The thought was she would have 2-3 of the hotter button issues renegotiated call it a winning deal and sign it in 6 months
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
TPP withdrawal Trump's first executive action Monday, sources say
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
The thought was she would have 2-3 of the hotter button issues renegotiated call it a winning deal and sign it in 6 months
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
China must be salivating right now at the amount of leverage USA just gave up.
Didn't seem like a great deal for us Australians so I'm kinda eh on it, but it'll be interesting to see the shift of power in this region move away from America and towards China.
Didn't seem like a great deal for us Australians so I'm kinda eh on it, but it'll be interesting to see the shift of power in this region move away from America and towards China.
Ultramantaro1
Member
Time to learn Mandarin! I think the consensus is that this will leave room for China to negotiate on its own with asian countries instead of being tied up in larger group including the US, Canada and others. With the protectionist stance Trump is adopting, and China aggressively developing trade in Asia and Africa, that's the conclusion.
rrvv
Member
Cambodia and the Philippines were not part of the TPP.
The TPP did not drastically do anything new that wasn't in China's free trade agreements with, for instance, South Korea or Australia. The geopolitical hope that the carrot of more trade would force China to sign side agreements in order to join TPP is not very specific enough. There was nothing specific except saber rattling such as "cannot allow China to set the rules" but the TPP would not have staved of the RCEP, which had already had 16 rounds of negotiations before the election.
There is nothing in TPP really that would have staved off automation. I do not think it had much in there for environmentalism as well. There is nothing in TPP that would provide for investment in infrastructure--the Chinese Belt-and-Road initiative and AIIB is more specifically geared towards infrastructure investment in Asia.
If you really want to go into the specifics of TPP and the various changes schedules to the changes in duty rates, but TPP has been put on a pedestal for the things that it would accomplish for America. The CAFTA and South Korea FTA did not do much for America in terms of geopolitics either, even though the latter especially was framed as an accomplishment of the Asia pivot.
AcademicSaucer
Member
As a citizen from a small country included in TPP, I'm glad this went under, parity with the US medicine prices would have killed our Healthcare.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Trump: 'If you stay in the U.S., there is no tax'.
Just on CNN.
He also announced massive regulation deduction.
He also announced a 'substantial border tax' for products not made in the us.
Edit:
Will make a new thread for this.
Just on CNN.
He also announced massive regulation deduction.
He also announced a 'substantial border tax' for products not made in the us.
Edit:
Will make a new thread for this.
YuriLowell
Member
But the prices of everything seem to be going up all the time.
Cambodia and the Phillipines are China's foothold into ASEAN that allow them to block any and all negative resolutions coming out of said group. TPP was an effort to strengthen the hand of the other ASEAN members and create an alternative to China for regional investments.
Moreover, there are absolutely environmental standards in the TPP, and the aim of the TPP was not to stop automation. My point is protectionism isn't bringing back jobs.
AIIB does not include access to the worlds largest global market, which is something China could not offer. The US being a member was the carrot.
It doesn't matter though, globalism and pluralism have lost the day from both sides of the aisle across the developed world. It seems clear that we are headed towards a nationalist retrenchment the world over, and I can only hope whatever awful things that spur us back towards a global society isn't as awful as WW2.
AKA The Muppet Show.
We don't know officially. Everything we know comes from leaks.
It would've forced a lot of countries to sink to the US's level.
Negotiating it in secrecy was a mistake. Much of what we know of it only benefits corporations.
Cambodia and the Philippines would still be blocking ASEAN resolutions. The TPP would not make ASEAN resolutions stronger--it only had 3 ASEAN members in the TPP. The ASEAN bloc has already concluded an FTA with China, by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN–China_Free_Trade_Area
The environmental standards in the TPP are weak. The countries are required to enforce their environmental laws. A standard look says many NGOs have concluded that they are weak and look like shiny red herring offerings to get domestic approval without teeth. It certainly was not trumpeted as necessary legislation by the likes of the NRDC:
https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/151105-0
For your AIIB comment, my comment about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was directed at your mention of how TPP offers infrastructure investment in Asia--please indicate the specific infrastructure investment that the TPP offered. I feel like the most would be indirect based on presumed investment in TPP countries due to their access to the trade bloc. But it is not something that can be presumed--did the South Korea FTA or CaFTA lead to infrastructure investment in those countries?
Wait, don't we have the full text of the TPP? And have had it for a while?
http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
I'm in complete favor of us being withdrawn from it, because from what I've heard, it just wasn't good enough. I still want something similar to it done, but just better.
The Albatross
Member
Hoping that maybe because Trump is proposing this, people around here and in other liberal circles will come to their senses and be against it.
onadesertedisland
Member
Dem priorities. The TPP was dead already. Ignoring it is just as good as an executive order, but hey, gotta look like you're doing something other than lining up repealing those Russian sanctions.
Even Hillary Clinton was against the TPP because she knew it was bad politics. The concentrated benefits and losses of trade agreements need to be addressed before pursuing more such agreements.
If the corporate tax rate and income tax rate for the richest individuals are cut, should the next Democratic nominee/President focus on pursuing a major trade agreement that concentrates more benefits to companies and wealthy individuals, simply because it might be easier to get it past a Republican Congress?
Saucycarpdog
Member
Both liberals and conservatives hated it cause it gave foreign corporations more power.
Liberals hate the corporation part, conservatives hate the foreign part.
Liberals hate the corporation part, conservatives hate the foreign part.
legacyzero
Banned
There's too much negative baggage for TPP to justify just that being a reason it should exist.
Autumn Wind
Member
I wonder if companies who make things in the US will get taxed for using foreign materials.
Inevitable really,. Didn't have the backing of Korea (not to mention the Korean trade deals before it weren't exactly a boost to the American/western economies either), plus killing TPP had plenty of Dem voter support especially from the Sanders camp despite Obama's efforts (and 'gold standard' Hillary).
Sayonara SOPA on steroids. I'm sure we'll meet again under a different brand soon enough though
Sayonara SOPA on steroids. I'm sure we'll meet again under a different brand soon enough though
I'm surprised with all the TPP support here. Even if you believe more free trade and globalism is good, how can you justify all the anti consumer bullshit? Are people okay with giving so much power to coorporations? Even if you liked the TPP, surely you would think it's better to fight for a better agreement than just blindly take what's given.
With the US withdrawing the other countries can still go through with it. There's probably a bunch of stuff that was added for America that they'll want to change, and probablya few more countries will drop, but I'd expect something to come from this yet. While it's true that without the US a lot of the incentive is gone, it's also true that with the US going the way it is the other countries will be seeking more reliable trading partners much more vigorously.
I'm no expert on the TPP, but doesn't the logical out come of this seem like all the countries who signed up and wanted it, will just cut us out of the deal, it will be a hell of a lot harder for us to make a new deal, and Trump will get us a far shittier deal?
Broken clock is right.... etc etc
But I don't see how this is necessarily a good thing, specially with Trump going up to bat...
Broken clock is right.... etc etc
But I don't see how this is necessarily a good thing, specially with Trump going up to bat...
With the US withdrawing, this trade deal is toast. It was the linchpin in making everything work, so there's not a lot of point in it any more. And as it was perhaps primarily an anti-China deal, you can bet that there's plenty of cheering in Beijing today.
The other lesson that is being taught is that trade deals with the US can be very undependable, and that maybe China is a more reliable business partner.
It means that foreign countries are going to be a lot more hesitant in making deals with the US altogether. TPP was a pretty bad deal all around though, and it's not necessarily bad that it's now dead, but the biggest winner by far is going to be China.
Ain't it the truth.
There are too many countries fully invested in global systems and supernational organizations that it's unlikely anything like isolationism being much of a trend. The EU, China, and Southeast Asia all have vested interests in greater international cooperation that just having the US jump ship will be that much of a blow. It's going to suck for the US in the meantime, but that was going to be inevitable under Trump.
The one exception to this is if Le Pen wins the French federal election and successfully withdraws from the EU. Without France to underpin the EU, the EU becomes overly dominated by Germany and it will probably fracture.
andythinkpad
Member
Actually China is still holding the glibalization flag. We don't know what will most of the European countries do yet. If UK switch side and join China's new trade initiative like they did with AIIB it will be a major blow to the US economy influence.
Brexit is not really an overtly anti globalization political decision. Basically UK now has the option to pay for the access of the EU market or working out bilateral trade deals with China and former colony countries.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked