I remain baffled that anyone could support or oppose a trade deal the details of which remain unknown. I could understand how you could oppose or even support a process that prevented you from knowing the details of the deal but not whether you support or oppose the deal. Add the editors of the Washington Post to the list of those who support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement sight unseen:
THE UNITED STATES and 11 other nations concluded the long-awaited Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, on Monday — demonstrating that it is still possible for this country to exercise world leadership, and to do big things in its own national interest, given consistent White House leadership and sufficient bipartisan support in Congress.
[…]
Difficult as it has been to reach this point, the last leg — final passage for the TPP in both houses of Congress during an election year — could prove even more difficult. Republican Donald Trump and Independent-running-as-Democrat Bernie Sanders have been whipping up protectionist sentiment against the TPP even before they knew what would be in it. Over the course of the next few months, the public and Congress will have an opportunity to pore over the pact. If its details prove to be as advertised, people are likely to conclude that the benefits of the deal outweigh its risks. For now, though, it’s enough to note the fact that Washington can still get something done, and to celebrate that.
As for my part I’ll wait until I know what’s in the deal before making up my mind about it. I strongly suspect that the benefits of the deal are being oversold. The rule of thumb on these trade agreements is that whichever country liberalizes its trade the most benefits the most as well. We already have free trade agreements with most of the signatories and our trade is fairly free already as these things go so I’ll be pleasantly surprised if we benefit much by it.
I suspect multinationals will benefit a great deal from it along with the attorneys involved in dispute settlement.
Why would a liberal/progressive agenda not try to improve workers’ conditions or the environment in other countries? Why should the US support labor or environmental destructive practices that are outlawed in the US?
If a country wants to sell its wares in a civilized country, it should be required to produce those wares in a civilized manner.
Is slave labor acceptable? Is euthanasia of inefficient workers acceptable? Why is China an acceptable trading partner but not Cuba? If Iran stops the anti-US rhetoric, is there any reason to not trade with them? If so, why not. Compare and contrast with China.
I’ll try to answer one of your questions:
There are two reasons. First, Cuba is 100 miles from Florida; China is 7,000 miles from the United States. Second, China has a population of 1.4 billion people. Many American CEOs look at that number and think of that as a potential market of 1.4 billion people. They hear the word “China” and dollar signs float before their eyes.
I hold a minority position on this question. I think the Chinese market is 25 very wealthy and powerful people. That’s how many people are in the Politburo. This is a battle I’ve been fighting for 40 years. Obviously, I’ve lost the argument.
The fact that the process is designed to keep the public from knowing anything at all about the deal until after it has essentially passed is enough to oppose the deal itself. The people who think it’s great believe that it will be received like a turf in the punch bowl _despite_ the fact they they own all the major media outlets. What more needs to be known given they won’t tell us Jack shot?
Goddamn auto correct.
Turf in the punch bowl wouldn’t be particularly pleasant, either. And “jack shot” adds a certain amount of color to the comment. I’m not sure what it means but it adds color. It kinds of reminds me of something my dad would say.
I thought Congress was able to see the details. Not true?
Steve
You should know I mean logically as in “a therefore b”.
If there are any out there, I would like a “rational adult” of the non-” Liberal/Democrat” type to school me. You know who you are.
For everybody else, I am just being my usual self.
For a certain somebody, let me help you out. I often toss things to both sides to use. I am a rational being, and that which is logical and based in reality does not scare me. Reason has forced me to toss my most cherished beliefs on the trash heap. Have you?
The regulars know to be careful. I adhere to reality, and I can turn on them in a heartbeat even when I really agree with them. I either play by the rules or not, and there is no in-between. You get to decide, but there is no changing midstream.
My understanding is that Congress including committee chairmen have not seen the agreement. Ron Wyden’s bill to require the Obama Administration to release the details failed to pass Congress and in his speech in support of the bill he said that few if any Congressmen had seen the agreement.
I can find lots of links for complaints about not seeing the agreement but so far none from people who’ve seen it. Most of what’s known by the general public (and Congress!) about the deal has been learned from Anonymous.