|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||5d 2h 41m 40s|
WASHINGTON — President Trump, in a sharp reversal, told a gathering of farm state lawmakers and governors on Thursday morning that he was directing his advisers to look into rejoining the multicountry trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal he pulled out of days after assuming the presidency.
Rejoining the 11-country pact could be a significant change in fortune for many American industries that stood to benefit from the trade agreement’s favorable terms and Republican lawmakers who supported the pact. The deal, which was negotiated by the Obama administration, was largely viewed as a tool to prod China into making the type of economic reforms that the United States and others have long wanted.
Both Democrats and Republicans attacked the deal during the president campaign, but many business leaders were disappointed when Mr. Trump withdrew from agreement, arguing that the United States would end up with less favorable terms attempting to broker an array of individual trade pacts and that scrapping the deal would empower China.
Republicans in Congress have also been skeptical of Mr. Trump’s tendencies on trade, and 25 Republican senators sent a letter to Mr. Trump urging him to re-engage with the pact “so that the American people can prosper from the tremendous opportunities that these trading partners bring.”
Mr. Trump had remained sharply critical of the pact and said that he would instead negotiate trade agreements one on one, a tactic he says gives the United States better leverage over its trading partners.
Continue reading the main story
Rejoining the TPP could be a complex task. The remaining 11 countries have spent months renegotiating a pact that lacks the United States market and finally agreed to a sweeping multinational deal this year. Eswar Prasad, a trade expert at Cornell University, said it was difficult to imagine that the United States would be “welcomed with open arms” by the current members or have much leverage in reshaping the deal.
And in the past, the president has floated policies, like cooperating with Democrats on legislation governing immigration and gun rights, that he has subsequently backed down on.
So the boys in the back room finally got to him. Can’t say I’m surprised,they’ve been putting pressure on him since the beginning to sign the TPP. The only people who will prosper out of it will be politicians and big businesses that will offshore jobs in droves to China. They have no regard for the American middle class, what they see is the potential of a bigger middle class in China to sell to and,the only way that’s going to happen is if they have jobs.
They probably told Trump that if he played nice and did as they told him,they would make all the probes into his life and campaign fraud go away.
To be fair to Trump's quote, nationalism and globalism aren't inherently opposite. A lot of the time acting in mutual interest is the best long-term strategy for two parties that have to have some sort of relationship.
When it comes to free trade, it's as a general rule going to be in the macroeconomic interest of all countries to avoid artificial barriers to international trade. The only exception being to protect vital supply lines for national security, to prevent dumping, or in reaction to tariffs or local content restrictions by trade partners.
I suspect as automation and Ai further entrench themselves into the economic global model we will actually see more trade barriers, not less as work will attempt to become more fluid. They won’t be tariffs per say but will have the same affect as one such as your national security idea.
Leaving the agreement was a huge mistake on America's part. We'll never get all of the original terms back if any of them and now we might have to accept new conditions because we weren't there to negotiate them.
Mr. "Art of the Deal" sure seems to be incompetent at making deals.
Trump said from the beginning he wanted to instead negotiate TPP-like trade deals individually with every Asian nation.
Now that the possibility of indictment/impeachment is in every domestic and international paper stripping him of what little international clout he may have once had, coupled with his staff and Cabinet realizing he's a shitty negotiator to begin with, and that they have no leverage on anything they want to do against China because China has already made better open-market arrangements with all those countries without us, it's really a unified voice saying we have no better option than trying to resurrect the old TPP.
But any trade deal with China is a fools gambit. Chinas economy is export based, the entire trade deal only benefits the other nations if China switches from an export to consumer driven economy. For the past 15 years China has been singing the same song of eventually we will become a consumer economy,and every time it backs out because the potential economic upheaval would be so great it would lead to revolts or revolution. It’s a con game,they only want access to other markets and have no intention of opening there own in any substantial way.
I suppose it beats his tariff "plan", in terms of overall effect on the economy, but I'm not looking forward to this either. Not surprising that guys like this can't think of a solution that don't irreparable bone the common man in one way or another.
Most of which are based in the US.
TPP is great for the 1% in the US - it's shit for everyone else. But, well, with this interconnected economy, tariffs are bad for everyone, especially with the potential chain reaction. So, if you wanna take the route of least suffering...
If you're playing Civilization, TPP is the American faction's best bet. If you're living in the real world though, and don't like practically giving corporations the ability to essentially veto any law, it's another story.
Granted, so much of this trade deficit scare is being inflated by what essentially amounts to American companies buying things from themselves, that you'd be best off doing nothing, or, if you really must, regulate said companies, rather than doing things that could radically warp the world economy or national sovereignty.
No doubt every version of everything that Trump disliked was "very bad" and every version of everyone Trump likes is "very good", but care to tell us what those very bad and very good things were?
The entire thing was basically drafted by American corporations to serve American corporate interests to begin with.
TRUMP LOL, how insult a MURICAN in one word for decades ? ? Trump. TRUMP ?! Trump ! FFS MURICAN, I FUKIN LOVE U. TARDNESS OVER 9000. I look like a genius compare to the average MURICAN and god know im fukin stupid. THANKS, Kiss from the rest of the world.
TPP was so bad that it was almost completely negotiated in secrecy,because they knew the population of the first world nations involved would never allow it. And to top it off while the average person couldn’t look at the document, 500 “advisors” from various corporations were allowed not only to look at it but to aid in its negotiation. It’s a horrible trade agreement that funnels wealth and jobs from the middle class and pushes it into China, with the hope that one day China will open up.
Trump knows that all the average person wants is a job that pays a half decent wage and a few Benifits, give them that and most are happy. Do I think he cares about that? No he doesn’t give 2 squirts of monkey piss about the average person. But I do know he’s a massive narcissist who has always compared himself to others, so to him he has to out do Obama, which means bring in jobs, killing anything Obama created while in office such as the TPP. That’s why I believe all these recent raids on his lawyers were politically motivated to force him to do as he’s told. And one of the things he’s being told to do is sign the TPP or else.
>So the boys in the back room finally got to him
M8 he's a billionaire real estate developer, he IS one of those "boys in the back room". The only difference between him and the other corporate shills in Washington is that he decided to cut out the middleman
>To be fair to Trump's quote, nationalism and globalism aren't inherently opposite
This is true in the sense that nationalism exists to serve the interests of the ruling class, while globalism is simply the process of that same ruling class expanding their businesses and seeking new markets. Most self-proclaimed nationalists don't realize this and think that "the good of the nation" is synonymous with "the good of the people" when that couldn't be further from the truth. The "macroeconomic interests" of countries don't reflect the living conditions of the working class, and so long as society is based on systems of hierarchy the people at the bottom will inevitably get screwed by the people on top.
>Leaving the agreement was a huge mistake on America's part
TPP was cancer just like all the other "free trade" deals, kys
Trade agreements are always negotiated in secret, otherwise everyone and their cousin starts harping on the thing and nothing gets done. (True for pretty much every trade agreement since the turn of the last century.)
But nonetheless it is, really, really bad.
I voted for Trump SPECIFICALLY because he wanted to kill TPP (and NAFTA). I know Hillary flipped in the last days, but she's a free-trade globalist from hell, so I figure she'd flip right back. Apparently I'm fucked either way.
Well, I suppose I was naive to have hope and already knew:
Left wing, right wing, doesn't change the flight plan.
>Well, I suppose I was naive to have hope and already knew:
>Left wing, right wing, doesn't change the flight plan.
Shillary and the annoying orange are both right-wing, that's the whole problem. We're given the choice between two right-wing corporate puppets while the left is actively suppressed by the establishment to the point that most people in this shithole don't even understand what right and left mean in political terms
>But nonetheless it is, really, really bad.
Name something about the TPP as had been mostly finished by the end of Obama's tenure that is bad. What part of it exactly is bad? Or rather, what about it does not improve on the current situation?
Seriously, give some example or describe some situation.
And don't use the industry loss after NAFTA as an analogy -- besides that most of the industry jobs that flooded to Mexico after NAFTA were already leaving before it was enacted (that was a major reason why it was enacted) -- pretty much all industry that could be relocated to Southeast Asia has already done so. Where are your sneakers made? Where is your toaster made? Where do your tech support calls go? Etc etc etc.
And now internet-search this: how does the TPP address factory jobs that left the US for Asia? Is that better or worse for America, and for labor, than doing nothing?
how about the fact that corporations can sue states? Have you seen what FIFA did to Brasil's ban on alcohol in the stadiums? Now, they won't just have to push their legislation through threat of pulling back their investment, they can have courts against you.
TPP is giving corporations state-status. It's the next level of the era we call neoliberalism and if you don't findsomething wrong with that you probably had a traumatic event happen to you as a child that is still unresolved within you.
Basically that, first and foremost. Not only can any corporation, foreign or domestic, sue any government, state, or municipality to overturn any law, they get to do so in their own special court, consisting of their own three lawyers. It essentially hands over veto power over any law, anywhere, to the global corporate collective, which is unelected, and answerable only to their bottom line (if that). It lets the rich elite bypass our judicial system, legislature, and our democracy, entirely.
Additionally, it makes it much easier to shift jobs about internationally, and basically bans any measure that might prevent corporations from doing so (not that the above couldn't kill any and all anyways) so it is apt to result in more unemployment at home. It also strips a lot of worker and union rights by forcing everything to a minimum standard far below of the current protections in the US (which are pretty much the lowest in the developed world already).
So yeah - great if you're a major shareholder or CEO in a large corporation, shit for everyone else. (Which is par for the course for the crap coming out of both parties, I suppose.)
>corporations can sue states
They already can and do, just like an individual can sue a state, and as multinationals they try to exploit the fact that they can shop for a jurisdiction that is favorable to the company that the state won't defend itself in.
The TPP essentially forces multinational corporations operating within trade pact nations to sue within a fixed jurisdiction.
Furthermore, if the courts that are set up are properly staffed and run (and there would be lots more incentive for shitty states to fund and check their multinational corporate courts than the standard circuit courts they let do whatever the hell they want) it would restrain the practice of corporations buying policy by harassing shitty states with lots of trivial-but-well-financed lawsuits.
Seriously, pay attention to what is going on.
They have to do it in OUR court system - a multi-tiered system that can take you through hundreds of elected judges and judges appointed by elected officials before you get to the last nine appointed at the top.
Under this scenario, they get to do it in their own court, made up of three corporate lawyers, who are not elected, but selected by the corporations themselves. No democracy is involved.
It's like you're saying letting corporations write and pass their own laws is okay, because "Well corporations obey laws anyways, so it's okay."
It's a major violation of national sovereignty for all members, and a cementing of international corporate rule.
>originally make deal to counter China's rising influence
>America adds a bunch of bullshit to it at the behest of their corporate masters (IP lifetime, corporations suing countries, pharmaceutical patents)
>America drops out, other countries go "OK" and continue with it with the shitty American stuff removed
>Now America wants back in, but they probably won't get their bullshit back
Don't get me wrong, I'll be happy if it actually pans out this way, but it's a pretty funny sequence of events.
The elites don’t give an ounce of deep fried shit about the average person, but they do care about their property and not getting their throats cut by the unemployed masses. Why do you think China has been so reluctant in lowering trade barriers and not allowing foreign ownership of Chinese companies. The job losses would be huge resulting in a lot of males between the ages of 16 to 45 with nothing to do but revolt against the Chinese elite.
>Just look at whats going on with nafta.
Basically nothing has been released about it so far and as far as we can tell Trump has no idea what he even wants out of it. He's probably going to raise the prices on goods whatever he ultimately decides to do which is bad for America overall.
and nationalism isnt inherently right wing.
Are many varieties of n-ism as there are of Democrat:
George Wallace / George McGovern.
Ima progressive nationalist; the progressivism of teddy roosevelt & FDR's New Deal...
and the nationalism of closed borders
page took 0.0174 seconds to execute