Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a controversial trade deal, wasn't taken well by world leaders.
"The TPP without the United States is meaningless," Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.
Others had another message: We'll move on without you and strike alliances with other nations.
"Another agreement can take its place, but not with U.S. participation," Peru President Pablo Pedro Kuczynski told Russia's state-run news outlet RT on Nov. 11. "It would include China, and Russia as well."
Trade is a top priority for many world leaders, especially Kuczynski. Last weekend, he hosted the APEC conference, a trade summit that drew President Obama and China's President Xi Jingping, along with leaders from Latin America and the Asia Pacific.
A day after APEC ended, Trump announced he would withdraw from TPP the day he arrives at the White House. That's not going over well with the 21 world leaders of APEC.
"We reaffirm our commitment to keep our markets open and to fight against all forms of protectionism," the leaders said in a joint statement.
As America under a new leader backpedals on doing business with other nations, China and Russia appear poised to fill the gap. China is already pushing its own trade deal known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It includes many countries, such as Japan and Australia, that would have been in TPP.
If RCEP succeeds, China would be in a stronger position to lead a bigger free trade area in the future. Already in Asia, some countries, like the Philippines, are aligning themselves with China.
Chinese officials are also welcoming Latin American nations to RCEP, a clear pick up from the rubble of TPP.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/23/news/economy/tpp-trump-america-china-russia/index.html
>>87520
And it makes sense. China and even Russia are already vying to take away American influence from Latin America, a region once considered the U.S.' backyard according to experts.
China and Russia have made major investments in Latin America in recent years.
China's state banks have poured $120 billion in investments into Latin America since 2005, according to the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington. Since 2008, Russia has sent military arms to Venezuela, Brazil and Bolivia, among other nations, while cutting an oil exploration deal with Mexico, according to R. Evan Ellis, a professor of Latin American studies at the U.S. Army War College.
Even though China's growing ties to Latin America have been rocky at times, Trump's withdrawal from TPP may smooth that out.
The path ahead remains unclear but the rest of TPP nations are willing to strengthen trade ties without America.
"Concrete damage to U.S. interests has already been done," Eric Farnsworth, vice president at Council of the Americas, said referring to two Asia-focused trade agreements: the RCEP and the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), another potential trade deal that would include nations in Latin America, southeast Asia and Australia.
"The U.S. retreat on TPP has breathed immediate life back into" those deals, says Farnsworth, who attended the APEC meet in Lima, Peru.
--Jethro Mullen
>--Jethro WEW
The TPP is fascinating since it is both good and bad for America at the same time. It's good in that it serves to unify Asian allies against Chinese ambition. It's bad in that there's nothing beneficial for the average American in there at all. It's this strange duel between national and individual interests: we want to have strong allies to keep another power in check, but we want to not fuck over our citizens with garbage legislation.
>>87537
>It's bad in that there's nothing beneficial for the average American in there at all.
It is beneficial to the average American. Empirical evidence has always supported the position that reducing barriers to trade helps the broader economy. The problem, politically, is that those who have the biggest gains are the rich, and the biggest losers are blue-collar workers who worked in industries that are now noncompetitive due to free trade. It is easy to distort the evidence and make a sob story out of it, which is exactly what happens any time trade liberalization is brought up.
The scope of TPP, TTIP, CETA, and TISA, taken together, would have been quite large, both economically and internationally for America. Where the world's economy may have been firmly centered (more so) in the US, along with greater international influence that naturally comes with it, the Americans are now giving that up for the Russians and Chinese to have. The fact that people are cheering the possible demise of the other three agreements (I'm not too sure if Trump could scuttle CETA), shows not only a profound ignorance of economics but of international politics as well.
>>87663
>The TPP was psychotic.
Why?
>>87762
They kept it secret for a long time and I have never bothered reading the actual text. The only thing I got to hear about it here (beyond the usual "trade destroys jobs!" shit) is that it allows businesses to sue governments over potential lost profits or some shit, which isn't exactly a positive because of how vague it is.
Obviously I got that from 4chan, so maximum grains of salt required.
>>87770
I think the specific clause you're talking about is an Investor-state Dispute Settlement. It's a pretty scary notion in theory, allowing governments to be sued for their own laws by foreign companies. However, it practice it's an essential part to trade deals and doesn't affect modernized nations.
ISDS clauses are in place so that if Bumfuckistan is in a trade agreement with the Commonwealth of Shitstains, Bumfuckistan can't just tariff products from the Commonwealth of Shitstains unfairly because they're shitstains. An ISDS would allow companies from the Commonwealth of Shitstains to sue Bumfuckistan through a mutually agreed upon court system for targeted economic discrimination.
The U.S. I believe has been involved in about 8 ISDS cases and has won every single one (because the U.S. has good lawyers, doesn't want to pay out settlement money, and doesn't unfairly discriminate against foreign businesses).
>>87780
When phrased like that it sounds way more reasonable and a lot less like a corporate cyberpunk dystopia which is the phrasing I first heard it in. Thanks that's pretty informative.
>>87770
>>87780
That thing about governments getting sued by companies is completely ass backwards
That can happen right now, and in fact the Australian government is currently being sued by big tobacco over their plain packaging law
The tpp specifically protects government's from being sued by companies where they are acting for things like public health, if the tpp were in use today this lawsuit could be thrown out
You guys really need to read the damn thing
>>87780
It should also be noted that the majority of cases brought up are won by governments.
The main impact ISDS has on "trade" (it's actually more focused towards foreign direct investment) is that it gives foreign companies more confidence to invest in countries where institutions are not as developed or where nativist political feelings are high. While TPP unfairly gets a lot of shit for having ISDS, TPP is actually more focused towards your standard reduction of tariffs, but there are provisos to open up protected markets (Japan - Healthcare and agriculture, specifically beef and rice; and Vietnam in regards to their SOEs; etc.).
Given that most western countries have tariffs in the single digits with each other from previous trade agreements, FDI must increase along with the removal and/or modification of trade regulation barriers in order for these agreements to have meaningful economic impacts. This is why TTIP, CETA, and TISA are far more involved with FDI and regulations than with tariffs.
>>88035
>It should also be noted that the majority of cases brought up are won by governments.
That's not the point though. Like the broken as fuck american legal system, corporations can threaten smaller countries with onerous legal fees and win without even having to take action, because the country couldn't afford to even pay for a win.
Likewise, they can shop around for ideal courts
Finally, on top of that, the TPP had stipulations that brought other countries up to the United State's totally insane IP, patent, and Trademark laws.
Which understandably, wasn't terribly popular with anyone outside of Southern California or the Pharmaceuticals industries.
>>88088
>still peddling misinformation when the text is available to read
There's nothing in the tpp that allows corporations to sue governments
>>88107
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/_securedfiles/trans-pacific-partnership/text/9.-investment-chapter.pdf
>>88112
>lazily linking to a single section of the full text instead of an analysis or summary
>reading a single section out of context of the whole agreement
>not reading chapters 26 & 28
>not reading the fta between nz and china that includes a section that is almost word for word the same
>not realising that similar agreements have included such terms since the 80s
>not reading chapter 29
>not reading chapter 9 section 4
>not reading annex II
>not reading annex 9-B
9-B is quite pertinent the discussion ITT
>not reading article 29.4
considering you are going on about tobacco companies suing governments it might be a good idea to read this one
>not reading article 9.18
>not reading article 9.29.6
holy shit your post really is reaching new lows in quality
just read the fucking thing already
>>88130
I'm not going to spoonfeed you you mongoloid. You can read and see exactly what it say about "dispute settlement", and then try and whinge and say that's not REALLY suing because it's outside of the normal legal system, at which point I will remind you that's the point.
You can educate yourself if you care to. As you pointed out, it's all posted free online, and the pertinent dispute sections are in that link.
>>88132
Or alternatively you could always read more than one line of my post. I point to specific parts of the agreement that directly contradict your thesis. Perhaps a little hypocritical of you to tell someone to educate themselves when you haven't even read the agreement yourself as is plain to see.
Who am I kidding, you're just trying to claim some sort of superiority in an internet argument. But on the off chance that you actually want to engage in a real discussion about the tpp then read it instead of giving into sensationalist hype from itsourfuture.org
>>88088
One, we are dealing with nation-states here, not some mom-and-pop country, so these countries aren't helpless toddlers. Also, you only have a handful of firms who are larger than some countries, and these firms are mostly energy companies anyways, which is not really affected that much by TPP.
Secondly, lets say corporations DO win more ISDS cases. What evidence do we have that the majority of these weren't a legitimate redress of grievances? When looking at the big examples cited by critics, the only main criticism is that the firm is requesting a large amount of damages, not whether the case is legitimate or not. In most of the examples, it is almost always foreign governments reneging on contractual obligations.
The evidence has supported the using ISDS is beneficial for trade amongst countries and does not grant extra bargaining powers to corporations. That's why it is in almost every single trade agreement and why there is so much evidence to support that.
There is no global conspiracy of "muh multi-national corporations" trying to strong arm all the governments in the world to line their pockets.
>Likewise, they can shop around for ideal courts
Dude, wtf are you talking about? You do know that there are specific international courts set up to deal with an ISDS case, right? So where else would they go aside from the court designated in the trade agreement?
>>88153
Not the guy you're replying to but I think it's also worth noting that under the tpp governments are not liable for punitive damages in any isds claim
>>87734
>The problem, politically, is that those who have the biggest gains are the rich, and the biggest losers are blue-collar workers who worked in industries that are now noncompetitive due to free trade.
I'm sorry, but widening the divide between rich and poor any more than it is now, it's all kinds of fucking retarded. I don't care that "helps the average" is a selling point when "the rich get more power" and "the poor get fucked twice as hard" are in the fine print.
Maybe some other time I wouldn't give a fuck, but at this moment, after seeing this glorious fireball of an election, and seeing the divide between rich states and poor states, something is going to give if we don't slow the divide.
>>88171
>and seeing the divide between rich states and poor states,
Golly, you know, if we go by "who is a net receiver from or donor to the FED" that roughly equates to "Is the state Blue or Red?"
Complain about lefty dems all you want, but at least they put their money where there mouth is.
>>87734
>
It is beneficial to the average American. Empirical evidence has always supported the position that reducing barriers to trade helps the broader economy. The problem, politically, is that those who have the biggest gains are the rich, and the biggest losers are blue-collar workers who worked in industries that are now noncompetitive due to free trade.
Newsflash faggot: the average American doesn't make six figures a year, and those are the only Americans NAFTA and now the TPP actually benefited.
>sob story
You're a huge faggot.
>>88237
Reduced prices benefit all Americans, and the poorest especially. The rich dgaf if their groceries are 10% cheaper. They don't shop at grocery stores anyway.
>>88403
Yeah, and we pay for that too. What, you think you deserve our money twice?
>>88405
Yes actually, at least if you want to not be dependent on foreign nations for produce, and the only reason why you have to subsidize the red states in the first place is because of globalization.
>>87787
We need TPP like South America needs Monsanto. It stands to benefit corporations more than people. Imagine going to Japanese prison because you didn't want to pay $299 for 30 4kb games made 30 years ago. I can't even begin to imagine all of the non US people who pirated Hollywood movies being sued into oblivion and having it stick, because hey! your country sold its soul to corporate interests.
>>88409
As it happens, you freeloading commie, we could do that. There's no reason not to, that's the point of globalization.
To say nothing about how you don't actually have some kind of god-given monopoly on farmland or food.
>>88409
>and the only reason why you have to subsidize the red states in the first place is because of the corn lobby*
*ftfy
>>88401
Reduced prices mean shit when you don't have a job, dipshit.
>>88480
Nobody said otherwise, my angry friend.
>>88481
Okay, good.
>>88480
Reduced prices means a Wal Mart has enough extra capital to open a store full of cheaply imported chinese shit in your shitsplat of a neighborhood, and in the process hiring a couple hundred people.
>>88483
Or move to China and just export their shit while taking in cheap labour.
These FTAs are fine if everyone is willing to take a wage hit with the lowered prices (making the lower prices inconsequential), but since wages are sticky upwards, that'll never happen in rich countries, which means they'll lose jobs and they won't be able to buy the new cheap garbage.
>>88431
That can already happen, there's literally nothing protecting you personally from corporations suing you for piracy damages right now, so I don't know why you bring up such a situation as if it's made possible by the tpp