Krugman writes: “In any case, the Pacific trade deal isn’t really about trade. Some already low tariffs would come down, but the main thrust of the proposed deal involves strengthening intellectual property rights — things like drug patents and movie copyrights — and changing the way companies and countries settle disputes. And it’s by no means clear that either of those changes is good for America.”
The Comments are brutal, mostly, at least the popular ones.
This writer spent an a few hours the other day reading the US Government positions on TTP, at Federal websites. The best was the trade office of the State Dept, but I can’t seem to find it today. The goals are admirable.
Here is a short list from the whitehouse.gov’
IF AMERICA LEADS:
Reduced or eliminated tariffs for American goods
Streamlined and simple customs rules for American businesses
Countries are required to put in place the most progressive labor standards, including a minimum wage, a ban on child labor, the right to form unions
Countries are required to put in place the most progressive environmental standards ever, including a ban on wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and overfishing
A free and open Internet that will allow people to openly search and buy American goods
New rules to make sure foreign state-owned companies compete fairly with our private businesses”
I found an example, Vietnam current has no tariffs on auto parts from China, but has a 27% tariff on auto parts from the US. The Trade desk insists that these anti US practices will be reduced. Perhaps we will have to wait till the document is made available, before condemning it. Anything that helps protect rhinos and elephants for instance, deserves support, unless real sovereignty is sacrificed, which remains now just an accusation.
TTP recognizes that the biggest growth will be in Asia, as well as the most pollution. Maybe the left should hold their fire, till they can see what they are trying to kill.
via Trade and Trust – NYTimes.com.
William Daley: “The economic impact of the deal was immediately undercut by the collapse of the Mexican peso in 1994. But opponents’ predictions of “a giant sucking sound” accompanying the departure of millions of jobs from American workers never materialized, either. From Nafta’s ratification through the end of President Clinton’s final year in 2000, America added over 20 million jobs, including more than 300,000 in manufacturing. When the manufacturing decline began in earnest in 2001, the main culprits were the offshoring of jobs to China, with which we have no trade deal, and automation.”
“Geopolitically, President Obama is also right. If we don’t set the rules for commerce in the Asia-Pacific region, China will. Since 2000, China has concluded trade agreements with 23 countries, Hong Kong and Macau and is now drafting its own Asia trade deal that cuts us out. This deal apparently omits any mention of labor rights and environmental standards common in modern American-led deals. It would keep many of the region’s economies relying on the same substandard factory floor conditions that China and other Asian nations used to become manufacturing giants.”
via Free Trade Is Not the Enemy – NYTimes.com.
“In Bushworld, in other words, playing a central role in catastrophic policy failure doesn’t disqualify you from future influence. If anything, a record of being disastrously wrong on national security issues seems to be a required credential.
Voters, even Republican primary voters, may not share that view, and the past few days have probably taken a toll on Mr. Bush’s presidential prospects. In a way, however, that’s unfair. Iraq is a special problem for the Bush family, which has a history both of never admitting mistakes and of sticking with loyal family retainers no matter how badly they perform. But refusal to learn from experience, combined with a version of political correctness in which you’re only acceptable if you have been wrong about crucial issues, is pervasive in the modern Republican Party.”
via Fraternity of Failure – NYTimes.com.
Roger Cohen: “Einstein’s definition of insanity — doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results — needs an addendum. Madness is doing the same thing over and over in the Middle East and expecting a different outcome.
Obama is a walk-and-chew-gum kind of guy. There are risks to an Iran nuclear deal but the risks without one are far greater.”
via This Angry Arab Moment – NYTimes.com.