Support NeoGAF

[Henkka]

Obama endorsed it too.

To be honest, I've no idea what to believe about it. I've not read it, and even if I did, I wouldn't understand it. If I'm reading what someone else has written about it, it's hard to tell if they're biased or not.

 

[JesseEwiak]

But where is the question. Because it sure as hell isn't in the US. You must not have watched FTAs ravage certain segments of this country. Sure, Mexico improved, much by taking jobs from Americans.

Doesn't logic tell you that business will want to produce for as cheaply as possible, and sell for as much as possible. It's inevitable with free trade that business will take away higher paying jobs and provide lower paying ones, just in countries where that is considered more middle class.

It's far more likely that if you lost a manufacturing job in the past twenty years, you lost it because of automation, not offshoring.

I'm all for helping people hurt in the US by free trade deals, but I don't think the way to do that is to erect trade barriers.

 

[LizardKing]

I get the distinct impression a lot of anti-free-trade proponents fail to understand the causality of many of the world's problems. People keep attacking the symptoms, rather than putting their attention towards root causes (like, you know, capitalism itself).

It's particularly noticeable when folks talk about "lost jobs", not understanding that technological unemployment is an inevitability and one that will only increase over the coming decades.

Stuff like the TPP is largely irrelevant when it comes to the big picture. Just a little bump on the road, nothing more. But good luck getting people to see that.


Case in point.

Eventually, those lower-class areas will be developed as well, and eventually corporations will run out of cheap labor to exploit, making all of this moot.

Then they just switch to machine automation entirely, and then everyone can complain about unemployment equally!

Dude, if you think the middle America manufacturing jobs and rust belt jobs were lost due to automation, I would have to say you are pretty ignorant about the subject. ^^Where are people getting this automation BS!! I guess you have to have been there, and know specifically who's job was lost to where. You are believing what the corporations have told you. Think about it, if the jobs simply just vanished, where did all these manufacturing jobs in Mexico/Asia come from? Why did Apple say they would manufacture Iphones in the US and then do it for one year, then send them off to China? It's not automation.

 

[IISANDERII]

Fuck Google, fuck Obama and fuck the TPP

 

[BannedEpisode]

But where is the question. Because it sure as hell isn't in the US. You must not have watched FTAs ravage certain segments of this country. Sure, Mexico improved, much by taking jobs from Americans.

Doesn't logic tell you that business will want to produce for as cheaply as possible, and sell for as much as possible. It's inevitable with free trade that business will take away higher paying jobs and provide lower paying ones, just in countries where that is considered more middle class.

There have definitely been a a lot of jobs lost directly because of NAFTA. However there are also a lot of small businesses that rely heavily on it. Without NAFTA, a lot of small American businesses would not be able to sell to customers in Canada and Mexico. This is because the duty reduction allows them to compete with local Canadian and Mexican companies.

Overall though the net benefit of NAFTA to our economy is approximately a push. Last I read the overall economic benefit with near neutral with a slight lean towards positive.

 

[Oriel]

So, clearly biased.

Anyway, these partnerships are being discussed in secrecy and what is known so far isn't good for the general populace. It covers tons of different points and is huge, so it is best explained by an expert of a neutral party.

Well....yes, of course negotiations are done in secrecy. Do you expect the negotiating parties to reveal their hand publicly that might be detrimental to their overall bargaining positioning? I hear this mentioned a lot by anti free traders, that negotiations are done "in secret". But when has any intergovernmental agreement ever been publicly revealed prior to its formulation? Governments draft such international agreements and then they go for ratification in national parliaments once there's something agreed on. Was the drafting process of SALT, START or the Iran Deal released publicly at regular intervals? Of course not.

If the people, via their elected representatives, approve the treaty/accord/FTA then they ratify it. Otherwise they reject it like the US Senate has done with countless international agreements. TPP has been done no differently than most other intergovernmental agreements.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

So in my experience americans are scared that american jobs will be lost.
Europeans are scared that american GMOs and other products(like very sugary stuff) now prohibited by EU regulation will be allowed and american companies can sue the EU and an american jury will make the decision, a jury the US also has in place in other trade agreements, a jury that never ruled anything against US companies before.

Both a somewhat diffuse fears, but in my opinion still legitimate ones.

 

[Lucumo]

An expert it what, though? I mean, if someone who works in free trade is biased, it can't be a free trade expert.

An expert of the respective part of the deal. No, when someone works for a company, he is inherently biased since that company (especially a large one) has an interest (and is directly affected by) in the deal.

The statistics about poverty reduction aren't biased though. Free trade has done more for getting more people into the middle class than any other treaties and agreements in the history of the world.

I've taken no stance on "free trade" and this deal includes way more than just that.

Well....yes, of course negotiations are done in secrecy. Do you expect the negotiating parties to reveal their hand publicly that might be detrimental to their overall bargaining positioning? I hear this mentioned a lot by anti free traders, that negotiations are done "in secret". But when has any intergovernmental agreement ever been publicly revealed prior to its formulation? Governments draft such international agreements and then they go for ratification in national parliaments once there's something agreed on. Was the drafting process of SALT, START or the Iran Deal released publicly at regular intervals? Of course not.

If the people, via their elected representatives, approve the treaty/accord/FTA then they ratify it. Otherwise they reject it like the US Senate has done with countless international agreements. TPP has been done no differently than most other intergovernmental agreements.

I'm not talking about secrecy in respect to the general populace.

 

[Complete]

Dude, if you think the middle America manufacturing jobs and rust belt jobs were lost due to automation, I would have to say you are pretty ignorant about the subject. ^^Where are people getting this automation BS!! I guess you have to have been there, and know specifically who's job was lost to where. You are believing what the corporations have told you. Think about it, if the jobs simply just vanished, where did all these manufacturing jobs in Mexico/Asia come from? Why did Apple say they would manufacture Iphones in the US and then do it for one year, then send them off to China? It's not automation.

You completely failed to comprehend my post. On any level.

First off, as I was saying, this stuff is largely moot. Doesn't matter where the jobs went. You're blaming the wrong thing. This is just capitalism in action. Capitalism incentivizes this sort of expense-minimizing, profit-seeking behavior. Government action can keep capitalism in check, but as we see in Washington today, that can only happen for so long (i.e. until big business gets its hands into government through funding and lobbying).

Want a long-term solution? Better start pushing for a new economic system. As long as we stick with capitalism, capitalism itself will keep pushing these kinds of behaviors.

Secondly, I was talking about automation in the future, after wages in developing countries rise to parity with the US and EU and the cost-benefit ratio starts to work out in automation's favor. Not about automation today or in the past (though automation in the past has certainly removed a considerable number of jobs from the equation).

 

[JesseEwiak]

Dude, if you think the middle America manufacturing jobs and rust belt jobs were lost due to automation, I would have to say you are pretty ignorant about the subject. ^^Where are people getting this automation BS!! I guess you have to have been there, and know specifically who's job was lost to where. You are believing what the corporations have told you. Think about it, if the jobs simply just vanished, where did all these manufacturing jobs in Mexico/Asia come from? Why did Apple say they would manufacture Iphones in the US and then do it for one year, then send them off to China? It's not automation.

Nobody is saying _no_ jobs were lost due to offshoring - we're saying that even if magically those jobs could come back to America, instead of 500 jobs, there'd only be 100 due to automation. And in 20 more years, there'd only be 10 and they'd require degrees because you need to make sure the robots don't kill us all.

 

[LizardKing]

There have definitely been a a lot of jobs lost directly because of NAFTA. However there are also a lot of small businesses that rely heavily on it. Without NAFTA, a lot of small American businesses would not be able to sell to customers in Canada and Mexico. This is because the duty reduction allows them to compete with local Canadian and Mexican companies.

Overall though the net benefit of NAFTA to our economy is approximately a push. Last I read the overall economic benefit with near neutral with a slight lean towards positive.

Maybe on a macro level, but what is the affect on the American middle class worker? Dollars in an economy isn't the only measure of health. Has it created more jobs than it lost?

 

[CrocMother]

I feel like you need a doctorate degree in economics to really understand the TPP. I bet Obama himself doesn't fully understand it. Just knows that it is good for the US.

 

[Austriacus]

Dude, if you think the middle America manufacturing jobs and rust belt jobs were lost due to automation, I would have to say you are pretty ignorant about the subject. ^^Where are people getting this automation BS!! I guess you have to have been there, and know specifically who's job was lost to where. You are believing what the corporations have told you. Think about it, if the jobs simply just vanished, where did all these manufacturing jobs in Mexico/Asia come from? Why did Apple say they would manufacture Iphones in the US and then do it for one year, then send them off to China? It's not automation.

You are looking at individual cases and not at whole economies and in the short term oposed to the long term.

What he is saying is that the endgame of manufacturing companies is complete automation so it doesnt matter if this deals are sealed or not, these jobs will eventually dissapear, even in third world countries.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Maybe on a macro level, but what is the affect on the American middle class worker? Dollars in an economy isn't the only measure of health. Has it created more jobs than it lost?

According to everything I've read, either yes or the job losses are so minimal that the lower prices for goods average it out. Obviously yes, people lost jobs due to NAFTA and never got a better one and we should use the power of the government to help those people, either with redistribution or heavy duty training.

 

[LizardKing]

You completely failed to comprehend my post. On any level.

First off, as I was saying, this stuff is largely moot. Doesn't matter where the jobs went. You're blaming the wrong thing. This is just capitalism in action. Capitalism incentivizes this sort of expense-minimizing, profit-seeking behavior. Government action can keep capitalism in check, but as we see in Washington today, that can only happen for so long (i.e. until big business gets its hands into government through funding and lobbying).

Want a long-term solution? Better start pushing for a new economic system. As long as we stick with capitalism, capitalism itself will keep pushing these kinds of behaviors.

Secondly, I was talking about automation in the future, after wages in developing countries rise to parity with the US and EU and the cost-benefit ratio starts to work out in automation's favor. Not about automation today or in the past (though automation in the past has certainly removed a considerable number of jobs from the equation).

Nobody is saying _no_ jobs were lost due to offshoring - we're saying that even if magically those jobs could come back to America, instead of 500 jobs, there'd only be 100 due to automation. And in 20 more years, there'd only be 10 and they'd require degrees because you need to make sure the robots don't kill us all.

Ok fair enough, but what happens when they aren't jobs that just so happen to be threatened by automation in the future. Which is really a convenient way to handwave away the problem, because there is no exclusive reason why it has to be those jobs. What happens when they are engineering jobs or the like? There's nothing stopping the same thing happening through a pure free market. Tariffs and taxes are pretty much the only thing that can keep that in check, short of a different economy.

The problem runs deep in some local economies. People who lost manufacturing jobs dented entire regions, not just those who lost their jobs. It gave less spending power to almost everyone.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Obligatory don't be evil comment

In fairness, the average person I see complaining about it doesn't seem to have any idea what the TPP entails or why they dislike it other than the rest of the internet told them its bad.

 

[BannedEpisode]

Maybe on a macro level, but what is the affect on the American middle class worker? Dollars in an economy isn't the only measure of health. Has it created more jobs than it lost?

Honestly, I'm not even really defending the ethics of Free Trade. I'm just trying to demystify it for the few people willing to look further than the surface claims they hear or read.

Its just not that crazy or nefarious.

 

[BannedEpisode]

In fairness, the average person I see complaining about it doesn't seem to have any idea what the TPP entails or why they dislike it other than the rest of the internet told them its bad.

This.

 

[collige]

I don't have strong feelings about the job/economics angle aspect of TPP, but the intellectual property implications represent a drastic exapansion of the already-bullshit DCMA provisions and generally shitty copyright laws of the US that shouldn't be expanded to the rest of the world.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Obligatory don't be evil comment

It's easy to say you won't be a certain way before you have so much power at your fingertips.

If I was rich I would always be the same.

If I had super powers I would only ever use them to help people.

If I controlled Neogaf I would never be Evil.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Ok fair enough, but what happens when they aren't jobs that just so happen to be threatened by automation in the future. Which is really a convenient way to handwave away the problem, because there is no exclusive reason why it has to be those jobs. What happens when they are engineering jobs or the like? There's nothing stopping the same thing happening through a pure free market. Tariffs and taxes are pretty much the only thing that can keep that in check, short of a different economy.

The problem runs deep in some local economies. People who lost manufacturing jobs dented entire regions, not just those who lost their jobs. It gave less spending power to almost everyone.

I totally agree with that. But, the solution (ie. trade wars and tariffs) are worse than the problem.

The solution in the long run is a UBI or some other form of basic income. Basically, free trade (with protections for foreign workers) + a healthy welfare state + a federal jobs program that might be 'make work' for those who want to work is the ideal future. After all, there's always potholes that need to be filled.

 

[WaterAstro]

Any TLDR on the TPP?

I looked at the wiki and I cannot go through all the criticisms.

 

[BannedEpisode]

Any TLDR on the TPP?

I looked at the wiki and I cannot go through all the criticisms.

I put a very basic explanation further back in the thread.

 

[Complete]

I totally agree with that. But, the solution (ie. trade wars and tariffs) are worse than the problem.

The solution in the long run is a UBI or some other form of basic income. Basically, free trade (with protections for foreign workers) + a healthy welfare state + a federal jobs program that might be 'make work' for those who want to work is the ideal future. After all, there's always potholes that need to be filled.

Pretty much.

Although I would class this as the solution in the immediate run. Over the long haul, we would want to move to a system that doesn't have all the ridiculous externalities that capitalism has (mostly everything to do with over-consumption, pollution, environmental degradation, and all that other wonderful stuff that is a direct result of capitalism).

 

[Tye The Czar]

This is why I use Firefox.

 

[LizardKing]

I totally agree with that. But, the solution (ie. trade wars and tariffs) are worse than the problem.

The solution in the long run is a UBI or some other form of basic income. Basically, free trade (with protections for foreign workers) + a healthy welfare state + a federal jobs program that might be 'make work' for those who want to work is the ideal future. After all, there's always potholes that need to be filled.

I'm not again UBI but I don't know if/when that is going to be feasible politically. You are giving me a hypothetical kind of pie-in-the-sky solution. Not every country is jumping into these free trade agreements. The EU and China have strong economies that are creating jobs for their middle class and aren't nearly as invested in these someways lopsided agreements as the US is. Yet here's the US, losing middle class jobs for 30 years and people want to say it's inevitable. Other than the US many of the "haves" countries don't seem too enthused about free trade with third world nations, so I don't see why they are wrong and the US's way is "inevitable". Don't get me wrong, I see how this helps American business and the corporation, I just don't necessarily see how it helps the middle class worker and average Joe. I guess it depends on your perspective of what you want for the economy.

 

[freenudemacusers]

In fairness, the average person I see complaining about it doesn't seem to have any idea what the TPP entails or why they dislike it other than the rest of the internet told them its bad.

Basically. The internets reaction to this is hilariously shrill.

 

[Iksenpets]

I don't have strong feelings about the job/economics angle aspect of TPP, but the intellectual property implications represent a drastic exapansion of the already-bullshit DCMA provisions and generally shitty copyright laws of the US that shouldn't be expanded to the rest of the world.

The IP stuff is definitely the weak point of the deal, more so than any of the stuff internet conspiracies freak out about, but if you're an American voter, what incentive is there really to care? You already live under that regime, if some other countries want to vote it in as well because they've decided the stuff America is willing to give them in return, then oh well I guess.

I'm not again UBI but I don't know if/when that is going to be feasible politically. You are giving me a hypothetical kind of pie-in-the-sky solution. Not every country is jumping into these free trade agreements. The EU and China have strong economies that are creating jobs for their middle class and aren't nearly as invested in these someways lopsided agreements as the US is. Yet here's the US, losing middle class jobs for 30 years and people want to say it's inevitable. Other than the US the "haves" countries don't seem too enthused about free trade with third world nations, so I don't see why they are wrong and the US's way is "inevitable".

European economies are pretty consistently weaker than the US with more unemployment and higher prices, while China is, you know, the chief beneficiary of free trade. The one place in Europe that's developed a really strong manufacturing sector is Germany, which serves a niche for really high quality goods. There's not a demand out there to make more of the kind of stuff that Germany makes.

Also, I feel like any anti-trade argument really needs to grapple with the fact that it's condemning third-world nations to stay that way forever. Free trade has cost the US jobs in some sectors while also cutting prices of most consumer goods for people. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions in the broader world have been lifted out of abject poverty because they now have trade driven jobs.

 

[WaterAstro]

I put a very basic explanation further back in the thread.

Ah I see it. Thanks.

 

[LJ11]

Basically. The internets reaction to this is hilariously shrill.

Its happened throughout history. People lashed out against Bretton Woods and they had no clue what it was, hell most of the attendants were in the dark, including Keynes to some extent. Just a different medium, you can yell via your smart phone instead of the newspapers and radio programs.

 

[Austriacus]

I'm not again UBI but I don't know if/when that is going to be feasible politically. You are giving me a hypothetical kind of pie-in-the-sky solution. Not every country is jumping into these free trade agreements. The EU and China have strong economies that are creating jobs for their middle class and aren't nearly as invested in these someways lopsided agreements as the US is. Yet here's the US, losing middle class jobs for 30 years and people want to say it's inevitable. Other than the US many of the "haves" countries don't seem too enthused about free trade with third world nations, so I don't see why they are wrong and the US's way is "inevitable". Don't get me wrong, I see how this helps American business and the corporation, I just don't necessarily see how it helps the middle class worker and average Joe. I guess it depends on your perspective of what you want for the economy.

Now this is straight out ignorance. Please stop.

My country (Peru) and colombia have signed free trade agreements with the EU and currently we even can visist them without a bloody visa

Oh and China has their hands on almost every 3rd world country, they even are making plans for the centrail Bio-oceanic railway that will go all the way from Brasil to Peru. All this financed by them

Come on now.

 

[collige]

The IP stuff is definitely the weak point of the deal, more so than any of the stuff internet conspiracies freak out about, but if you're an American voter, what incentive is there really to care? You already live under that regime, if some other countries want to vote it in as well because they've decided the stuff America is willing to give them in return, then oh well I guess.

The provisions are also an expansion of current American law as well as far as I understand it.

From the wiki page:

Temporary Copies: Article 4.1 provides that rights holders may “authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).”

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (codified in Title 17 of the United States Code) does not provide rights over temporary copies. The statute's definition of “copies” as “material objects” that are fixed (i.e., “sufficiently permanent…for a period of more than transitory duration”[14]) indicates that temporary storage of copyrighted material would not infringe.

i.e. broader definition of copyright infringement

Parallel Imports: Article 4.2 provides that rights holders may authorize or prohibit parallel imports.

i.e. restrictions on consumers preventing them from selling their used goods internationally

Art. 4.9(a)(ii)(C) provides that prohibited devices and services include those that “enabl[e] or facilitat[e]” circumvention, whereas the DMCA[25] and ACTA only prohibit devices and services that have “the purpose of circumventing.”[26]

i.e. more bullshit DRM enforcement. This is by far the worst part of it imo

The whole thing is basically the DMCA except more draconian and internationalized.

 

[tokkun]

What does this mean for our privacy?

Depends on what type of privacy you care about. It extends safe harbor laws so companies aren't restricted sending data to servers in other countries. However it also prevents governments from demanding companies supply encryption keys.

 

[BlastProcessing]

TPP has good parts and bad parts, but it's not some malevolent force.

We need some sort of trade agreement to protect our economy. China is going to dictate more and more about world standards. We can either be a part of that discussion or take our ball and go home. Whatever deal we agree with is going to involve compromise. I really don't understand how people can take such an isolationist stance towards trade.

 

[numble]

But corporations are individuals.

Under the law, they are persons, not individuals.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not well versed in free trade agreements, or TTP in particular, but I've heard more than enough stuff about it that sounds... let's say fanciful. Lots of people talking about how it will lead to data caps, or government spying more, or who knows what.

It's hard to get something a bit more even handed, which is why I appreciate some of the posts here that seem to have had their due dilligence done.

 

[MrChocolate]

I don't have strong feelings about the job/economics angle aspect of TPP, but the intellectual property implications represent a drastic exapansion of the already-bullshit DCMA provisions and generally shitty copyright laws of the US that shouldn't be expanded to the rest of the world.

This is a huge problem and no country should accept US based companies, enforce copyright laws from the US or any kind of US laws for that matter.

 

[Akim]

Google is one of the worst companies for privacy - not sure why they always seem to get a pass in the eyes of the public. This just continues their path.

 

[jmdajr]

You down with TPP?

 

[BlastProcessing]

This is a huge problem and no country should accept US based companies, enforce copyright laws from the US or any kind of US laws for that matter.

Trade deals usually involve agreements on property rights. As intellectual property grows in value and importance, we have to include them in trade agreements. US companies are, rightly concerned, with China's current stance toward protecting intellectual property. Something has to give.

 

[Saucy_XL]

I haven't dug into it like I should but I don't think it has too many implications for the everyday American. I think it's more about formalizing high level trading/IP interactions between the countries/large companies, and will probably work out in America's slight favor at the top level (not the level average American's would really benefit from that much).

 

[collige]

Trade deals usually involve agreements on property rights. As intellectual property grows in value and importance, we have to include them in trade agreements. US companies are, rightly concerned, with China's current stance toward protecting intellectual property. Something has to give.

China's problems with intellectual property are a matter of enforcement. The parts of the agreement I listed above go beyond even current US law, much less those of other countries with weaker copyright protections.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

China is not a part of the TPP.

Although I'm sure Trump would love to retweet you, facts be damned.



That's good, since there are no EU countries involved with the TPP treaty

Edit: I guess free trade to the left is like climate change to the right. They don't know what they are talking about, but they are MAD about it.

It's honestly disheartening. Are there really this many people advocating for protectionism? Because a lack of free trade is how you get protectionism.

 

[andythinkpad]

Sort of. Google still holds onto it, where Alphabet, of which Google is now a subsidiary, does not.

Haha and the robot division is not under the google umbrella correct?

 

[boiled goose]

damn it... :/

 

[VendettaRed07]

Yeah.. I support free trade but there are too many things in the TPP that go beyond the aspects of trade that concern me and why I don't want it to pass.

 

[sphagnum]

Pretty much.

Although I would class this as the solution in the immediate run. Over the long haul, we would want to move to a system that doesn't have all the ridiculous externalities that capitalism has (mostly everything to do with over-consumption, pollution, environmental degradation, and all that other wonderful stuff that is a direct result of capitalism).

It's ok to say socialism if that's what you're going for.