the editorial push for the tpp is on: Trans-Pacific Partnership: Do it for Vietnam

[cali]

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Really, it's getting funny as hell out there in corporate pro-tpp land. Forbes is at it day after day as is the WSJ and think tanks on both sides.

You gotta love the "do it for Vietnam" argument:

Tyler Cowen, the prolific economist behind Marginal Revoution (a blog I’ve read for over half-a-decade and recommend), has a unique case in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that relies on simple utilitarian logic. Simply put, the benefits of the TPP coming into effect outweigh the costs in a huge way. Particularly, the benefits for one country—Vietnam—are huge. In fact, Cowen makes that case that the benefit to Vietnam would be so huge that any costs borne by U.S. interest groups and constituencies are marginal. The benefits to Vietnam alone should make the TPP a “no brainer” of an agreement.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/trans-pacific-partnership-do-it-for-vietnam/
<snip>

Cowen, in an aside, throws out a call to any American ‘deontologists’ among his readership to support the TPP on the grounds that the United States has been “especially unjust to” Vietnam in the past. With the 40th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon—the event marking the end of the U.S.-Vietnam War—later this week, the point is particularly salient.

<snip>

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times agrees with me on the Trans-Pacific Partnership I discussed last week. I say, let Obama fast-track this deal like Bain Capital would – aggressively and with an end in mind. Friedman thinks so too. I see not only better global supply chain performance, but also a rule of law governing the environmental, labour and public health impacts of our geometrically evolving business world. He sees nothing less than a bulwark against anarchy.

<snip>

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinomarah/2015/04/30/fast-track-the-tpp-or-risk-anarchy/

[NaturalHigh]

1. They're sure as hell not doing it for American workers.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Please, won't someone think of the children?

They're only surviving because of those sweatshop jobs getting paid 10 cents a day making sneakers! You can't possibly take that away from them by demanding that anyone who makes sneakers be paid as well as American workers!

[cali]

4. actually, there has indeed been a "please won't someone think of the children"

argument for the tpp.

[neverforget]

6. you might like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6601001

[Autumn]

3. Let's don't do it. For America.

Yeah we've seen marginal before.

[djean111]

5. Oh, the "do it for Vietnam" has been pushed here. A lot. Oddly enough, by the same person

who says this will be good for American workers. Guess what - the object of the TPP is NOT to raise any workers up. There is no guaranteed enforcement that anyone has seen, except, of course, for the way corporations can sue countries and people (patents and copyrights).

[stillwaiting]

11. I'd just love to see a comprehensive article detailing all of the good that prior "free trade"

agreements have done for labor and environment issues, and how they've benefitted average citizens.

How were these prior agreements ENFORCED when a party to the agreement failed to meet an agreed on part of the agreement? How was it enforced and what were the consequences?

Surely there would be lots of information on this being bandied about if ANY prior agreements had these results. They always seem to promise these improvements with every "free trade" agreement. I need to see how prior agreements have produced good results on this front.

[DanTex]

7. And the problem with it benefiting Vietnam is _____________?

BTW, your link doesn't say anything about Vietnam, but even if it did, what's the problem with including benefits to Vietnam in the decision calculus?

[cali]

8. sorry, the link is now in the op. the problem is in the bolded sentence

benefits HERE should be the focus. Benefits elsewhere are great but should be secondary. Are you actually saying that you think it's OK that working Americans sacrifice for Vietnam's benefits?

[DanTex]

9. That presumes, of course, that working Americans would actually be sacrificed.

What that blogger is talking about, by the way, is not American workers losing their jobs, but "the IP and tech criticisms of TPP". And the benefits he mentions are not just economic gains by Vietnam, but also improvement in labor rights, environment, and generally becoming a more liberal society.

Ironically enough, one of the arguments people make against TPP is that these IP provisions will hurt developing countries, for example, making medicine more costly. I have yet to see someone be callous enough to say "benefits HERE should be the focus, harms elsewhere are bad but should be secondary." And yet here you are making the same argument when it comes to benefits for Vietnam.

[KG]

10. asian workers need american jobs! it's just the liberal thing to do!