dagblog - Comments for "The TPP is likely to empower China in the long-run"

It will probably get through

HSG — Thu, 14 May 2015 18:37:41 +0000

In reply to Looks like the Democrats will

It will probably get through the Senate but the House remains an open question unless I'm missing something. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-obama-debate-117797.html

Looks like the Democrats will

Oxy Mora — Thu, 14 May 2015 12:48:56 +0000

In reply to I probably wouldn't do the

Looks like the Democrats will get a few concessions but this deal is going go happen.

I probably wouldn't do the

HSG — Wed, 13 May 2015 18:18:50 +0000

In reply to Hal, "enriching a small

I probably wouldn't do the deal that you propose since I perceive the TPP exacerbating our long-term trend of making trade deals that lead directly to the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs. The quid you describe isn't adequate to my way of thinking to make up for the quo of the TPP. The banks do need to be broken up but Elizabeth Warren has said that she fears the TPP could result in reduced financial regulation, although Obama vigorously disputes that.

I believe the current estate tax exemption is just over $5 million but you are suggesting that we cap it at the $5 million mark. I think that's a good idea but I would also like to see progressivism in the estate tax which is at 40% on the value of the estate above $5 million. I think 40% is fair from say $5-10 million but how about 50% from 10-20 and up from there to 95% above $100 million and 99% above $1 billion. There could be allowances made for family-owned businesses.

I do support a "living wage" minimum wage but my fear is that with corporations so easily able to move production offshore under the TPP and other recent deals, a significant hike in the minimum wage would cause us to lose even more manufacturing and non-location dependent service jobs.

We agree that Obama has been a terrible negotiator here. If he had told the Republicans that they had to agree to various progressive programs in return for approval of the TPP, they probably would have compromised. This would have made it much tougher for Democrats to oppose the deal.

BTW, Hal, there is a good

Oxy Mora — Wed, 13 May 2015 14:32:55 +0000

In reply to Thanks Oxy - but I'm not sure

BTW, Hal, there is a good article today in NYT on this subject.

Hal, "enriching a small

Oxy Mora — Wed, 13 May 2015 13:27:16 +0000

In reply to Thanks Oxy - but I'm not sure

Hal, "enriching a small minority" does not in my opinion make the country weaker, even though I hate the oligarchy.

Five years of cheap labor is about the minimal length of time it takes to get an agreement like the TPP in place.

Would you go for this deal? Do the TPP deal and simultaneously downsize the banks, set the national minimum wage to $15 an hour, restore the capital gains rate and cap estate tax exemptions at $5 million per couple.

My problem with the Democrats is that they have a knee jerk objection (not you) but are unable to take it to the next level of strategy to get what they want.

We already have 'free' trade

NCD — Wed, 13 May 2015 00:27:59 +0000

In reply to The TPP is likely to empower China in the long-run

We already have 'free' trade with most of these countries. Everyone should read Robert Reich, former Sec. Labor, on the TPP:

...It establishes a tribunal outside any nation’s legal system that can force a nation to reimburse global corporations for any such “losses.”

Big tobacco is already using an identical provision to sue developing nations that are trying to get their populations off nicotine. The tobacco companies are demanding these nations compensate them for lost cigarette sales.

This provision would mean less protection from corporate harms here in America. It would require that when the potential cost of a new health, safety, environment, or labor protection is weighed against its potential benefits, the cost of reimbursing corporations for lost profits is added in.

I’ve been through enough regulatory wars to know this added cost could easily tip the balance against protection.

The arguments in favor of the deal aren’t credible. The notion that the Trans Pacific Partnership will spark American exports doesn’t hold because the deal does nothing to prevent other nations from manipulating their currencies in order to boost their own exports.

The argument that the deal will help contain China makes even less sense.

Does anyone seriously believe American-based corporations will put the interest of the United States above the interests of their own shareholders when it comes to doing whatever China demands to gain access to that lucrative market?...

And, of course, Obama is a

rmrd0000 — Wed, 13 May 2015 00:14:58 +0000

In reply to Democrats made sure fast

And, of course, Obama is a sexist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/sherrod-brown-barack-obama-gender-...

Thanks Oxy - but I'm not sure

HSG — Tue, 12 May 2015 23:32:58 +0000

In reply to Hal, thanks for posting and

Thanks Oxy - but I'm not sure I understand your points. 1) Why would we become stronger vis-a-vis China if we do the deal? Exporting more jobs and increasing our trade deficit makes America as a whole weaker, although it enriches a tiny minority. 2) Regarding cheap laborers in China, they are hardly running out. There are nearly 1.4 billion Chinese. There may be 300 million Chinese in the middle-class. Assuming a few million in the ruling class, there are still 1 billion working-class Chinese. Bloomberg says the IMF estimates that the Chinese will have surplus labor for another five to ten years. 3) How would not doing the deal equate to capitulating to China? If you're saying that China is or soon will be looking for cheap outside labor, I disagree. My guess is that the Chinese Communist Party welcomes the day when there are a billion working and middle-class Chinese who will be avid consumers of China-made goods.

I agree that we need to cultivate our own garden. We can do that by bringing jobs back home through tariffs and an aggressive anti-currency manipulation policy. In so doing, we will enhance our ability to constrain China and to help her smaller neighbors.

Finally, even if wages start to rise significantly in China, our membership in the TPP will hinder any return of some manufacturers to the US as they can much more easily locate to Malaysia or Vietnam than the US. In any case, there are other advantages to being located in the far east, including China, than just cheap labor. There is far less government oversight, labor unions are illegal in China and Vietnam cracks down aggressively on them. Environmental regulations are few and what there are aren't well-enforced. And, as we've discussed many times in China, at least, the currency is maintained at an artificially low value.

Democrats made sure fast

rmrd0000 — Tue, 12 May 2015 21:43:20 +0000

In reply to Hal, thanks for posting and

Democrats made sure fast track was voted down. We will see if TPP falls apart, as expected.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7267600

Hal, thanks for posting and

Oxy Mora — Tue, 12 May 2015 21:21:22 +0000

In reply to The TPP is likely to empower China in the long-run

Hal, thanks for posting and your premise is rather outrageous---which makes it appealing. But my logic meter just went haywire.

If we don't do the agreement China gets stronger anyway because they continue to exploit their advantages (except that cheap labor in China is quickly disappearing).

But if we do the agreement, there aren't enough China hegemony stoppers to do us any good, plus we become poorer which makes China richer by comparison.

It may be true that the poorer among us would be made poorer but that is an internal comparison----the "country" would be stronger vis a vis China. So let's focus on our equality problems.

In a sense we both are looking for cheaper labor outside our shores as well as improving our export capabilities. Why should we capitulate to China in this regard just because we can't get our own skewed income inequalities corrected?