Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday May 21 2016, @02:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the because-things-aren't-bad-enough-already dept.

Common Dreams reports

The government's own assessment of the toxic Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) shows that the controversial trade deal will produce negligible economic benefits while damaging most Americans' jobs and wages.

The U.S. International Trade Commission's (ITC) report (PDF), issued [May 18], shows that the TPP "would likely have only a small positive effect on U.S. growth," Reuters reported.

"This may be the most damning government report ever submitted for a trade agreement." --Leo W. Gerard, United Steelworkers

Public Citizen reports via Common Dreams: TPP Study Projects Worsening Trade Balances for 16 of 25 U.S. Economic Sectors; Overall U.S. Trade Deficit Increase

[Continues...]

The report:

  • estimates a worsening balance of trade for 16 out of 25 U.S. agriculture (p. 124), manufacturing (p. 228), and services (p. 340) sectors that the ITC selected to feature. This includes vehicles, wheat, corn, autoparts, titanium products, chemicals, seafood, textiles and apparel, rice, and even financial service.[...]
  • estimates the TPP will increase the U.S. global trade deficit by $21.7 billion by 2032.
  • projects even the U.S. services trade balance will worsen by 2032 as service imports of $7 billion swamp the estimated increase in exports of $4.8 billion (p. 35).
  • [Several more bullet points]

"Given that the ITC's past studies on pending trade pacts have usually projected improvements in the U.S. trade balance and gains for specific economic sectors but the opposite occurred, that this study projects an increase in the U.S. trade deficit and losses for 16 of 25 U.S. economic sectors suggests that if ever implemented, the TPP could really be disastrous." --Lori Wallach, Public Citizen


Original Submission

Related Stories

President Trump Proposes Rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership 74 comments

Trump Proposes Rejoining Trans-Pacific Partnership

President Trump, in a surprising reversal, told a gathering of farm state lawmakers and governors on Thursday morning that he was directing his advisers to look into rejoining the multicountry trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal he pulled out of within days of assuming the presidency.

Rejoining the 11-country pact could be a sharp reversal of fortune for many American industries that stood to benefit from the trade agreement's favorable terms and Republican lawmakers who supported the pact. The deal, which was initiated by the Obama administration, was largely viewed as a tool to prod China into making the type of economic reforms that the United States and others have long wanted.

Both Democrats and Republicans attacked the deal during the president campaign, but many business leaders were disappointed when Mr. Trump withdrew from agreement, arguing that the United States would end up with less favorable terms attempting to broker an array of individual trade pacts and that scrapping the deal would empower China.

Republicans in Congress have also been skeptical of Mr. Trump's tendencies on trade, and 25 Republican senators sent a letter to Mr. Trump urging him to re-engage with the pact "so that the American people can prosper from the tremendous opportunities that these trading partners bring."

Previously: Donald Trump to Withdraw US from Trans-Pacific Partnership
Renamed TPP Signed, Without the IP Rules, Without the USA

Related: "Legal Scrub" of TPP Makes Massive Change to Penalties for Copyright Infringement
US Government's Own Report Shows Toxic TPP "Not Worth Passing"
Australia Leads Charge to Revive TPP While Canada Abstains


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @03:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @03:06AM (#348956)

    Looking to create the myth, the legend, the fabled Feces Soup.

    Let me know when you're available.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 21 2016, @03:11AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 21 2016, @03:11AM (#348957) Journal

    This country is running on inertia. When NAFTA was rammed down our throats, all the "important" people were convinced that "free trade" is "good". Despite the fact that most of those "important" people are now in geriatric wards, the inertia is still at work. "Must pass FREE TRADE laws whenever possible!"

    We would do better to dismantle all the existing agreements, than to pass new ones.

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 21 2016, @05:04AM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday May 21 2016, @05:04AM (#348973) Journal

      One of the most worthwhile things you can watch on youtube, is the Charlie Rose interview with Sir James Goldsmith regarding NAFTA and GATT from 1994:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI&list=PLb63FEV_iGwBW8DKxaiMgo7Bhx0x2MmeG [youtube.com]

      Goldsmith lays out exactly what would happen with these trade deals and some really insightful points that ring true today. He talks about a recovery of economic indicators, while people suffer. About the purpose of an economy to enhance society, not gut it. And how the trade deals will only help a very few. There is also a Bill Clinton staffer on there being all snide and condescending -- and wrong. Lastly, Goldsmith is no socialist -- he was an unabashed capitalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 21 2016, @05:24AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 21 2016, @05:24AM (#348978) Journal

        Mmmm - yes. 3 1/2 minutes in, "Mexico is expensive compared to" places like VietNam. I never thought of that - Mexico stood to "benefit" from NAFTA, but each succeeding trade agreement only tends to undermine Mexico's puported gains.

        Goldsmith makes me wonder, maybe NAFTA would have been a "good thing", if it were a standalone thing, complete unto itself. Maybe Mexico, the US, and Canada really would have benefitted, ultimately, from a trade agreement. But, our trade agreement never was a solitary, monumental achievement. Instead, it was just so much early groundwork for the globalization kooks. They knew before NAFTA was ever passed that the agreement couldn't achieve it's stated goals, because the groundwork was already being laid to undermine that one regional agreement. (Yeah, it's a big region, basically half of one of earth's hemispheres.)

        Ultimately, the most skilled worker in the wealthiest nation on earth is going to be in direct competition with the least skilled, least educated worker anywhere on earth. "Yeah, he is willing to do the job for US$100, but I'll do the job for fifty cents." Free trade is never going to work, unless prices are controlled around the world for all goods. The guy in the US needs that hundred bucks to meet his daily expenses - but the guy in Bumfuckistan can feed, clothe, and house his extended family for a month for $100.

        • (Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:03AM

          by driverless (4770) on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:03AM (#348989)

          "Free trade" will work just fine, when it's defined as what it actually is, "a note from their mothers allowing corporations to do whatever they damn well please, including take governments to court if they try and limit what they can do". So it works fine for the corporations that sponsored it via their wholly owned subsidiary, the US Congress.

  • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday May 21 2016, @03:24AM

    by bitstream (6144) on Saturday May 21 2016, @03:24AM (#348961) Journal

    Because unless it's cancelled it will not matter very much if it's bad.

    And it seems whenever there's a "disastrous". The financial monsters will be there to pick up the pieces at fire sale prices.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @04:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @04:20AM (#348965)

      N.B. This is a treaty and the Constitution specifies that treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
      The House should not be involved at all.

      It is instead being handled in an unconstitutional manner where a simple majority in each chamber will get it onto the president's desk.

      The thing has been given to Congress.
      The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate will need to schedule it for discussion.
      (The fast-track notion that would have required a simple up-or-down vote without any discussion was defeated due to pressure from the public.)

      The Republican majority is bound and determined to not give Obama any kind of legacy so they're sitting on it, apparently until he's gone.

      According to what I know, if any of the parties to the thing defeat it, it's dead and will need to be rewritten and go through the process all over again.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Saturday May 21 2016, @04:28AM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 21 2016, @04:28AM (#348966) Journal

        Of course, the lawyers are tricky. If you took this issue to court, there'd be nothing officially wrong.

        The de jure treaties that govern it already exist, and allow for mutually agreed modifications. If you just piggy back new agreements onto that language, guess what, no new treaties.

        Kinda like how your contract with your cell phone company includes a "we can alter this and fuck you over any time" clause.

      • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday May 21 2016, @09:40AM

        by bitstream (6144) on Saturday May 21 2016, @09:40AM (#349026) Journal

        So TPP goes into effect when Obama disappears?

        I'll guess if Trump wins it will be toast. What standpoint do Sanders have?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @02:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @02:17PM (#349077)

          With Sanders it'll be toast as well. Clinton has "evolved" to claim that she now thinks it's a bad idea. There's no telling if Trump or Clinton will "pivot" or "evolve" to support it once in office.

          • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:22PM

            by bitstream (6144) on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:22PM (#349209) Journal

            Is there any reason to think Clinton is good for anything? :p

            The real choice is likely between Sanders and Trump.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:53PM (#349225)

            With Sanders it'll be toast as well

            Bernie is mostly pro-worker, so that one is pretty obvious.
            This also would have been an easy Google for bitstream.

            Clinton has "evolved"

            Clinton's RHETORIC has changed; her record remains one of serving the corporatists at the expense of workers.
            There's an old story about a frog and a scorpion that is apt.

            The only core values that you can count on with either of the Clintons are ambition and opportunism.
            Hillary was a Goldwater Girl (and that hasn't changed).
            Slick Willie is just Republican Lite.
            Bill Clinton's 5 Major Achievements Were Longstanding GOP Objectives [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [truth-out.org]
            ...and Hillary was his #1 cheerleader.

            no telling if Trump [...] will "pivot"

            For every "position" Trump has expressed, you can find another time when he has said the opposite.
            Trump is simply a loose cannon who doesn't filter anything, such that what pops into his tiny little brain comes out of his big stupid mouth.
            Donald Trump Has Now Changed His Mind on the Minimum Wage Three Times In Three Days [motherjones.com]

            The only core values that you can count on with Trump are his giant ego and his selfishness.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday May 21 2016, @04:40AM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday May 21 2016, @04:40AM (#348967)

    So the government says it's bad, but the corporations that seem to pretty much own the government want it badly. Guess what's going to happen.

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 21 2016, @10:31AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday May 21 2016, @10:31AM (#349036) Journal

      The corporations will sent papers to the government officials to convince them that it is not bad. You know, the sort of paper which has dollar signs on it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by jelizondo on Saturday May 21 2016, @05:42AM

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 21 2016, @05:42AM (#348981) Journal

    In a video [youtube.com] at the Goldman School of Public Policy (Berkeley), Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz discuss the TPP starting at around 41:26, must see.

    For those not in the know, Robert Reich was Clinton's Secretary of Labor and is currently a Berkeley prof, while Stiglitz won the Economics Nobel Prize in 2001, was Chief Economist for the World Bank and Chief of Economics Advisors for Clinton, so it's worth hearing what they have to say, which is a nutshell is: TPP is really bad for everyone except big corporations.

    They even hit Obama (directly) and Hillary (indirectly) for their support of the TPP.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:07AM

      by driverless (4770) on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:07AM (#348990)

      TPP is really bad for everyone except big corporations.

      I got the same statement from an IP lawyer when he went through the IP aspects of the TPP, in a fairly dispassionate, legal manner (i.e. he wasn't for or against, just giving a legal assessment of what was in there). After he'd finished, I asked him whether there was anything in there that benefited the public or consumers in any way. He thought about it for a minute and then said "No, there's nothing".

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:42AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday May 21 2016, @07:42AM (#348996) Journal

        from an IP lawyer when he went through the IP aspects of the TPP,

        Wow. Horse's mouth. While he was being mounted by major corporations. Do they not teach ethics in Law Schools any more? Or, did they ever? At least this one was honest. But I say unto you, my dear and tastey Soylentils, that a treaty that is illegal is no treaty at all. I appeal to St. Augustine, who said the same thing about unjust laws. We will all ignore the TPP treaty, if it passes, and the lawyers of little ethics might attempt to sue us, but to no avail. For we will know who they work for, and where they live, and what the name of their dog is, so that they will realize that they cannot possibly be paid enough for this shit. Zombies, man, Intellectual Property zombies! Abandonware! IP with no owner, so it cannot be either licensed or killed, so there is only one option. I just want the Republicans to pass it, so we can regard them as being in the same category, zombies, used to be humans, but now only reality TV persons, IPs. Fire at will.

      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday May 21 2016, @12:29PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Saturday May 21 2016, @12:29PM (#349053)

        TPP is really bad for everyone except big corporations.

        I got the same statement from an IP lawyer when...

        i knew it was bad for everyone except big corporations when i first heard about it because it was being kept secret.

  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday May 21 2016, @10:24AM

    by Gaaark (41) on Saturday May 21 2016, @10:24AM (#349033) Journal

    I'm hoping that this is the way for the U.S. to gently back away from this big pile of sh*t.

    "It's bad, so we shouldn't pass it: exactly like all the voters are saying we shouldn't..."

    Can i just hope and dream for this?

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---