Mr. Prestowitz makes the false comparison between PTT and existing bilateral trade relationships....wrong. PTT is larger in scope and effectively addresses services, by far the fastest growing trade sector. As to US debt, it is neither out of line with other developed economies nor is it lacking for buyers. To compare 'China's dynamism' with a developed economy such as the US, is again misleading. In the current political climate, Mr. Prestowitz supports isolationist arguments for all the wrong reasons
18
This article underlines perfectly the dilemma facing our Asian allies today. America is the old friend from out of town who will fight for you and lend you moral support, but nothing more. China is the next door neighbor you have nothing in common with and who trespasses on your property, but he can help with your home repairs and other expenses.
6
This piece underlines the nothingness of the TPP as anything that will bolster our security. Indeed, what's glaringly missing from this article is ANY mention of the most obvious THREAT to our security: the TPP was negotiated in secret, by transnational corporations, with no oversight or participation by any members of Congress. Indeed, the worst, and most dangerous component of the TPP is the establishment of an arbitrating tribunal, made up of appointees from said corporations (NOT government representatives), with the power to overrule the sovereignty of member states, thus elevating CORPORATIONS OVER NATIONS. This cannot stand!
This is why the administration was so secretive about the exact contents of the "agreement", as it exposed our government as capitulating to corporations,over the direct and best interests of our country. This is not "trade", it is a forfeiture of sovereign rights and protections under international law, in the guise of an "agreement".
It is shameful, dishonest and underhanded. Transnational corporations, who have been allowed to free themselves of the fair taxation they owe their "protectors" (our global military, let's be clear and honest), CANNOT be allowed to dictate trade policy in this corrupt manner. DEFEAT THE TPP!
This is why the administration was so secretive about the exact contents of the "agreement", as it exposed our government as capitulating to corporations,over the direct and best interests of our country. This is not "trade", it is a forfeiture of sovereign rights and protections under international law, in the guise of an "agreement".
It is shameful, dishonest and underhanded. Transnational corporations, who have been allowed to free themselves of the fair taxation they owe their "protectors" (our global military, let's be clear and honest), CANNOT be allowed to dictate trade policy in this corrupt manner. DEFEAT THE TPP!
37
For all those opposed to trade generally, tell me whether you would like to continue to spend, e.g., $6 for a 3-pack of sport socks made in Asia or would prefer to pay $30 or more for the same socks made in the US. I'll assume the former. No doubt that US labor costs alone would be 5 times more than those in Asia. The hidden benefit of our trade with Asia is cheaper goods, albeit in exchange for reduced manufacturing in the US. If that extra 500% in retail cost would translate to broader economic improvement so that everyone's increase in wealth would be more than 500%, that would be good (except for the effects of inflation). But it won't happen. The sad truth for all the now unemployed former US manufacturing workers is that those jobs are not coming back. The government should be spending large sums on job retraining so that those workers can find work. But Republicans don't want to do that. Why spend real money when they can get away with just promising pie in the sky.
11
I'm not knowledgeable enough about the details so I won't try to comment on the merits. However, we can't get a supreme court justice confirmed but the TPP is working it's way into policy through the backdoor? Something smells rotten in the South China Sea.
19
"Were it not for the fact that the dollar is the main global currency and that Washington can still borrow in the dollars it prints, the country would have gone bankrupt long ago."
This is the most important statement and one that has been largely avoided by many economists and policy makers. It may take another 30, 40 or 50 years but there will come a time that the US dollar will no longer the global reserve currency. Borrow and consume will not last forever. Yet nothing is being done by the Administration and Congress in terms of domestic investment both in infrastructure and human capital to preserve American preeminence position in the world.
This is the most important statement and one that has been largely avoided by many economists and policy makers. It may take another 30, 40 or 50 years but there will come a time that the US dollar will no longer the global reserve currency. Borrow and consume will not last forever. Yet nothing is being done by the Administration and Congress in terms of domestic investment both in infrastructure and human capital to preserve American preeminence position in the world.
17
Clyde loses credibility when he writes: "I pointed out that among the seven other countries then in discussion, we already had free trade deals with all but Brunei, New Zealand, Malaysia and Vietnam." Or put another way, "We already had free trade deals with all except for the majority of the countries in discussion."
Nonetheless, Clyde's argument essentially is that China will be economically powerful anyways, so the United States might as well roll over and play dead.
The United States is "the world's largest debtor and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume." Yet, isn't this primarily because of foreign direct investment IN the United States?
What about protecting intellectual property, a principle goal of the TPP? Sure that "helps the evil 1%" but shareholders of large companies employ millions of Americans to invest and innovate to create new IP. Should we give up our economical principles--principles that made the US strong in the first place--because China will steal it anyways?
Mr. Prestowitz may not be arguing that we should not do the TPP, but that we need to do more match China's "dynamism." But in writing this editorial, he discredits the TPP and fuels the notion that the TPP is bad and should be abandoned. But that is the wrong approach, and will only make the United States weaker.
Nonetheless, Clyde's argument essentially is that China will be economically powerful anyways, so the United States might as well roll over and play dead.
The United States is "the world's largest debtor and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume." Yet, isn't this primarily because of foreign direct investment IN the United States?
What about protecting intellectual property, a principle goal of the TPP? Sure that "helps the evil 1%" but shareholders of large companies employ millions of Americans to invest and innovate to create new IP. Should we give up our economical principles--principles that made the US strong in the first place--because China will steal it anyways?
Mr. Prestowitz may not be arguing that we should not do the TPP, but that we need to do more match China's "dynamism." But in writing this editorial, he discredits the TPP and fuels the notion that the TPP is bad and should be abandoned. But that is the wrong approach, and will only make the United States weaker.
4
Those who support the TPP can relax. Hillary will tweek it in some small ways, declare if fixed, and adopt it.
It isn't because of national security. It is for donors. They get all the benefits on our end.
It isn't because of national security. It is for donors. They get all the benefits on our end.
41
If, in the last year of his Presidential term, a President is a lame duck for the appointment of Supreme Court justices, then he should be a lame duck for all legislative decisions with long term consequences. This is especially the case when both major party candidates claim to be against TPP.
Indeed, after the November election, there should not even be a lame duck session, except for emergency matters, such as Zika.
Indeed, after the November election, there should not even be a lame duck session, except for emergency matters, such as Zika.
17
So what is the point of TPP? (1) Shielding the investments of the 0.1% from legal jeopardy. (2) Precluding the US, states and municipalities from granting preferences of any sort to local business and industry. That's about it. Globalization (and deregulation) of capital and acceleration of the obsolescence of the American industrial worker. A race to the bottom. One really has to wonder what President Obama is thinking.
35
There's a reason the American market is still the biggest and strongest on the planet. We have the faith and trust of the rest of the planet and we're big. Our 10 year bonds rate of return is so low it would be stupid (even from a Business standpoint) to NOT borrow on our dollar.
In the word's of the (arguably) 2nd wisest president in modern times:
"It's the economy, Stupid!"
#We #should #be #investing #in #infrastructure.
In the word's of the (arguably) 2nd wisest president in modern times:
"It's the economy, Stupid!"
#We #should #be #investing #in #infrastructure.
16
President Obama should restructure Pacific trade agreement to INCLUDE not EXCLUDE China. China is not our enemy and should never be our enemy. Anyone who has a memory of the Korean War cannot forget what it was like to have hordes of Chinese crossing the Yalu river.
China is a valuable partner and should be treated as an ally for achieving World peace and economic stability and is not as a potential threat.
This ill advised strategy may hurt our arms sales but we need to cool it a bit on arms sales and put our effort and the efforts of China, India, Korea, Japan and the rest into shifting away from fossil fuels.
Global Warming is the greatest security threat we all face and every neuron in our being must be focused on developing technologies that will allow our species to shift away from fossil fuels & continue to improve the quality of life/life expectancy of the growing World population.
The task is enormous and can only be solved through international cooperation and investment. The UN, a reinvented World Bank, and IMF must join in harnessing non-fossil energy sources to achieve the energy requirements for 9 Billion people by mid century, just 34 years from now. Humanity will need 54,000 Terawatt hours by 2050. That’s 6,000 Kilowatt hours per year per capita for the projected 9 billion people on Earth.
I suggest a global project to mount an international space based solar power project and a major effort to produce synthetic fuels from air & water.
China is a valuable partner and should be treated as an ally for achieving World peace and economic stability and is not as a potential threat.
This ill advised strategy may hurt our arms sales but we need to cool it a bit on arms sales and put our effort and the efforts of China, India, Korea, Japan and the rest into shifting away from fossil fuels.
Global Warming is the greatest security threat we all face and every neuron in our being must be focused on developing technologies that will allow our species to shift away from fossil fuels & continue to improve the quality of life/life expectancy of the growing World population.
The task is enormous and can only be solved through international cooperation and investment. The UN, a reinvented World Bank, and IMF must join in harnessing non-fossil energy sources to achieve the energy requirements for 9 Billion people by mid century, just 34 years from now. Humanity will need 54,000 Terawatt hours by 2050. That’s 6,000 Kilowatt hours per year per capita for the projected 9 billion people on Earth.
I suggest a global project to mount an international space based solar power project and a major effort to produce synthetic fuels from air & water.
6
Anyone with more than air for brains recognizes that the next shooting war will be with China. TPP is of no use to us.
4
Consider these strategic disadvantages: China has a shrinking population and no real aircraft carriers, and large parts of its territory (Tibet and Xinjiang, plus parts of other provinces with large Tibetan and Uighur populations, plus Taiwan and, increasingly, Hong Kong) are riddled with separatism and resentment.
In the event of a war, China would likely find itself fighting both the U.S. and its allies to the east, and a homegrown, multi-front insurgency in the hinterland to the west.
Of course, it could always freak out and start launching nukes. And it would probably let North Korea off the leash.
In the event of a war, China would likely find itself fighting both the U.S. and its allies to the east, and a homegrown, multi-front insurgency in the hinterland to the west.
Of course, it could always freak out and start launching nukes. And it would probably let North Korea off the leash.
"We already had free trade deals with all but Brunei, New Zealand, Malaysia and Vietnam..."
Why did you leave out Japan, which is also one of the TPP members? Because it's the world's third-largest economy and including it would undermine your argument?
Also, you focus only on tariffs, but tariff reduction is just a small part of the TPP. Most of it regards non-tariff barriers, state-owned enterprises and the liberalization of trade in services (which account for 80% of the American economy).
It's great to argue for and against the TPP according to its merits. That's what democracy is all about. And I totally agree that America (well, Congress) is being grossly negligent about our infrastructure and other kinds of public investment. But you're not serving anyone's interest by obscuring the facts and hiding behind the faux authority that comes from your private meeting at the White House.
Why did you leave out Japan, which is also one of the TPP members? Because it's the world's third-largest economy and including it would undermine your argument?
Also, you focus only on tariffs, but tariff reduction is just a small part of the TPP. Most of it regards non-tariff barriers, state-owned enterprises and the liberalization of trade in services (which account for 80% of the American economy).
It's great to argue for and against the TPP according to its merits. That's what democracy is all about. And I totally agree that America (well, Congress) is being grossly negligent about our infrastructure and other kinds of public investment. But you're not serving anyone's interest by obscuring the facts and hiding behind the faux authority that comes from your private meeting at the White House.
5
How giving up our sovereignty and allowing our government entities to be sued for lost profits due to regulations is good for the country is beyond on me. In my view those in congress and the executive branch who support the TPP are committing treason.
17
On the "security issue" – the author notes, "It (China) is now the biggest foreign investor in most of the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. It is also the biggest foreign investor in Australia and much of Europe. From a "security" standpoint, it is curious that none of these countries are allies of China, but many, perhaps most, are the U.S.'s.
The author feels that, "America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort." This is a somewhat curious statement in lieu of the fact that the worlds largest, best known and most-capitalized companies are American. In other words - China produces a great many goods - but has very few, if any, worldwide-recognized business or companies - no Boeing, Apple, General Motors, Caterpillar - not even a Samsung, Sony or Hyundai. And remove the Chinese governments underwriting of what companies they do have and this statement makes even less sense.
Further, "But until America can come close to matching China’s dynamism, it has no hope of countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be." I would direct the author to my statement above - and add - as well as ask - which is preferable - some less-than-ideal trade agreements - or none at all? The author offers nothing in the way of a counterpoint or compromise.
The author feels that, "America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort." This is a somewhat curious statement in lieu of the fact that the worlds largest, best known and most-capitalized companies are American. In other words - China produces a great many goods - but has very few, if any, worldwide-recognized business or companies - no Boeing, Apple, General Motors, Caterpillar - not even a Samsung, Sony or Hyundai. And remove the Chinese governments underwriting of what companies they do have and this statement makes even less sense.
Further, "But until America can come close to matching China’s dynamism, it has no hope of countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be." I would direct the author to my statement above - and add - as well as ask - which is preferable - some less-than-ideal trade agreements - or none at all? The author offers nothing in the way of a counterpoint or compromise.
4
"Were it not for the fact that the dollar is the main global currency and that Washington can still borrow in the dollars it prints, the country would have gone bankrupt long ago."
So are you predicting that when/if the Yuan Renminbi becomes the global currency, the US will indeed be bankrupt?
Is TPP, then, insurance against this? Or at least a postponing?
However--a major complaint against TPP is that business practices elsewhere will determine--even politically-legally--dictate practices in North America.
Thus it is another form of foreign --corporate--takeover of the Americas--worse, or at at least as bad, as having China buy it.
So are you predicting that when/if the Yuan Renminbi becomes the global currency, the US will indeed be bankrupt?
Is TPP, then, insurance against this? Or at least a postponing?
However--a major complaint against TPP is that business practices elsewhere will determine--even politically-legally--dictate practices in North America.
Thus it is another form of foreign --corporate--takeover of the Americas--worse, or at at least as bad, as having China buy it.
4
Will Canada, for example, be able to prevent the importing of beef and dairy products raised/produced with steroids, hormones or antibiotics?
Will its dairy industry practices--regulated supply-side (quota)--which underwrite family dairy farms--be deemed illegal?
Will its dairy industry practices--regulated supply-side (quota)--which underwrite family dairy farms--be deemed illegal?
2
Why are so many people arguing and taking sides over an agreement that apparently nobody has read? I refuse to listen to anyone about this deal until I see it published in the NYT and other papers of equivalent stature and reach, so I can see what the furor is all about.
5
But you can't see it, it's a secret. Really inspires confidence doesn't it?!
10
It's a available on many websites, including USTR. That's the United States Trade Representative, the exec branch office which negotiates trade agreements.
There is a link in this very article to the entire deal...But you're right, unfortunately most people like to choose a position and dig in their heels based on soundbites, without reading through all of the literature. Remember the Patriot Act? *Everyone* I knew had an opinion about it...But I was the only one of those people who actually sad down and read it. (One friend of mine claimed to have "skimmed" it...)
You ask the average hilliary supporter WHAT TPP IS, and they'd say, "that's that new act that obama talked about on Jimmy Fallons show - it sounds like OPP! "You down with TPP?"asks jimmy... "yeah you know me"-said obama.."
This is EXACTLY the level of IQ, intellectual prowless and awareness that the left side of the country has on everything. They get ALL of their world news, political opinions from CNN- clinton news network, and MSNBC.
In reality, if you're voting for hillary and you want TPP in, you WANT foriegn control over our laws, and want to see hundreds of thosands of more jobs lossed to Asian countries,.
This will be 10 times worse than NAFTA, and you WANT this perosn as president to see this come to fruition. it's anti-american, anti soveriegnty, yet, you still want tovote for this criminal Traitor because you still think Trump is some kind of Hitlarian godzilla like monster war monger, becasue CNN talking heads and facebook told you so, and you'll beleive anything those white house censored, democrat leaning news media outlets will have you believe.
10s of millions of you hillary voters are so undereducated it's said. my 16 yo neice who;s very aware of everything,reads drudgereport can out debate most of you with the limited knowledge you have on the world and the status of the country and the election issues.
It's quite sad.
I got into an arguement with my neighbor, and all she could say was "trumps items were made in China/.." and thats it.
This is EXACTLY the level of IQ, intellectual prowless and awareness that the left side of the country has on everything. They get ALL of their world news, political opinions from CNN- clinton news network, and MSNBC.
In reality, if you're voting for hillary and you want TPP in, you WANT foriegn control over our laws, and want to see hundreds of thosands of more jobs lossed to Asian countries,.
This will be 10 times worse than NAFTA, and you WANT this perosn as president to see this come to fruition. it's anti-american, anti soveriegnty, yet, you still want tovote for this criminal Traitor because you still think Trump is some kind of Hitlarian godzilla like monster war monger, becasue CNN talking heads and facebook told you so, and you'll beleive anything those white house censored, democrat leaning news media outlets will have you believe.
10s of millions of you hillary voters are so undereducated it's said. my 16 yo neice who;s very aware of everything,reads drudgereport can out debate most of you with the limited knowledge you have on the world and the status of the country and the election issues.
It's quite sad.
I got into an arguement with my neighbor, and all she could say was "trumps items were made in China/.." and thats it.
9
Approximately two thirds of US consumption is services, not goods. You wouldn't know it from all the commentary but the US has a significant surplus of exports over imports in services. The focus on manufacturing is political posturing: given high US levels of productivity and automation, there is no way returning manufacturing jobs to the US can rebuild a middle class. For every 5-10 jobs we reduce in Asia, we would expect 1 new one here. So, let's focus on services, education, protection of these inventions and access to foreign markets for these exports
4
When the services surplus substantially mitigates the manufacturing trade deficit, that argument will be more valid. Running a consistent deficit is the path towards bankruptcy or the fiat currency alternative, hyperinflation.
4
Is it the security of the United States the TPP seeks to secure, or is it the global hegemony of multi-national corporations that already have power that in many cases matches, or even exceeds, the power of sovereign governments? If China is the problem, then perhaps we should follow their lead in investing in our infrastructure and in the education of our next generation of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians who will be needed to maintain our competitive standing.
24
The article is right we traded jobs, technology and the middle class for "global security" and now we have little left to trade. It is not the trade agreements but the trade barriers that no American company could overcome. Our military now is about protecting the big box store supply chain. This is unsustainable and the TPP is surely not going to help.
20
The U.S. economy is one of the few big economies that's still growing. Unemployment keeps falling and the Federal Reserve is one of the few central banks considering raising interest rates.
Are there weak spots? Yes! But there's so much we could be doing that we're not.
We need to spend several trillion--yes, trillion, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers--to repair and upgrade our infrastructure. Taxes are low by historical comparisons (especially for rich people) and so are interest rates. Corporations have money to invest that they're not using. Government could be spending a lot more on basic research. The bottom line: The resources to pay for a massive public works program are out there. We're just not using them!
So where is the political passion for such issues? Where are the calls for another New Deal?
The people who might support such an undertaking are too focused on trade deals, rhetoric and nostalgic fantasies about bringing back the factory jobs of the 60s (when China was voluntarily cutting itself from the rest of the world... a helpful circumstance that will never be repeated).
The TPP will boost growth here, especially in services and agriculture, and be a huge thing for places like Vietnam. It'll also help Japan. Yes, there will be disruptions in our increasingly small manufacturing sector, but we have options for cushioning the blow. We're just ignoring them.
Are there weak spots? Yes! But there's so much we could be doing that we're not.
We need to spend several trillion--yes, trillion, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers--to repair and upgrade our infrastructure. Taxes are low by historical comparisons (especially for rich people) and so are interest rates. Corporations have money to invest that they're not using. Government could be spending a lot more on basic research. The bottom line: The resources to pay for a massive public works program are out there. We're just not using them!
So where is the political passion for such issues? Where are the calls for another New Deal?
The people who might support such an undertaking are too focused on trade deals, rhetoric and nostalgic fantasies about bringing back the factory jobs of the 60s (when China was voluntarily cutting itself from the rest of the world... a helpful circumstance that will never be repeated).
The TPP will boost growth here, especially in services and agriculture, and be a huge thing for places like Vietnam. It'll also help Japan. Yes, there will be disruptions in our increasingly small manufacturing sector, but we have options for cushioning the blow. We're just ignoring them.
5
So much of China's growth is in state funded infrastructure is Prestowitz saying we should increase our public sector spending to match China's? Should we control our currency fluxs the way China does? Should the central US government cushion stock market swings? Should the government regulate corporate policies and behavior? His op-ed makes no sense unless the US follows China's economic policies - all of them.
1
Alas, the TPP Emperor has no clothes. Obama's arrogance, pride, and pursuit of a legacy are what drives his TPP agenda. Balanced trade, US Jobs, US exports, and the US billions of dollars trade deficit are whispers in the TPP windstorm.
Obama's presidential legacy will be of an administration that was misdirected, arrogant, and accomplished little of value for the middle class and working poor.
Obamacare proved to be a windfall for insurance corporations and mandated healthcare with increasing deductibles and premiums for Americans. Obama also bailed out Wall Street while abandoning Main Street for eight (8) years!
Obama's presidential legacy will be of an administration that was misdirected, arrogant, and accomplished little of value for the middle class and working poor.
Obamacare proved to be a windfall for insurance corporations and mandated healthcare with increasing deductibles and premiums for Americans. Obama also bailed out Wall Street while abandoning Main Street for eight (8) years!
18
Obama is not the President I voted for. The President I voted for promised transparency. He has accomplished some great things but not for the people of this country. Trying to roll out TPP under a veil of secrecy and during lame duck session, is a slap in the face to the citizens. When will they ever learn that the greatest commodity for success are the people of our great country. His loyalty lies with world class corporations and he seems determined to nail the coffin shut on the middle class.
7
I remember reading Mr. Prestowitz's "Trading Places" in the 80s, which warned people about the dangers of lopsided trade agreements. How right he was.
It bothers me how a very educated man like the president can argue that the TPP is anything but another giveaway to mega corporations.
Unfortunately Secretary Clinton will oppose the TPP until she is elected, then her administration will brag about the big changes to the TPP (cosmetic changes) that will make the TPP a "progressive" trade agreement. Bank on it.
It bothers me how a very educated man like the president can argue that the TPP is anything but another giveaway to mega corporations.
Unfortunately Secretary Clinton will oppose the TPP until she is elected, then her administration will brag about the big changes to the TPP (cosmetic changes) that will make the TPP a "progressive" trade agreement. Bank on it.
9
Any "trade agreement" these days automatically carries negative connotations and is considered bad for America and a boon to everyone else. Neither the Op Ed nor the comments point to specific provisions that are unwise in the context of the entire agreement. I've never been under the impression that our national security was the main motivator for TPP, as opposed to economic standing.
Mr. Prestowitz points to China's investments in infrastructure at home and investments in foreign countries in comparison to our own. The President, HRC and Dems in general have been calling for massive investments in our infrastructure to no avail because the GOP blocks it at every turn. Chinese leadership can mold their economy as they see fit. This is a cost of obstructionism, not a failing of the President.
Mr. Prestowitz points to China's investments in infrastructure at home and investments in foreign countries in comparison to our own. The President, HRC and Dems in general have been calling for massive investments in our infrastructure to no avail because the GOP blocks it at every turn. Chinese leadership can mold their economy as they see fit. This is a cost of obstructionism, not a failing of the President.
1
Gee, if TPP is such a great deal, why not publicize its components? Surely the reason it is being done in secret is that business does't have to regard the American constitution as anything of importance, unlike the government, but it first needs permission to screw over the poor and powerless.
No one publicly elects Boards, or CEO's. The new America, which is global international corporatism ( the barbarian inside the gates), is running this country, and TPP is just part of its needs.
Income inequality will grow and grow, but that is part of the new America, where the poor compete with the poor in China or Vietnam where unions are illegal.
Time will tell if those who favor the TPP the most will simply profit from their support when they leave office, taking jobs with the companies that will profit the most.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
No one publicly elects Boards, or CEO's. The new America, which is global international corporatism ( the barbarian inside the gates), is running this country, and TPP is just part of its needs.
Income inequality will grow and grow, but that is part of the new America, where the poor compete with the poor in China or Vietnam where unions are illegal.
Time will tell if those who favor the TPP the most will simply profit from their support when they leave office, taking jobs with the companies that will profit the most.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
12
The US did not displace Great Britain as the world's superpower by crafting trade agreements. We grew our industrial base to become the biggest economy in the late 1800's and then became the global leader in and after WWII. China is not becoming the new geopolitical rival to the US through crafting trade deals, they are growing their economy (and military) on the backs of the US consumers and their trade surplus with us.
Hard economic and military strength matters. Trade deals are a national security red herring, indeed they probably hurt by offshoring our supply chains to unfriendly regions. Economically they help cause our trade deficits and deindustrialization.
Lastly, no one mentions that the TPP has zero language on military or national security matters. There are 29 chapters, 5 of which are trade related, and 24 of which are global deregulation and administrative related. If the administration is concerned about national security, they should negotiate a national security treaty.
Hard economic and military strength matters. Trade deals are a national security red herring, indeed they probably hurt by offshoring our supply chains to unfriendly regions. Economically they help cause our trade deficits and deindustrialization.
Lastly, no one mentions that the TPP has zero language on military or national security matters. There are 29 chapters, 5 of which are trade related, and 24 of which are global deregulation and administrative related. If the administration is concerned about national security, they should negotiate a national security treaty.
10
MCS is right on. The TTP is about deregulating global capital, jobs in the USA be damned. Read the draft treaty. It isn't so hard to do.
7
TPP will help America keep jobs here as much as NAFTA did--0.
7
"But, I replied, the United States had never left. The Seventh Fleet has been patrolling the waters of East and Southeast Asia since World War II, and America has had at least 100,000 troops based in Asia for just as long."
So how did all those islands get constructed in the South China Sea and take us by surprise? Considering how ineffective our patrolling has been, it may be time to outsource that function. I'm sure China would do it for less. Oh, wait...
So how did all those islands get constructed in the South China Sea and take us by surprise? Considering how ineffective our patrolling has been, it may be time to outsource that function. I'm sure China would do it for less. Oh, wait...
2
Why is Obama pushing this with some other Democrats? He makes great speeches and convinces many, but when you look at what is actually going on, including in the regulatory agencies, his deportations, drone bombings, is he really such a progressive?
3
I stumbled upon the Rock Against the TPP event in Portland yesterday and asked at least six people "working" the event to explain the reason for their stance. No one could go further, when challenged, than a single bullet point of information. Worse still, a handout I was given begins its anti-TPP argument with several paragraphs on the treatment of women and gays in Brunei -- something wholly irrelevant to TPP. I expect a lack of reasoning from the right, but am appalled when I find it coming from my side. The TPP is being used, as is the Keystone pipeline, as a fashionable issue when in fact neither are wholly black or white. Rather than TPP for example, why aren't we rallying against real enemies of worker rights and the environment like, say, Amazon? Answer: because that would cause some supporters to question the moral choices they are making by their own daily actions.
18
This is excellent. The campaign against the TPP is more a matter of political fashion than substance. Opposing it is cool, and it seems like people who are interested in a reasonable discussion aren't welcome.
Editors: Can we get this moved over to the NYT Picks sections, please?
Editors: Can we get this moved over to the NYT Picks sections, please?
1
I think the references to human rights abuses/social oppressions in countries that are supposed to be a part of TPP are relevant. The argument there, which perhaps wasn't made clearly enough at the event you attended, is that we shouldn't be trading with countries that commit abuses and injustices against their citizens.
The idea is that we shouldn't be trading with countries that permit social injustices such as poor treatment of marginalized persons...Perhaps that wasn't explained well enough at the event you attended, but I do think that is relevant. Perhaps whoever compiled that handout was high while doing so.
2
The logic in this article is a little hard to follow:
- "TPP will not have any effect because there is already largely free trade between America and the other potential members." But if there won't be a great effect on trade, why is there any harm from ratifying TPP, especially if there's at least a marginal geopolitical benefit?
- "The potential TPP members are rushing into trade deals with China." But then why isn't it important to continue/increase their ties with the U.S. too, rather than cutting bait and ceding the relationships to China?
- "China is already the biggest economy in the world." Putting aside that this isn't true (I don't think PPP--which I'm guessing the author is relying on--has any relevance for international trade; rather GDP and actual trade levels seem more relevant...) again why cede the issue to China just because China is on the rise?
- "U.S. government debt is too high." But why does allowing private trade affect U.S. government debt--if trade weakens the dollar, wouldn't that help encourage exports and help pay off the national debt?
This seems like a lot of hand-waiving, cloaked in pseudo-detail, without any actual substance.
- "TPP will not have any effect because there is already largely free trade between America and the other potential members." But if there won't be a great effect on trade, why is there any harm from ratifying TPP, especially if there's at least a marginal geopolitical benefit?
- "The potential TPP members are rushing into trade deals with China." But then why isn't it important to continue/increase their ties with the U.S. too, rather than cutting bait and ceding the relationships to China?
- "China is already the biggest economy in the world." Putting aside that this isn't true (I don't think PPP--which I'm guessing the author is relying on--has any relevance for international trade; rather GDP and actual trade levels seem more relevant...) again why cede the issue to China just because China is on the rise?
- "U.S. government debt is too high." But why does allowing private trade affect U.S. government debt--if trade weakens the dollar, wouldn't that help encourage exports and help pay off the national debt?
This seems like a lot of hand-waiving, cloaked in pseudo-detail, without any actual substance.
5
Good points/questions. A number of countries hedge their bets and play off economic ties with China and security ties with the U.S.
And even comparing GDP doesn't quite reveal the China-U.S. picture - if the GDP of both countries is the same - divide that GDP number by 335,000,000 citizens in the U.S. versus over 1,000,000,000 in China.
And I might add - China has based their economic growth in large part on cheap labor. However there are now other countries that can provide labor more cheaply than China. In essence - in this regard there is a race to the bottom - and China will lose more than anyone. The U.S. on the other hand is not privy to this cheap labor race.
And even comparing GDP doesn't quite reveal the China-U.S. picture - if the GDP of both countries is the same - divide that GDP number by 335,000,000 citizens in the U.S. versus over 1,000,000,000 in China.
And I might add - China has based their economic growth in large part on cheap labor. However there are now other countries that can provide labor more cheaply than China. In essence - in this regard there is a race to the bottom - and China will lose more than anyone. The U.S. on the other hand is not privy to this cheap labor race.
I personally didn't really read this as a warning that we should *not* enact TPP. Rather, I read it as a warning to keep expectations modest-- an analysis of why TPP, while perhaps not *bad* for the US, is not *as good* for the US as some say/think it is.
Mr. Wilson, you should read a bit more about the treaty. It precludes governmental preferences of any sort for local manufacture and commerce. It compels any dispute regarding transactions covered by the treaty into private corporate arbitration and closes the doors of the courts (not just our courts - all courts in all signatory countries) to aggrieved parties. The "Black Helicopters" are here, but it turns out that they represent not the government, but the fat cats.
6
Our need and true interest is not for military or economic dominance in Asia. It is for balanced foreign trade here in America. That can be accomplished by granting our exporters $ trade credits that must be purchased, on an open exchange, by importers, before they can release $ to pay for imports. That has been proposed before, but was defeated in Congress by self-serving lobby interests.
As for maintaining a huge fleet of warships in Asian waters, or 100,000 soldiers on Asian soil -- why, and to what purpose? What would be our response if a Chinese fleet of that size were in the Caribbean and that many Chinese soldiers stationed on nearby North American soil? IMHO those are ideas that need some deep consideration,
As for maintaining a huge fleet of warships in Asian waters, or 100,000 soldiers on Asian soil -- why, and to what purpose? What would be our response if a Chinese fleet of that size were in the Caribbean and that many Chinese soldiers stationed on nearby North American soil? IMHO those are ideas that need some deep consideration,
8
As a country, we have prioritized made in china $10 lawn chairs over $50K jobs made in the USA. As long as unrestrained and irresponsible consumption remains the bedrock of our country, we will continue to pay the price.
5
Maybe if President Obama had thought to vacation in the Great lakes region of the USA rather than Martha's Vineyard he might have gotten a better view of the country and the citizen's who live here. We don't want your corporate giveaway deals Mr. President. It's remarkable that the first African American president (though actually he is the first Bi-racial president) is planning to work for vulture capitalists when he retires next year. I guess building houses at Habitat for Humanity or eradicating diseases in poor countries is just not his thing.
14
Obama is all about generating personal wealth, he doesn't give a damn about others only his own family. A quick review of his political resume reveals little accomplishment while racing up the political ladder to the presidency.
5
If any security is in danger, it will increase as many more cargo ships shipping goods from slave labor countries will need military support, especially to protect against piracy. We're already seeing the costs skyrocket as even a new Panama Canal has great deficiencies. Greedy corporations will pay nothing for that support, mooching even more from us who do pay taxes.
7
And meanwhile, on the other coast the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) moves quietly along. If it weren't for the EU which is pushing it but is doing it openly (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/) we'd know almost nothing about it.
Brexit may have wounded TTIP but probably not killed it. Many in Europe see TTIP as a means of reducing regulatory restraints on large corporations -- many of which are far more stringent than US regulations. Sounds eerily like the TPP.
Brexit may have wounded TTIP but probably not killed it. Many in Europe see TTIP as a means of reducing regulatory restraints on large corporations -- many of which are far more stringent than US regulations. Sounds eerily like the TPP.
7
Agreed, that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is essential to America's national security. Without this old-fashioned partnership, China will step into the vacuum in the far east and flex its muscles as it has already done in the Spratly islands of the South China sea - building reefs into islands with, airstrips, housing and claiming these small built-up military reefs are China's territories. China is negotiating with the TPP countries, and will hold the cards of future rules of world trade. We Americans, are the global consumers of last resort. The world's largest debtor while China is now the world's greatest economy. America does need to counter China's growing influence in Middle Eastern, European, Latin American, African and Australian countries where china is investing heavily. China is making new-fashioned trade agreements with their "One Belt, One Road" and its incipient Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with all Asian countries -duplicating the much weaker TPP. That the Trans-Pacific countries feel "neglected" by the US (which has always pivoted East toward the UK and Europe instead of West -notwithstanding Manifest Destiny in the 1800s and 1900s) is not reason enough to push TPP through Congress.. America does not have any tools now to counter China's influence, and as for dynamism in the US, it doesn't exist except in the peculiar and weird Presidential campaign of this year between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
1
GOP Ideologues are to thank again for undermining national security. Ignorant of China's initiative in developing its own regional trade agreement, the GOP blocked efforts to move forward with the TPP. The Chinese beat us to the punch with mass production of economical solar panels (a design that US taxpayers paid for in the form of military R & D), we could have moved more quickly with the TPP and perhaps gotten there ahead of China. What GOP ideologues have proven with blocking legislation is that they have singlehandedly undermined US security. Shrinking government is their only goal. So as a nation we're suffering from the GOP's aged one-trick pony.
2
But there are also immigration provisions in the TPP. Provisions that allow foreign workers to live and work in the USA. Immigration must be under the control of Congress - our government - not some international committee. It's a national security matter.
At the same time the TPP does not include opportunities for American workers to live and work in the 7 TPP nations. Any immigration provisions should and must be reciprocol. Heck, I wouldn't mind spending a year in New Zealand.
At the same time the TPP does not include opportunities for American workers to live and work in the 7 TPP nations. Any immigration provisions should and must be reciprocol. Heck, I wouldn't mind spending a year in New Zealand.
18
We've been engaged in a trade war for the past twenty-five years.
And we lost.
Based on the advice of economists, our business and government "leaders", and the Tom Friedmans of the world, America essentially implemented a policy of unilateral economic disarmament in that war.
And now the data measuring the results of that policy is abundant, it is overwhelming, and it is irrefutable: The fundamentally flawed implementation of "free" trade and globalization that we pursued for the past twenty-five years has decimated the American middle class, blue-collar and white-collar workers alike.
We basically sold out the middle class in this country for a cup of coffee, and the lives of tens of millions of good and decent hard-working Americans have been ruined in the process.
And people wonder where the anger in this country is coming from?
And we lost.
Based on the advice of economists, our business and government "leaders", and the Tom Friedmans of the world, America essentially implemented a policy of unilateral economic disarmament in that war.
And now the data measuring the results of that policy is abundant, it is overwhelming, and it is irrefutable: The fundamentally flawed implementation of "free" trade and globalization that we pursued for the past twenty-five years has decimated the American middle class, blue-collar and white-collar workers alike.
We basically sold out the middle class in this country for a cup of coffee, and the lives of tens of millions of good and decent hard-working Americans have been ruined in the process.
And people wonder where the anger in this country is coming from?
33
America's future lies with China and Russia. The Western democracies can no longer play the game. Real democracy requires an economic system sheltered from the whims of an economic and political oligarchy. What we have seen since 1980 is an American politic dominated by corporate interests that has made sure that democracy does not interfere with the economics. Some might call it gridlock but the design is well established and it is business as usual.
It is time that the media starts informing their consumers about POLITICAL ECONOMICS and the role it plays in trade treaties and their construct. Political economics is not economics or is it political it is a system of law. It is taught at law schools not business schools or schools of economics. It is the domain of lawyers and their clients and is therefore immunized from the demands of democracy.
Our security will be improved as we understand it will be Russia, China and America that enforce the international legal system the only question is whether the Russian, Chinese and American people will give up sovereignty and their little bit of democracy for their security.
It is time that the media starts informing their consumers about POLITICAL ECONOMICS and the role it plays in trade treaties and their construct. Political economics is not economics or is it political it is a system of law. It is taught at law schools not business schools or schools of economics. It is the domain of lawyers and their clients and is therefore immunized from the demands of democracy.
Our security will be improved as we understand it will be Russia, China and America that enforce the international legal system the only question is whether the Russian, Chinese and American people will give up sovereignty and their little bit of democracy for their security.
4
You had me until "Were it not for the fact that the dollar is the main global currency, the country would have gone bankrupt long ago." That's an absurd and factually incorrect assertion for an "economist" to make.
10
In some ways this is a Brexit moment for the U.S.: defeating the TPP would be horrendous for America, but its opponents have been very effective at spreading fear and misinformation.
At the same time, while globalism is a net gain for the country it tends to provide the most benefit for a very few, a diffuse but clear smaller benefit to many, and hurts some. In the past we have neglected to do right by those who are hurt by free trade, and now we are paying the price with the opposition to TPP.
I'm wary of the word "redistribution" but we need to find a way to make sure that *everybody* benefits by free trade.
At the same time, while globalism is a net gain for the country it tends to provide the most benefit for a very few, a diffuse but clear smaller benefit to many, and hurts some. In the past we have neglected to do right by those who are hurt by free trade, and now we are paying the price with the opposition to TPP.
I'm wary of the word "redistribution" but we need to find a way to make sure that *everybody* benefits by free trade.
23
TPP is all about making it easier for manufacturers to pollute and exploit workers, and media companies to extend and enforce copyrights. And do it all with the protection of the U.S. government, while suppressing states and towns rights to protect their citizens.
40
The article says:
"But until America can come close to matching China’s dynamism"
China's dynamism is the third most important of China's advantages. The first two are the cost and exploitability of its labor force, and the lack of environmental oversight. If Chinese companies had to pay as much and pollute as little as American companies, America would not be in the position it is now, and a measurable percentage of what I see at Walmart or Home Depot would be made in America.
"But until America can come close to matching China’s dynamism"
China's dynamism is the third most important of China's advantages. The first two are the cost and exploitability of its labor force, and the lack of environmental oversight. If Chinese companies had to pay as much and pollute as little as American companies, America would not be in the position it is now, and a measurable percentage of what I see at Walmart or Home Depot would be made in America.
57
Why did "Trading Places" Prestowitz conveniently ignore America's most important bilateral relationship in that region, Japan? The subtitle of his original book was "How we are giving our future to Japan." I wish him better luck with his newer Chinese infatuations, but predict that he'll be on to India before his think-tank career concludes. The Japanese will take care of their own defense, with our without the US. That's what the rise of Abe is all about.
When Prestowitz wrote his first book, it was unimaginable that an American consumer electronics brand could be found in any retail mall anywhere in Asia. And then Steve Jobs returned to Apple and the rest is history. It's innovation that pays the bills in this world. Absent that, a society's wages will always tend toward the global mean, which is pretty low by American standards. Thankfully, the TPP attempts to incorporate the IP protections that will channel the economic returns to innovation to the right places. That's one reason why it's good for all of the signatories, but especially the US.
When Prestowitz wrote his first book, it was unimaginable that an American consumer electronics brand could be found in any retail mall anywhere in Asia. And then Steve Jobs returned to Apple and the rest is history. It's innovation that pays the bills in this world. Absent that, a society's wages will always tend toward the global mean, which is pretty low by American standards. Thankfully, the TPP attempts to incorporate the IP protections that will channel the economic returns to innovation to the right places. That's one reason why it's good for all of the signatories, but especially the US.
5
IP is well and good, but even Apple builds its products overseas (including in China - though the Chinese workers are starting to organize, so our iPhones will soon be build in Bangladesh). IP protections? Sure! That's where the capital gains are. Worker protections? Not so much. Promotion of industrial jobs in the US? Don't be ridiculous.
Results of the NAFTA convinced me decades ago that fast track trade agreements should be presumed to have been written for the benefit of multi-national corporate business interests and to the detriment of the human citizens of the U.S. That President Obama has recently been reported to have indicated that in contemplating his post-presidential future, the siren calls of venture capital and "innovation" have been music to his ears seems to me further cause for skepticism concerning these no-discussion-or-debate-straight-up-or-down-vote trade agreements he is boosting. Having voted for him twice and having been ever more deeply disappointed in the cumulative results, I find it appalling that the final results of "Yes, we can," will be: to sacrifice the sovereignty of the U.S. to W.T.O. arbitration; and to endorse the future administration of the U.S. government by series 3 (and presumably 4) of "The Clintons" as the best and only alternative to "The Donald." Oh, well, conned again.
All that having been said I would have appreciated a specific Rx from Mr. Prestowitz for matching China's dynamism. Hopefully, that Rx would not require matching China's fascism in order to achieve that dynamism.
All that having been said I would have appreciated a specific Rx from Mr. Prestowitz for matching China's dynamism. Hopefully, that Rx would not require matching China's fascism in order to achieve that dynamism.
28
China's dynamism isn't the problem. China's more exploitable environment and labor, and it's one-sided trade policies are the problem. Mitigate those and the dynamism will take care of itself.
2
It is not worth compromising our sovereignty for a doubtful geopolitical gain. Right now the US is being sued under similar intentionally mis-labled "trade pacts" over the Keystone pipeline that a vast majority of the American people don't want, country of origin laws for food and Australia is being sued for tobacco rules very similar to ours. These treaties pass control from the people to multi-national corporations who can sue through foreign subsidiaries for "lost profits" in overseas trade courts. This is just the start, the plan is obviously for them so sue over health regulations, child labor laws, environmental protections, gun control - virtually anything smart lawyers and deep pockets can spin as lost profits.
20
What's wrong with American mega-corporations establish franchises in foreign countries? Why is it so bad for foreign countries? To the contrary, those American mega-corporations will help creating jobs in foreign countries. Well, if you are some kind of phony socialists (not even real socialists), you will object to any kind of mega-corporations. But now, that's one of the the best ways to create more jobs in underdeveloped countries. Of course, they should not exploit the workers in foreign countries, and that's what real socialists have to work on.
As to losing jobs in the U.S., it is not TPP but outsourcing which takes jobs from workers in the U.S. But that should be done by constraining corporations inside the U.S.
Only China will be so happy when someone like Prestowitz say things like that.
As to losing jobs in the U.S., it is not TPP but outsourcing which takes jobs from workers in the U.S. But that should be done by constraining corporations inside the U.S.
Only China will be so happy when someone like Prestowitz say things like that.
1
I guess that, like old generals, old false prophets never die, they just fade away. As has been pointed out, Clyde Prestowitz used up his 15 minutes of fame a long time ago with shrill and alarmist warnings about "how we are giving away our future to Japan...." (the subtitle of his 1993 book Trading Places).
You'd think that, with that record, he would have taken the honorable way out by falling on his sword.
Prestowitz tries a sleight of hand in this column. He says the US should try to make its economy more dynamic, not make trade agreements. But that is a false choice. The best policy would be to do both.
Worst of all, Prestowitz does not address the very real fear that failing to ratify the TPP will signal to the world America's new isolationism and will sow dismay and a sense of abandonment among our friends. The last laugh will belong to the world's club of dictators who will be emboldened by the US's inward turn to try all sorts of adventures that will eventually draw us into a shooting war at a time and place not of our choosing.
Someone tell Trump that the best we can hope for by turning our back on the world is a bullet in the back.
You'd think that, with that record, he would have taken the honorable way out by falling on his sword.
Prestowitz tries a sleight of hand in this column. He says the US should try to make its economy more dynamic, not make trade agreements. But that is a false choice. The best policy would be to do both.
Worst of all, Prestowitz does not address the very real fear that failing to ratify the TPP will signal to the world America's new isolationism and will sow dismay and a sense of abandonment among our friends. The last laugh will belong to the world's club of dictators who will be emboldened by the US's inward turn to try all sorts of adventures that will eventually draw us into a shooting war at a time and place not of our choosing.
Someone tell Trump that the best we can hope for by turning our back on the world is a bullet in the back.
7
Most interesting take on TPP that I have seen. With Truman we opened our markets to former foes and allies, building a consumer society here, with lots of manufacturing as well loading pockets with $$$ to buy. We have as the author notes become the one who buys for consumption.
Now we are borrowing mightly to consume, not invest in things that pay big dividends but which ease the daily lives of armies of government workers, those of us living in part off of a ponzi scheme((yes, we paid in for decades, but with longer lives outlive our contributions thus...)) consume and now, our consumption is based on borrowing, 20 trillion on the books, hundred or more trillion off the books.
China invest and investment in other countries is for profit, long term, not a quick fix. Our economy is now one of the quick fix, buy these votes, put off reforms for generations, cash in, get out before.... and so it goes. We have lost our way.
Now we are borrowing mightly to consume, not invest in things that pay big dividends but which ease the daily lives of armies of government workers, those of us living in part off of a ponzi scheme((yes, we paid in for decades, but with longer lives outlive our contributions thus...)) consume and now, our consumption is based on borrowing, 20 trillion on the books, hundred or more trillion off the books.
China invest and investment in other countries is for profit, long term, not a quick fix. Our economy is now one of the quick fix, buy these votes, put off reforms for generations, cash in, get out before.... and so it goes. We have lost our way.
28
Prestowitz is right on target. Brigadier General John Adams also debunked the flimsy national security case for the Trans-Pacific Partnership last week in The Hill. The US International Trade Commission, in a May 18, 2016 report, revealed that the administration's economic case for the TPP did not exist. Our trade deficit will worsen and we will have no growth or job creation worth discussing, that report said.
The TPP has five chapters on trade, 24 chapters on global deregulation and governance, and no chapters on national security. America's national security interests lie in fixing our trade deficit, growing our economy, so we can afford to be the world's policeman. And so we can afford the 100,000 troops currently stationed in Asia.
America did not displace Great Britain as the world's superpower because we had trade agreements. It was because we grew economically and militarily strong. Similarly, we will not check China's geopolitical rivalry and military adventurism with a non-security related trade document layered on top of all the other pre-existing international agreements.
The TPP has five chapters on trade, 24 chapters on global deregulation and governance, and no chapters on national security. America's national security interests lie in fixing our trade deficit, growing our economy, so we can afford to be the world's policeman. And so we can afford the 100,000 troops currently stationed in Asia.
America did not displace Great Britain as the world's superpower because we had trade agreements. It was because we grew economically and militarily strong. Similarly, we will not check China's geopolitical rivalry and military adventurism with a non-security related trade document layered on top of all the other pre-existing international agreements.
11
"In other words, the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China’s growing influence in Asia and around the world. "
China has "growing influence" only because we send them so much money. Duh.
Buy American, or French, or German, or from any country that respects employee and environmental rights. The bonus will be that whatever you buy won't break after about two weeks.
China has "growing influence" only because we send them so much money. Duh.
Buy American, or French, or German, or from any country that respects employee and environmental rights. The bonus will be that whatever you buy won't break after about two weeks.
11
American voters are all too aware that many have not benefited from trade deals such as NAFTA. It is one of the rare areas where you find overlap with the statements of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders was right when he unpacked various deals and described how they impacted the American worker (read: loss of good paying jobs). This very paper had an op-ed piece which cited various economists stating how they had miscalculated the beneficial effects of these trade deals for Americans (see: "On Trade, Angry Voters Have a Point"). In this regard, the author is right, for Americans, the reasons not to support the TPP deal - outweigh those that do.
23
Rufus:
Simply false (and cherry-picked).
There is near-unanimous support for international trade among economists. Even opponents of TPP, like Paul Krugman, oppose it because (they say) it ISN'T free trade. Krugman says Ricardo doesn't apply in the case of TPP.
Even the ever-opportunistic Krugman says he is a "lukewarm" opponent of TPP. And one of his main reasons for opposing TPP is not about economics at all -- it's about POLITICS. Krugman opposes TPP not because it is bad policy, but because conservatives support it. I'm sure conservatives never knew they had so much influence!
Simply false (and cherry-picked).
There is near-unanimous support for international trade among economists. Even opponents of TPP, like Paul Krugman, oppose it because (they say) it ISN'T free trade. Krugman says Ricardo doesn't apply in the case of TPP.
Even the ever-opportunistic Krugman says he is a "lukewarm" opponent of TPP. And one of his main reasons for opposing TPP is not about economics at all -- it's about POLITICS. Krugman opposes TPP not because it is bad policy, but because conservatives support it. I'm sure conservatives never knew they had so much influence!
1
The TPP is about security it's about trade.
1
It's about security. TPP is a means to a larger end. If we don't wake up to that fact we will soon be goners.
What exactly is China's dynamism? The author makes several good points especially reminding us that we already have trade agreements with many of these countries.
Most major economists support the TPP. It will increase the revenue flowing into this country. I know of no one disputing this fact. The debate centers around how this increased revenue will be distributed. Without any adjustments, a disproporiate share of that revenue accrues to the already wealthy. More needs to go to the working class and impoverished.
A way to accomplish this is to revert our federal income tax rates bavk to 1968 levels. ... http://goo.gl/TRLwMw
Most major economists support the TPP. It will increase the revenue flowing into this country. I know of no one disputing this fact. The debate centers around how this increased revenue will be distributed. Without any adjustments, a disproporiate share of that revenue accrues to the already wealthy. More needs to go to the working class and impoverished.
A way to accomplish this is to revert our federal income tax rates bavk to 1968 levels. ... http://goo.gl/TRLwMw
9
This is the point the reactionary opponents of the TPP always miss. Yes, the TPP could boost profits. But we can tax those to pay for things the country needs.
New spending on much-needed infrastructure will help cushion some of the job losses in manufacturing. So will new spending on training programs and wage insurance.
Meanwhile, everyone else will get access to cheaper goods from places like Vietnam. Let's have our cake and eat it too.
New spending on much-needed infrastructure will help cushion some of the job losses in manufacturing. So will new spending on training programs and wage insurance.
Meanwhile, everyone else will get access to cheaper goods from places like Vietnam. Let's have our cake and eat it too.
How is the United States supposed to counter China's growing influence when the United States and its free trade agreements are the very reason that China has become a such an influential player on the world's stage?
The moral of the story with free trade agreements in the US is this: the rich get richer, while the country and its citizens get weaker.
The moral of the story with free trade agreements in the US is this: the rich get richer, while the country and its citizens get weaker.
27
I think that this is a reasonable argument. However, it misses the key point that perception matters. I was in Singapore last year, speaking to colleagues about this. One expressed relief that the US was going ahead with the TPP. Otherwise, he feared, it was signaling its decision to leave the Asia Pacific to China. Mr. Prestowitz's points are good, but the perception that the US is in precipitous decline and that China is on the rise is common in Asia. That perception will affect things like the willingness of regional states to ally themselves with the US. This logic is not always rational. Consider: when Russia invaded Crimea, Japan expressed doubts about the US commitment to the US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty. Objectively, this was a completely irrational response: the US has no security treaty with Ukraine and getting involved in a conflict with Russia over that territory is crazy. By all lights, the Japanese should have been pleased that the US was showing such restraint. But, according to the NYT at least, Japan was worried instead. The US is in decline; it will have to learn to live in a multipolar world and accept China's dominance in Asia. But the TPP is symbolically important and it does affect how Asians perceive the US commitment to and engagement with their region.
5
"It is the world’s largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume".........
This is a function of our addiction to cheap imported goods with their "too good to be true prices". Corporate America is giving us (and the shareholders) exactly what we want. The added bonus is a future with, increased debt, foreign ownership of our intellectual property and technology, and the evaporation of our middle class standard of living. No matter though, the blame still lies with us and we can't say we didn't see it coming.
This is a function of our addiction to cheap imported goods with their "too good to be true prices". Corporate America is giving us (and the shareholders) exactly what we want. The added bonus is a future with, increased debt, foreign ownership of our intellectual property and technology, and the evaporation of our middle class standard of living. No matter though, the blame still lies with us and we can't say we didn't see it coming.
5
I wish he would give up on the TPP and throw all his efforts into pressing Congress to move on his Supreme Court nominee. Then we won't have to worry so much if the emails tank HRC such that even the DNC and Obama can't bulldoze the path for her.
5
TPP Deal seems to be off the radar for most Americans, being hid between what's happening to Hillary and Trump. However, trade agreements in-part have greatly hurt American jobs and TPP will be more of the same. I don't like either the Republican or Democrat candidates and how both parties have taken our rights and jobs away and give them to others. How can we see, hear and know what they have done and know they will continue to do the same and still remain divided?
Forget the parties as they have become, for it is only the coming together that we can clean it up. Americans can get rid of the those politicians causing harm to our country and humanity by the government made up of both parties obeying their master the globalists who have complete control over what America can and cannot do when it comes to trade agreements.
It is time to vote them out, vote them all without exception and stop wasting our votes, by voting for liars , thieves and cheats. We need make a statement by voting in every third party and independent candidate, instead of a Democrat or Republican who say one thing, do something else and both end-up giving us the same results of what the globalists want.
Forget the parties as they have become, for it is only the coming together that we can clean it up. Americans can get rid of the those politicians causing harm to our country and humanity by the government made up of both parties obeying their master the globalists who have complete control over what America can and cannot do when it comes to trade agreements.
It is time to vote them out, vote them all without exception and stop wasting our votes, by voting for liars , thieves and cheats. We need make a statement by voting in every third party and independent candidate, instead of a Democrat or Republican who say one thing, do something else and both end-up giving us the same results of what the globalists want.
12
The fundamental conundrum and imbalance with any free trade deal is that the real benefits are Macroeconomic statistics and corporate entities and the real costs are born by Microeconomic realities and displaced workers. China's funding of American debt, and its dependence on the security of the U.S. Dollar, along its involvement in all aspects of the U.S. economy, are the most dispostive checks on China's behavior, not the TPP.
4
Don:
Good points. But I don't see much evidence of your dispositive checks restraining China's adventurism in the South China Sea.
The TPP's failure will demoralize China's neighbors and the game will be over.
Good points. But I don't see much evidence of your dispositive checks restraining China's adventurism in the South China Sea.
The TPP's failure will demoralize China's neighbors and the game will be over.
1
So, what's Mr. prestowitz's solution? Just wait without doing anything until we are sucked into China's economic black hole? China is not the U.S., meaning its economy is not as well developed as the U.S. economy in every possible way. Most of all, small Asian countries cannot compete with China due to the low labor costs of China. Besides, the Chinese market is still run by the Chinese government, which means the Chinese government can make economic rules beneficial only to China. It is so ridiculous for Prestowitz to write such an irresponsible column. Before reading, I thought that he could offer a better solution or alternative ideas to the least. But he has none. He just says that nobody can prevent China from sucking the economies of small Asian countries. True, it will be very difficult to stop China create its own rules, laws, and sucking the economy of the whole world. But that's why other countries should unite together.
3
Would not the TPP make it easier for the Chinese to get access to American technology, whether by license agreements to use it or by buying the American companies that own it?
2
Jim:
China is not part of the TPP deal. If it wanted to join later, it would have to accept standards that it would rather not.
China is not part of the TPP deal. If it wanted to join later, it would have to accept standards that it would rather not.
Excellent from Clyde Prestowitz. He also wrote another great article called "Free Trade is Dead" in the Washington Monthly.
The main reason China is such a powerhouse in economics is because of the massive trade surplus they have with the US. If you take away that money they will lose their ability in large part to influence their neighbors.
The main reason China is such a powerhouse in economics is because of the massive trade surplus they have with the US. If you take away that money they will lose their ability in large part to influence their neighbors.
6
"America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It’s not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world’s largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume. It is hugely dependent on China to fund its borrowing. Were it not for the fact that the dollar is the main global currency and that Washington can still borrow in the dollars it prints, the country would have gone bankrupt long ago."
For more than 20 years I have written endless letters to the NYT and the WSJ using almost the exact language to describe what I believe is American economic suicide. Every trade agreement since the end of WWII has been at the expense of American workers and industry. At the State Dept. there has always been the belief that America could afford to sacrifice industry and employment for the sake of global American interests. In other words Pax Americana at any price. I also wrote to my congressional representatives and to our representatives in the Senate. It feel on deaf ears.
Obama and Hillary Clinton believe wrongly that the TPP is necessary. Now suddenly Hillary has found religion and opposes it. Only because Trump has made the case that American workers are tired of being lied to and laid off.
China is eating our lunch. And dinner and dessert too.
If we don't return to industrialization of America and employing highly skilled American workers our economy will continue to decline.
For more than 20 years I have written endless letters to the NYT and the WSJ using almost the exact language to describe what I believe is American economic suicide. Every trade agreement since the end of WWII has been at the expense of American workers and industry. At the State Dept. there has always been the belief that America could afford to sacrifice industry and employment for the sake of global American interests. In other words Pax Americana at any price. I also wrote to my congressional representatives and to our representatives in the Senate. It feel on deaf ears.
Obama and Hillary Clinton believe wrongly that the TPP is necessary. Now suddenly Hillary has found religion and opposes it. Only because Trump has made the case that American workers are tired of being lied to and laid off.
China is eating our lunch. And dinner and dessert too.
If we don't return to industrialization of America and employing highly skilled American workers our economy will continue to decline.
13
All these trade deals are good only for single individuals and make vast majority of the people poorer and poorer. This process affect USA citizens at the same scale as any other countries involved. Famous Reagan's approach of trickle down economy does not work these days. Globalaizers know to seal holes so efficient, that nothing really trickles down anymore.
14
What's good about this push for the vile TPP is that if President Obama can't or won't reveal his true rationale (political capital? idiocy? sheer malice?), Wikileaks and friends will.
It harms internet access and neutrality, tightens bad copyright laws to kill community works like fansubs (often both better than the original media they enhance, and the ONLY way to see them outside of their country thanks to current bad law), and makes "plant variety" rights a thing. As if anyone should have exclusive rights to nature!
The use of trademark, copyright, and other laws as a combined bludgeon to the communal and folk works that helped build human intellect in the first place--the very concept of "intellectual property"--leads only to intellectual poverty. Instead of that Terrible Push for Power, we should reform law to e.g.:
*require YouTube et al. to investigate DMCA and trademark claims BEFORE takedowns (see Minecraft maker Mojang's official TeamMojang channel there--suspended due to a trademark claim!), ignore stupid ones, and end "ContentID" auto-takedowns;
*end "export control" of software, which Iran and friends can get and already have thanks to p2p anyway;
*end the patent, which only trolls and megacorps can afford to enrich themselves with anymore; and
*honor Snowden and friends as heroes.
Ignore the USTR site for the corporate pact linked in the article, and visit https://www.readthetpp.com/, BoingBoing, The Intercept, and other non-captured sources of info.
It harms internet access and neutrality, tightens bad copyright laws to kill community works like fansubs (often both better than the original media they enhance, and the ONLY way to see them outside of their country thanks to current bad law), and makes "plant variety" rights a thing. As if anyone should have exclusive rights to nature!
The use of trademark, copyright, and other laws as a combined bludgeon to the communal and folk works that helped build human intellect in the first place--the very concept of "intellectual property"--leads only to intellectual poverty. Instead of that Terrible Push for Power, we should reform law to e.g.:
*require YouTube et al. to investigate DMCA and trademark claims BEFORE takedowns (see Minecraft maker Mojang's official TeamMojang channel there--suspended due to a trademark claim!), ignore stupid ones, and end "ContentID" auto-takedowns;
*end "export control" of software, which Iran and friends can get and already have thanks to p2p anyway;
*end the patent, which only trolls and megacorps can afford to enrich themselves with anymore; and
*honor Snowden and friends as heroes.
Ignore the USTR site for the corporate pact linked in the article, and visit https://www.readthetpp.com/, BoingBoing, The Intercept, and other non-captured sources of info.
5
On the other hand, patent and trademark laws help insure that people who create intellectual property get paid for their work. You have to pay for what you use, SR. And Snowden is a criminal and should be prosecuted for his crimes.
"I pointed out that among the seven other countries then in discussion, we already had free trade deals with all...and that these were all tiny economies that didn’t seem to offer much potential economic gain to America." Unless, of course, you're looking to outsource more jobs. Then, these countries would be ideal.
Using the threat of Chinese economic dominance is a cynical scare tactic. It is no different than the use of "terrorism" to justify military action and the curtailment of American rights.
The TPP is a horror show of a trade deal. It allows corporate interests to overrule national sovereignty, eliminates food and safety standards on imports, and opens the door to more outsourcing. Just look into the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) which partners with the TPP. It's basically an outsourcing agreement for our "service" economy.
I agree with the author. The best way to increase America's economic prominence, is to stop gutting and hollowing out our economy from within for the benefit of multinational corporate interests, and start investing in our nation, our infrastructure, and our people again.
I am furious and dismayed that President Obama continues to try and force this poison pill down our throats. I can see no reason for it, other than perhaps an attempt at feathering his nest before he leaves office. It certainly offers no benefit for the average American.
Using the threat of Chinese economic dominance is a cynical scare tactic. It is no different than the use of "terrorism" to justify military action and the curtailment of American rights.
The TPP is a horror show of a trade deal. It allows corporate interests to overrule national sovereignty, eliminates food and safety standards on imports, and opens the door to more outsourcing. Just look into the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) which partners with the TPP. It's basically an outsourcing agreement for our "service" economy.
I agree with the author. The best way to increase America's economic prominence, is to stop gutting and hollowing out our economy from within for the benefit of multinational corporate interests, and start investing in our nation, our infrastructure, and our people again.
I am furious and dismayed that President Obama continues to try and force this poison pill down our throats. I can see no reason for it, other than perhaps an attempt at feathering his nest before he leaves office. It certainly offers no benefit for the average American.
87
China, as well as most industrial powerhouses, employs state capitalism. We do not. Foreign governments invest in other countries. We have our private entities do the investing. Foreign governments have much deeper pockets and longer timelines than private companies that have to exceed quarterly profit expectations.
Our private companies essentially compete with foreign governments. The TPP does not address that failing. One would hope that the TPP would encourage American production to flow out of the country. I'll believe that when I see it. These types of agreements usually push production (and that includes services) out we end up buying what is produced elsewhere.
If we want to improve our security, then reduce inequality by raising rages to shift profits away from Wall Street and into Main Street. Strangle the healthcare monster that is gobbling up about 18% of GDP, draining liquidity from all other commercial activities. And go hard on renewable energy, kill ethanol which is using up all the scarce water to grow corn, and make the US energy self sufficient. The TPP doesn't do any of this.
Our private companies essentially compete with foreign governments. The TPP does not address that failing. One would hope that the TPP would encourage American production to flow out of the country. I'll believe that when I see it. These types of agreements usually push production (and that includes services) out we end up buying what is produced elsewhere.
If we want to improve our security, then reduce inequality by raising rages to shift profits away from Wall Street and into Main Street. Strangle the healthcare monster that is gobbling up about 18% of GDP, draining liquidity from all other commercial activities. And go hard on renewable energy, kill ethanol which is using up all the scarce water to grow corn, and make the US energy self sufficient. The TPP doesn't do any of this.
30
Clyde Prestowitz is a labor economist. There are very good reasons for a labor economist that cares about US labor to be against the deal.
But the strategic security interest of the US it is not his area of expertise.
"“In fact, you may not expect to hear this from a Secretary of Defense, but in terms of our rebalance in the broadest sense, passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier,”
US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, April 6 th, 2015
But the strategic security interest of the US it is not his area of expertise.
"“In fact, you may not expect to hear this from a Secretary of Defense, but in terms of our rebalance in the broadest sense, passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier,”
US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, April 6 th, 2015
4
Prestowitz is not a labor economist. He was a former counselor to Reagan's Commerce Secretary and led many international trade and investment negotiations. Also Brigadier General John Adams said last week the TPP weakens national security rather than strengthens it. Defense Secretary Ash Carter was just telling following his boss's orders in pushing the TPP.
5
Prestowitz is an economist who specializes in labour economics, but one doesn't practice that specialization out of context with the rest of the discipline, one that you may take or leave as you will. You do not present one economic counter argument to those made by him.
However, if Carter wants another Aircraft Carrier task group, then the US should provide one, and not use the phony strategic issue to defend the TPP. What did you expect an Obama appointee to say? The TPP will just add more burdens to those already borne by the American worker.
One wonders what H-Rod will say when Obama pushes for the passage of the TPP. Will she oppose him? What fun!
However, if Carter wants another Aircraft Carrier task group, then the US should provide one, and not use the phony strategic issue to defend the TPP. What did you expect an Obama appointee to say? The TPP will just add more burdens to those already borne by the American worker.
One wonders what H-Rod will say when Obama pushes for the passage of the TPP. Will she oppose him? What fun!
1
"“In fact, you may not expect to hear this from a Secretary of Defense, but in terms of our rebalance in the broadest sense, passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier,”
This statement is of interest primarily because it indicates one of two possible alternatives: 1) that Secretary Carter does not understand that it requires a minimum of three major combatant platforms in order to keep one of them available for operations while the other two are in refit, reconstruction and/or post shipyard period work-up; or 2) that Secretary Carter has been told that he needs to speak up for the President's push to pass TPP even though Secretary Carter does not consider it very important to national security.
This statement is of interest primarily because it indicates one of two possible alternatives: 1) that Secretary Carter does not understand that it requires a minimum of three major combatant platforms in order to keep one of them available for operations while the other two are in refit, reconstruction and/or post shipyard period work-up; or 2) that Secretary Carter has been told that he needs to speak up for the President's push to pass TPP even though Secretary Carter does not consider it very important to national security.
2
Everyone seems to ignore that China's demographics is a trojan horse that will ultimately change the world playing field. Years of a 1 child policy is turning China's demographics into a ticking bomb that will obliterate workers and put a huge demand for social services and other retirement benefits.
It will take decades for the relaxation of China's one child policy to reverse this if it ever does.
The US with it's relatively open borders and large immigrant population is clearly in a position to have a relatively young and diverse population for decades to come. Our security is improving every day that China's population ages.
It will take decades for the relaxation of China's one child policy to reverse this if it ever does.
The US with it's relatively open borders and large immigrant population is clearly in a position to have a relatively young and diverse population for decades to come. Our security is improving every day that China's population ages.
11
The whole TPP (just as TTIP and CETA for us here in Europe) is a devious plot on behalf of huge multinational corporations to extend the reign of failed neoliberal policies for the fore-seeable future. Those trade deals are an outrage, that's the reason they are kept so secret and they must be stopped.
It has nothing to do with America's security but is a rather blatant attempt by corporations to overrule democratic processes in sovereign countries.
There are no legitimate reasons for those trade deals other than to benefit, yet again, the 1%er ruling class. The national security angle is just a smoke screen.
Mr.Obama's insistence on the deal is telling. He clearly knows that a vast majority of Americans are against it. Why is he pushing so hard and making such a concerted effort to get it passed?
Mr.Obama's legacy is already seriously tarnished through illegal drone wars and military interventions. His persisting insistence on this horrible deal for individuals and nations against corporatism will do serious further damage to his legacy.
Let's hope we don't find out years from now he did it for personal gain for the Obama foundation.
It has nothing to do with America's security but is a rather blatant attempt by corporations to overrule democratic processes in sovereign countries.
There are no legitimate reasons for those trade deals other than to benefit, yet again, the 1%er ruling class. The national security angle is just a smoke screen.
Mr.Obama's insistence on the deal is telling. He clearly knows that a vast majority of Americans are against it. Why is he pushing so hard and making such a concerted effort to get it passed?
Mr.Obama's legacy is already seriously tarnished through illegal drone wars and military interventions. His persisting insistence on this horrible deal for individuals and nations against corporatism will do serious further damage to his legacy.
Let's hope we don't find out years from now he did it for personal gain for the Obama foundation.
71
His "legacy" will be speaking fees, book deals, "partnerships", consulting/lobbying jobs, etc... from his corporate campaign sponsors if he can ram this deal down our throats.
9
So, you have no idea what China does in terms of military interventions. You may live in the heaven.
Obama seems desperate to cement his legacy of two-term mediocrity. "Hope and Change" has morphed into "More of the Same". His support of the TPP is another example of leading from the past. The Cold War is ended and the War on Global Warming has begun, whether the denizens of DC Groupthink realize it or not. The time has come for global cooperation, not more juvenile posturing over who is the toughest leader. Clinton/Trump will be more of the same disastrous foolishness.
30
If "the time has come for global cooperation", why is support for trade deals "leading from the past", and "posturing over who is the toughest"? The fact that past trade deals have been bad deals for many doesn't mean we have to abandon the concept and return to economic nationalism.
Bashing trade agreements is cheap and easy these days, but Thomas Friedman, in a recent column in these pages, showed that the TPP is a veritable wish list of improvements on past trade agreements.
Bashing trade agreements is cheap and easy these days, but Thomas Friedman, in a recent column in these pages, showed that the TPP is a veritable wish list of improvements on past trade agreements.
If TPP were about free trade, it would be a one liner stating "all trade tariffs and barriers are to abandoned immediately" fitting all required signatures onto the same page.
Trying to use TPP as a tool for political and/or military supremacy will not work as ASEAN members and most TPP signatories will laugh at the idea of having an exclusive trade or otherwise connection with the US, not even a preferred one.
China is way too big to be ignored or even isolated these days by anyone in the region, especially not the US as China is still one of the largest debt holders of US foreign debt.
There is only one way for the US get out of this situation and that is to become better than its competition.
Those days are gone.
So face it, the US has been reduced from its former size as a universal power to an average player who still has the largest military in the region.
But having a large military operation will not, like in those glory days of the 15th and 16th century, get you economic and military supremacy.
It will only raise your cost for running the military operation.
Expenses, when not spent, others in the region, especially China, use to build a strong economy and a highly competitive education system, powering research and development which in turn will then make them even stronger and further advanced than the US.
The US is like a dinosaur these days.
Large, military, muscle while insufficient brains to understand the changes that govern the world it lives in.
Trying to use TPP as a tool for political and/or military supremacy will not work as ASEAN members and most TPP signatories will laugh at the idea of having an exclusive trade or otherwise connection with the US, not even a preferred one.
China is way too big to be ignored or even isolated these days by anyone in the region, especially not the US as China is still one of the largest debt holders of US foreign debt.
There is only one way for the US get out of this situation and that is to become better than its competition.
Those days are gone.
So face it, the US has been reduced from its former size as a universal power to an average player who still has the largest military in the region.
But having a large military operation will not, like in those glory days of the 15th and 16th century, get you economic and military supremacy.
It will only raise your cost for running the military operation.
Expenses, when not spent, others in the region, especially China, use to build a strong economy and a highly competitive education system, powering research and development which in turn will then make them even stronger and further advanced than the US.
The US is like a dinosaur these days.
Large, military, muscle while insufficient brains to understand the changes that govern the world it lives in.
36
The stabilizing and legitimate way to create rules for global trade is through the WTO, because in that framework China has a voice, and so do emerging and developing countries as a whole. The US was long the guarantor and pillar of a multilateral trading system and now is seemingly leading the retreat toward neo-mercantiist 'strategic' trade for security ends. The author is right that the TPP is not an instrument that can accomplish the ends it's advertising.
14
Molly the WTO is not a stabilizing force, but part of the globalization problem.
6
The President and his administration have learned how to use fear to sell just about everything. Now it's the TPP! We need it for national security. This song has been being played for awhile now and it's indefensible.
They tell us it's about trade! Don't you believe in trade, you bigot! They tell us it's about "we're all this together" on an international scale! Yet, it was negotiated in secret by lobbyists! As far as I know most unincorporated humans in this country don't have lobbyists.
The TPP is a giveaway of our sovereignty to multinational corporations pure and simple. If you like big Pharma gouging prices in the US you'll love it when TPP makes it possible for them to gouge people all over the world!
Obama has fought for TPP harder than he has fought for anything except maybe his own election. He has shown his true colors and they are CORPORATE GREEN. His library and foundation will be well funded along with his health care and his future. The rest of us will have to look else where. It's audacity alright. The audacity of greed!
They tell us it's about trade! Don't you believe in trade, you bigot! They tell us it's about "we're all this together" on an international scale! Yet, it was negotiated in secret by lobbyists! As far as I know most unincorporated humans in this country don't have lobbyists.
The TPP is a giveaway of our sovereignty to multinational corporations pure and simple. If you like big Pharma gouging prices in the US you'll love it when TPP makes it possible for them to gouge people all over the world!
Obama has fought for TPP harder than he has fought for anything except maybe his own election. He has shown his true colors and they are CORPORATE GREEN. His library and foundation will be well funded along with his health care and his future. The rest of us will have to look else where. It's audacity alright. The audacity of greed!
50
Written in secret and for the benefit of lobbyist not America; this isn't one of Obama's shining moments.
94
He does shine for a few. It is not most of America, but his leading efforts to control CO2, use carbon taxes and free trade agreements is moving the world closer to what the globalists want, which certainly shines bright for them.
2
Prestowitz is a long time international trade basher as someone below points out. The claim that international trade deals no longer play a role in cementing American cultural and geopolitical influence is totally ludicrous.
5
I remember Clyde Prestowitz, he was Mr. Japan basher for decades, until America lost interest in Japan bashing because the Japanese economy proved unable to pull itself out of its funk. His analysis today fails to even mention that Japan -- an economic powerhouse -- would be included in the TPP. But what analysis there is, is wrong: In fact, we owe most of our debt to ourselves, not China; and it is not anywhere near out of bounds in proportion to our GNP. It may be that TPP is an insufficient American response to China's rise as a regional power in Asia, but his analysis in this article does not make that case.
22
Japan was a currency manipulator and a committed trade cheating nation in the 1980's that drove the biggest, at that time, US trade deficit in history. Japan's undervalued currency artificially gave their companies a tremendous pricing advantage courtesy of their aggressive government. During Prestowitz's tenure in the Reagan administration, the US forced Japan to revalue their currency towards equilibrium levels. The trade deficit narrowed drastically thereafter when Japan's national champion industries could not artificially undercut their global and US competitors. The term "Japan bashing" conceals more than it reveals.
2
MCS
Yes, I know the litany. But it has been discredited for 40 years. Prestowitz declared that the US "had lost the chips." And Japan's takeover of commodity memory chips presaged its conquest of high tech.
It never happened. The US still dominated microprocessors -- and the rest is history. And the US triumph in microprocessors and downstream technology had NOTHING to do with a cheaper dollar.
Yes, I know the litany. But it has been discredited for 40 years. Prestowitz declared that the US "had lost the chips." And Japan's takeover of commodity memory chips presaged its conquest of high tech.
It never happened. The US still dominated microprocessors -- and the rest is history. And the US triumph in microprocessors and downstream technology had NOTHING to do with a cheaper dollar.
2
Not to worry, if Obama doesn't figure out how to take something more from Americans and give it away, Hillary will.
Hillary will have plenty of guidance from Bill who was responsible for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995, Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. This lead to the bust of the home financial bubble.
Our corrupted government has given away American jobs every time it signs free trade agreements in favor of the global economy. Free trade is globalists’ code for mega-corporations and banks roaming the planet and set up shop anywhere they please. They can bankroll and build production facilities, produce cheap goods, and sell them anywhere in the world without paying tariffs. Our corrupted government has given away American jobs every time they sign free trade agreements in favor of the global economy.
Tariffs would make that whole operation useless. It would defeat mega-corporate greed and ambition internationally. Globalism, at one level, is all about erasing tariffs by supporting only those politicians who will oppose tariffs.
Hillary will have plenty of guidance from Bill who was responsible for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995, Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. This lead to the bust of the home financial bubble.
Our corrupted government has given away American jobs every time it signs free trade agreements in favor of the global economy. Free trade is globalists’ code for mega-corporations and banks roaming the planet and set up shop anywhere they please. They can bankroll and build production facilities, produce cheap goods, and sell them anywhere in the world without paying tariffs. Our corrupted government has given away American jobs every time they sign free trade agreements in favor of the global economy.
Tariffs would make that whole operation useless. It would defeat mega-corporate greed and ambition internationally. Globalism, at one level, is all about erasing tariffs by supporting only those politicians who will oppose tariffs.
65
Spot on. Never forget that the wealthy who roam this earth will do all in their power to NOT lose their privileged positions of wealth and power, come hell or high water. Their greatest fear is losing that exalted status. Nothing else matters.
30
You forgot to mention that Bill Clinton was the signer of NAFTA and totally agreed with G.H.W. Bush on its merits.
8
Spoken like a true economic nativist.
1
The only "security" Obama hopes to achieve by shoving the TPP down the throats of Americans--who've made it abundantly clear that they don't want this toxic stew--is his own job security post election with the 1%. It's Obama's gift to the 1% and the multinational corporations of the world, who recognize no loyalty or responsibility to the citizens of the US but only to themselves and their shareholders. With this blatant betrayal of the interests of the US public, Obama quite reasonably expects his quid pro quo post office for services rendered and is acting accordingly. "Hey, it's what they offered."
90
Clyde, thank you for this. You have long been an honest, informed voice on the risks and benefits of globalism.
The TPP is Obama's baby, and by pushing it as hard as he is, he's clearly looking to establish an enduring legacy - even if, in this instance, it is likely to be a dubious one.
At the very least, the TPP is strongly opposed by the populist wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Both major candidates for President have come out against it, at least in its present form.
To push this treaty through in the post-election lame duck session of Congress would be, to borrow an admittedly ugly phrase from an earlier time, "a stab in the back".
It would set off a firestorm that would likely both fundamentally damage our political process as well as put the next President in an impossible position - the position of being called on to reverse the last major legislative 'achievement' of the previous President.
And make no mistake: if this treaty is somehow ratified in the lame duck session, we will be calling on the next President and Congress to repeal it. We will be insisting on it.
The President has not made the case for his treaty - and now needs to let it go.
I completely understand that the President is seeking to secure his legacy - but what he needs to understand is that we don't care about his legacy, we care about our lives.
The TPP is Obama's baby, and by pushing it as hard as he is, he's clearly looking to establish an enduring legacy - even if, in this instance, it is likely to be a dubious one.
At the very least, the TPP is strongly opposed by the populist wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Both major candidates for President have come out against it, at least in its present form.
To push this treaty through in the post-election lame duck session of Congress would be, to borrow an admittedly ugly phrase from an earlier time, "a stab in the back".
It would set off a firestorm that would likely both fundamentally damage our political process as well as put the next President in an impossible position - the position of being called on to reverse the last major legislative 'achievement' of the previous President.
And make no mistake: if this treaty is somehow ratified in the lame duck session, we will be calling on the next President and Congress to repeal it. We will be insisting on it.
The President has not made the case for his treaty - and now needs to let it go.
I completely understand that the President is seeking to secure his legacy - but what he needs to understand is that we don't care about his legacy, we care about our lives.
108
"t would set off a firestorm that would likely both fundamentally damage our political process as well as put the next President in an impossible position - the position of being called on to reverse the last major legislative 'achievement' of the previous President."
Unfortunately, there would be no viable way to rescind our partnership in this agreement. Once the agreement is signed, it would require the approval of all of the other partner countries for the US to remove itself from the partnership.
Unfortunately, there would be no viable way to rescind our partnership in this agreement. Once the agreement is signed, it would require the approval of all of the other partner countries for the US to remove itself from the partnership.
6
I will take your word for this; and if this is indeed the case, then that would be the crowning argument against this treaty.
Even the United States constitution does not require unanimous consent for repeal of an amendment!
Even the United States constitution does not require unanimous consent for repeal of an amendment!
5
Don't kid yourself--Obama is doing this (at least partly) FOR Hillary so that she could pretend to be opposed. She has some deep ties to the mega-corporations--clearly the real benefactors of this agreement--and this is the perfect strategy for her to *appear* to have listened to the populace by (changing her tune and) coming out "against" it.
7
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is bad for America and is mostly about anything but trade.
Negotiated in secret & written largely by/with the consultation of lobbyists, the TPP is a scheme designed to flout the will of ordinary Americans in service to special interests. These so-called Congressional-Executive Agreements were purposefully designed to make an end run around the US Constitution and it's provision for treaties without the proper Congressional oversight and the required 2/3rds Majority.
Ask yourself this: why should a trade agreement be written in secret, rushed through Congress (Fast Track or Trade Promotion Authority) without proper hearings of the various committees that exist & are charged with oversight of such things and passed by a dubious legal creation (Congressional-Executive Agreement) birthed to make an end run around the Constitution? If Congress and the people cannot be trusted to make decisions based upon factual knowledge and proper public discussion of it's merits, why do we even pretend to have a Democracy?
Again, as with other schemes like NAFTA, the Investor-State Dispute settlement provisions look illegal & undermine the sovereignty of all levels of government. Instead of settling disputes in the courts of the United States, foreign companies can sue the United States or lesser units of government in a WTO sanctioned arbitration composed of an incestuous group of corporate lawyers. Corporations over government is what the TPP is all about.
Negotiated in secret & written largely by/with the consultation of lobbyists, the TPP is a scheme designed to flout the will of ordinary Americans in service to special interests. These so-called Congressional-Executive Agreements were purposefully designed to make an end run around the US Constitution and it's provision for treaties without the proper Congressional oversight and the required 2/3rds Majority.
Ask yourself this: why should a trade agreement be written in secret, rushed through Congress (Fast Track or Trade Promotion Authority) without proper hearings of the various committees that exist & are charged with oversight of such things and passed by a dubious legal creation (Congressional-Executive Agreement) birthed to make an end run around the Constitution? If Congress and the people cannot be trusted to make decisions based upon factual knowledge and proper public discussion of it's merits, why do we even pretend to have a Democracy?
Again, as with other schemes like NAFTA, the Investor-State Dispute settlement provisions look illegal & undermine the sovereignty of all levels of government. Instead of settling disputes in the courts of the United States, foreign companies can sue the United States or lesser units of government in a WTO sanctioned arbitration composed of an incestuous group of corporate lawyers. Corporations over government is what the TPP is all about.
141
Global elites are now starting to wakeup to the fact that the people they govern don't see things their way, despite all efforts to "educate them".
3
Oh no, not another heavy-breathing conspiracy theorist fresh from looking under beds for secret agents!
If you don't like TPP, tell us what is wrong with it, not how it was negotiated (always a messy business). Make the case, and if you persuade me that it will hurt our interests, and I will write my Congressman.
If you don't like TPP, tell us what is wrong with it, not how it was negotiated (always a messy business). Make the case, and if you persuade me that it will hurt our interests, and I will write my Congressman.
1
Prestowitz is right. However, the problem is that Obama has fallen for the neocon claim that having the strongest army on earth is enough for the US to stay on top forever. Of course the only way that that can work is by bullying other countries into submission and Obama has replaced diplomacy with bullying in an unprecedented amount.
That is why the TPP/TIPP agreements contain "investor protection" courts. Experience learns that it is usually US companies that are "protected" that way and foreign governments that have to pay - often on dubious grounds. And that is just one of the dubious clauses that the US tries to impose on other countries by blackmailing them with access to its market.
It can be expected that without changes the US will slowly fade into irrelevance. However, if we are unlucky it might cause World War III first.
That is why the TPP/TIPP agreements contain "investor protection" courts. Experience learns that it is usually US companies that are "protected" that way and foreign governments that have to pay - often on dubious grounds. And that is just one of the dubious clauses that the US tries to impose on other countries by blackmailing them with access to its market.
It can be expected that without changes the US will slowly fade into irrelevance. However, if we are unlucky it might cause World War III first.
38
We have reached the point where nation states act against what by normal calculus is their own best interests.
1