Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Pros and Cons

[lovemydog]

First off, what is it:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a proposed free trade agreement between the U.S and 11 other trading partners bordering the Pacific Ocean. Current trade between the countries is $1.5 trillion in goods (2012 estimate) and $242 billion in services (2011 estimate). Once approved, it would be bigger than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), currently the world’s largest free trade area. It would be slightly smaller than the other large regional trade agreement being negotiated, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the U.S. and the European Union.

The TPP is between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S. and Vietnam. The countries involved are responsible for 40% of the world's total GDP of $88 trillion, 26% of its trade, and 793 million of its consumers.

Notably, the agreement excludes China. It's meant to balance the trade dominance of both China and India in East Asia. It also provides a trade alliance that gives the U.S. an excuse to intervene in trade disputes in the oil-rich South China Sea. Like most other trade agreements, it removes tariffs on goods and services, and sets reciprocal trade quotas. Unlike most agreements, but like the TTIP, it removes non-tariff blocks to trade and harmonizes regulations and statutes.

The TPP covers a wide range of goods and services, including financial services, telecommunications and even food safety standards. In this way, it affects foreign policy and even laws within countries. For example, it suggests that countries set up an agency like the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to analyze the costs and benefits of new regulations.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm

Anyone feel free to post better explanations of it, if you have it! Thanks.

[lovemydog]

1. Pros:

Pros

The TPP boosts exports and economic growth, creating more jobs and prosperity for the 12 countries involved. It increases exports by $305 billion per year by 2025. For the U.S., exports increase by $123.5 billion, focusing on machinery, especially electrical, autos, plastics and agriculture industries. The agreement adds $223 billion a year to incomes of workers in all the countries, with $77 billion of that going to U.S. workers. (Source: US Trade Representative, TPP Fact Sheet)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm

[cali]

35. that is not a fact. It's a projection from the most biased of sources. n/t

[lovemydog]

2. Cons:

Cons

Most of the gains in income would go to workers making more than $88,000 a year. Free trade agreements contribute to income inequality in high-wage countries by promoting cheaper goods from low-wage countries. This would be particularly true for the TPP, because it protects patents and copyrights. Therefore, the higher-paid owners of the intellectual property would receive more of the income gains.The agreement regarding patents will reduce the availability of cheap generics, making many drugs more expensive. Competitive business pressures will reduce the incentives in Asia to protect the environment. Last but not least, the trade agreement could supersede financial regulations. (Source: Public Citizen, Eyes on Trade, September 12, 2013)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm

[pipoman]

3. This would be much easier if it wasn't SECRET....

[lovemydog]

9. LOL, very true!

I'd suppose though, that most treaties and trade deals are negotiated in secret.

I'm all for transparency. I'm just wondering though, if there some legitimate reasons (maybe even having to do with requests from other countries) as to why it's not completely transparent now.

I know that in peace talks, they must be negotiated in secret.

[lovemydog]

4. Obstacles:

Obstacles

There are five areas that stand in the way of a successful deal.

First, the U.S. wants more protection for intellectual property rights, such as copyrights for music and film. It also wants longer-lasting patents, especially for biologic drugs. This would disrupt the market for bootleg cds, which is huge in Asia, and make many prescription drugs more expensive.

Second, the U.S. wants to limit support for state-owned enterprises. These are really important to the economies of Vietnam, Singapore and Malaysia.

Third, the U.S. and Japan don't want to remove all trade barriers for automobiles and agribusiness. In fact, the farming subsidies received by U.S. and EU companies prevented the success of the Doha round of trade talks held by the World Trade Organization.

Fourth, the U.S. doesn't want any restrictions on the trade of tobacco. It wants to allow cigarette companies to sue countries that tax or otherwise restrict cigarette advertising.

Fifth, the U.S. wants to allow companies to sue governments directly. This is known as the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. Australia specifically requested to be excluded from any such mechanism because it gives foreign companies more rights to sue the government than their own companies have. (Source: Peterson Institute, Sticking Points in the TPP Negotiations)Another major block is the perceived inability of the Obama Administration to guarantee that any agreement could get approved by the U.S. Congress. (Source: New Zealand Herald, TPP Negotiations Close, December 11, 2013)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm

[davidpdx]

29. This is one of the major reasons I stand against the TPP

First, the U.S. wants more protection for intellectual property rights, such as copyrights for music and film. *snip* This would disrupt the market for bootleg cds, which is huge in Asia, and make many prescription drugs more expensive.

Not only bootleg CDs, but also DVDs and pirating on the internet in general. It would cause ISP's to crack down on anything downloaded and send the household with the service a warning that their service will be cut off. A second warning would be sent and then after that the service would be terminated.

Now, there are those on DU who are holier than now and believe pirating is bad. The problem with pirating isn't' STEALING, the problem is DISTRIBUTION! In South Korea, very little English programming (TV, movies, etc.). This wouldn't change if Korea were a part of the TPP because it is a government policy. That's not to say that distribution online (like what was done with The Interview) still couldn't be done. It is the media companies who refuse the change their business models and screw themselves. So I'm going to say it straight out..FUCK'EM.

[lovemydog]

33. It also reminds me of how the music industry

used to say 'home taping is killing the music industry.' No, the prices you were charging was killing it. The lousy way you treated talent (via advances against royalties, deducting all expenses first and not even being obligated to release anything) killed it. Or when the film industry said 'vcrs or dvds or whatever' are killing the film business. No, they actually improved it. Those industries are always behind rather than ahead on accepting that people like sharing things. Imagine if someone told you that you can loan a book to a friend?

Our ip laws are outdated. I'm not much interested in strengthening them as I am in reworking them to allow for peer to peer sharing. Lord knows I've already spent far too much money on music. I'm not gonna buy something in a new format when I've already spent money buying on record, tape, cd, etc.

[davidpdx]

36. LOL

Well the only good thing with computers is I can't see how the formatting can evolve much more unless they implant music in your head (well I already hear things in my head, but that's another story).

It sure seems like DVDs were short lived and are pretty already out of date. I heard computer manufacturers are now not putting CD rom drives in computers because they are outdated and just weigh down the computer. That's got to tell you something.

[lovemydog]

5. Next Steps:

Next Steps

Japan and the U.S. must hammer out their differences on beef and pork tariffs. This session follows a failed attempt during a 10-day meeting between all parties in Ottawa. Negotiators were more optimistic after a four-day session in Singapore on December 10, 2013. (Source: The Japan News, Japan, U.S. Open Negotiations, July 15, 2014; Australia Network News, Ministers Miss Year-End Deadline, December 12, 2013) Article updated July 16, 2014

http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Favored_Nation.htm

[WillyT]

6. They Haven't Honored The "Pros" Since NAFTA...

Labor and environmental agreements are the first to go, American jobs... a close second.

[lovemydog]

10. I hear you WillyT.

What if there are stronger labor and stronger environmental agreements in it than what we have in our existing trade deals?

As for American jobs, I understand your concerns. What if it greatly improves other people's lives across the world though?

I don't know, just asking.

[peacebird]

12. The old rising tide lifts all boats arguement, except it doesn't. Corporations get rich, & workers

Get screwed. American jobs are shifted to ever and ever cheaper over seas locations. And H1B visas are expanded in the US, which means American salaries go DOWN because H1B worker accept lower wages than Americans. So senior IT workers here see their wages DROP significantly. Hillary is totally on board with this.
Just another reason we need a REAL populist champion

[lovemydog]

15. What if it lifts the boats for other people in other countries?

Isn't that kind of the crux of the dilemma?

Are you arguing for more protectionism for the U.S.?

Is that always the best policy, and screw the rest of the workers in other parts of the world?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Until I understand more about it I don't strongly promote or oppose it.

[peacebird]

16. Hi doglover, this is my point. Corporations are taking jobs whereever they can find the lowest pay

So, hell yes, they can pay enough to raise the standard of living for a peasant in china, BUT that comes at the cost of a middle class wage for a family in America. I do not think that is a good thing. Putting Americans into poverty/welfare to raise the boat for people in another country ALL so corporate profits are bigger.... This does not seem like a good thing to me.

[lovemydog]

18. Hi peacebird. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me either.

My feeling right now is that we should not be a party to it unless it improves wages for Americans. Fuck the big corporations. I'm much more inclined to believe Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or any critic from the left on this than I am to believe corporate shills or corporate economists. I do listen carefully to President Obama though, and will listen to what he has to say on it.

Also, seeing all this bullshit about U.S. cigarette companies being able to sue individual nations, crap like that makes me wanna hurl.

[cascadiance]

27. Note how even Indian workers here don't like how H-1B program works in this report...

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html

I've actually witnessed in person the "guesthouse" process described in this report going on in the apartment next to me when I lived in the bay area, and how they all got thrown out on the street when their H-1B VISA manager decided he wanted that small apartment for himself instead of stacking them all in it.

Make no bones about it. These "free trade" treaties and "guest worker" programs are all about a race to the bottom so that the wealthy can grab most of the world's wealth for themselves, and that includes workers worldwide.

The interviewee here felt the need to be interviewed incognito, because he felt that he needed to deliver the message how Indian workers being hired with H-1B Visas are also being screwed as much as we are.

We need to have some global labor organization to fight this sort of thing, as our nations' governments aren't going to be working for us in today's environment.

Do you want to have to work in factories overseas like they had in Bangladesh when they burned down due to unsafe conditions which was part of the bottom they were racing to?

And less technical workers are hired through H-2B Visa program that was used to bring in workers to rebuild the hurricane affected areas of Katrina, instead of hiring local American workers who needed jobs to help rebuild their lives. Note how much worse these less well off "guest workers" were treated than even the H-1B Visa workers mentioned above.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/198665/these-workers-came-overseas-help-rebuild-after-hurricane-katrina-and-were-treated-prison

Also note the following facts about guest worker programs that the elites like, but screw the rest of us...

1) These workers, not being citizens, cannot vote. Therefore more of our workforce can't get democratic representation, that they might have if they were allowed to immigrate instead.

2) These workers, not being citizens, can't be a part of a union or other forms of organized labor. This sets back our means to organize labor globally. Even back in their own countries they could have more ability to organize than they can here.

3) Many of these workers don't bring their families here as they are here temporarily. They send back their money home to places like India, which allows them to afford to be paid a lot less, since their family expenses are a lot lower. But then this money gets sent away and doesn't recycle through our economy to make it better the way it would if domestic workers were being given jobs instead, or these same workers were encouraged to immigrate with their families instead and were allowed to compete for other jobs with higher salaries as well.

4) Since many of these workers are here temporarily and go back to their country of origin instead of staying here the way an immigrant would, it increases the investment of brain power and skills that gets shipped overseas to places like Bangalore rather than staying in places like Silicon Valley, that basically moves the skilled workers that we are investing in to other countries instead of them further growing the economy here.

The rich loves this, as they as individuals get rich when they hoard most of the money for themselves, and they have less resistance when their labor forces can't organize for more rights as much either. We should hate it, which is why these programs and TPP need to be rejected by the rest of us.

[peacebird]

30. Here they frequently live 4 to a small apartment because their wages are so low they can't afford

One on their own. I like my Indian and Pakistani coworkers, and yes, they are getting screwed too. It's the race to the bottom.
Thing is, even Henry Ford understood back in the day, that his business did better if his employees were paid well enough that they could afford to buy his cars.

[davidpdx]

31. Outgoing receipts are not well liked by most countries

Korea suffers the same problem with both low and high paid workers. They have workers from the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia that have low paying labor type jobs and on the other end of the spectrum professionals from the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, etc. like myself that have higher paying jobs that send money back home (though since I'm here permanently I don't tend to send much anymore). There is a large base of English teachers in South Korea (salaries range from $20,000 to as high as maybe $75,000), most of whom are here only for the short term and send a good amount of their money back to their home country.

[pampango]

32. That is essentially what has happened over the past 25 years.

The lowest 70% on the global income scale have benefitted the most but so have the top 1%. The group that suffered was the 75%-85% segment of the income scale - essentially the Western middle class. There should be a way to redirect the obscene gains of the global 1% to the Western middle class without harming the continuing gains of the lowest 70%

[Art_from_Ark]

24. If your boat has a hole in it

it just might get inundated by a rising tide.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. http://www.cristinagrajalesinc.com/images/upload/pieces_229_1_2.jpg

[lovemydog]

11. What if it actually gets more people fed,

more people with better standards of living, more enforceability of those standards?

I truly don't know blkmusclemachine.

I'm just trying to figure it out.

Personally, I feel if the living standards of the poor are greatly increased as a result of the TPP then I'd be actually inclined to support it.

I'm trying to learn more about it.

[peacebird]

13. What will happen is American wages will continue to stagnat or drop. Our cost of living is higher

than India for example. If India is where the work goes, their people will do better, but Americans will suffer. Our jobs went to Ireland when their labor was cheap, once their standards went up it the jobs moved to the next cheap place. And so it goes. Meanwhile the corporations profits ar through the roof.
That is what needs to be dealt with. The abuse of labor by the corporations.
TPP will make it worse

[lovemydog]

17. Thanks. The big corporations play a game of three card monty.

Nearly everyone loses but them. If they lose in the slightest they just move to another place to exploit cheap labor.

They are too big.

They need to be broken up.

I think this is what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are talking about. I agree with them.

I think it's also why Thomas Piketty is talking about multi-country agreements to reign in the big banks and tax dodgers who move their money offshore to avoid paying taxes.

It's a complicated situation. I'm trying to understand it better. I'm glad I started this thread because I'm finally learning a lot about it beyond just slogans and sarcasm.

[hedda_foil]

19. If you don't know very much about it, I'm curious about why you sound so much like a DC staffer.

[lovemydog]

21. Please read my other posts in this thread. I'm trying to learn more about it.

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not a DC staffer.

Information is good, wouldn't you agree?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. As the treaty is secret and will remain secret after enactment

you will not learn about it until long after it is a done deal. Worse, the legislators voting on it will do so without knowing the details of the treaty. The corporations helping to write the treaty know the details. Some privileged government officials, generally unelected, know the details. This is not how a democracy, a functional democracy, works. We elect representatives to vote in our place, to represent our interests, but they cannot possibly do that if they do not know what they are voting for. And we can't hold them accountable if we don't know what they have voted for.

That really is all you need to know. There is no reason to keep this treaty a secret from the public, not only of this country, but of every other nation involved, other than if we knew what was really in it we would refuse to accept it.

[lovemydog]

8. The above was written by Kimberly-Amadeo

for about.com.

Here's her info here.

http://useconomy.about.com/bio/Kimberly-Amadeo-22286.htm

She's an international business consultant according the info there.

So she may not be the best explainer (I'd tend to think she's probably more biased in favor of the TPP).

So please, anyone post any other info you have on it. From any sources you want.

As for me, I just got so sick of reading about the TPP here as told by all sorts of different folks, I feel I first need better information on what the heck it is and where it stands now and what are the pros and cons.

Also, I consider this posting a 'fair use' exemption to copyright infringement. In the interests of educating people - in the public interest.

Go read more stuff from about.com and Kimberly-Amadeo if you want more info.

[nationalize the fed]

14. Con

Published on Feb 26, 2015

[lovemydog]

20. Highly recommended. Folks, please watch this Elizabeth Warren 8 minute clip.

She's basically saying that the biggest multinational corporations have negotiated for 'investor dispute settlements' that allow them to sue individual countries for regulations that they don't like.

Guess who is appointed to 'resolve' some of these disputes? Big corporate law firms, who are less likely to find in favor of the public interest because they do business with the big corporations.

Thanks for sharing it here, nationalize the fed.

[Hoyt]

37. Well, to he honest, they can sue (not necessarily win) for alleged violations of international trade

agreements. There's a big difference in that and what Warren is telling people.

Second, lawyers will certainly represent the parties to arbitration, as they do now, and have for God knows how long.

But the actual arbitration panel can be college professors or other experts in the field.

Unless both parties agree otherwise, the arbitration panel will be one appointed by each party, and one lead arbitrator agreed to by both parties. Heck, the basic rules were written under auspices of the UN. One party could appoint The Rent Is Too High Guy.

Once again, either Warren hasn't done her research or she's intentionally spreading junk to attract guilible supporters.. I guess she learned that as a Republican.

[msongs]

22. thanks for catapulting the propaganda. got a copy of the actual agreement to show us? nt

[lovemydog]

23. No I don't. Do you?

I'm trying to learn more about it. What can you share, of what you know about it? Or are you suggesting we all shut up about it?

[Jamaal510]

25. Good thread.

So far I've been undecided. I've heard a lot of bad about it from Ed Shultz, Thom Hartmann, et al. particularly when it comes to outsourcing, but I didn't see much in that link so far about jobs being lost, except for maybe cheaper goods from other countries being imported. It also would seem a bit bizarre for Pres. O to push something so hard that critics say would hurt his legacy. I don't think he's an idiot.
I'm going to do more reading about it to see for myself if it's as toxic as people claim it will be.

[lovemydog]

26. Thanks Jamaal510. I'm also trying to learn more about it.

You might want to check out the Elizabeth Warren video in this thread as well. She seems to shred it to pieces. Someone suggested on another thread that they would like to see Obama and Warren debate it in public. That's what I'd like to see too!

I was woefully ignorant about it until I started reading more about it this evening. I'm just beginning to learn more about it. Sadly, I've seen very little here at DU other than vehement opposition, without really stating much of anything else. I've asked a few times for what might be positive about it, as I generally support President Obama. Yet I also take very seriously what the critics like Warren, Sanders et al are saying regarding their opposition.

From what I've read here, Paul Krugman has given it a thumbs down, but has also said it's not a big deal. I'm kind of surprised he would say that, because from what I've read from some critics here it's a huge deal. Now I'm trying to figure out why some say it's a huge deal and others say it's not a big deal, lol.

[djean111]

28. Wafting between "it is good for Americans" and "Do you care more about Americans

than all the other poor people" doesn't really work when we can see that profits will go to the rich no matter what country seems to benefit. And stronger regulation that doesn't get enforced is no better than the "regulation" that it strengthens.

This agreement, IMO, is more about strengthening and enriching corporations than about countries. I think we can all agree that trickle-down does not work, was never going to work.

Also, just like the almost funny way in which so many countries disregarded the US and joined China's Infrastructure Bank, which will directly compete, I think, with the IMF and World Bank, I believe that there is not really anything that will stifle China. And trying to sell globalization as something that will improve American lives - not a good sell, considering how NAFTA and other agreements have only enriched corporations, no countries.

This agreement is between corporations, really, not countries. IMO. I will not support any politician that supports this.

[Savannahmann]

34. Well I know this.

^Hillary is in favor of it. So as good Democrats we have to support it. If we don't, the Republicans might win, and then they would do terrible things to the Unions like pass Trade Agreements and make it impossible for the Unions to exist. Or Something.

[lovemydog]

39. I oppose the TPP because:

1) It benefits multinational corporations more than individuals or smaller companies.
2) Progressives I respect (Warren, Sanders, 151 House Democrats on the legislative side, unions like the AFL-CIO & tons of pro-labor people on the civilian side) vehemently oppose fast-tracking it.
3) Heavy crackdown on copyrights owned by big corporations is not necessary or productive. It gives them and governments too much power over average individuals who may just want to trade music.
4) There's no indication it will help raise wages or living standards of workers in the US and other parts of the world.
5) It's done in secret. That rarely helps the 99%.
6) NAFTA didn't work out as we were told it would, for average workers. Where big corporate law firms are primarily involved, it pretty much never does.

Thanks for all the information folks. If you have more to add, pro or con, it's appreciated.

I want to hear every presidential candidate's detailed explanation of why they support or oppose the TPP before I decide how to cast my vote in the primaries and general election.