Trans-Pacific Partnership

Curious me.

What are people's opinions on what it is and is it a good thing? Especially those in the affected countries.

I ask because when there are both republicans and democrats against it some thing needs to be examined. Especially when the President is for it.

Tried to read about it in wiki. It lead to more confusion on my part.

Thanks in advance,
T2M

Because of the complexities involved,to me it comes down to a trust issue. I don't have the business expertise to negotiate something like this on my own, so my question is do I trust the business expertise of those who negotiated on my behalf?

The theoretically party independent careerist bureaucrats at state & commerce - Looking at past performance - no. Treaty after treaty gets signed. Wall street gets rich. In the short term main street benefits by more cheap stuff, reducing the cost of living. In the long term they find themselves unemployed. Huge numbers of jobs at the low end of the economy are gone leaving us with a permanently unemployed underclass. Jobs in the middle have been leaving for years. And now the high paying STEM jobs are leaving. The middle class in shrinking and has been for decades. The labor participate rate is dropping and has been for decades. Inflation adjusted median income is shrinking. Based on past performance I simply don't trust them.

Their political overlords? - No. Obama & Co dangerously underestimate America's enemies. The world isn't a happy friendly place and our enemies know it and take advantage of the current administrations naivety. Even though the Chinese technically aren't signatories to this treaty, you are naive if you don't think they haven't already outlined plans to maximize their interests. Believe me they had copies of this thing long before congress did and their business sharks have been going over every single word, identifying every loophole and figuring out how to make it benefit China through the back door.

And not just China, you can bet that the negotiators for Singapore, Brunei, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Chili, Peru, Mexico, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all outnegotiated the USA.

If you want me to support a treaty of this type have it negotiated by hard headed businessmen whom I can trust to get the best deal for the USA. Not soft hearted naive bureaucrats whom the Chinese (and all the others involved directly or indirectly) will eat for lunch. If you want a Democrat pick Warren Buffet or some one of equivalent PROVEN expertise.

Frankly with something this complex it comes down to the question of Do you trust Obama and his state/commerce departments? yes or no

biochem wrote:If you want me to support a treaty of this type have it negotiated by hard headed businessmen whom I can trust to get the best deal for the USA. Not soft hearted naive bureaucrats whom the Chinese (and all the others involved directly or indirectly) will eat for lunch. If you want a Democrat pick Warren Buffet or some one of equivalent PROVEN expertise.

Frankly with something this complex it comes down to the question of Do you trust Obama and his state/commerce departments? yes or no

Then you must be happy about this thing, because it gives corporations headed by hard-headed businessmen the best deals.

The big complaints levelled against this piece of bullshit are:
1. That it introduces a mechanism by which foreign investors to a country have more leverage over that country than domestic investors (Because it allows foreign investors to dictate terms and conditions to a country with the backing of treaty violation procedures). This is very good for american companies, as it will help them fuck over other countries.

To quote the wiki article:

On 5 October 2015 economists Joseph Stiglitz and Adam S. Hersh questioned the ISDS provisions of the TPP. "To be sure", they wrote, "investors — wherever they call home — deserve protection from expropriation or discriminatory regulations. But ISDS goes much further: The obligation to compensate investors for losses of expected profits can and has been applied even where rules are nondiscriminatory and profits are made from causing public harm. ... Imagine what would have happened if these provisions had been in place when the lethal effects of asbestos were discovered. Rather than shutting down manufacturers and forcing them to compensate those who had been harmed, under ISDS, governments would have had to pay the manufacturers not to kill their citizens. Taxpayers would have been hit twice — first to pay for the health damage caused by asbestos, and then to compensate manufacturers for their lost profits when the government stepped in to regulate a dangerous product."

2. That copyright protection in member states is extended to the insane levels that the US practices. Again, very good for US companies, which will let them keep their stranglehold over popular culture and kill business ideas (See the Kirtsaeng case for reference).

3. Negotiations were held in secret. In the US, Members of Congress and nonprofit organizations had no or limited access to the negotiations, whereas representatives of big business were allowed unlimited access.
To quote Bernie Sanders:

Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.

TL;DR: TPP is very, very pro-corporation and does little to improve the common good.

We in Australia have similar reservations. One hurdle was the US tobacco companies were hoping to use it to overturn our laws regarding plain packaging and such. They say that has been blocked, but due to the secrecy we're not sure.

I would tend to agree with our esteemed German member of the board on this issue.

The E wrote:

biochem wrote:If you want me to support a treaty of this type have it negotiated by hard headed businessmen whom I can trust to get the best deal for the USA. Not soft hearted naive bureaucrats whom the Chinese (and all the others involved directly or indirectly) will eat for lunch. If you want a Democrat pick Warren Buffet or some one of equivalent PROVEN expertise.

Frankly with something this complex it comes down to the question of Do you trust Obama and his state/commerce departments? yes or no

Then you must be happy about this thing, because it gives corporations headed by hard-headed businessmen the best deals.

The big complaints levelled against this piece of bullshit are:
1. That it introduces a mechanism by which foreign investors to a country have more leverage over that country than domestic investors (Because it allows foreign investors to dictate terms and conditions to a country with the backing of treaty violation procedures). This is very good for american companies, as it will help them fuck over other countries.

To quote the wiki article:

On 5 October 2015 economists Joseph Stiglitz and Adam S. Hersh questioned the ISDS provisions of the TPP. "To be sure", they wrote, "investors — wherever they call home — deserve protection from expropriation or discriminatory regulations. But ISDS goes much further: The obligation to compensate investors for losses of expected profits can and has been applied even where rules are nondiscriminatory and profits are made from causing public harm. ... Imagine what would have happened if these provisions had been in place when the lethal effects of asbestos were discovered. Rather than shutting down manufacturers and forcing them to compensate those who had been harmed, under ISDS, governments would have had to pay the manufacturers not to kill their citizens. Taxpayers would have been hit twice — first to pay for the health damage caused by asbestos, and then to compensate manufacturers for their lost profits when the government stepped in to regulate a dangerous product."

2. That copyright protection in member states is extended to the insane levels that the US practices. Again, very good for US companies, which will let them keep their stranglehold over popular culture and kill business ideas (See the Kirtsaeng case for reference).

3. Negotiations were held in secret. In the US, Members of Congress and nonprofit organizations had no or limited access to the negotiations, whereas representatives of big business were allowed unlimited access.
To quote Bernie Sanders:

Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.

TL;DR: TPP is very, very pro-corporation and does little to improve the common good.