Hacker News Reader

Comment by redwood | Hacker News Reader

This is all about ensuring China isn't the only game in East Asia: Giving the non-Chinese half of East Asia's population a chance of fending off Chinese economic domination by creating a market union. I don't want to defend it considering the lack of transparency which requires us to be cynical... BUT we need to keep this in mind. This isn't all about the US or business per se. Rather, East Asia, the US, and big business all are in political alignment here, and that's how you build policy that happens... We're not the center of this. East Asia is

View on HN

Err, so you're saying this is about reducing the power of Chinese manufacturing and cost of labor by playing other east Asian countries against them, and that's somehow NOT about US power and interests?

It is primarily due to the military threat China poses to its neighbors and Chinese disrespect for international rules and is neighbors. US interests are international stability and freedom of commerce, Chinese interests are much less enlightened and do not consider anyone else but China.

> US interests are international stability and freedom of commerce

Haha! You can't really be serious!

Well, he's not absurd. The US does have those interests but they are (invariably) curbed toward the benefit of American citizens and allies. The US order and global trade has done a lot of good. It's also committed and supported atrocities for its own core or security interests and made flat out mistakes. If you cherrypick either side the US can look like a paladin or an ogre.

I definitely agree with this. Despite all of the US hatred, I would say that overall America does pursue these goals relative to China. Imagine if the things that the Chinese government happened in America. It would be surreal.

A great firewall of America?

Bribery as fairly standard practice in business.

Pushing away other countries from your economy.

Not taking a side here, but wanted to add details to your list.

America does not have a firewall, but they do have means to stop certain things from circulation. A great example is ISIL video. It is expunged from Youtube and Facebook and other social media platforms - Twitter is compelled to delete accounts of ISIL members. The US uses mass social media propaganda to countermessage the ideas of ISIL (http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf).

This not being the only target, there are ways that the US engages with ideas (look up Cass Sunstein's Nudge and work on cultural persuasion) and Air Force social engagement flowcharts.

Bribery in the US is composed on tacit agreements, shared interests and possible financial reprisal. It is subtler but not difficult to call for what it is. In business, agreed. It's there and sometimes in places the US isn't interested in intervening. But it isn't ubiquitous.

The US applies sanctions and embargos, abuses its Export-Import Bank and connections with the World Bank and IMF, and fixes political situations - aren't we in a TPP thread? - with economic warfare. You can't buy salmon in the Eastern tip of Russia right now. The US also hauses tariffs to compete with other nations' industries (cars, sugars, ...).

Maybe. But all of those big business are using the opportunity to basically bypass sovereignty in the western world, as well as ram a lot of other harmful legislation.

So it's not all about China anymore - and in fact, East Asia is basically independent of the way it will be felt by most people. So practically speaking, it isn't about China and East Asia at all.

To have a good understanding of why the USG wants the TPP, yes, it's about China.

As citizens we feel that inequality of wealth opportunity is the high, urgent priority - and that tools inside the TPP will exacerbate these issues.

As the government the existential threat to the US hegemonic uni-power world order - and by extension the political power and much of the economic opportunity and strategic interests of the US - is the high, urgent threat.

TPP is a bad deal because it only seeks to solve one of these and may actively harm the other - but I remember Obama saying something to the effect of "find me a better deal."

A better deal in a "free trade agreement" is just that - a free trade agreement. Enforcement and length of IP rights, the ability of corporations to extrajudicially sue governments, GMOs (as is the case in the Trans-Atlantic trade agreement) etc. has nothing to do with free trade, i.e. trade without import taxes.

The TPP is not merely a free trade deal. It is a trade deal made exclusively to isolate China, and then allow it to participate in a few years only if it (China) follows certain rules (i.e. Western Intellectual Property law).

If state-actor X is pushing an agenda, you can be sure that X is directly benefiting from it and it is all about those benefits.

This is true except that the US would not be getting involved unless it aided US security or other interests. In this case the US would like to contain China from becoming too large a global player (the US Grand Strategy for defense for the past few decades has been to prevent any other superpower from rising).

http://www.cfr.org/china/revising-us-grand-strategy-toward-c...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com