6 ms·

Obama'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 ago
TPP 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 ago
  Can you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw
  - maximente 7y ago
    it 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 ago
      Those 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.
      - pesmhey 7y ago
        Because it used to be, and a lot of people never really made the transition. An incredibly unfortunate situation, for everyone.
        neltnerb 7y ago
        When less big construction happens, we lose the experience and skill to build things that we used to do without complaint, and this works its way up the value chain until we cannot build a complex machine without parts from far away. Alternatively, we leapfrog a generation of manufacturing processes and go straight to high speed 3D printing and clothing made from recovered landfill materials by nanobots. I don't know if what we need is more protection or faster innovation. The two tend to work in opposite directions. Certainly they require different training and expectations.
      - mc32 7y ago
        Because now those people work even “better” gig jobs or warehouse work for retailers or crappy retail jobs... But yeah, really good for American workers so we can buy more shitty products which we can throw into the landfill...
      - CharlesColeman 7y ago
        > Not sure why everyone glorifies basic manufacturing work like it’s the pinnacle of American labor. War requires a lot of basic manufacturing capacity, and geopolitically those aren't good things to lose.
        killjoywashere 7y ago
        Geopolitically, would it not be better too have a world economy that is to interdependent to support war as a viable path to resolution of differences.
        azinman2 7y ago
        You don’t always chose who goes to war with you.
    - coryrc 7y ago
      > would have removed US govt general requirement to buy goods produced in america Maybe we'd actually have cost-effective mass transit then.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  And under Trump, the steel tariffs have basically forced Ford and GM to stop making sedans in the USA and instead make them in Mexico. Ford Focus: moved to China (Ironically). Ford Fusion: Cancelled. GM Volt: Cancelled. Harvey Davidson: moving to Europe. Things aren't exactly simple, and I am not convinced that the tariffs + tax cuts have helped the American worker at all. US Manufacturing is down for two months in a row now, and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. We're at a point where the Trump-defenders need to start explaining exactly what these tariffs are supposed to do and why they think the tariffs are helping. The tariffs have been in effect for well over a year, do you have any evidence that they're helping yet? --------- Frankly, I don't care how much we hurt, or help, China. It was supposed to be "American First". So lets talk about America and whether or not these policies help Americans.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    It's too early to tell. Wars of any kind, including trade wars, are a short term cost hoping for a long term gain. If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success. Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      > If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success On the contrary, if the US economy was hurt, then its a failure. The point of "America First" is to care most about America, not about hurting others. > Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success. No. The only success is if manufacturing moves back to the USA. For example, Ford moved to Mexico. This is NOT a win for USA.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Basically any long term goal has short term costs. Building a new road costs money up front. We don't want jobs just to come to the US. We want to help build the economies of the people scrambling across our border too. So jobs in Mexico is great, as long as there's also new jobs in the US.
bduerst 7y ago
Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it. Regardless, you're still right. In lieu of the TPP falling apart, China created it's own version to control APAC trade and fill the power gap, called RCEP. The trade war and the "America First" attitude has only incentivized China to speed up the negotiations, which if successful, will control something like half the world's global GDP. The next RCEP meeting is next month and it will be interesting to see what comes from it.
- mc32 7y ago
  I think it’s early. Many of those countries see China suspiciously but also want trade. We’ll see if those countries are able to push back on one sided aspects.
- tzs 7y ago
  > Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it What do you mean by "just said he'd talk about it"?
- bakuninsbart 7y ago
  Very doubtful that it will go anywhere soon. Not only do half the ASEAN countries and China have territorial disputes, India and China have rather cautious and cold relationships. Both SK and Japan are also very cautious towards China and have cold relationships with each other. I would think that at least the South China Sea territorial dispute would have to be settled, China would have to (at least symbolically) drop its support for Pakistan, and Japan and SK would need some form of reconciliation.

sremani 7y ago

TPP 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 ago
Can you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw
- maximente 7y ago
  it 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 ago
    Those 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.
    - pesmhey 7y ago
      Because it used to be, and a lot of people never really made the transition. An incredibly unfortunate situation, for everyone.
      - neltnerb 7y ago
        When less big construction happens, we lose the experience and skill to build things that we used to do without complaint, and this works its way up the value chain until we cannot build a complex machine without parts from far away. Alternatively, we leapfrog a generation of manufacturing processes and go straight to high speed 3D printing and clothing made from recovered landfill materials by nanobots. I don't know if what we need is more protection or faster innovation. The two tend to work in opposite directions. Certainly they require different training and expectations.
    - mc32 7y ago
      Because now those people work even “better” gig jobs or warehouse work for retailers or crappy retail jobs... But yeah, really good for American workers so we can buy more shitty products which we can throw into the landfill...
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > Not sure why everyone glorifies basic manufacturing work like it’s the pinnacle of American labor. War requires a lot of basic manufacturing capacity, and geopolitically those aren't good things to lose.
      - killjoywashere 7y ago
        Geopolitically, would it not be better too have a world economy that is to interdependent to support war as a viable path to resolution of differences.
        azinman2 7y ago
        You don’t always chose who goes to war with you.
  - coryrc 7y ago
    > would have removed US govt general requirement to buy goods produced in america Maybe we'd actually have cost-effective mass transit then.
dragontamer 7y ago
And under Trump, the steel tariffs have basically forced Ford and GM to stop making sedans in the USA and instead make them in Mexico. Ford Focus: moved to China (Ironically). Ford Fusion: Cancelled. GM Volt: Cancelled. Harvey Davidson: moving to Europe. Things aren't exactly simple, and I am not convinced that the tariffs + tax cuts have helped the American worker at all. US Manufacturing is down for two months in a row now, and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. We're at a point where the Trump-defenders need to start explaining exactly what these tariffs are supposed to do and why they think the tariffs are helping. The tariffs have been in effect for well over a year, do you have any evidence that they're helping yet? --------- Frankly, I don't care how much we hurt, or help, China. It was supposed to be "American First". So lets talk about America and whether or not these policies help Americans.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  It's too early to tell. Wars of any kind, including trade wars, are a short term cost hoping for a long term gain. If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success. Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success On the contrary, if the US economy was hurt, then its a failure. The point of "America First" is to care most about America, not about hurting others. > Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success. No. The only success is if manufacturing moves back to the USA. For example, Ford moved to Mexico. This is NOT a win for USA.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Basically any long term goal has short term costs. Building a new road costs money up front. We don't want jobs just to come to the US. We want to help build the economies of the people scrambling across our border too. So jobs in Mexico is great, as long as there's also new jobs in the US.

bduerst 7y ago

Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it. Regardless, you're still right. In lieu of the TPP falling apart, China created it's own version to control APAC trade and fill the power gap, called RCEP. The trade war and the "America First" attitude has only incentivized China to speed up the negotiations, which if successful, will control something like half the world's global GDP. The next RCEP meeting is next month and it will be interesting to see what comes from it.

mc32 7y ago
I think it’s early. Many of those countries see China suspiciously but also want trade. We’ll see if those countries are able to push back on one sided aspects.
tzs 7y ago
> Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it What do you mean by "just said he'd talk about it"?
bakuninsbart 7y ago
Very doubtful that it will go anywhere soon. Not only do half the ASEAN countries and China have territorial disputes, India and China have rather cautious and cold relationships. Both SK and Japan are also very cautious towards China and have cold relationships with each other. I would think that at least the South China Sea territorial dispute would have to be settled, China would have to (at least symbolically) drop its support for Pakistan, and Japan and SK would need some form of reconciliation.