5 ms·

The TPP was not a good idea and it was great that Trump shut it down.

bioemerl 4y ago
It was a very good idea, and by shutting it down we basically handed a huge amount of power to China in the degree deal between a bunch of southeast Asian nations is one led by them instead of us. Trump's withdrawal from that agreement was one of the most catastrophic decisions the United States government has made in the last 20 years.
- lenkite 4y ago
  Even his opponent: Hillary Clinton was firmly against the TPP: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.” The TPP's 5,000+ pages actually had very little to do with trade. Instead, corporations tried to turn it into a wish list for policies that they knew would never pass through Congress.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Both Hillary and Obama were in support of the law before populist outrage showed up and they had to pivot. They were in favor of it because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. Half of the restrictions and changes were ones that literally didn't affect America and just brought other countries up to the Americans standard.
    - lenkite 4y ago
      They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" instead of "democratic" is a new spin nowadays to naysay the beliefs of American citizens. > because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. The pharma bros are already billionaires. We don't need them to get richer. It had no protection for low-income American workers - esp auto workers. TPP would have led to a mass offshoring of jobs. Frankly, I do not wish this to devolve into a discussion on TPP, because its disadvantages and non-trading related addendums were already covered by media on both the left and the right. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-workers-reject-the-tpp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-worke... https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-workers/ https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-...
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        > They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" Do you know what populist means? Short term appeal to voters instead of long term and more difficult decision making. > No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. Yeah. For other countries. America already pays these prices. In fact, a lot of that is what lets these drugs exist for other countries in the first place. This likely would have *lowered* the price for Americans.
        lenkite 4y ago
        > Short term appeal to voters instead of long term and more difficult decision making. Hah, the American voter is far more brighter than HN folks give them credit for. They have to look out for their interests since the elite most certainly wont. No, the drug prices wouldn't have reduced. Come now - provide your logical reasoning why the drug prices would have reduced ? Do you really think the Pharma industry would have gained suddenly gained sympathy after achieving a perfect stanglehold? The US imports >50% of its generic drugs from nations who have none to minimal drug patent protection policies and thats how it keeps it's citizens alive. You would have had the pharma billionaires choke this supply too.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Because you would have gotten even more Tiktoks? Every modern bill for free trade agreements is perverted into a corporate wishlist to the detriment of most people. What do you believe would have been the key benefit?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Even more tick tocks? China wasn't part of the deal, it was a bunch of other nations that aren't China, and trade with them is almost entirely great.
- smolder 4y ago
  There were, at best, some good parts. Then, there's the stuff granting multinational corporations the ability to sue governments for harming their profits.

It was a very good idea, and by shutting it down we basically handed a huge amount of power to China in the degree deal between a bunch of southeast Asian nations is one led by them instead of us. Trump's withdrawal from that agreement was one of the most catastrophic decisions the United States government has made in the last 20 years.

lenkite 4y ago
Even his opponent: Hillary Clinton was firmly against the TPP: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.” The TPP's 5,000+ pages actually had very little to do with trade. Instead, corporations tried to turn it into a wish list for policies that they knew would never pass through Congress.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Both Hillary and Obama were in support of the law before populist outrage showed up and they had to pivot. They were in favor of it because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. Half of the restrictions and changes were ones that literally didn't affect America and just brought other countries up to the Americans standard.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" instead of "democratic" is a new spin nowadays to naysay the beliefs of American citizens. > because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. The pharma bros are already billionaires. We don't need them to get richer. It had no protection for low-income American workers - esp auto workers. TPP would have led to a mass offshoring of jobs. Frankly, I do not wish this to devolve into a discussion on TPP, because its disadvantages and non-trading related addendums were already covered by media on both the left and the right. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-workers-reject-the-tpp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-worke... https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-workers/ https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-...
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      > They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" Do you know what populist means? Short term appeal to voters instead of long term and more difficult decision making. > No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. Yeah. For other countries. America already pays these prices. In fact, a lot of that is what lets these drugs exist for other countries in the first place. This likely would have *lowered* the price for Americans.
      - lenkite 4y ago
        > Short term appeal to voters instead of long term and more difficult decision making. Hah, the American voter is far more brighter than HN folks give them credit for. They have to look out for their interests since the elite most certainly wont. No, the drug prices wouldn't have reduced. Come now - provide your logical reasoning why the drug prices would have reduced ? Do you really think the Pharma industry would have gained suddenly gained sympathy after achieving a perfect stanglehold? The US imports >50% of its generic drugs from nations who have none to minimal drug patent protection policies and thats how it keeps it's citizens alive. You would have had the pharma billionaires choke this supply too.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Because you would have gotten even more Tiktoks? Every modern bill for free trade agreements is perverted into a corporate wishlist to the detriment of most people. What do you believe would have been the key benefit?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Even more tick tocks? China wasn't part of the deal, it was a bunch of other nations that aren't China, and trade with them is almost entirely great.
smolder 4y ago
There were, at best, some good parts. Then, there's the stuff granting multinational corporations the ability to sue governments for harming their profits.