TPP If you are for or against it. You should read this report.

[Jitter65]

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/big-report-little-finding-the-itc-evaluates-the-economic-impact-of-the-tpp/

[SamKnause]

1. I am against it.

I have been, since day 1.

I am against all the trade deals.

They are not Free Trade Deals.

They are Unfair Trade Deals that harm U.S. workers

and the workers in the countries we trade with.

The intention from day 1 was to lower global wages.

If they can lower the wages in the U.S. they can lower the

wages in any country.

The global elites are behind these trade deals.

Global is the key word.

Global poverty will be the result.

Sprinkle in a heavy dose of climate change and global

warmongering and the future looks extremely bleak.

[Hoyt]

2. I prefer President Obama's take, especially long-term.

Over the past six years, America’s businesses have created more than 14 million new jobs. To keep this progress going, we need to pursue every avenue of economic growth. Today, some of our greatest economic opportunities abroad are in the Asia-Pacific region, which is on its way to becoming the most populous and lucrative market on the planet. Increasing trade in this area of the world would be a boon to American businesses and American workers, and it would give us a leg up on our economic competitors, including one we hear a lot about on the campaign trail these days: China.

This past week, China and 15 other nations met in Australia with a goal of getting their deal, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, done before the end of this year. That trade deal won’t prevent unfair competition among government-subsidized, state-owned enterprises. It won’t protect a free and open Internet. Nor will it respect intellectual property rights in a way that ensures America’s creators, artists, filmmakers and entrepreneurs get their due. And it certainly won’t enforce high standards for our workers and our environment.

This agreement strengthens America’s economy. The TPP brings together 12 countries representing nearly 40 percent of the global economy to make sure that private firms have a fair shot at competing against state-owned enterprises. It keeps the Internet open and free. It strengthens the intellectual property protections our innovators need to take risks and create. And it levels the playing field by setting the highest enforceable standards and by removing barriers to selling our goods overseas — including the elimination of more than 18,000 taxes that other countries put on products made in America. Simply put, once the TPP is in place, American businesses will export more of what they make. And that means supporting more higher-paying jobs.

This agreement also strengthens America’s national security. . . . . . . We can lead that process, or we can sit on the sidelines and watch prosperity pass us by.

I understand the skepticism people have about trade agreements, particularly in communities where the effects of automtion and globalization have hit workers and families the hardest. But building walls to isolate ourselves from the global economy would only isolate us from the incredible opportunities it provides. . . . . . .

. . . . . . The world has changed. The rules are changing with it. The United States, not countries like China, should write them. Let’s seize this opportunity, pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership and make sure America isn’t holding the bag, but holding the pen.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-the-tpp-would-let-america-not-china-lead-the-way-on-global-trade/2016/05/02/680540e4-0fd0-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html

[KG]

3. what a steaming pile of shit.

[Hoyt]

4. Probably is to myopic Nationalistic, America First types who don't care about the world.

[KG]

5. I lulz'd

again? thats all you got?

[Hoyt]

7. So far you've had absolutely nothing but "steaming pile of chit," and similar comments.

[pampango]

9. I always learn something from the insightful analysis from posters with different opinions

on topics at DU.

[bhikkhu]

6. Based on trust for the president, I've generally been for it

based on a general trust for the economist Krugman, who said the agreement was "no big deal" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0 ), I've also been fine with it not passing.

The article seems to support both positions.

But based on reading, mostly here, about the general drift of economic policy that transfers regulatory apparatus and control away from government authority and toward corporate self regulation, I'm against it. In principle regulation is the proper role of a well-run government. I still agree that it is not a big deal, won't strangle our economy or change much, but it isn't a step in the right direction.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

8. So why do countries build economies around exports if trade has little impact on jobs? And why

should we accept white collar jobs are superior? Answering phones, hospitality (serving masters), exorbitant education debt intensive, sales, financial services, temporary, and Uber/gig jobs.

Jobs that historically have no labor unions.

That's the end game.

Wage theft was no secret but it took Obama 7+ years to act.

Thanks Democratic Party!