It gave power to challenge any country’s laws, environmental or otherwise, to the multinational corporations. They wrote the thing, after all.
Citizens of the world want protection from multinational corporations. From them moving jobs overseas, from environmental damage, from government corruption, and from self serving trade deals. Governments the world over don’t really seem to care.
Citizens in Europe protested in the thousands against it. Didn’t matter, their leaders were gonna sign anyway. Americans didn’t seem to want it either. Hilary was pro and then, at election time, anti, in line with the masses. But I don’t think anyone, for even one minute believed she wouldn’t sign it in a heartbeat, after being elected. The citizens of Canada don’t want it either, but our leader would go ahead and sign it.
I’m glad it’s dead. Why should New Zealand be encouraged to ship milk across the oceans and into Canada? So they can devastate a healthy, thriving industry here? And we’re befouling the oceans why? And surrendering the security of our dairy products why?
Nafta screwed Canada, industry after industry lost factories/jobs to Mexico. Good for Mexico, happy to see them improving their lot, but Canadians aren’t anxious for another trade deal as a result. Hasn’t even slowed down our government making and signing them. In a terribly elitist, we know best, way. But they don’t have answers when questioned and most of the negotiation has been done in secret. Our previous Conservative government agreed to it, before even releasing the contents of the deal to the citizens of the country! Any wonder they’re suspicious?
Citizens in Canada didn’t want the original Free Trade Agreement. You don’t remember all the doomsayers? Canada would lose its independence! We’d become part of the USA! No more health care? All our jobs would be lost to cheaper American labour! And none of it happened. The deal was hugely beneficial. The people who were screaming about it were wrong. The economists were right, and the Mel Hurtigs were all proven to be ignorant, alarmist fools. The anti-FTA camp was absolutely, completely proven to be stupid. Every prediction they made was was wrong, precisely in the manner people with economics degrees predicted they would be wrong. We are very, very lucky the government didn’t listen to the mob. So was NAFTA. You can complain all you want and say it hurt us, but that’s just dealing in what the Trumpists call “alternative facts.” The structural unemployment rate is clearly down from where it was prior to the free trade deals. Doing business with Mexicans is good for both sides.
People making a fuss in the streets are sometimes wrong about what they’re making a fuss about, and politicians must sometimes do the right thing even when people make a fuss.
If the industry is so healthy, why are they so fearful of milk coming from - of all places - New Zealand?
Seriously, WTF is so scary with New Zealand’s milk, and what’s wrong with ours that we can’t sell milk to New Zealanders?
Let’s not forget the fact that the TPP also attempted to secretively extend copyright terms yet again. This would hit Canadians with an uncompensated outflow of money to large foreign corporations for no benefits. After all, we can’t have the house of mouse losing those copyrights.
There was valid reason to oppose the TPP specifically, even if one is in favor of free trade. I think this might be the first thing Trump has done that I approve of. I’m a bit shocked myself.
I’m with you. I have no idea whether TPP is a good deal or a bad deal. I suspect that Trump doesn’t either, but killed it because it supports his narrative of “saving American jobs”. But whether it happens to be good for America, I can’t say.
I’ve read a bunch of stuff on how free trade is supposed to raise global wealth but nobody has ever been able to explain to me how 500 million people can gain on one end and 4 billion can gain on the other. It seems to me that the 500 million would end up losing a lot so that the 4 billion can gain a little. Even if total wealth grew.
The Obama administration never forwarded it to Congress … AFAIK it’s never been made available to the public or press … I’ve always been curious if the trade agreement allowed GMO contaminated foods to be exported to these Pacific rim nations … right now they’re not generally speaking …
Because when you buy and sell things, everyone is better off.
I don’t know how much more simply it can be put; commerce helps. It’s the reason you aren’t living in a cave and eating bugs. Virtually everything you are in possession of, including whatever computer or mobile device you are now reading this on, you have because you TRADED for it - and its availability for you to acquire it was possible only because other parties were able to trade for the parts and smarts it took to make it.
The reason 500 million people and 4 billion people can gain from a trade deal is… I mean, I guess I’m going to have to hear your reasoning as to why you’d expect a randomly chosen number of people to lose. Does Iowa, which has only four million people or so, lose from having what is basically a giant free trade deal with the other 49 states, which contain over 300 million people? Do the other states lose from trading with Iowa?
Are you better or worse off when you buy groceries? You’re better off; you needed the food more than you needed the money. You can’t keep all your money and starve to death. Is the grocery store better or worse off? Better; selling groceries is how they stay in business. Both sides benefit from a trade.
Because the problems with the TPP are not unintentional. The bill was negotiated in secret, and only the big corporations were brought in. And, in the leaked form, it had a ton of riders specifically designed to do things that have nothing to do with trade. I find myself agreeing with Fenris.
Plus I fully expect the ACA to be replaced as time goes on. But, as your mention of NAFTA shows, treaties are much, much harder to replace.
Plus there’s just the fact that the ACA has a noble goal in mind. It is about securing healthcare, which is a fundamental right–the right to life. The TPP doesn’t. It’s just about trying to secure cheap goods.
And helping already rich companies get more money. And trickle down economics is false.
I’m not against free trade entirely. But it has to be for the right reasons, and not just to make big companies richer.
The U.S. has minimum wage. We try to limit the effects of free trade in that way. Other countries don’t, so that means they get all the jobs that can be shipped overseas. That leaves the people with minimum wage out of work.
Your idea that free trade is a panacea is just blind faith. The rest of the world is poorer than us, and while we can increase production, it’s not guaranteed that the increased production will offset the hit we take by spreading the existing pie around.
Free trade deals have to be negotiated very, very well to not be disasters. NAFTA isn’t all good, either. It’s a huge part of the reason for the decline of the white working class–though automation/mechanization is also a huge part.
You are lowering the costs of goods, which is generally good. But you are also lowering the cost of labor, which can be bad. A good free trade deal has to balance these things.
Which is why you need labor organizations at the negotiating table.
It’s no longer a secret - the text has been linked to in this thread - and I’m not even sure what “and only the big corporations were brought in” means.
Can you name three?
I mean, I’m honestly curious as to what all these riders are. I have read the TPP text, and it all looks to me like it’s related to trade. Which sections are the ones that have nothing to do with trade? Section 16, which requires the signing countries have rules against anticompetitive and monopolistic practices? That strikes me as being obviously related to trade; it’s meant to prevent a country from giving power to a monopoly to drive out foreign competition. (Think of the kleptocratic supercompanies you’d find in Russia.) Chapter 19, which states the countries must be committed to labour rights? That sounds like it’s related to trade - in fact, it kind of sounds like* someone thought about the rights of workers and preventing child labour while negotiating this thing. * Let’s pick a number at random. Eight. That section is “Technical Barriers to Trade.” Pretty trade related. My wife was born in the 22nd, let’s go there… that’s Competitiveness and Business Facilitation, which sets up a committee that “… promotes economic integration and development within the free trade area;” well, okay, that sounds trade related. The section is only three pages long and mentions the word “trade” ten times.
This document is absolutely about trade from start to finish.
Securing goods is the entire point of trade. Of course free trade is about making them cheaper. Nobody ever negotiated a “Way More Expensive Trade” agreement.
I am curious as to how you think you’re better off if goods are less accessible and more expensive for you.
Should U.S. states erect trade barriers against each other? Would that make all the states better off?
The unemployment rate for white non-Hispanic Americans is 4.1 percent. Some decline.
I’ve never seen evidence presented that NAFTA has been bad for the United States. “People feel it’s bad” isn’t convincing.
Just for the record, what the hell do you think has to do with trade and what does not? Cause, I read the TPP riders and they absolutley positively, had everything to do with trade. Tariffs and duties are hardly the only thing that affect trade.
The very first thing I traded was my ability, physical labor, metal ability, salesmanship. In all reality it’s the only thing I can trade. Supply and demand seems to suggest adding 4 billion people to my competition pool would not raise the worth of my ability.
All else being equal, if you spend fewer resources obtaining goods, you can spend the other resources on blookers and hoe, or you could spend it on stuff like health care. So “cheap goods” is either neutral or positive.
Absolutely true. Anyone saying that it’s too early to tell how this will play out is ill-informed. Australia is now looking to China to fill the void left by the U.S. Meanwhile, the Chinese are positioning themselves as the more open global leader.
Here’s a good overview of what’s already afoot:
The details of the TPP are beside the point. Trump’s protectionism is a signal that America is leaving the world stage and turning inwards towards self-destruction. Everyone else is now looking for a new world leader, and China is ready to step up.
If you wanted to be successful in acting, would you move to Los Angeles, where there are many actors, or Sioux City, where there are few? If you said “Sioux City,” don’t give up your day job.
Four billion people (again, where is that arbitrary number coming from?) would mean more competition. But it also means more people who demand goods and services, and pay money for them, thereby creating jobs.
I don’t know where you live, but as this is a discussion about the U.S. President, let’s pretend you live in the United States. There are about 320,000,000 people in the USA. One hundred years ago it was about a third of that. So… why do people have jobs? 100 years ago the average worker only competed with 99 million other people, and now they compete with 319 million other people. How is it possible that the unemployment rate is only 4.7 percent? It seems to defy math!
Prior to World War II, very few American women worked outside the home. After World War II that started to change and now most women are part of the workforce. So American men are facing almost - at least eighty percent more - competition than they used to. But their unemloyment rate hasn’t doubled. Why is that?
Canada has a population of maybe one ninth that of the USA. By signing a free trade deal with the USA in 1988 they opened those people up to more competition from nine times as many workers. So Canada’s unemployment rate went up, right? No… it’s lower now. Did wages go down to make this marvelous thing happen? No, they’ve gone up.
You’re making the error of forgetting where jobs come from. They don’t grow from trees, and they aren’t found lying around on the ground. Jobs comes from people. Every job, one way or another, represents fulfilling a person’s need for goods and services. The more people you have, the more jobs get filled, but the more jobs you need. 4.5 billion people need more jobs than 500 million people, but they create more jobs. You need more food, more toys, more furniture, more books, more houses, more haircuts, more coffee.
Look at it another way; suppose you has a group of, say, 15 million people in a developed country. You would assume that population would have a certain number of jobs, created by demand for good and services, right? Now, suppose you drew a line across the area, separating the country into two groups - for fun, we’ll say about two thirds of them are in the north part and one third in the south part - and arbitrarily erected a whole assload of trade barriers between them. Do you actually think most people would be better off? Isn’t that silly? Of course not; you’d be massively interfering with all kinds of economic transactions that had made perfect sense. Now you lower the trade barriers - almost all of them, anyway. Things would return back to a better situation, wouldn’t they? Surely the 5 million people in the southern part would not say “Oh no, I’m competing with ten million more people in the northern part.” Well, sure you are. and you get to sell stuff to them too.
(That is, BTW, a pretty good description of North and South Carolina.)
Sorry, but it IS too early to tell. The article you linked too is suggesting that China MIGHT be considered for the US’s slot in the TPP. Perhaps that will happen, though frankly I wouldn’t hold my breath since there are a lot of reasons why such a partnership of nations might be less than thrilled to have China in the mix. For one thing, just look at many of the countries in the list. More than a few of them are pretty distrustful, and with good reason, of China. Hell…the reason FOR the TPP was as a counterweight to China.
Sure, the Chinese have been trying to position themselves as a leader to supplant the US. Open though?
China THINKS it’s ready to step up…but I’m not sure that they actually are, or that many countries out there are thrilled with the idea. Folks around here seem to think that China is much further along than they are…and tend to forget all the reasons why countries in the region and even in other regions distrust them, especially wrt trade. Things like outright product and patent stealing or cyber crime by the Chinese government given directly to Chinese companies as well as using their legal system to block foreign products in China tends to make folks a bit leery about trading with them, especially in something like the TPP. But maybe you are right and this is a NEW and improved China that doesn’t do that stuff anymore…