4 ms·

It would have pretty much locked China out of the domestic markets of many Southeast Asian countries and closely coupled their economies to the US, making it ha

It would have pretty much locked China out of the domestic markets of many Southeast Asian countries and closely coupled their economies to the US, making it harder to do business with China. It's basically what China does today with their neighbors. Economic integration -> domestic power.

mdorazio 7y ago
Again, I'm not sure how TPP was actually supposed to accomplish what you're saying. As far as I know, TPP didn't restrict participants from trading with China, and it's not clear to me what would have economically discouraged them from doing so. Maybe I'm wrong - I genuinely want to know.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  The text of the TPP basically ensured a "special trade relationship" between signers that outside, non-singers, would not be able to compete with. I would re-read the text of the TPP and see for yourself. It was basically a group trade agreement that guaranteed favorable exchanges. It's not that technically, they wouldn't be able to trade with China, but practically speaking, there was little chance.
  - nl 7y ago
    The text of the TPP basically ensured a "special trade relationship" between signers that outside, non-singers, would not be able to compete with. It's not that technically, they wouldn't be able to trade with China, but practically speaking, there was little chance. This isn't true. Australia's biggest trading partner is China and there was no chance the TPP was going to stop that trade. It was aimed at China, but not like this at all. read my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22322371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22322371
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    I did read the text of TPP and it still isn't clear how it would have guaranteed that signers would not continue trading in large part with China. What I'm looking for is an actual economic analysis showing that TPP would have made it so that not trading with China carried a significant cost benefit in comparison to utilizing its market efficiencies and lower costs. I've yet to see such an analysis from a credible source, so I'm still working under the assumption that signers would have continued trading with China without any significant checks on its economy or policies.
    - nl 7y ago
      I don't think anyone credible ever thought it would stop trade with China. I think the dependency argument is more that if there is more trade between countries within the TPP system, it would have given China less policy strength because countries aren't as dependent on it. If a country makes a large amount of their export income from a single source they are very vulnerable to policy blackmail by that country.
  - iamnothere 7y ago
    "Favorable" for multinationals in that ISDS claims would allow companies to circumvent regulations and target economically vulnerable areas: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/isds-lawsuit-financing-tpp_n_57c48e40e4b09cd22d91f660 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/isds-lawsuit-financing-tpp_n_... It was also hostile towards government efforts to require source access, which interferes with the right to repair: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/time-to-act-on-tpp-is-now-rallies-against-tpp-in-washington-d-c-november-14-18 https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/time-to-act-on-tpp-is-no... The TPP was a handout to multinationals and an attack on workers across the US and Pacific. It's a good thing that it didn't come to fruition.

mdorazio 7y ago

Again, I'm not sure how TPP was actually supposed to accomplish what you're saying. As far as I know, TPP didn't restrict participants from trading with China, and it's not clear to me what would have economically discouraged them from doing so. Maybe I'm wrong - I genuinely want to know.

jorblumesea 7y ago
The text of the TPP basically ensured a "special trade relationship" between signers that outside, non-singers, would not be able to compete with. I would re-read the text of the TPP and see for yourself. It was basically a group trade agreement that guaranteed favorable exchanges. It's not that technically, they wouldn't be able to trade with China, but practically speaking, there was little chance.
- nl 7y ago
  The text of the TPP basically ensured a "special trade relationship" between signers that outside, non-singers, would not be able to compete with. It's not that technically, they wouldn't be able to trade with China, but practically speaking, there was little chance. This isn't true. Australia's biggest trading partner is China and there was no chance the TPP was going to stop that trade. It was aimed at China, but not like this at all. read my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22322371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22322371
- mdorazio 7y ago
  I did read the text of TPP and it still isn't clear how it would have guaranteed that signers would not continue trading in large part with China. What I'm looking for is an actual economic analysis showing that TPP would have made it so that not trading with China carried a significant cost benefit in comparison to utilizing its market efficiencies and lower costs. I've yet to see such an analysis from a credible source, so I'm still working under the assumption that signers would have continued trading with China without any significant checks on its economy or policies.
  - nl 7y ago
    I don't think anyone credible ever thought it would stop trade with China. I think the dependency argument is more that if there is more trade between countries within the TPP system, it would have given China less policy strength because countries aren't as dependent on it. If a country makes a large amount of their export income from a single source they are very vulnerable to policy blackmail by that country.
- iamnothere 7y ago
  "Favorable" for multinationals in that ISDS claims would allow companies to circumvent regulations and target economically vulnerable areas: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/isds-lawsuit-financing-tpp_n_57c48e40e4b09cd22d91f660 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/isds-lawsuit-financing-tpp_n_... It was also hostile towards government efforts to require source access, which interferes with the right to repair: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/time-to-act-on-tpp-is-now-rallies-against-tpp-in-washington-d-c-november-14-18 https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/time-to-act-on-tpp-is-no... The TPP was a handout to multinationals and an attack on workers across the US and Pacific. It's a good thing that it didn't come to fruition.