What most people don't understand about the TPP.

[MineralMan]

The United States cannot dictate terms in such a multi-national negotiation and agreement. There are 12 nations involved. Individual nations are all insisting that provisions designed to benefit those nations be included. The negotiations are all about give and take. Each nation has specific things it wants and has the power to insist on those things.

Trade-offs are part and parcel of all such multi-national trade agreements. The US has considerable clout, but so does Japan and Canada. So do all the other nations, but to a lesser degree. For the TPP to become finalized, multiple issues get resolved through compromise. Sovereign nations are all insistent that their point of view and issues beneficial to them be included. They use their power of rejection to influence the other nations involved. Since nobody except the negotiating parties have seen the sections that have been finalized, it's impossible to know what compromises have taken place already or what the underlying reasons for them were.

One thing is certain, though: No individual nation can dictate language in these agreements. It all has to be agreed to by the other nations. That is why TPA or the fast track authority is necessary. Without it, legislative bodies will attempt to add and subtract portions of the agreement. Congress, for example, which is controlled by Republicans, would inject countless amendments to an agreement, mostly to brag about to individual member's supporters. Each of those would have to be accepted by the other participating nations. That is an impossibility, since Congress is a collective idiot, and will attempt to force irrelevant issues into the agreement. That's why the TPA passed. It's essential that the negotiators have a free hand at drafting a final agreement. Everyone in Congress knows that.

The final version of the TPP will be extraordinarily complex, and almost impenetrable by people who do not have an extensive knowledge of and experience in international trade. Pundits, politicians and amateur analysts will seriously misinterpret the language of just about everything in the agreement. That process has already begun with leaked portions of drafts. Most of the opinions are heavily influenced by the interpreters' own biases.

Trade agreements are essential to balance the interests and desires of participating nations. They must, by definition, be compromised documents, since every nation has its own interests as the top priorities. The language used in such documents is always full of hedged statements and flexible rules. That's inevitable. There has never been a clean, clear international trade agreement. The language is intentionally vague and flexible.

Here in the US, analysts will interpret the TPP documents according to their own biases. They will read into every section and clause their own interpretations, without really considering how the language in them came to be during the negotiations. Pundits will focus on particular issues to expand their own egotistical viewpoints. Political figures will interpret them to suit their understanding of their constituencies. Economists will look at the language in their own unique ways. Amateurs will not understand much of it and will rely on the opinions of those people who reflect their own biases. Nobody except the actual negotiators will truly understand the documents and why they read as they do.

In the end, the TPP, like most multi-national trade agreements will eventually be approved and go into force, warts and all. In the end, it will influence trade and other issues to some degree, but each individual nation will use the hedges built into the language to its own benefit. The result will be improvements in some areas, despite problems in others. Finally, trade will continue, things like intellectual property rights will continue to be abused, and rules about human rights issues will be followed, but only to the extent that is convenient for each nation.

The TPP will be approved by Congress. It will go into effect. Everyone should know that. It will be followed to some degree, and ignored to some larger degree. If the overall effect is positive, it will do some good. But it will be approved, because such agreements are essential to have some sort of regulation for international trade.

The same thing applies to all other multi-national trade agreements under consideration. The final draft of these things has taken years to complete. They will be approved and trade will continue, more or less regulated by the agreements, except when that regulation is inconvenient for one or more of the nations that are party to the agreement. Then, the hedged language will allow considerable flexibility, despite disputes.

That's why the TPP isn't going to really be an issue in the 2016 elections. It will be approved and go into force, regardless of the outcome of the elections in the United States. It's a way bigger thing than one nation can dictate. It goes beyond the politics of any single nation.

I await the inevitable attacks on this point of view.

[jwirr]

1. Just one question: Of those 12 nations are they all equal in being able to protect themselves from

big money propaganda?

[MineralMan]

7. Pretty much. But they're more equal in not being able to do that.

Trade is about business. Business interests dominate all trade agreements. So, the big money decides what's in them. The more money, the more influence on the language. The bigger the GDP of each nation, the more influence.

Understanding that is a no-brainer. It's a business agreement.

[jwirr]

10. Many of us are voting this year to protect ourselves from further corporate power. I for one q

want to protect those weaker countries from the same thing. Too long we have let our corporations and business interests run roughshod over the needs of the people of the world. I do not want to support that any longer.

And yes you are probably correct - we will go right ahead with the TPP regardless what is right because it is just more business as usual.

Just one more reason to want to cry.

[jonno99]

2. No attack here. Thanks for the info! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. It bothers me that its contents have been largely kept secret.

Whether or not the terms are likely to be subjected to biased or outright incorrect interpretations is irrelevant. The whole damn thing should be out there for everyone to read, just like any other legislation. I understand that it's different from the usual laws passed by Congress in the sense that it has to be negotiated and approved by a number of other governments, but its contents should not be secret.

[MineralMan]

13. Until a final version has been negotiated and agreed to by

the negotiators, it must be kept secret. If it were not, no agreement would ever be completed. That's the nature of such agreements.

It's not legislation. It's not something lawmakers do. It's an agreement between nations, so individual nations' lawmakers have nothing to do with what goes into such agreements. There are simply too many points to be negotiated and too much complexity for it to be dealt with with massive input from outside the negotiating rooms.

When it's in its final version, it won't be secret any more. I suspect that the TPP is close to that point, so we should see the final agreement before too long. By that, I mean within the next 12 months. It's possible that its release will be delayed until after the 2016 elections, though. But, since it's an international agreement, probably not.

In most of the nations involved, final approval will not come after long debate in legislative bodies, but will come from decisions at a higher level of government. In the US, there will be much discussion in Congress and considerable dispute. However, by the deadline, it will be passed and approved. Historically, it will be approved by only a small majority, so individual legislators who need to can say they opposed it. But, it will pass.

That's why it will not be a major issue in our elections. The outcome is certain. It will be approved. Even if that doesn't happen until after November 2016, it will pass, whatever the outcome of the election turns out to be.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. But by the time it's not secret any more there will be no opportunity

to do anything about the parts that suck. And why should points still under negotiation be kept secret anyhow? Yes, I get why this is being done but that doesn't mean I have to like it. What really sucks is that it's going to be passed whether the people who are most affected by it like it or not and before anybody knows what's in it.

[MineralMan]

26. Whether we like the secrecy or not is irrelevant.

All such agreements are negotiated in secret. The US just one party in it. International agreements of all kinds tend to be negotiated in secret, by necessity. They're one of those things where individual citizens have no role at all. I don't see that changing, so I interest myself in other things, where we do have a role.

[djean111]

4. So we should just shrug, and grin and bear it, if drugs go sky high for everyone,

if wages are driven down, and jobs lost, if corporations can basically pollute at will.

I understand, though, that I cannot do jack shit about the TPP. But I will never vote for anyone who shilled for it, negotiated it, or voted for Fast Track, or votes for any of the agreements, if they are as bad as it seems they are. That's MY done deal.
I do believe that some of the provisions in the TPP and other agreements will be issues, and rightly so. This hey, what are you gonna do, right? attitude won't cut it.

[MineralMan]

15. Oh, many will dispute and argue about parts of it.

I'm sure there will be stuff in there I don't like. But, it will be approved in the end. The results of its approval, frankly, can't really be predicted, though. It might have the effects you mentioned. It might not. Until it has been in force for several years, the actual effects won't be known.

[djean111]

22. Oh, I know! But, I am going to adopt Hillary's term for it - "The Gold Standard" and use the TPP as

my gold standard for deciding who to vote for, who to support. The "trade" agreements, the membership of the New Democrat Coalition - I am paying more attention to things now, and I will not keep voting for DINOs.

If the TPP is such a done deal, why all the defense for it? Why keep dragging it out into view? To keep from becoming an issue in the elections? Just curious.

[hollysmom]

37. just because something is "inevitable" does not mean we have to accept it without a peep

It is important that people know we know it is wrong, as far as so many treaties the part about a corporate court overruling countries laws - nope - that does not have to exist, I am still very pissed about labeling meat being stopped, Right now China is not inthat group - but never no way eating meat from China ever. That crap will kill you - and I know that will make vegetarians happy, but that should not be the goal. I am sure they will find some way to poison their vegetables too.

I am tired of my life being ruled by corporations - so excuse me if it annoys you that I complain about hte TPP, but that is the way it is going to be until you take our your gun and shoot me. That is also inevitable.

[daleanime]

5. No attacks from here, we just disagree....

and it is easy stated why.

The "hedges built into the language" are not intended to benefit the people of any nation, but the business of profit making. Ensuring more profit is way, way down my priority list.

[MineralMan]

18. It is a business agreement. You're right, its not intended to benefit the "people."

Some will benefit. Others will not. Global business is what it's about. It's a trade agreement, after all.

[kenfrequed]

33. It is a trade agreement between nations.

The people and their welfare should come first in any pact or treaty. The big pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable in the world; somehow I thing drug companies will make out fine.

[daleanime]

45. Ah, but that's the thing for me....

I think business should be for the benefit of the people, the fact that 'business as usual' is bad for the majority of people has to be changed. Not quoting you, just referring to the attitude. I see no way to address our numerous problems with out that change.

Plus, remember. Very little of this 'trade agreement' actually deals with trade.

[MineralMan]

46. I think everything should be for the benefit of the people.

What I think often has little to do with how things are, though. That's something I've noticed all my life. Odd, huh?

[daleanime]

49. True that, too many insist on a larger slice of the pie for themselves....

and don't notice how small the pie is becoming.

[MineralMan]

50. No doubt you're right.

I just can't figure out a way to change that. From Kings and their courts to Corporations and their executives, so it seems to have always been.

[truebluegreen]

51. Yes, it is a business agreement:

Businesses agreeing to ignore national laws that are detrimental to their business.

Why anyone who supports people over profits would think this is a good thing, or agree to it, is beyond me. IMO this is a deal only a Republican could love.
.
.
.
.
And the funny part is, the negotiations are stalled--at best--because other countries are not prepared to accept the demands of Big pHarma (which would extend patents and thereby raise prices/profits on medications) and because dropping those demands would lose Republican support. Seems odd to me that we should need to rely on other countries to protect us...but then, both parties here have long since agreed that corporations should not be challenged.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Your "preferred candidate" strongly disagrees

[MineralMan]

25. Yes, I know that.

He doesn't like the TPP. Frankly, neither do I. Neither means that it won't end up going into effect.

[whatchamacallit]

27. I look forward to the next installment of

MM-style Sanders Support.

[MineralMan]

28. I'm glad to hear it.

I'm not really talking much about the Democratic primaries, though. My part is to caucus for Senator Sanders. I don't really get involved during primaries that much, because I don't have much influence. I get busy during the general election campaigning. Mostly with Democratic GOTV efforts. You'll certainly hear from me then.

[whatchamacallit]

31. Oh joy

[MineralMan]

34. Indeed!

[Romulox]

44. so phony! nt

[kenfrequed]

86. I am a Minnesotan Sanders supporter

(The real kind!)

[pampango]

83. As does Trump. The difference is that Bernie has endorsed pro-labor trade agreements while

Trump simply proposes unilateral American action to impose taxes on imports (tariffs).

Bernie believes in negotiated multinational agreements on trade and other matters. He just does not like the specifics of the TPP. Trump, as with most republicans, are suspicious of international agreements and prefer to retain the right for the US to act unilaterally.

[kelliekat44]

8. It's a real dilemma for the GOP base...that's why they don't talk about it much except to say it's

bad. They will shout it's a bad agreement and their low-information base will accept that without question. But then the GOP with few exception will vote to approve it. They know the subject is so complicated their red-meat base won't bother them about it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. I have wondered if many of the leaks have been used gain leeverage

In the negotiations by appealing to public opinion at home.

All leaks should be taken with grains of salt rather than sipped as gospel.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Leaks are often engineered to guage...

the opinions of those at home.

You're right that they shouldn't be taken seriously, but outrage might have the desired effect when seen by the players.

[MineralMan]

20. Probably. Negotiations are ongoing still.

The final document is not completed. I don't know if the leaks were deliberate. I don't move in those circles. When it comes to international trade and politics, I'm just an observer.

[appal_jack]

11. So the corporatist powers do some horse trading, and we're supposed to think that's fair?

US unions and environmental interests have been excluded from the trade negotiations. The committee of 600 with access to the negotiations are all corporate, bankers, insurance, etc.

So 'our' corporatists go up against 'their' (Japan's, Korea's, Australia's etc.) corporatists, and some give and take occurs. Guess what? Workers and the environment will still lose-out, no matter what.

The OP is a lame defense of an incredibly anti-democratic effort.

-app

[MineralMan]

21. I'm not defending anything. I'm describing a process.

And yes, this is all about global business. That's who's negotiating the agreement.

But I'm not defending the TPP. I'm saying that it will be approved and go into force, whatever anyone thinks of it. That's reality.

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. TPP is the "Pacific Oligarch Club"

Every millionaire and billionaire stands to gain
and the working schlubs will lose.

TPP is nothing but welcoming the
Pacific nations' Oligarchs into the "Club".

And we (the 99%) ain't in it.

[MineralMan]

23. You're absolutely correct.

That's what I said in my OP. Our input is neither desired nor noticed. That's reality.

What I can't change, I put aside. What I can change, I work to change. Minnesota passed a marriage equality law, before the SCOTUS finally accepted marriage equality as a fait accompli. That was I change I could help happen, so that's what I worked on.

I don't do much about Democratic Primaries, either. I know how incredibly tiny my influence can possibly be. So, I let them take care of themselves. When there are nominees, I go into campaign and GOTV mode, because I can actually help convince voters to go to the polls and vote for Democrats.

I work on what I can influence.

[Rex]

16. Was it time for you to make a pro-corporate sales pitch? Check.

The TPP is already DOA (never going to pass), but go on with your bad self.

[MineralMan]

24. No, it's not DOA at all.

Watch.

[Rex]

32. Well the news cycles say it is DOA, so you have to take it up with them.

Sorry but the TPP is never going to pass and will die a slow death as nations don't get what they want and drop it from their desk.

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. He almost never backs his 'talks' to us with facts or links but

with his patronizing opinions on the reality of his world view
which some think is wisdom and not passive aggressive behavior and real commitments when something is wrong.

Oh, I see both sides now, I look at clouds that way.

[Rex]

41. LOL!

[ljm2002]

60. The tone is "avuncular"...

...as in: "kind or friendly like an uncle" (from Merriam-Webster).

We are supposed to lap it up. It is supposed to confer an air of kindliness but also world-weariness.

"This is just how it is, kids (removes corn cob pipe from mouth). I didn't make the darn rules an' I don't like 'em neither, but I kin tell y'all how they are. No need tryin' ta change anything, ain't gonna make a bit 'o difference anyways (spits off to the side, resumes rocking in chair on porch)."

That's how I see it anyway.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

68. .

[whatchamacallit]

71. The greatest nailing in the history of nailage!

[neverforget]

82. For some reason, I thought of this guy from the movie Outlaw Josey Wales

[TreasonousBastard]

17. The TPP won't be an issue next year partly because most...

people don't have a clue about it.

But, mainly because at this point it's dead in the water until at least after the elections.

Then, the next Prez and congress will deal with it.

[MineralMan]

29. You could well be right.

Whenever it's completed, Congress will have some time to contemplate it before voting on it. Can you guess how they'll vote, regardless of when they do? I can.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. I'd say they'll go for it. Trade deals...

are popular with industry.

The only reason they don't is if the same idiots that won't refinance the EXIMBank are still around.

[HFRN]

30. nobody's obligated to sign it, either

OP is a rationalization, of a choice to sell out American workers

just like the last trade deals

[zipplewrath]

38. The paragraph that should bother you

The TPP will be approved by Congress. It will go into effect. Everyone should know that. It will be followed to some degree, and ignored to some larger degree. If the overall effect is positive, it will do some good. But it will be approved, because such agreements are essential to have some sort of regulation for international trade.

If you think about this, in the context of a representative democracy, this should be really frightening to you. It's what leads to pitch forks. Especially when you realize who's been "in" on the negotiations, and who has been excluded lately. And this is especially true when combined with this.

That's why the TPP isn't going to really be an issue in the 2016 elections. It will be approved and go into force, regardless of the outcome of the elections in the United States. It's a way bigger thing than one nation can dictate. It goes beyond the politics of any single nation.

What you're saying is that our trade policy is outside of the democratic process, and being conducted by a tiny fraction of the worlds population. Furthermore we intentionally exclude the peoples representative as indicated by this paragraph.

That is why TPA or the fast track authority is necessary. Without it, legislative bodies will attempt to add and subtract portions of the agreement. Congress, for example, which is controlled by Republicans, would inject countless amendments to an agreement, mostly to brag about to individual member's supporters. Each of those would have to be accepted by the other participating nations. That is an impossibility, since Congress is a collective idiot, and will attempt to force irrelevant issues into the agreement.

What you are describing is at BEST an oligarchy, and at worse a benign dictatorship.

[MineralMan]

39. You're right on all counts. I don't disagree.

I can think of no viable way to change the things you mentioned, though. So I fight other battles. Smaller ones. Ones where I can actually have some effect.

Way back in 1965, I decided not to have children. Believe it or not, there were people predicting all of the things that have happened and are happening, way back then. From a population that exceeds the capacity of society to support that population to climate change. People predicted all those things, even then.

So, I made that choice. I also stepped out of the mainstream of the economy and worked on a freelance basis, using my skills to pick at the edges of the economy. I got involved in politics, but only worked on issues that could be realistically changed. Those things that seemed to be inevitable, I left to others to tilt at windmills.

All those predictions appear to be coming true. Looking back, I see no way that they could have been changed. Some things could be changed, so that's what I've focused on. That's what I still focus on.

I'm in my seventies, now, just...

Those people predicting bad things in the 1960s were right. I'll keep working on the little things. That makes me happy.

[Romulox]

40. If we can't affect the outcome, then your OP is pointless.

What you really want is for us to shut up about it.

[MineralMan]

42. No. You misunderstand what I want.

If I wanted people to shut up about it, I wouldn't bother writing an OP like this. What I want is for people to do things that make a difference, in areas where a difference can be made.

I'm never trying to shut anyone up. I'm trying to influence the discussion. That's why I write.

Whenever you or others attempt to tell me what I'm trying to do, you almost always get it wrong. That's OK. I'll keep trying.

[Romulox]

43. That's a distinction without a difference. You want to excuse corporate trade deals, and limit

criticism of same ("not productive&quot .

[zipplewrath]

54. Well I'm so glad you're happy

But it really makes your original post pointless.

It also makes it a tad arrogant. You presume "many" of the people who read it "don't understand". A slightly more honest statement might have been that "many do not yet accept". You appear to want people to accept the inevitability of your sage observations and influence them to accept and enjoy a lower "standard".

I'm curious if you would have thought that Rosa Parks was being pointless because she couldn't possibly change such big laws as segregation of buses and should have instead accepted it as the reality and moved on to "smaller" things she could have influenced?

And as I suggested, if what you suggest is true, then the pitch forks are next so I hope you don't mind if I make some mild attempt to avoid that, even if you find it pointless.

[Hekate]

47. 47 replies and I'm giving you the 5th Rec. smh

TY as always

[MineralMan]

48. Thanks! I'm surprised it got up to 5.

Moving on, now, to other things.

[jeff47]

52. Could you point out the parts of TPP that are actually good for the US?

And by that, I don't mean good for exporting capital from the US.

[MineralMan]

53. I can't, because, like everyone else, I haven't seen it yet.

When the final draft is available, I'll try to digest it, but won't be able to look closely at all of it. I'll listen to what others I trust to understand it, who do have time, have to say as well. Then, maybe I'll be able to answer you. I don't comment on the details of anything I can't read.

[zipplewrath]

55. You've seen some

You like anything you've seen so far?

[MineralMan]

56. I've only seen some leaked very partial drafts, and not up-to-date.

I've not seen any final drafts, and neither has anyone else on DU. When I do, I'll comment.

[zipplewrath]

57. And you haven't seen anything in those you do or don't like?

I mean, some of the things we've seen were highly predictable and based upon the kinds of features we've known from other agreements. And the most recent statements from the last set of negotiations outlined many of the remaining positions each country has. Surely that has some significance for you.

[MineralMan]

58. What part of "I will not comment on partial drafts"

am I not making clear? I will not comment on partial drafts.

[zipplewrath]

59. So le me ge this straight

You don't plan on participating in the process at all.
You don't plan on participating in the discussion at all.
But you show up and try to tell everyone else that they shouldn't expect to participate either.
And you encourage THEM to not participate, not even in the discussion, but to engage on "smaller" subjects that you'll find more productive.

Feeling lonely or something?

[MineralMan]

63. Did I say that? No, I did not.

When the final agreement is available, there is a time frame for Congress to act. I will communicate with my Congressional delegation, based on what I find. As it happens, all three of them are already opposed to TPP. Al Franken, Betty Klobuchar and Betty McCollum. They will be voting NO. I've communicated with them all along, and asked for their No vote on TPA, as well. I suspect they would have done so without my encouragement, though.

They will vote no on TPP. I have zero influence with anyone else at that level of government. As for discussion on DU about it, I've just started a discussion here, based on what I believe will happen. You are participating in that discussion. Nobody on DU has a vote in this, so our discussions will not affect how things go at all.

[zipplewrath]

78. Well....

As for discussion on DU about it, I've just started a discussion here, based on what I believe will happen. You are participating in that discussion.

You started a discussion telling us not to bother our pretty little heads discussing it because we're all such meaningless minions we shouldn't bother. That's not exactly participating in a discussion. And when asked specific questions your response is "I'm not going to discuss that". Is that your idea of "participating"?

[whathehell]

81. LOL

I agree completely.

[jeff47]

64. So, we should all shut up and not try to influence the deal.

We just need to trust our betters.

How about "Fuck no."

[MineralMan]

65. You can do whatever you think best.

If you think it is worthwhile, then by all means try to influence the deal.

For my part, my congressional representative and both senators will be voting NO on TPP. They voted NO on TPA. I'm glad of that, but they ended up in the minority and will again. Betty McCollum, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. My communications with them had nothing to do with that, I'm sure. But, I've campaigned for all three and they've successfully won their elections.

That's my only influence on this issue. However, there are many local issues where my influence is much stronger. I focus on those, primarily, because I have zero impact on national and international issues.

But you should to what you think best. I'm describing what I'm sure will happen with this issue. I'm working on things where I might be able to accomplish something. That's what I think best, and what I'm recommending.

[jeff47]

66. That would be a logical post if your OP was not telling us to shut up. (nt)

[MineralMan]

67. It's not telling you that at all. That's what you

read into it. It's an assessment of the probably outcome of the thing. What you do with that assessment or whether you even believe it is up to you.

[jeff47]

69. Really?

The final version of the TPP will be extraordinarily complex, and almost impenetrable by people who do not have an extensive knowledge of and experience in international trade.

"You can't possibly understand it."

Trade agreements are essential to balance the interests and desires of participating nations. They must, by definition, be compromised documents, since every nation has its own interests as the top priorities.

"You have to accept parts you do not like."

Here in the US, analysts will interpret the TPP documents according to their own biases. They will read into every section and clause their own interpretations, without really considering how the language in them came to be during the negotiations

"You can't trust the people who say it's bad."

In the end, the TPP, like most multi-national trade agreements will eventually be approved and go into force, warts and all.

"You can't stop it anyway."

That's why the TPP isn't going to really be an issue in the 2016 elections.

"You need to stop talking about it."

Just how stupid do you think your readers are? It's not like you're writing for the WSJ.

[MineralMan]

72. Again, that's what you read into it.

The words not in excerpt blocks are your own, not mine. I said nothing about whether people should talk about it or not. You wrote that, not me. I used the words I used. You wrote words I did not write. You read things into my OP that I did not say and think I said them.

You're right. I don't write for the WSJ. It's not one of the publications I've written for.

[jeff47]

73. So could you point out the parts that contradict these?

Or do obvious implications not count because they are not literally stated?

[Marr]

77. +1, pretty much sums it up.

[LWolf]

61. And there is some mighty

something standing with a gun to the head of the U.S., insisting that we must be part of this deal?

We will somehow be irreparably damaged if we don't sign on?

[MineralMan]

62. There are many with enormous economic clout doing just that. They

need no guns. We will sign on. Our pleas not to do so will go unheard, I'm afraid.

[Motown_Johnny]

70. Your very first sentence explains the problem with it,

and why we should not be a part of it.

We have all heard that the TPP will include ~40% of the world's economy. What they don't tell you is that ~23% of that is America all by itself. So when we get into a deal like this we are opening up ~17% of the world's economy to American businesses.

When Canada enters into this same agreement it is getting access to ~38% of the world's economy for it's businesses, and it is among the larger countries in this agreement. Think about countries like Brunei or Malaysia. Their economies are small in comparison to our own, or even Canada's, so the percentage of the world's economy being opened up to their businesses is even larger.

The entire basis for all our trade agreements has been fundamentally flawed for several decades. Any company that buys in bulk expects a discount. Our country buys in bulk and we deserve an advantage in any trade agreement. It the other nations don't like it then they don't have to do business with us. This just helps keep manufacturing jobs at home where they belong anyways.

[sendero]

74. It's another deal of, by and for..

... the money men and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this that will do the average American any good.

I pray that the various impasses will somehow scuttle this, that is our only hope.

[fadedrose]

75. Thanks for the OP, Mineral Man

I always learn something from your writing..

[Marr]

76. MineralMansplaining. /nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. I was about to type ... "Duck and Cover your head and precious parts because ...

you are about to get rained on."

But, then, I read you final line ... I suspect you already knew.

BTW, I completely agree.

[Hoyt]

80. I pretty much agree, although I'm not positive it will pass. Good luck

ducking from those who complain it's secret, yet they are positive it's bad.

[JEB]

84. Probably correct, but I will reframe

from voting for anybody supporting the TPP. Resistance may be futile, but I resist anyway.

[Jim Lane]

85. I hope you don’t consider every disagreement an “attack”

I’m in the minority among opponents of fast track in that I agree with you that the no-amendments rule makes sense, although my reasoning is somewhat different from yours. You stress that Congress is an idiot. For me, the point is that, even assuming a Congress composed of incorruptible geniuses, it doesn’t work to have each of the twelve nations involved proposing amendments. There would be an endless round of amendment and counter-amendment. The project of getting everyone to approve the same version would be hopelessly complicated. Amendments must be concluded during the negotiations and ruled out thereafter.

Your analysis, however, omits the “fast” part of fast track.

You write, “The final version of the TPP will be extraordinarily complex, and almost impenetrable by people who do not have an extensive knowledge of and experience in international trade.” That’s absolutely correct. In fact, because most of the chapters don’t deal primarily with trade, I’d go further, and say that no one, including the negotiators, will fully understand the entire deal. Particular chapters will be almost impenetrable except to experts in that field (labor, environment, intellectual property, whatever). Those experts outside government have gotten some information, from leaked drafts, but their criticisms have been dismissed (by governments and by DU members, including by you in your responses in this thread) because not based on the final text. Only when that text is available can outside analysts do a proper job.

The proponents, however, will be ready to go from Day One. That includes the business interests that have been given preferential access to the negotiations.

This deal has been in negotiation for years. There is no reason why, once it’s finally completed and released, its consideration by Congress suddenly becomes an emergency matter that must be completed within a few months. The complexity and the imbalance of information mean that the artificial deadlines embodied in the TPA are particularly harmful.

You add that the TPP “will be approved, because such agreements are essential to have some sort of regulation for international trade.” This seems to imply that, if the TPP were rejected, then international trade would collapse. That’s certainly not the case. The modern era of trade regulation began with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, superseded by the World Trade Organization in 1995. Trade has not collapsed during the years of the TPP negotiations and it won’t suddenly become unregulated, let alone collapse, if TPP is rejected by one or more of the countries involved.

As for the prospects, I'm somewhat more optimistic than you. The TPA vote was a loss but was closer than I'd expected. When the final TPP text is published, its proponents will have to defend specific provisions and will no longer be able to intone "it's just a draft" as an answer to any criticism. We may find that the AFL-CIO's denunciation of labor provisions picks off a vote here, and the Sierra Club's analysis of the environmental issues picks off another vote there, and who knows, maybe the horse will sing.