Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 09, 2016, 07:22:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98822 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* 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 2251 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38292


« 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: 1008


« 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: 38292


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

Ouch!!! cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14096


« 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: 38292


« 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: 8404


« 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: 38292


« 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: 1008


« 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: 1008


« 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: 1008


« 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: 1008


« 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: 38292


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

 shocked shocked shocked
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« 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: 14096


« 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: 38292


« 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: 1008


« 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: 1008


« 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: 8404


« 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: 38292


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

http://www.cato.org/blog/how-think-about-tpp
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« 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: 1008


« 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: 38292


« 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: 1008


« 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: 38292


« 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: 38292


« 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: 38292


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

What is the status of the TPP?
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1008


« 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: 38292


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

Ah.  Thank you.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38292


« 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
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 641


« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2016, 07:02:27 PM »

        I have already posted the points of interest contained in the Preamble, namely;

              
      ESTABLISH a comprehensive regional   agreement   that promotes economic  integration to liberalise trade.

        BUILD on  their  respective  rights  and  obligations  under  the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

        RECOGNISE further their  inherent  right  to  adopt,  maintain  or  modify health care systems


      In the interest of keeping this short (there are several chapters written that apply to each of the 12 signatories specifically), and gleaning the most important points, this was signed February 4th, 2016 and has not yet been implemented.

      CHAPTER 1- INITIAL PROVISIONS AND GENERAL DEFINITIONS

      • This chapter attempts to build upon authority claimed by the World Trade Organization (implemented from the Marrakesh Agreement 1994) -  (headquarters in Geneva and supporters of globalization) which has 164 member countries, citing Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, effectively taking their decisions from their community and doing away with each country's sovereignty.

      There is much to be stated regarding the criticisms of the WTO, and could by itself, merit an entire investigation to everything they have been accused of. For the purposes of the TPP, it suffices to say that it seeks globalization, and specifically benefits poorer nations in an attempt to standardize wages, laws, and practices throughout each member country. It is written in their policy here:

      "The WTO’s procedure for resolving trade quarrels under the Dispute Settlement Understanding is vital for enforcing the rules and therefore for ensuring that trade flows smoothly."  
      https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/what_we_do_e.htm

      and from an essay they themselves have chosen, here:

      "The paper finds that trade liberalization increases overall welfare and provides firms with both new export markets and new sources of competition. Expanding high-paying firms increase wages to recruit better workers at a faster rate. Workers in the firms threatened by competition accept wage cuts to delay their employers’ exit from the market and to keep their job. Using firm-worker data from France, the author shows that, following trade liberalization, inequality initially increases and peaks after three years, but eventually falls back to half of its peak level in the longer term." https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/rese_08sep16_e.htm

      • Article 1.1:  Establishment of a Free Trade Area

      This primarily is dealt with in the chapters relating to each country specifically, but in Annex 1-A, specifically names the highest level of government in each country, thereby levying the force of Federal and State law (inclisive of any territories that lie within the country's control) , and wields its (WTO) "authority," over citizens also defined in Annex 1-A, expressing jurisdiction over the aforementioned in the "definitions" content, anywhere the specific matter may arise within the TPP agreement.

      https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Initial-Provisions-and-General-Definitions.pdf

      [/list]

      CHAPTER 2 NATIONAL TREATMENT AND MARKET ACCESS FOR GOODS

      • "Performance Requirement

      Means that, "a given level or percentage of goods or services be exported;" thereby guaranteeing participation, whether or not it is what is most beneficial to the exporting nation, as well as waivers of customs duties.

      • Repair and Alteration

      Article 2.6 makes clear, that the TPP is not solely for goods being sold, but services as well, including ship repair (unless it has been previously exempted as it has with Canada), but is an important note, because it lends potential control over the amount of work that can be performed in a country, instead of solely over goods, due to the fact that "performance requirements" can be enforced, and not necessarily by the will or good, of a people in any of the signatory countries, that cede control to an international community.

      It also states specifically, that no country may apply a duty to any good that enters the territory temporarily, for the purpose of alteration or repair, thereby, encouraging the export of work to be done, to countries where lower wages are paid.

      It goes on to state, that "repair or alteration does not include an operation or process that transforms an unfinished good into a finished good," which is a misnomer. My own experience from the aerospace industry has given me insight into this.

      Raw materials are continuously exported, or even sent directly to countries that make low wages, whereby, all manufacturing operations will be completed, leaving only the precursory "finish inspection" required, to consider it a "finished good."


      • Article 2.8

      Allows for the duty free import of professional equipment necessary to work in a host country, whilst conducting business activities, specifically mentioning "professional   equipment, including equipment for the press or television, software, and broadcasting and cinematographic equipment, that is necessary for carrying out the business activity,
      trade or profession of a person who qualifies for temporary entry pursuant to the laws of the importing Party." Which means, that people can also potentially come to your country, replacing the job of a citizen of the same country, and that it has been allowed for.

      Article 2.8 Subsection 4 - allows for shipping containers that are "in use or to be used," from anywhere in the world, duty free, and that may be "fully or partially enclosed,"also detailing "more than one mode of transport;" thereby, applying to every mode of transport unless specifically prohibited elsewhere.

      There is actually even more in this section to pick apart, such as "what is being imported, and the fact that it enjoys passage to another "exit port," but I don't want to waste too much time on it. The important portions are mentioned.

      • Import and Export Restrictions

      As listed above in Article 2.8 (I won't mention anything on Article 2.9 - Ad hoc discussions), Article 2.10 allows potentially anything, from anywhere in the world, to be received, duty free, which is perhaps sealed, to which end,  "unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, no Party shall adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the importation of any  good of another Party or on the exportation or sale for export of any good destined for the territory of  another  Party,  except  in  accordance  with  Article XI of GATT 1994  and  its interpretative notes, and to this end Article XI of GATT 1994 and its interpretative notes are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis. While Article 2.11 addresses everything covered in Article 2.10 to be in reference to re-manufactured goods, the concerns for security and logistics are staggering.

      The potential for abuse from this is disastrous, especially from a security perspective. It also mentions that paragraph 3 is specifically in reference to cryptographic goods that have not specifically been altered for government use, but one wouldn't really know whether it has or not, given the nature of cryptography.


      • Openly Seeking to Globalize the Economy in Article 2.18

      Committee will be "addressing barriers to trade in goods between parties," which when referenced to Article 2.17, which specifically states that all parties shall be part of the trade in information technology, could lead to problems with high tech jobs being sent abroad, as well as the inherent security risks associated with that.

      • Monsanto

      The Monsanto giant also has managed to have themselves written into the agricultural agreement in Article 2.19:

      "modern biotechnology means the application of:
      (a)in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles; or
      (b)fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombinant barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection; and products of modern biotechnology means agricultural goods, as well as fish and fish products, developed using modern biotechnology, but does not include
      medicines and medical products.

      All of this means that the WTO is determining who will eat what, through force of law, and not just in reference to fruits and vegetables, but also manipulating fish. It is possible that this could also lead to the mandatory consumption of cloned animals. It also means that they can export this to any member party, without necessarily disclosing the nature of the product meant for human consumption.


      • Export of Timber

      It allows party members to export timber, without recording the type of timber being sent. I don't know if this is a huge deal. Potential ramifications could be the mass deforestation of timberland and woodlands.

      Interestingly, Vietnam is exempt from having to export timber and in fact, expressly forbids it in their Decree  No.  187/2013/ND-CP; yet, the US (and Canada with an almost identical requirement), on the other hand, and again, I am quoting:

      "Article  2.3.1  (National  Treatment),  Article  2.10.1 (Import  and  Export Restrictions) and Article 2.10.2 shall not apply to:  
      (a) controls on the export of logs of all species;"

      This is a clear case of disparity and probable resource redistribution.

      Initially it appears that five of the signatories have no regulations placed on them at all, but are mentioned in other places, such as Australia's own Tariff Schedule,
      https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Australia-General-Notes-to-Tariff-Schedule.pdf , which highlights "Australia's commitment to Japan," again, a case of preference between one party member and another, annulling any apparent fairness between all member states, which per WTO guidelines, prohibits any "special favors," but allows it here. This is but one example.

      A bulk of Annex 2-D are the equivalent to excel spreadsheets, with Australia's for example, comprising 445 pages of gibberish (numbers), Brunei's is 344 pages of excel spread sheets, stating when they will eliminate tariffs, on a line by line basis.

      The general note pages from this chapter are roughly between 3-5 pages of general guidelines (Japan's is 20 pages), leading me to believe that the majority of the legislature is microsoft spreadsheets. I will note this again at the bottom of the article, because it may well prohibit people that might have read the law, to not read it, just based on what they perceive the page count to be.



      • Potential Language Issues

      Chapter 2 specifically quotes laws written in language other than English, making anyone not fluent in the language the law being referred to is written in, unclear of what the agreement or law actually is.

      Why is this important? Any politician that will vote on this legislature, needs to have read the correct translations, in their entirety. It is doubtful that has happened.
      Also, should any sitting court ever have to rule on a disagreement, outside of Geneva, they too will have the burden of both translating and studying the law as it pertains to foreign languages and nations. Refer to Annex 2-A of the section:
      "to restrictions pursuant to Article 48 of the Hydrocarbons Law (Ley de Hidrocarburos) published in Mexico’s Official Gazette (Diario Oficial  de  la  Federación)  on  
      August  11,  2014,  on  the  exportation from  Mexico  of  the  goods  provided  for  in  the  following  items  of Mexico’s  tariff  schedule  of  the  General  Import  and Export  Duties Law (Tarifa de la Ley de los Impuestos Generales de Importación y  de  Exportación)  published  in  Mexico’s  Official  Gazette  (Diario Oficial de la Federación) on June 18, 2007 and June 29, 2012," and numerous other laws, some of which pertain to hydrocarbon fuels and of which, may give Mexico an advantage over US competitors, should Mexican fuel be sold in the States, without the tax burdens that US suppliers must bear.

      Also referencing Decree No. 187/2013/ND-CP (a Vietnamese law) and I quote:

      "Nghị định số 187/2013/NĐ-CP của Chính phủ quy định chi tiết thi hành Luật Thương mại về hoạt động mua bán hàng hóa quốc tế và các hoạt động đại lý mua, bán, gia công và quá cảnh hàng hóa với nước ngoài..." http://www.customs.gov.vn/Lists/VanBanPhapLuat/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=7089

      The point made is clear.

      [/list]


      The Monsanto portion, the loss of service based and high tech jobs, the mandatory import of loaded shipping containers from anywhere in the world and the mandatory minimum requirements of party members, are all serious concerns.

      ***NOTE***

      A bulk of Annex 2-D are the equivalent to excel spreadsheets, with Australia's for example, comprising 445 pages of gibberish (numbers), Brunei's is 344 pages of excel spread sheets, and Canada's is 257 pages, Chile - 291 pages, Japan - 1133 pages, Malaysia - 347 pages, Mexico - 395 pages, New Zealand - 511 pages, Peru - 214 pages, Singapore - 325 pages, US of A - 386 pages, and Vietnam - 1000 pages, stating when they will eliminate tariffs, on a line by line basis.

      Just this accounts for 5648 pages of the legislation, which is nothing more than spreadsheets.


      The general note pages from chapter 2 are roughly between 3-5 pages of general guidelines (Japan's is 20 pages), leading me to believe that the majority of the legislature is Microsoft spreadsheets. I will note this again at the bottom of the article, because it may well prohibit people that might have read the law, to not read it, just based on what they perceive the page count to be.

      This chapter also codifies the trade in vehicles between Japan, Canada, and the United States, but does not have laws that govern Mexico by title as Japan, Canada and the US have.

      Total number of pages covered between the Preamble, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 = 6134
      To recap - 6134 pages of legislation that Clinton is pushing, to send your job somewhere else, and leave Americans and American students without work in the future. That was just the preamble and chapters 1 &2 of the TPP. There are still have 28 chapters to go, not counting the annexes, and have found thus far, that if you live a little better lifestyle in the US, you better get used to a lower standard of living, because that's exactly what is written in the TPP.



      This concludes anything I will post of the Preamble, Chapter 1, or Chapter 2.[/list]

      Source - https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text
      « Last Edit: October 04, 2016, 02:54:49 PM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #30 on: October 04, 2016, 02:57:36 PM »

      I didn't notice it, but Obama has chosen to skim read the full text for you.

      Here you go.

      https://ustr.gov/tpp/#text

      At the very bottom of the page, is the link to the full text.

      Interesting is that Obama is assuring Americans, that he is "leveling the playing field for American workers & American businesses," and "putting" American workers, businesses, and values, "first."
      « Last Edit: October 04, 2016, 03:00:08 PM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #31 on: October 04, 2016, 05:34:41 PM »

      https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/labour-66e8e6f4e8d5#.slufddkoa linked from the Whitehouse site - https://ustr.gov/tpp/

      TPP Labor Policies and What They Mean to Americans

      The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) claims to "level(s) the playing field for American workers and American businesses," but how?

      They claim to do so by cutting 18,000 taxes other countries place upon American goods, which will "make sure American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, service suppliers, and small businesses can compete — and win — in some of the fastest growing markets in the world." What isn't brought to the public eye, are the minimum wages (or complete lack of them) in the other participating countries:

      (all units in USD per hour, unless otherwise specified and have been converted as of the date of this writing):

      Australia - $13.48 Hourly - https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages

      Brunei - No minimum wage - $500 MONTHLY - http://www.bt.com.bn/news-national/2016/03/01/minimum-wage-issue-remains-back-burner

      Canada - $7.92 - $9.85 depending upon province - http://www.wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/canada

      Chile - $391 - $409 MONTHLY - wage increase in effect until 2018 - http://www.bna.com/chile-increase-minimum-n57982075195/

      Japan - $7.58 - http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/minimum-wages

      Malaysia - $240 MONTHLY - http://www.wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/malaysia

      Mexico - $0.47 Hourly (That isn't a typo) - https://news.vice.com/article/mexicos-tiny-minimum-wage-is-about-to-increase-by-almost-nothing

      New Zealand - $10.99 - https://employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-rates/

      Peru - $251.18 MONTHLY - http://www.tradingeconomics.com/peru/minimum-wages

      Singapore - $3493.98 MONTHLY - http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/wages

      United States - $4.00 - $11.50 in special circumstances, $7.25 Federal norm - https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

      Vietnam - $156.90 MONTHLY - http://www.tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/minimum-wages


      It is important to note, that while Australia works a 38 hour work week, many countries work a 48 hour work week, Mexico and Peru being amongst the countries that have a six day work week. Workers in the US average roughly 1748 hours worked per year; whereas, in Mexico, the average is 2228 hours worked per year, a full 21.5% more labor hours produced by Mexicans and paid at more than 15 times less than the American worker is paid. Where the work will go is obvious, and in fact, it already has. The TPP will just open the floodgates and remove control from American voter's hands.

      The claim that this will "level the playing field," is accurate, but not for Americans. Americans will suffer greatly, because while the TPP does open the door to foreign markets, that door is open both ways. Also, the United States is relinquishing control of the internet, which it has controlled since its inception, as well as losing sovereignty in the process, cutting the power and and stifling the voice of the American people, by wresting firmly in the hands of an international community, the reins of control, hardly a position any superpower with their self interest and survival in mind, would cede to another governing body.

      The TPP proclaims to mandate laws that will stabilize minimum wages, and in fact, to an extent, they do, whilst enforcing control over a plethora of other items that they also feel the need to govern:

      "TPP has the strongest protections for workers of any trade agreement in history, requiring all TPP Parties to adopt and maintain in their laws and practices the fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization (ILO), including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; elimination of forced labor; abolition of child labor; and the elimination of employment discrimination. It also includes commitments, again required for all TPP Parties, to have laws governing minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. All these are fully enforceable and backed up by trade sanctions.

      The most important point that needs to be made, is the utter loss of freedom and control. It must also be stated, that while controlling wages (even from a liberal, unionist perspective) must be a good thing, the logic is flawed. Here is how:

      Each of the 12 signatories have operated economic systems independent of each other for decades, if not centuries. Each party member has their own currency, banking system, government, all of which, control a number of factors. Everything from exchange rates, interest rates, housing prices, food prices as well as the amount even paid for electrical power (in Mexico for example, the government subsidizes heavily the amount its citizens pay for electricity), all fall within the scope of this, which is to say, that an American couple that have taken out a thirty year mortgage on their home, and perhaps even a 2nd mortgage, and paying $1000 a month for gasoline, light, and food, will now need to compete against a person from another country, that lives in government housing, pays no electrical bills, and survives off of 15 pesos (75 cents) of food per day. There is no possible way to implement the TPP without ripping the homes and livelihoods out of the people that live in the nations that have had traditionally had a higher gross national product.

      NAFTA has already signaled a staggering trade deficit with just Canada and Mexico, losing more than a million jobs in the process, and now the intent is to include more nations, that make less than Americans do, increasing the competition against Americans and American products, which cost more to produce, that can't be afforded by someone who makes less, and giving away national sovereignty to achieve this?

      This speaks nothing to the additional pain induced when one considers the fact that  unskilled labor will not be the only jobs America is losing. TPP has also made broad strokes to be able to send intellectual property abroad, and bring lower paid workers to the United States, in order to do jobs. That portion can be found in the first 6134 pages of the TPP, which i just the preamble and chapters 1 & 2, not including the rest of what they've hidden in the other 28 chapters of it.

      If NAFTA was a bad cold, the TPP is Ebola.

       
      « Last Edit: October 04, 2016, 05:45:29 PM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      G M
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 14096


      « Reply #32 on: October 04, 2016, 06:26:35 PM »

      "If you like your country, you can keep your country".



      I didn't notice it, but Obama has chosen to skim read the full text for you.

      Here you go.

      https://ustr.gov/tpp/#text

      At the very bottom of the page, is the link to the full text.

      Interesting is that Obama is assuring Americans, that he is "leveling the playing field for American workers & American businesses," and "putting" American workers, businesses, and values, "first."
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #33 on: October 04, 2016, 09:07:55 PM »

      If only it was funny. He's got a spot waiting at the head of the UN for himself.

      "If you like your country, you can keep your country".



      I didn't notice it, but Obama has chosen to skim read the full text for you.

      Here you go.

      https://ustr.gov/tpp/#text

      At the very bottom of the page, is the link to the full text.

      Interesting is that Obama is assuring Americans, that he is "leveling the playing field for American workers & American businesses," and "putting" American workers, businesses, and values, "first."
      Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #34 on: October 04, 2016, 10:47:44 PM »

      Very glad to see this getting some serious attention. 
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #35 on: October 05, 2016, 08:41:43 AM »

      Very glad to see this getting some serious attention. 

      Doing my best to process it PGuru Crafty. It's a lot. It's also one of the reasons that I don't think a lot of the media is talking about it, because it's so cumbersome and overreaching, that to write something critiquing all of the problems with it, would itself be a small book if done properly.
      Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      G M
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 14096


      « Reply #36 on: October 05, 2016, 09:00:11 AM »

      Very glad to see this getting some serious attention. 

      Doing my best to process it PGuru Crafty. It's a lot. It's also one of the reasons that I don't think a lot of the media is talking about it, because it's so cumbersome and overreaching, that to write something critiquing all of the problems with it, would itself be a small book if done properly.

      Kind of like Obmacare, we have to pass it to see what's in it.
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #37 on: October 05, 2016, 09:07:23 AM »

      Very glad to see this getting some serious attention. 

      Doing my best to process it PGuru Crafty. It's a lot. It's also one of the reasons that I don't think a lot of the media is talking about it, because it's so cumbersome and overreaching, that to write something critiquing all of the problems with it, would itself be a small book if done properly.

      Kind of like Obamacare, we have to pass it to see what's in it.

      Exactly. Exactly how it was done as well. I read Obamacare. It took me about a week. At what point exactly, will these politicians get punished, for not reading legislation that they're voting on?

      Pelosi's own statement that is quoted here, is a sure reference, that she herself failed to read the legislation, or she would have had solid points with which to sway naysayers.
      Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #38 on: October 05, 2016, 10:54:07 AM »

      I think we may have some interesting lurkers on this forum DDF.  Indeed we have a running joke about how things we develop here later show up in the repertoire of much bigger fish.  IIRC we are/were listed on a major search engine as one of the top 10 sources for Clinton crimes and corruption. 

      (Does someone else remember this?)

      Bottom line, the work you do here may find further resonance.
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #39 on: October 05, 2016, 01:20:43 PM »

      Vietnam, one of the signatories to the TPP, will be processing food, that will be then made available to markets abroad, including the US.

      There have already been problems with China and drugs that have made their way into foods and baby products in China, resulting in many people becoming sick and in some cases dying, with products from milk to vegetables to eggs to meat, being affected.

      Vietnam has a standard practice within the seafood market, of injecting "CMC," a chemical that they get from China, mix with water to create a gelatinous substance, and inject directly into the shrimp to increase the total weight. The only problem? They don't know exactly what "CMC" is, yet still inject it directly into the shrimp.

      For those that don't speak Vietnamese, this video is subtitled and you can see it here:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQZoWgohz0Q

      and here:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR4v3Sj4s8U

      What is CMC? Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose. The FDA classifies it as "generally safe" and therefore does not prohibit its use in foods.
      http://www.livestrong.com/article/424545-what-is-sodium-carboxymethyl/


      The problem is, given China's long and dated history with health problems arising out of their food and chemical industry, can the use of chemical compounds that will ultimately make their way to the American dinner table, be trusted? History has shown that it cannot. Worse, is the fact that foods processed in other countries and sent for export to foreign markets do not necessarily have to disclose the ingredients nor the processing details. Even the choice of simply not purchasing these goods may not be an option given the fact that through minimum trade requirements, which require a country's participation in TPP trade, any available products from one's home country may have been exported to another market (as is the case with high grade beef in Mexico), leaving only the cheaper, imported products available for consumption. The dangers reported here, are just the beginning.

      Even the Young Turks touch the subject with "90% of the shrimp consumed by the American public coming from Asia," which is farmed in ponds that have feces and other pollutants, in effect farming the fish in waters that they pump full of antibiotics. The use of a pond has to be discontinued after seven years due to the toxicity of the water.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDAPi0r4d9s

      At every turn, the TPP seems to be incredibly bad for Americans, so much so, that even dissent in signing the bill into law has united politicians across party lines.

      EDIT: In searching for the exact legislation that control food ingredient disclosure, I came across a couple of interesting things:

      The FDA states that - "Some additives could be eliminated if we were willing to grow our own food, harvest and grind it, spend many hours cooking and canning, or accept increased risks of food spoilage...." http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm094211.htm

      The problem is this: The Federal Government has given itself the right to seize control of food production under the umbrella of the Secretary of Agriculture and Department of Homeland Security.

      Executive Order 13603 - signed by Barack Obama March 16th, 2012 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-22/html/2012-7019.htm

      "``Food resources'' means all commodities and
                      products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements
                      to such commodities or products, that are capable of
                      being ingested by either human beings or animals...."

      In the interest of national defense, "in peacetime and in times of national emergency," which to be honest, the interest of a ntion being prepared doesn't seem all that far fetched, until you consider the fact that in the wake of the groundwork Obama (and those before him), have laid, clears the way for this:
      • "The DARK Act, making mandatory GMO labeling ‘illegal,’ has passed the House."

      Which leads to this...

      • Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act
      https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599

      Which was later made a part of S. 794 "A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes" which was signed into law by Obama July 29th, 2016. The fact that the Senate stuffed it into another bill to pass it is telling:

      "This bill was the vehicle for passage of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which is the form it was enacted it. Prior to amendments, the bill regarded defunding Planned Parenthood and the National Sea Grant College Program.

      As enacted, the bill created national food labeling standards for "bio-engineered" foods and prohibited the states from mandating their own labeling standards for "genetically engineered" foods."
      https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s764

      • All of which is lobbied for by Monsanto in an attempt to establish a monopoly by and for themselves in regard to GMO's "genetically modified organism(s)."
      • Monsanto GMO's allowed in the TPP in Article 2.19

      Many in the past have attempted to discredit this as "conspiracy theories," and often times, they are correct to do so, except when there is a clear pattern. Monsanto technology written into the TPP, with the lobbying for the SAFE act, along with Americans prohibited from growing their own food should the government say so, and they have, in Texas, Missouri, South Dakota, Florida, and other places, being raided by the USDA and Sheriff's Departments, for a variety of reasons.

      In the end, the Senate passed Senate Bill S.510, which gives them the express authority to decide what is safe to consume, and the "right" to lord authority over anyone should the FDA have "reason to believe."

      http://www.naturalnews.com/030587_Senate_Bill_510_Food_Safety.html

      AND DIRECTLY FROM THE BILL


       “(j) Exemption for seafood, juice, and low-acid canned food facilities subject to HACCP.—

      “(1) IN GENERAL.—This section shall not apply to a facility if the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such facility is required to comply with, and is in compliance with, 1 of the following standards and regulations with respect to such facility:

      “(A) The Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points Program of the Food and Drug Administration."

      In the FDA's HACCP plan, they "certify" the producer, thereby negating the need to label the food.

      "Answer: If the packaging is only what is minimally necessary in order to facilitate transport to the shore and subsequent unloading (e.g. totes or bulk bins), the operations onboard the harvest vessel would not subject it to the regulation. However, if the harvester places the product in packaging designed for marketing purposes (e.g. wholesale or retail packages or cases), then the operations onboard the vessel constitute "processing", and the vessel is covered by the seafood HACCP regulation."

      http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Seafood/ucm176892.htm

      HACCP being the FDA's method of quality control, they address the subject of additives in detail, regarding both domestic and foreign processing, here:

      "Those line entries examined or sampled by FDA are routinely examined or analyzed for microbiological contamination, parasites, decomposition and histamine testing, chemical contaminants (e.g., pesticides, dioxin, methyl mercury, and heavy metals), food and color additives, filth, mold, foreign objects, unapproved new animal (aquaculture) drugs, packaging, and labeling." http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Seafood/ucm150954.htm

      Basically, if the FDA approves it, it doesn't need to be labeled.

      Noteworthy is the fact that the FDA has banned substances that have been found in fish; yet, still allow imports:

      "In China, several antibiotics have been found in farm-raised fish such as tilapia, including leuco-malachite green, which FDA banned for aquaculture use in 1983 because of “serious toxicity.” Three-quarters of the tilapia we eat in this country comes from China."
      http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/11/imports-and-exports-how-safe-is-seafood-from-foreign-sources/#.V_Z1kiTlysU

      Also from the same article, the National Fisheries Institute, whom I have personally worked with in the Bering Sea, along with NOAA, naturally claim that they do an excellent job certifying that everything is safe and caught in accordance to law. Observers working for them, are bright, liberal in nature; therefore, generally care about their jobs, but with the amount of hours worked (round the clock shifts), and with the minimal number of observers, they miss a lot (fillets being dropped on the ground (where chemicals for cleaning boots has been tracked about) and put back into the boxes, and in a worse case scenario, the FDA can simply proclaim the food "safe for consumption."




      Getting back to S510 and people growing their own food, Glenn Beck and Fox News addressed the subject of people growing their own food or transferring foodstuffs, noting that people per the bill can indeed, legally be prevented from growing their own food by law.



      Without turning this into a survivalist/prepper issue, the above legislation has:

      • Removed the authority from each state in terms of product labeling and given it to the Federal government in S.764, the author of which, specifically calling the States' rights a "patchwork" of legislation, to which his bill was "infinitely better."
      • Granted the Federal government the means to remove checks and balances by designating control over food in Executive Order 13603, effectively removing itself from the checks and balances of Congress and clearing the way for the TPP to assume legal authority by means of international treaty.
      • Given the Food and Drug administration total control to decide when packaging needs to reflect the contents of food if the decide it would present a danger to consumers, in S.764 and given themselves the power to enforce that which consumers can provide for themselves or others in S.510.

      There is much to be made of all of this. It is a federal grab of power, globalization, the epitome of a "nanny state," in which, people that shun the legislation can be and are both punished, and forced into cooperation.

      Again, in the words of the FDA, "some additives could be removed," but they didn't say "all additives." The FDA determines what you should consume, how much, and whether you should even know whether you are cognizant of it or not.

      The way it is.
      « Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 11:14:32 AM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #40 on: October 05, 2016, 05:02:03 PM »

      Excellent points!

      BTW, IIRC recently US law/regs were changed so that food that was previously identified as being from China or other countries no longer is so identified.
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #41 on: October 06, 2016, 10:29:25 AM »

      Excellent points!

      BTW, IIRC recently US law/regs were changed so that food that was previously identified as being from China or other countries no longer is so identified.


      I updated the preceding post Guru. Two main bills from the Senate (passing in 2010 and 2016) as well as an executive order from Obama from March of this year, all of which grant control to the Federal government, to do what they want, when they want, where they want, however they want to, to whomever they want to. The details are above.

      Finishing a page count on the TPP... you have to like it when the chapter summaries put forth by the Whitehouse have a higher page count than the chapter itself...multiple instances of this.
      « Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 02:48:14 PM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 641


      « Reply #42 on: October 06, 2016, 03:57:01 PM »

      Presenting the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement - 8762 Pages:
      • 148 pages of chapter summaries.
      • 209 pages of attached instruments.
      • 1086 pages of annexes.
      • 7319 pages of laws and spreadsheets.

      Kept in secret with the exception of supervised scrutiny and no notes allowed until February 4th of 2016, referring to laws in multiple languages.

      The novel "War and Peace" by comparison, is 1440 pages long.
      « Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 04:02:57 PM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #43 on: October 19, 2016, 06:58:38 AM »

      Summary

      The fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is growing less certain by the day, and China, whose rise the U.S.-led trade deal is meant to contain, is seizing the opportunity to promote its own alternatives. Its failure is by no means guaranteed, but if the deal does falter — as current anti-trade sentiment in the United States suggests it might — Beijing will be ready to offer up two replacements. The replacements, as it happens, would be helmed by none other than China, which hopes to create a model for future economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific.
      Analysis

      China's Foreign Ministry announced Oct. 6 that it had completed a feasibility study for the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), a multilateral trade deal that Beijing plans to present at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit Nov. 19-20. Then on Oct. 11, representatives from 16 countries convened in Tianjin for the 15th round of talks on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) free trade proposal, which will conclude on Oct. 22.
      A Risk of Isolation

      So far, few details of either deal have emerged, but some hints paint the outlines of what both might end up looking like. As is true of most major trade agreements, negotiations over the RCEP have been shrouded in secrecy. But the accord, which builds on the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its existing free trade agreements with China, India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, is similar in format to the TPP.

      Like its U.S.-backed analog, the RCEP has been marketed as a comprehensive framework for liberalizing and harmonizing certain standards among its participants. Those include not only trade regulations for goods and services, but also politically sensitive measures such as intellectual property rights protections and a dispute settlement mechanism. (In fact, a document leaked last year showed that Japanese negotiators asked for intellectual property rights protections akin to those of the TPP.) Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence suggests that the RCEP, if enacted, would focus largely on liberalizing trade in goods, indicating it could be closer in practice to existing East Asian free trade agreements than to the TPP, which calls for a more thorough overhaul of regulations in industries of interest to developed economies like the United States, including pharmaceuticals and information technology.

      The FTAAP, by comparison, may look more similar to the TPP — at least at first glance. Unlike the RCEP, which the United States is not party to, the FTAAP would encompass all 12 of the TPP's participants, plus Russia and Taiwan and every RCEP state except India. The United States even reportedly supported the FTAAP in its early stages before shifting its attention to its own version of the deal that cut China out of the picture.

      But for the most part, membership is where the FTAAP and TPP's similarities end. The latter, for instance, includes stringent requirements on a host of issues — intellectual property rights and public divestment from state-owned enterprises, to name a few — that China would have a hard time meeting even if it opted to sign onto the deal. (Chinese President Xi Jinping's recent statements on the importance of the Communist Party's maintaining control over state-owned enterprises highlight these hurdles.) Perhaps more important, though, the TPP — regardless of its original intent — has developed an overtly strategic dimension in the past two years. It means to lay the foundation of future competition in the Asia-Pacific, a set of rules that China, unsurprisingly, is unlikely to accept. From the United States and Japan's point of view, the deal is a means to try to force China to get onboard with their interests or risk isolation.
      A Clear Choice

      For China, the FTAAP is a far better option. Compared with the TPP, the agreement — which is more theoretical construct than actual pact — would have fewer conditions for membership and encourage freer trade in goods and services throughout the region. It would not impose substantial protections for the technology industry or other sectors like it, an approach that the United States has staunchly opposed. After all, promoting free trade while failing to protect intellectual property would, in Washington's opinion, serve China's interests far more than those of the United States. Though the United States would still stand to gain in absolute income from the FTAAP, according to the Peterson Institute of International Economics, its relative gains would be dwarfed by China's gains. The same cannot be said of the TPP, which — though less profitable on the whole for the United States than the FTAAP could be — would benefit the United States far more than it would China.

      In many ways, the FTAAP is a more desirable deal for Beijing than the RCEP is, too. In addition to the United States, it includes four countries in the Western Hemisphere — Mexico, Canada, Chile and Peru — where China wields little influence. Russia would also be a member, giving China a partner that it could count on to push back against Washington's initiatives in the Asia-Pacific. Of course, China is unlikely to abandon the RCEP entirely, especially if the United States begins to make headway in ratifying the TPP, which could prove complementary to the RCEP in the long run. But should the TPP fail, Beijing will undoubtedly renew its efforts to see the FTAAP through.

      The TPP's members, which signed the deal in February, have a two-year window to ratify it. Within that time, the national legislatures of at least six signatories that collectively account for 85 percent of the bloc's total gross domestic product must approve the agreement. Because the United States represents more than 60 percent of the trade area's GDP, U.S. ratification is necessary to keep the deal alive. But with popular resistance to trade rising and the two major U.S. presidential candidates openly opposing the TPP, the chances of the deal being shuttered before it even gets off the ground cannot be ignored.
      Logged
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #44 on: November 12, 2016, 10:33:28 AM »



      http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/governors-bullet-trains-might-not-be-made-in-america/

      So, what is the argument here?  That we should pay more?
      Logged
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #45 on: December 03, 2016, 11:33:09 AM »

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/business/economy/trump-manufacturing-jobs-world-trade-china.html?emc=edit_th_20161203&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
      Logged
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #46 on: December 05, 2016, 09:25:14 PM »

      I'm having some trouble with Trump's concepts here.  Is he saying he will be paying a 35% import tax on the ties he has made for him in China?
      Logged
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 38292


      « Reply #47 on: December 06, 2016, 11:58:51 AM »

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/as-trump-vows-to-stop-flow-of-jobs-overseas-us-plans-to-make-fighter-jets-in-india/2016/12/05/a4d3bfaa-b71e-11e6-939c-91749443c5e5_story.html?utm_term=.3d2a9e5622b9
      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!