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

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#51

Post by eva1984 »

bbctol wrote: post #6
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?

Probably. The question is whether or not the US can still negotiate a better trade deal on our terms, but China will definitely seize this chance to propose their own less-drama version for other Pacific countries.

Which is how it should be. Why a trade deal whose members are mostly Asian countries, excluded the largest economy in that area, and who in fact being the biggest trade partners of those countries? China should be in the center of such deal, not being excluded from it.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#52

Post by 794CD01 »

stephancoral wrote: post #11
degenerate wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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) Pretty easy to hit milestones when the goals are low. "Announce intent" and "Stop bill that was never going to pass congress" aren't exactly adroit acts of statesmanship.

Better to under-promise and over-deliver.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#53

Post by tinus_hn »

koolba wrote: post #27
lhc- wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not.

> It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not. The only "new evidence" that would sway Clinton's opinion on the TPP were poll numbers.

>The only "new evidence" that would sway Clinton's opinion on the TPP were poll numbers.

Sounds like direct democracy to me! She's following the will of the people!

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#54

Post by 794CD01 »

crag wrote: post #47

The TPP was about something other then money and trade. It was about soft power. It was about containing China. It was about influence. By cancelling it, Trump has handed 1/3 of the worlds GDP to China. Because I suspect China will step in and seal the deal. I know Trump railed about the TPP. But I'm sad no one stood up to defend it. Clinton just flipped flopped. I suppose it's easier for the average American to unde…

There's no reason the US should have any leverage over China. This isn't the 1800s.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#55

Post by gman83 »

sn41 wrote: post #49
crag wrote: post #47

The TPP was about something other then money and trade. It was about soft power. It was about containing China. It was about influence. By cancelling it, Trump has handed 1/3 of the worlds GDP to China. Because I suspect China will step in and seal the deal. I know Trump railed about the TPP. But I'm sad no one stood up to defend it. Clinton just flipped flopped. I suppose it's easier for the average American to unde…

I think it is not just about China. If you look at the unholy nexus of TPP, TISA and TTIP, the major economies excluded are Brazil, India, China, Russia and South Africa. As an Indian, I feel frustrated that the world doesn't think that the economic advancement of India and South Africa are undesirable. Seriously?

If you look at something like TISA, the Indian government itself declined to join the negotiations, it's not like they were excluded or anything.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#56

Post by elastic_church »

lisper wrote: post #22
zuzuleinen wrote: post #14

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

Whether you think it's a good or bad thing depends on your point of view. The TPP is very complicated, and it was negotiated behind closed doors. Some people didn't like it simply because of that. They believe that policy should be made in the open, not in the shadows. There were two main things that the TPP did that caused a lot of controversy: it streamlined trade between signatories, which is great if you're a bus…

It is constitutional to join treaties that otherwise undermine the constitution, the nation's autonomy, sovereignty in general.

Negotiating any treaty behind closed doors, let alone seeing encroachments on discretionary rights like intellectual property in the various leaks, should be met with skepticism and determent.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#58

Post by rayiner »

deeth_starr wrote: post #31
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 fal…

> This is what Bill excels at.

Bill signed NAFTA, not to mention moved the Democratic Party to the right on many economic issues. He just looked cool doing it.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#59

Post by [deleted] »

koolba wrote: post #27
lhc- wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not.

> It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not. The only "new evidence" that would sway Clinton's opinion on the TPP were poll numbers.

[deleted]

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#60

Post by dglass »

crag wrote: post #47

The TPP was about something other then money and trade. It was about soft power. It was about containing China. It was about influence. By cancelling it, Trump has handed 1/3 of the worlds GDP to China. Because I suspect China will step in and seal the deal. I know Trump railed about the TPP. But I'm sad no one stood up to defend it. Clinton just flipped flopped. I suppose it's easier for the average American to unde…

No one stood up to defend it because no one really knew what was in it. They tried to rush it through before anyone could actually read it.
Post reply on HN