Dems deal Obama huge defeat on trade. Fast track legislation fails 302-126.

[Jack V Savage]

Blatantly misleading ? Why ?

"The (X) would expand the (completely unrelated and very different deal) model that (had various bad effects)." It's not even like a balanced and serious analysis of NAFTA, which is irrelevant to the TPP, which is mainly about containing China's influence.

 

[kpt018]

The second paragraph there is so blatantly misleading that I kind of lost interest in the rest. A lot of heat on this issue, but not a lot of light. I quoted the best analysis (that also had a lot of links to other good analysis pro and con) in another thread.

What is the thread title that has the link? Or do you remember the author? I cannot find shit on the TPP. The thing is a big mystery, unless details have finally been released.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What is the thread title that has the link? Or do you remember the author? I cannot find shit on the TPP. The thing is a big mystery, unless details have finally been released.

I dug up the piece. Really kind of a summary of other analysis of the deal (I think he could have summarized Krugman's objections better):

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...de-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with

 

[kpt018]

I dug up the piece. Really kind of a summary of other analysis of the deal (I think he could have summarized Krugman's objections better):

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...de-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with

Thanks man.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thanks man.

No problem.

Here's Krugman on one of the implications of the vote:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/decline-and-fall-of-the-davos-democrats/

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Interesting how "containing China" and "spreading US influence" aren't even questioned. Like having the US as world hegemon being a great thing is a complete, total given.

I mean, why is it alarming if China's neighbors want to deepen their ties with them? How would we react if China started thinking of ways to undermine US ties with Canada and Mexico?

We'd probably start WW3 is what would happen. It's incomprehensible that others would do what we do as routine.

 

[IDL]

Interesting how "containing China" and "spreading US influence" aren't even questioned. Like having the US as world hegemon being a great thing is a complete, total given.

I mean, why is it alarming if China's neighbors want to deepen their ties with them? How would we react if China started thinking of ways to undermine US ties with Canada and Mexico?

We'd probably start WW3 is what would happen. It's incomprehensible that others would do what we do as routine.

It's a competition. Who's team are you on bro!

But nah, I know what you are saying. People have double standards because they think they are on Team USA. Chinese are the same though. Probably worse.

Really, the global oligarchy is deep in bed with the Chinese oligarchy (exploiting the worlds peasant population makes them have a lot in common) but they can benefit from this competition also.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Interesting how "containing China" and "spreading US influence" aren't even questioned. Like having the US as world hegemon being a great thing is a complete, total given.

Well, from the perspective of Americans, the U.S. having more influence is better than China having more influence. And really, China is a kind of a horrible regime isn't it? Like from a humanist perspective?

I mean, why is it alarming if China's neighbors want to deepen their ties with them? How would we react if China started thinking of ways to undermine US ties with Canada and Mexico?

We're not trying to force anything. China's neighbors want this deal.

We'd probably start WW3 is what would happen. It's incomprehensible that others would do what we do as routine.

We wouldn't like it, but let's not go crazy.

Anyway, the legit criticisms, IMO, of a trade deal relate to how it affects things in America (see Stiglitz's comments on the interstate dispute settlement for an example of a good criticism of the TPP).

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Well, from the perspective of Americans, the U.S. having more influence is better than China having more influence. And really, China is a kind of a horrible regime isn't it? Like from a humanist perspective?

China is horrible internally. Externally, the US is much, much, much, much worse. Since this is a foreign policy issue, the US really has no moral leg to stand on.

We're not trying to force anything. China's neighbors want this deal.

I meant that this is seen as a move that will curtail China's influence in the region. It's seen as a way to "snatch up" its neighbors into a trade deal before China does, which is supposed to be a great thing.

I just don't think it should be put out as a positive. Accumulation of power and influence by ANY state isn't a positive.

 

[JosephDredd]

New info revealed (link) showing that the TPP would give big pharma considerable control over public health.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

Even Nancy Pelosi didn't back Obama on this.

That's a big surprise from Miss 'We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.'

Now, if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare (I'm not saying I think they will), this week would be remembered as the worst week for any President in decades.

Lmao! Right because the week of 911 for Bush and the economic collapse were a cake walk.

Or Clinton's impeachment.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Watching Fox Business and one guest said this vote shows that it isn't President Obama's democratic party anymore, its Elizabeth Warren's party. I think thats a bit much.

I thought, according to them, Obama was the most far left communist President in US history.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

"The (X) would expand the (completely unrelated and very different deal) model that (had various bad effects)." It's not even like a balanced and serious analysis of NAFTA, which is irrelevant to the TPP, which is mainly about containing China's influence.

The TPP is mainly about containing China, huh? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[emefer]

^ because that's what Obama told us about the deal we aren't aloud to see. Seems to be more about restricting democracy by removing the voice of the citizens.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Gotta thank the activists for this one.

Years ago it was unheard of, now it's a somewhat mainstream issue. They campaigned hard.

"The (X) would expand the (completely unrelated and very different deal) model that (had various bad effects)." It's not even like a balanced and serious analysis of NAFTA, which is irrelevant to the TPP, which is mainly about containing China's influence.

The TPP is mainly about containing China, huh? How did you come to that conclusion?

Lets have this conversation over here.
We can start when you answer this question you missed yesterday.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lets have this conversation over here.
We can start when you answer this question you missed yesterday.

Um, I came to that conclusion by reading a lot about it, pro and con.

How did you come to the insane conclusion that it's about illegal immigration from Mexico?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Um, I came to that conclusion by reading a lot about it, pro and con.

How did you come to the insane conclusion that it's about illegal immigration from Mexico?

That is an interesting response. You have pretty much said that we don't know enough about the TPP to draw any conclusion, but the conclusion you've drawn now is that the TPP is now about containing China. That sounds a little like fear mongering.

Would you be so kind as to share an impartial link?

Is it safe to say that you believe the 600+ International Corporations that wrote the bill are concerned about containing China?

I don't think the TPP is about illegal immigration, I do believe that the push for bulk amnesty is linked to the expected mass job exodus if/when the TPP passes.

 

[Hog-train]

Any deal that is supported by Obama AND all the Republicans and is CLASSIFIED, means I don't trust it at all.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That is an interesting response. You have pretty much said that we don't know enough about the TPP to draw any conclusion, but the conclusion you've drawn now is that the TPP is now about containing China. That sounds a little like fear mongering.

I've said that I am neutral on it. There are good arguments for and against it.

Would you be so kind as to share an impartial link?

I've already linked to a piece by a guy (one of my favorite econ bloggers) who is for it, but linked to lots of arguments on it (pro and con):

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...de-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with

Talks more about the economics of it, but notes the international politics aspect, too. Other pieces focus more on that aspect, and that seems to be the primary motivation behind the push for it.

Is it safe to say that you believe the 600+ International Corporations that wrote the bill are concerned about containing China?

It's safe to say that that's a dumb, and false, talking point.

I don't think the TPP is about illegal immigration, I do believe that the push for bulk amnesty is linked to the expected mass job exodus if/when the TPP passes.

Mass job exodus? WTF, man? What is the mechanism by which that would even happen?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I've said that I am neutral on it. There are good arguments for and against it.



I've already linked to a piece by a guy (one of my favorite econ bloggers) who is for it, but linked to lots of arguments on it (pro and con):

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...de-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with

Talks more about the economics of it, but notes the international politics aspect, too. Other pieces focus more on that aspect, and that seems to be the primary motivation behind the push for it.



It's safe to say that that's a dumb, and false, talking point.



Mass job exodus? WTF, man? What is the mechanism by which that would even happen?

1. Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading this blogger's dissection of the TPP. He must be pretty important to have access to it.

2. Its not dumb at all. The TPP has been molded by the leaders of 600 International Corporations. That is TPP 101. So you either feel they and their stockholders are invested in keeping China in check, or... you don't.

3. How would a mass exodus of jobs even happen? I'm not sure if you're serious.

Here is something from my favorite Right-Wing blogger, Bernie Sanders:

Manufacturing jobs will be lost. As a result of NAFTA, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 jobs. As
a result of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. lost over 2.7 million jobs. As
a result of the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost 70,000 jobs. The TPP would make
matters worse by providing special benefits to firms that offshore jobs and by reducing the risks
associated with operating in low-wage countries.

Here is another anti-big business guy speaking to how NAFTA would, and did, lead to a net job loss for America:
[YT]/Rkgx1C_S6ls[/YT]
http://www.epi.org/publication/heading_south_u-s-mexico_trade_and_job_displacement_after_nafta1/
http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790