I think my position on TPP is shifting from neutral to pro.

[DanTex]

Obama: in favor.
Trump: against.
Crazy white people shouting while Cummings is trying to talk about BLM: against.

How bad can it really be?

[democrattotheend]

1. What about it do you support?

I would like to think that it can't be that bad if Obama supports it, but from what I can tell, it seems awful. Especially the part about allowing corporations to sue governments that hurt their profits. What am I missing?

[DanTex]

9. The truth is, I don't think it's a big deal.

I think the effects of trade agreements are way overblown, and the corporations suing countries thing is used pretty rarely, and sometimes is necessary if countries impose punitive measures. From what I've read TPP is more a geopolitical thing than a free trade thing, the point is to solidify American economic influence in Asia as a counterweight to China.

I do believe that most of the people protesting it, certainly the people shouting "no TPP" at Elijah Cummings, have no idea what they are talking about and just latched on to it because it's hip to be "anti-globalization."

[elehhhhna]

16. You need to do more research.

[DanTex]

17. I've done research. I know that the pro people think it's the greatest thing ever

and the anti people think its the end of the world. I've read both sides.

[Hortensis]

42. Well, I don't recall ever going wrong by backing away

from noisy, fervent groups who've become strangely passionate about some complex and relatively arcane issue so that I can do some more homework.

International business still has its fingers all over this of course, but under Obama and other national leaders the TPP is already far more liberal than its lay opponents imagine. To me, though, the big reason for supporting now is to get us inside. The TPP is happening, and if we don't control it someone else will. Somehow it seems unlikely that China would have the same concern for human rights.

[DanTex]

43. Good point on both counts.

Like I said, from what I've read, it seems more about a geopolitical thing than just a trade agreement: consolidate our economic influence in Asia as a counterweight to a growing China. And, yeah, if China comes to dominate and control trade in Asia, human rights are not going to be high on their list.

[Hortensis]

63. Yes, a lot more involved than jobs and drug prices,

critically important as those are.

I noticed earlier that China won some diplomatic victory today regarding the court case over its aggression in the South China Sea.

[katsy]

25. The ability to sue countries because of

Local environmental or health regulations is wrong.

Australia won it's case against tobacco companies in favor of plain packaging & warning labels... $50m tab to Australian taxpayers.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-faces-50m-legal-bill-in-cigarette-plain-packaging-fight-with-philip-morris-20150728-gim4xo.html

Tabacco companies can sue countries ad infinitum until some countries just can't pay the legal fees. That has happened in some African nations who don't have the means to carry on legal battles.

Corporations shouldn't be able to sue nations for future profits in special courts. Ever.

[DanTex]

31. Tobacco health warnings are carved out of TPP.

The idea of companies suing countries is troubling, but something like that is necessary. For example, a company invests in a plant somewhere, and then the country makes a law specifically designed to make that plant illegal. It needs to be resolved.

[katsy]

36. It doesn't matter what the circumstances or company.

No extra-judicial courts period.

How is any county or state defend it's health or environmental laws against deep-pocketed corporations?

That makes corporations above the law.

There are appx 8 trade related sections of the tpp.

Fine. Pass those. The rest of that monstrosity is corporate welfare.

[DanTex]

41. How do you resolve trade disputes without some kind of extra-judicial court?

These are international disputes, they can't be decided in the judicial system of any particular country, for a lot of reasons, one of which is that the rules aren't laws in that country. You need a nation-neutral arbitration system.

[katsy]

44. Like they always did.

In a court of law in the district where they have a problem.

Our courts will follow the laws of the land.

Our taxpayers don't have a duty to enrich any business. Full. Stop.

And then there's pharma welfare and the whole generic drug debacle. Doctors without borders is warning against this section as the poor will no longer have access to cheaper generics. What kind of madness is this?

They made a trade agreement & threw in every corporate welfare wish possible.

Negotiate trade agreements. That's fine. But go no further.

[DanTex]

48. Trade disputes aren't about the law of any country, they are about international law.

They can't be resolved in a local court, because local courts deal with local laws, not international treaty obligations.

[katsy]

59. I'm not entirely sure.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5252810.html

But i am not on board giving corporations more control over environmental and health regulations.

[Xithras]

56. Ah yes.

Can't have those brown people in poor nations trying to pass labor or environmental laws that cut into corporate profits, can we?

All nations have the right to determine what kind of business can, and cannot, be conducted within their own borders. No international "court" should ever have the right to force polluting or abusive businesses onto nations that do not want them, or to punish nations for shutting down businesses that are damaging their people or environment.

If you support the TPP, that is EXACTLY what you are supporting.

[DanTex]

58. If you want to have a FTA, you need an international dispute resolution system.

If countries don't want to join free trade agreements, that's fine. But if they do, they have to abide by the treaty they signed, and it needs to be enforced.

The reality is that TPP imposes labor and environmental standards that are higher than what a lot of developing nations currently have.

Without free trade agreements of some kind, we get protectionism and punitive tariffs and so on. If we don't want that, they we need to have international trade rules, and a mechanism for enforcing them.

[democrattotheend]

28. I think the AFL-CIO knows what they are talking about

And they are very much opposed to it.

[glennward]

49. It's what they have.

Instead of being honest about the complex society we live in and the economic changes that are caused by a multitude of reasons...technology and automation being much bigger than trade.

Just yesterday I saw on TV a suitcase one could ride around the airport..add to that the roller cases and you have about 1 million porter jobs gone over the past 20 years. And believe me, they were good paying jobs that put two of my brothers through school.

[yallerdawg]

21. You're missing fact.

TPP specifically dismisses claims regarding "profit."

Investor “expectations” aren’t enough.
TPP explicitly clarifies that an investor cannot win a claim for breach of the MST obligation merely by showing that a government measure frustrated its expectations (for example, its expectations of earning certain profits).

https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/investment-c76dbd892f3a#.67l647lq8

[Recursion]

27. Raising the minimum wage in Asian countries

And requiring them to let labor unions elect their own officers and affiliate internationally.

I wish we'd pushed Vietnam harder, but people are acting like those things aren't even there and it bugs me

[fun n serious]

2. Yes.

Nationalism and protectionsim is why people are against TPP

[elehhhhna]

12. Yes, American jobs be dammned, we love to TPP now just like we love nafta right?

[fun n serious]

15. NAFTA wasn't all bad.

Sorry.

[nationalize the fed]

23. Candidate O: NAFTA was "A Mistake"

Funny how things change, isn't it. Well not so funny if your job has moved to Vietnam. But who cares, right? Out of sight, out of mind. The only thing is winning.

[Recursion]

29. American jobs mostly went to China

Which is a country we'll never have a free trade agreement with because they will never agree to the labor protections it requires

[elehhhhna]

50. But they'ree "favored nation" status. Go figure.

[pampango]

57. China belongs to the WTO like almost every other country in the world. They are not 'favored'.

How would one justify not having the largest country in the world in the WTO or the UN or part of a global climate agreement?

Besides keeping China out of the WTO would not have prevented China from getting its economic act together and becoming a major economic power.

[elehhhhna]

62. Here. Learn something. You're welcome.

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html

PDF of This Issue PDF
Clinton Grants China MFN, Reversing Campaign Pledge

By Ann Devroy
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON
President Clinton Thursday reversed course on China and renewed its trade privileges despite what he said was Beijing's lack of significant progress on human rights.

Echoing the case made by George Bush when he was president, Clinton said he was convinced the Chinese would take more steps to improve human rights if the issue were separated from the threat of trade sanctions.

"This decision offers us the best opportunity to lay the basis for long-term sustainable progress on human rights and for the advancement of our other interests with China," he said at a news conference announcing his decision to extend China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status.

[pampango]

66. Thank you. China belongs in the WTO, the UN and the Paris climate agreement.

Keeping the largest country in the world out of international organizations does not help solve global problems.

FDR's 1945 State of the Union

International cooperation on which enduring peace must be based is not a one-way street. Nations like individuals do not always see alike or think alike, and international cooperation and progress are not helped by any Nation assuming that it has a monopoly of wisdom or of virtue.

Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics, may obstruct the paths to international peace. Let us not forget that the retreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started not by a direct attack against international cooperation but against the alleged imperfections of the peace.

In our disillusionment after the last war we preferred international anarchy to international cooperation with Nations which did not see and think exactly as we did. We gave up the hope of gradually achieving a better peace because we had not the courage to fulfill our responsibilities in an admittedly imperfect world.

We have house-cleaning of our own to do in this regard. But it is our hope, not only in the interest of our own prosperity but in the interest of the prosperity of the world, that trade and commerce and access to materials and markets may be freer after this war than ever before in the history of the world.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16595

I think FDR was on the right track.

[emulatorloo]

3. Hillary: Against

[fun n serious]

7. We have to convince her to be for it.

Just LOOK at the people who are against it! We have to fight!

[fun n serious]

4. I am now STRONG pro TPP

We can not stop globalization and we need a place in the world. We need to bring people together not tear people apart and NOT ISOLATE ourselves.

[angstlessk]

13. Fine, uplift ALL PEOPLE not just the CEO's

Write trade agreements that include environmentalists, labor unions, et al and not just big business!

[phleshdef]

5. Wow. Such a nuanced way to decide your position.

[angstlessk]

6. If that is how you form opinions, you might instead try to read about

the pros and cons...Democrats are supposed to be informed voters, not gut reactionists!

[Doctor Jack]

8. I think it was a joke

[elehhhhna]

18. It wasn't. Read ops other posts.

[yuiyoshida]

14. ^^This^^

Should READ about it and research it, before making an opinion.

[think]

10. The unions, environmental, indigenous, human rights groups and many top Democrats are opposed

to the TPP.

Reading up on it might be a good idea before making any rash decisions...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I don't know about this or that agreement but I don't want to build a moat around America ...

I don't know about this or that agreement but I don't want to build a moat around America to keep out people or goods.

[fun n serious]

19. I agree.

[Blanks]

40. We need trade agreements...

Around here the initial thing was that it was 'secret', but there were links to the information.

There are complaints about the power of the corporations, that's why we need a strong American government, to prevent corporations from abusing people. The TPP probably needs tweaked up to minimize that, but it shouldn't be enough to kill it.

People complain about NAFTA, while refusing to acknowledge that automation and outsourcing to China and India were bigger factors to our shrinking manufacturing base.

We need to trade with other countries, stopping trade agreements isn't going to bring the toaster factory back, that ship has sailed. We need to focus on new industries, and new small businesses. Trying to turn back the clock is not the answer.

That's what conservatives do.

[fun n serious]

47. Indeed and Hillary's

ideas to for clean energy has a lot of good job and manufufacting proposals.

[Blanks]

53. There are a lot of potential business ideas out there...

Based on sustainable energy and agriculture. The big companies just need to have their feet held to the fire and the economy will bust wide open.

...but they won't be factory floor jobs. We have robots for that kind of thing now. There will be technical jobs maintaining the equipment, but the good paying assembly line jobs no longer exist in this country.

[fun n serious]

55. Nor should they exist..

There are no products for t hem really...

[angstlessk]

20. What moat? How many products are still made in America?

There ain't no moat!

[Cha]

22. President Obama has earned my trust. Lot of lies told about it.

The yellers did themselves no favors.

[fun n serious]

24. Yes indeed.

President Obama is rigt about TPP

[yallerdawg]

33. Here we go again!

Believing something is a fact is not what makes it a fact.

I have never had any reason to believe President Obama has any other purpose for endorsing TPP other than it is what is best for America's future!

We can read the entire Trans-Pacific Partnership - the final, signed, locked-in-stone agreement that would have to be approved by majority-vote of Congress!

We can read it -- and we still hear the same BS over and over and over and over again.

Who thinks that works? Not Democrats!!!

[Cha]

37. right.. here we are again..

Yes, President Obama is solidly behind this because it's better for America's future.

Well said, yallerdawg.

[NCTraveler]

39. I'm very close to that position.

There are some more protections I want to see in place. I think Obama and Clinton would like the same. This agreement will also bring change to other trade agreements currently in place. That is a very interesting aspect and one talked about very little.

I'm pro-trade, do not like unfettered capitalism, and want rules in place respected by all international parties.

[HERVEPA]

26. I'm Shocked. Shocked I say.

[NCTraveler]

30. They need to add some protections and I'm on board. Nt

[fun n serious]

32. Yes. It should be tweaked but not opposed.

[tallahasseedem]

34. LOL!

I know, right? I might have to read up on it!

[Bucky]

35. TPP is strategically useful for keeping the PacRim from being bullied by China.

It's far from perfect, as any trade agreement must be. I think it needs a LOT of tinkering. But that said, sometimes you gotta put up your shelter first and worry about painting the drywalls later.

[Motley13]

38. That is one thing I struggle with

if Obama is for it, it must be ok, right?
We need trade, but it must be good for us.
Bernie is against it, takes away our jobs.

Total dilemma for me

[yallerdawg]

45. No Democrat can go wrong opposing TPP or any trade agreement.

Leveling the playing field when we already have the advantage means we will lose some jobs.

Those workers are our Democratic brothers and sisters and voting constituents.

But this isn't about the old jobs. This is about the new jobs and new partnerships and alliances, and spreading our values and principles to the rest of the world.

And for our brothers and sisters? Congress has already approved programs and educational opportunities for workers displaced by these trade agreements! They are not forgotten!

[elehhhhna]

51. Retraining is bullshit congressional bullshit.

They throw a buck at it and it helps nobody.

[yallerdawg]

60. Of course.

"Government bad, and can't do anything right."

That seems to be the anti-TPP position.

You know - Trump's position.

[elehhhhna]

61. What utterly insulting garbage.

Trumps position means nothing to me.

Nafta sealed the deal. The decision was made: American labour would compete with the third world instead of with Europe. Wake the fuck up.

TPP is more of the same.

[yallerdawg]

68. I'm so sorry.

I lack your insightful skills at articulation like "bullshit congressional bullshit" and "wake the fuck up."

I can see how you might think my poor use of words - even though related to the OP chain you are commenting on - is "utterly insulting garbage."

I didn't realize we were having an informative dialogue.

Sorry.

[treestar]

46. IMO there has to be some agreement

or the third world countries could completely undercut us with no standards. So making them improve conditions before letting them have access to our market makes sense. The TPP is made up as an issue. We have to have something. The global economy is here. There is no going back from that.

[think]

52. TPP 'worst trade deal ever,' says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz

TPP 'worst trade deal ever,' says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz

CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2016 8:45 PM ET Last Updated: Apr 01, 2016 4:51 PM ET

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the Trans-Pacific Partnership may well be the worst trade agreement ever negotiated, and he recommends Canada insist on reworking it.

"I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations," he said in an interview with CBC's The Exchange on Thursday.

Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, was a keynote speaker at a conference at the University of Ottawa on Friday about the complex trade deal....


Read more:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-tpp-1.3515452

[LisaM]

54. LOL.

I just laughed at my desk.

[kacekwl]

64. I do hope you are being

sarcastic.

[NorthCarolina]

65. Oh, did you hit the Powerball jackpot?

Congrats.

[kacekwl]

67. Any time something is negotiated in secret

with mostly corporate giants and banking giants with little to no labor and environmental input and the need to fast track I get suspicious .