10 ms·
Obama was manufacturing the pivot to Asia. The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. This presents its own set of problems though
by pesmhey 7y ago
Obama was manufacturing the pivot to Asia. The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. This presents its own set of problems though.
Clinton was adamant that her grandchildren would not be speaking Chinese.
China has been acknowledged as a threat since 2008 really, by everyone really, just, sometimes people need a very visual and visceral demonstration of action (no matter how less-optimal it actually is). Surely some business people in here can relate to that sentiment?
- dillondoyle 7y agoAlso in my opinion TPP critically united other Asian nations. I think Trump admins' abandoning of traditional allies/structures like TPP and ceding soft/hard power across the board for the sake of 'America First' is going to have lasting damage and is thus not putting America First in the long term...
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoPan-Asian relations is far more complex than just China and not-China. TPP wouldn't change that.
- mc32 7y agoYep, also Bernie denounced the TPP. So it’s not an anti-Democrat position, thought it’s an anti-globalist position.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sremani 7y agoObama and Trump administration demands are pretty much similar, but when China said NO, their responses are totally different. Trump is taking China to the mat which Obama did not (what ever the reason may be).
- learc83 7y agoObama's response to contain China was the TPP. It could have been more (or less--no way to know) effective than Trump's, Obama just didn't tweet about it.
- sremani 7y agoTPP was bad idea, it was so anti-worker I am surprised that a Democrat is supporting it. I do not have to say about the settlement system of TPP. It was stupid, literally having parallel legal system outside of all the current legal system. TPP died for good reasons because it for technocrats by technocrats.
- pesmhey 7y agoCan you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw
- maximente 7y agoit was certainly anti american worker. here are some reasons why: - would have removed US govt general requirement to buy goods produced in america - would have moved jobs to vietnam (lower min. wage than china) instead of back to US, putting downward wage pressure on US manufacturing workers - protect more investments in offshoring than NAFTA does (read: incentivize offshoring) in both manufacturing and services http://cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf
- ABeeSea 7y agoThose aren’t necessarily bad for American workers. American manufacturing is high skill and involves precision equipment and manufacturing. What would have moved to Vietnam would have been more basic textiles and cnc/molding. Not sure why everyone glorifies basic manufacturing work like it’s the pinnacle of American labor.
- wavefunction 7y agoFrom what I understand many corporate victims of Chinese industrial espionage since 2008 specifically declined to pursue prosecution for fear of what it would do to their existing or potential for business with Chinese entities and individuals.[0] And this was despite a Justice Department that was chomping at the bit to prosecute Chinese industrial espionage. I bring this up because I think this shows why leaving weighty matters involving the security and future of your country up to corporations is a poor idea, especially when corporations are motivated solely by profit as corporatists gleefully remind us at all times. [0]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s-businesses-turned-a-blind-eye https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...
- pesmhey 7y agoDo you think the TPP was a response to this fear? Genuine question here.
- bassman9000 7y agowould have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China How? Apple and the NBA just bent to China's wishes. How would that have worked out?
- Karunamon 7y agoThe NBA rescinded that IIRC
- bassman9000 7y agoRescinded what? We just experienced how quickly they'll throw anyone under the bus if it harms their chinese market. For the downvotes: how would the TTP have helped companies police this? edit: https://twitter.com/i/events/1182034806474825728 https://twitter.com/i/events/1182034806474825728 even at home
- ENOTTY 7y agoMy instinct is that an Obama/Clinton administration would not have used a trade blacklist or tariffs.
- refurb 7y agoProbably not. The Obama approach was a much softer touch. Trump is certainly following up on his threats, but that approach carries some big risks as China can retaliate. It will come down to who blinks first.
- thawaway1837 7y agoIt may have been a “softer” approach but it would Have been a far cheaper, and more effective approach. It would also have had the benefit of building alliances that centered around the US, as opposed to weakening alliances. The tariffs have served to strengthen China’s position in the world, more than anything else. As an example, consider the fact that Germany is now allowing the Chinese to enter their market. The reality is that when the RoW sees the US trying to strangle China economically in this fashion, they recognize that they also could be next (or, as was the case in the Trump tariffs, the European and Japanese allies were first on being hit by tariffs). The only long term effect this is gonna have is basically to blunt American economic leadership, and the centrality of the American economy to the world. Which may be a good thing, frankly, for the world at large, but is almost certainly not gonna be a good thing for American leadership and quality of life.
- deogeo 7y ago> The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. It would have given a lot of power to corporations, period. The same corporations that lobbied for so many anti-consumer and anti-democracy provisions, that both Trump and Sanders agreed it was awful, and ultimately caused the TPP to fail. As for Clinton and the democrats - I wouldn't count on them to oppose China. Even after it was revealed Biden and Kerry's kids got $1 billion of Chinese investment right after their parents' diplomatic mission to China [1], they haven't denounced either. In fact, Biden is one of their presidential candidates. [1] https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equit...
- bavell 7y agoTPP was awful just on it's copyright content alone, nevermind the other purported garbage in there. Here's [0] the EFF on TPP copyright. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpps-copyright-trap https://www.eff.org/issues/tpps-copyright-trap
- mytailorisrich 7y agoThe pivot to Asia was extremely sensible policy. It recognised that Asia was going to be the most important region by far, and that short of a war China and likely India were going to be superpowers at least as big as the US. Therefore the logical conclusion was to engage in order for the US to be able to influence and to reap the economic benefits.