 years old. It doesn't address sexual trafficking. It doesn't require the Malaysian government to allow US firms to bid on non-security contracts. It doesn't push the government to stop discrimination against non ethnic Malays. A lot of rich people in Malaysia dislike the fact that TPP is trying to change those things.

[m-lekktor]

17. I look forward to the debates !! nt

[JEB]

18. I won't support a TPP that is secret and

I won't support a candidate that keeps opinions on issues this important secret.

[Recursion]

83. Great! Once there's a TPP you'll be able to read it like everybody else

So, problem solved, right?

[JEB]

87. By then it will be a take it or leave it.

Politicians can express dissatisfaction and then vote for it anyway. What a fucking con job.

[Recursion]

88. If they don't want it they can vote against it. Not that hard.

Hell, we didn't officially end World War One until the 1920s because of that.

[peecoolyour]

19. She charges more than $17,000 and it takes longer for the larger checks to clear?

[Motown_Johnny]

21. kinda like Seinfeld was a show about nothing

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 09:25 PM - Edit history (1)

She is trying to be a candidate about next to nothing.

It won't be enough in the general.

[hifiguy]

32. I have serious doubts it will be enough for the primaries.

People are sick to death of Republican insanity and Turd Way doubletalk bullshit that leaves them high and dry.

"Somethin's happenin' here; What it is ain't exactly clear..." - Stephen Stills

[arcane1]

35. Nobody will be able to get away with vague "move the country forward" platitudes this time around.

We have candidates who will be sharing a debate stage with Bernie Fucking Sanders, and they will have to follow his words with their own words. If their words are rehearsed, market-tested pablum, the fakeness will be more clear than I've ever seen it in my lifetime. Even a down-home, Aw-Shucks, Perot-like approach would come across as acting.

I may have to buy some popcorn stock

[eloydude]

55. Indeed, if Clinton comes out arrogantly and condescending

and they listen to Bernie, chances are, Hillary's gonna bleed voters again like she did in 2008.

People *ARE* paying attention this time, thanks to social media, and what's more, they do vote with their wallets.

[Recursion]

82. Yeah, the voters over and over have signalled their preference for wonky issues-driven campaigns

rather than pablum.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. She supports the trade agreement. She just doesn't want to say so yet.

I'm guessing she'll make a little noise about one provision or another, but she'll support it.

[Thinkingabout]

26. My, my, guess some does not receive the news.

[hifiguy]

28. The people at Goldman haven't come up

with the speech where she can be against it and for it at the same time.

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Don't worry

They've got 200 advisors working on that problem right now.

[hifiguy]

31. Chined in the basement, I am sure. nt

[eloydude]

57. Way I'm hearing it, they have to hire another 200 more...

to advise the advisors on what to advise Clinton about TPP.

[Art_from_Ark]

100. And then more advisors to advise those advisors, and then...

Hey, it could snowball into a jobs program!

[libdem4life]

30. Quiet, please ! She's listening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. She's waiting to evolve in the most politically expedient direction. Like she did on her IWR vote.

And, becoming a Democrat, and Gay marriage, and being "Dead broke".

[edgineered]

34. It is a matter of economics.

With limited campaign finances of roughly 2 billion, candidate A simply cannot afford to waste money on frivolous things like campaigning for support within her own party. A centrifuge capable of creating enough spin to support a stance would be prohibitively expensive.

[tritsofme]

39. The TPP is not finished, but she should come out for TPA and lobby House Democrats to get on board.

The agreement that President Obama negotiates deserves an up or down vote in Congress.

[Art_from_Ark]

43. Why should House Democrats "get on board"?

TAP would be for at least 6 years. That means that whoever succeeds Obama can use it for at least 4 years.

And insisting on an up-or-down vote on a 15,000-page document that could affect hundreds of millions of lives is sheer lunacy.

[Recursion]

44. Nobody has an opinion on the TPP. Not one single person.

People have opinions about what they imagine/fear/hope the TPP will be.

[Art_from_Ark]

45. That is incorrect

There are people who have opinions on the TPP, people who have been privy to negotiations, people who have been allowed to read part of the document, people who have read those parts that have been leaked.

[Recursion]

47. There is no "the document" for them to read.

It doesn't exist.

There are negotiating positions, and there is proposed language that's still being committeed into bureaucratese right now.

[Art_from_Ark]

49. Oh, for crying out loud

Do they just sit and talk around a table and commit everything to memory?

[Recursion]

51. That does happen, yes. More importantly most paragraphs will have 7 or 8 versions running around

many of which completely contradict each other. Gradually, the lowest-common-denominator consensus will be found (treaties are generally done on a consensus basis, meaning every party has to agree to every word in every paragraph), and the 7 or 8 versions will be whittled down to 3, then 2, then finally 1. We're not at the "finally 1" stage yet.

What lawmakers can see is the US Trade Representative's proposals, and some notes of the pushback from other countries.

[Art_from_Ark]

53. Yeah, lowest-common denominator consensus

Third world countries versus advanced countries. Gee, what could the lowest-common denominator be there?

[Recursion]

58. If it goes with the framework of the current bilateral agreements

then it will basically say that no country can weaken labor protections, raise tariffs, decrease environmental protections, or subsidize industries more than they do now. That is basically the TL;DR of NAFTA: your current laws are the baseline and you can't make them any worse. You can increase labor protections, lower tariffs, increase environmental protections, or cut subsidies if you want, but you can't go in the other direction. There's also a "floor" that some countries will have to reach (eg, you have to allow unionization in the first place, etc.), but we usually don't bother trying for an FTA with countries that aren't there (this is why we will pretty much never have one with China or India).

[eloydude]

59. Seeing that the current TPP "proposal" has Malaysia pissed and Japanese citizens suing Japan

tells you that TPP is up to no good?

[Recursion]

62. The Malaysian government also pissed off a lot of Malaysians by breaking up a slave ring

And Japanese citizens don't want their companies to have to compete with American companies on a level playing field. I get that.

that TPP is up to no good

I haven't yet seen a significant change from our existing bilateral trade agreements (this is Vietnam's complaint: "it's the same damn thing we have right now&quot . If one happens, I'll have an opinion on it.

[eloydude]

64. Right..

If it's just the same damn thing as the NAFTA, but with more muscles (some say NAFTA on steroids) - then there's no point - NAFTA cost Americans lots of jobs and the decline of the middle class. It's time to get the corporations to stop offshoring and bring jobs back here in the States, without H1-B's help. I'm in IT by trade, and I can't find a steady jobs and most jobs opportunities are ALWAYS H1-B's because they're asking for the imppossible so they can bring in foreigners for cheap costs...

Just recently, I got an opportunity for a Jr System Admin - something with 1-2 years that pays 40-45k - and i emailed the recuriter back and said I'm OVERQUALIFIED, and would happily accept the job...

Never heard back....

[Recursion]

68. Well, we disagree about the impact of NAFTA

NAFTA cost Americans lots of jobs and the decline of the middle class

That's not what the numbers tell me. China and India took a lot of jobs; Mexico and Canada a few.

[Recursion]

50. What's your opinion on Windows 10? Or OS X 10.11? Ubuntu 16.04? (nt)

[TM99]

56. Well being a beta tester for

Windows 10 and OS X 10.11, I have definite opinions about both of them.

I am constrained by NDA's, however, I can still discuss generalities and those aspects that have been publicly shared by Microsoft and Apple.

Want to try a different analogy then to defend Clinton's lack of communication on this important topic?

[Recursion]

60. Not really; I have a Windows 10 Beta ISO too

And I'm on slackware's -current branch (I figured "Ubuntu" would be more recognizable).

I have definite opinions about both of them.

I have opinions about what I've seen, too. Just like I've had opinions about the TPP information I've seen. What I don't have is an opinion on a release that hasn't been made yet.

[TM99]

65. You are still missing the point.

There has been enough released by various organizations to know pretty well what is and isn't in the TPP. Is it fully finalized? No. But there is enough for just about every other politician to have an opinion either for or against, except Clinton. Wonder why that is?

[Recursion]

79. As far as that goes, as I said in #76

A vocal activist wing of our party (remember a majority of Democrats support TPP and a majority of Republicans oppose it) has gone absolutely batshit crazy over this, and there's no upside for her saying "I'm right and you're wrong about the TPP", even though she is right and they are wrong.

[TM99]

89. Batshit crazy?

That's all I really need to know about you.

Yeah, here is a list of just some of the batshit crazy activists who are opposed to TPP/TPA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026570116

Read this article to find over a hundred tech corporations with reservations or outright distrust of TPP/TPA:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/20/hundreds-tech-companies-oppose-tpp-trade-agreement

Let's add environmental groups:

http://ourfuture.org/20150122/environmental-groups-denounce-fast-track-trade-process

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/why_we_have_grave_environmenta.html

Let's add www.eff.org to the mix.

The Dem House leadership is against it:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/204185/breaking-leading-house-democrat-will-oppose-tpp-fast-track

How about Stiglitz and Krugman? Yup they must be batshit crazy activists.

Now let's talk about the sane, non-activist types who are for TPP:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178072/who-backs-tpp-and-nafta-steroids-alec

3M Company
Advanced Medical Technology Association
Aflac International
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Council of life insurers
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Feed Industry
Association American Forest & Paper Association
American Insurance Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Meat Institute
American Soybean Association
amway
Apple
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Boeing
Business Roundtable
BSA – The Software Alliance
Cargill
Caterpillar
Chevron
Chubb Corp.
Citigroup Inc
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Motion Picture Association of America
The Dow Chemical Company
Viacom
Visa
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The entire GOP leadership, and one moderate Reagan Republican President named Obama.

Clinton is not right. But hey, thanks for playing!

[Recursion]

90. If I were raising money for a liberal organization I'd probably come out against it too

Because, like Keystone XL, it's an absolute killer app for organizing, despite its being from a policy standpoint at worst a tepid mixed bag.

[TM99]

92. Why are you even here?

I don't mean that as a snark but as a serious question.

You berate liberals. You call progressives batshit crazy. You assume that 'liberal' organizations just opposed to the TPP because it increases number and $$$.

[Recursion]

93. Because I'm a liberal Democrat. I've given labor and money to multiple D campaigns

I've also worked on Capitol Hill and K Street (yes, there are good lobbies there too) so I have some idea of what actually translating good ideas into real policies entails, and I know that just being right isn't enough.

I want the next President to be a Democrat. Excepting the rare Zell Miller types, the letter after his or her name is literally all that matters. A President's personal opinions rarely matter; what matters is which party's apparatchik gets appointed as 2nd Undersecretary of Agriculture for Legume Production or whatever. Presidents mostly make administrative, not policy, decisions (that falls to the apparatchik I mentioned), so I'd like a good administrator. But I'd prefer a bad administrator to a Republican.

You assume that 'liberal' organizations just opposed to the TPP because it increases number and $$$.

The EFF has substantive IP concerns, which are equally valid for our current bilateral agreements. Labor sees a mixed bag (they like being able to sue Mexico under NAFTA and Honduras under CAFTA, and would like to add Malaysia to that). But their job is to organize and fundraise, and this helps them do that. That's not cynical.

[TM99]

94. So party over principles.

I got you.

Well, we are in mostly complete disagreement. Administration without a leadership based on principles is hollow, easily abused, and prone to manipulation.

[Recursion]

95. My principles won't do a damn thing for the environment, the poor, women, LGBTs, minorities ...

... inequality, economic growth, peace, justice, civil liberties, or sustainable agriculture if I can't get someone into the Whitehouse to begin with.

[TM99]

99. This is veering off topic

so I am going to reply in your other thread.

[underahedgerow]

66. Well it is logical to side step forming a concrete position on this issue right now during her

campaign. It's impact is more about intellectual property and practices in the very long term.

For her campaign to state a position on the issue just won't do anything other than polarize a small segment in either direction over the next few months. And either position, for or against will merely be fodder for those people who either oppose or support her.

She's making a smart decision in taking no position on this issue at this time, strategically. At election time, there will be many more different issues on the table that will have a more immediate impact.

[BainsBane]

70. My guess is she is trying to take the temperature of the electorate

She's been on different sides of trade deals over the years. I read she opposed NAFTA, despite her husband's promoting it (not sure if that's entirely true, btw), voted against the Central American trade agreement while a Senator but had some role in negotiating TPP as Secretary of State. I agree she needs to be forthcoming on the issue.

[Joe the Revelator]

71. This is Clinton Politics 101....Check the wind, then set sail

Its fing annoying.

[Hoyt]

74. She has an opinion that includes objectives any agreement presented to Congress must meet for her

support. Her position is a lot more tenable than those that call it "secretive," but know it's bad.

[bhikkhu]

75. I don't see it as enormously important

any more than NAFTA was enormously important. I don't know if Hillary Clinton has a fixed opinion on the TPP, but I think there's bigger fish to fry. I don't see the TPP as causing or solving any significant problems. I imagine it is a failure to solve large problems (income inequality being the one that comes to mind), but then everything else has also been a failure to solve large problems. Passing it doesn't solve much, not passing it doesn't solve much either.

[Recursion]

78. I don't know, trade has done wonders to reduce global inequality

The past 20 years or so have seen the biggest reduction in global inequality, ever.

[bhikkhu]

84. Trade pacts haven't had such a big impact on trade

a few percentage points here and there. Shutting out China would have made a big impact, but that decision was back in the 70's. If China were not a trade partner the money might have just gone elsewhere. Its a complicated topic, but one part of the equation is energy, which is a fundamental resource for manufacturing. Our energy supplies were maxed in the mid 70's, and importing manufactured goods from nations with excess energy resources was a basic "law of markets" result that allowed the continued growth that developed economies expect.

You could say that global inequality was actually addressed by outflows of US wealth ( http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report/report-card/twin-goals/ending-extreme-poverty ), but it hasn't done a whole lot to improve opportunities here.

[Recursion]

85. I'll agree that trade agreements' effects get overstated

But my point was that trade (not trade agreements) has pretty clearly been responsible for the astounding growth we've seen in the global middle class.

[merrily]

110. She helped negotiate it and said she supported it. Now, thanks to polling, her thinking has

"evolved," all the way into "What part of "'I REALLY want to be the first woman President' are you people not getting?"

[woo me with science]

119. kick