How is this breaking news? She has always supported TPP by her actions. What she says that may be politically expedite isn't indicative of what her record reflects.

Made public that she would change her position once in office. That directly counters her adopted stance (evolved?) for the campaign. If I were a Clinton supporter, I would be pretty unhappy about this and would start to question where she stands. Of course that's easy for me to say since I already do not trust her to remain on the same side of issues she's recently changed position on.

I do agree that she's going to go the other way once elected.

Do you think corporations should be writing the rules of the road for everything?

You might want to look into it.

It's not an abstract issue. Look at the cities and towns whose economies have been hollowed out by the offshoring and outsourcing that "free trade" agreements promote.

go overseas in order for some corporation to make even more obscene profits?

I just don't think the issue is as black and white as you frame it

Sorry but when you care, you take a side. You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
We've seen enough of that for a lifetime.

I can see the economic arguments on both sides

allowing corporations and foreign governments to sue the US govt seems like a good idea to you?

Again, I'm not getting into a debate on the issue here. As I said, I don't even have a "side"

Sure creating more slave labor and inviting environmental disaster is one way to "open up new markets."

and still be able to live? Or do you not care because that wont ever happen to you.

entire lives in order that a business or corporation can make even more money is the absolute height of all that is wrong in this country. Money should not come before people, and when it does, that is a morally bankrupt position.

How can one not have a stance given that TPP will be NAFTA on steroids and backed up by the Mafia?

and I don't care to get into a debate about it in this thread.

They'll make excuses. Besides, don't both sides do it.

I can't wrap my head around that.

How do you distinguish between the truth and the lies? How do you know what she stands for?

I honestly think both sides make valid arguments. We won't really know who is right util the agreement goes into effect (or not).

As far as judging politicians, I don't just rely on what they say, I look at a variety of factors. Their words are just a piece of information to be used to decide what I think of their policy positions, and policy positions just a piece of information to be used in deciding who I will vote for.

And this isn't exclusive to Hillary. All politicians lie. A political campaign is little more than a big, multi-pronged advertisement. It's purpose is not to give you objective information, it's purpose is to convince you of something. I don't trust any political campaign any more than I trust a television commercial for auto insurance or Viagra.

That they can't get someone in Peru to do for 6 cents an hour.

It is a corporate coup d'etat masquerading as a trade deal! It is the most treacherous legislation ever conceived by the minds of evil men. It's intent and ultimate effect will be to make corporations essentially immune to the laws of any signatory nation, including this one. It finalizes the establishment of an authoritarian corporatocracy, and you don't have strong views on it, huh? Well, as you may have already surmised, I DO have strong views on it! I suggest you do a little homework on the subject. I think you'll change your mind. At least, I hope you will.

That has 22 tons of pork in it headed to Oakland Ca. From there it will be put on a cargo ship and taken to Japan. I do this three times a week. So no it really doesn't impact me personally. But I do understand how it could impact others.

Anyway my break is up so I won't be able to respond until later today.

but ok.

Until she gets H1C visas passed and they get a ton of Peruvian truckers that will haul that for 5 dollars a day.

They can find people in third world countries to do computer programming and coding but it would be impossible to find someone that can drive. That makes sense.


*please note - not saying what I do is so great. It can be outsourced too.

who isn't in the trucking industry. This industry always has a huge shortage of qualified drivers. And it is only getting worse. So no I am not worried about my job being outsorced.

its only a matter of time

driverless trucks even remotely out of the design phase. I think it is Volvo that has one that they are running in NV but it still requires a human driver to operate. So nice try. But seriously not a concern.for me.

It's their Bubble they can cry if they want too.

All you have to do is ask a question and you're gone.

Less than 100% loyalty is blasphemy.

Just added a benign comment to the discussion. Next thing you know - 86'd.

No tears being shed.

Under similar circumstances.

I even tried to apologize that I didn't realize it was the Hillary group and zap next thing I know I'm banned. When you read the site by looking at the trending or latest lists it is easy to post to the wrong group.

I think that it will benefit our economy and open up new markets to our exports.

because of the cumulative impact of past trade agreements.

The basis for my opinion is that I have a degree in economics and an MBA. I also live in a city that has the largest port for asian trade in America (Long Beach). I've seen many people benefit from trade in my city.

Screw everyone else. They're just getting the mind set ready.

The Republican Party is over there, on the right.

/ignore.

NAFTA and other 'free trade' agreements, TPP will be a disaster. Not only does it undermine national, state and local governments, and thus democracy itself, TPP is not really about free trade of goods. It is about free trade of capital. Under these trade acts, it is easier for companies to shift production and jobs overseas so they can evade wage and safety laws, regulation and taxes.

Did you know that the Canadian oil companies that wanted to pipe their dirty oil to New Orleans in the Keystone Pipeline are now suing America under NAFTA? Our environmental regulation inhibited their ability to profit, you see.

So, under existing 'free trade' agreements, we have lost around 800,000 jobs. Union membership is down, and unions by and large are weaker. Whole areas that once thrived are now dead or dying (see Detroit). And, big multinational corporations and individual billionaires have 'offshored' over $20 trillion in untaxed profits and income. In the meantime you and I get squeezed - they cut non military discretionary spending, which is job training, education - programs that benefit Americans, while making noises about cutting entitlement spending (shrinking our Social Security because they have cooked the books and spent out of the Social Security trust fund).

No there's nothing good for Americans about 'free trade' agreements. Not only that, but they are usually negotiated in secret and then crammed down our throats because Congress is pressured into fast tracking.

Here's a happy little presentation that can help all readers in this thread understand the basic pros and cons of the TPP: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

Unless you are REALLY a capitalist, TPP won't benefit you at all. A vote for it is a vote against the best interest of the American people.

It doesn't help your cause exaggerating. Instantly?

Gone

A subject that invites differing opinions? How progressive.

To each his own I guess.

"Progressives need to accept different viewpoints, even the ones that are harmful and conservative."

WTF?

... when it comes to the TPP.

Better get to them before China does and we're sitting on the sidelines bent in the face

... setting the rules I'll take the good with the bad as long as its a net possitive.

Staying away from the table is cutting our nose off to spite our faces

by your statement "staying away....faces"?

there are other types of trading arrangements besides this disastrous trade agreement. What do you think China plans to do?

by the way, here's what happened after Bill let China into the WTO:


Bill Clinton advocated for admitting China into the WTO. And Hillary Clinton was the main cheerleader:

This is an occasion for you as a supporter of Hillary Clinton to defend her position on TPP. You can do that either by saying that you support the TPP or by saying that you don't care about the TPP compared to the other issues.

An actual push poll is, well, a poll, and gives two choices - one that is portrayed positively and one that is negative. An example might be "Do You Support Hillary Clinton or are you insensitive to the needs of America's minority communities?"

Bryant

I can see both sides of the issue. I want to believe we'll see the trade benefits they claim we will, but I definitely understand the apprehension of those burned by NAFTA. I'm middle of the road on this, but I can be persuaded to one side or the other with a cogent, non hyperbolic, argument for or against the agreement.

America. The country as a whole.

the benefits go to the global corporations who wrote the treaties and their shareholders while the costs are paid by the workers.

Look at the goods and services that were being produced in the United States in 1990. Compare that to the goods produced here today. Look at the number of manufacturing facilities left, and the impact on communities.

Services are a little more complex. Some can't be moved. But others have been moved or will be moved. (Think of where the operator is when you phone a customer service call center these days.)

Not all of this can be blamed on agreements like NAFTA. But they have played a major role in accelerating them, and making it easier. And placing firms that try to operate as domestic companies to compete.

Trade agreements have been, at best, ineffectual in protecting the American economy. And at worst, have been instrumental in it.

However you interpret it, is there any justification for doing more of it?

That we should have no trade deals period, or are you simply opposed to the way these trade deals (NAFTA and TPP )are structured.

Here's what I believe in broad terms.

Trade agreements should be oriented to the common good, not only the dictates of corporations.

I am no expert. But when these things like NAFTA were first proposed and passed, my own "stink meter" went off very heavily. Just applying basic common sense. Do we want to remove protections and encourage policies that will force US workers and domestic businesses to compete with countries where people make $15 a day? Do we want to allow foreign and multinational corporations to have the right to overturn national policies and laws if they conflict with their profit motive?

I have seen the results over years. Read about it. And I have also seen the prior warnings of what could happen come unfortunately true.

Suppose Dr. Who could take people from 1990 into the future-- today. They were given a chance to observe and research economic conditions and the structure of business activity today, and then return to 1990 to report back on how the rosy predictions for "free trade" had turned out.

I'm pretty certain a majority of people back in 1990 would say "Heck no.'" when asked if this is the future economy they want.

I also am opposed to the way they are structured and their very purpose. I believe in trade. But I also believe in carefully applied protectionism. Nations should protect their own economy. The negotiations should protect each nations economy based on specific circumstances of participating nations. They bargain to find middle ground to allow trade, but not to allow it to overwhelm national economies.

I also believe they should not be "one size fits all" with groups of nations, but rather nation-to-nation. Our economic relationship and nature of countries is much different with Canada than Mexico, for example.

When you have natural resources that are uniquely found in your country, or have people that have found unique solutions to use them or make them useful (decent recipes for food, etc.), then finding ways for others to be able to purchase them in other locales with demand for them should be the fundamental basis for global trade.

Having people shipping goods around the world or services by shipping labor around the world to just help lower costs of goods being produced in my book is counter productive in many ways and that equation mostly just serves the welfare of corporate owners who profit from lowering their overall costs, and who are able to externalize their costs on to everyone else by doing so.

This is especially true today with global warming the way it is now. It costs a lot of money to move manufactured goods, many raw material goods, or "cheaper labor" around the world just for the reason of overall price of manufacturing goods and services being made "cheaper", when the carbon expenditures that are externalized on to everyone else, and the costs of protecting our shipping lanes, etc. are born by us puts a huge cost burden in many ways on to the rest of us.

The reason this happens, is that those who negotiate these agreements, and in effect make the rules for them, are those wealthy corporate owners that profit most from this process that they push the costs on to the rest of the world to bear.

You have the courts now that don't put much value in people's health, their own wealth, and the environment around them. WTO and ISDS courts pretty much just put the value of those corporate entities' profits above everyone else, which is what paves the way for global fascism. Ultimately everyone, including those who believe it works for themselves, pays for this mess in the end, much like what happened prior to our last depression, when everyone paid for it then too.

And you think that some industries are inherently immune from being "exported" through these trade agreements? Well, they will work hand in hand with guest worker agreements like H-1B and H-2b to allow these corporate entities to "insource" and import in effect slave labor, to slow down real immigration, and take away for others to get local jobs for industries that for some reason or another still stay local and aren't moved towards a "bottom" to race to somewhere else in the world.

Note how just raising the fees on H-1B visas recently has had India considering taking us to court in the WTO as noted here.

https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/h-1b-fee-hike-india-011900021.html

This is how these "trade treaties" affect just being able to put together our own laws to protect our own citizen's jobs locally! Is that helping trade processes in a constructive way, or just helping the wealthy have another way to structure the world's economy to just benefit them and screw the rest of us? I vote the latter!

I totally agree that trade should not be used as a way to make good cheaper and screw American workers and exploit foreign workers. The ideal is to make products domestically for domestic consumption.

It shouldn't be a means, for example, to shit down a cookie factory in Chicago and move the operation to mexico just to get cheap labor (as recently happened, followed by the fucking CEO getting a multi million bonus). Our current policies lead to idiotic things like cutting down a tree in the Pacific Northwest, shipping the log to mills China to be processed and then shipping the lumber back to the US.

However in otehr instances international trade and choice are good. For instance (to stick with the cookie analogy) ther may be people who prefer British cookies because they taste better. In such cases trade is not necessarily bad. The trick is to prevent the British manufacturer from undercut American brands or worse yet, ship that work to China and then sell it as the British cookie brand.

It gets very complicated, but the bottom line should be that trade policy shold all;ow fair trade, but in a way that balances the domestic interests of the people of both nations.

... which was done recently was pretty stupid and exploitive.

I can see things like musical instruments, etc. where the local expertise in a certain area can provide a good or service better than others, and the cost to try and export the talent to reproduce it somewhere else "more cheaply" doesn't make sense.

Many think that most health professions have to be done locally, but radiologists have been losing their jobs a lot when X-Rays are taken here locally in hospitals and shipped through the internet, etc. to cheaper labor locales like India to do the radiological analysis on them just based on cost of labor differences. Now the cost of shipping an image overseas and the data back, etc. is pretty cheap, but that again rewards screwing people at the bottom for the wealth of those at the top, which is something we need to find a way of systemically discouraging.

We should instead focus on globally ensuring that people have decent pay wherever they live based on their own cost of living locally in those places, which should be built in to any trade agreements so that we have less "bottoms" to race to.

We should emphasize building and buying local, which helps people's well being everywhere, and helps avoid more climate change problems too. But we should allow for interchange of unique ideas, culture, and goods and services, where different areas provide unique solutions that those in other locales would like to have access to. That should be the basis and focus of global trade. Those are activities that make the average world resident happier, and not feeling like they have to go through hoops to survive on this planet.

I think you and I are more clear to the rest here that we aren't "anti-trade", but it should make sense for all of us, not just cents for some of us at the top!

This should also send a message to those who encouraged us before 2008 to invest in housing, as that was what then was viewed as the best way to grow one's wealth, as having ones' material assets was the better path to success than rising the ladder in one's job and getting raises for being more valuable in different jobs one does.

The problem with using the idea that wealth appreciation is the way to grow our wealth is that it also lowers our value on the world scene when the cost of living here as a result of that happening gets so much more than others' around the world and exacerbates the problems now we have that provide incentives for the wealthy here to invest in manufacturing, etc. where that wealth appreciation hasn't happened. That's not a sustainable economic model. It increases the power here of those with more land and material assets over the rest of the world, but lowers those power here that don't have this land and material assets here that we have to "rent" to survive here.

That's a real sad commentary

Doesn't take a crystal ball to predict they'll love TPP when she flip flops back to support it.

IDK why they don't just vote republican.

The environmental impact that TPP will have is something that doesn't get the attention it deserves but will be devastating. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/08/3737250/keystone-opponents-and-the-tpp/

I can't believe that either type are reslly Democratic or Progressive: seeing what NAFTA has done to us.

"Well, my neighbor was mugged and robbed, but that's okay with me since I haven't experience the same problem. But I'm indifferent to their mugging.

They screech that that's a false claim, but they demonstrate their callous indifference to economic inequality and injustice, day after day.

They mostly benefit from the status quo and lack empathy for people who have less than them. Not really interested in making the country better for everyone but as long as they got theirs, then hell with everyone else.

OP asked an honest question, we gave an honest response. No fighting, actually made it all the way to your post before something nasty was said.

I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion on it.

Of course, most of its critics on DU clearly don't either, but don't let that stop them.

Uninformed opinion seems to be overwhelmingly against it, but informed opinion seems to be roughly evenly split, so I'm not confident either way.

LALALALALALALALALALALALALA

They don't care, they would vote for her if she ate babies in the morning. They'll tell her "Cut It Out".

Trade agreements are complex, and the TPP is not finished.
Hillary has explained (multiple times) the parts that she doesn't like. No one knows if those issues will be changed or not.

It's simplistic to say you are for or against the entire TPP. Right now, the US has about 20 trade agreements in place. The most common one in the news is NAFTA.

If you'd like to start to study the issue of trade agreements in general or the TPP specifically (instead of just making loud claims), then here are some places to start:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy

Straight up or down vote.
Obama really really pushed for this.
So yeah, the only way to feel about this is - simplistic.

TPA only allows an up or down vote. This entire agreement was brokered in private by corporate lobbyists. Not even sitting congress critters could view this bill during while it was being drafted UNLESS they agreed to looking at it WITHOUT taking notes and not speaking of it publicly using specific terms.

So all of the merits of TPP aside, how do we feel about trade agreements being drafted by corporate lobbyists without the review of the citizenry? I object to TPP on process alone. However, the details that I know about TPP I would object no matter what.

It did include large corporations, but the list I saw included a lot of others too.

I didn't think the TPP had been present to the Congress yet? Until it is presented, can't it be changed?

Have all the other countries signed off? The last I heard there were some hold outs.

And corporations wrote it.

We didn't even get kissed, did we?

and according to the link I posted, Japan is still negotiating intellectual property rights, etc.?

I understand that it's given to Congress for a vote, but Obama could allow amendments - he just doesn't have to...

I also don't think the entire thing is finished, or else there's still the possibility of some additions (like currency manipulations).

on the working class, and focus only on the winners, you can make all kinds of shitty policy look good. The rich getting richer while the poor getting poorer has always produced shiny GDP numbers.

Also a MASSIVE amount of our immigration issues stem from "free trade", as suddenly Mexican agriculture became unviable, forcing them to seek service/construction jobs north of the border, and of course, it's okay for capital to have open borders but not labor.

I personally picked tobacco along side migrants. I also worked my way through college working in a SC textile mill.
I am very aware of the "jobs going off shore issue".

I also live in Florida where 25% were born outside of the US. I have an employee a few yards from me now who is a dreamer from Argentina. I teach students where almost 50% come from all over the world - often Eastern Europe - and most are bilingual. The majority are undocumented. I probably have more experience with these issues than most on DU.

I am also aware of trade issues that would benefit Americans if a trade agreement was enforced. The TPP is very complex, and I don't think it's finished yet, but I don't keep up with the daily negotiations.

As trade agreements go, they usually have some winners and losers. I have seen huge Chinese investment in the Bahamas recently. I have travelled to Mexico multiple times lately.

The people who want trade agreements are not just the "rich". Many are people with various small businesses who have international concerns. It would take many hours to go through them all, but parts of the TPP may be good for the US, and parts have apparently drawn criticism. A good trade agreement would be welcome, and a bad one should be refused.

I don't think most people here care about neoliberism. They come from countries that were communist (Poland), dictatorships, and all sorts of governments with all sorts of problems. They would like stability and fair rules that protect their work and investments and intellectual property. The guerrilla in the room is usually China.

"How is the working class harmed by these trade agreements"?

You mention a lot of marginalized people but you seem to be just appealing to your own authority.

Seeing what happened with NAFTA, why would we expect anything better for working class people from the TPP? And no, small business is not working class by any stretch of the imagination, unless they're like street vendors or something. The fact that one can both start and maintain a business implies a level of security that is a completely different world from the modern precariat.

Hopefully, lessoned learned could be incorporated in a new agreement:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html

Which was essentially a Third "Industrial" Revolution in terms of job creation, at least until we found out a lot of the dot.coms were junk.

This doesn't mention that an increase in real wages factors in the acceleration of the incomes of the top, and employment increases factor in the replacement of good manufacturing jobs with shitty service jobs.

It is mostly not about trade at all, but corporate governance.

and yes, there is a lot on governance. Some governance would be good for US jobs and workers. There have been red flags tossed out about other parts of the TPP. For example, Hillary and other would like something done about currency manipulation.

I think the TPP is one of the most publicly discussed trade agreements that I can remember. As such, maybe it can be negotiated to avoid the problems.

I don't think the US should go without any trade agreements in the current world of globalization. As such, we should negotiate good trade agreements. I'd rather have an Obama team making those deal instead of any number of other bad actors. Obama may make a mistake, but so far he's avoided big mistakes and generally I've agreed with his actions.

the negotiations are over. The TPP will get an up or down vote in the US Senate (the House may get involved too).

It does not cover currency manipulation in any meaningful way.

Where I disagree with most posters here is that I maintain (and can prove), that
these agreements (like NAFTA) are bad for average people in ALL THE COUNTRIES
INVOLVED - not just the US.

Another biggie is that the TPP deliberately excludes China. In fact, the TPP is
part of a militaristic containment strategy aimed at China - called, charmingly
enough, the "Pivot to Asia."

the militarists won't be happy until they have an armed confrontation with the
entire rest of the world at the same time. They still are arming Central Europe, and
fighting in South Asia and the Middle East.

Veterans For Peace

just whatever gets them to clap and cheer as loud as possible; or drown out anyone speaking up (typically with "we will NOT be silenced!&quot

(you remember back when he was trying to convince us that he was a progressive?)

that he was going to re-negotiate NAFTA.

(And his own campaign admitted that it was a lie on the very same day!! Kinda like the Chamber of Com. now, right?)

Obama paid zero political cost for that, so why wouldn't HRC do the same?

In all likelihood the TPP will be the law of the land before Hillary is sworn in.