If someone believes international free trade is the cause of the gutting of American manufacturing and by proxy, local/regional economies, it's hard to argue that Clinton presented little more than nominal lip service to the cause, at least compared to the way that Trump and Sanders made it a core priority of their campaign and stump speeches.
[0] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trade-tpp-20160926...
Also, she was not that compelling as a candidate. And had all those negatives that I won't go into. Most of them false. But still, why do you put up a establishment candidate on a change cycle (looking at you Wassermann and Brazille, core dems)?
Edit: I don't especially like TPP but I saw it as a strategic shift to Asia for the US. Now China will likely join a TPP-light and really benefit. For better or worse this is going to be a big change over the next 20 years.
Bill signed NAFTA, not to mention moved the Democratic Party to the right on many economic issues. He just looked cool doing it.
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...
Pretty easy to hit milestones when the goals are low. "Announce intent" and "Stop bill that was never going to pass congress" aren't exactly adroit acts of statesmanship.
> Here is a letter I've drafted outlining our position on trade. This draft assumes that Clinton will ultimately support the TPP and TPA, but we may change the letter dramatically if Clinton does not end up supporting the TPP and TPA (ostensibly because the final agreement doesn't cause a net gain in jobs).
TPP was an easy call. For NAFTA he's going to pull some Carrier renegotiate bullshit. Smoke and mirrors. It's too big to kill. Maybe over 10 years. Maybe.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/08/news/companies/carrier-jobs-...
Don't get me wrong I like protecting jobs in the US and have been very pro-US made. But Trump is not that and is just turning the steal-from-middle-class dial up to 11.
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.
What does this have to do with the discussion? It seems to be purely political advocacy. Personally, I'd prefer we not have it on HN.
It also helped define Trump's campaign because like a lot of issues his stance on it had little relation to the actual facts. TPP had plenty of problem that made it overall a bad agreement. Opposing it was generally smart. However, there was no indication that such a deal would have harmed the US economy. There is also wide consensus among economists that free trade benefits the nation at large. It isn't the fault of the economists that this country does a bad job of sharing the benefits of such deals with the entire population.
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 agreements.
This may put American and China toe-to-toe in reaching agreements with Asian Pacific states. There’s a question about the quality of the trade deals that can be reached, if the target nations are clever enough to play Beijing and Washington off against one another.
The Trump Administration has suggested that bilateral agreements are better because they don’t devolve into “least common denominator” the way multilateral deals do; and that they also allow the deals to be quickly withdrawn from or renegotiated to account for new realities.
* 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. would hardly notice and Nicaragua's economy would be devastated. (EDIT: I'll add that this is true of the powerful everywhere; e.g., large businesses don't want to negotiate with government or Congress (law and regulation) or a class in court (a class action), they want to deal with individual consumers one by one.)
* 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. Also, instead of an exceptionally complex system of individual agreements between each pair of countries, it creates one standard - much more like a law. Imagine a global business trying to parse the individual trade deals between every pair of countries from its supply chain to its retail customers - an incredibly, needlessly complex level of regulation compared to one international standard. Imagine if the 50 U.S. states only had bilateral trade deals with each other - that would be 1,225 deals, endless red tape for a national business (and there are many more countries than U.S. states). A major reason the U.S. is so wealthy is that it's the largest single, unified economy; that's what the EU hopes to equal.
For example, in the South China Sea, China says they want bilateral negotiations with each country - they oppose the current U.S.-led international order and want negotiations they can dominate. The U.S. and China's neighbors want a multilateral deal; they want to continue the rule of international law and the U.S.-led order, and want to negotiate from a position of strength.
My guess in this case is that it's a reflection of the fact that Trump, the Republicans, and their big business constituents prefer rule of the powerful.
To add to this comment, there’s more nuance when speaking less generally:
* In cases where there is competition between powerful nations, weaker nations can and do gain advantage by playing the interests of one country off of one another. For instance, during the Cold War the United States and Soviet Union would engage in trade, weapons, and security deals. States caught in the middle understood that both empires were competing with one another to either expand their network outward or prevent the other from doing so (America often included “and you may not trade with the Soviet Union” as an aspect of its bilateral negotiations) would try to internalize the security/strategic value that the empires sought - rather than the pure quid-pro-quo of markets.
* The United States effort with both NAFTA and the TPP were to contain Russia and China, respectively, by building a coalition of countries with trade that excludes each specific United States adversary. This strategically weaponizes the second point above: coalitions of nations together banded together against a more powerful economic force. Similarly, the Chinese RCEP agreement bands together trade centered around the Chinese economy, and excludes the United States. Indeed, the Soviet Union was, as a security/power concept, an idea that a trade network on the Eurasian Supercontinent would be able to outperform and outcompete other continental sized trade networks (the United States), which led the United States to disrupt the trade framework with proxy war, etc.
* Similar episodes are common throughout history: Nasser’s Egypt had tried, unsuccessfully, to create a Republic of Arab nations in the Middle East, so that they could collectively bargain and negotiate with external powers such as Europe and the United States. This was considered a security threat to these powers, because the West much preferred strong-on-weak bilateral agreements, protectorates and mandates.
From the security side of the coin, great nations including China, Russia (now the Eurasian Union), and the United States strategically try to build coalitions of small nations against their powerful adversaries in an attempt to disrupt their ability to successfully compete.
The Trump Administration decision to abandon this represents an idea that the United States will be able to “out-deal” regional competitors (primarily China but also Japan, South Korea) on a one-for-one basis. My guess is that the diplomacy will get very nasty - even if its all in the back room.
Ironically, most of those small, weaker countries are not democratic.
And this is why "hard Brexit" is such a risky endeavor for the UK.
The EU is much larger and more experienced in trade deals. From day one Britain will be negotiating from a position of weakness. Once negotiations begin, Britain has a hard 2-year deadline... And to make it worse, they don't have people with experience in bilateral trade agreements because the EU has been in charge of those for 40 years.
The British press is trying to spin this inherently weak position into a matter of EU countries looking to punish Britain, or other such nonsense.
China's economy is built on international trade - specifically, their massive exports - and the movement of money and goods. They don't like it in some cases, but that's true of every nation.
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 understand "China is taking you job away" (and that's not the whole truth anyway) then to explain the nuances of soft power.
With TPP gone. We now really only have one form of leverage over China. The military. And I damn glad I'm retired from the Army.
As an Indian, I feel frustrated that the world doesn't think that the economic advancement of India and South Africa are undesirable. Seriously?
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.
I fully expect ASEAN countries will move forward with this now.
I never very much liked the TPP as it very clearly represented not only unwelcome international competition and power projection, but also because its chapters (first leaked and then eventually published) very clearly benefit large multinational businesses that lord over the United States' strategic resources, exacerbating issues of economic equality on the homeland. The benefit to the American people was that it made problems for the Rise of China - the real possibility of which could see my generations' children and grandchildren in an America that doesn't dominate the world like we do today.
I always felt like there was a better way: a way to both build America so that it is happy and safe, and create deals that benefit all social classes in the homeland.
I'm fairly certain that the Trump Administrations' instincts here will be to replace economic coercion with military coercion and I'm fairly certain that the administration's replacement deals will just as unequally favor those in America who already wield an outsized share of power.
In this regard I'm glad to see TPP go but I would much rather have seen a more creative administration holding the reins.
I'm assuming now that US companies won't be able to do this, but is the TPP still binding between the rest of the ratified countries?
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.
I don't think that was ever true about TPP to start with.
This for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-set...
The TPP seemed to be more about free flow of capital, rather than free trade as such. Free trade is probably a good thing, but the TPP didn't include free movement of labor, which is certainly a good part of free trade.
The TPP was more "Globalism for me, but not for thee" from the multinationals.
disclaimer: I have no stance on the TPP, deferring to experts who have the time and expertise to correctly evaluate it.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Invest...
There were two main things that the TPP did that caused a lot of controversy: it streamlined trade between signatories, which is great if you're a business owner or a consumer (because it drives down the cost of goods and labor) or a worker in a country with high unemployment and low wages (I'm talking Bangladesh here, not the U.S.). It's not so great if you're a worker in a country with high wages like the U.S. because free trade tends to drive wages towards being more uniform, so if you're in a high-wage country you can expect your wages to go down, or to lose your job altogether.
The second controversial provision was stronger enforcement of intellectual property laws, often allowing corporations to take unilateral measures against alleged infringers that bypassed local laws. The allegation was that this provision effectively turned multinational corporations into de-facto governments, thus undermining democracy.
These are the main reasons the TPP was very unpopular in the U.S.
The argument in favor of the TPP was that the status quo has a lot of problems that need fixing (which is true) and that the TPP, flawed as the process and the result may have been, was our best shot at fixing them (which may also have been true).
Negotiating any treaty behind closed doors, let alone seeing encroachments on discretionary rights like intellectual property in the various leaks, should be met with skepticism and determent.
I live in Canada, and the politician who negotiated on behalf of my country is in the neighbouring city. At some point I hope to have a chance to ask him face-to-face how he justified negotiating that deal in secret.
