- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:
The link was very interesting reading, since I know little to nothing about this hoped-for agreement, but I kept looking to see China mentioned and they weren't. Were they invited to join in these talks and declined, or were they not invited for some reason, since maybe they have their own agreements in place?
Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
China was excluded. The TPP is important to Asia's other countries as an anchor for the U.S. as a counterweight to China.
"Targeting civilians with nukes" saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of lives. Another principle of mine.
Looking at what something actually is as opposed to accepting it blindly because of what it is called is not pedantry. I am sorry you are so easily gulled.
I accept the real world definition on the basis of which real people make real decisions.
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:
The link was very interesting reading, since I know little to nothing about this hoped-for agreement, but I kept looking to see China mentioned and they weren't. Were they invited to join in these talks and declined, or were they not invited for some reason, since maybe they have their own agreements in place?
I can't believe the forum is against this job outsourcing bonanza! Why won't you all think of the poor Chinese laborers who need your jobs!
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:
The link was very interesting reading, since I know little to nothing about this hoped-for agreement, but I kept looking to see China mentioned and they weren't. Were they invited to join in these talks and declined, or were they not invited for some reason, since maybe they have their own agreements in place?
Howdy Polgara. Foreign affairs, not to be confused with the Council. No, of course China isn't invited to the talks. The fool hearty move by the US has been containment of China. This agreement started years ago with four PRC's and the US only joined it to take the lead in 2009. You can think of TPP as an economic NATO of the pacific, designed to bind PRC's to the US, effectively blocking China out. In reality, USFP which neocons regularly criticize, because you must criticize Obama if your a right winger, is in all actuality supported by right wingers no mater who's in power because of the scant difference in the policies of the two parties, but what you're seeing, as you and I have, I think, agreed upon in the past, is driving both Russia and China closer together. Of the three senators that have gone to the "secret" room and read the draft, Sanders, Warren and the third name escapes me at present, if you listen to their comments on it, you'll get a better understanding from them than you will from Jack, who has criticized another poster for commenting on the agreements negatives when he hasn't even read it, all the while that he supports it when in fact he hasn't read it either, lol. Surely you can see the conflict in a Republican Party that doesn't trust Obama to tell them the truth when they ask him what time it is, to being perfectly willing to give him "decider" authority on this trade deal, at the very same time that his party is steadfastly against it.
Put another way. If Bush was pushing TPP, and his party was against it, and the democrats wanted to give Bush sole authority to negotiate trade deals without congressional oversight, would you be skeptical of it. Oh, and then add to that that of the 28 committees in America that are secretly negotiating this trade deal, 85% of them are corporate executives and industry lobbyists! and add to that that there are churches, environmental groups, and labor unions against it. There really are reasons to be sceptic all of this treaty. And, just like NAFTA was negotiated by the George H. W. Bush administration, and signed into law by Clinton, this agreement is being pushed by the right, and likely will be signed into law by Obama!!!!!!
This piece will provide more insight: TPP, China And The Future Of Global Trade Order
“A multilateral deal [like Doha] (within the existing WTO framework) is the most cost-effective legal framework available to ensure non-discriminatory trading terms for all, in particular for the smallest and poorest groups,” writes Shuaihua Cheng, managing director of ICTSD China, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. “It is fundamentally essential to foster inclusive globalization, without which abject poverty gives rise to terrorism and crime.”
Agreed. TPP is a step in that direction.
China doesn't think so.
Good morning, donsutherland1. :2wave:
Thank you for posting that link! :thumbs: It looks like there are a lot of cross-currents and competing interests in place here, and I too wonder why the WTO isn't involved, instead of what seems to be taking place. It will be interesting to watch how all this plays out! China has over a billion cell-phone users, as an example, so they aren't a rinky-dink little player on the world stage, and I can't think they would appreciate efforts to marginalize them - we wouldn't, and they are as important on the world stage as we are! If they decide to join in on this agreement, would, or could, they be told "no," as South Korea apparently was for some reason, without financial repercussions, mainly to our country, since it appears we are taking the lead on this? Puzzling....
My indifference is unlimited.
A combination of factors is probably responsible including:
1. The TPP will likely be easier to conclude than the larger Doha round, as the differences between developed and developing countries has remained quite large in the Doha Round.
2. The TPP would provide concrete substance that the U.S. is going to remain an integral player in Asia.
3. The TPP, at least from what has been reported, will likely be an open architecture agreement, meaning that China and other countries could join at some later date.
As is your lack of knowledge, supporting a thing that you haven't even seen, I'm laughing a little, pardon me.
All those things could be true, you don't know though. But even if they are, that doesn't necessitate any benefits to the American work force.
The promises that the Obama Administration
is making about the TPP are not new. For over two
decades, American Presidents from both political
parties have promised that the trade agreements
negotiated by their Administration would put
American workers first. From NAFTA and CAFTA
to the recent deals with Peru, Colombia, Panama and
South Korea, proponents of these trade agreements
have – again, and again, and again - made nearly
identical promises.
... U.S. agencies reported, and GAO
found, persistent challenges to labor
rights, such as limited enforcement
capacity, the use of subcontracting
to avoid direct employment, and,
in Colombia and Guatemala,
violence against union leaders.
... The United States does not enforce the labor
protections in its trade agreements.
... The U.S. pursues very few enforcement actions.
... Widespread labor-related human rights
violations.
... Failure to curb even the worst abuses. ... Guatemala was named
“the most dangerous country in the world for
trade unionists” five years after entering a trade
agreement with the U.S. In Colombia, despite
the existence of a special “Labor Action Plan”
put in place to address long-standing problems
and secure passage of the Colombia FTA, 105
union activists have been murdered and 1,337
death threats have been issued since the Labor
Action Plan was finalized four years ago. ...
I was just explaining why the U.S. has placed emphasis on the TPP as opposed to relying strictly on the Doha Round. The actual terms of the agreement will determine the trade-offs. Almost certainly, some companies and industries will be worse off, while others will be better off. But if the agreement is well-crafted, the mutual benefits to the various parties should exceed the costs; effective trade liberalization deals leverage the countries' comparative advantages leading to net overall benefits. Finally, at least IMO, there should be some kind of approach e.g., financing for training, etc., to mitigate the transition for adversely-impacted workers.
Well that's the point. It's just hard for me to believe that it will be given that those negotiators, which compose the 28 committees, are 85% corporate executives and industry lobbyists. That it's supported largely by the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce and big business, while it's opposed by labor unions, church's, environmental advocacy groups and largely, the Democratic Party. I'm sorry, but there's just really something troubling about that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?