Support NeoGAF

[numble]

The reason we might have large, group, trade deals with "a wall street christmas list of horseshit" is because tariff's are actually relatively low in many places, and in any case, tariff's are far from the only, or even biggest, thing that might be a roadblock to trade.

Really, these deals are much more about stuff like countries unifying regulations (maybe having 1 set of automotive regulations to comply with instead of a whole bunch, for example), strengthening intellectual property in countries where it is weak, and (ideally) setting minimum standards across a large, and thus influential, block of countries to curb a race to the bottom (and the TPP would have raised environmental and labour standards in a number of countries).

These sorts of things have been attacked as not actually having anything to do with trade, but they really do. IP stuff specifically gets attacked a lot, but creative industries are a big part of the American economy, and they employ a lot of people. You'd think people wouldn't be so aghast at the idea that IP rights would be considered an important part of trade between countries.

This does leave us negotiating a lot of policy between countries, usually in secret, which is very unpopular. But agreements that merely reduce tariff's wouldn't really achieve much. And I get that maybe some of the provisions might be flawed. But my argument isn't just that free trade is good, but that there are good reasons the TPP would touch on so many topics that many wouldn't think would be part of a trade deal. (The full text of the deal is publicly available, so people can be specific with their concerns if they'd like)

And when people talk about the TPP holding China to higher standard this is what they're talking about. If enough people signed on to the TPP the other countries in the region will be pressured to then also sign on, accepting the unified regulations and minimum standards that might become the rules driving trade in the region.

I think you are highly exaggerating. Your example about automotive regulations is a fake example, for example. There is nothing in the TPP about unifying automotive regulations. Moreover, we have international organizations like the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) that already work on that issue.

The environmental and labor standards in the TPP were a joke--China would have already qualified under the standards set in the TPP. These were put in as a talking point to sell the deal to the left.

It certainly was not a deal that trade unions or environmental groups were advocating to get passed (in contrast, environmental groups have campaigned for the climate treaties):

NRDC:
https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/151105-0

“This trade agreement would allow foreign corporations to challenge our health, safety and environmental protections in a foreign tribunal outside our legal system, and it would weaken those bedrock safeguards in the United States. While there are some positive conservation measures, the agreement’s substantial shortcomings should lead Congress to reject it.”

Sierra Club:
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership

Threat to Forests, Wildlife, and Fish. While the TPP environment chapter should set strong and binding rules to address conservation challenges like illegal timber and wildlife trade, its rules will likely be too weak to have an impact on the ground and are unlikely to be enforced, rendering the chapter essentially meaningless.

Unfettered Rights to Corporations. The TPP will include provisions that give corporations the right to sue a government for unlimited cash compensation -- in private and non-transparent tribunals -- over nearly any law or policy that a corporation alleges will reduce its profits. Using similar rules in other free trade agreements, corporations such as Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical have launched over 600 cases against more than 100 governments. Dozens of cases attack common-sense environmental laws and regulations, such as regulations to protect communities and the environment from harmful chemicals or mining practices. Read more here about how harmful investment rules included in other trade pacts have led to the attack of climate and environmental policies.

Increase in Dirty Fracking. The TPP may allow for significantly increased exports of liquefied natural gas without the careful study or adequate protections necessary to safeguard the American public. This would mean an increase of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the dirty and violent process that dislodges gas deposits from shale rock formations. It would also likely cause an increase in natural gas and electricity prices, impacting consumers, manufacturers, workers, and increasing the use of dirty coal power.

Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-response-to-the-trans-pacific-partnership-text/

“The text includes toothless ocean conservation provisions with slippery language that encourages but does not require bans on trade in illegal timber, shark finning, commercial whaling and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. There are better ways to protect the world’s oceans than what’s in the TPP.

“The treaty ultimately fails the laugh test: It doesn’t reference climate change at all, while enshrining new legal means — including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions — that would give corporate polluters the right to directly challenge state and federal regulations. It would also accelerate the climate crisis by facilitating the build-out of new liquid natural gas (LNG) export terminals. More LNG trade means more fracking for natural gas and more emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas 85 times more powerful than CO2. By introducing this treaty on the cusp of the Paris climate summit, President Obama has contradicted his own stated commitments to do everything in his power to solve the climate crisis.”

 

[BowieZ]

Firstly, "praise Trump" is a little misleading. Sanders praised Trump's decision on this one particular issue. It may not be intentionally misleading, but let's be clear: Sanders vehemently disagrees with Trump on almost every issue but there is a modicum of cross-over regarding which Sanders is worth praise for being willing to work with Trump.

Secondly, I think it's amazing that we can actually continue to engage in substantive policy disagreements.

There is nothing more important for this country than earnest, honest policy debates, which result in agreement or compromise.

In this case, Sanders agrees. In most cases, he won't. And the Press needs to do its job in assuring these arguments are appropriately, accurately, and intelligently reported.

 

[Valhelm]

It's interesting that many liberals will condemn Sanders for sharing an opinion with Trump but not question why their own free trade attitudes line up completely with the rest of the GOP.

 

[Rentahamster]

YES. YES IT FUCKING DOES. TRUMP'S GOVERNMENT IS PRACTICALLY RUN BY NAZIS. NO-ONE SHOULD WORK WITH THEM ON ANYTHING

These kinds of Poe's Law arguments contribute in part to others not taking us seriously.

Bernie is a trade-hating independent.

Did Hillary hate trade too, when she changed her mind to oppose the TPP?

It's interesting that many liberals will condemn Sanders for sharing an opinion with Trump but not question why their own free trade attitudes line up completely with the rest of the GOP.

Trump is generating a reality distortion field with the fear and anger caused by his trolling, and it's giving many liberals a -5 debuff to critical thinking.

 

[TestOfTide]

Who is also working with America... But none of that matters because the TPP is bad, especially for me since I live in Mexico and we always get the short end of the stick, this is a victory no matter how you spin it buddy.

FYI I don't support Assad but I know you'll keep saying I do because you lack other arguments.

Assad is not allied with the US.

And you posted in a previous thread how happy you were that the war in Aleppo was over.

This is only a victory for you if you think that China would be more beneficial trade negotiators with Mexico than the US.

 

[Sinfamy]

You take your victories where you can get them.

 

[Gutek]

I have to rescind.

After today: fuck Bernie for applauding fascists.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Fareed on CNN how china is kicking our ass on this tpp deal.

 

[Rentahamster]

Gimme some examples.

The Young Turks, The Intercept, and Glenn Greenwald getting shit on come to mind.

 

[Mr.Mike]

I think you are highly exaggerating. Your example about automotive regulations is a fake example, for example. There is nothing in the TPP about unifying automotive regulations. Moreover, we have international organizations like the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) that already work on that issue.

The environmental and labor standards in the TPP were a joke--China would have already qualified under the standards set in the TPP. These were put in as a talking point to sell the deal to the left.

It certainly was not a deal that trade unions or environmental groups were advocating to get passed (in contrast, environmental groups have campaigned for the climate treaties):

NRDC:
https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/151105-0


Sierra Club:
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership



Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-response-to-the-trans-pacific-partnership-text/

The automotive thing was an example that I didn't call out as being specifically part of the TPP. And no, the TPP isn't perfect. It's hard to imagine getting 12 parties to agree to standards and regulations that would satisfy the Liberal left in the developed countries while the poorer countries would benefit from looser standards. But perhaps the situation could have been improved. Certainly to just throw out all the progress that has been made so far seems wasteful.

Maybe this just isn't a good model for globalization. The EU is achieving similar goals far more effectively, democratically, and transparently than secretly negotiated treaties between disparate countries. Of course there's also a backlash against that, and a rejection of the idea that the EU is any of those three things.

 

[Miracle]

You guys realize Warren was against TPP too right?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xzfxv2XQoPg

This trade deal was bad and Bernie was against it from the beginning as well.

People shitting on Bernie for agreeing on a broken clock on this are acting no better than the GOP literally being against Obama on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE and act no matter what it was, just because it was Obama and there is a D next to his name.

 

[kirblar]

The Young Turks, The Intercept, and Glenn Greenwald getting shit on come to mind.

You just named people who have got flack from people on the left for going after people on the left.

 

[xJavonta]

Bernie has always said he'd work with Trump to advance issues he cares about, and fight him tooth and nail where he doesn't, and Bernie's always railed against the TPP.

So this is Bernie being the Bernie we know Bernie to be.

This. Bernie was the most consistent candidate but this forum is crazy over Hilary despite the fact that she was a terrible candidate compared to him. I only voted for her because I didn't want to risk the republicans taking office again.

Bernie has been the strongest, most visible voice of opposition without question.

Accurate.

Bernie is delighted to work on policies that he feels benefit the American worker. I doubt he is delighted to work with Trump as an individual, as some posters here are implying.

And this too. I think he despises Trump, but wants to work with him to do what's best for citizens.

 

[Rentahamster]

You just named people who have got flack from people on the left for going after people on the left.

i.e. "holding accountable"?

 

[Ampersands]

And this Is why Trump will win the next election. The infighting here is almost comical.

 

[royalan]

Did Hillary hate trade too, when she changed her mind to oppose the TPP?.

Hillary was against the TPP, she wasn't against trade. She at several points in her campaign talked about the positive aspects of global trade.

 

[Valhelm]

You just named people who have got flack from people on the left for going after people on the left.

And thank god they do.

 

[Mr.Mike]

And this Is why Trump will win the next election. The infighting here is almost comical.

The next election is 4 years from now. This is exactly the time when such "infighting" should happen. Maybe the left would do better politically if everyone just fell in line, but perhaps there's too much we value that would be lost in refusing to debate and evolve our policies and ideologies.

 

[kirblar]

i.e. "holding accountable"?

If by "holding accountable" you mean denying the Armenian genocide and helping prop up RT/Wikileaks' remaining creditibility, sure?

 

[Rentahamster]

If by "holding accountable" you mean denying the Armenian genocide and helping prop up RT/Wikileaks' remaining creditibility, sure?

Well that's not a nice way to interpret their progressive journalism.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Not at all. In a world as grossly unequal as ours, free trade will always be unfair trade.

In countries with wealthier populations and basic labor protections, production can become more expensive than business owners would prefer. So they look to poorer countries with no serious labor protections, where production is cheaper. The governments of poor countries usually tolerate this kind of exploitation because it leads to economic development. Business owners readily relocate their enterprise from Cincinatti to Saigon, putting all of their American workers out of work and entrapping Vietnamese workers (who have no better opportunities) into miserable, brutal labor.

Thus, both first world workers and third world workers are harmed by this arrangement. While this leads to consumer goods being a little bit cheaper, the only people who seriously benefit are business owners. Because politics in the first world and the third are largely driven by business owners, free trade policies are pursued.

Sooooo, the Vietnamese workers should just be left in poverty forever?

"Worldwide" is a funny way to say developed economies. Poor countries whose primary resources are labor or mineral wealth, and whose economies are largely managed by foreign corporations, cannot expect their quality of life to be increased by any substantial means. While free trade can help developing countries if paired with heavy intervention, more often than not it opens the door to more exploitation and destroys local industry.

The man in your article isn't against trade either.

No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africa's share of world exports by just 1% could generate around £43bn - five times the total amount of aid received by African countries.

This has led President Museveni of Uganda to say: "Africa does need development assistance, just as it needs debt relief from its crushing international debt burden. But aid and debt relief can only go so far. We are asking for the opportunity to compete, to sell our goods in western markets. In short, we want to trade our way out of poverty."

The World Bank estimates that reform of the international trade rules could take 300 million people out of poverty. Reform is essential because, to put it bluntly, the rules of international trade are rigged against the poorest countries.

Of course he goes on about how simply opening markets isn't enough, and failing to take further steps to help countries develop might leave them worse off then they were before. The shortcomings of trade aren't being ignored by pro-trade leftists, I promise.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

The last sentences is why Bernie can fuck off

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

Man people will find any fucking reason to hate bernie won't they.

 

[Abelard]

The last sentences is why Bernie can fuck off

I don't quite understand why people are bothered by the last sentence. Not only is it politics 101, but if Bernie is given the opportunity to work with Trump do do "some good" (read: minimize the damage) then why shouldn't he.

But if it bothers you that much remember its pure political theater, just like Obama and Clinton and all your favorite Democrats have done.

 

[HariKari]

The last sentences is why Bernie can fuck off

So is the objective to get nothing done, even if it's beneficial for Americans? Just swear to block everything regardless?

 

[royalan]

I don't quite understand why people are bothered by the last sentence. Not only is it politics 101, but if Bernie is given the opportunity to work with Trump do do "some good" (read: minimize the damage) then why shouldn't he

But if it bothers you that much remember its pure political theater, just like Obama and Clinton and all your favorite Democrats have done.

Because that will not happen.

Trump is surrounded by white supremacists and Republicans, who will never let him work with a Democrat or Bernie Sanders in any significant way. Trump has paid Bernie no attention since he won the election. He only used his name in the campaign to attack Hillary Clinton and peel off Bernie supporters.

Honestly, at this point Bernie looks desperate. It makes him look bad to all but his base who will honestly defend anything he does.

 

[ModBot]

I think everyone who needed to get their Bernie slapfight on has, so continue discussion about TPP in the TPP thread.