The editors of the Washington Post support the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement:
But at the end of the day, it is an agreement that seeks to facilitate the free flow of goods, services and investment, to the mutual benefit of hundreds of millions of people. That is the core purpose on which the TPP should ultimately be judged and, we hope, ratified.
Note the careful wording of that endorsement. The agreement does not “facilitate the free flow of good, etc.” but seeks to do so. Since the terms of the agreement became public I’ve learned several things:
- The agreement does not end Japan’s agricultural tariffs. It reduces them but does not end them. Since the agreement omits any measures to counter currency manipulation, it vitiates the effects of reducing tariffs. This alone is a stopper for me.
- It does not extend labor rights to Viet Nam. Contrary to the WP’s editors’ claims that is a trade issue as are environmental and safety standards.
- The agreement has serious problems in privacy and security standards.
- The U. S. has not agreed to moderate its intellectual property laws.
I don’t think that anti-currency manipulation provisions are quite as elusive as the WP’s editors do. How’s this? “Any country holding foreign currencies in excess of World Bank standards shall be subject to tariffs and penalties in the amount of the excesses.” The sticking point is not in coming up with a formula; it’s that currency manipulators want to keep manipulating.
Team spirit is not enough of a reason for me to approve or disapprove of the agreement as it is for some. I need a substantial argument, backed up with facts and figures, that the agreement will be of net benefit to the people of the United States. So far I haven’t seen that.
… the people of the United States. …
Your logic is fine, but one of your premises is faulty. I believe you are confusing the human citizens with the people, and they are definitely not the same.
The rabble benefit because they can borrow unlimited amounts of money in small sums to purchase substandard products that they have no recourse when they injure somebody.
There is a simple test for determining if one is part of the rabble or not. If one cannot understand the benefits of this system, one is part of the rabble. I think we know where you stand. Welcome to the party. Have some cake and punch that I bought with my “cash back” credit card.
The agreement does not “facilitate the free flow of good, etc.†but seeks to do so.
Yeah, that “seeks to” is a big flashing neon sign. (When no one is looking I’m sure it morphs into a giant sucker.)
Another suggestion for naming the times: The Perceived Intentions Era. During PIE, what people do doesn’t matter. What people intend isn’t even important. What someone tells you they PERCEIVE as intent matters, and only that. Thus the stupidity at Missouri, Yale, Claremont, etc. And now the nonsense that the TPP should be approved because the editors at the WaPo PERCEIVE that the agreement seeks to facilitate free trade, not that it achieves any such goal. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide who’s full of more shit, the college students or the WaPo editors, but I know how I’d vote.
Welcome to the party. Have some cake and punch that I bought with my “cash back†credit card.
Yay! Cake!
Ice,
Interesting way you wove the TPP and the insanity of college students together. The world seems to be nothing but mysterious/unproven or irrational perceptions.
Conservatives have a lot of qualms about the TPP. Liberals have a lot of qualms. There seem to be some parts of the treaty which most of us can agree to; but there seem to be other parts of the treaty which are avidly embraced only by large corporations and their lobbyists and White House functionaries who seem to think that making corporations happy is the essence of Modern Liberal Government.
Personally, I’d be pleased to see Congress deep six this pact. Let the next administration work on a trade pact that we all can agree benefits ordinary Americans — and ordinary Japanese and ordinary Vietnamese and ordinary Australians and ordinary Philippinoes and so on.