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

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#61

Post by sremani »

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?

As an Indian I understand why India is undesirable perfectly. India is not a cohesive economy or textbook nation-state, it is a multi-national nation and that makes New Delhi weak and states moving in what ever direction they want to go. As usual there is broadly speaking coastal vs hinterland divide in India. This makes India hard to govern and bring a uniform economic or governing policy, added to that a million mutinies big and small across the country make it not desirable country in certain ways.

Maoism and militant trade unionism in the structured economic sector living in parallel with bonded labor and child exploitation in unstructured economy makes it a world of contradictions.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#62

Post by rayiner »

hackuser wrote: post #25
jwtadvice wrote: post #3

Interestingly at today's White House Press Briefing, a reporter asked the Press Secretary whether the Trump Administration thought that it could surround/contain China with bilateral trade agreements the way that the TPP had intended to do on a multilateral basis. China has a couple of free trade deals in the region. It has a multilateral effort (RCEP) which is somewhat stalled and primarily pursued bilateral trade a…

Here's the real story every time you read about the comparison between multilateral and bilateral international agreements (speaking very generally): * Powerful nations want bilateral agreements, because it's the strong negotiating with the weak. Imagine the U.S. negotiating a trade deal with Nicaragua: The U.S. position is overwhelmingly strong; they could walk away and cancel all trade with Nicaragua; the U.S. woul…

> Supporters of an international rules-based, law-based order, and of a democratic and rights-based order want broad multilateral agreements. Then the weak nations can band together and resist the powerful; it gives them self-determination, the foundation of democracy; it creates rule of law rather than rule of the powerful.

Ironically, most of those small, weaker countries are not democratic.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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:

No, it doesn't show that at all. It shows that staff had done some preparatory work on the explicitly-uncertain assumption that an ongoing discussion would end up a particular way. Which clearly shows that, at least as far as the author of the email was concerned, what Clinton would end up doing was unknown.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#64

Post by ameister14 »

dglass wrote: post #60
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.

I read the TPP; so did a lot of people. It wasn't hard to read or understand.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#65

Post by ameister14 »

794CD01 wrote: post #54
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.

Exactly - we do not live in a world nearly as isolated as we did in the 1800's; leverage is now far more important.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

noobermin wrote: post #35
hackuser wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?

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

No, the US never joined the TPP because that would have taken Congressional action that never occurred.

Trump made it clear that he wasn't going to change the status quo, but painting it as a change to the status quo is false.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#67

Post by danielahn »

eva1984 wrote: post #44
danielahn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which might not be true. If the deal doesn't benefit the country, guess what will happen? Just don't sign it. Most of the TPP countries didn't have a bilateral agreement with US at this moment, so it is the status quo. And since Trump's government is backtracking to protectionism, manufacturing jobs will less likely be delegated to countries like Vietnam, and countries like Japan doesn't have its back from US to conf…

I generally agree - I think the net result is just no trade deals, not bilateral trade deals.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#68

Post by ameister14 »

evolve2k wrote: post #40

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 bet…

>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).

This is not what the TPP said. Corporations can already sue nations. The TPP defined an arbitration system, one that nations have a long, long history of winning in.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#70

Post by eumoria »

pnathan wrote: post #34

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.

This happened quicker than I expected, though, although I'm completely ignorant of deadlines of things so maybe this expedience was required.
Post reply on HN