4 ms·

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,

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.

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.