Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#31

Post by deeth_starr »

danso wrote: post #2

TPP felt to me one of the issues that really defined the Trump campaign and the voters it appealed to. I think Clinton eventually [0] took a public stance against the TPP, but ignoring the public's perception of her relation to the truth, she clearly did not prioritize the dismantling of TPP in the way that Trump did. In fact, it's really hard to imagine her undoing President Obama's work were she in office. If someo…

Well, rust-belt protectionism played a key part (NAFTA, TPP). I was a Bernie supporter and was really disappointed when Hillary didn't co-op Trump's working-class rhetoric or get energized to at least compete in that battlefield. This is what Bill excels at. Obviously she shut him out of the core team.

Also, she was not that compelling as a candidate. And had all those negatives that I won't go into. Most of them false. But still, why do you put up a establishment candidate on a change cycle (looking at you Wassermann and Brazille, core dems)?

Edit: I don't especially like TPP but I saw it as a strategic shift to Asia for the US. Now China will likely join a TPP-light and really benefit. For better or worse this is going to be a big change over the next 20 years.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#32

Post by hackuser »

zuzuleinen wrote: post #14

Can someone explain me why is this a good/bad thing? I'm unfamiliar with the consequences.

In addition to what was said, it also was an important piece in containing Chinese domination of the region. It would bind the nations into an international order that was not subject to (or strongly protected from) Chinese leverage of influence. Now China is much more free impose their will by threatening the economies of their neighbors.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#33

Post by danielahn »

bediger4000 wrote: post #19
paulofmandown wrote: post #5

I'm not that into the TPP from what I've read of it, but doesn't bailing on it just open the door for China to take the leadership role and dictate commerce norms for those still involved?

TPP included some things that were just flat out bad, like the "Investor State Dispute System" (a.k.a. Corporate Sovereignty) and exporting the USA's draconian "Intellectual Property" regime as one of those corporate norms. Both of those things make ordinary citizen's lives worse, at least in the very short term, and almost certainly in the longer term. The TPP seemed to be more about free flow of capital, rather tha…

Yes, but the funny end result of this is that bilateral trade deals will likely include similar or even more draconian restrictions w/r/t corporate sovereignty and IP laws as the policies being put forth are US-standard.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#34

Post by pnathan »

This was a key policy bit of the Trump stumping. Agree or disagree; this is (or should be) an expected outcome of Trump's win.

disclaimer: I have no stance on the TPP, deferring to experts who have the time and expertise to correctly evaluate it.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#35

Post by noobermin »

hackuser wrote: post #29
noobermin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not for Trump and will actively protest him, but what "degenerate" pointed out is completely relevant to the discussion.

How?

The discussion is that US pulls out of TPP...because Trump promised it and he initiated it.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#36

Post by hyperbovine »

polartx wrote: post #10
zardeh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't, or at least not as far as I can read. A summary of that email is > Here is a letter I've drafted outlining our position on trade. This draft assumes that Clinton will ultimately support the TPP and TPA, but we may change the letter dramatically if Clinton does not end up supporting the TPP and TPA (ostensibly because the final agreement doesn't cause a net gain in jobs).

Handy having a plan with contingency for a 180 degree pivot on her position.

I personally prefer having somebody in office who(se staff) plans for unlikely scenarios as well as likely ones.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#37

Post by milesf »

woofyman wrote: post #15

Political theater. TPP wasn't ratified and wasn't likely to pass congress.

Yeah, and it's great theatre! It's ultimately meaningless, but it does reinforce the story that Trump and the Republicans are trying to tell.

I live in Canada, and the politician who negotiated on behalf of my country is in the neighbouring city. At some point I hope to have a chance to ask him face-to-face how he justified negotiating that deal in secret.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#38

Post by anigbrowl »

danso wrote: post #16
polartx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handy having a plan with contingency for a 180 degree pivot on her position.

"Contingency" was exactly the word I was thinking of. From the LA Times article I referenced, here is one summarization of her publicly stated opposition: > “I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of State,” she said in a statement. “But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have…

it remains to be seen [...] whether killing free trade will be a net benefit

Sure, if you hate reading history books. The thing is, we actually have quite a lot of evidence about matters of international trade already which one side in this debate consistently ignores in favor of hypotheticals.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#39

Post by burkaman »

degenerate wrote: post #4
danso wrote: post #2

TPP felt to me one of the issues that really defined the Trump campaign and the voters it appealed to. I think Clinton eventually [0] took a public stance against the TPP, but ignoring the public's perception of her relation to the truth, she clearly did not prioritize the dismantling of TPP in the way that Trump did. In fact, it's really hard to imagine her undoing President Obama's work were she in office. If someo…

This Podesta email isn't one of the DKIM-signed ones, but it shows that Clinton was ultimately going to support TPP regardless of what she was saying: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6616 (note the email is from 2015) As for Trump, he's done 2 of the "Seven actions to protect American workers" he promised for the first 100 days in office (PDF): https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102…

Following through on your promises is not a good thing if you make bad promises. People who voted against him did so because of what he promised to do, not because they didn't think he would deliver.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#40

Post by evolve2k »

One of the TPP sections that concerned me the most was where corporations could sue nations for passing legislation that detrimentally affected their business (think countries passing environmental restrictions on companies). My concern was greatest that US companies would do this to other nations, like Australia where I am.

I'm assuming now that US companies won't be able to do this, but is the TPP still binding between the rest of the ratified countries?

Post reply on HN