Obama races to cement the TPP deal that all his potential successors oppose | Hacker News Reader

Obama races to cement the TPP deal that all his potential successors oppose

latimes.com

39 pointswalterbell22 comments

I don't actually believe Hillary Clinton is against the TPP. I believe she's only saying she is against it because she's running for election. She doesn't want to lose to Sanders or lose his supporters. Only now that the deal is finalized, it's very clear that the TPP is not popular among Sanders voters, and she is in a presidential run off, does she oppose it.

She previously described the TPP negotiations as "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality," "high-standard" and "gold standard."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/...

Yes I find her total lack of ability to hide her incencerity refreshing. I prefer to know what the likely outcome will be once she's in power. The dangerous thing about politicians like Obama was his excellent persuasive ability, such as his ability to generate reassurance that things will change and it was a very believable.

For ex, I was convinced he truly believed in reducing the militarism of America. But he then managed to push it well beyond Bush, which was beautifully implemented by heavily leaning on the CIA/NSA who operate well within the constraints of secrecy and deception required to maintain that public perception.

In his first year in office it was revealed the CIA destroyed 92 video tapes very likely to contain evidence of torture. A perfect opportunity to confront one of the most serious abuses of power in United States history and he did nothing in response, not even a token stepping down of the director, and there was hardly an ounce of public backlash against him. He won the Noble Peace prize that same year. Amazing.

I don't believe any of the candidates will maintain their position against the TPP once in office.

I think whoever wins will get a detailed briefing from the US trade representative on how the negotiations went, and briefings from State and CIA on China's likely plans in the region. And then they will "reluctantly" support the deal as-is, or demand (and get) a few token changes so that they can say "it's better now, so now I support it."

There is a broader context to the TPP than getting the best possible deal for American consumers, manufacturers, or unions: cementing American leadership of the Pacific Rim for the next generation. Any president will be willing to pay a price to do that, which means they'll be willing to sign the TPP even if they don't think it's great.

I find it deeply unlikely that Clinton actually opposes TPP. More like, it's unpopular, might as well have the outgoing President implement it so the incoming President doesn't have to expend political capital on it.

I hope TPP will be ditched, and the practice of backroom lawmaking and undemocratic policy laundering will have much stronger opposition in the future.

Trade deals are by their nature multilateral. Try to do them democratically, and they simply won't get done: every country would propose amendments, each of which would have to be ratified by every other country...

It's reasonable to take issue with the contents of the TPP, but demanding a democratic open process would lead to no free trade deals at all

> demanding a democratic open process would lead to no free trade deals at all

Sounds like a win-win.

> Trade deals are by their nature multilateral.

The problem is, these deals aren't about trade, let alone about free one. They are about changing laws. And lawmaking hidden from the public is a very problematic idea.

> Try to do them democratically, and they simply won't get done

There is no need to make massive debates during development of these trade agreements. I agree, it can slow them down. But, they have to be done in public fashion, so when problems arise, they can be spotted right away and then criticized and fixed. That's something not just doable, but it was already practiced before.

> It's reasonable to take issue with the contents of the TPP, but demanding a democratic open process would lead to no free trade deals at all

You can't take an issue with it if: 1. you can't see it until it's too late. 2. there is no way to fix problems in it except axing the whole thing which is much much harder (fast track).

I mean, I understand your perspective, but it's kinda bizarre. The line about gridlock making free trade deals impossible seems to be the standard response to every criticism of the incredibly secretive negotiation process, but it never gets followed to the logical conclusion.

What is the point of having a democracy if the very principle of "rule by the people" gets subverted every time it presents an inconvenience?

Perhaps having a democratic open process is worth missing out on one of these deals.

You mean the TPP deal that all his successors SAY they oppose, due to modern politics being theatre.

Do we really believe someone from the two big parties is unilaterally pushing through changes both major parties oppose...give me a break...

At least in Washington State, the TPP is explicitly mentioned in the (draft) platform as being something the party opposes.

"(We Oppose:) Foreign policies that put the profit making interests of corporations above the rights, laws, and interests of governments or workers, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)"

Of course, it only says that because some people who found time to do things besides idle cynically on HN got off their asses and put in some effort to get it in there.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/sites/wadems/files/documents/201...

I'm not sure why this article focuses on the house. This is a treaty and has to be ratified by the senate.

What are the issues with it? I heard it's more advantageous for US companies than foreign ones.

as with any of those things, it all depends on the specific of which industry you are, your size, your market, etc.

there is absolutely no way you can say it is better for one side or another.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/time-to-act-on-tpp-is-no...

It's bad for consumers; if the US were to sign the TPP, it would be a backdoor way to force legislation large copyright holders want and the American public does not. https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

A lot of the IP issues with TPP are exactly what I meant when it benefits Americans more than other countries, since foreign countries tend to be less restrictive about intellectual property rights.

Also, we really need a Powerpoint summarizing all the issues, both for and against, from all perspectives, with TPP. It's such a huge agreement, and taking only some aspects into consideration, such as IP rights, shouldn't invalidate other aspects of it. It should be considered as a whole.

Part of the reason why it needs to be killed is because there is so much in it, and it is an all-or-nothing deal negotiated in secret! These ip ideas have been brought forth before in American Law and unequivocally been voted down. And an attempted end-run around the American legislative branch should be opposed on principal by Americans, even if the letter of the law seemed germane. There is a reason it wasn't done in daylight.

Don't listen to the alarmists, it's great for the US and i say that as a non US citizen.

It cements the US's position as the hegemony for all things trade and trade practices.

> It cements the US's position as the hegemony for all things trade and trade practices.

I think you mean China. :)

Depends on the industry, and the size of the company.

If you look at the garment industry, it would be a boon for brands and a bust for small manufacturers. Being able to go yarn forward into Vietnam would have a massive labor savings over the US and Mexico.

As an example, there are a LOT of pants made south of the border now (US factory that were moved or new ones opened). The TPP in recognition of what a bad deal it is on this front, leaves in some protective tariffs for 10 years to allow folks who JUST moved or JUST started, time to recoup costs before moving again.

The key word in that sentence is companies (as opposed to people).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com