Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 25, 2016, 06:15:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94847 Posts in 2311 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Trade Issues: (TPP Trans Pacific Partnership and more)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Trade Issues: (TPP Trans Pacific Partnership and more)  (Read 914 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« on: October 09, 2015, 09:46:38 AM »

I could have swore we had a thread about this already, but I can't find it , , ,  angry

This piece makes the case for it:



By Zachary Karabell
Oct. 8, 2015 7:25 p.m. ET
7 COMMENTS

The 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal signed Monday is poised to become an election-year piñata as the Obama administration works to get it through Congress. Hillary Clinton, who supported the TPP when she was secretary of state, came out against it on Wednesday: “I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a caustic statement: “It is time for the rest of us to stop letting multinational corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense.”

On the Republican side of the presidential-nomination race, Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina separately denounced the pact as an assault on American business.

Labor leaders in turn excoriated the TPP for accelerating the loss of American jobs, while companies such as Ford Motors came out against it because of the perceived lack of protection against currency manipulation.
Opinion Journal Video
Editorial Board Member Joe Rago on how pharmaceutical innovation may be impacted by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Photo credit: Getty Images.

The TPP is the definition of a Big Deal. The dozen countries involved, including Japan, Malaysia, Australia and Mexico, account for about 40% of global GDP. President Obama has made passage a priority, couching the pact in terms of who will write the rules of the new global economy, China or the U.S.

Yet much of the passion stirred by the deal is reminiscent of the wrangling over the North American Free Trade Agreement two decades ago—and feels about 20 years out of date. It isn’t simply that commerce has increased, regardless of tariffs and friction. Supply chains have evolved into an interlocking global lattice in which few countries are unaffected, and the ones left out tend to be the basket cases of the international system, from Afghanistan to North Korea.

The dispersion and complexity of supply chains has happened too rapidly for our statistical map of the world to catch up. Much of global trade today consists of companies shifting parts from factory to factory, country to country, to make a finished good. The result is that our centuries-old understanding of trade hardly captures its reality today.

Think of the iPhone. On the back of each handset, in print so tiny you may need a magnifying glass, it says “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.” That is Apple’s way of communicating a complicated reality that, in the land of trade statistics and common understanding, is reduced to a simple formula: A product is made where it has undergone its last “substantial transformation.” The product is then assigned to that place, and hence an iPhone is, in trade terms, “Made in China.”

But it isn’t, really. The phone is assembled from parts made in multiple countries, and as researchers have found, only a small portion of its value comes from China or goes to China. In trade land’s calculation of imports and exports, however, all of that is moot. The same is true for thousands of products large and small that have multiple parts, from the Boeing 787 Dreamliner to the engine in your car.

The way things are actually made in the world today is largely invisible. But the correlations between the world today and trade pacts are all too visible. Since the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade became the World Trade Organization in 1995, since Nafta and since dozens of smaller trade agreements in the period that followed, wages in the developed world have been flat and manufacturing jobs have evaporated at an alarming rate. Farmers, whose goods do indeed come from one country and one country only, have faced an uphill battle to maintain domestic prices protected only by tariffs. It is, therefore, easy enough to establish a simple logic that trade pacts cause wage stagnation and job losses.

But it’s much more complicated than that. Tracking the economic effect of the free flow of goods and ideas isn’t easy. (The TPP takes an antiquated approach to intellectual property that could impede the free flow of ideas by strengthening the enforcement of trademarks and copyrights.) A binary view of trade as countries making stuff and selling stuff overlooks not only the multiple-countries-of-origin problem, but also the vast trade in services that we struggle to measure and understand. Tourism and travel of foreign visitors to America, for instance, are counted as a U.S. export of services. And it is one of the major U.S. exports to the world today—at more than $150 billion, it accounts for nearly 9% of all U.S. exports.

Yet the trade debate primarily focuses on goods, because that is what most people think of when they think of trade, and because monthly Census Bureau trade figures by country report only goods. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has imported more and more goods, such as the iPhone, and exported more and more services, such as ideas and tourism. Millions of jobs directly relied on the old export of goods in traditional industries, but the new model of ideas and services employs fewer people directly and who-knows-how-many indirectly. We know how to count what has been lost; we have hardly begun to figure out what is being gained. That helps explain why so many associate more trade with fewer jobs.

The fight over the TPP is a 20th-century argument over who makes what and sells what across borders that are increasingly porous—and cannot contain the flow of ideas and commerce that will define the years ahead.

Mr. Karabell, the head of global strategy at Envestnet, is the author of “The Leading Indicators: A Short History of the Numbers That Rule Our World” (Simon & Schuster, 2014).
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 11:36:47 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2015, 09:59:50 AM »

I presume that Karabel has "read" the agreement? If so, how did he get to see it?

If he has not read it, how does he know it will be good for the US?
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2015, 10:03:09 AM »

Ouch!!! cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13581


« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2015, 10:08:56 AM »

I presume that Karabel has "read" the agreement? If so, how did he get to see it?

If he has not read it, how does he know it will be good for the US?

Pat shoots and scores!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2015, 12:57:35 PM »

I gather the TPP has finally been released?  So, let the analysis begin!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7901


« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2015, 02:48:29 PM »

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

Will someone please read this for us.  )

« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 09:59:15 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2015, 04:59:35 PM »

"I that by the US signature it says or must say, nothing in this agreement shall ever be contrued to supercede the authority of the US constitution or US sovereignty over its own affairs."

 huh
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2015, 05:00:31 PM »

Section 3-a, 4.231.27, Under Chapter 132.6, Amendment 625.4 (c)

Anyone who reads this agreement with intent to provide others with an analysis of what exists in the Agreement is subject to Section 14-5 (c), Chapter 137.5 as Amended by 1036.44).

The penalty for violations of the subsections is immediate death by pervasive torture only concluded with the name of the person requesting the service. That person is then sbject to the same penalty.

Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2015, 05:08:58 PM »

For TPP

Rubio
Carson
Cruz
Bush


Against TPP

Trump
Christie because he does not want to give Fast Track authority to Obama
Fiorina - For Free  Trade but does not trust Obama
Huckabee
Paul


Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2015, 05:23:30 PM »

I risked my life doing a quick look at TPP. Key Points:

1. TPP is not specific. It simply sets up the frame work for Fast Track authority whereby Obama or later presidents can implement actions without Congress.

2. It gives the right to any worker group in any country to organize under Unions in accordance with International Labour Organization provisions. State laws be damned.

3. Requires greater Environmental protections. Covers Ozone and other things.

4. Affects immigration. If an out of country firm establishes a business operation in another country, that country must give unlimited visa, etc. to anyone the company wants to send here. No limitations exist at all.

5. Covers whether a product was manufactured fully in a country or not. This sets up what type of regulations exist to cover that product or not.

The TPP is an outline of what is to come. Under TPP, a country can challenge another country or business on a practice. If the two countries cannot agree, then a Panel is set up. Each country designates a panelist and the third panelist is named and agreed to by the two designated panelists. These people decide the issue. Worst part is that the Panelists are to be attorneys familar with INTERNATIONAL LAW and agreements.

What is going to happen is that large bureaucracies and departments will be established to look at each covered product and then decide the rules.

Essentially, this is an ECU type of agreement and subrogates all US laws to the TPP. It is not good for the US.
Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2015, 05:24:43 PM »

BTW, please send an ambulance to pick me up. Reading what I did, I just finished slitting my wrists and taking 300 sleeping pills. The door will be unlocked..........
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2015, 05:26:35 PM »

 shocked shocked shocked
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7901


« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2015, 09:57:17 AM »

Fixing a bungled post,

Right above the US President's signature on TPP it needs to say:

Nothing in this agreement shall ever be contrued to supercede the
the US constitution or US sovereignty over its own affairs.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 10:01:17 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13581


« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2015, 10:22:31 AM »

Fixing a bungled post,

Right above the US President's signature on TPP it needs to say:

Nothing in this agreement shall ever be contrued to supercede the
the US constitution or US sovereignty over its own affairs.

Obama wouldn't sign anything that said that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2015, 12:57:52 PM »

I have no idea as to the merits of this particular site, but in the spirit of beginning the analysis of the actual language:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151106/07051932731/full-text-tpp-released-really-really-bad.shtml
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2015, 01:22:37 PM »

Try reading the damned website. It is just as confusing as thee TPP.

Can't people ever get it in their heads that they must write in terms that non experts in the field can read and understand?
Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2015, 10:33:07 AM »

Here is Dick Morris on TPP and Immigration.  I have read the same complaints in many articles.

http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/239633-dick-morris-tpp-mass-immigration

If correct, then this is just one more bit of evidence that Globalism and Open Borders is the goal, national boundaries be damned. And both the Dems and Pubbies are supporting this.
Logged

PPulatie
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7901


« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2015, 02:23:40 PM »

Lining up against the TPP, Bernie Sanders, The Nation, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Common Dreams, and all the leftist Occupy Wall Street types.  Also all the opponents of free trade.  http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/04/28/2009-organizations-call-congress-oppose-fast-track-authority-tpp

The right answer may be for conservatives to oppose it too, but we had better be clear as to what parts of it we favor and what parts (attacks on sovereignty) kill the deal.

Because of the TPP enabling legislation, this will come down to an up or down vote in the House and Senate, probably in late Spring 2016.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2015, 11:20:19 AM »

http://www.cato.org/blog/how-think-about-tpp
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7901


« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2015, 12:05:17 PM »

"On TPP, the vote was for TPA, which both Ryan and Cruz voted for. It removed 66% votes for passage and changed it to 50% plus 1. This legislation provided for Fast Track Authority where by Congress will not have future inputs into regulation changes. The WH wants it, and it is implemented."

Please flesh this out on the TPP thread.  Thank you.

My humble opinion:

pp is right that the authorizing legislation makes it easier to negotiate and pass and Crafty is right that there is a significant distinction between the authorization vote prior to negotiating and supporting or opposing it after it is published.

It is not a flip flop to vote differently on the two.

If you opposed authorization, then a Republican president will never again get authority to negotiate a good or real free trade bill.

This bill has good and bad provisions in it.  The Cato piece is a nice start for looking at it.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2015, 02:21:11 PM »

Doug,

You cite that if TPA was not authorized, that a Republican President could never get a good Trade Bill passed again. Funny, but it seems that this same argument does not apply to Democrat Presidents. After all, the Pubs control Congress and at least one side of it since 2010, and Obama gets things passed time and again. Of course, the Pubs are wimps.

Now I presume that you are more of a constitutionalist. Such Agreements were required by the Constitution to need 2/3rds majority to pass. Does this not bother you that this changes what the Constitution calls for?

Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2015, 02:22:57 PM »

That is a very fair question and it bothers me that candidates I otherwise like do not seem to have a good answer to it.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2015, 02:31:12 PM »

On TPP and China:

Rand Paul accused Trump of being wrong on China being in the TPP. China was not involved. Technically, Paul was correct in that China was not involved. But here is the rest of the story.

1. Trump said that China could be involved through backdoor measures.

2. After TPP is passed, a country can be admitted to TPP without Congressional approval.

3. Two days ago, SecState Kerry offered China the opportunity to join TPP after passed.

So this brings into play another question with TPP. Was it deliberate with TPP that China would not be initially involved because it would make passage more difficult? Is this now why Kerry is offering membership to China after passage?

Would the Obama Admin be this sneaky?
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2015, 08:40:20 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/tpp-erodes-u-s-sovereignty-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2015, 10:23:57 PM »

Reliability completely unknown:

http://www.teaparty.org/alert-obama-set-sign-deal-allowing-foreign-takeover-americas-land-resources-134667/

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2015, 01:53:14 PM »

What is the status of the TPP?
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1007


« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2015, 02:14:14 PM »

It cannot be voted on until O'Bummer sends it to the Senate. And O'Bummer believes that it will need Rep support, but the Senate is afraid to vote on it before the election for fear of a backlash against their candidates who vote for it.  (TPP must be signed by Oct 2017 by all countries.)  So don't expect the cowards to move on it until after the election in a lame duck session.

Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2015, 07:20:10 PM »

Ah.  Thank you.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36817


« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2016, 11:38:13 AM »

With Trump's combative approach to trade being what it is I've modified the name of this thread and paste this here from the China-US thread:

http://qz.com/594984/the-secret-history-of-gms-chinese-bailout/?utm_source=YPL
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!