Krugman comes around a bit on the TPP:

[cali]

<snip>

And you know what? That’s O.K. It’s far from clear that the T.P.P. is a good idea. It’s even less clear that it’s something on which President Obama should be spending political capital. I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away.

The first thing you need to know about trade deals in general is that they aren’t what they used to be. The glory days of trade negotiations — the days of deals like the Kennedy Round of the 1960s, which sharply reduced tariffs around the world — are long behind us.

Why? Basically, old-fashioned trade deals are a victim of their own success: there just isn’t much more protectionism to eliminate. Average U.S. tariff rates have fallen by two-thirds since 1960. The most recent report on American import restraints by the International Trade Commission puts their total cost at less than 0.01 percent of G.D.P.

<snip>

What the T.P.P. would do, however, is increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property. Again, think drug patents and movie rights.

Is this a good thing from a global point of view? Doubtful. The kind of property rights we’re talking about here can alternatively be described as legal monopolies. True, temporary monopolies are, in fact, how we reward new ideas; but arguing that we need even more monopolization is very dubious — and has nothing at all to do with classical arguments for free trade.


Now, the corporations benefiting from enhanced control over intellectual property would often be American. But this doesn’t mean that the T.P.P. is in our national interest. What’s good for Big Pharma is by no means always good for America.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Pretty weak but he's backing off from a couple of months ago. Krugman does chide opponents in this piece but he doesn't address the big question:

WHY is this so vastly important to the corporate world? WHY have they been doing everything they can to push it for close to a decade?

[Hoyt]

1. He's not backing off much, basically says TPP is not the evil conspiracy some are trying to make it

" . . . . . . Meanwhile, opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy. . . . . ."

I appreciate his analysis and guts for printing it. Although, personally, I think he shouldn't dance around to keep from ticking some folks off over his view.

[cali]

3. he actually did back off quite a bit

And as he states, these trade deals aren't about trade. So let me ask you; why are corporations fighting so hard for the TPP and TTIP? Why is this the biggest thing on their agenda?

[Hoyt]

4. I don't think it is the biggest thing on their agenda. Plus, I think everyone involved in trade is

interested in this, even the little mom and pop import shop down the street.

People don't really understand it. And like most things people don't understand, they are afraid of it. I do recognize anything could turn out bad for us, but I don't think this will. I doubt it will even pass, or will have to be watered down like the ACA to get it through Congress. I think, for the most part, it is something people who want to criticize Obama are using to bash him.

[cali]

6. It is indeed. there are numerous statements from bigwigs saying just that

and yes, it's difficult to fully understand something that's kept so secret. However, there have been leaks and the leaked chapters are indicative of how much corporations benefit from it in the areas of dispute resolution and copyright- not to mention process. Corporations have had far more input than public interest groups- to understate it, and President Obama's appointees to the USTR, particularly Siddiqui have been heavy hitters for such as Monsanto,k

There are reasons that so many of those in the environmental and public interest spheres have opposed the TPP. They have analyzed and studied what's been leaked and they've also looked at such things as how the trade dispute resolution process has been used by corporations in Mexico, Canada, Uruguay and other South American nations, and the US itself.

No offense, but you sure don't demonstrate any knowledge of the subject that YOU are castigating others for not knowing.

Love the irony, hoyt.

[Hoyt]

12. If it is so secret, how do you know it is bad. The darn thing is still under negotiation, not even

close to finished. In fact, the negotiators just left a meeting in stalemate.

I fully admit I don't know everything about this, but I'm not supposed to. I'll admit it. I'm just not quick to blame Obama, as some. I'm sure the negotiations are just as "secret" in every other country involved. That's the way negotiations go. Any agreement has to pass Congress before it becomes binding on anyone. It won't be fast-tracked as we have been told for months. And, it likely won't pass. But, it's a good opportunity to bash Obama.

[cali]

13. sigh. I've read the leaked chapters. I've read analysis of the leaked chapters

from groups such as The Sierra Club, Doctors Without Borders, NRDC, Public Citizen and EFF.

I've read comparative analysis referencing NAFTA, CAFTA and other FTAs with South American Nations. I've read the analysis of the dispute process and cases brought.

YOU are the Obama centered one with little knowledge on the subject. For YOU it's all about Obama and defending him.

For me it's about the actual issues and policies.

Man, did you just reveal yourself.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. he just said it was about trade--just not trade free from tarriffs--rather, IP rights

across countries allowing companies whose main business model focuses on protecting IP to defend their IP in these other countries.

[The Magistrate]

5. There Should Be No Recourse Against Laws Democratically Enacted, Sir

No investor has any right, repeat any right, to profit from an investment, and any claim he has is absolutely without foundation in law, custom, history, or even economic theory. Laws, regulations, possible changes in them, acts of governments and rulings of courts are simply some of the factors people must calculate and try and anticipate when investing, and if you gauge these wrongly you are supposed to lose your money! That is how the thing works, how it is supposed to work, how it always has worked.

"The trouble with our modern corporations is they have neither souls to be damned nor bodies to be kicked."

[cali]

7. if only it were so!

The TPP actually broadens investor "rights".

[The Magistrate]

8. Which, Ma'am, Is Why I Am Dead-Set Against It

[TwilightGardener]

2. Asia trade and cooperation, leaving China out. The big Pivot.

That's why it's so important to Obama.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. I wish you would have included this paragraph. "Meanwhile, opponents portray the TPP.."

Meanwhile, opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy.

And it doesn't sound like Obama is beating the bushes to make this trade deal happen. If I go back to my posts months ago, that is essentially what I was saying.

[cali]

14. Just for you and your ilk, I referenced that in my comments, dear pretzie.

And sorry, pretzie, but Obama has repeatedly said this is one of his top priorities.

You're not saying he's a bullshitter are you, pretz?

[BlueStreak]

11. Compard to what?

These issues are all about framing. He tries to frame it with a faulty premise that we are better off without tariffs and protectionism. He cites what has happened over the last 40 years as tariffs have been reduced. But that also happens to be the same period where the American middle class has been all but destroyed while the very rich have prospered. Average Americans now have to work much longer hours and receive in return far lass in pensions and other elements of economic stability in their lives.

Are the trade agreements the ONLY factors in that decline? No, of course not. But to pass this off as if that isn't an important thing is really obscene coming from a man with his credentials.

The point of comparison should be completely different. The starting point to the discussion should be that America, despite this decline, is still the strongest economy in the world. If you want to sell products to Americans, then you have to play by the rules of an advanced society. If you pay substandard wages, then you should face a tariff to equalize that. If you have disregard for the environment, then you should face steep penalties. Basically the tariffs should be as high as they need to be to eliminate any incentive to move jobs offshore. And we aren't even close to that point now.

Basically the starting point of the discussion ought to be that for any particular product, it ought to be a coin flip whether the product should be produced in America or in Indonesia. When it is more attractive to produce hard drives in Indonesia and Malaysia and throw them on a ship, there is something vastly wrong with the deal. The deal will be right when the vast majority of products are produced near their point of consumption.