Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 05:51 PM Dec 2018

US farmers 'helpless' as TPP boosts Australia

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/us-farmers-helpless-as-tpp-boosts-aust

US farmers are upset that Australia and Canada will soon get a leg up on them under the TPP trade pact, with reduced tariffs selling wheat to Japan.

American farmers are facing the "imminent collapse" of key markets and fear uneven trade playing fields as Australian, Canadian and other rival nations take advantage of the soon-to-be implemented Trans-Pacific Partnership.

After President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the TPP on just his third day in the White House in 2017, the States will be left on the sidelines when the re-shaped TPP-11 comes into effect 12am on Sunday AEDT.

Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore were the first nations to ratify the agreement, formally titled the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement. Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Peru and Malaysia are set to follow in coming months

US farmers, already hit hard by Trump's tariff battle with China and the lack of a free trade agreement with Japan, are bracing to immediately lose market share.

American wheat and beef producers have been particularly vocal.



Sid
144 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US farmers 'helpless' as TPP boosts Australia (Original Post) SidDithers Dec 2018 OP
Be careful what you wish for. yortsed snacilbuper Dec 2018 #1
So much winning. Squinch Dec 2018 #2
K&R ismnotwasm Dec 2018 #3
Of course they are. President Obama was right.. Cha Dec 2018 #4
Correct Cha. sheshe2 Dec 2018 #7
Yes, Obama warned us. MBS Dec 2018 #8
Not just those farmers, but you and me and everyone else very soon.. pangaia Dec 2018 #18
I'm not. Drahthaardogs Dec 2018 #50
Trump Train... czarjak Dec 2018 #5
republicans have URGENT MESSAGE for America's farmers Achilleaze Dec 2018 #6
Another one of trump's stupid moves. By 2020 trump moves will have defeated himself... brush Dec 2018 #9
yes, there's only two choices: either Dumbo is phenomenally dangerously stupid and should be impeach CharleyDog Dec 2018 #23
I Think Both are Correct. OMGWTF Dec 2018 #32
Well,that last Bean order out of Wellstone ruled Dec 2018 #10
People certainly believed all the anti-TPP crap. betsuni Dec 2018 #11
Honestly, I was one of them. phylny Dec 2018 #38
That's for sure - I remember when just about every DU OP was against the TPP airplaneman Dec 2018 #53
I was among those who thought Cha Dec 2018 #57
Me too. betsuni Dec 2018 #65
If they called you crazy, they let you off. They called others worse. Blue_true Dec 2018 #79
Well it was on DU Cha Dec 2018 #81
Yes correct I too was torn between wanting to believe Obama airplaneman Dec 2018 #142
I remember finally doing some research and deciding the TPP looked like betsuni Dec 2018 #63
Amazing how that works. Blue_true Dec 2018 #80
I think it was a very bad agreement as it was written then, and do not support it now. Celerity Dec 2018 #137
It was one of the ugliest scams Cha Dec 2018 #55
There was virulent TPP hate right here on DU. Blue_true Dec 2018 #77
Never EVER DFW Dec 2018 #119
Russia paid good money for that (nt) Recursion Dec 2018 #131
WINNING! snort Dec 2018 #12
Remember lots of Democrats opposed to TPP, particularly Sanders' supporters. Hoyt Dec 2018 #13
certain provisions where potentially noxious concerning national environmental regs. paleotn Dec 2018 #17
Well, those opposed helped defeat Clinton. So where do those "provisions" put us now with trump? Hoyt Dec 2018 #19
Yup. Skidmore Dec 2018 #22
yes, this will hit us hard, and will never be recovered and could worsen if China wants it to: CharleyDog Dec 2018 #25
Reminds me of the ol' ideology horseshoe: George II Dec 2018 #31
Never recovered is the correct terminology. dhol82 Dec 2018 #43
Also remember that Hillary Clinton opposed it Jim Lane Dec 2018 #125
After saying as SoS it set the gold standard for trade agreements BeyondGeography Dec 2018 #126
There has been a lot of analysis... MrsCoffee Dec 2018 #130
... BeyondGeography Dec 2018 #132
Yeah, you go with that. MrsCoffee Dec 2018 #134
So what was her stand on TPP again? BeyondGeography Dec 2018 #135
Your question was how did we lose to Trump. MrsCoffee Dec 2018 #136
Yes indeed. MrsCoffee Dec 2018 #129
Are you saying that Hillary Clinton was led astray? Jim Lane Dec 2018 #141
and? Who are US farmers again generally? We should make trade deals...we just shouldn't make shitty JCanete Dec 2018 #138
The TPP didn't do that, being the same as every agreement we and other countries signed since 1959 Hoyt Dec 2018 #139
bought it. own it. paleotn Dec 2018 #14
They? Sure. But - What about you, me and every other American pangaia Dec 2018 #20
Yup. dhol82 Dec 2018 #44
Looks like Trump outsmarted himself yet again. PatrickforO Dec 2018 #15
I don't think he is acting stupidly, by mistake. pangaia Dec 2018 #21
Well, with the help of McConnell and the rest of the republican commissariat. dhol82 Dec 2018 #45
I guess you are right there.. pangaia Dec 2018 #90
They seem tired of winning. JDC Dec 2018 #16
The "stable genius" strikes again. SergeStorms Dec 2018 #24
US farmers support Trump. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #26
If you recall the original TPP was a corporate give-away Crazyleftie Dec 2018 #27
This is what I remember. Perhaps I was wrong? Or did it change? phylny Dec 2018 #39
No such thing.. that was Cha Dec 2018 #68
Or at least, that's the line we were handed. Adrahil Dec 2018 #98
I like how it was a diabolical secret and yet they know it's a corporate give-away. betsuni Dec 2018 #102
"American wheat and beef producers have been particularly vocal" AJT Dec 2018 #28
Didn't congress approve bailouts for the farmers? Iliyah Dec 2018 #29
yep, they got YUGE bailouts, They all have big, red tRumpster signs on their elmac Dec 2018 #36
Yeah, that was a twelve billion dollar windfall for them. dhol82 Dec 2018 #46
Follow The Money Me. Dec 2018 #30
I'm sure tRump will bail them out, if their good, party members. nt elmac Dec 2018 #33
TPP was an unfair, unscrupulous and destructive treaty Farmer-Rick Dec 2018 #34
TPP was just another big corporate welfare program, would have just hurt the working class. nt elmac Dec 2018 #37
Yeah, the WTO and UN dispute rules are so corrupt that almost every Hoyt Dec 2018 #52
TPP is not good overall TheFarseer Dec 2018 #35
No, the TPP is needed to counterbalance China's massive influence. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #42
Don't buy that argument TheFarseer Dec 2018 #58
That doesn't change the reality whether Cha Dec 2018 #60
It also doesn't change the fact TheFarseer Dec 2018 #66
Those who tried to Demonize TPP were Wrong. Cha Dec 2018 #69
Very obviously only your opinion TheFarseer Dec 2018 #76
Not "only mine". Cha Dec 2018 #78
+1 SunSeeker Dec 2018 #100
Mahalo, Cha Dec 2018 #114
+2 betsuni Dec 2018 #103
Mahalo, betsuni! Cha Dec 2018 #116
+3 ismnotwasm Dec 2018 #115
Mahalo, ismnotwasm! Cha Dec 2018 #117
Your understanding of the TPP is factually incorrect. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #93
You are dead wrong about the TPP. And since you brought up Vietnam... SunSeeker Dec 2018 #91
If it would have reigned in corporations TheFarseer Dec 2018 #101
The TPP would have helped US companies sell their products in Asia. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #104
No. I dont want the provision Electrical Arc Dec 2018 #82
Fine. Strike any provision that is unfair. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #88
Those provisions also let AFL-CIO sue countries that stop unionization efforts Recursion Dec 2018 #133
Do you prefer to be Shot or Hung Option. MarcA Dec 2018 #49
That's a silly analogy.. President Obama was Cha Dec 2018 #71
Wrong. Electrical Arc Dec 2018 #84
You're Wrong. Cha Dec 2018 #85
Saying something makes it true! betsuni Dec 2018 #86
Why, of course.. trump and others Cha Dec 2018 #120
The TPP would have benefited labor and the environment. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #95
And what about ISDR provision? Electrical Arc Dec 2018 #96
The solution was to negotiate a fairer provision, not abandon the whole process. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #99
The TPP would have been better than the nothing we have now. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #94
And just like with the Affordable Care Act, the Public Option was never offered. MarcA Dec 2018 #105
ACA passed Congress with a public option. betsuni Dec 2018 #109
Lieberman is why we don't have the public option, not Tester. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #110
+1 betsuni Dec 2018 #106
Yeah, can't imagine why any country would agree to WTO and UN dispute mechanisms Hoyt Dec 2018 #54
Not quite TheFarseer Dec 2018 #64
WTO rules require agreements like TPP to have acceptable dispute mechanisms. In any event, do you Hoyt Dec 2018 #70
Yeah, BS and his buzzwords. Cha Dec 2018 #72
The dispute mechanism went above and beyond TheFarseer Dec 2018 #87
Same dispute mechanism we and other countries have used since 1959. You didn't answer my question. Hoyt Dec 2018 #89
No TheFarseer Dec 2018 #97
I remember how much Trump bashed Hillary for supporting the goals of the TPP. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #40
But the farmers are going to win BIGLY in the end, according to Donald. keithbvadu2 Dec 2018 #41
Pity. Lessons learned, maybe. NurseJackie Dec 2018 #47
Those people who were at the DNC with "No TPP" LisaM Dec 2018 #48
The news just keeps getting better and better. ooky Dec 2018 #51
American wheat and beef producers have been particularly vocal. ananda Dec 2018 #56
Half this board was ready to haul out the guillotines Codeine Dec 2018 #59
More than half I'd say. I felt Cha Dec 2018 #61
Yes, I remember your bravery and admire you for it. SunSeeker Dec 2018 #111
Oh good.. a witness! Cha Dec 2018 #118
I was always pro-TPP tammywammy Dec 2018 #67
I get it. The opposition, particularly the Jackpine Radical folks, were brutal even if they had no Hoyt Dec 2018 #74
It really is amazing. We've gone from bashing Obama and perhaps costing Clinton the election, to Hoyt Dec 2018 #73
it was the cool thing to be JI7 Dec 2018 #107
The TPP was negotiated in secret by a coalition lutherj Dec 2018 #62
Big secret, we knew everything in it, not to mention it was like just about every other Hoyt Dec 2018 #75
You forgot the Illuminati, they were there too. betsuni Dec 2018 #83
You would know about that. -- Lori Wallach, the director of Global Trade Watch, made numerous lutherj Jan 2019 #144
True. But many including some on DU prefer personal attack distractions. n/t MarcA Dec 2018 #92
Trump is hurting AMERICAN farmers Gothmog Dec 2018 #108
Yes, and he's helping Putin and China. nt SunSeeker Dec 2018 #112
Absolutely! Cha Dec 2018 #123
Oh the Irony of reading all the pro-TPP posts and blaming trump for it. GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #113
The TPP was happening with or without us, and Obama tried to seize the opportunity to make sure we.. Cha Dec 2018 #121
Perfect is the enemy of good... WePurrsevere Dec 2018 #128
Exactly, WePurrsevere! Cha Dec 2018 #143
"Sanders joined by Rust Belt Dems, praises trump for nixing TPP" Cha Dec 2018 #122
I'm still proNAFTA tirebiter Dec 2018 #124
Good luck. Both group of supporters seem to think we'll be better off trading among ourselves Hoyt Dec 2018 #140
the tpp redistributes wealth upward. Kurt V. Dec 2018 #127

Cha

(300,272 posts)
4. Of course they are. President Obama was right..
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:06 PM
Dec 2018

and trump is trying to destroy America any which way he can. putin's orders.

I'm sorry for those farmers.

MBS

(9,688 posts)
8. Yes, Obama warned us.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:27 PM
Dec 2018

I remember his saying that we had a choice: the US and Pacific allies in the economic driver's seat via the TPP, or China calling the (economic) shots. MAGA, my eye. Good going, Two Scoops.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
18. Not just those farmers, but you and me and everyone else very soon..
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:01 PM
Dec 2018


Putin, Bannon et al are doing exactly what they set out to do, take America down

brush

(55,045 posts)
9. Another one of trump's stupid moves. By 2020 trump moves will have defeated himself...
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:27 PM
Dec 2018

if Mueller hasn't gotten him first.

CharleyDog

(761 posts)
23. yes, there's only two choices: either Dumbo is phenomenally dangerously stupid and should be impeach
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:10 PM
Dec 2018

Dangerous stupid = impeach

or he is doing it on purpose to destroy our country (and is succeeding) and should be impeached

OMGWTF

(4,153 posts)
32. I Think Both are Correct.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:42 PM
Dec 2018

Trump is a mental midget with zero character and Putin wants to destroy the USA, as well as the EU, and Trump is perfect for the job.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
10. Well,that last Bean order out of
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:38 PM
Dec 2018

China looks like it.

So friggin tired of the I told you so,now reality will smack our Ag Business right in the kisser.

Already folks who missed out on this last Bean Order are scared of what is ahead,now the TPP thing will be driving tons of nails in Coffins.


How is that working out for ya Wilbur?

phylny

(8,429 posts)
38. Honestly, I was one of them.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:49 PM
Dec 2018

I either didn't understand or didn't pay attention. I remember wondering why President Obama was a proponent.

airplaneman

(1,257 posts)
53. That's for sure - I remember when just about every DU OP was against the TPP
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:38 PM
Dec 2018

I do think there were some very negative things about it like strengthening and extending copyright and patent rights against the detriment of us all but it is bazaar to see almost nobody now suggesting it was a bad idea. Makes me think short memories are here also
-Airplane

Cha

(300,272 posts)
57. I was among those who thought
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:44 PM
Dec 2018

President Obama knew what he was talking about.. I remember being called "crazy" for thinking that.

betsuni

(26,543 posts)
65. Me too.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:07 PM
Dec 2018

All those years they expected Obama to finally, finally expose himself as the evil Trojan horse Republican they fantasized about.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
79. If they called you crazy, they let you off. They called others worse.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:37 PM
Dec 2018

But you were right and the other people that said the President Obama would not be defending a bad deal for us were right.

Cha

(300,272 posts)
81. Well it was on DU
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:41 PM
Dec 2018

so they had to use some decorum.

Exactly about President Obama not "defending a bad dea"l, Blue_true.

airplaneman

(1,257 posts)
142. Yes correct I too was torn between wanting to believe Obama
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 04:38 PM
Dec 2018

and not happy about the parts that sounded unfair.
Its tough to just believe someone would not do ill of us while hearing the TPP would do us ill.
Add to that NAFTA has not done what it was supposed to so why were we to believe TPP would not follow the same path. It was a difficult call for any sane person.
-Airplane

betsuni

(26,543 posts)
63. I remember finally doing some research and deciding the TPP looked like
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:00 PM
Dec 2018

an improvement overall. People were getting really dramatic with their conspiracy theories of this terrible secret plot by corporations to keep us all in chains or whatever. Ridiculous. It was the same ones who went on and on about Obama murdering little children with drones and who stopped caring about drone warfare the instant he left office.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
80. Amazing how that works.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:41 PM
Dec 2018

Stop caring about drone warfare, or protesters at the Keystone pipeline getting the crap beaten out of them. When Trump walked into the Oval Office, the purists went silent, the Greens went silent, not one has spoken out against him yet.

Celerity

(45,087 posts)
137. I think it was a very bad agreement as it was written then, and do not support it now.
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 11:19 AM
Dec 2018

Just because the orange globule Trump is a nightmare and clatters about spewing simplistic America first bullshit and trying to con people into thinking he actually gives a shit about the 99% via dodgy anti-free trade and faux protectionist claptrap doesn't mean I will be gas-lighted into accepting that the TPP and TTIP (the European Version of TTP) were overall good agreements. I wholeheartedly think they were not.

Multiple liberal economists, including Robert Reich and Nobel Prize Nobel laureates such as Joseph Stiglitz laid out rock solid cases why it was a bad agreement.



Beware of TPP’s Investor–State Dispute Settlement Provision
By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/beware-tpps-investor-state-dispute-settlement-provision/

While advocates promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a “free trade” agreement between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim countries, the most economically significant provisions are not cuts to trade barriers. Instead, the key element is TPP’s investment chapter, which gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international arbitration when they feel their newly created property rights are violated (a process known as investor–state dispute settlement, or ISDS).

The alleged goal of ISDS is to increase security for investors in states without an adequate “rule of law.” But the fact that the U.S. is insisting on the same provisions in Europe, where legal safeguards are as strong as they are in the U.S., suggests another motive: the desire to make it harder to adopt new financial regulations, environmental laws, worker protections, and food and health safety standards.

While defenders of ISDS sometimes claim that it prevents discrimination against foreign firms, foreign firms have sued—and won—even when they are treated no differently from domestic firms. In fact, these provisions discriminate in favor of foreign firms: A foreign firm can sue the U.S. government in private arbitration for cash rewards if it thinks government actions violate the new rights and privileges granted by TPP, but domestic American firms have no such recourse in U.S. courts. Two arbitrators can, in effect, undermine decisions of Congress and the president, ordering billions of dollars in payments for their lost investment value and guesstimated lost profits.

Under TPP, foreign investors could sue over pretty much any law, regulation, or government decision. The agreement guarantees a “minimum standard of treatment,” a vague standard that corporate-friendly arbitrators have interpreted liberally in past decisions, inventing obligations for governments that do not exist in the actual text of agreements or host countries’ laws.

snip


Who Gets to Write and Interpret the Rules Under TPP?
By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/who-gets-write-and-interpret-rules-under-tpp/

If the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is enacted, multinational investors will be able to sue the United States and other host country governments in private international arbitration (investor–state dispute settlement, or ISDS) when they feel domestic laws, regulations, or other government actions violate their rights under the new agreement. How will such challenges be handled? No matter how well contracts or treaties are written, disputes will inevitably arise. And there needs to be a low-cost, expeditious, fair, open, and consistent means of resolving disputes. This is a basic public good provided by every democratic society. The system created by TPP to adjudicate investor disputes, in contrast, fails to meet these basic criteria.

Under TPP, tribunals comprised of three individuals—typically, practicing investment lawyers specialized in this boutique area of international law—would decide whether governments had to pay investors potentially billions of taxpayer dollars because of rule changes intended to improve the health and safety of our workers, food, environment, and financial system. Business could demand compensation for any regulation that resulted in the diminution of their expected profits and value of their investment.

These arbitrators would not be tenured, impartial judges. In the ISDS system, arbitrators rotate between representing investors in investment arbitrations and sitting in judgment on investment tribunals—worse, they can fill these conflicting roles simultaneously. This game of musical chairs is played among a relatively small group of lawyers who are either bringing or adjudicating cases against governments; reportedly, 15 arbitrators have decided more than half of all international investment arbitration cases.

Only investors can initiate disputes under this system. They choose not only their own lawyers, but also one of the three arbitrators (with a second chosen jointly by the plaintiff and the defending government). Arbitration lawyers that buck the system risk being culled from the herd. These are glaring conflicts of interest for people asked to judge what is “reasonable” and “fair and equitable” in balancing public and private interests.

snip


TPP’s Hidden Climate Costs
By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/tpps-hidden-climate-costs/

President Obama has said that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” Yet the word “climate” is conspicuously missing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Worse, many provisions of the proposed trade agreement between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim countries could undermine critical policies and initiatives needed to contain global climate change. All the evidence suggests that in order to limit global warming to the 2 degrees Celsius that scientists see as critical to avert the worst effects of climate change, we must retrofit global economic structures for production, investment, and trade. Instead, TPP would cement in place a system that treats the environment as distinct from and subordinate to international trade and investment.

Though trade negotiators may treat commerce and climate as separate problems, the emissions giving rise to climate change are in fact an unaccounted cost of the goods and services exchanged in our increasingly complex and globally integrated production and consumption chains. Not paying for these large social costs of pollution in production and global shipping delivers a hidden subsidy to the corporations polluting our global atmosphere.

Any good trade agreement would seek to do away with distorting subsidies to producers. One cannot have fair trade if firms are not required to pay the environmental costs they impose on society, which also present an existent threat to life on this planet. TPP does nothing to prohibit these typically hidden subsidies or others, such as subsidies for fossil fuels, buried within the tax system.

TPP is worse still because it creates the risk of lengthy lawsuits and sizable cash awards to investors for government actions that would rein in many of the current hidden subsidies for greenhouse gas pollution or ban climate-imperiling products and production methods. For instance, under TPP rules, government policies to incentivize more environmentally sustainable goods and services—even with voluntary labeling—can be challenged as illegal “technical” trade barriers unless the government has requested a specific policy exception in the existing agreement. Countries that lose such cases will face millions in sanctions unless they eliminate the policy favoring more socially and environmentally sustainable conditions.

snip


Will TPP Help to Curb China’s Rise?
By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/will-tpp-help-curb-chinas-rise/

With few people buying the argument that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping trade and investment agreement between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim countries, will bring more jobs and higher wages, proponents of TPP now argue that it is a critical front in the geopolitical conflict between the United States and China. President Obama made this case in his State of the Union address: “With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region; we do.” Such rhetoric, reminiscent of Cold War containment strategies, is not constructive for the world’s most important bilateral relationship. The truth is that this strategic rationale for TPP makes little sense.

With China now the world’s largest economy in terms of output (measured in purchasing power parity), trade, and source of foreign direct investment, the ship has sailed on containing China’s influence. This should have been obvious from last year’s failed attempt by U.S. policymakers to block the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, created under China’s leadership.

If trade deals were all that mattered for securing influence, the United States could at best hope for a stalemate with China, which already has agreements with more than half of TPP partners, among other nations. What matters for influence is not just signing agreements but the depth and nature of relationships. Given the hundreds of billions of dollars China has committed to finance infrastructure development across the region and the magnitude of China’s trade and investment integration with the world, there is little reason to think that implementation of TPP would tip the balance of economic power in the U.S.’s favor.

The rules to which parties agree do, however, matter a great deal when it comes to determining who wins and who loses. Here, President Obama’s rhetoric obscures the reality that “we” did not write these rules. More than 500 official advisors—overwhelmingly representing corporate interests—had special access to U.S. negotiators and TPP texts to advance their own special interests, not the national interest, but Congress, the public, and the press were shut out of seven years of closed-door negotiations.

snip


The High Health Costs of TPP’s “Free Trade”
By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/high-health-costs-tpps-free-trade/

Despite protests from industry lobbyists who are upset that they did not get everything they wanted, big pharmaceutical companies are some of the biggest winners in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This supposed “free trade” agreement between the United States and 11 countries in the Americas and Asia would enshrine expansive monopoly protections for intellectual properties that shield drug makers from competition and provide them with new powers to challenge government decisions aimed at managing health care costs. A win for Big Pharma here will leave virtually everyone else worse off, with their higher profits coming at the expense of higher health care costs for consumers and taxpayers, avoidable deaths and suffering, and health innovations being brought to market at a slower pace.

In order to maximize public welfare, intellectual property rights (IPRs) must strike a balance between providing incentives for innovation and enabling their widespread dissemination so people can benefit from and build on new ideas and technologies. Since past knowledge is the most important input to the production of new ideas, more restrictive IPRs actually restrain opportunities for future innovation. Patents are part of innovation systems in all countries; however, both recent and historical economic evidence shows that patents with varying degrees of strength have little relationship to measures of innovation, investment, or economic performance. In other words, patents are not the only way to incentivize research and development.

Nowhere is it more imperative to get the IPR balance right than in the health care field. The 1984 Hatch-Waxman act struck the right balance, saving U.S. consumers, employers, and taxpayers more than $100 billion per year with lower-cost generic medicines. Since then, pharmaceutical firms have developed new policy devices to claw back their monopoly protections and are advancing these policies in trade agreements. TPP would lock these in place in the U.S. and export them to other countries, tipping the IPR balance for all TPP partners as well as countries outside the bloc.

First, TPP will require countries to implement measures that allow “evergreening” of monopoly protections that prevent the introduction of low-cost generic treatments to the market. TPP achieves this by requiring signatory countries to grant new 20-year patents for new uses of old medicines or for trivial alterations of existing medicines. For example, if a drug that is dosed four times a day is reformulated to be dosed once a day, this would qualify it for an additional 20 years of monopoly protection.

snip


Why TPP Is a Bad Deal for America and American Workers
By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/why-tpp-bad-deal-america-and-american-workers/

From the rhetoric of proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping trade and investment pact between the U.S. and 11 Asia-Pacific countries, it would be easy to conclude that the agreement is an economic panacea for the shrinking middle class and stagnant wages faced by most workers in America. The reality is more sobering: There are good economic reasons to believe that TPP will not only fail to provide the promised benefits but actually make things worse.

Yes, economic gains can be found through trade liberalization where trade barriers are high, but tariffs are already low (just 2.7 percent on average between TPP member countries). Put this minuscule number next to the surging U.S. dollar, up 26 percent since July 2011. A more expensive dollar makes imports cheaper and exports less competitive in foreign markets. The exchange rate change swamps the benefits from the small reduction in tariffs. And the toothless side declaration on exchange rate misalignments by TPP finance ministers is likely to be as ineffective as current diplomatic efforts to rebalance exchange rates.

While the U.S. Trade Representative boasts of 18,000 tariff cuts for American exporters, the economic significance of many of these to U.S. producers and workers appears negligible. For example, tropical, impoverished Vietnam will eliminate tariffs on skis, snowplows, and caviar, while predominantly Muslim Brunei and Malaysia will eliminate tariffs on pork. In fact, in more than half of the 18,000 categories, the U.S. exported nothing to TPP nations last year; for many of the remaining 7,500 categories, American exporters sold only small amounts. These are areas where American producers are unlikely to develop a comparative advantage.

With trade barriers already so low, it is no wonder that existing modeling analyses from economists at the Peterson Institute and the World Bank show such negligible benefits from eliminating trade barriers in TPP. Both find that gains to the U.S. economy will be less than the statistical error when the Commerce Department calculates our GDP figures. A study by the Economic Research Service found that TPP would have zero effect on U.S. GDP. Even these estimates should be taken with a grain of salt: The models assume that trade will be balanced and no unemployment will ensue. Models incorporating more realistic assumptions, like those from economists at Tufts University, find a net GDP loss for the United States from TPP.

snip

What is TTIP? And six reasons why the answer should scare you
Have you heard about TTIP? If your answer is no, don’t get too worried; you’re not meant to have

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”

Since before TTIP negotiations began last February, the process has been secretive and undemocratic. This secrecy is on-going, with nearly all information on negotiations coming from leaked documents and Freedom of Information requests.

But worryingly, the covert nature of the talks may well be the least of our problems. Here are six other reasons why we should be scared of TTIP, very scared indeed:

1 The NHS

Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.

The European Commission has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP. However, according to the Huffington Post, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table.

snip

TTIP: what does the transatlantic trade deal mean for renewable energy?

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/aug/05/ttip-free-trade-deal-renewable-energy-transatlantic-partnership-eu-us

snip

Undermines local government

However, some fear that losing local content requirements would lose political appetite for renewable energy along with it. Concerns were raised at a roundtable held by RenewableUK, which represents the wind and marine energy sector: “If one of the reasons to have more renewable energy deployment is because it is good for [local] jobs and supply chain, how will politicians and the public react to some of the socio-economic value potentially draining to far-flung corners of the globe? This is a big dilemma.”

TTIP could even undermine the democratic authority of local government. The UK’s Local Government Association representative in Brussels, Dominic Rowles, imagines a situation “whereby a public authority, whether local or national, takes a democratic decision on energy generation … that TTIP then makes easier for corporations to challenge.”

More opportunities to sue

The bone of contention here is the investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows private companies to sue governments for loss of profits connected to regulation. It is seen as a key US demand for the trade partnership. Precedents include a US tobacco firm suing the Australian government over packaging restrictions and a US fracking company suing the Québec government following a moratorium on drilling under the St Lawrence River.

“Where the US wants to engage it does so pretty forcefully”, says David Baldock, executive director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy. He questions why an ISDS provision is needed at all, given the robust nature of the courts in both jurisdictions and the “huge levels of trade already between the EU and the US”. Yet an ISDS independent tribunal which would bypass national courts (and “doesn’t sit at all comfortably with the European decision-making process”, says Baldock) appears to be strongly favoured by US negotiators.

Race to the bottom on regulation


snip

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
77. There was virulent TPP hate right here on DU.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:34 PM
Dec 2018

Not many, just some harshly vocal ones. If anyone attempted to point out the positive aspects of the TPP, they were called names like corporatist democrat.

DFW

(55,184 posts)
119. Never EVER
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 11:39 PM
Dec 2018

Don't take seriously anyone who calls you a "corporatist"

It's like someone on the right calling you a "libbrul."

It's just one of those meaningless terms that makes them think they have just called you something bad.

paleotn

(18,379 posts)
17. certain provisions where potentially noxious concerning national environmental regs.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:57 PM
Dec 2018

but it wasn't all bad. It put US farmers on an even playing field with Australia and Canada. Industrial framing is another argument, but it was quite an accomplishment as American producers are the most efficient in the world.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
19. Well, those opposed helped defeat Clinton. So where do those "provisions" put us now with trump?
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:02 PM
Dec 2018

I'd say there is no "potential" to it, we are worse off now environmentally and any other way one looks at it.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
22. Yup.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:05 PM
Dec 2018

I recall opposition to it being a progressive and Trumpian campaign staple. Families are suffering now. These markets will never be recovered.

CharleyDog

(761 posts)
25. yes, this will hit us hard, and will never be recovered and could worsen if China wants it to:
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:14 PM
Dec 2018

our massive debt

our currency

China is being more and more empowered as the heel to crush us on a whim - just like Obama tried to warn.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
125. Also remember that Hillary Clinton opposed it
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 06:32 AM
Dec 2018

Link: "Hillary Comes Out Against TPP Deal"

It's a clip from an interview in which she explains her opposition.

BeyondGeography

(39,477 posts)
126. After saying as SoS it set the gold standard for trade agreements
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 08:27 AM
Dec 2018

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2018, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Which was before Terry MacAuliffe said she would support it after the election, just a couple of minor fixes yanno. Which was followed by John Podesta saying she opposed it, full stop.

How did we lose to Trump again?

MrsCoffee

(5,803 posts)
130. There has been a lot of analysis...
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 10:14 AM
Dec 2018

Most of which concludes WE didn’t lose, rather the election was stolen and Trump is an illegitimate poser.

Perhaps you’ve heard that theory floated somewhere?

MrsCoffee

(5,803 posts)
136. Your question was how did we lose to Trump.
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 10:47 AM
Dec 2018

I’m not really interested in debate with someone who thinks Hillary’s stance on the TPP is why we have Trump.





 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
141. Are you saying that Hillary Clinton was led astray?
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 12:22 PM
Dec 2018

She was one of the Democrats who opposed the TPP. Also opposing it were quite a few of the Democrats in Congress, along with numerous NGOs who analyzed it from the point of view of their expertise (labor, environment, etc.).

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
138. and? Who are US farmers again generally? We should make trade deals...we just shouldn't make shitty
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 11:25 AM
Dec 2018

ones. We shouldn't be making trade deals to primarily give leverage to big corporations and yet we can't seem to help ourselves, so fuck that.

Trump is shitty and his reasons for even killing this were shitty and had nothing to do with the merits or problems of TPP, but that doesn't mean that we should have signed onto it as it stood.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
139. The TPP didn't do that, being the same as every agreement we and other countries signed since 1959
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 12:06 PM
Dec 2018

in that respect.

I suppose Obama was selling the country down the river (if you listen to Sanders and those who believe everything he says), and all the other countries who begged to be party to the agreement were too stupid to see.

Of course, it doesn't matter now. Sanders' supporters got their way with the TPP with trump, and we are out of the agreement to our detriment.

paleotn

(18,379 posts)
14. bought it. own it.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:54 PM
Dec 2018

No sympathy here. He's fucked up what markets US farmers spent decades developing. Now they have nearly no overseas markets. And who did rural voters overwhelmingly support? Own it.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
20. They? Sure. But - What about you, me and every other American
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:04 PM
Dec 2018

who is about to get fucked with what is happening...

PatrickforO

(14,675 posts)
15. Looks like Trump outsmarted himself yet again.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:56 PM
Dec 2018

In spite of some griping about the secrecy in which the TPP was negotiated, the too-limited congressional oversight, and the suspicious ISDS provisions (I was one of the gripers, I admit), Trump seriously weakened the US trade position in the Pacific Rim countries by pulling us out of TPP.

That, and the debacle of pulling us out of Paris...

The guy is just SUCH a dumbass. A corrupt, treasonous, racist, sociopathic con man who is so far out of his depth in the US presidency...well, hopefully the Trump 'presidency' will implode. What, EIGHT criminal investigations and counting?

We can only hope. This country is groaning under the stupidity of Trump and the Freedom Caucus.

'Freedom Caucus,' what does that even mean? I guess they want us all to be free to be broke as a result of their crappy policies, eh? Or maybe free to die if we can't afford healthcare or worse, have a pre-existing condition? Or free to go into poverty in old age because they have to make cuts in Social Security and Medicare so we can have a Space Force? Or maybe free to lose everything in a second great recession, this time with stagflation, caused by their utter fiscal irresponsibility in passing the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations?

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
21. I don't think he is acting stupidly, by mistake.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:05 PM
Dec 2018

He has no idea what he is doing, just doing what putin tells him to do.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
90. I guess you are right there..
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:09 PM
Dec 2018

They must be walking on a knife's edge.
"Do I bail now? Later?"
"Don't bail?"
"Pretend to bail?"

"Talk the good talk but vote like the asshole I am?"

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
26. US farmers support Trump.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:16 PM
Dec 2018

And that support will come at a cost. But not for Trump.

I would also suppose that many if not most of these same farmers would vote for Trump again.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
98. Or at least, that's the line we were handed.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:31 PM
Dec 2018

Of course, some of us saw through that. Others bought it as dogma.

AJT

(5,240 posts)
28. "American wheat and beef producers have been particularly vocal"
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:18 PM
Dec 2018

Yes, they were particularly vocal, I believe they were yelling "lock her up".....

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
29. Didn't congress approve bailouts for the farmers?
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:25 PM
Dec 2018

Billions worth? Wasn't China given in a little and brought a huge bushel of soybeans?

 

elmac

(4,642 posts)
36. yep, they got YUGE bailouts, They all have big, red tRumpster signs on their
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:45 PM
Dec 2018

property around here so I'm sure he will be forgiven.

dhol82

(9,372 posts)
46. Yeah, that was a twelve billion dollar windfall for them.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:15 PM
Dec 2018

Didn’t plug piss from a donkey for their loss.

Me.

(35,454 posts)
30. Follow The Money
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:37 PM
Dec 2018

Both wheat and meat producers gave more to Individual 1

“The meat industry is such a strong supporter of the GOP that it has given the party 79 percent of its more than $16.6 million in contributions since the 1990 election cycle. [Read more Background]”

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=G2300

Farmer-Rick

(10,545 posts)
34. TPP was an unfair, unscrupulous and destructive treaty
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:45 PM
Dec 2018

Yeah, yeah they don't call it a treaty to avoid legislative hurdles but the dancing supremes treat trade agreements as treaties so the president can play with them.

It allows corporations to bring suits in extra secret special courts that citizen groups and unions do NOT have access to.

But TPP gave benefits to grain, GMO, factory, chemical farms. It discouraged small farms and farmers markets. It pushed chemicals and discouraged natural farming.

What Trump is doing is just as bad. Both are poison.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
52. Yeah, the WTO and UN dispute rules are so corrupt that almost every
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:37 PM
Dec 2018

trade agreement has had the same dispute mechanism since 1959, and just about every country begs to be part of the agreements.

But America Firsters, Nationalists, and trumpsters are against global trade.

TheFarseer

(9,373 posts)
35. TPP is not good overall
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:45 PM
Dec 2018

What we need is a free trade agreement with Japan and other individual countries. Not corporations being able to sue the US for “lost revenue”, higher drug prices, and even more jobs going to low wage countries. Lots of knee jerk reactions on this thread.

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
42. No, the TPP is needed to counterbalance China's massive influence.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:09 PM
Dec 2018

We should have negotiated to improve certain provisions instead of capriciously jettisoning the whole thing like Trump did. Negotiating individual agreements with countries (as Trump said he would do instead of the TPP) simply cannot serve that same function:

The TPP serves as a counterweight to Beijing’s increasing economic influence in the Pacific. Eliminating trade barriers and encouraging trade among a bunch of Pacific Rim countries gives those countries alternatives to selling goods in the Chinese market and reduces China’s economic leverage over them. And that counterweight to China is much stronger if the US is part of the pack.


https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/16/17234792/trump-tpp-rejoin

TheFarseer

(9,373 posts)
58. Don't buy that argument
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:46 PM
Dec 2018

TPP does not preclude countries from trading with China. Would it stop them from buying up all the real estate in CA? No. Some companies might have outsourced to Vietnam instead-WOW what a win for American workers. The main point of the agreement was to get corporations whatever they wanted, plain and simple. When no other argument proved persuasive, they threw out the stop China argument. It’s the same line of thinking that brought us the Vietnam War.

Cha

(300,272 posts)
60. That doesn't change the reality whether
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:51 PM
Dec 2018

you "buy it" or not.

President Obama was right and those who were demonizing TPP were wrong.

TheFarseer

(9,373 posts)
66. It also doesn't change the fact
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:10 PM
Dec 2018

That’s just YOUR opinion. We will apparently never know for sure. All we can know is that corporations were on one side and labor leaders, environmentalists, health care professionals were on the other.

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
93. Your understanding of the TPP is factually incorrect.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:20 PM
Dec 2018

The fact is, the TPP would have established minimum environmental and labor standards.

Trade will still go on of course, but now it will be without those standards, and with China dominating the scene.

As the New Yorker explained:

Multinational corporations do have a backup plan, now that the T.P.P. is dead. It’s called R.C.E.P., the Regional Competitive Economic Partnership. It is made up of sixteen countries, all in Asia. Many were signatories to the T.P.P. The trade zone is not quite as big—R.C.E.P. represents less than a third of the global economy—but, in many ways, it’s a lot easier to join. The U.S. is not a member, and there are virtually no environmental or labor standards required. 

https://www.newyorker.com/business/adam-davidson/what-the-death-of-the-t-p-p-means-for-america/amp

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
91. You are dead wrong about the TPP. And since you brought up Vietnam...
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:14 PM
Dec 2018

Manufacturing will be outsourced to Vietnam with or without the TPP. The difference is with the TPP, Vietnam would have been forced to abide by environmental and labor standards that it would not otherwise follow:

By imposing a single legal regime on trade throughout its area, the T.P.P. would have offered incentives to firms to partner with others in the region. As the dominant party in the pact, the U.S. would have controlled future access to that zone. Labor and environmental activists in America had already won major victories, insuring that the T.P.P. would force a new set of standards on trading partners. For the poorer countries, especially Vietnam, these would have meant real advances for workers and the environment. After passage, other countries in the Pacific and in South America would have been anxious to join this large and growing trading zone and would have wanted to make sure they stayed on the good side of the United States. The zone would have all but surrounded China, which was not part of the pact, and would have served to pressure that country to change its own practices.


https://www.newyorker.com/business/adam-davidson/what-the-death-of-the-t-p-p-means-for-america/amp

TheFarseer

(9,373 posts)
101. If it would have reigned in corporations
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:39 PM
Dec 2018

Why were corporate lobbyists so desperate to push this through??? If labor and environmental leaders had won major victories, why were they against it?

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
104. The TPP would have helped US companies sell their products in Asia.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:43 PM
Dec 2018

Environmentalists and labor unions wanted higher standards. But that does not mean environmentalists and labor unions preferred no standards at all, which is what we have now.

 

Electrical Arc

(38 posts)
82. No. I dont want the provision
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:45 PM
Dec 2018

That allows corporates to go sue for lost revenues. I think it was called ISDR provision

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
88. Fine. Strike any provision that is unfair.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:57 PM
Dec 2018

But don't throw out the whole concept of a multilateral trade agreement. We can't counterbalance China without a multilateral (i.e. many countries) agreement.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
133. Those provisions also let AFL-CIO sue countries that stop unionization efforts
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 10:26 AM
Dec 2018

They've sued Mexico dozens of times under NAFTA and nearly always won.

The alternative to companies being able to sue is countries having tariff wars, and we're seeing what that's like right now.

MarcA

(2,195 posts)
49. Do you prefer to be Shot or Hung Option.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:28 PM
Dec 2018

Something better than TPP was/is needed. But of course it was not offered.

 

Electrical Arc

(38 posts)
96. And what about ISDR provision?
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:29 PM
Dec 2018

That was a sticking point of the TPP negotiations. We did not need that.

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
99. The solution was to negotiate a fairer provision, not abandon the whole process.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:32 PM
Dec 2018

It was not a "sticking point." The US simply abandoned the TPP negotiations.

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
94. The TPP would have been better than the nothing we have now.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:26 PM
Dec 2018
By imposing a single legal regime on trade throughout its area, the T.P.P. would have offered incentives to firms to partner with others in the region. As the dominant party in the pact, the U.S. would have controlled future access to that zone. Labor and environmental activists in America had already won major victories, insuring that the T.P.P. would force a new set of standards on trading partners. For the poorer countries, especially Vietnam, these would have meant real advances for workers and the environment. After passage, other countries in the Pacific and in South America would have been anxious to join this large and growing trading zone and would have wanted to make sure they stayed on the good side of the United States. The zone would have all but surrounded China, which was not part of the pact, and would have served to pressure that country to change its own practices.
https://www.newyorker.com/business/adam-davidson/what-the-death-of-the-t-p-p-means-for-america/amp

Just like Obamacare, it was a good first step, which could have been continually improved upon.

MarcA

(2,195 posts)
105. And just like with the Affordable Care Act, the Public Option was never offered.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:44 PM
Dec 2018

I believe Tester had something to do with that. Now we have an opportunity
to work for a better TPP. Agreed that the U.S. is an very important player.

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
110. Lieberman is why we don't have the public option, not Tester.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:57 PM
Dec 2018

Lieberman, an Independent at the time, absolutely refused to vote for the ACA unless the public option was taken out, and it couldn't pass without his vote:

The debate reached a critical impasse in November 2009, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who usually caucuses with the Democrats, threatened to filibuster the Senate bill if it included a public option.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0363

It is a lot easier to improve something that already exists than starting from scratch. Sure, we could negotiate a better TPP. But if we had passed the TPP, at least those minimum labor and environmental standards would be in place while we were negotiating a better TPP. Right now, we have no standards, and no negotiations. Nothing. Just China dominating the scene in a trade free for all forcing a race to the bottom on labor and environment.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
54. Yeah, can't imagine why any country would agree to WTO and UN dispute mechanisms
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:39 PM
Dec 2018

that have been in almost every global trade agree, over 2500, since 1959.

TheFarseer

(9,373 posts)
64. Not quite
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:03 PM
Dec 2018

WTO allows suits to be brought only by governments. TPP allows suits by any foreign investor. A huge distinction. Will Hoyt and TheFarseer ever agree on anything? I should start a poll thread.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
70. WTO rules require agreements like TPP to have acceptable dispute mechanisms. In any event, do you
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:12 PM
Dec 2018

support trump for reneging on the TPP, and still believe Obama and Clinton were -- as Bernie Sanders made sure voters knew -- corrupt in pursuing the TPP and similar agreements?

TheFarseer

(9,373 posts)
87. The dispute mechanism went above and beyond
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:56 PM
Dec 2018

To benefit corporations. You really need to let the 2016 primary go. Other people are allowed to run for president, not just the early favorite. “Bernie Sanders sucks” is your counterpoint to literally every argument.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
89. Same dispute mechanism we and other countries have used since 1959. You didn't answer my question.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:06 PM
Dec 2018

There's a reason for it -- countries want foreign investment within their borders. That investment doesn't get made if a country can jerk them around, including nationalization. Countries can avoid the dispute mechanism, but their people will suffer.

In any event, please answer the question.

TheFarseer

(9,373 posts)
97. No
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:29 PM
Dec 2018

There are differences as I pointed out and you choose to ignore. It seems there has been plenty of foreign investment before this trade agreement.

“Please answer the question”. You are not the boss of DemocraticUnderground despite what you think but I will answer your question anyway. I think Obama and Clinton listened to too much “conventional wisdom” on this one and bought into some dubious stuff. The same kind of thinking that got us bank bailouts-which is self serving for bankers but I certainly think reasonable people can argue either side. I think Obama though something had to be done and this was the best available option. Trump-I think he just went with the polls.

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
40. I remember how much Trump bashed Hillary for supporting the goals of the TPP.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:54 PM
Dec 2018

Once again, she was proven prescient.

keithbvadu2

(37,933 posts)
41. But the farmers are going to win BIGLY in the end, according to Donald.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 07:58 PM
Dec 2018

But the farmers are going to win BIGLY in the end, according to Donald.

LisaM

(27,974 posts)
48. Those people who were at the DNC with "No TPP"
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:25 PM
Dec 2018

taped over their mouths must be ecstatic. They got just what they wanted...

ooky

(9,079 posts)
51. The news just keeps getting better and better.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:31 PM
Dec 2018

With America's farmers shut out of global markets, prices will rise at home.

ananda

(29,203 posts)
56. American wheat and beef producers have been particularly vocal.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:43 PM
Dec 2018

Did they vote for I-1?

If so, they got what they voted for.

 

Codeine

(25,586 posts)
59. Half this board was ready to haul out the guillotines
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:48 PM
Dec 2018

when the TPP was proposed. Now they’re all for it.

SunSeeker

(52,316 posts)
111. Yes, I remember your bravery and admire you for it.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 11:02 PM
Dec 2018

You were viciously flamed just for saying you trusted Obama's judgment.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
67. I was always pro-TPP
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:10 PM
Dec 2018

But I sure as shit didn't post a lot saying that. The vast majority of the board was violently against TPP. I prefer to stay or if flame wars and saying you were for it guaranteed a pile-on.

It was used as a bludgeon against Hillary too.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
74. I get it. The opposition, particularly the Jackpine Radical folks, were brutal even if they had no
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:17 PM
Dec 2018

idea what they were posting about, nor did they care. Just bash Obama, Clinton, etc., anyway they could.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
73. It really is amazing. We've gone from bashing Obama and perhaps costing Clinton the election, to
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:14 PM
Dec 2018

the TPP was corrupt and we're happy trump killed it.

lutherj

(2,520 posts)
62. The TPP was negotiated in secret by a coalition
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:54 PM
Dec 2018

of corporate execs and corporate think tank lobbyists. Once ratified its contents were to be kept secret from the public for 5 years, while its regulations went into effect. The only reason we know what's in it is the drafts were leaked. Is that your idea of democracy?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
75. Big secret, we knew everything in it, not to mention it was like just about every other
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:20 PM
Dec 2018

trade agreement since 1959 (over 2500 trade agreements). But Obama purposely kept it a big secret; well, unless you took a couple of seconds and did some research.

lutherj

(2,520 posts)
144. You would know about that. -- Lori Wallach, the director of Global Trade Watch, made numerous
Tue Jan 1, 2019, 04:54 PM
Jan 2019

appearances on Democracy Now and wrote opinion pieces for various mainstream media arguing against the TPP. That’s how I remember the details. Noam Chomsky spoke out against it, as did Ralph Nader, among other progressives.

Here’s the relevant bit from the Wikipedia entry:

Secrecy of negotiations
As with many trade agreements, until being finalized, negotiations for the TPP were conducted with significant secrecy. Drafts of the agreement were kept classified during negotiations, and access to the working text was significantly restricted even for government officials and business representatives involved in the talks.[199] Despite this, some sections of TPP drafts were leaked to the public by WikiLeaks, which published an intellectual property chapter draft in 2013,[200][201] an environmental chapter draft in 2014,[202] and the final intellectual property chapter in 2014.

Another bit:

In 2014, linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximize profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity."[211] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) argues that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations."[212] Professor Robert Reich contends that the TPP is a "Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom.”

Elizabeth Warren also opposed it. She’s someone you’ll probably be reading a lot about here at DU over the next couple years.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
113. Oh the Irony of reading all the pro-TPP posts and blaming trump for it.
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 11:13 PM
Dec 2018

When folks tried to defend it here 2 years ago they about got run off. I know from personal experience.

DU was strongly anti-TPP.

Perhaps we should all adopt my motto: What Would President Obama Do.

He was right, knew he was right and never backed down. Despite the Anti-globalist spasm the Democratic Party had. Hope that is over.

Cha

(300,272 posts)
121. The TPP was happening with or without us, and Obama tried to seize the opportunity to make sure we..
Sat Dec 29, 2018, 11:57 PM
Dec 2018


Others fundraised off demonizing it.

WePurrsevere

(24,259 posts)
128. Perfect is the enemy of good...
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 10:01 AM
Dec 2018

As you and a few others have pointed out in other posts, Cha, Obama knew that the TPP wasn't 'perfect', many of us who researched it got that too, but it was the best offer at the time and better than the absolutely NOTHING we have now thanks to Trump.

Sometimes in life we can't get exactly what we want so we (hopefully) learn to make do with The best that we can and than hope (and work towards) for something better down the road.

Trump basically, "threw the baby out with the bath water."

tirebiter

(2,568 posts)
124. I'm still proNAFTA
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 12:17 AM
Dec 2018

And did not buy into the argument that TPP was a bigger badder version of NAFTA. My focus was on the argument that low to no tariffs only benefit big business. FDR came into office with that belief initially. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs were in place when he came in, adding considerable strain to the international economic climate of the Great Depression. Europe led mostly by England had high tariffs for anybody not a part of their empire. Smoot-Hawley was supposed to even that out. It tended to stop trade losing jobs in industry and farming. Cordell Hull pushed lower tariffs from his lips to FDR's ear. Thus the RTA or Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934

&gt Wiki)-"President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) into law in 1934. RTAA gave the president power to negotiate bilateral, reciprocal trade agreements with other countries. This law enabled Roosevelt to liberalize American trade policy around the globe. It is widely credited with ushering in the era of liberal trade policy that persisted through the 20th century."

I've had to argue these points with Trumpers and Bernie fans

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
140. Good luck. Both group of supporters seem to think we'll be better off trading among ourselves
Sun Dec 30, 2018, 12:12 PM
Dec 2018

and becoming Nationalists and America Firsters.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»US farmers 'helpless' as ...