Economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer estimate that implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership would increase real incomes in the United States by $131 billion annually, or 0.5 percent of GDP, and U.S. exports by $357 billion or 9.1 percent over baseline projections.
Beyond the long-term economic benefits, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is seen as an essential economic arm of the Obama administration’s Asia “pivot” — a policy to rebalance U.S. attention and leadership to one of the world’s most dynamic regions, but also one beset by security challenges, from territorial disputes in the South China Sea to a nuclear-armed North Korea. In the United States, past experience has shown that without a strong geopolitical rationale, it’s hard to get the requisite political support for trade negotiating authority, much less a final deal. Put simply, Trans-Pacific Partnership means expanding trade and investment with like-minded countries that are also key regional allies.
The objection to the TPP was not that it would fail to increase trade.
The problem was that it was designed to funnel those increased profits to the 0.1%, while neutering the ability of the electorate to regulate corporate abuses. As usual, the rich get richer and the rest get screwed.
Da fuq, you say? How is this not all over the news? This is the stuff that drills holes in the boat, right here. And the holes are a lot larger and more effective when they get public exposure. Holy shit.
The fact is that it is true. He did apply for a trademark. He did question the “one China” policy. He did reverse that and accept “one China”. He did get his trademark.
We can make this about speculating about what was in Trump’s heart, but it doesn’t matter what was in Trump’s heart. I’m not a constitutional scholar, and I’m not an expert on the founding fathers, but I find it impossible to believe they’d be splitting hairs here. I don’t think the emoluments clause is supposed to be applied narrowly and only if you can read minds. And I’m also pretty much 100% sure that it’s not about receiving benefits because of your decisions as president, but about receiving benefits while being president.
Trump received a substantial payment in kind for a diplomatic decision. I think the burden of proof ought to be on him and he ought to have to prove that the trademark would have been approved even if he had not become president. That’s the only thing that would make this not a financial benefit from a foreign government given because he is president. If he could prove that, I think he could probably argue this wasn’t an emolument at all. If that sounds just as hard as proving what was in Trump’s heart when he changed his mind on the one China issue, I think you’re right.
That’s a silly oversimplification. Wealth inequality was, is, and will be a problem with or without TPP-- our problem in that arena is systemic. But decreasing trade will cost jobs and decrease our influence overseas. The mantra “perfect is the enemy of good” fits here-- there will never be a perfect trade deal, but no trade deal is worse as the world will just recalibrate to China and cut us out. Thinking there’s a unicorn trade deal out there that will upend the system and instantly give power back to the people is magical thinking, and it certainly isn’t going to happen under Trump.
I think that suggesting there will be no more trade because of the TPP would be a silly oversimplification as well. Really TPP would have had some effect on trade and some effect on wealth inequality. It would silly to think that either effect was in some way absolute.
I don’t know on what basis you think that trade deals like the TPP help. Every time someone makes that claim I ask for evidence - anything could read that would demonstrate how these trade deals benefit the countries that sign them. I’ve honestly tried, I can’t find any. The best defenses I’ve found are people pointing to broad trends in North America after NAFTA that can’t possibly be disentangled from hundreds of other factors (and that half the time don’t end up pointing in the right direction when you look at the actual numbers). I think it is taken on faith, or thought to be a logical consequence the uncontroversial fact that isolationism is a bad idea (which it is plainly not).
I didn’t say that. I said decreased trade and a pivot to China.
Stanford economist Michael Boskin on the pros of TPP:
Expanded trade leads to higher growth in income, greater efficiency and lower costs and increased variety for consumers. In addition to eliminating many tariffs, the TPP will, if ratified and implemented by the parties with minimal slippage, reduce non-tariff barriers such as excessive red tape and protection of state-owned enterprises; harmonize policies and procedures; and include dispute settlement mechanisms. On balance, that should enable American firms and their workers to expand exports to these markets. California firms and workers, in particular, stand to benefit disproportionally, given the central role the state plays in trade with Asia, from goods and services we export to the flow of goods through our ports.
I am seeking direct evidence, not a quote from an economist. I have the education necessary to understand the evidence myself, but all I’ve ever gotten is models based on thought experiments based on [often disproven] assumptions about how people behave.
I didn’t say you said that. Did you notice that @Wanderfound never said:
but you thought it was relevant to bring up anyway. You think TPP would mean more trade with some countries. Many of us think it would mean more wealth inequality. Your comment read to me like you were trying to present yourself as reasonable (a person who talks about more and less trade) while presenting someone who was opposed to wealth inequality as unreasonable (by suggesting they are looking for a magic wand to solve the problem rather than looking for a way to avoid increasing it).
Then you misinterpreted what I said. I’m opposed to wealth inequality, but, like I said, wealth inequality will exist with or without TPP. Have you ever considered that with Trump at the helm pushing us into a trade war + him negotiating/ re-negotiating future trade deals we could get an even shorter end of the stick? Do you think Trump will ever do anything to address wealth inequality besides making it worse? This is like the Bernie Bros and Stein voters who were so committed to the impossible ideal and so unwilling to compromise that we ended up with the Trump shit sandwich. This can get worse. Much, much worse.
And you just glossed over what I posted. I’m not sure why it’s easy for you to casually brush away something that would actually create jobs here, but there seems to be a Bernie Bro belief that rejecting an okay deal will magically make a perfect one appear. Back here in reality, we’ve got Trump as a President and he sure as shit ain’t going to make any deals that don’t help the 1%.
It isn’t mid-2016 anymore buddy. There are no “Bernie Bros” anymore (not that they ever really existed).
Sorry, I don’t need a trade deal meant to enrich the 1%. You’ve yet to convince me that I do. Waving your hands in the air and saying “it will make jobs!” and ignoring all the criticisms of it doesn’t convince me or anyone else here.
Oh, and it isn’t the fault of Sanders or Stein supporters that Trump won. That’s been pretty thoroughly debunked. Trump won because the Democrats fielded a candidate who was unable to win or excite people. With all that, she still won the popular vote but not the states she needed to win. She and the Democrats should have run a better campaign. It was theirs to lose after eight years of Obama.
I don’t think that’ll happen, public hates this treaty. The 0.9% is BEST case from the proponents, not counting any losses from things like the environment being trashed by corporations because those regulations threaten profits.
