General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I am, not surprised; but, somewhat dismayed with ... [View all]MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She pressed for Asian countries to open their doors to US based companies. That creates jobs here (and is a populist thing to do). She has made numerous comments on currency manipulation in the Asian markets, even when she was in the Senate. That seems to be her main interest in the TPP. Further opening markets to US businesses is one of the State departments prime responsibilities.
Now I will say I am against the TPP, BUT the idea is that it would create more enforceable rules around currency manipulation that is currently occurring in Asian markets. Currency manipulation distorts trade flows by artificially lowering the cost of U.S. imports and raising the cost of U.S. exports, and that causes trade deficits and lost jobs in the country or countries that do not manipulate the currency.
If I thought they would actually enforce sections of any trade agreement that would stop this currency manipulation, I might be more inclined to be supportive as a voter. But as for HRC, she has been very consistent on the issue of currency manipulation and how it hurts American workers. The TPP is going to sail without or without US involvement. If the US can genuinely impact it to decrease the trade deficit that would be a good thing. But reasonable people can disagree on whether there is more good than bad to be had with US participation.
I think if you understood the issue better you would not be accusing HRC of being an oligarch. There is just nothing in her history that supports that kind of derision.