4 ms·
Here you go: 1. Geopolitical influence. The Western world, lead by the USA, wants to dictate terms of trade in the Pacific before China can. This means laying
by chiaro 10y ago
Here you go:
1. Geopolitical influence. The Western world, lead by the USA, wants to dictate terms of trade in the Pacific before China can. This means laying the groundwork for the environments that western businesses and investors are comfortable with. US investors would be less likely to invest in Malaysia if Malaysia was instead following China's lead on IP protections.
2. Stabilizing of third world countries. By providing the frameworks mentioned above, third world countries take a few steps towards providing open and inclusive economies, and the benefits of the trade deal ensure that their leaders are less likely to take steps that would sow uncertainty in their own economies. Also countries with trade agreements are far less likely to go to war with each other. This was one of the main benefits of NAFTA with Mexico too.
3. Straight growth benefits. Every country is predicted to get some additional GDP growth, though large and already liberalised countries like the US won't see too much. On the other hand, poorer countries like Vietnam are predicted to get a staggering 11% extra GDP growth. That's amazing, and will lead to vastly reduced poverty in SE Asia.
4. It includes a glorious fuck you to tobacco companies. Seriously, it blocks them from using ISDS at all, and it sent so many lobbyists into a fit when it was released.
- JoshTriplett 10y agoThe time for such explanations was long ago, back when TPP was being proposed, and people were providing detailed arguments against it. I won't claim any kind of expertise on the non-tech-related effects of TPP; I'm not an expert in international trade. With respect to copyright, patent, and trademarks, however: I really don't care about "investors" who want to make other countries follow more draconian regimes in those areas. There's a happy medium between "zero acknowledgement of foreign copyrights at all" and "ridiculously excessive copyright laws"; ditto for patents and trademarks. TPP just directly exported the US's ludicrously excessive copyright, patent, and trademark laws, complete with DMCA-like provisions and criminal (not just civil) penalties. Those terms at a minimum needed fixing, and I think the people arguing against TPP in its current form on those grounds alone were right to do so.
- chiaro 10y agoAgreed. The problems with selling trade agreements is that the benefits (while real) are diffuse while the drawbacks are felt more severely by a small part of the population. It's entirely rational for US manufacturers to be against trade deals, and indeed a lot of such people have a lot at stake. However the benefits of cheaper goods while shared by vastly more people (including those not yet entering the workforce) is harder to notice. With some exceptions (biologics) you're right on copyright, and I'd agree. However this only tempers my support of what I consider to be an important geopolitical move.
- Inconel 10y ago>Also countries with trade agreements are far less likely to go to war with each other. This was one of the main benefits of NAFTA with Mexico too. I'm not well versed in the details of NAFTA but are you contending that one of it's main benefits was preventing a war between the US and Mexico?
- chiaro 10y agoNot war, per se, but rather the stability the point makes more generally. It's easy to look at Mexico and see a country impoverished and rife with corruption, but the pressures put on it by NAFTA have seen it make some impressive moves over the last 30 years. It has the added benefit of reducing immigration incentives (which seem to preoccupy a lot of Americans these days).