General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Let Obama Close the TPP Deal" -- Plea from the Editors of "Bloomberg Business View"
Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)
(BTW: I'm totally against "Fast Track" and the "TPP/TPIP"....but, thought this an interesting read from the "Bloomberg Business Community. Their arguments seem to be a bit weak in this Editorial given that the Corporations/Business Interests/Chamber of Commerce are trying to ram it down our throats while keeping most of it secret and even restricting Congressional access and wanting to "Fast Track" so that Congress won't even have the ability to amend what has been negotiated by those very same Corporations and other Special Interest groups.)-----------
Let Obama Close the TPP Deal
61 Mar 22, 2015 6:00 PM EDT
By The Editors
The fate of the most ambitious trade agreement ever attempted is in doubt. Talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would bind the U.S. and 11 other countries to new commitments across a wide range of contentious trade issues, have been going on for years. The effort could come to nothing if Congress denies President Barack Obama the authority he needs to close the deal.
Letting this effort collapse would be a grave mistake. This isn't because the prospective agreement looks flawless. Its final form is still unclear, though it's a certainty that an agreement of this scope and complexity won't be perfect. The main harm, if the talks fall apart, is the damage this would cause to the larger process of global economic integration.
Fading confidence in that process is the root of the political problem, in the U.S. and elsewhere. Anti-trade and anti-business sentiment is surging, thanks partly to the global financial crisis and its aftermath. In the U.S., Democrats who believe that trade kills jobs are making common cause against the TPP with Republicans who just want to deny Obama anything he can call a success.
In a way, critics of the agreement are right: Lowering barriers to trade is disruptive. Jobs get destroyed and new ones take their place. But this is a criticism of capitalism itself, and of economic growth. And it ignores the central fact about open markets: Globalization has transformed living standards everywhere and, in the developing world, is lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
To its great credit, the U.S. has for decades led the effort to build an orderly system of international trade. The traditional multilateral approach, proceeding by consensus, worked well for years. Sadly, it has all but come to a stop.
The TPP is a chance to move forward with a smaller number of willing partners and design a more ambitious template for the next stage of trade liberalization. It's an explicitly open agreement, to new members and to new trade issues as they present themselves -- a platform for ongoing liberalization. If this effort also founders, the chances for significant further progress on trade would be slim.
To see why that matters, consider the goals of the TPP. It aims for "comprehensive" removal of tariff and nontariff barriers. It covers not just manufacturing but also services and agriculture, intellectual property, state-owned enterprises, dispute settlement, foreign investment and regulatory cooperation. It's a complex and far-reaching agenda -- proof that creating a truly open trading system is unfinished work.
Granted, the U.S. is already a relatively open economy, so its direct gains (and the disruption that comes with them) wouldnt be dramatic. Making assumptions about how the deal could turn out, one study puts the net benefit at about $80 billion a year. Still, that's $80 billion a year better than nothing, and the gain would rise to more than $250 billion a year if the agreement eventually took in China and others. And these figures don't capture the (potentially much larger) intangible benefits of further global integration, including faster productivity growth and innovation -- to say nothing of the geopolitical benefits of deeper economic ties.
The final details will need to be carefully picked over. For instance, will the intellectual-property provisions discourage creativity or unfairly burden poor countries? Will the new dispute-settlement procedures make it too easy for big corporations to bully governments? The list of concerns is long, and the administration should attend to them carefully.
Nonetheless, the president should be granted negotiating authority to bring the talks to a conclusion. The whole effort is doomed otherwise. Then, when Congress sees the details, it can decide whether it wants the TPP or not. With so much at stake, letting the talks fold at this stage would be an unforgivable abdication of U.S. leadership.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-22/give-obama-the-authority-he-needs
QC
(26,371 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)seems to be turning into an epidemic.
QC
(26,371 posts)I remember a hymn from my evangelical childhood called, "Trust and Obey."
It would make a great theme song for the more conservative factions here.
"Trust and Obey" ....ain't that the truth.
March in Lockstep because the "Alternative is so Horrific."
Where are the issues? Focusing on Clinton Scandals once again while the REAL ISSUES get little play for her as President with Bill as the "First Man." What will this "Team" promise us to do?
After Obama there are Dems that want to focus on "POLICY" and not just be told it will be a continuation of Clinton Administration interrupted.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)They have a plutocrat-centric worldview and this agreement would be favorable to their interests.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)There comes a point in time when all credibility is lost. I thought it was lost after NAFTA but our party leaderships went on to sign America up for many more trade deals that have been a prime agent in eviscerating the standard of living in America. At this point the response should be a chorus of boos mixed in with laughter. What's that saying about insanity?
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Using the same "it's inevitable, so just STFU and get on board" bum's rush. They act like it's a law of physics and not the manufactured machination that it is.
SamKnause
(13,111 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Okay, Bloomberg, so what exactly does "global economic integration" mean?
The way I see it, is that it means that all the most powerful multi-nationals - corporations and Finance - get to have absolute power and the final say over what they will be allowed to do in every country of the world.
You peasant farmers who have been practicing land stewardship and sustainable agriculture on your own little bit of land for generations? Too bad. Big Agribusiness is moving in, and you can go move to the city and work in a sweatshop.
You indignenous people who want to protect your rivers and forests as all the generations of your people have been doing for millenia? Too bad. Mining and Big Oil has plans, and you'll have to go.
You damn sentimental environmentalists who want to protest the pollution caused by our industry? Too bad. We will sue you blind for interferring with our right to make a profit as we see fit.
THAT'S what I see "global economic integration" is all about. And I want none of it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)nailed one part of it! Thanks!
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Smacks of "New World Order", doesn't it.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I reject that it is inevitable...it is only inevitable if we sit back and accept the crap they are trying to sell us. Labor is not mobile and labor is what gets the shaft.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)It seems to me that "global economic integration" is the ultimate predatory capitalist dream. A global population of captive serfs, forced into doing the bidding of the Owner Class, or else.
We must resist - our lives depend on it.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)"form is still unclear"
"won't be perfect"
"lowering barriers to trade is disruptive"
"jobs get destroyed" (with lower wage jobs created...yippee!)
[div class="excerpt]The main harm, if the talks fall apart, is the damage this would cause to the larger process of global economic integration.
That's what worries me: "global economic integration."
How about living standards in the United States?!
Carefully orchestrated crisis resulting in a massive transfer of wealth to the upper brackets.
I vote for "whole effort being doomed."
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Lots of questions one could ask about their weak numbers and tepid endorsement......
and, as you say:
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)La di da!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Hard as I try, I can't think of a time when they supported anything to improve the quality of life of the nation.
Perhaps a reason is they also helped put into action the Powell Memorandum.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)sigh........