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

[SouthoftheAndes]

This trade deal is good. People need to do more research and stop listing to sensationalism propaganda.

 

[Jack V Savage]

All of these issues should be transparent and negotiable.

Trade deals aren't leaked to the public until they are finalized for obvious reasons. I find that attack to be very misleading (not saying--in this one case--that you are deliberately trying to mislead, as I believe that you're genuinely being duped here).

I can see people trying to be neutral because we don't know the full extent of the treaty and hey, lets not jump to conclusions.

I'd also add that given the extent of free trade to this point, further trade deals are unlikely to do much good or bad (which is why the geopolitics aspect is more important here).

NAFTA cost jobs.
There is no reason to believe TPP will not, for the same reasons.

You still haven't defined what you mean by that. You mean, not that it increased unemployment at any given time or led to increased structural unemployment but rather that it cost *specific* jobs, right? Leading to lower wages. In the case of NAFTA, I would agree with that (a recent change in my position, as I've read more on the issue). In the case of the TPP, I see no reason to expect something similar. The big difference is who weren't making a deal with. Mexico (or China in 2000) had a lot of cheap labor and not a lot of capital, and opening up trade with them put American workers in competition with cheaper labor, leading to depressed wages. Japan and South Korea (the main focus of the TPP) are the opposite--expensive labor, lots of capital.

Those reasons being:
1. Outsourcing, which Ross Perot spoke to and from a far more experienced position than I hold. I agree with him, not only from a common sense position, but from a historical position as well. Vietnamese workers are going to be less expensive all around: wages, insurance, regulations.

Why would Vietnamese workers compete for jobs that Chinese workers don't already compete for? The cost difference between Vietnamese workers and Chinese workers would be negligible, and Chinese workers are more productive.

2. Trade Deficits: As with NAFTA, we should expect a net increase in imports. This can be spun as less expensive junk for American consumers, but that would be at the expense of manufacturing jobs and port jobs.

Your phrasing is typically obnoxious, but you're acknowledging positives and negatives that balance out there, no?

3. There is language in the TPP that says International Corporations will rights that non-international corporations will not. These corporations can sue our government for "anticipated losses" from government actions. So if Minneapolis decides to build a new public school next to "International Corporations" education franchise, they can sue the government for losses they anticipate losing. This court is run not by US judges, but by a tribunal of business arbitrators.

This is, IMO, a legitimate concern, though it doesn't relate to the jobs thing. More details needed here, but some things we know about this appear troubling. I could be convinced that the negatives outweigh the positives with more detail on the issue.

4. Globalization has lead to a decrease in American wages. Even when you look at the job "gains" associated with NAFTA they are lower paying jobs than the once lost to NAFTA. There are links inside the links I linked that support this.

See above. Good argument against NAFTA, irrelevant here.

5. Currency Manipulation. You already agreed on this. Thing about this one tho: It could have been written into the TPP and hasn't been. Hopefully if the Congress continues to play hardball this will be addressed.

I don't see that being a realistic ask, though of course it would be good (note, BTW, that this is exactly the opposite of what Austrians and kooks like IDL are worried about).

The people who have read this bill and analyzed it to the best of their ability have voted against the TAA because they don't feel it's good enough for American workers. The Democratic party, who has traditionally stood with Labor has rebuked this bill. The GOP, which you argue over and over again is against the poor and for big business is all for it.

Yeah, so? I obviously tend to side with Democrats on more issues, but I think they're wrong about free trade, generally. This is a little different because, as I've noted, this isn't as much about free trade as about geopolitics (I think they make some good points on the issue--in addition to the hysterical fear of trade--, and I am neutral on the issue), but I think the left has latched on to it as a symbolic issue, the way the right did, say, with the Keystone Pipeline, which really wasn't a big deal either.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You still haven't defined what you mean by that. You mean, not that it increased unemployment at any given time or led to increased structural unemployment but rather that it cost *specific* jobs, right? Leading to lower wages. In the case of NAFTA, I would agree with that (a recent change in my position, as I've read more on the issue). In the case of the TPP, I see no reason to expect something similar. The big difference is who weren't making a deal with. Mexico (or China in 2000) had a lot of cheap labor and not a lot of capital, and opening up trade with them put American workers in competition with cheaper labor, leading to depressed wages. Japan and South Korea (the main focus of the TPP) are the opposite--expensive labor, lots of capital.

I don't know how I can better answer your question on job loss.
I also don't see how it matters seeing that you don't feel there will be any job losses, even in spite of the TAA, written to protect workers from jobs lost to trade agreements.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty. As of 2014, twelve countries throughout the Asia Pacific region have participated in negotiations on the TPP: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

Bolded: huge disparity in pay compared to the US.
Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore: ~25% less than US.
Of course, wages are just one expense. There are others (insurance, regulations, facilities, etc).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know how I can better answer your question on job loss.

I gave you three choices. Pick one. Or tell me I'm forgetting another option. With regard to NAFTA, it's clearly the third one (that is, it leads to job changes but not losses). That is, it's not leading to higher unemployment, but it probably is leading to a shift in jobs, which is probably good. The actual problem is that it leads to labor having a lower share of national income, which to my thinking is bad (though Republicans obviously disagree).

I also don't see how it matters seeing that you don't feel there will be any job losses, even in spite of the TAA, written to protect workers from jobs lost to trade agreements.

Jobs shifted, right? I mean, think it through. It's not going to lead to permanently higher unemployment rates, right? Maybe a temporary spike in unemployment, but it's such a slow process that that seems unlikely, too. I already explained why I don't think it will affect wages.

Bolded: huge disparity in pay compared to the US.
Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore: ~25% less than US.
Of course, wages are just one expense. There are others (insurance, regulations, facilities, etc).

I addressed that earlier. Why would companies, which currently have the option of outsourcing labor to China, choose to outsource to Vietnam, which would cost about the same and provide lower productivity? That doesn't compute.

 

[emefer]

From Robert Reich's Facebook.
FYI he served secretary of labor for Clinton.


"Why has President Obama been willing to spend so much political capital on the Trans Pacific Partnership? I have a guess. It begins with Michael Froman, the United States Trade Representative who

 

[Jack V Savage]

From Robert Reich's Facebook.
FYI he served secretary of labor for Clinton.

"Why has President Obama been willing to spend so much political capital on the Trans Pacific Partnership? I have a guess. It begins with Michael Froman, the United States Trade Representative who

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I gave you three choices. Pick one. Or tell me I'm forgetting another option. With regard to NAFTA, it's clearly the third one (that is, it leads to job changes but not losses). That is, it's not leading to higher unemployment, but it probably is leading to a shift in jobs, which is probably good. The actual problem is that it leads to labor having a lower share of national income, which to my thinking is bad (though Republicans obviously disagree).



Jobs shifted, right? I mean, think it through. It's not going to lead to permanently higher unemployment rates, right? Maybe a temporary spike in unemployment, but it's such a slow process that that seems unlikely, too. I already explained why I don't think it will affect wages.



I addressed that earlier. Why would companies, which currently have the option of outsourcing labor to China, choose to outsource to Vietnam, which would cost about the same and provide lower productivity? That doesn't compute.

You didn't really address it, as much as tried to rationalize your position that jobs wouldn't be lost. You addressed wages and the work ethic of the Chinese...

I countered with additional cost savings like insurance, regulations, and facilities.
Something Joseph Stigliztis is also concerned about.


And those job shifts were not good.
They shifted into lesser paying jobs.
And there weren't just jobs shifted, there were jobs lost.
Manufacturing plants lost.

Now you're position seems to be that we've lost all the jobs to outsourcing that we can.
I disagree.

Where do you get this certainty?
What source have you consulted has concluded that we will not lose jobs to the TPP?

 

[emefer]

So ... Obama trusts Froman, and Froman is tricking him? And Reich somehow has insight into that?

Well considering the same guys involved with the horrible nafta deal and the move from imposing tariffs to free trade, which has been great for the company but not so much the workers or their revenues, the guys that deregulated the banks who then went to work for the banks as top executives have come back to write us a new trade deal I wouldn't be so quick to just say so.

I don't think that Obama is being tricked, but given bad advice from people he trusts who happen to be former execs for a too big to fail bank that was the recipient of a shit ton of corporate welfare.

Yeah, so what that those in high government positions have held high corporate positions and vicey-versey.

Why would these guys stray so far from their nafta, which has worked wonderfully for them and their buddies and come up with a newer better plan that builds our economy and raises our salaries. I don't see any changes but maybe those to protect the company that they may have overlooked.

Get real now. This deal isn't going to result in U.S. selling american made shoe to the Vietnamese.

 

[ShoelessRye]

I didnt' think that was possible?
My understanding that the TAA and TPP were linked such that the TAA needed to pass in order for the TPP to pass?

Do you have a good link explaining this?

I did find it perplexing that they passed the TPA after denying the TAA.

They are linked by the Senate vote that already passed them linked, but if the House breaks them up and only passes the fast track portion, it just has to go back to the Senate to then vote only on the fast track (without the TAA). It's a little tougher in the Senate because it would need to pass cloture vote of 60 again first, and the TAA was seen as buying enough Dem support - it would need to get 6-7 Dem votes for the stand alone fast track cloture vote which is likely but not guaranteed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You didn't really address it, as much as tried to rationalize your position that jobs wouldn't be lost.

Huh? I addressed it. You don't like it, fine, but don't lie, man.

You addressed wages and the work ethic of the Chinese...

I didn't say anything about "work ethic." Productivity is a measurable thing, and isn't really based on "work ethic."

And those job shifts were not good.
They shifted into lesser paying jobs.
And there weren't just jobs shifted, there were jobs lost.
Manufacturing plants lost.

So you still refuse (I've lost count of how many times you've ducked this) to say what you mean by "jobs lost." And do you think it's some kind of law of the universe that all jobs shifts have to lead to worse jobs? Seems to me that for most of human history that kind of thing has led people to be better off, though that's certainly not a law either.

Now you're position seems to be that we've lost all the jobs to outsourcing that we can.
I disagree.

I spelled out my reasoning. What is the reason for your disagreement?

Where do you get this certainty?
What source have you consulted has concluded that we will not lose jobs to the TPP?

I spelled out my reasoning. Remember? Shit, I called it back in the very post that you're responding to:

"Why would companies, which currently have the option of outsourcing labor to China, choose to outsource to Vietnam, which would cost about the same and provide lower productivity? That doesn't compute."

 

[matburn H]

Just another shining example of Obama the conservative. This is the new (current) boss, same as the last. It's maddening that people actually fell for that "hope and change" line.

 

[emefer]

You want to know the mechanism Jack. It's the closing of factories and the continued shipping of jobs overseas that has been happening since free trade began.
Theirs your mechanism.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

So you still refuse (I've lost count of how many times you've ducked this) to say what you mean by "jobs lost." And do you think it's some kind of law of the universe that all jobs shifts have to lead to worse jobs? Seems to me that for most of human history that kind of thing has led people to be better off, though that's certainly not a law either.



I spelled out my reasoning. What is the reason for your disagreement?



I spelled out my reasoning. Remember? Shit, I called it back in the very post that you're responding to:

"Why would companies, which currently have the option of outsourcing labor to China, choose to outsource to Vietnam, which would cost about the same and provide lower productivity? That doesn't compute."

I've answered your question to the best of my ability. Its looks like your trying to goad me into saying something? What do you want me to say? Why? What's your point?

I've given sources from renowned economists, labor unions, and progressive politicians who have had access to the TPP. I also provided historical context, which all of my sources support. I've pointed to the TAA, the very purpose of which is to protect workers from the expected job losses associated with the trade agreement.
I've pointed out that there are several countries that companies could move business to improve profits. I've expressed my concern that having 600 international corporations lobby and negotiate the TPP, this concern is supported by the renowned economists, progressives, and labor union sources that I provided.


YOU have argued that the TPP isn't NAFTA. You're right.
The other stands for North American Trade Agreement.
One stands for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and it is much bigger.
Other than that, the TPP is still a secret document and we can only go on the words of those who have read it and those who have intimate knowledge of the negotiations.

YOU have argued that there will be no job losses secondary to the TPP passing and that any jobs that would have gone overseas have already left for China and Mexico.
You have provided no sources to support this claim, of which you are projecting absolute certainty. The sources you have provided are:
1. A blog
2. An Op-Ed from right-wing mouthpiece, David Frum
3. An opinion piece from a conservative website.
(when we started this argument, you accused me of using right-wing propaganda...lol?).



If you're not going to provide a more legitimate source to support your opinion then this conversation is at an end.

 

[2GunTommy]

You didn't watch the video did you?
And you didn't read the links did you?
You're ignoring the wisdom gleaned from NAFTA.
And you're ignoring the very basis of the TAA.
Do you not believe American jobs will be lost?
Are you still pretending to be neutral?
Why are your continuing on with this charade?

Here are more answers to your repetitive question, that I've answered several times already:

Outsourcing
Currency Manipulation
Favoring International Corporations over non-international corps, small businesses, and government decisions that would create jobs.
Globalization
Trade deficit

AFL-CIO: Top Ten Ways the TPP would Hurt Workers & Families

You like blogs. Here is a blog.
What

 

[emefer]

Youre wasting your time. Anyone who denies the destruction of these trade deals is obviously a govt shill spreading disinformation. There is no other explanation to his avoidance of the obvious.

That's what I was thinking. Guy claims to have a neutral view at the same time discounting all anti TPP argument while pushing his invalid pro TPP view.

Guys an obvious ringer.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've answered your question to the best of my ability. Its looks like your trying to goad me into saying something? What do you want me to say? Why? What's your point?

Dude, WTF? Can't you ever just communicate like a regular human being? Also, your response style makes it hard to tell what you mean.

I have not seen you spell out what you mean by "jobs lost" or the logic behind your belief that the TPP would cost jobs.

I've given sources from renowned economists, labor unions, and progressive politicians who have had access to the TPP.

...

YOU have argued that there will be no job losses secondary to the TPP passing and that any jobs that would have gone overseas have already left for China and Mexico.
You have provided no sources to support this claim, of which you are projecting absolute certainty. The sources you have provided are:
1. A blog
2. An Op-Ed from right-wing mouthpiece, David Frum
3. An opinion piece from a conservative website.

We're going in completely opposite directions, here. I'm asking for you to actually make an argument and stop trying to argue from authority, while you're asking me to stop making substantive arguments and argue from authority. And that's funny since I've provided you with analyses, you just commit the ad hominem fallacy when I do (that is, Frum is a "right-wing mouthpiece" therefore his arguments must be invalid or Noah Smith, a well-known economist writing for Bloomberg is a "blogger" and therefore his arguments are not worth considering, no apparently are the multiple pro and con pieces he links to).

(when we started this argument, you accused me of using right-wing propaganda...lol?).

???

If you're not going to provide a more legitimate source to support your opinion then this conversation is at an end.

What a stupid threat. You're writing off any source that disagrees with you as illegitimate and then demanding a legitimate one because you clearly don't understand the issue. I spelled out my argument logically, while yours seems to be: some politicians and lobbyists are against it, therefore it's bad and there are no tradeoffs to weigh (and anyone who disagrees is a big poopyhead). Oh, and NAFTA was a trade deal and had some bad results, and the TPP is kind of a trade deal so it must also have those exact same bad results even though you can't explain why.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's what I was thinking. Guy claims to have a neutral view at the same time discounting all anti TPP argument while pushing his invalid pro TPP view.

Guys an obvious ringer.

But I don't discount *all* anti-TPP arguments. Why do you guys think that lying is a good way to go about discussing this? I accept anti-TPP arguments that I think are good and reject ones I think are bad. Anyone following the discussion can see that. And I do reject some pro-TPP arguments and accept others. Which is why I say I'm neutral on it.

And if you guys are really under the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is a "gov't shill spreading disinformation," that's just sad because it means you have been totally brainwashed.

 

[second sight]

they're voting on this shit again today

 

[IGIT]

This was a disaster. Don't support any politician who pushed this.

hiya Clmetal,

well, President Obama pushed this bill, along with his allies on the right.

Mrs. Clinton also supports this bit of free trade legislation.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

hi 2GunTommy,

Glad the Dems came through on this one. Fuq the TPP and its globalization agenda. These trade deals are never good for the American people. Jobs will be lost, wages will be pulled down just like NAFTA.

those jobs that were lost to NAFTA were going to be gone anyway, Tommy.

either the US manufacturers would have been at a competitive disadvantage as other corporations sought the cost saving benefits of low cost of labor/low regulatory countries and gone out of business or those same US manufacturers would have sought other markets to place their factories in.

- IGIT