7 ms·

Senate Hands a Victory to Obama on Trade Pact

36 points by carbocation 11y ago

ironsides 11y ago
Surprise, surprise.
higherpurpose 11y ago
When the Republicans agree with Obama on something, you know the bill is terrible for regular citizens.
- astaroth360 11y ago
  Everyone except the very rich are about to get slapped in the face by a whole slew of bad policy decisions :\
  - bdcravens 11y ago
    Obama himself has said he has no more campaigns to run: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both-of-them-2015-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both... So at this point, he's beholden not to the common voters, but to the wealthy who also helped him get into office (and who, unlike the common voters, he can still benefit from in the years to come) This isn't specific to Obama, but is the game of a career in politics.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Political flamewar comments are no more welcome on HN than religious ones.
shmerl 11y ago
Why can't such agreements be made mandatory public? All these backroom discussions of far reaching proposals like Internet censorship are simply disgusting.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  So much for this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandO...
- dak1 11y ago
  To be fair, any FTA (including the TPP) will be made public for a minimum of 4 months before Congress can vote on it (although with TPA they won't be allowed to offer amendments to it). In reality, almost all legislation is written behind closed doors today (a public Git-for-Law would be a wonderful project), and is then sponsored by a member of Congress and goes (usually) to Committee. Non-trade agreements with foreign powers are also negotiated "behind closed doors", because the negotiations themselves tend to be quite sensitive, and the negotiating positions of each country are also considered highly sensitive. The real issue is probably that the Trade Advisory Committees are not required by law to be balanced between corporate interests and public advocacy groups (there are multiple representatives from such groups, although it's not currently well balanced).
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Do you have a source for that? My quick look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) The procedure section shows Congress to have the ability to pass it to committees for at most 45 days and then they have at most 15 days after that to vote on it. That seems to imply that it would be public for a maximum of 2 months, but I don't know much about this area.
    - mikecb 11y ago
      That article describes previous grants of trade promotion authority, while this grant of authority, by all reports, will require more stringent and lengthier consultation and public notice requirements. Edit: Sec. 6 contains the public notice requirements: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/995/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/995...
    - 11y ago
cnp 11y ago
And now a new era of Man begins
sremani 11y ago
TPP, Trans-Atlantic and TiSA are the trifecta and the BRICS are excluded out of these for a good reason. Even though there are firm Geo-Strategic grounds for these agreements, they are most likely not in the side of the Worker and likely cement the power of Elite in US and partner countries.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's generally a true statement about anything that could foreseeably be good for the US economy. What's good for the economy is good for investors, and, apart from (vast numbers of) state employees with defined benefit pension plans managed by huge investment firms, investors aren't workers.
acconrad 11y ago
So this is pretty much guaranteeing that the TPP agreement will pass now? Good grief...
nateabele 11y ago
> Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority in his final years in office. Is it too late to make a 'hope & change' joke without sounding cliché?
g0v 11y ago
All this just makes me sick and angry. I wonder if congress will ever represent the people.
darby2000 11y ago
You know you can't get rid of the Pres. But you can get rid of these senators. Please find out who voted for this, and do not vote for them again.
mason55 11y ago
Can anyone summarize why this is so bad for everyone except the super rich? I understand how manufacturing will be hurt and it sounds like agriculture comes out to be mostly a wash. But it sounds like the US services industries will be helped by the agreement.
- tptacek 11y ago
  There are two specific issues that come up regularly, and two background issues with the whole concept of free trade agreements. Specific issue #1: the TPP, like a bunch of other trade agreements, includes semi-binding arbitration. Enact a system of regulated free trade and you generate disputes. But there's no meaningful international legal system (a "world trade court" that can resolve those disputes. Trade dispute resolution is therefore extrajudicial. (TPP's arbitration is "semi-binding" in that TPP arbitrators have authority only to impose fines; they can't change our laws). Specific issue #2: a key goal of TPP is to harmonize worldwide IP laws with those of the US. But much of the world has lax IP laws compared to the US, specifically for drugs. Dean Baker at CEPR --- a credible and fiercely liberal economist --- believes drug regulation will increase prices in the US (by how much, I haven't really seen estimates). Pretty much everyone believes that if TPP is actually enforced for pharma, it will increase drug prices in the rest of the world, and also squeeze out companies that have carved niches for themselves by arbitraging the different patent regimes to manufacture drugs that are still on-patent in the US. Background issue #1: modern free trade agreements always involve IP regulations, and IP is a valence issue on Internet forums: most vocal Internet commenters ambiently oppose all IP regulation. TPP doesn't significantly alter IP law in the US, but it does further ratify that law, taking us steps away from reforming them. If you think IP reform was in the cards, you don't like TPP. Background issue #2: the US economy is, by design, owned by large companies; those companies are in turn mostly owned by large investment firms. A plurality of the stakeholders in those firms are "wealthy elites" (not scare quoting). Free trade agreements that the US supports are designed to juice the economy, and thus improve outcomes for big companies. "Wealthy elites" have far more direct exposure to investment upside than "workers". So there's a natural concern about conflict-of-interest: TPP will benefit the wealthy more than it will the working class. There are reasonable rebuttals to all these points, but you asked for the liberal brief against TPP, and I think that's a solid summary of it.
shit_parade2 11y ago
The simple solution is to ignore illegitimate laws. The legal process no longer concerns itself with the average citizen, why then does the average citizen show concern over the law?
- tptacek 11y ago
  How does one "ignore" illegitimate trade agreements? By not trading with Asia?
  - shit_parade2 11y ago
    Smuggling, ignoring IP laws, refusing to comply with fines or other rulings. You seem like a smart guy, try using your brain.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      It's hard to employ smuggling as a protest against a free trade deal, since the point of a free trade deal is to reduce the set of goods that need to be smuggled. And the fines in the TPP are settled between governments, not between aggrieved governments and individual foreign citizens.
      - shit_parade2 11y ago
        How would you know what the TPP entails? From leaks it suggests it involves companies suing governments for cash settlement. Also, you are rather naive if you think 'free trade' means free trade, it will be nothing of the sort, it will raise barriers and make many goods and services more expensive.
        tptacek 11y ago
        This is neither responsive to my comment (which points out that TPP fines are settled between governments, and not to people who can "ignore" fines; somehow, this has become an argument against my comment?) nor falsifiable.

36 points by carbocation 11y ago

ironsides 11y ago

Surprise, surprise.

higherpurpose 11y ago

When the Republicans agree with Obama on something, you know the bill is terrible for regular citizens.

astaroth360 11y ago
Everyone except the very rich are about to get slapped in the face by a whole slew of bad policy decisions :\
- bdcravens 11y ago
  Obama himself has said he has no more campaigns to run: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both-of-them-2015-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both... So at this point, he's beholden not to the common voters, but to the wealthy who also helped him get into office (and who, unlike the common voters, he can still benefit from in the years to come) This isn't specific to Obama, but is the game of a career in politics.
tptacek 11y ago
Political flamewar comments are no more welcome on HN than religious ones.

shmerl 11y ago

Why can't such agreements be made mandatory public? All these backroom discussions of far reaching proposals like Internet censorship are simply disgusting.

bdcravens 11y ago
So much for this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandO...
dak1 11y ago
To be fair, any FTA (including the TPP) will be made public for a minimum of 4 months before Congress can vote on it (although with TPA they won't be allowed to offer amendments to it). In reality, almost all legislation is written behind closed doors today (a public Git-for-Law would be a wonderful project), and is then sponsored by a member of Congress and goes (usually) to Committee. Non-trade agreements with foreign powers are also negotiated "behind closed doors", because the negotiations themselves tend to be quite sensitive, and the negotiating positions of each country are also considered highly sensitive. The real issue is probably that the Trade Advisory Committees are not required by law to be balanced between corporate interests and public advocacy groups (there are multiple representatives from such groups, although it's not currently well balanced).
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Do you have a source for that? My quick look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) The procedure section shows Congress to have the ability to pass it to committees for at most 45 days and then they have at most 15 days after that to vote on it. That seems to imply that it would be public for a maximum of 2 months, but I don't know much about this area.
  - mikecb 11y ago
    That article describes previous grants of trade promotion authority, while this grant of authority, by all reports, will require more stringent and lengthier consultation and public notice requirements. Edit: Sec. 6 contains the public notice requirements: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/995/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/995...
  - 11y ago

cnp 11y ago

And now a new era of Man begins

sremani 11y ago

TPP, Trans-Atlantic and TiSA are the trifecta and the BRICS are excluded out of these for a good reason. Even though there are firm Geo-Strategic grounds for these agreements, they are most likely not in the side of the Worker and likely cement the power of Elite in US and partner countries.

tptacek 11y ago
That's generally a true statement about anything that could foreseeably be good for the US economy. What's good for the economy is good for investors, and, apart from (vast numbers of) state employees with defined benefit pension plans managed by huge investment firms, investors aren't workers.

acconrad 11y ago

So this is pretty much guaranteeing that the TPP agreement will pass now? Good grief...

nateabele 11y ago

> Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority in his final years in office. Is it too late to make a 'hope & change' joke without sounding cliché?

g0v 11y ago

All this just makes me sick and angry. I wonder if congress will ever represent the people.

darby2000 11y ago

You know you can't get rid of the Pres. But you can get rid of these senators. Please find out who voted for this, and do not vote for them again.

mason55 11y ago

Can anyone summarize why this is so bad for everyone except the super rich? I understand how manufacturing will be hurt and it sounds like agriculture comes out to be mostly a wash. But it sounds like the US services industries will be helped by the agreement.

tptacek 11y ago
There are two specific issues that come up regularly, and two background issues with the whole concept of free trade agreements. Specific issue #1: the TPP, like a bunch of other trade agreements, includes semi-binding arbitration. Enact a system of regulated free trade and you generate disputes. But there's no meaningful international legal system (a "world trade court" that can resolve those disputes. Trade dispute resolution is therefore extrajudicial. (TPP's arbitration is "semi-binding" in that TPP arbitrators have authority only to impose fines; they can't change our laws). Specific issue #2: a key goal of TPP is to harmonize worldwide IP laws with those of the US. But much of the world has lax IP laws compared to the US, specifically for drugs. Dean Baker at CEPR --- a credible and fiercely liberal economist --- believes drug regulation will increase prices in the US (by how much, I haven't really seen estimates). Pretty much everyone believes that if TPP is actually enforced for pharma, it will increase drug prices in the rest of the world, and also squeeze out companies that have carved niches for themselves by arbitraging the different patent regimes to manufacture drugs that are still on-patent in the US. Background issue #1: modern free trade agreements always involve IP regulations, and IP is a valence issue on Internet forums: most vocal Internet commenters ambiently oppose all IP regulation. TPP doesn't significantly alter IP law in the US, but it does further ratify that law, taking us steps away from reforming them. If you think IP reform was in the cards, you don't like TPP. Background issue #2: the US economy is, by design, owned by large companies; those companies are in turn mostly owned by large investment firms. A plurality of the stakeholders in those firms are "wealthy elites" (not scare quoting). Free trade agreements that the US supports are designed to juice the economy, and thus improve outcomes for big companies. "Wealthy elites" have far more direct exposure to investment upside than "workers". So there's a natural concern about conflict-of-interest: TPP will benefit the wealthy more than it will the working class. There are reasonable rebuttals to all these points, but you asked for the liberal brief against TPP, and I think that's a solid summary of it.

shit_parade2 11y ago

The simple solution is to ignore illegitimate laws. The legal process no longer concerns itself with the average citizen, why then does the average citizen show concern over the law?

tptacek 11y ago
How does one "ignore" illegitimate trade agreements? By not trading with Asia?
- shit_parade2 11y ago
  Smuggling, ignoring IP laws, refusing to comply with fines or other rulings. You seem like a smart guy, try using your brain.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's hard to employ smuggling as a protest against a free trade deal, since the point of a free trade deal is to reduce the set of goods that need to be smuggled. And the fines in the TPP are settled between governments, not between aggrieved governments and individual foreign citizens.
    - shit_parade2 11y ago
      How would you know what the TPP entails? From leaks it suggests it involves companies suing governments for cash settlement. Also, you are rather naive if you think 'free trade' means free trade, it will be nothing of the sort, it will raise barriers and make many goods and services more expensive.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        This is neither responsive to my comment (which points out that TPP fines are settled between governments, and not to people who can "ignore" fines; somehow, this has become an argument against my comment?) nor falsifiable.