Why has Clinton changed her position on TPP and now opposes it ?No law against currency manipulation

[factfinder_77]

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-28/hillary-clinton-s-stand-nafta-and-tpp-it-s-complicated-and-evolving

The uninformed political pundits think that Trump scored some points when he referenced Clintons changing policy against TPP. So what actually happened, that during the negotiations from 2012 to 2015, the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Malaysian government, did not want to include any currency manipulation chapter. That is, they opposed an international treaty prohibiting a country to devaluate their currency to make their goods cheaper to export.

In any event, the Obama administration has resisted including currency manipulation in the TPP. US trade negotiators believe foreign governments won't go for it, and that insisting on currency language at this point would run the risk of derailing the entire agreement.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8590993/currency-manipulation-tpp-explained

[phallon]

1. She was SOS

It was her responsibility to promote her Predident's agenda, promoting TPP. She did her duty in s non-political office.

When the secret negotiations were over, she withdrew her support. How is this an issue with the media unless they are carrying Trump's water. And from what I've read most of the factcheckers are calling it a lie.

[factfinder_77]

2. And as Clinton poited out in the debate, We are only 5 % of the world population.

Hence we need international trade.

But she could have come stronger on the facts, and killed Trumps anti-trade rhetoric once and for all.

[phallon]

3. Agreed

[Ken Burch]

9. We can have international trade WITHOUT the TPP.

The agreement, as written, would make any form of economic justice impossible.

[LeftRant]

4. I kind of think she changed her mind to please the left.

And that's ok. Maybe she was only for it because Obama was and she was his Sec-State. But in any case, she has said now that she will NOT sign it--no way--as president, in those very direct terms. She could not do it now. It would be a political death, ala GHWB's "Read my lips: no new taxes."

It doesn't surprise me he brought it up though. It WAS a flip-flop.

She still kicked his ass all over that stage though

[factfinder_77]

6. Because its not a fair playing field.

The agreement would give China, Vietnam and Japan the ability to export goods to US without tariffs, at the same time using their currency to make their goods cheaper.

And thereby “cancelling” the effects of removal of tariffs, at the same time US would be prohibited to place any tariffs on Chinese steel or any other goods.

[radius777]

5. she needs a better response for trade

because he's going to continue to hit her on it, which is ridiculous, because its the GOP (the party Trump represents) that is the far right party on trade, not Dems/Obama/Hillary/Bill, who were/are centrists on trade.

We live in a global economy and have to trade, we just need ethical and fair trade, i.e. w/environmental protections, labor standards, etc.

Trump's policies would lead to trade wars, drive up the prices of consumer goods drastically (inflation), and economic meltdown.

And it won't bring back jobs.

A big reason for job losses have nothing to do with trade anyway, but with technology and automation, which drastically reduces the need for labor.

[Jamaal510]

8. +1

[Ken Burch]

10. We don't need the TPP to have trade.

Let's negotiate a JUST trade deal, one that doesn't equate higher social spending, free or low-cost university education, universal healthcare and strong labor, consumer protection and environmental laws with "tariffs" or subsidies. It is never a tariff or an unfair trade practice to have a society with humane values. And elections are officially meaningless if a corporation can get laws passed by a democratic government thrown out(without an appeals process)by an international tribunal.

We can have trade AND justice.

[ooky]

7. He never answered the original question asked by Lester Holt

How he is going to bring jobs back that have already left the U.S. It seems all the pundits praising his trade performance neglected to remember that he never answered it.