6 ms·

Nothing you said I disagree with yet your tone suggests TPP is by assumption a good thing simply marketed wrong; yet you've not made a single argument for why i

by wfo 10y ago

Nothing you said I disagree with yet your tone suggests TPP is by assumption a good thing simply marketed wrong; yet you've not made a single argument for why it is good. It's not just the US government that did little to convincingly persuade the populace about TPP's advantages; nobody convincingly persuaded anyone about its advantages except for the tiny group of elites who negotiated and structured the deal in their own favor. I'm willing to hear an argument for why TPP would be good for working people in the US. I've never heard anything even close to that. I've heard plenty of hard evidence that it's horrible for working people (and people in general) in the US, while being great for large corporate interests. Sometimes unpopular things are unpopular because they are bad, it's not always a communication problem.

oculusthrift 10y ago
Not everything is done for blue collar rust belt people. TPP is about the US as a whole. Instead of us setting the terms of trade in the Asian Pacific, we will have China and Russia cut their own deals and cut America and its allies out. Entitled white heroin users in the Rust Belt would rather help themselves with protectionist policies to give them no skill jobs instead of help the rest of the country and the world.
- captainlego 10y ago
  Or, you know, they could develop trade deal without all the secrecy and bullshit? When the government has been lying to you for years about domestic spying, among other things, how do you expect them to follow you blindly on another deal made in the dark? This country is going to go into chaos in the next ~10-25 years as more and more jobs are automated, unemployment skyrockets, and people refuse to give free money to all the "entitled white heroin users in the Rust Belt." Notwithstanding the effects of global warming ramping up. Except because of the elitism we get to start this period with Donald Trump at the helm instead of someone at least half sane.
  - chiaro 10y ago
    Trade deals are developed in secret for the same reason that all legislation is (before being presented for a democratic vote). The negotiation process is hamstrung by too many interests, with domestic lobbies preventing anything from being discussed at all. This is a point of interest in game theory. Paper here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706785 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706785
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      Those pesky voters, getting in the way of any decent democratically elected Congress! I quite agree, all legislation should be formulated in secrecy and foisted on them at the last moment. The only thing that could improve this situation is that deals should be formed in complete secrecy, with no input from Congress or the Senate and should be ratified solely by the President via a treaty process. You really want to ensure the Great Unwashed and those incompetents they elect indirectly don't get any where near trade deals, otherwise they might possible make "improvements" such as forcing through openness, accountability, fairness and equality! All of which are totally the anathema of good backroom deals.
      - ddw 10y ago
        To me secrecy sort of makes sense because it's a negotiation. You don't want to show your cards in a negotiation, right? So how could the President and Congress say to the American people "this is what we're going to offer and accept from China" and pretend that the Chinese aren't going to hear it too? Secrecy is often a horrible idea but this is a really complicated issue.
      - chiaro 10y ago
        The US constitution was another document planned in secrecy and passed by the public. This isn't denigrative of democracy at all, despite the flowery rhetoric. It just leads to better outcomes, as Putnam's paper outlines. It's a pretty seminal work, I'd encourage reading it. (8000+ citations, https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=Me4t2sQAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Me4t2sQAAAAJ:XiVPGOgt02cC https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?view_op=view_citatio... )
- rjeli 10y ago
  "Entitled white heroin users in the Rust Belt would rather help themselves with protectionist policies to give them no skill jobs instead of help the rest of the country and the world." "Black crack smokers in Detroit would rather help themselves with welfare instead of getting a job and helping the rest of the country." Wow, doesn't that really make you think? Maybe we shouldn't target people by their race, and associate them with negative stereotypes? Maybe we shouldn't dismiss their response to struggle as selfish and stupid? Really gets the noggin goin'.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    The problem was the "white heroin users" part. "Selfish and stupid" can't really be argued against.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      As for selfish. Since everybody's acting in their own interest selfish is pretty much a given. That's the basis of the whole process. That an act is selfish does not make it bad. As for stupid, large complex and overarching new legislation taking away tons of rights relating to everything from food to medical treatment from individuals ... and everybody (including the vast majority of Hacker News I might point out) seems to have a problem with this. This is not a stupid attitude. Why not ? Start here: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
      - oculusthrift 10y ago
        not everyone is selfish as you claim. I, as well as many mature adults, support higher taxes and work against global warming even though both those things could directly hurt me but are better for the public as a whole. that's the difference i guess.
        candiodari 10y ago
        That is a moral subject so complex you cannot possibly summarize it like this. In most cases "supporting" higher taxes (not by actually paying higher taxes of course, which is explicitly allowed in the tax code exactly to call out people like you) comes with social rewards. Well, talking about it comes with social rewards. Actually paying higher taxes is so rare and unknown that it baffles anyone you tell that it's actually allowed and that a few people did it. But in case you don't know, here's how you're supposed to do it: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html So, did you pay higher taxes, say, last year, or not ? Or does it "matter to you that others wouldn't be contributing equally" or something along those lines ? http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/egalitarianism http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/eg...
- bsder 10y ago
  > TPP is about the US as a whole. And most of the information I have suggested otherwise. The problem was that all of the things pertaining to the duties of corporations were optional while things falling on individuals were enforced with the full weight of law. The people putting together the TPP knew EXACTLY what they were doing and tried to tie together a bunch of unpopular stuff with a bunch of important stuff and ram it all through together. Given how much effort some of this took to hammer out, they can split the TPP provisions apart and try passing them individually.
valas 10y ago
Try Google search for "TPP impact study". There are quite a few reputable studies done. According to [0], the impact to the US would be small and positive when compared to baseline no-TPP scenario (e.g. 0.07% employment gain, 0.23% real income gain, 0.15% higher GDP, etc). [0] https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2016/er0518ll597.htm https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2016/er0518ll5...
- akvadrako 10y ago
  If that's the best argument they can come up with, it's clearly a terrible treaty. The loss of sovereignty, like being able to set your own IP and working condition laws, far outweigh that benefit.
JamisonM 10y ago
Enforcable labour standards and the requirement that member countries allow workers to organize will be good for "working people" in the United States.
edblarney 10y ago
"I'm willing to hear an argument for why TPP would be good for working people in the US. I've never heard anything even close to that. " It's a free trade agreement like any other. The benefits of free trade are well understood. Consumers get access to a larger variety of goods, at better prices. Companies get easier access to parts/services in their supply chain. Etc. etc..

by wfo 10y ago

oculusthrift 10y ago

Not everything is done for blue collar rust belt people. TPP is about the US as a whole. Instead of us setting the terms of trade in the Asian Pacific, we will have China and Russia cut their own deals and cut America and its allies out. Entitled white heroin users in the Rust Belt would rather help themselves with protectionist policies to give them no skill jobs instead of help the rest of the country and the world.

captainlego 10y ago
Or, you know, they could develop trade deal without all the secrecy and bullshit? When the government has been lying to you for years about domestic spying, among other things, how do you expect them to follow you blindly on another deal made in the dark? This country is going to go into chaos in the next ~10-25 years as more and more jobs are automated, unemployment skyrockets, and people refuse to give free money to all the "entitled white heroin users in the Rust Belt." Notwithstanding the effects of global warming ramping up. Except because of the elitism we get to start this period with Donald Trump at the helm instead of someone at least half sane.
- chiaro 10y ago
  Trade deals are developed in secret for the same reason that all legislation is (before being presented for a democratic vote). The negotiation process is hamstrung by too many interests, with domestic lobbies preventing anything from being discussed at all. This is a point of interest in game theory. Paper here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706785 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706785
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Those pesky voters, getting in the way of any decent democratically elected Congress! I quite agree, all legislation should be formulated in secrecy and foisted on them at the last moment. The only thing that could improve this situation is that deals should be formed in complete secrecy, with no input from Congress or the Senate and should be ratified solely by the President via a treaty process. You really want to ensure the Great Unwashed and those incompetents they elect indirectly don't get any where near trade deals, otherwise they might possible make "improvements" such as forcing through openness, accountability, fairness and equality! All of which are totally the anathema of good backroom deals.
    - ddw 10y ago
      To me secrecy sort of makes sense because it's a negotiation. You don't want to show your cards in a negotiation, right? So how could the President and Congress say to the American people "this is what we're going to offer and accept from China" and pretend that the Chinese aren't going to hear it too? Secrecy is often a horrible idea but this is a really complicated issue.
    - chiaro 10y ago
      The US constitution was another document planned in secrecy and passed by the public. This isn't denigrative of democracy at all, despite the flowery rhetoric. It just leads to better outcomes, as Putnam's paper outlines. It's a pretty seminal work, I'd encourage reading it. (8000+ citations, https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=Me4t2sQAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Me4t2sQAAAAJ:XiVPGOgt02cC https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?view_op=view_citatio... )
rjeli 10y ago
"Entitled white heroin users in the Rust Belt would rather help themselves with protectionist policies to give them no skill jobs instead of help the rest of the country and the world." "Black crack smokers in Detroit would rather help themselves with welfare instead of getting a job and helping the rest of the country." Wow, doesn't that really make you think? Maybe we shouldn't target people by their race, and associate them with negative stereotypes? Maybe we shouldn't dismiss their response to struggle as selfish and stupid? Really gets the noggin goin'.
- solipsism 10y ago
  The problem was the "white heroin users" part. "Selfish and stupid" can't really be argued against.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    As for selfish. Since everybody's acting in their own interest selfish is pretty much a given. That's the basis of the whole process. That an act is selfish does not make it bad. As for stupid, large complex and overarching new legislation taking away tons of rights relating to everything from food to medical treatment from individuals ... and everybody (including the vast majority of Hacker News I might point out) seems to have a problem with this. This is not a stupid attitude. Why not ? Start here: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
    - oculusthrift 10y ago
      not everyone is selfish as you claim. I, as well as many mature adults, support higher taxes and work against global warming even though both those things could directly hurt me but are better for the public as a whole. that's the difference i guess.
      - candiodari 10y ago
        That is a moral subject so complex you cannot possibly summarize it like this. In most cases "supporting" higher taxes (not by actually paying higher taxes of course, which is explicitly allowed in the tax code exactly to call out people like you) comes with social rewards. Well, talking about it comes with social rewards. Actually paying higher taxes is so rare and unknown that it baffles anyone you tell that it's actually allowed and that a few people did it. But in case you don't know, here's how you're supposed to do it: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html So, did you pay higher taxes, say, last year, or not ? Or does it "matter to you that others wouldn't be contributing equally" or something along those lines ? http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/egalitarianism http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/eg...
bsder 10y ago
> TPP is about the US as a whole. And most of the information I have suggested otherwise. The problem was that all of the things pertaining to the duties of corporations were optional while things falling on individuals were enforced with the full weight of law. The people putting together the TPP knew EXACTLY what they were doing and tried to tie together a bunch of unpopular stuff with a bunch of important stuff and ram it all through together. Given how much effort some of this took to hammer out, they can split the TPP provisions apart and try passing them individually.

valas 10y ago

Try Google search for "TPP impact study". There are quite a few reputable studies done. According to [0], the impact to the US would be small and positive when compared to baseline no-TPP scenario (e.g. 0.07% employment gain, 0.23% real income gain, 0.15% higher GDP, etc). [0] https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2016/er0518ll597.htm https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2016/er0518ll5...

akvadrako 10y ago
If that's the best argument they can come up with, it's clearly a terrible treaty. The loss of sovereignty, like being able to set your own IP and working condition laws, far outweigh that benefit.

JamisonM 10y ago

Enforcable labour standards and the requirement that member countries allow workers to organize will be good for "working people" in the United States.

edblarney 10y ago

"I'm willing to hear an argument for why TPP would be good for working people in the US. I've never heard anything even close to that. " It's a free trade agreement like any other. The benefits of free trade are well understood. Consumers get access to a larger variety of goods, at better prices. Companies get easier access to parts/services in their supply chain. Etc. etc..