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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think a little push on Japan getting into the TPP would not have been out of order today
Japan May Move on Joining U.S.-led Trade Talks Under Abe
Japans new government may move to join U.S.-led trade talks as the Abe administration seeks to help exporters and strengthen ties with the nations main ally amid rising tensions with China.
Japan will deepen discussions on the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, Agriculture Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi said at a press conference today in Tokyo. His ministry oversees an industry that has led opposition to the TPP out of concern it would hurt domestic farmers. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters late yesterday that Japan would comprehensively consider joining the talks.
The pact would help companies from Toyota Motor Corp. to Kobe Steel Ltd. (5406) compete with rivals from South Korea, which already has a free-trade deal with the U.S. Obstacles include the powerful farming lobby, a key support base for Abes Liberal Democratic Party, as he looks to solidify its hold on power in upper house elections in July.
Abe is likely to make clear that joining the TPP is part of his long-term strategy, when he meets U.S. President Barack Obama next year, said Masaaki Kanno, chief economist at JPMorgan Securities Japan Co. and a former central bank official. Still, agriculture has very strong lobbying powers, so entry into negotiations wont happen until after the upper house elections.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-27/japan-may-move-on-joining-us-led-trade-talks-under-shinzo-abe.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
15 replies, 1265 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I think a little push on Japan getting into the TPP would not have been out of order today (Original Post)
RB TexLa
Jan 2013
OP
"the world" isn't demanding "free trade" agreements. financiers are. pulling away from *them*
HiPointDem
Jan 2013
#14
The TPP are a group of corporations creating international law affecting all of us.
Fire Walk With Me
Jan 2013
#7
There is also input from labor unions, environmental rights, and human rights groups
RB TexLa
Jan 2013
#8
Sure. Input. Very nice but how utterly meaningless. Anonymous are strongly against the TPP
Fire Walk With Me
Jan 2013
#9
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)1. Yeah if one had neocon/neolib bullshit at the top of one's agenda.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)5. Well, start you an internet petition, and see if you can stop it.
Bucky
(53,795 posts)2. Abe who?
Oh!
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)4. You honestly don't know who PM Shinzo Abe is?
Wow
Really, that is amazing.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)3. I think a little push on the US getting out would have been in order.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)6. Yes, pulling away from the world is such progressive thinking.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)14. "the world" isn't demanding "free trade" agreements. financiers are. pulling away from *them*
is the sanest thing "the world" could do. and incarcerating them, of course, as the foul criminals they are.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)7. The TPP are a group of corporations creating international law affecting all of us.
Why would anyone support it?
"Fascism is better called corporatism, because it is the merger of corporation and state." ~Benito Mussolini
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)8. There is also input from labor unions, environmental rights, and human rights groups
Try again.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)9. Sure. Input. Very nice but how utterly meaningless. Anonymous are strongly against the TPP
and I stand with them. Go ahead and trust unregulated corporations and see what it gets you...if you haven't already been paying attention (check my Journal).
Here's a small example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022232303
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)10. Oh, I'll just bet.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)11. TODAY? I think Obama was busy. Even FOX showed that.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)12. I was speaking of during the speech.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)13. The best place for TPP is up George W. Bush's ASSHOLE!!!! (NM)
pampango
(24,692 posts)15. From Pew: ...what will be the pillars of the Obama administration’s economic policy toward China?
Romney lost, and it was Romney supporters who were most supportive of the next president confronting China. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans backed getting tougher with Beijing, up 11 percentage points in just a year. Democrats, on the other hand, prioritized building stronger economic relations with China (53%) over getting tougher with China (39%). Democrats backing for confrontation was up 6 points since 2011, but it remained the minority sentiment among those in Obamas party.
Likely components of the administration's economic policy towards China
The first will likely be more complaints about Chinese subsidies and trade practices filed with the WTO, given the presidents campaign promises and his record during his first term. Washington has been relatively successful with such cases in the past, and pursuing multilateral dispute settlements has the added advantage of avoiding a direct bilateral confrontation with China.
The second will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. The most important of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administrations avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high especially rules regarding behavior by state-owned enterprises that China could never join without transforming its economic system. This stance in part reflects the fact that two-thirds (67%) of the U.S. public believe China practices unfair trade, according to a 2012 survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The likely 2013 launch of a U.S.-European Union free trade negotiation effectively a Trans-Atlantic Partnership, a bookend for the TPP primarily reflects majority (58%) sentiment in the United States that increased trade with Europe would be a good thing for the United States. But it can also be seen as an attempt to establish U.S.-European, rather than Chinese, technical and regulatory standards as global business norms.
The Obama administration is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator, which is something Mitt Romney promised he would do on his first day in office. In Obamas first term, the White House had multiple opportunities to do so and declined, even though the renminbi was weaker against the dollar than it is now.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/
This is the first article I have come across that discussed the significance of the current TPP and US-EU trade negotiations in the context of our trade issues with China. Neither include China and both seem to be designed to marginalize - to the extent possible - China's emergence as an economic power by forcing it to change the way it does business in order to compete in the world economy.
Likely components of the administration's economic policy towards China
The first will likely be more complaints about Chinese subsidies and trade practices filed with the WTO, given the presidents campaign promises and his record during his first term. Washington has been relatively successful with such cases in the past, and pursuing multilateral dispute settlements has the added advantage of avoiding a direct bilateral confrontation with China.
The second will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. The most important of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administrations avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high especially rules regarding behavior by state-owned enterprises that China could never join without transforming its economic system. This stance in part reflects the fact that two-thirds (67%) of the U.S. public believe China practices unfair trade, according to a 2012 survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The likely 2013 launch of a U.S.-European Union free trade negotiation effectively a Trans-Atlantic Partnership, a bookend for the TPP primarily reflects majority (58%) sentiment in the United States that increased trade with Europe would be a good thing for the United States. But it can also be seen as an attempt to establish U.S.-European, rather than Chinese, technical and regulatory standards as global business norms.
The Obama administration is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator, which is something Mitt Romney promised he would do on his first day in office. In Obamas first term, the White House had multiple opportunities to do so and declined, even though the renminbi was weaker against the dollar than it is now.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/
This is the first article I have come across that discussed the significance of the current TPP and US-EU trade negotiations in the context of our trade issues with China. Neither include China and both seem to be designed to marginalize - to the extent possible - China's emergence as an economic power by forcing it to change the way it does business in order to compete in the world economy.