McConnell: Senate won't take up TPP this year.

[Deletedaccount1]

And none of that would matter when profits have to come first.

You can throw out consumer protection too..

Why's that?

- - - Updated - - -

Ha, well I've already posted the earlier contents such as ISDS that makes child labor reform pointless and Environmental protections pointless, thus why environmental groups generally oppose it. As for patents, yeah that stuff that ensure patents last well into a century or more, which is the opposite direction we need to be going with patents. OR making an even worse form of SOPA.

What is wrong with patent laws and what specifically is wrong with the environmental protections?

[Theodarzna]

Why's that?

What is wrong with patent laws?

In general the problem with our patent laws, or one of the big ones is that they last far longer than is practically useful for society. For Drugs the problem is it means drugs staying grotesquely over priced for far longer. Among other horrible things.

[Masark]

What is wrong with patent laws and what specifically is wrong with the environmental protections?

Evergreening, reduced standards for patentability, etc. Doctors Without Borders has been shouting about the shit being pushed into the TPP and the harms it will cause for years.

As for environmental protections, the lack thereof.

[Deletedaccount1]

As for environmental protections, the lack thereof.

Exactly, it's perfect.

[Independent voter]

Evergreening, reduced standards for patentability, etc. Doctors Without Borders has been shouting about the shit being pushed into the TPP and the harms it will cause for years.

As for environmental protections, the lack thereof.

TPP is pretty much the US and Japan. It's not like we're the world's greatest source of chaos.

China might join in a few years of things work out.

[Deletedaccount1]

In general the problem with our patent laws, or one of the big ones is that they last far longer than is practically useful for society. For Drugs the problem is it means drugs staying grotesquely over priced for far longer. Among other horrible things.

I think patent laws are fine from an intellectual property perspective. I somewhat agree with your point on pharmaceuticals.

I just don't see the negatives of the treaty outdoing the positives.

[Theodarzna]

I think patent laws are fine from an intellectual property perspective. I somewhat agree with your point on pharmaceuticals.

I just don't see the negatives of the treaty outdoing the positives.

The negatives weigh exclusively on the poor and the marginal and the benefits go exclusively to that peculiar socio-economic class.

[Deletedaccount1]

The negatives weigh exclusively on the poor and the marginal and the benefits go exclusively to that peculiar socio-economic class.

Says who? Stiglitz?

Other economists have found that the distributive benefits of the TPP are roughly the same for all income quintiles in the US and are hugely, enormously beneficial to the developing countries who sign the TPP. Stiglitz math was off.

http://voxeu.org/article/economics-t...ers-and-losers
https://piie.com/publications/workin...ic-partnership
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.e57665c2a51d

[Theodarzna]

Says who? Stiglitz?

Other economists have found that the distributive benefits of the TPP are roughly the same for all income quintiles in the US and are hugely, enormously beneficial to the developing countries who sign the TPP. Stiglitz math was off.

http://voxeu.org/article/economics-t...ers-and-losers
https://piie.com/publications/workin...ic-partnership
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.e57665c2a51d

And yet the government itself said we would gain no material benefit from it.

[Deletedaccount1]

And yet the government itself said we would gain no material benefit from it.

Source? What does that mean?

[Theodarzna]

Source? What does that mean?

US Government Study Predicts TPP Trade Agreement Will Produce Practically No Extra Growth For Anyone

As their name suggests, free trade agreements are designed to help trade flourish between the countries involved. The hope is that when trade increases, society as a whole benefits. One of the key metrics for assessing that outcome is to look at changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which provides one index of economic activity in a country. It does not, of course, measure other things that may be important to people, such as public services or quality of life, but it's widely used.

GDP growth is one of the main benefits that will flow from US-EU TAFTA/TTIP, according to its supporters. They point to a study from the CEPR group in London, which was conducted on behalf of the European Commission as part of the preparations for negotiating a trade agreement with the US. Here are the headline figures from the study, as reported on Commission's TTIP Web pages:

Independent research shows that TTIP could boost:

the EU's economy by €120 billion;

the US economy by €90 billion;

the rest of the world by €100 billion

CEPR's detailed report (pdf) explains that those figures would be the uplift in 2027 if an "ambitious" agreement were reached, as compared to the economies in 2027 without TTIP. So the predicted extra 0.5% GDP growth for both the EU and US is actually cumulative growth after ten years, and represents around 0.05% extra GDP per year, in the best possible case -- hardly impressive.

Another way of looking at TAFTA/TTIP is in terms of its effects on the trade flows between the EU and US. According to the CEPR study, in the most ambitious (that is, most optimistic) case, imports to the US from the EU would increase by about €187 billion in 2027, while exports from the US to the EU would increase by €159 billion in the same year. But again, looking more closely at CEPR's figures shows that 47% of those increased imports would be cars, which would also represents 41% of the increased exports. In other words, nearly a half of the increased trade that TTIP might bring according to this forecast would consist of swapping cars across the Atlantic.

What about the economic impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? Figures for this have been harder to come by, which makes a new publication from the US Department of Agriculture particularly valuable, since it gives official estimates of what benefits might flow from TPP. Here's the basic result:

Agricultural output in the United States will increase in most sectors due to increased market access within the TPP region, especially in cereals (1 percent), dairy products (0.5 percent), and meat (0.4 percent). Among TPP members, the largest percentage gains in agricultural output will be in meats in Australia, dairy in New Zealand, and "other agriculture" in Singapore. Agricultural output quantities will decline in most sectors in Japan and Vietnam in 2025 relative to the baseline.

As you can see, this details increases in agricultural production in 2025. But what about the increases in overall economic activity -- GDP?

The largest macroeconomic impact of the TPP, in percentage terms, takes place in Vietnam, where real GDP would be 0.10 percent higher in 2025 with the implementation of the TPP than it would be under the baseline. Small gains in real GDP will also accrue to Japan (0.02 percent), and to New Zealand, Malaysia, and Mexico (all 0.01 percent). The TPP is projected to have no measurable impacts on real GDP in any other TPP member countries.

So according to the US Department of Agriculture's model, the country whose GDP receives the biggest boost from TPP would be Vietnam, which would see a gain of 0.1% in 2025. Most countries would see considerably less than that, with both the US and Australia experiencing "no measurable impacts on real GDP" as a result of TPP. Now, it's important to note that this study concentrated on the agricultural products. As it points out:

The scope of the TPP negotiations goes well beyond cutting tariffs; they also cover other areas that could impact agricultural trade, including investment, trade in services, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary barriers, etc. This analysis does not account for the gains that might be achieved in these other areas of the negotiations.

In other words, there could be more significant gains for the US and other nations in these areas. But many countries are banking on TPP giving a considerable boost to their agricultural sectors, whereas the new US study predicts no extra growth as a result, anywhere. That's important, because the governments of both Australia and New Zealand have indicated that it will be necessary to make concessions in other areas in order to obtain those hoped-for positive results for their key farming sectors. But if the prediction is that these concessions will only result in increased agricultural trade, but not increased GDP overall, the question has be asked: is it really worth accepting things like longer copyright terms and stronger pharma patents if the payback in terms of real growth is small or non-existent?

(source)

You also have the world bank predicting negligible if any positives.

[breadisfunny]

essentially it's just the rich wanting to recreate the early 20th century.

[Forogil]

"Things economists universally agree on". Protectionism is progressive in origin, it protects workers and the working class while hurting everyone else by increasing prices on goods since they have to be manufactured domestically.

Wrong about the origin, the current free trade in the US started as a progressive measure during the New Deal, whereas protectionism pre-dates that and was mercantilist in origin - growing strong states that had lots of gold (or silver) in their coffers.

But correct that the overwhelming majority of economist understand that protectionism is bad for the general welfare.
Most things have some pros and cons, politicians have found out that instead of explaining that they can take credit for the "pros" - and blame all the "cons" on others.

[jdbond592]

I must be getting old.
1) A globalist is someone very rich but not a republican.
2) Free trade is good unless democrat is in office.
3) Reagan was Jesus 2.
4) You can take away our "freedom" under clever names like Patriot act and it is good..
5) Being fringe is good till someone mentions Christianity is not fringe.

If you can believe, you can conceive. You are baffled why things didn't go your way because you clearly are an expert on everything? It is clearly world's fault.

[Theodarzna]

I must be getting old.
1) A globalist is someone very rich but not a republican.
2) Free trade is good unless democrat is in office.
3) Reagan was Jesus 2.
4) You can take away our "freedom" under clever names like Patriot act and it is good..
5) Being fringe is good till someone mentions Christianity is not fringe.

If you can believe, you can conceive. You are baffled why things didn't go your way because you clearly are an expert on everything? It is clearly world's fault.

huh?

What are you babbling on about?

[jdbond592]

huh?

What are you babbling on about?

Summing up all the comments. What are you doing in this post?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Exactly, it's perfect.

I take it you're a connoisseur of poison water and radioactive soil?

- - - Updated - - -

It's a shame this didn't just voted on though. Struck down, it would have faded from memory. Now it's going to be a dead horse we someone here gets to beat on as if it wasn't already annoying enough.

[Yvaelle]

At whose expense?

The wealthy of our country get sacrifice the poor of our country, make a massive profit, and incidentally might help some other shlubs a bit somewhere else. That isn't charity at all.

All of this I was aware of before, but your phrasing brought a bit of a realization to me - it's the formalization of a two-tier system - it creates a global elite, who rule over a global proletariat. The problem right now (for TPP-supporters) is that a global middle class exists (globally, this means the developed world), with some economic mobility to traverse into the upper classes (at the expense of the existing upper class).

If they want to look out for the best long-term interests of their families, they need to eliminate global economic mobility - the ability for people in the middle class to usurp power from the rich. Without a global middle class - people who are educated, with some economic stability, and the means for independent entrepreneurship - could come up with a better idea, enter the market, and surpass your family company.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it's not a handful of wealthy families in smoke-filled rooms, wearing over-sized black hoods - it may not even be a conscious motive at all - but because it aligns with the best way to protect your legacy, through your childrens ability to retain your wealth and power - it is simultaneously in the best interests of the super-rich, all over the planet.

By equalizing the level of education, and quality of work performed, between the developed world and the developing - the middle class is eliminated - and the risk of economic mobility from the poor to the rich is virtually non-existent. It's not necessary to shutdown entrepreneurship at all, you only need to shut down independent entrepreneurship - venture capitalism still ensures that the lion's share of the wealth returns to the top.

[Independent voter]

1. TPP will make less fortunate economies more equal with the US, Japan, Canada, Australia etc. This is a nice thing to do.

2. Once people in those countries make similar wages to US workers, they aren't as much of a threat to US workers. Who is going to move their factory from Poughkeepsie NY where workers make $21 an hour to Monterey Mexico where they make $20 an hour? The move is way less tempting for employers.

You can see this happening with China somewhat already, now that Chinese workers are making much better wages it's not as tempting for US companies to export labor to China. And Chinese workers making higher wages is a good thing IMO.

[Mafic]

(Source)

So TPP's chances seem to have faded ever further and Mitch seems to have put the lid on a Lame Duck passage. I suppose I owe the first Turtle American senator a drink. Of course how ironic that the Republicans now have to be counted on to stop a Democrat president from screwing over American workers.

This is not surprising as they are going to save it as an issue if Hillary is elected to force concessions or gridlock.