SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump says he will issue an executive action on his first day in office to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In a video updating Americans on the White House transition, the President-elect described TPP as a "potential disaster for our country".
[...] Mr Trump said his administration instead intends to generate "fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores".
Sky Correspondent Greg Milam said: "Donald Trump has been very critical of what trade deals have done for American workers and the damage that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) did in the 1990s - particularly to low-income workers in the Midwest, who it turns out voted for Mr Trump in huge numbers."
Source: Sky News
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump to Withdraw US from Trans-Pacific Partnership
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 81 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Everything you know is wrong!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @10:07PM
We will need trade agreements. I'm holding back my thumbs until I see what his administration wants to put in the next trade agreement.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 22 2016, @11:09PM
HOw did the world survive before trade agreements? Have we had trade agreements favorable to American entertainment industries since the stone ages?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by black6host on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:14AM
I have to agree with this. Copyright extension has long been a contentious issue with me. One of my main complaints with HRC was that she was in bed with entertainment producers to the detriment of the common man. Fuck Sonny Bono and the horse he rode in on and all those that followed in his footsteps. The "New Democrats" will pay a price and well they should.
I won't comment on all the other potentially divisive issues regarding Trump, at this time. He's in. Let's see what he does. I didn't vote for him but I will give him a chance. Pretty fair thinking as far as I'm concerned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @03:34AM
To me, that seemed to be a matter of upholding capitalism and fairness. When people don't respect copyright, then the cost of music, books, and movies goes into free fall, as we've seen. But the world has changed, you say. Well, it's quite a different matter if everyone decided they didn't want to listen to records made by the old guard anymore, but in fact they are listening to them, and are collecting their music - they were (and to some extent still are) doing it illegally.
And yet Apple, Samsung, Verizon, Comcast, and ESPN and their executives always get paid, because there's no way to "infringe" on them in the same way that people have pirated the works of musicians, authors and publishers, actors and film studios, some software developers. Does that seem justified?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:25AM
What are you getting at?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:55PM
So because people are disregarding copyright law and swapping illegal copies around, we should... extend copyrights even longer, preventing some old works from falling into the public domain where they could be legally copied, while doing nothing to affect the illegal copying you're ostensibly concerned about? Try again.
Setting aside all moral issues of how copyright should work, or even whether it should exist at all. Just look at the system we have, and how people react, given that they know there's meant to be a balance between an initial period of monopoly, followed by perpetuity in the public domain.
If you're looking to reduce piracy (or better yet, to maximize total cultural value created) you should be near the top of that list; we're at the bottom today, and you're defending term extensions by whining about rampant piracy?!
*Of course, this perception is also affected by the manner in which extensions are performed: if they let existing works fall into the public domain at the appointed time, while extending the term for new works, it looks more like good faith; if they retroactively extend copyright on works about to enter the public domain (as with most, if not all, US copyright term extensions}, it looks like a sell-out; and if they put previously uncopyrighted works under copyright (as the Copyright Act of 1976 did for certain works), it leaves no room for doubt.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:54AM
The question is not so much if it is favourable to Americans or Europeans; most of the population in Europe also opposes the trade agreement. It's long past the time where the conflict was mainly US against Russia, EU, China or whatever.
The main conflict is rich/big enterprises vs. users and average working class. As Warren Buffet put it: It's class warfare. My class is winning, but they shouldn't be. [wikiquote.org], full interview for context [cnn.com].
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:37PM
That would have been, might makes right. And The Golden Rule, He who has the gold makes the rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:43PM
Really? The world has ALWAYS had trade agreements. Going back thousands of years! The world was explored because of, or to get around, trade agreements. This is why the position of diplomat or emissary is thousands of years old. In fact, trade agreements, or lack thereof, is the cause of many wars through history.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 22 2016, @11:14PM
We might need decent trade agreements, but what we don't need are trade agreements negotiated in secret that are just thinly-veiled corporate supremacy treaties which force even more draconian copyright and patent rules down everyone's throats. Stop that sort of garbage and there won't be so much resistance.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:38PM
'Trade' agreements, maybe. But corporate money making machines? No.
Corporations run on risk: enter a new niche? There is a risk attached. Invent (or even 'invent') a new product for making profit on? Risk. Try to make money in a new market? Risk. But the reward could be great!
With things like the TPP, they are trying to remove risk: they create a chemical that THEY discover kills bees, but they can make a magnificent profit on and they go for it, covering up their own data. Other scientists start saying 'Hey, their chemical kills bees!" What to do as a corporation? Help create a 'trade' bill that allows you to sue governments that stop the sale of your bee killing chemicals.
eg. Make a magnificent profit off sale of bee killing chemicals in Canada. Canada decides your chemical is killing bees (partially after discovering that YOUR OWN DATA says it kills bees) and they stop the sale of your chemical.
Should you be, then, able to sue Canada for lost profits???? UNBELIEVABLE!!! NO. YOU. SHOULD. NOT!
This is NOT a trade agreement: this is a corporate profit agreement. Screw the people, make money.
I for one am not willing to sit around and just agree to take it up the arse so that a corporation can make another dollar...and another....and another.
'Thank you, sir, can i have another arse raping?'
No. Thank. You.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---