Sunday, June 7, 2015

Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015

Below is a comment / question I left here after reading the fear filled responses from other readers. MinnPost Trade Deal Pitting Obama Against MN's Democrats
Have any of the opponents here listened to their President regarding this topic?

Marketplace: Obama Trade Interview

The reality is that right now the American consumers are already buying foreign products and services as fast as they can. What exactly do you think this will do to cost American jobs?

Since I work for an engineering / manufacturing firm who exports ~65% of our product and services, I know the barriers and high taxes we pay when we compete elsewhere. Now you can let your fear rule or you can do some homework and help us knock down some of those barriers.
Now maybe some of you can help me understand this resistance better.

MJ What Economists are Missing
Union Statement Against

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Have any of the opponents here listened to their President regarding this topic?"

Well, to start with, Mr. Obama isn't the president just of the opponents of the trade agreement, he is the president of all Americans.

Not that I have a strongly held position on the agreement myself, but I have listened to President Obama, and not found him to be terribly persuasive on the issue. It's a complicated issue, and political leaders at his level rarely do complexity well.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I have only respect for anybody that opposes this agreement on the simple basis that, if it was really a good deal for any reason other than Obama's PR/"legacy", he would allow Congress and the public to actually see it, and read it. This from "the most transparent administration in history"?

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to me that Republicans support this agreement given the fact that there isn't a lot of transparency here, and that there are issues of compromising national sovereignty something that usually a concern for them.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I think Republicans generally believe that free trade is a good thing, which is what this agreement is SUPPOSED to be. Why they would believe Obama when he tells them that while concealing the actual text is beyond me. Maybe if we could trade our President for some minor functionary from Malaysia, it would be worth doing.

Anonymous said...

I think Republicans generally believe that free trade is a good thing, which is what this agreement is SUPPOSED to be.

But as I understand it, the agreement has more to do with how trade disputes are resolved rather than free trade in itself, hence the concern about sovereignty issues.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

If true, that means you know more about the agreement than any Congresscritter or member of the public has been allowed to know. Perhaps you should consider going after the $100,000 reward for a copy of the actual text of the agreement. Nobody has claimed it yet.

Laurie said...

I have been confused about what opinion to have about the TPP because Obama is for it and so many liberals are against it. I have finally decided against it, as I have been persuaded that it gives corporations too much power to object to environmental regulations and worker protections. Also, it seems to me previous trade agreements have benefited the shareholder class while hurting American workers. Previous trade agreements have probably played a part in the shrinking middle class.

Anonymous said...

The fact that the agreement doesn't seem to be public, is certainly an excellent, perhaps convincing reason to oppose it.

In terms of arguments from authority, I don't view the president as particularly authoritative on trade matters. It just doesn't happen to be one of his areas of expertise.

--Hiram

John said...

Yes I do agree that he is the President of the USA. Though I think those who voted for him and nearly hero worshipped him would be more supportive of their President's agenda.

As for details, I recommend watching the Market Place interview. From his perspective the agreement pressures the other countries to reduce pollution, improve working conditions, etc. These things of course are not as important here since we already have all those rules and regs.

jerrye92002 said...

I am simply baffled as to why anybody would accept Obama's assessment of an agreement that nobody else has actually seen enough to form a valid judgment. He is a renowned fabulist, blind ideologue and liar of the year. He seems to specialize in seeing all legislation as accomplishing exactly what he says it does, rather than what it actually does. Some have taken to calling this "Obamatrade." What does that tell us?

I'm willing to be convinced it is beneficial, but not until everybody has a chance to actually see it, first of all, and then to thoroughly study its pros and cons.

John said...

Read carefully. NY Times Agreement

"It would give Congress the power to vote on the more encompassing 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership once it is completed, but would deny lawmakers the chance to amend what would be the largest trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994, which President Bill Clinton pushed through Congress despite opposition from labor and other Democratic constituencies."

Anonymous said...

"I am simply baffled as to why anybody would accept Obama's assessment of an agreement that nobody else has actually seen enough to form a valid judgment."

Well, it's a judgment, I suppose, and for him just as valid as any other. But other people have to make judgments too, and it's pretty easy not to support a complex proposal that isn't available for review. I wonder why it has such strong support among Republicans for that and other reasons.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

OK, I read it carefully. What is it I was supposed to conclude from that exercise?

John said...

You should be noting that Congress has the ability to say NO later if they dislike the agreement, so this nothing like ACA.

jerrye92002 said...

What's wrong with the ability of Congress to say "no" NOW? Why must we agree in advance to something none of us have seen? That sounds a LOT like the ACA "pass it to find out what's in it" approach.

John said...

Not sure how this is normally done. However the idea of having every politician critiquing every line while the US negotiator is trying to work with ~10 other countries seems like it would doom ever reaching an agreement.

Anonymous said...

As a practical matter, pretty much any effort to get anything through Congress is doomed.

--Hiram

John said...

It looks like they have been doing something...

WH Signed Legislation

jerrye92002 said...

I can assure you this is NOT how these things are normally done. It seems that the agreement is not yet negotiated, which is somewhat a relief, but those parts "done" are kept secret while the President demands "fast track" authority to change it more or less at will, without Congressional approval. Maybe it's being kept secret so he can change it without anybody knowing? That would be like him, the "most transparent administration in history." :-^

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/trans-pacific-partnership-explainer-free-trade-deal

http://www.globalresearch.ca/rigged-corporate-trade-agreement-the-truth-concerning-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/5450130

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/05/let-public-read-completed-parts-trans

jerrye92002 said...

I will accept Obama's assurances about what is in the TPP deal with the same calm understanding I have about his Iran nuclear deal-- convinced that he's either a gross incompetent or an extraordinary liar.

John said...

Laurie will be so proud of you !!! Using MJ as a source...

MJ TPP
GR Rigged Trade Agreement
Crooks and Liars

Laurie said...

It is articles such as this one (from one of my favorite online journals) which have persuaded me to oppose the TPP.

Fast Track to the Corporate Wish List

It was too long for me to read in one sitting, but the first few paragraphs give reason enough to oppose the TPP.

jerrye92002 said...

That's what surprised me, that it is the leftist cabals that seem to be most adamantly opposed to this. I suppose it could be their natural reaction to ANY agreement, despite its generally salutary effects on economic development and human dignity for all, that might accidentally turn a corporate profit. It cannot be because they have seen the agreement, because it's still (shhh!) a secret. Republicans, OTOH, generally favor trade agreements as "good for everybody" AND for corporations, but in this case they have a deep and well-deserved distrust of Obama and his minions, no doubt exacerbated by the same unprecedented secrecy. Obama is bad enough with things he does in the open. I'm urging my representatives to vote no.

Anonymous said...

That's what surprised me, that it is the leftist cabals that seem to be most adamantly opposed to this.

Within the the Democratic Party, there is always strong push back against trade agreements from labor. In the Republican Party, the push back comes from main street conservatives who worry about loss of sovereignty issues.

==Hiram