Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 28, 2016

The Economist: Geopolitics waits for no man, not even the United States' president-elect. Little more than a week after Donald Trump's victory, Xi Jinping, president of the world's second-largest economy, set off for Latin America -- his third trip there since 2013 -- clutching a sheaf of trade deals. They were proposed long before the change of government in Washington. But at a time when the image of the big, bad yanqui seems to be making a comeback, Xi may find himself with an opportunity to boost Chinese influence in the American backyard. The death of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), from which Trump has said he will withdraw, may also prove an opportunity. China is hoping to use a meeting in Peru of 21 Pacific Rim economies to boost the prospects of its TPP-alternative, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which includes India and Japan, but not the United States.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

China's aims in the region are expansive. In 2015 it signed a slew of agreements with Latin American countries promising to double bilateral trade to $500 billion within 10 years and to increase the total stock of investment between them from $85 billion to $100 billion to $250 billion. China also wants good relations in order to diversify its sources of energy, to find new markets for its infrastructure companies and to project power, both soft and military, in the western hemisphere.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

When you wish for TPP's demise, I've warned people before be careful what you ask for. Even Trump will agree to it once he's in office. It's like Hillary. It's not great but the alternative is so much worse. Get used to the term "Silk Road."

#1 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-27 02:02 PM | Reply

Translation #1: It's bad to protect American jobs Mmmmmmmmmkay.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-27 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The rest of the world is going to get more efficient at producing goods and services through trade, innovation and infrastructure investments. Protectionism doesn't work. Right now the US is the hub of global trade and that has generated great wealth for the US. Trump is going to give that up.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2016-11-27 02:13 PM | Reply

"It's bad to protect American jobs"

There's no way to protect jobs; not when businesses have such incentives to either automate or pay pennies a day. TPP simply slows the rate of job movement.

Now, without it, all bets are off. And Bocaink and Bored are both correct: careful what you wish for, as every day we become less vital to the rest of the world's economies.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 02:27 PM | Reply

The world loses one customer.

America loses 194 customers.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-27 03:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

The world loses the largest consumer, foreign manufacturers catch a cold. Many don't survive.

#6 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-11-27 10:09 PM | Reply

#2

As if the Silk Road will bring more jobs than TPP. At least read up a little about China's implication in the TPP equation.

www.legalreader.com

I've put a lot of thought into this.

#7 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 01:31 AM | Reply

I just can't see how Trump can pursue the TPP after all the promises he made to the nation during the campaign to dump it. If he does do a 180 and decide to support it now, that will be as big a flip flop as Bush The Elder's reversal on his 'no new taxes' pledge back in 1988, imo. I just can't see how any voter who supported Trump would be able to reconcile themselves on a betrayal of such a core campaign promise.

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-11-28 11:45 AM | Reply

There's no reason we have to sign deals as ridiculously bad as TPP in order to engage in trade. And The Economist has never been right about anything.

#9 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-28 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

TPP would have established a disadvantageous international Common Market with nations which harbor diminished respect for human rights and labor laws/organization, as well as far weaker environmental regulations. The Common Market established by the TPP doesn't exactly make geographical sense, and there is legalese within the agreement which would have superceded sovereign law by allowing corporations to attempt to collect "damages" via lawsuit argued in front of a panel of judges as outlined in the "corporate sovereignty" and "protection of foreign investment" provisions.

#10 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-28 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

there is legalese within the agreement which would have superceded sovereign law by allowing corporations to attempt to collect "damages" via lawsuit argued in front of a panel of judges as outlined in the "corporate sovereignty" and "protection of foreign investment" provisions.

#10 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-28 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep. It was basically an open invite for corporations to lawsuit troll American taxpayers who have the nerve to want such things as clean air and water.

If this garbage deal were above board, the government wouldn't have tried to rush it through as secretively as possible. You'd have to be a fool to trust "This is for your own good but we're going to lie to you and pretend that are reasons why you can't see it yet....".

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-28 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

17 out of 19 centuries China has been the world's leading economy... this is not a new possibility for them. The clowns seem to think the world began in 1776.

#12 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2016-11-28 12:30 PM | Reply

And The Economist has never been right about anything.

#9 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2016-11-28 11:51 AM | FLAG:

You think China isn't swooping in to take advantage of perceived American weakness? Mmkay.

What about the other news sources? www.google.com

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-28 02:25 PM | Reply

The basic gist of TPP that is positive, is that it eliminates a lot of the concessions we gave to China which haven't been reciprocated since their ascension into the WTO/End of MFN status. That is the main positive. I think amendments are certainly needed like involving the environment (Monsanto etc...) and the Tribunals. But TPP tips the scales against China and China, who may aspire to TPP status eventually, are currently operating at Ludicis Speed to swoop in and make their own wild west sort of deals. A Walmart for every barrio in Latin America per se.

As I have called it in many articles I wrote about it, TPP is the "Best Bad Deal around."

We will be better off as a nation in the scope of foreign trade if we pass an amended TPP and use it as leverage to renegotiate NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, Pacific Rim, etc...

www.legalreader.com

#14 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 02:28 PM | Reply

You think China isn't swooping in to take advantage of perceived American weakness? Mmkay.

What about the other news sources? www.google.com

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-28 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

What is that supposed to mean? Either you can defend TPP on its own merits or you can't. "China is swooping in" because we didn't sign a deal that is bad for us doesn't make any sense and never will.

And the idea that "TPP is the best bad deal around" doesn't make any sense either. A bad deal is still a bad deal and how stupid is it to pretend we can't just negotiate a better deal? Hell, we could even unilaterally pass our own legislation that requires partners to trade on equal terms or face consequences.

#15 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-28 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If we don't waste our lives and treasure in Syria, then the Russians will!
-bruthe

#16 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2016-11-28 02:46 PM | Reply

#15, you know how when people didn't vote for Hillary, Trump won. It's like that. If no TPP, in its vacuum is Silk Road in NAFTA country. It will change what we mean by "Renegotiating NAFTA," I promise you that much. Unfortunately, we will be the ones making concessions instead of vice-versa.

I can't lay out the case much clearer, but like the Busters, you have to learn the hard way I'm guessing.

#17 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 03:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I can't lay out the case much clearer, but like the Busters, you have to learn the hard way I'm guessing.

#17 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 03:06 PM | Reply:

What case? You made a few unsupported assertions that, IMO, don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Regardless of what happens going forward, I won't be lamenting the death of TPP.

#18 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-28 03:16 PM | Reply

#15, you know how when people didn't vote for Hillary, Trump won. It's like that. If no TPP, in its vacuum is Silk Road in NAFTA country. It will change what we mean by "Renegotiating NAFTA," I promise you that much. Unfortunately, we will be the ones making concessions instead of vice-versa.

I can't lay out the case much clearer, but like the Busters, you have to learn the hard way I'm guessing.

Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 03:06 PM | Reply

The people in the Rust Belt disagrees with you and they know more about the subject matter than you because they are living with the ramifications of NAFTA GATT CAFTA. I'll take their words for it over yours.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-28 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What is that supposed to mean?
#15 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2016-11-28 02:42 PM | FLAG:

Could you take a deep breath, pop some meds, and re-read my comment?

Trump has you amped and you need to take it down a notch.

#20 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-28 03:28 PM | Reply

-bruthe

#16 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2016-11-28 02:46 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Hooked on phonics worked for 101!

#21 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-28 03:29 PM | Reply

Could you take a deep breath, pop some meds, and re-read my comment?

#20 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-28 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stop pretending that you actually said something.

You can't tell us what "China swooping in" has to do with whether TPP is a good deal for us because it is just a silly talking point that you are vapidly parroting without the slightest bit of thought.

#22 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-28 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

American NYC money changing globalist oligarchs often supporting the Dems gave China our consumer market and financial wherewithal and clout that will be used to destroy us. Even Walmart is smart enough to never give away a market without demanding reciprocal agreements. Our treasonous leaders demanded nothing for us except clout in the Clinton Foundation etc.

#23 | Posted by Robson at 2016-11-28 06:12 PM | Reply

So let's have a trade war where common sense rules, where US corporations either support the USA or lose all USA support, and see who wins. We are mostly self sufficient. Most countries are not. There will be sacrifice and the globalist fabricated stock market will be hit, but the long term is a nation that is truly economically strong, instead of strong but massively indebted like the phony rich uncle . Good production jobs for citizens are the most important issue needed for a strong economy. A stock market only represents a virtual strong economy.

#24 | Posted by Robson at 2016-11-28 06:19 PM | Reply

#22 You lost your mind. Just re-read the comments and take your xanax.

#25 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-28 06:20 PM | Reply

Why is anyone trying to pretend without TPP America isn't going to still be trading with the rest of the world?

Take a deep breath ladies.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-28 11:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18/19

Read the article, I explain very clearly the ramifications of China sans TPP. It will take 3 minutes.

www.legalreader.com

#27 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:50 AM | Reply

The United States already had trade deals with six of the 11 other countries in the pact. The trade barriers with the other five countries were already very low in most cases, so there was little room left for further trade liberalization in the TPP.

www.drudge.com

#28 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-29 12:58 AM | Reply

Why is anyone trying to pretend without TPP America isn't going to still be trading with the rest of the world?

Take a deep breath ladies.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-28 11:45 PM

Good question, even Hillary pretended to be against it.

#29 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-29 09:32 AM | Reply

#22 You lost your mind. Just re-read the comments and take your xanax.

#25 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-28 06:20 PM | Reply:

Obviously, I still have enough of a mind to see through your petty fear mongering and ridiculous pretentions. You said nothing and are fooling nobody.

#30 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-29 11:18 AM | Reply

Read the article, I explain very clearly the ramifications of China sans TPP. It will take 3 minutes.

www.legalreader.com

#27 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

The link talks about why China isn't joining TPP but does nothing to justify the "if the US doesn't sign, China will swoop in" fear mongering.

To the extent that China unilaterally decides to engage in unfair trade practices, the US should unilaterally decide what the consequences of those practices will be re: their ability to trade with us. If looking out for our interests was our politicians' goal, they wouldn't need TPP in order to do it.

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-29 11:33 AM | Reply

#31, Sully, I'm sorry your comprehension is so poor that I have to point it out to you directly FTA:

Foreign Policy's Min Ye notes negotiations on several regional agreements that China has undergone since the TPP negotiations began, such as the "Silk Road" trade pact and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), among others. Chinese scholar and Silk Road advocate, Li Xiangyang speaks for many Chinese in believing that the Silk Road agreement is "diverse and open," while, "TPP uses high-standards to exclude nations," calling it "too political." Said a former ministry official and China-United States-European Study Center in Beijing co-founder, He Weiwen, "We are more or less neutral because we have our own agenda."

That was a year ago, now they are in negotiations in the Pacific rim for the RCEP.

It's right there in front of you, if you don't want to comprehend what is happening fine, but you are getting to the point of becoming obtuse with it.

There are downsides to TPP as well, which I have screamed about. But, TPP is a US-created global trade deal, geared to benefit US companies, even if not US workers. Any other deal will be made by other companies to weaken the U.S.'s trade status (and possibly the dollar as the reserve currency, which is a major loss in clout).

I am telling you, if we don't pass TPP, we will be renegotiating NAFTA and Pacific Rim...on other countries' terms, not ours.

Clear.Plain.English. You can disagree with it and I can tell you the sky is green, again, time will tell. You are of the ilk that likes to learn your lessons the hard way instead of listening to people who know better.

And I am from the rust belt, I know the pain people who refuse to retrain go through. I am sorry about that and I hope you take advantage of the opportunities for career change that are available. Sometimes you gotta work some crap part-time jobs to make it, but opportunities open up if you don't shut them out of your life.

It doesn't mean you throw away our hegemony because Grand Island, Nebraska doesn't have a flour mill anymore.

#32 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 11:45 AM | Reply

"The world loses the largest consumer, foreign manufacturers catch a cold. Many don't survive.
#6 | POSTED BY PROLIX247"

Baloney. Picture Sniper standing in WalMart, staring at a shelf full of tv's, sniffing his poking finger. He contemplates a Sony 4K HD Ultra for $800, and a competing model made in Ohio called USA TV, priced at $1,350.

Sony will be fine.

#33 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2016-11-29 12:01 PM | Reply

LOL - "poking finger"

FF but my java doesn't work on this dinosaur or the popups drag me down the Styx.

#34 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#32 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

What does China entering into another agreement in Asia have to do with us? We can still negotiate our own rules that govern our trade with other nations. Don't tell me that you've justified your fear mongering when you are unable to tell us even one concrete negative consequence to the US. You're still just trying to champion a known evil (TPP) by using fear of the unknown. Stop pretending you've said something that you haven't. It obviously isn't going to work no matter how condescending you attempt to be while talking in circles.

Also, TPP was not created by the US and it doesn't benefit "US companies". It was created in secret by international corporations for the sole benefit of international corporations. Governing for the benefit of international corporations has not worked out well the Americans or the US on the whole. You can throw out as many idiotic strawmen about flower mills as you want but the numbers don't lie.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-29 12:13 PM | Reply

"You can throw out as many idiotic strawmen about flower mills as you want but the numbers don't lie."

You just threw out a paragraph of strawmen, I'm being literal. I'm at the point of repeating myself ad-nauseum. You don't want to hear me. THE THREAD IS ABOUT CHINA NEGOTIATING WITH LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES ABOUT DEALS THAT HAVE BEEN TRADITIONAL US-DOMINATED TRADE ZONES.

That's the point, they ARE doing it. Sorry for shouting but I'm like, 'yo bro, there's an intruder in your backyard.' And you are like, 'why are you scaring people saying that an intruder could jump the fence into my backyard, you fear-monger!'

Then I'm like, 'No bro- look over there, see that guy with the mask in your backyard?' And you are like, 'stop being such a scare monger with yer strawmen.'

The article was giving evidence that China is intent on becoming the leading trade hegemon, and that is what they are doing.

sorry for the shouting but I can't make it, and I won't make it any clearer. Believe what you want. I wrote a 7 part series on TPP for Legal Reader. Our database crashed at one point so I'm not sure if they are still all up there but take a look at it. It was the most thorough thing I have researched since grad school.

#36 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:22 PM | Reply

Lemme put another way: The rest of the world is not retrenching right now. For the most part, the rest of the world is facing globalization issues in a different way. Europe is at a major crossroads, fighting between globalizing and retrenchment, Russia has become very aggressive geopolitically (much of it due to U.S. antagonism admittedly, but Putin is no friend), China sees the end zone for being the world's top economic power for 50 years, but has domestic issues with managing such a large and rapidly-changing situation. India is similar but on a smaller scale.

And then there is the U.S., completely divided internally between retrenchment and remaining the punch-drunk global hegemon. Should the U.S. A: Put up its gloves and prepare to get pummeled? or B: come out swinging and prove why the US is the champ?

Isolationism might produce a sugar high-but it basically puts us in a fetal position while the rest of the world does what it does...it will keep doing what it's doing regardless of America's choice.

I just know that champs don't quit.

#37 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:33 PM | Reply

"THE THREAD IS ABOUT CHINA NEGOTIATING WITH LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES ABOUT DEALS THAT HAVE BEEN TRADITIONAL US-DOMINATED TRADE ZONES."

Only Chile and Peru are part of TPP. That's what you're basing giving up our sovereignty on? That justifies this horrible deal?

Yes, we're in competition with China. The best way to address it would be to first correct the iniquities in the rules that govern trade between China and the US.

Signing bad trade deals while bending over for China in our direct dealings with them is not going to address what you're pretending it will. You're still pretending that there are consequences to staying out of TPP that don't exist. We aren't losing to China for lack of TPP. We are losing because our politicians are more concerned with international corporate profits than they are the good of the country. If you're not demanding that China deal with us on equal footing then don't try to sell me the idea that you're concerned with losing to China.

#38 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-29 12:36 PM | Reply

BTW - Would TPP even stop China from negotiating its own deals with Latin America? Of course not.

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-29 12:47 PM | Reply

"Yes, we're in competition with China. The best way to address it would be to first correct the iniquities in the rules that govern trade between China and the US."

My graduate work was about US influences inside of China that led to the country's acceptance into WTO. I helped write a textbook chapter regarding it in 2000. China has taken advantage of the concessions we gave to help them into the developed world. TPP is all about China, all about China I will repeat. That's what TPP is about is renegotiating the terms of trade with China, that's why China is so aggressive in garnering trade partners. They will keep garnering and we will be trying to negotiate with Mexico or Chile (or more importantly Canada and Brazil), but guess what, China already gave them a sweetheart deal. Actually, now that Canada and Brazil or Mexico has leverage, any negotiation of NAFTA or Pacific Rim will be on the other countries' terms. But TPP tips those scales. I see this very clearly, and yes it gives corporations too much control over sovereignty, and the internet and human rights provisions need sunlight and debate, not fast-track. That's what people should be screaming about, not the passage itself or it's impact on globalization. TPP would be an improvement over the status quo, because China.

Again FTA:

One major concern is that since its acceptance into the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has been able to enjoy high tariffs and import restrictions; however TPP would force China to lower these barriers to trade. Fudan University in Shanghai professor, Shen Guobing, says "This is obviously an American trap for China," calling it "a threshold we can't possibly reach."

This seems so clear to me, I can't make it any more clearer even though I keep trying and you keep "obtusing"

#40 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:51 PM | Reply

#39, Indirectly, depending on the individual provisions. If TPP members found China's terms to be predatory or unfairly competitive, they could form collective pressure on either China or China's partner to reconsider a fairer deal. That would be likely in rare cases, but I think that as a deterrent would be the most effective consequence.

#41 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:53 PM | Reply

And to be honest, I don't mind if the people reject TPP. What bothers me, like much of what passes for "news" these days doesn't explain things in any possible way to make an informed decision. If the people know what they are approving or rejecting, I'm fine with their decision, but it seems most of the coverage is one-sided as if TPP is NAFTA on steroids and it's not, it is a marked improvement over NAFTA on nearly every front except the ones that I have already mentioned. I believe it was secretly negotiated because of what did happen. Nobody would highlight the geopolitical advantages of TPP and tie it immediately to the Rust Belt. That is exactly what happened by Bernie and Trump. It's easy to rally against it, it does take nuance to see the advantages. But this is a global deal and foreign policy is certainly an elitist's game. I'm not sure there is any way to avoid that unless, oh I don't know, let's say, give a crazy person access to the button?

#42 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 01:09 PM | Reply

One major concern is that since its acceptance into the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has been able to enjoy high tariffs and import restrictions; however TPP would force China to lower these barriers to trade. Fudan University in Shanghai professor, Shen Guobing, says "This is obviously an American trap for China," calling it "a threshold we can't possibly reach."

This seems so clear to me, I can't make it any more clearer even though I keep trying and you keep "obtusing"

#40 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

TPP is not going to force China to do anything because China is not a party to TPP.

Regarding TPP members putting pressure on China collectively - We have enough leverage to do that on our own already and we never do it. We don't need TPP in order to demand that China deal with us fairly. If US politicians were to start acting in the interests of the US when dealing with China, the Chinese would be utterly baffled by it because they are so used to dealing with cheap sellouts.

Also, you can't lament that people are making uninformed decisions when TPP has been so secretive. And you can't point to the negative reaction to a secret deal as justification for making it secret. Americans have been sold out by our leaders often enough that we'd have to be insane to accept a trade deal that was negotiated in secrecy.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-29 04:16 PM | Reply

The TPP sucks, it is nothing more than another subsidy for rich global Corporations which authored the agreements. Dislocated factories near cheap labor trumps all other details.

#44 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-29 04:57 PM | Reply

Ok, but can't say I didn't warn you. Corporations are gonna act like greedy stateless bastards regardless. Oh wait, you think Trump is gonna reign in corporate greed?

#45 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 05:47 PM | Reply

Translation #1: It's bad to protect American jobs Mmmmmmmmmkay.

#2 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You didn't protect American jobs. You just sent them overseas by ensuring we losing trading partners (people who buy our stuff).

Your ignorance of both economics and politics is matched only by your arrogant self-assurance that you understand all of it.

#46 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-11-30 10:52 AM | Reply

The TPP sucks, it is nothing more than another subsidy for rich global Corporations which authored the agreements. Dislocated factories near cheap labor trumps all other details.

#44 | POSTED BY NUTCASE

Here is why you are wrong and Conservatives are stupid, jingo-istic nightmares:

Yes, TPP will send unkilled jobs overseas because its cheaper to hire an UNSKILLED foreign worker for pennies than an UNSKILLED American worker for dollars.

But skilled jobs come here because foreign countries lack the skilled labor to do higher end jobs.

Furthermore, US companies can't compete under free trade with their foreign competitors because foreign competitors costs of production are so much less that they can charge below what American companies can. However, getting rid of free trade doesn't change that. It just raises the costs for foreign companies to get their products into the American market. But because US labor is still expensive, if the jobs come back, it will still be cheaper to automate the process with current technology. So no jobs, just tech.

At the same time, the consumer pays more because the cost still increases to bring the jobs back whether we automate or not. Now this also raises the cost of getting goods that US companies depend on so that raises US companies cost of doing business. And now the companies that were skilled and competing globally take a cost of production hit and are more apt to leave.

Good job, idiots. You screwed the economy.

#47 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-11-30 10:59 AM | Reply

However, getting rid of free trade doesn't change that. It just raises the costs for foreign companies to get their products into the American market...Now this also raises the cost of getting goods that US companies depend on so that raises US companies cost of doing business. And now the companies that were skilled and competing globally take a cost of production hit and are more apt to leave. POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Declining the offer of US participation in the TPP is not "getting rid of free trade." If you're able to defend your POV, how does the US's non-participation in the TPP leave the US in a worse international trading situation than the current state?
[note: the US is not currently a signatory of TPP, and "the end of free trade" has not occurred]

#48 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#48 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly. Sycophant seems to think he is talking to beings from another planet. Because everyone on this planet knows that TPP membership is not a prerequisite to participating in interntional trade.

#49 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-30 11:21 AM | Reply

Declining the offer of US participation in the TPP is not "getting rid of free trade." If you're able to defend your POV, how does the US's non-participation in the TPP leave the US in a worse international trading situation than the current state?
[note: the US is not currently a signatory of TPP, and "the end of free trade" has not occurred]
#48 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly. Sycophant seems to think he is talking to beings from another planet. Because everyone on this planet knows that TPP membership is not a prerequisite to participating in interntional trade.
#49 | POSTED BY SULLY

My god, its like talking to 5 year olds. Let me explain it in very simple terms:

China will sign on to free trade agreements, or TPP without the US. Chinese companies can then export goods at lower costs with less red tape than US companies making them more competitive. They can also import raw resources and goods at lower costs and less red tape than US companies thereby lowering their overhead.

Meanwhile, US companies doing business in the pacific have to deal with a vast array of trade regulation, import/export duties and other costs. This means US companies are less competitive. Over the long haul, this means US business gets replaced and trading relationships get cemented wit foreign competitors.

And this doesn't even take into account the possibility of a trade war and market uncertainty. TPP would have prevented this possibility.

And this is only TPP. Trump wants to enter an era of US protectionism and do away with free trade agreements.

Now, do the world a favor and stop posting until you at least graduate high school.

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-11-30 11:47 AM | Reply

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-11-30 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

China is not signing TPP. Chinese goods are cheaper than ours with our without TPP. We can negotiate around "red tape" without signing something as bad for us as TPP. If countries want to sell to us without red tape, they will allow the same when we want to sell over there. We don't need to create mechanisms for corproate lawsuit trolling in order to accomplish any of this.

Your fear mongering is senseless and no matter how authoritative you try to pretend to be, you're just a ninny flailing his arms and screeching for no reason.

#51 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-30 12:18 PM | Reply

For all you pro TPPers.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP) AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-30 12:23 PM | Reply

Forget it Sycophant, they know it all. It's pointless. I've logged years of intensive study on global economics, including co-authoring a case study on China's ascension into the WTO, and published 7 articles following deep research on everything available on TPP over the past few years, and they say I know nothing about TPP.

They have their jingos...and Bernie told them so. (I like Bernie but we disagree here).

#53 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-30 02:10 PM | Reply

Bocain, I've been considering starting a separate thread on it, but what do you make of Onions being just about the only agriculture commodity not able to be hedged or speculated on via the futures market? The subject interests me via price discovery, stability, and risk management perspectives...

#54 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 02:17 PM | Reply

Forget it Sycophant, they know it all. It's pointless. I've logged years of intensive study on global economics, including co-authoring a case study on China's ascension into the WTO, and published 7 articles following deep research on everything available on TPP over the past few years, and they say I know nothing about TPP.

#53 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-30 02:10 PM | Reply

Nobody says you know nothing about TPP. Don't make stuff up.

Its just that these extreme consequences of turning down TPP can't be substantiating. Its not the all or nothing last chance some people make it out to be.

#55 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-30 02:51 PM | Reply

"Why is anyone trying to pretend without TPP America isn't going to still be trading with the rest of the world?"

It's not a question of us trading with them, it's a question of whether or not they would want to trade with us. And it's more than just trade. It's geopolitics. Not that different than foreign military sales or foreign military support. Even when it's not financially beneficial, it allows us to remain a partner of choice for key allies. And there is always someone waiting in the wings to fill those gaps if we choose not to.

China, Russia, Iran, and probably others are in the holding pattern, willing to fill those gaps we refuse to. What's particularly repulsive is that TPP is assessed to be valuable to all parties involved. The primary opponents in the US are those who have some slobbering idealized love affair with obsolete occupations, and would seemingly prefer to place those on an alter while sacrificing everything else.

It's well within the realm of possibility that one day the US will be the place where China off-shores it's low value labor requirements to...Americans having sacrificed their opportunity to retain a dominant position.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-11-30 05:24 PM | Reply

"It's not a question of us trading with them, it's a question of whether or not they would want to trade with us."

Oh really? People are going to want to stop trading with the most lucrative consumer market in the world all of the sudden because TPP failed? This is just blatantly ridiculous alarmist nonsense. You should be ashamed to suggest something so ridiculous.

"What's particularly repulsive is that TPP is assessed to be valuable to all parties involved. The primary opponents in the US are those who have some slobbering idealized love affair with obsolete occupations, and would seemingly prefer to place those on an alter while sacrificing everything else."

Complete BS. The main criticism has been the surrender of sovereignty and the provisions that encourage lawsuit trolling.

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-30 05:30 PM | Reply

"Oh really? People are going to want to stop trading with the most lucrative consumer market in the world all of the sudden because TPP failed?"

Stop trading? Certainly not. But take advantage of emerging trade opportunities that are more advantageous for these other partners? Without question.

"Complete BS. The main criticism has been the surrender of sovereignty and the provisions that encourage lawsuit trolling."

Funny. Those weren't criticisms I've seen come up. There are many, such as an increase in income inequality (all will get richer, but some will get richer at a higher marginal rate-that's bad in come circles). A sound criticism is the lack of transparency that accompanies the measure, and a few other minor things. But those complaints that received the most attention came from people like Stiglitz, BSanders, Gnome Chomsky, and other members of the chattering classes who, like I said earlier, make no secret thier affinity for a highly idealized working-class culture. Even if the "working class" was assessed to benefit from TPP.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-11-30 05:42 PM | Reply

"Stop trading? Certainly not. But take advantage of emerging trade opportunities that are more advantageous for these other partners? Without question."

Whether or not that is a "loss" depends entirely on how advantageous those arrangements were for the US in the first place. What I have a problem with is the race to the bottom. If someone else wants to set up a self defeating arrangment with another country in order to "steal" trade away from us, we shouldn't be trying to outdo them in that regard. There is nothing to gain by doing so. We should be using the leverage of our lucrative market to negotiate conditions that benefit both us and our trading partners. The advantage we offer is the money to be made in our market. Nobody can beat it and we should stop pretending this doesn't give us leverage.

"Funny. Those weren't criticisms I've seen come up."

Well we're obviously paying attention to different sources because I haven't seen a single criticism of TPP that fails to mention the ridiculous provisions that protect "projected profits" of corporations.

#59 | Posted by sully at 2016-11-30 06:08 PM | Reply

#54, Noles, I honestly have no idea about the commodities markets, especially the futures markets, at least with any detail of expertise. That is something that you probably know much more than I do. I work with general trends and perceptions from a consumer point of view, and commodities trading is certainly more in the wheelhouse of finance pros. It's very interesting though and I am curious about why too. I couldn't even speculate unless there has been insider manipulation of the onion market and it was ruled off-limits. There have been recent major cases of fraud in the peanut market. I wrote about that last year for Legal Reader, but as far as I know they weren't taken off the futures market. I can't imagine anything that makes onions unique to other crops. It's a great question, especially for a Trump voter :P. Just kidding, I really don't know.

#59 I agree Sully that there are some very unsavory parts of TPP like the ones you mentioned, and I've said if the people don't want it, I won't scream and yell to pass it. I just wish it would be debated and amended in Congress before it is completely scrapped.

My biggest assertion (beyond the thread topic of China's encroachment on the Monroe Doctrine),is with TPP, we can renegotiate NAFTA and Pacific Rim on our terms. Without TPP we can either go status quo, or any renegotiation of those deals will likely result in major concessions made by the US, especially the longer the delay and the more clout China has in our spheres of economic influence. I am confident that time will play that out.

While TPP gives corporations more power, I have trouble believing that a lack of TPP will do anything to help the working class while at the same time weakening the trade authority of the US. Even more importantly, it furthers the case which is being actively pursued by several countries (EU and China especially) to replace the dollar as the default global currency. The latter could ultimately become the most dire consequence of doing nothing to shore up our place in the international trade universe.

#60 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-12-01 01:15 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort