Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 08, 2017

Adam Behsudi, Politico: For much of industrial America, the TPP was a suspect deal, the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which some argue led to a massive offshoring of U.S. jobs to Mexico. But for the already struggling agricultural sector, the sprawling 12-nation TPP, covering 40 percent of the world's economy, was a lifeline. It was a chance to erase punishing tariffs that restricted the United States -- the onetime "breadbasket of the world" -- from selling its meats, grains and dairy products to massive importers of foodstuffs such as Japan and Vietnam.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The EU, a major pork exporter, is also closing in on both the Japanese market and fast-growing Vietnam. Japan ended up offering the EU the same deal on pork it did to the United States under the TPP after the EU gave Tokyo favorable access for its cars. In Vietnam, frozen pork imported from the EU will be duty-free seven years after the deal with Brussels goes into force.

[Agricultural economist Dermot] Hayes, of Iowa State University, is deeply worried about the threat these deals represent. "Instead of getting those 200 million customers we may be, in fact, at a disadvantage in those markets because these are preferential trade agreements," he said. "So if you're not part of it, you are on the other side."

Comments

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

America is just being cut out. There are some things conservatives do right. The ones involving hate aren't them.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-08 01:34 AM | Reply

Hillary ignored middle America's cries to be cut off from world markets!

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-08 01:55 AM | Reply

She did. They wanted protectionism and xenophobia. She just didn't deliver.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-08 02:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

TPP would have gutted environmental and labor standards, lowing wages in America and busting unions, and increasing pollution. Is that what you want? NAFTA on steroids? NAFTA cost Mexico 4 million agro jobs, and America 600,000 manufacturing jobs that paid $30 an hour (they pay $1 an hour in kleptocrat Mexico).

Globalization is a race to the bottom. We need protectionism.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-08 02:25 AM | Reply

And you know how many agro jobs America got from NAFTA displacing 4 million Mexican farmers? About 55,000. Half of which went went to Mexican illegal immigrant slave workers who get exploited.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-08 02:30 AM | Reply

So now American business can sell to 330 million Americans instead of 8 billion in the planet.

It seems like more jobs come with more customers.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-08 02:59 AM | Reply

"It seems like more jobs come with more customers."

That's what they told us when they passed NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade deals none of which ever delivered the jobs they promised. TPP would have sacrificed American sovereignity and put the power in corporations.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-08 07:30 AM | Reply

Hmmm. Seems like a simple solution. Tell the Japanese to open their markets to our farmers, or tell them we'll close our markets to their electronics and cars.

That was just off the top of my head 10 seconds after reading the first paragraph. Wonder what ideas the administration can come up with, given more time.

#8 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-08 07:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Wonder what ideas the administration can come up with, given more time.

So long as foreign nations keep approving Trump trademarks in foreign markets, it is clear Trump will do nothing to them.

Look no further than Gyna.

Trump doesn't give a ---- about middle class America now that they gave him license to steal from the treasury.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-08-08 08:16 AM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT 2017-08-08 07:32 AM | FLAG:

This is called a trade war. I have only heard of it going poorly.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-08 08:40 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Ha, they lost the largest markets for farm products. That is OK, there is no one here to pick it anyway.

#11 | Posted by Bubba10 at 2017-08-08 09:53 AM | Reply

Wonder what ideas the administration can come up with, given more time.
#8 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL

Judging from past experience, several tweets from Trump about Japanese men having small penises to start with.

#12 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-08-08 10:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Ignorant people are plenty, so no worries Trumpkins, Trumpet will be around to make you great

#13 | Posted by material07310 at 2017-08-08 10:20 AM | Reply

Trade Deals are like the Lighthouse.

When there is no lighthouse, we can just count the ships that crashed because they couldn't find the rocks.

But when there is a lighthouse, it's almost impossible to know how many ships were saved. So we all complain about the cost of the lighthouse because we can't point to the good it does as easily.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-08 11:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No matter which way Obama chose, the deal was bad for America. Basically, it is a partisan follower's dream situation.

#15 | Posted by humtake at 2017-08-08 11:45 AM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL

For once I agree with you. If the EU gets to sell SE Asia agricultural commodities, simply for allowing the sale of electronics and auto's, shouldn't the U.S. ALREADY have that line of trade? We've already been allowing SE Asian auto's and electronics into our markets for decades.

This is called a trade war. I have only heard of it going poorly.

#10 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

The trade war with Asia technically started decades ago. And we've already been getting a raw deal. The TPP would have made it worse.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-08 11:56 AM | Reply

TPP would have gutted environmental and labor standards, lowing wages in America and busting unions, and increasing pollution. Is that what you want? NAFTA on steroids? NAFTA cost Mexico 4 million agro jobs, and America 600,000 manufacturing jobs that paid $30 an hour (they pay $1 an hour in kleptocrat Mexico).
Globalization is a race to the bottom. We need protectionism.

#4 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

No, it wouldn't. But if it makes you feel better to say it, that's nice.

And no, NAFTA didn't. NAFTA was actually great for the US economy.

Now let the grown ups talk.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-08 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you are against globalization, you are not pro-"America First".

#18 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-08 12:34 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat

This has been pounded on time and again - the fast majority of those jobs were lost to Automation and other efficiencies. Forget where I just read about it again. Not sure how it cost Mexico 4 million agro jobs as the amount of ag from Mexico to the US has steadily gone up since NAFTA. Cattle and Strawberries are two great examples.

#19 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-08-08 12:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort