It's not a declaration of war, it's not an embargo, it's not a no-fly zone,

[ucrdem]

it's not a drone attack, it's not a weapons deal, it's not Star Wars. It's a trade treaty, and odds are good that it will create a healthy supply of new production jobs in the US. That's what it's intended by the President to do. Possibly the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated?

The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159076

p.s. read all about it here:

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#axzz3Nij1eFRg

https://ustr.gov/tpp

[marym625]

1. Then release the text

"It's not a declaration of war, it's not an embargo, it's not a no-fly zone,

it's not a drone attack, it's not a weapons deal, it's not Star Wars. It's a trade treaty, and odds are good that it will create a healthy supply of new production jobs in the US. "

So no reason for secrecy

I call bullshit.

[ucrdem]

2. Once TPA passes they'll sign the treaty and release the finished text

but you can get a pretty good idea of what's in it here:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/outlines-of-TPP

[marym625]

3. When the TPA passes it's too late

And propaganda about the TPP ain't gonna cut it.

The fact the text won't be released speaks volumes

Good night

[ucrdem]

4. Well there's plenty of misinformation floating around too,

mostly based on the notorious reputation of NAFTA. But this is a different kind of deal and addresses a lot more issues than tariffs including labor and environmental protections.

[magical thyme]

29. which part of this version of ISDS is based on NAFTA?

But there's something particularly sinister about the TPP's version of ISDS. Article II.7(5) is the provision on how ISDS applies to intellectual property issues, it reads:

The Article does not apply to the issuance of compulsory licenses granted in relation to intellectual property rights in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement, or to the revocation, limitation, or creation of intellectual property rights, to the extent that such issuance, revocation, limitation, or creation is consistent with Chapter QQ._ (Intellectual Property Rights) and the TRIPS Agreement.

In the footnote to this text, it says the use of "limitation" in this provision also include exceptions to copyrights. At first it seems like the purpose of this language is to prevent investor-state courts from making determinations on how countries enact intellectual property rules. But the last part of this provision is the hitch. It specifies that the ISDS provisions do not apply to copyright and patent rules as long as those rules are "consistent with" the TPP's Intellectual Property chapter and the TRIPS agreement.

Who decides whether the country's rules are consistent with the TPP? The ISDS court itself is the one who makes that determination. This means that the agreement gives the ISDS court the ability to interpret national compliance with the provisions of the TPP, a dangerous proposition given the partisan nature of ISDS courts. These tribunals are usually comprised of three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/leaked-tpp-investment-chapter-reveals-serious-threat-user-safeguards

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

60. But...but...but those trade deals were never intended to bolster the economy and create jobs, etc..

This time is different!


gratuitous

[cali]

32. propaganda. the USTR site is laughable- and they've already been caught

misrepresenting Environmental Orgs and had to remove claims.

And no, the treaty is not at a place where it's ready to be signed IF the TPA passes.

[DJ13]

5. NAFTA was a declaration of war on the american workforce

This will prove to be even worse.

[ucrdem]

7. TPP isn't NAFTA.

And what sector are you worried we're going to lose jobs in? The point of the IP chapter for example is to make it more difficult for signatory countries to pirate US publishing, software and entertainment so how is that going to lead to another giant sucking noise?

[magical thyme]

30. that's right. it's worse than NAFTA because it's not a trade deal. It ends national sovereignty

and codifies rule by multinational corporation.

They can sue countries, states or municipalities for laws, regulations or ordinances that might potentially damage their future profits. Even if they have not yet invested one fucking dime in a location they can sue.

They can sue in an international tribunal made up of corporate attorneys that rotate between working in a tribunal and working for multinationals.

Corporate attorneys who can levy unlimited fines and seize public assets as payment.

Without appeal.

You're absolutely correct. NAFTA is not TPA and TPA is not NAFTA. Not. Even. Close.

[cali]

33. Job loss is not my main concern- though the tpp will absolutely make

off shoring even more profitable. My concerns are: (in no particular order)

the protectionism in the IP chapter- extended patents on drugs through "evergreening", extended patents on intellectual copyrights and much more. From a NON-propaganda source:

<snip>

The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement

All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the US, this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA]) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked US-proposed IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current US law.

The leaked US IP chapter includes many detailed requirements that are more restrictive than current international standards, and would require significant changes to other countries’ copyright laws. These include obligations for countries to:

Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries: The TPP would force the adoption of the US DMCA Internet intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. For example, this would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently establishes a judicial notice-and-takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the DMCA.

Escalate Protections for Digital Locks: It will compel signatory nations to enact laws banning circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs) [PDF] that mirror the DMCA and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offense even when no copyright infringement is involved. This would require countries like New Zealand to completely rewrite its innovative 2008 copyright law, as well as override Australia’s carefully-crafted 2007 TPM regime exclusions for region-coding on movies on DVDs, video games, and players, and for embedded software in devices that restrict access to goods and services for the device—a thoughtful effort by Australian policy makers to avoid the pitfalls experienced with the US digital locks provisions. In the US, business competitors have used the DMCA to try to block printer cartridge refill services, competing garage door openers, and to lock mobile phones to particular network providers.

Create New Threats for Journalists and Whistleblowers: Dangerously vague text on the misuse of trade secrets, which could be used to enact harsh criminal punishments against anyone who reveals or even accesses information through a "computer system" that is allegedly confidential.

Expand Copyright Terms: Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TPP could extend copyright term protections from life of the author + 50 years, to Life + 70 years for works created by individuals, and either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation for corporate owned works (such as Mickey Mouse).

Enact a "Three-Step Test" Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use: The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is putting fair use at risk with restrictive language in the TPP's IP chapter. US and Australia have proposed very restrictive text, while other countries such as Chile, New Zealand, and Malaysia, have proposed more flexible, user-friendly terms.

Adopt Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation. Users could be jailed or hit with debilitating fines over file sharing, and may have their property or domains seized even without a formal complaint from the copyright holder.

<snip>

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

The Investment Chapter and expanding corporate rights and power. From Joseph Stiglitz:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-secret-corporate-takeover-hidden-in-the-tpp-2015-05-13?page=2

Environmental Concerns and enforcement- particularly as pertains to the ocean:

Analysis of Leaked Environment Chapter Text (joint analysis by the Sierra Club, NRDC and the WWF)

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/TPP_Enviro_Analysis.pdf?docID=14842

[eridani]

6. It most assuredly is a declaration of war--against the 99%.

If you are for the TPP, then you are for the following. How can you even be a Democrat and favor this crap?

A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.

A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.

A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.

Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.

[ucrdem]

8. Yes, you posted those linkless headlines once already.

I guess you didn't like my answer?

[eridani]

10. It's from Warren's email, and you didn't have an answer--just a snide reference to Amy Goodman

http://charleshector.blogspot.com/2014/09/for-raising-minimum-wages-egypt-sued-by.html

Why don't you tell us why you think this is so wonderful, and how a Democrat could support it and remain a Democrat?

[ucrdem]

12. Sorry, the link goes to a Sept. 15 blog post on a site I've never heard of.

On a four-star reliability scale, I'd rate this information as sub one-star.

[eridani]

13. Being proud of ignorance is not an attractive trait

http://mondediplo.com/2014/06/12ttip

The Veolia group decided to challenge one of the few concessions won by Egyptian salaried workers in the 2011 “spring” — a rise in the monthly minimum wage from 400 to 700 Egyptian pounds ($56 to $99). The French multinational felt this was too much and, in June 2012, filed a claim

[ucrdem]

14. ...filed a claim and? Please proceed Governor.

[eridani]

16. It's still in process. Just what Egypt needs, an expensive hassle fighting--

--vicious amoral sociopaths. That's the appropriate term for people who cheer at other peoples' suffering.

[ucrdem]

18. In other words you didn't read the article, which has nothing to do with TPP.

Wrong treaty but thanks for trying.

[eridani]

19. Oh, bullshit--trade tribunals are the same goddam fucking thing. TPP is only different--

--in that it fucks over governments trying to protect their people even worse.

[ucrdem]

27. You're mixing up a lot things and letting yourself get worked up over bad info.

The internet is full of whatever disinfo you want to find so you really need to be careful with your sources. And assuming the President is a shape-shifting Manchurian Benedict Arnold isn't going to help you sift the wheat from the chaff.

[cantbeserious]

36. ^^^ THIS ^^^

eom

[Bonobo]

9. "healthy supply of new production jobs " -let me ask you a basic question, ok?

How do you figure, imagine or speculate that the US will create manufacturing jobs to compete against manufacturing jobs in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, or so many other places WITHOUT lowering our wages to the point where it becomes profitable to manufacture in the US as compared to above countries with MUCH LOWER LABOR COSTS?

Go ahead, speculate. Give it your best shot. What is the way, even in theory?

[ucrdem]

11. High tech and new tech for starters. And they're already here. Here's the evidence

from the fons et origo, a.k.a. President Obama, from a speech last December 11:

Our businesses have added almost 11 million jobs over the past 57 months. This year our economy has already created more jobs [than] in any year since the 1990s, with still a month to go. All told, since 2010, we've created more jobs here in the United States than Japan, Europe, and all advanced nations combined.

And one of the reasons that we've been able to create so many jobs here in the United States is because our exports have been strong. Last year our businesses sold a record $2.3 trillion of Made in America goods and services. And these exports support more than 11 million American jobs -- typically, by the way, jobs that pay higher wages.

{snip}

I've said before I will go anywhere around the world to go to bat for American companies and American workers. We're going to keep on pushing trade agreements that benefit American companies and American workers and ensure that we've got a fair and even playing field, particularly in the fastest-growing markets.

{snip}

We're also announcing -- because manufacturing has been a real bright spot in our growing economy -- some additional measures to boost manufacturing here in the United States so we can sell more manufacturing goods overseas. We're announcing today more than $290 million in new investments to launch two additional high-tech manufacturing hubs. One is going to be focusing on flexible computer chips that can be woven into everything from the gears in a helicopter to the fabric in your shirt. Another is going to focus on advance sensors that can dramatically cut energy costs for our factories.

So far, we have launched eight of these hubs, and we intend to get 16 done, so we're more than half of the way there. And they’re helping us to compete for the next generation of manufacturing.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/12/20141211311946.html#ixzz3QMeoR4Ur

[eridani]

15. That is a flat-out lie. Job creation has been of shit jobs and part time jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/28/how-the-recession-turned-middle-class-jobs-into-low-wage-jobs/

The U.S. job market is slowly improving, and most economists expect that gradual recovery to continue this year. Yet one of the most disturbing trends of the recession is still very far from being reversed. America's middle-class jobs have been decimated since 2007, replaced largely by low-wage jobs.

A recent presentation from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco lays out the situation clearly. The vast majority of job losses during the recession were in middle-income occupations, and they've largely been replaced by low-wage jobs since 2010:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=

[ucrdem]

17. I see. And what exactly is "that"?

Can't read your mind, sorry.

[eridani]

21. The lie is that the 11 million new jobs pay well

How fucking ignorant do you have to be to not know that the bottom 90% have gained absolutely nothing from the "recovery"?

Wages in U.S. Down 23 Percent Since 2008 And I suppose you are happy about that.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/315-19/25321-wages-in-us-down-23-percent-since-2008

While 8.7 million jobs have been regained since the 2008 recession, they are paying much less, by an average of 23 percent, according to a report released Monday by the United States Conference of Mayors.

[peacebird]

39. Exactly, the jobs created are NOT mid wage jobs, mostly they are low paying service sector jobs

[Bonobo]

20. Labor intensive stuff like microchips? LOL.

Do you have any idea how NON-labor intensive that actually is?

So aside from the optimistic sounding rhetoric of "high tech manufacturing", what are we really talking about?

High-tech consumer products are not made here anymore last time I checked and I don't see a "free-trade agreement" changing that in the least.

So what are we talking about? Weapons?

[ucrdem]

23. We're talking about 11 million new jobs.

Last year our businesses sold a record $2.3 trillion of Made in America goods and services. And these exports support more than 11 million American jobs -- typically, by the way, jobs that pay higher wages.

If you want a breakdown into categories I suppose one can be found but my point is simply that new high-wage mfr'ing jobs are being created and TPP is geared toward increasing the rate of creation.

[Bonobo]

25. I see a lot of talk about tariff removal.

But given the insanely high difference in cost of labor, I see no realistic way that there is any hope of creating new manufacturing jobs, nor do I take this claim of 11 million American jobs with anything but the biggest grain of salt.

No, what needs to be dealt with is the closing of tax loopholes for US companies that flee to cheap labor companies while avoiding taxes and still reaping benefits.

Until US companies are made to pay properly their fare share for that, they will continue to flee to the lowest labor cost country and that is a fact.

[ucrdem]

34. One problem is that without a deal that codifies everything,

everything is up for grabs, and companies can bargain for the best sweetheart deal and move their headquarters AND plants to Vietnam or wherever the best offer comes from. California has lost more than a few HQs to Texas, for example Toyota's North American HQ that announced a move from Torrance CA to Plano TX in November:

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/11/17/toyota-lose-70-percent-workforce-texas-move-report/

So if entire companies are on the move then the US like CA is going to have to fight to keep them and TPP seems mindful of this reality.

[Bonobo]

35. Yes, but seeing that it is being written by corporations that can ONLY be helped by cheap labor...

I see ZERO hope that it will be anything but predatory and opposed to the real needs of the American workers.

[ucrdem]

45. But if labor rights are also coordinated the current race to the bottom would stop

at least in these 12 countries, at least in theory. Yes, the devil is in the details, and we'll see them soon I hope, but it's not like the point isn't being given consideration. As far as I can tell one of the 29 chapters is devoted exclusively to labor issues:

o Labor. TPP countries are discussing elements for a labor chapter that include commitments on labor rights protection and mechanisms to ensure cooperation, coordination, and dialogue on labor issues of mutual concern. They agree on the importance of coordination to address the challenges of the 21st-century workforce through bilateral and regional cooperation on workplace practices to enhance workers’ well-being and employability, and to promote human capital development and high-performance workplaces.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#ixzz3a6pd5VLa

[jeff47]

64. :rofl:

Oh this is hilariously desperate.

How'd all those wonderful labor protections in NAFTA work out? Surely they stopped a "race to the bottom", right? Right?

But this time, Lucy won't pull the football away!!

[jeff47]

65. That's because there's a lot of lying going on.

We already have free trade agreements with 80% of the "GDP" covered by TPP.

The only significant economy where a tariff will be removed is Japan. Their tariff is a whopping 1.2%. If 1.2% is crippling, then sales taxes must be utterly annihilating the US economy.

[ucrdem]

70. Japan's tariffs vary by product but about 20% of them exceed 5%

per this graph (can't figure out how to make it show up, sorry):

http://libertystreeteconomics.typepad.com/.a/6a01348793456c970c01a73d9f22d9970d-popup

[jeff47]

74. 1.2% is the effective rate. It's what was paid in tariffs.

But let's pretend you actually have a point. Japan only makes up 12% of the total GDP covered by the treaty. And let's pretend every single good has a 5% tariff, instead of that 1.2% effective rate. So we can give your argument a MASSIVE boost over reality. That means you claim we need the TPP due to a whopping 0.6% of the GDP covered by the TPP.

0.6%. Ooooooooo. That'll change everything!!!!

[ucrdem]

72. Japan's tariff is not "1.2%." See post above for figures and link. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. If they're 'already here', then obviously we don't need any trade deals to get them.

Microchips to Korea is like coals to Newcastle.

[hobbit709]

58. Then why is our balance of trade so bad? And a lot of those new jobs are low paying.

Around here for every job that pays good there are 100 jobs that that barely, in most cases, pay a living wage.

Even $15/hr isn't worth a pile of warm dog shit if rents are averaging $1500+/mo.

[Jesus Malverde]

22. Where have you been living these last 20 years?

Free trade is a means for corporations to exploit cheap labor and environmental regulations with impunity. American corporations contract with millions of foreign workers. Not a single one is paying to improve our infrastructure, fund out social programs, improve our cities.

I love boomers who expect gen x/y to fund their Medicare and social security with McJobs it's a joke really.

[ucrdem]

24. TPP is not a free trade agreement, it's a partnership.

Yes that's a minor quibble, but the point is, maybe NAFTA isn't the be-all and end-all of trade agreements?

[Jesus Malverde]

26. I'd agree it was a partnership if it were among equals.

This agreement is between the have much corporations and the have surplus labor countries.

With the exception of Japan this is hardly a partnership.

[cantbeserious]

38. ^^^ THIS ^^^

eom

[ucrdem]

41. Japan alone is a potentially huge agricultural market.

Currently they have high tarrifs on US agricultural products and we don't yet have an FTA with them:

One exception is Japan, which accounts for 4.5 percent of U.S. exports and which does not have a bilateral free trade agreement in place with the United States . . .

roughly 30 percent of U.S. exports to Japan are subject to some nonzero tariff rate, indicating substantial scope for liberalization, particularly in agricultural industries. . . .

This highlights the fact that Japan joining the TPP has the potential to be a game-changer. As noted in a recent study, the estimated gains for the United States are twice as high with Japan in the TPP than not.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/will-the-united-states-benefit-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership.html#.VVRugqm1qSo

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Then let's do a single country trade deal with Japan. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

61. What nonsense

The food market in Japan is already glutted. I can already buy plenty of American foods here in Japan, especially at the local Seiyu, which is Walmart in disguise. Hell, American foods like beef and pork are usually cheaper than Japanese equivalents at any supermarket around here. And it's absolutely mind-numbingly stupid to try to sell Japan rice that is grown in a semi-arid area in a state with chronic water shortages, when Japan has plenty of water and rice is grown just about anywhere in the country where there's level land.

And of course, the US would also be competing with Canada and Australia to sell basically the same products.

At the same time, tens of thousands of Japanese workers involved with producing and processing food could be thrown out of work, which would put even more strain on rural areas of the country where there is already a growing income gap with urban areas.

[ucrdem]

68. Who said rice?

As I recall soybeans are a hot item but I imagine fruits and specialty foods more easily produced here than in Japan would also be in play.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. Who said rice? The Japanese Agricultural News, among others

環太平洋連携協定（ＴＰＰ）交渉をめぐって１９～２１日に行われた日米閣僚協議で、米国産米２１万５０００トンの輸入拡大を求めていた米国側が、一定程度歩み寄る姿勢を示していたことが分かった

"It was learned that in the US-Japan talks that were held about Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations on the 19th to the 21st, the United States, which was demanding a 215,000 ton expansion of imports of American-grown rice, was showing a willingness to compromise to a certain extent."

http://www.agrinews.co.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=33148

[truedelphi]

28. It is a huge victory, victory, victory, for those in

the billionaire class, whose need to keep jobs overseas, to better their profits, remains of foremost importance.

It is a victory, victory, victory, for slavery being able to continue to exist in third world countries.

It is a victory, victory, victory, for those who have been enabling the demise of the American middle class.

Yeah Yeah! Yeah!

[magical thyme]

31. It replaces national sovereignty with rule by multinational corporations.

You're right: it's not a declaration of war an embargo, a no-fly zone, a drone attack, a weapons deal or star wars.

It is the end of national sovereignty and any a pretense of democracy. It is rule by multinational corporations, codified.

[cantbeserious]

37. I Do Not Believe Him

eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Krugman won his Nobel "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity"

so this is the area in which he is a world-leading expert, and he is, in principle, an advocate for free trade. His opinion of the TPP is "thumbs down":

And Europe, which has a compact geography and the kind of shared institutions and culture (and transparency) that make access doable, is surely a better case than the diverse, sprawling group of countries involved in TPP. I’d argue that it’s implausible to claim that TPP could add more than a fraction of one percent to the incomes of the nations involved; even the 0.5 percent suggested by Petri et al looks high to me.
...
So why do some parties want this deal so much? Because as with many “trade” deals in recent years, the intellectual property aspects are more important than the trade aspects. Leaked documents suggest that the US is trying to get radically enhanced protection for patents and copyrights; this is largely about Hollywood and pharma rather than conventional exporters. What do we think about that (slide 7)?

Well, we should never forget that in a direct sense, protecting intellectual property means creating a monopoly – letting the holders of a patent or copyright charge a price for something (the use of knowledge) that has a zero social marginal cost. In that direct sense this introduces a distortion that makes the world a bit poorer.
...
You might try to argue that there is a US interest in enhancing IP protection even if it’s not good for the world, because in many cases it’s US corporations with the property rights. But are they really US firms in any meaningful sense? If pharma gets to charge more for drugs in developing countries, do the benefits flow back to US workers? Probably not so much.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/

[ucrdem]

43. Japan accounts for 4.5% of US exports and we don't currently have an FTA with them:

One exception is Japan, which accounts for 4.5 percent of U.S. exports and which does not have a bilateral free trade agreement in place with the United States.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/will-the-united-states-benefit-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership.html#.VVRugqm1qSo

So there's more at stake here than Europe.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. 'Europe' was just mentioned as an example of what comes from a free trade area

It wasn't about US trade with Europe. With the 4 paragraph limit, I couldn't fit that in with the other quotes, but the point was, in the previous paragraph:

"A better model might be Europe’s Single Market Act, which the European Commission now estimates added 1.8 percent to real incomes; but Eichengreen and Boltho suggest that about half of that reflects policy changes that would have happened anyway".

Yes, freer trade with Japan might benefit US agriculture, but, from the final paragraph of your link:

This highlights the fact that Japan joining the TPP has the potential to be a game-changer. As noted in a recent study, the estimated gains for the United States are twice as high with Japan in the TPP than not. However, our analysis of the tariff data illustrates that the reports of Japan resisting tariff cuts in exactly these agricultural sectors call into question a large share of the agreement’s purported gains from trade.

[ananda]

42. IF you can advocate for an agreement ...

written by and for big corporations and the
billionaire owning class, in turn requiring
government to keep it secret ...

then I must assume that you are a paid
stooge sent here to spout pabulum on the
assumption that most Americans are just
children, with liberals being a bit more
feisty and independent, and thus in need
of big daddy's wiser, caring, all-knowing
intervention for their own good of course.

I say we all sit down together and read
through the entire agreement as equal
partners at the table.

No rush, since millions of lives and jobs
are at stake here, not the iron greed and
power whims of the 1%.

[ucrdem]

44. Okey-doke. nt

[ananda]

46. Glad you agree

When billions of lives are harmed
due to this agreement, they wont
even be able to say i told you so.

I dont know how people who cave
into this kind of agreement can
live with themselves.

[ucrdem]

47. A lot of it has to do with selling US agricultural products

and those jobs are pretty much un-offshorable. There are other farm labor challenges like mechanization but to grossly oversimplify the trade treaty as critics often do really isn't helping matters.

[A Little Weird]

59. They don't offshore agricultural jobs

Instead, they import migrant workers to fill them because they can pay them shit wages.

[ucrdem]

69. Yes, that was my point in fact. nt

[cali]

48. You're right. It's not. It's a trade agreement and from what we know from

leaked chapters and process documents, it's one that will incur substantial damage.

but continue to post nonsense about it increasing exports- which is a mountainous heaping pile of bullshit.

It will increase imports, though. We are 22% of the 40% economy that the tpp encompasses. You do the math. Oh, never mind. You seem bad at that.

[ucrdem]

49. Frankly you don't seem to know much about it. nt

[HereSince1628]

50. Ya, administration and its supporters all use that line now

And still point to memes about laudable goals of the project, rather than showing the text of the agreement.

The objectives at the embassy web site were also mouthed for previous trade agreements and never were realized.

We are supposed to believe this will be different but we must be silent little mushrooms sitting in the dark and fed bullshit.

[cali]

51. wow. that really proved me wrong. Not.

here, my dear ucrdem:

The closer you look at the economics of President Barack Obama’s proposed Pacific Rim trade deal, the less sense they make from an American standpoint. This Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is touted by its champions as a golden opportunity for the United States to hitch its idling economic wagon to the shining star of high-flying East Asia.

But the numbers show instead that the talks’ paramount prize is a U.S. market more vital than ever to the economies of stalled-out competitors determined mainly to sell to the United States, not to Buy American. The result is sure to be a drag on U.S. growth.

<snip>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-has-the-economics-of-tpp-trade-deal-backwards-2015-04-23

Try harder- both in refuting what I post and in your shill, shill shilling for your adored President.

[99Forever]

52. Horseshit.

[djean111]

56. Why are you still trying to put lipstick on this pig? Looks like Obama will get what he wants.

I have not read anything to change my decision to never vote for anyone who votes yes on this. As far as Obama is concerned, who cares if I don't "approve" of him? He cannot run for president again, and he is very likely set for life. The way some whine and moan about others not caring for his policies, one would think he was running again. There is nothing left for Obama to get from us, unless he was counting on donations for the inevitable library. Which I doubt are needed.

Looks like the TPP is going to happen. Are you just trying to stamp out Bad Thoughts, or do you favor a politician who might catch some of the unfavorable blowback? Or are the calls and emails and letters against the TPP actually having some impact? I am really curious about this.

[Renew Deal]

57. I think the biggest problem is that the details are secret to the public intentionally

So people can't read or comment on it. Yet corporations can see it without issue. Why the secrecy? Why railroad it through?

[n2doc]

62. TPP was written by corporate lawyers

Corporations don't care about exports. They care about profits and protecting those profits from competition.

Look at the last trade agreement that Your Beloved President foisted on us (with mostly Republican Support)- The Korean trade agreement. Exports barely budged but imports soared.

Not that those in the Cult of Personality will ever look at the evidence.

[jeff47]

63. For this claim to be true, the TPP would have to involve countries with trade barriers.

But the majority of the TPP countries already have free trade agreements with the US. Those markets are already wide-open to US exports.

The only significant barrier removed by the TPP is the 1.2% tariff on US goods exported to Japan. If you think 1.2% is crippling exports, you must think sales taxes in the US are annihilating the US economy.

[ucrdem]

66. Some do, on agricultural products particularly:

For about 5 percent of U.S. exports to TPP countries, tariffs are greater than 5 percent, with some as high as 24 percent in the 99th percentile. Many of the highest applied tariffs were on goods imported by Vietnam.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/will-the-united-states-benefit-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership.html#.VVRugqm1qSo

There does seem to be some question as to how much these countries will be willing to lower these tariffs, meaning once again that the devil is in the details of the final doc, which we really do need to see as soon as possible.

[jeff47]

67. Each of those countries make up less than 1% of the GDP covered by the treaty.

Opening up a tiny economy to US exports isn't going to create a boom in US jobs.

"Sweet!! Now we can sell 6 widgets to Grenada instead of 5!!"

[ucrdem]

73. Japan accounts for 4.5 percent of U.S. exports and as yet has no FTA with us:

. . . the scope for further tariff reduction to current U.S. export destinations is limited. One exception is Japan, which accounts for 4.5 percent of U.S. exports and which does not have a bilateral free trade agreement in place with the United States.


http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/will-the-united-states-benefit-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership.html#.VVmp36m1qSp

Japan's tariffs vary by product, but about 20% of them exceed 5% per this LIberty Street graph:



link: http://libertystreeteconomics.typepad.com/.a/6a01348793456c970c01a73d9f22d9970d-popup

[jeff47]

75. Yay! I have my own stalker!

As an added bonus, he vomits forth numbers he doesn't understand, pretending they are meaningful!

We're paying an effective tariff of 1.2% on goods sold to Japan. Some are higher, some are lower. But add up all the tariffs paid, and divide by the value of all of the goods, and you get 1.2%. Because that is a hell of a lot more meaningful when evaluating trade. A 20% tariff on 5 units sold to Japan has much less of an effect than a 0% tariff on 1,000,000,000 units.

[ucrdem]

76. Responding to your replies on a discussion thread is not "stalking" and where's your link? nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING I have not read. EVER.

I don't give a FUCK who supports it. I don't give a FUCK who will be perceived to have been slighted if it does not pass. I WILL support with my money and time anyone who opposes ANY of TPP's supporters.

I will NOT be shamed into supporting it.