Obama administration releases text of TPP trade deal

[Jack Hays]

Then why were wages higher according to productivity before the free trade boom of the 1970s?

1945-1975 the US economy enjoyed the anomaly of post-war preeminence. We were the last man standing and it took decades for more normal conditions to return.

 

[Jack Hays]

A sound basis does not equate to a healthy basis.

On the contrary, only a sound basis can be healthy.

 

[Shadowless]

1945-1975 the US economy enjoyed the anomaly of post-war preeminence. We were the last man standing and it took decades for more normal conditions to return.

That's correct, but has nothing to do with why wages went down. They went down because corporations sent jobs overseas to avoid paying the cost of doing business here and in Europe. We have to END that practice.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's correct, but has nothing to do with why wages went down. They went down because corporations sent jobs overseas to avoid paying the cost of doing business here and in Europe. We have to END that practice.

No, we don't.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

On the contrary, only a sound basis can be healthy.

Completely false. So many historical examples also prove this to be true.
Early war time Germany, Oligarchical Latin America, Feudalism, examples go on and on.

 

[eohrnberger]

CEO's have been receiving record bonuses. The income gap is 350 to 1. We have to tell corporations....if you refuse to pay a fair wage, then you don't deserve to be in business. Period.

What if the work that a CEO does is 350 times more valuable, provides 350 times more value to the company, is harder to get, harder to replace, in the market?

Who's going to determine what's 'a fair wage'? Politicians? The government? You?
Because I think the job market is already doing that, setting a fair wage for the value of the work contributed.

 

[Jack Hays]

Completely false. So many historical examples also prove this to be true.
Early war time Germany, Oligarchical Latin America, Feudalism, examples go on and on.

To say that only a sound basis can be healthy is not the same as saying every sound basis is healthy. But soundness is a necessary precondition for health.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

To say that only a sound basis can be healthy is not the same as saying every sound basis is healthy. But soundness is a necessary precondition for health.

Depends on what you define as "health" and where that "the beneficiary of that health".

 

[natsb]

That's correct, but has nothing to do with why wages went down. They went down because corporations sent jobs overseas to avoid paying the cost of doing business here and in Europe. We have to END that practice.

Okay, I'll bite. How do we end that practice? Do we reduce the cost of doing business here, so the jobs can stay?

 

[Jack Hays]

Depends on what you define as "health" and where that "the beneficiary of that health".

An economy without a sound basis is not sustainable.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

An economy without a sound basis is not sustainable.

Again not true.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

This is why you don't make sense....global trade is good for the world because it brings peace, but it also brings slave labor and low wages for AMERICANS. If you understand globalization, you'd know that domestic economic policy is tied in with global policy to the extent that the trade deals allow.

If you think that opening up trade relations with developing countries is GOOD for AMERICAN workers, you're very gullible. Look at the facts, look at what NAFTA has done. It's good for Mexico, BAD for AMERICAN workers. The President has sold out AMERICAN workers to benefit Asia. But guess what? Asia STILL has horrific working conditions. They haven't improved because most of those countries governments are corrupt.

You cannot separate the two. They are intertwined. You CANNOT expect free trade with poor countries and expect AMERICAN workers to have good wages. It doesn't happen, it only makes America weaker.

You want peace in those countries at the expense of AMERICAN workers. That's BS.

Sorry, guy, but you really are clueless. What kept Americans from having a living wage wasn't globalization - it was and is a crappy domestic economic policy.

And you still think that not doing business with Vietnam will make it better for Vietnamese workers? News just broke - saw it on the iPhone - that one of the requirements for Vietnam to be part of TPP is giving the workers the right to organize and unionize and bargain for higher pay and better and safer working conditions...

...but according to you, all TPP does is keep overseas workers as slaves. Also, it removes taxes and tariffs on 18,800 American products that are sold overseas. I'm happy to see that, because for example, I've seen Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream for sale for $10 in the Philippines, and a Butterball turkey for sale in Singapore for $50 (and this was in the late 90's)...and what's making them cost so much? Import taxes...just like those that are removed as part of this deal. And you should see how many of our fast-food franchises are over there! All the really big ones...and quite a few of our regular restaurants, too.

Look, guy, I know it's hard to grasp all this since you almost certainly haven't seen what I've seen overseas, but it's nowhere near as bad as you seem to think. Yes, there are some places that are deplorable, inexcusable...but you know what happens when those nations overseas have growing middle classes? Their middle class people have SPENDING MONEY...and guess what they spend their money on - is it low-quality local stuff, or is it that really good American or European stuff?

Concerning that last one, in the Philippines, there's a word - "blusil", pronounced "blue seal" - and it's used to refer to the mark of quality of Americans and American products. Its use came from seeing that blue seal on Marlboro cigarettes.

So stop stressing - the world ain't gonna come to an end, the sky is not going to fall. The world - including America - is largely better off than you seem to think.

 

[Jack Hays]

Again not true.

Then we'll have to disagree.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

CEO's have been receiving record bonuses. The income gap is 350 to 1. We have to tell corporations....if you refuse to pay a fair wage, then you don't deserve to be in business. Period.

At least that's something you and I can agree on!

 

[le bouffon]

I strongly believe that you're giving far too much credit to the institution of slavery in the Empire - it's as if you're ignoring all the other sources of income - and there were many indeed.

To be sure, England's imperial hands are bloody indeed, as would be those of any great empire. Not only was there slavery, but the opium trade, the subjugation of the Subcontinent, and their wars in Africa...but don't make the mistake of giving too much weight to slavery. We in America bear much more guilt for that particular institution.

And while England's hands are bloody, think about the tyrannies they repulsed and defeated: the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, WWI and WWII...what would have happened had England lost any of those? While England did so much that is wrong on every level, it was their blood that stood against the Inquisition, against Napoleon, and against Teutonic hegemony. Give blame, yes...but never forget to give credit, too.

There were many sources of income, but they were directly related to the slave trade. The spice and sugar plantations relied on slave labor. The opium trade provided a vast revenue, but nothing compared to the spice/sugar trade. Also, the tyrannies of the Spanish Armada and Napoleon were no better or worse than the British Empire. It's all subjective.

And your point is...what? Did that one battle - or any of the other horrific battles fought during the Great War - detract one whit from England's status as the world's greatest superpower at the time? No. What cost England that status was how much capital was transferred to America, which had become that 'arsenal of democracy'.

I don't think many of my fellow Americans know just how horrible that war was for England and France - and for Germany. We've never had a war like that, where all of the great European powers had battles where they lost twenty thousand or more dead, and over twice that many wounded in one DAY in one battle. We call the French 'surrender monkeys' - I wonder what my fellow Americans would have done if we fought a war in which we lost a quarter of all our young men.

And I see you're in London - just got back from there last month, spent our anniversary there and in Paris. Wonderful, wonderful place...and I must admit that the English were much more welcoming than the French (though it's possible that might have been because of the language barrier), and the food was absolutely excellent. I look forward very much to coming back there someday.

My point is the British were humiliatingly defeated at the Somme. The worst loss in British history. Their superiority over the seas went unchecked until the end of WWII, as naval warfare was of a lesser extent during WWI. However, Britain's superiority on land was a mere legend after the Somme. The disillusioned Irish troops, wanting their own sovereignty back at home (with the Irish Free State being created afterwards) and colonial powers, no longer wishing to adhere to the monarchy (Canada was the first to go), the British Empire was falling on its face. Also, Americans are quick to forget that if the French hadn't assisted the American Revolutionaries during the Battle of Yorktown, the war would certainly have ended in failure.

Your grasp of history is quite impressive and I hope we speak more on here. Glad to hear that London and Paris treated you well. London is a great place for historical museums, with the Imperial War Museum being my favorite. Cheers.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Economic activity finds a sound basis. For everyone who loses, someone wins. I'm glad to have the Mexicans here.

While there is some merit to your argument, the statement that "for everyone who loses, someone wins" is flat wrong - economics is not a zero-sum game. If it were, then we wouldn't have huge growth in economies over time...and deflation of an entire nation's currency would be impossible.

 

[Jack Hays]

While there is some merit to your argument, the statement that "for everyone who loses, someone wins" is flat wrong - economics is not a zero-sum game. If it were, then we wouldn't have huge growth in economies over time...and deflation of an entire nation's currency would be impossible.

Fair enough. The point was not meant as rigorous economic analysis.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

There were many sources of income, but they were directly related to the slave trade. The spice and sugar plantations relied on slave labor. The opium trade provided a vast revenue, but nothing compared to the spice/sugar trade. Also, the tyrannies of the Spanish Armada and Napoleon were no better or worse than the British Empire. It's all subjective.

It was my impression that tea was the most profitable, and that it wasn't through slave labor, but through selling tea in Europe, using the proceeds to buy opium in India, and then using the opium to purchase more tea to sell in Europe.

You could make that argument in the last sentence about Napoleon's efforts to bring republicanism to Europe...but then he had to go crown himself Emperor. Power corrupts, and all that. But England was by no means as bad as Spain - there's nothing in English history that compared with the horror of the Inquisition...and that's without addressing the actions of the conquistadors.

My point is the British were humiliatingly defeated at the Somme. The worst loss in British history. Their superiority over the seas went unchecked until the end of WWII, as naval warfare was of a lesser extent during WWI. However, Britain's superiority on land was a mere legend after the Somme. The disillusioned Irish troops, wanting their own sovereignty back at home (with the Irish Free State being created afterwards) and colonial powers, no longer wishing to adhere to the monarchy (Canada was the first to go), the British Empire was falling on its face. Also, Americans are quick to forget that if the French hadn't assisted the American Revolutionaries during the Battle of Yorktown, the war would certainly have ended in failure.

Concerning the Battle of the Somme, maybe. I hadn't heard that take before. I had thought that Paschendaele was the more traumatic battle for England, but your point would remain the same, particularly in that (as I understand it) there was a greater percentage of troops from the Commonwealth involved in the Somme than at Paschendaele, also known as Third Ypres. You may well be right - I've got to think on that one.

And I strongly agree that Americans have forgotten what the French did for us. I believe that our conservatives have engendered the same type of contempt and overconfidence found in all peoples whose nations stood at the proverbial top of the heap in their time in human history.

Your grasp of history is quite impressive and I hope we speak more on here. Glad to hear that London and Paris treated you well. London is a great place for historical museums, with the Imperial War Museum being my favorite. Cheers.

Thanks, but there's so much to learn...and I'm sure there's quite a bit that I need to unlearn, as well. I wanted so much to go to the Imperial War Museum (we went right by it!), and to go to all the others, particularly the National Maritime Museum (I'm retired Navy, and Nelson's IMO the greatest admiral that ever lived). I also wanted to go to the HMS Victory down in Portsmouth...

...but my Darling whom I adore - we've got a very, very happy marriage (23 years so far) - detests history...and because I dearly love her (and peace in the household) more than I love history, I let it all go. Ah well, maybe next time. There WILL be a next time.

And likewise, I'm greatly enjoying the exchange - one of the things I enjoy most in a discussion is being proven wrong, because that means that some of my ignorance has been removed...and that's why I'm sort of excited to read what you said about the Somme. That is truly interesting to me. That said, here's something I wrote several years ago you might like - it's a reply to Kipling's "White Man's Burden". I hope you like it.

 

[danarhea]

Obama and his neo liberal cronies have stuck a sword through the heart of American labor with this deal. He will be remembered as a President who lied about change in his campaigns, and did what all neo liberals do regardless of what the unions say.

If the Republicans went after Obama on things that are true, such as this monstrosity, I would join them in calling for Obama's impeachment. But they go after the conspiracy nut stuff instead, while Obama continues to do real damage to America.

 

[FlyingHippos]

Well, guess we are back to robber baron economics by a majority vote of the House and Senate.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm generally a fan of free trade deals like this (yes, that includes NAFTA), and these things are so incredibly complex no one really can understand all the issues.

My primary issue, though, is pharma, and that seems to be a major sticking point here.

The US is fighting for 12 years of protection for biologics, and it sounds like the agreement is for less. This will be tough for industry to recoup their losses if it's only, say, seven years. And if that's the case, you can expect less revolutionary drug development in the future. That's never a good thing.

 

[fmw]

So you disagree that businesses should be able to sell off labor to countries where it's cheaper, but still get the benefits of being an American company? Seriously?

Yes, of course. The U.S. has decided that globalization is the way to go That is what companies do. We need incentives to reverse that. But you are suggesting that companies that manufacture abroad should be thrown out of the country? That would certainly destroy our economy. Businesses have incentives to move labor overseas. They are the wrong incentives in my view.

 

[Thoreau72]

this is just as painful as trying to read Obamacare.

but yes, it will pass..... and it it does what it's advertised as doing, it will be ok with me..... trade is a good thing... a great thing, in fact.

Trade is already occurring, and has been for centuries. How do you see this POS improving trade?

Other than screwing the US middle class and strengthening corporate control of government, what benefits do you see?

 

[joG]

Explain yourself.

Well, "democratic decision making is one of many ways for groups to decide thinks. Each of these systems of decision making has pros and cons that corresponding to things like transaction costs, information availability or danger from outsiders effect better or worse results. While it may be optimal in other words to use a democratic process of decision making in a pluralistic and large corporation in quiet times, the same company might lose its shirt and trousers, if it tries to whether a bout of hostilities from mean and determined men that want to strip its assets.

 

[Thrilla]

Trade is already occurring, and has been for centuries. How do you see this POS improving trade?

Other than screwing the US middle class and strengthening corporate control of government, what benefits do you see?

yeah.. i'm not answering loaded ,dishonest questions.... sorry.