Trump Proposes Rejoining Trans-Pacific Partnership (nytimes.com) 315
According to The New York Times, "President Trump told a gathering of farm state lawmakers and governors on Thursday morning that he was directing his advisers to look into rejoining the multicountry trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source)." The TPP was a contentious issue during the 2016 presidential election as both Democrats and Republicans attacked it. After signaling during the election that he would pull out of the trade deal "on day one" of his presidency, Trump followed through with his plans. From the report: Rejoining the 11-country pact could be a significant change in fortune for many American industries that stood to benefit from the trade agreement's favorable terms and Republican lawmakers who supported the pact. The deal, which was negotiated by the Obama administration, was largely viewed as a tool to prod China into making the type of economic reforms that the United States and others have long wanted. Both Democrats and Republicans attacked the deal during the president campaign, but many business leaders were disappointed when Mr. Trump withdrew from the agreement, arguing that the United States would end up with less favorable terms attempting to broker an array of individual trade pacts and that scrapping the deal would empower China.
Mr. Trump's decision to reconsider the deal comes as the White House tries to find ways to protect the agriculture sector, which could be badly damaged by the president's trade approach. The risk of an escalating trade war with China has panicked American farmers and ranchers, who send many of their products abroad. China has responded to Mr. Trump's threat of tariffs on as much as $150 billion worth of Chinese goods by placing its own tariffs on American pork, and threatening taxes on soybeans, sorghum, corn and beef. Many American agriculturalists maintain that the easiest way to help them is to avoid a trade war with China in the first place. And many economists say the best way to combat a rising China and pressure it to open its market is through multilateral trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which create favorable trading terms for participants.
Mr. Trump's decision to reconsider the deal comes as the White House tries to find ways to protect the agriculture sector, which could be badly damaged by the president's trade approach. The risk of an escalating trade war with China has panicked American farmers and ranchers, who send many of their products abroad. China has responded to Mr. Trump's threat of tariffs on as much as $150 billion worth of Chinese goods by placing its own tariffs on American pork, and threatening taxes on soybeans, sorghum, corn and beef. Many American agriculturalists maintain that the easiest way to help them is to avoid a trade war with China in the first place. And many economists say the best way to combat a rising China and pressure it to open its market is through multilateral trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which create favorable trading terms for participants.
Ha! hah ah hahahahahhahahaha ha ha ha (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I don't worry about President Trump if the democrats recover the house (and in in the unlikely event they recover the senate too).
He will immediately throw the republican party under the bus to join the winning side.
He has no principles except, "Make money for Trump", "Avoid russia revealing whatever it is they have on Trump", and "Have affairs with women who look like Ivanka as long as I can get it up."
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that Trump is has declined to accept a salary while being president.
That's only because he would have had to pay taxes on it [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody "makes money from the Presidency" from the salary. The salary is smaller than some programmers earn around Silicon Valley.
Um, no The POTUS salary is $400k/year. That's well over half the top salary for a Silicon Valley programmer. [indeed.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to believe you've contradicted the previous post, whereas you've actually confirmed it. Logic fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That cost wouldn't come out of the presidential salary, so again... it's still money he's chosen to not get.
How much disregard he has for other people's money is beside the point... if all he really cared about was money, he'd still be drawing the president's salary in addition to all of the other benefits he receives as president.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course he might be doing it to impress certain people, but that means that impressing those people is more important to him than that money.
Which is my point... he clearly cares about other things than just making money for himself, even if the other things he cares about are no less self-serving.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that Trump needs the salary in any way, or that it even represents a significant sacrifice on his part to give it up.... I'm saying that if all he actually care about was getting money for himself, then he clearly would not have declined to accept a salary, however small it might be compared to other revenue streams.
He doesn''t stand to make any *more* money than he already would have by refusing a salary, so the accusation that he's only doing this for the money doesn't make any sense
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you keep saying that over and over, but it's still just as nonsensical as the first time. The whole reason he turned down the salary is exactly so people like you would be gullible to believe that he doesn't care about money.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not.
But if he were actually out to make money for himself, he would still take the salary, because he'd still have all of the other benefits anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He'd be making that anyways, even if he took a salary.... you can't argue that he's actually making any *MORE* money by not taking a salary.
He's making less. Not much less perhaps, looking at it in comparison to other money which may be involved... but still less.
Which is my entire point.
Re:Ha! hah ah hahahahahhahahaha ha ha ha (Score:5, Interesting)
English (Score:2)
Both Democrats and Republicans attacked the deal during the president campaign, but many business leaders were disappointed when Mr. Trump withdrew from agreement
Try English, BeauHD.
Re: English (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell mentioned Democrats? You, and only you? Yup.
Keep on losing!
Re: (Score:2)
...when Republicans still are the majority in Congress...
The alternative is? What? Libertarians? You're obviously a fuckwit.
Lots do (Score:2)
The left wing is trying to take the party back from the Clintonians. Show up to your primary and help them do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Show up to your primary and help them do it.
I'm not American, so probably won't thanks.
The fact I'm not American also means that I will have 7 or 8 credible parties to vote for at my next election, not just the choice of "two".
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when you can't read a page of text (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trump said he likes his briefings short, ideally one-page if it's in writing. "I like bullets or I like as little as possible. I don't need, you know, 200-page reports on something that can be handled on a page. That I can tell you."
Re:What happens when you can't read a page of text (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
- Taking away power from US workers and giving it to international corporations to interlink our economy with S. Asian ones, there by ensuring our military presence in the region and the propagation of democracy
OR
- Protecting workers rights, but also not being able to defend those same workers against Chinese backed N. Korean assaults on our allies in the region, and on our own soil
?
It's not an easy choice, but given how unpopular it was, and the the fact that he wasn't u
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, what are the main complaints right now about how China treats foreign businesses?
1. Require joint-venture. Oh right, US companies can now sue the TPP governments who try to pull this BS.
2. State aid towards domestic companies? See above.
3. No labor or environmental standards so that they're waaay more price competitive than a first-world nation? Taken care of.
This "corporations doing their corporationy things is corporate-bad" mentality some people have is confounding. Do you or do you not want A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That was obvious to anyone who read even a few pages about TPP
Really? You mean the fucking pages they kept locked away, monitored by armed guards 24/7, and prevented most congress members from actually reading?
Fuck off, shill.
TPP is trash.
The purpose of TPP is to protect investments (Score:2)
TPP is no friend of the American worker. Which is why I'm not at all surprised a wealthy plutocrat like Trump would favor it. What I am surprised is how much the Trump presidency is beginning to look like the Hilary presidency. If you'll recall she was in favor of TPP until pressure from the Bernie
Re: (Score:3)
Crap, the TPP was a grab for total power by multinational corporations. It seems to be going smoother now without the US, what makes you think, they want the US back in again. Stuff is now missing that the US corporations demanded and besides nothing is past government anywhere. It might well all still die and get the US back in and it certainly will die because 'THE US MUST DOMINATE, THEY ARE THE EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE', yeah fuck off.
Re:What happens when you can't read a page of text (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire purpose of TPP was to create a countervailing economic force against China's influence in Asia and the world economy. That was obvious to anyone who read even a few pages about TPP, but of course that's too much to ask of someone who is unwilling to read even a single page of non-bulleted text [axios.com]: "Trump said he likes his briefings short, ideally one-page if it's in writing. "I like bullets or I like as little as possible. I don't need, you know, 200-page reports on something that can be handled on a page. That I can tell you."
So you prefer 200-page reports on something that can be handled by a page? Why?
Re: (Score:3)
So you prefer 200-page reports on something that can be handled by a page? Why?
Because if it is handled on a page, I am not given the full picture, and I have no idea what I sign.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
Re:You DON'T WANT FREE TRADE WITH ASIA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire purpose of the TPP is to enshrine America's draconian copyright term lengths in international treaty so it can never be repealed ever. It's the Berne convention but three times worse.
Well, yes, that's how the US makes money out of the deal.
The TPP was and still is bad. Everyone was against it but Hillary Clinton. She claimed to be against it. She also sang its praises only months earlier. Everyone knew what would happen if she was elected. It would pass, rubber stamp. If Trump has done anything right at all during his presidency, it was killing TPP.
Well, the entire point of the original (US instigated) TPP was to benefit the US, a sort of last hurrah of US global dominance, eking as much warmth out of cowering in the carcass of that dead cow before the new cold set in. It stinks, sure. But is the stink really worse than the deadly cold?
As for Hillary, should she have denounced the TPP, pulled out of it, and then returned to it later when every possible good the US could eke out of it has bee
I love... (Score:5, Insightful)
...how he thinks the other 11 countries, who went ahead without the US and have completed a deal of their own, are going to suddenly reopen negotiations just because he wants them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Well here's the fucking shocker, everyone else went "USA Last".
If anything, lets make it a competitive bid between the USA and China, the other TPPA signatories also believe "No deal is better than a bad deal" so they may as well get the best deal they can which will mean the USA loosing a lot of ground on what the previous agreement could have been. So NO, you can no longer give huge subsidies to your agricultural industry, no copyright can not get longer, nor can patents, etc etc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
You can never predict, from week to week, what his position on something will be. So before we all overreact - either in favor, or against - let's see if this actually is a sign his position is changing, or just another off-the-cuff remark his assistants will be walking back in the next few days.
Re: (Score:2)
TPP vs CPTPP (Score:5, Interesting)
However my concern was about the IP chapter of the provisions, which the EFF (among others) took a firm stance against [eff.org].
However since the US pulled out of the TPP the remaining countries had to negotiate a new treaty, the "Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership", or CPTPP.
At first glance [eff.org] it seems like most of the offensive portions on IP law were removed from the CPTPP. (Which isn't that surprising, since most of those items were favored by the large media conglomerates located in the US, and with the US out of the deal they probably no longer had a strong champion.)
_If_ that is indeed true, and _if_ the negotiations necessary for the US to join wouldn't involve reinstating those terms, i would tentatively be in favor of this, but it wouldn't break my heart if Trump flip-flops on the issue again or the other signatories no longer have any interest in letting the US in.
Re:TPP vs CPTPP (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually read, not the full TPP treaty, but the executive summaries for each section of the treaty, which was still a lot of reading but possible for a person to do in his spare time over a couple of weeks.
The treaty was a mixed bag, but which parts you consider good or bad depended on where you stood on things like environmental and labor protections, vs. things like stricter intellectual property rules. Take out the stricter IP rules and the treaty looks a lot better to a lot of people.
Now one thing that's interesting if you look at who was in on the TPP, China isn't included. That's because the whole point of the TPP was to counter the growing influence of China. That's definitely a good thing for the US.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why everyone in China laughed their asses off when Trump promised to withdraw from TPP, got elected, and actually followed through with his promise.
I don't know that everyone in China did so, but I can personally verify that a lot of them did.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to let the neighbourhood bully back into the game.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're main concern is truly to allow non-hollywood-like control of IP. I can understand. Which also means you likely have little issue with China's rather...lax view of IP.
But from a US power and influence standpoint, it would've been a small price to pay (after all Hollywood is primarily an American phenomenon) to contain the only other superpower that could challenge the US.
Re: (Score:2)
But as the events following the U.S. withdrawal show, it was an entirely unnecessary price.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it sadly ironic that at the moment when U.S. power is waning, after waxing under a regime of relatively weak IP protections (they only implemented the Berne Convention in 1989! a century late!), when China has started to invest hugely in research, has created a dynamic technology industry, and is starting to buy its way into entertainment: I say, it is at this moment of the changing-of-the-guard that the U.S. is writing ever stronger IP laws in the erroneous view that international rules, once made,
Analysis of TPP - A tech perspective (Score:2)
Pulling out of the TPP was the one thing that i actually agreed with Trump on and that i was happy he followed through on.
Indeed, though something told me it wasn't going to last. Australian Liberals are to blame, they started pushing the TPP with Japan and it gained momentum from there.
This is the play, say it's dead so everyone lets their guard down and then push it through while the politicians high five each other about how skillfully they deceived the electorate. It's difficult to believe that any of them read all 6000 pages of the TPP. As for public debate - hahahahha, what's that?
As for the IP provisions of the TPP,
Analysis of TPP - Summary and Contextual Overview (Score:5, Interesting)
s/our country/your country/g
Honourable Members of the Committee,
There is no more appropriate framing for context for the TPP than an anonymous poem from the 1700's:
They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common
But let the greater villain loose
That steal the common from the goose
This surprising wisdom from our past innocently unveils the nature of the TPP which, disguised as a trade agreement, contains a scaffolding for laws that converts the rights of ordinary citizens to capital. Indeed, optimal implementation of the TPP and it's associated agreement TISA seek the right for Limited Liability Companies, Incorporated businesses and Corporations to convert "The Common" into capital.
It's very construction has sought to avoid any public scrutiny and has been carried out in secret for years. It's product is a monolithic 6000 page agreement presented to the Parliament in a manner, rushed if possible, that has sought to avoid the scrutiny of Government bodies whose purpose is to analyse if it is in the Public good. With impunity the purveyors of the TPP have desperately sought to avoid the scrutiny of the general public and many organisations committed to maintaining many public interests.
How can any reasonable person conclude that such an agreement has been constructed with good will towards the very communities it seeks to interact with, the populous of our country and indeed the populous of every country that is a signatory.
It is disappointing that our elected representatives have passed this treaty without allowing the public more time to absorb it's ramifications. This entire treaty should be rejected and removed from further consideration as a treaty that our country has to abide by.
Our Constitution says that we are to be governed by the principles of 'Responsible Government'. How can ratifying a treaty into law that allows for profit entities to bypass the community standards be 'Responsible Government'? Indeed, from that perspective how is implementing the TPP compatible with the principles of our Constitution? Is it responsible to pass a treaty that has avoided the scrutiny of the many competent organisations that have the capability to asses it? How can it be Constitutional to allow corporate members of the community to bypass the Judicature of our country in a manner that effectively abdicates our sovereignty? The TPP seeks to do this by introducing articles that seek to control the behaviour of our nation's government via mechanisms that punish the taxpayer for passing law made for the good of the community.
TPP - Intellectual Property Chapter 18 (Score:2)
There is only tacit recognition of the public domain and it's importance to commerce and the global economy. In fact it is public domain software, known as "Open Source" software (Source code being a concept mentioned in the Electronic Commerce section) that is responsible for the existence of the modern Internet and both major phone platforms.
Some licences are permissive and others are not. These licences exist for a reason selected by the creators of software so that the software created is only used in
TPP - Investor State Dispute Settlement Chapter 28 (Score:2)
Investor State Dispute Mechanisms facilitate means for corporations to bypass the laws of the communities they operate in. The TPP seeks to place these entities beyond the reach of the law in a manner that threatens the very structure of our democracy. This is by far the most troubling article amongst so many other troubling things that the TPP seeks to achieve.
How is it responsible government to even entertain the possibility of the taxpayer compensating for profit entities for having to comply with commu
Small and Mediumsized Enterprises Chapter 24 (Score:2)
Small Business do not have access to the ISDS process to settle disputes with larger business. Small business is not excluded from participating in the TPP's benefits however it is specifically excluded from dispute settlement mechanisms. The possibility of larger businesses enforcing monopolistic practices has to be considered as a consequence of this lack of access.
Transparency and AntiCorruption Chapter 26 It is guiling that the TPP forces our country to provide advance notice and a reasonable opportuni
My concern was the special protections (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
but they're really quite minor once you look at the big picture
No, they aren't. The foreign corporate power over governments bullshit in the TPP is absolutely a bigger deal than any raw sum of money.
Close to the edge (Score:2, Funny)
I'm liking the new completely unhinged, pants-shitting crazy Donald Trump. It's like watching John Belushi's last films. You knew he wasn't going to last much longer, and nothing could be done to save him from himself, but it was going to be an entertaining ride down to the end.
For example, yesterday Trump tweeted out this:
Re: (Score:2)
It seems possible to me.
Re: (Score:2)
And I was just saying to my wife this morning, "That Donald Trump is a funny, funny guy..."
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
They tell themselves so often they are the greatest country on earth they believe its true without bothering to check the facts.
Present continuous for future arrangements (Score:2)
"are" != "will be". The word "are" is used in the present tense here.
So? "Simple Present for Future Events" [ef.edu] and "Present Continuous for Future Arrangements" [ef.edu] give examples of English present acting as future, such as "We are having a staff meeting next Monday." Thus in this context, the English tense distinction is more one of past as opposed to non-past.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not the same sort of context at all, so you're still just trying to impose your own interpretation atop that made by about 99% of the people who read the tweet.
EU partnership program (Score:2)
Lovely. Next he is requesting to join the EU partnership program next to tunesia, turkey and south africa. Why work out a mutual trade agreement when you can also join an established one?
MADD | Mothers Against Drunk Driving may take (Score:2)
MADD | Mothers Against Drunk Driving may take issue with the law as some big bar chain can say the 21 and up rule hurts our sales and sue the usa under the investor–state dispute court.
Or fight tariff with tariff (Score:2)
I would be fun to see Trump put a 50% tariff on electronic devices from China
It would force all the "designed in USA, made in China" companies to move manufacturing back to USA
Re:Trans pacific nations should say 'no'. (Score:5, Insightful)
He thought that he could do better deals with each country individually. But those countries prefer a collective deal like TTP, because it stops one country making big demands.
In other words, they like TTP because it protects them from crappy, one sided Trump-style deals.
Trump seems to have realised this.
Trump is a big sellout ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump already knows that TPP is a sellout to our own national interest
Trump used to criticize TPP as such
And now Trump wants to sign on to TPP?
Looks like Trump is preparing to sellout our own national interest, just like the D.C. Swamp
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What stronger coalition in the Pacific would you want beyond S. Korea/Japan/Australia/Taiwan?
Re:Trump is a big sellout ! (Score:4, Interesting)
The TPP is an economic alliance with (originally) the US learning from its trade in China and specifically putting provisions in to try and stop the emerging SE Asian economies from repeating a China. Specifically:
1. They need environmental standards. No more maxing out pollution to be competitive.
2. Labor standards. No more practical slaves to be more competitive.
3. Investor-state dispute. People (especially hard-liberals) see companies-able-to-sue-governments and turn on their "burrrr corporations baddd!" brain. But this is exactly what would've been needed in all the cases where China stole US company IP. Or required joint-ventures. Or subsidized and/or spied for their own domestic companies.
You had 2 opponents of the TPP:
1. People who just think globalization is bad because reasons.
2. People who thought the pacific rim countries were just backwards sh*tholes nobody needed.
Of course, Malaysia and Vietnam are some of the fastest growing tech and manufacturing economies right now. Even China recognizes they can't compete and is moving to shift to services and to bind these countries under trade agreements.
The mouthbreathers (and their elected President) threw away the last chance we had to really contain China.
I mean, I'm ok with that I guess. Despotism isn't my favorite form of government but ruthless as he might be, Xi at least seem interested in stability and prosperity and is actually smart enough to make it happen.
Re: Trump is a big sellout ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually fuck the US.
TPP doesnâ(TM)t need us. CPTPP ( TPP without US) was great.
Remember the stuff that EFF was against TPP for? They took it out because itâ(TM)s what US wanted... DRM and copyright expansion.
All the good stuff like labour protection and env standards and free trade is still in.
Basically even Obama was putting stupid shit in TPP.
So fuck you US! We donâ(TM)t want you in TPP.
Re:Trump is a big sellout ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Most "developing" countries have environmental/safety/labor laws in the books, the problem is that they are rarely and selectively enforced, usually because of a incident that made widespread news or simply to hurt company owners backing political rivals.
And those investor-state disputes rules that the GP defended means that if the state actually enforced environmental protected they will be sued by the companies for making them lose money....
Which is why letting companies sue governments for lost profits is a terrible idea.
Re:Trump is a big sellout ! (Score:5, Informative)
3. ...
Except that's not what it's for at all, it's for companies to sue gov'ts when they change laws to the detriment of companies, even if those laws are to protect the environment, public rights, public health etc etc and Investor State Disputes have already done this and awarded large payouts to companies who wanted to do shit things, they then got compensated because they couldn't. This has nothing to do with being competitive because it effects all companies equally being that it's typically global corporations that are doing the suing . And these cases are settled in kangaroo courts by people who work for the very same corporations (revolving door etc) so they are extremely biased.
Treaties like TPP do f*** all for citizens, they screw people over completely, treaties like this are literally written by corporation's lawyers to benefit corporations.
When's the last time we had an effective treaty that improved labour conditions or stopped tax avoidance?
Perspective-dependant (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, from the point of view of some countries (mostly European)...
1. They need environmental standards. No more maxing out pollution to be competitive.
2. Labor standards. No more practical slaves to be more competitive.
...that's exactly how the US looks to us.
(And you could add "health-safety" as an laternative sub-point to number 1.
"No more mixing hazardous substance to keep competitive prices".
From the US perspective : see all the shit that can be mixed into Chinese plastics
From the EU perspective : see US attempting to reverse some bans against tobacco products).
And that's where your number 3 kicks in :
3. Investor-state dispute. People (especially hard-liberals) see companies-able-to-sue-governments and turn on their "burrrr corporations baddd!" brain. But this is exactly what would've been needed in all the cases where China stole US company IP. Or required joint-ventures. Or subsidized and/or spied for their own domestic companies.
To the US, this looks like an useful tool to sue whole countries like China that don't give a fuck about pollution/health safety/legal quasi-slavery.
(yeah, and also the bits about patents).
To the EU, this looks like an open door for corporations to sue European countries which have much higher standards regarding pollution/health safety/legal quasi-slavery. (Again, see precedent of US companies acting against tobacco bans).
And would also give a way to US companies to complain about controversial IP laws (like software patent. US companies having a way to sue country on IP grounds would open a way to bring more (the non hardware parts) of the H265/HEVC patent madness to Europe).
1. People who just think globalization is bad because reasons.
Above are a few example of the reasons.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My intuition tells me the TPP is a military deal disguised as an economic one.
Actually the original US-backed TPP had all sorts of IP / copyright / licensing non-sense. Once the US left, the rest of the countries dropped that chapter and signed up for the rest:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#New_negotiations_and_CPTPP
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership
Re: (Score:2)
My intuition tells me that your intuition is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump seems to have realised this
That's one possibility.
Another is that he's facing a worldwide shitstorm and is looking for any way to back down that saves face.
You decide which is more likely.
That wasn't why he said he was against TPP (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The actual SAD thing is that he is a CON MAN with MOB BOSS mentality and has no clue how to run a business, not to mention a country. pff
Better yet... (Score:3)
They should say that the US can come back into the TPP but only into the deal as it currently stands (i.e. the one that everyone else agreed to after removing a bunch of stuff that only really benefited a bunch of big US corporations)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Still trying to understand why this is on slashdot. News for financial wonks?
The TPP comes with plenty of technology-related changes as well, especially in the realm of copyright law and copyright protection.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the worst part of it, the copyright and IP craziness. But given this is a report from the NYT I wouldn't put much stock in it. They've a long list of stuff that was leaked to them that turned out to be wrong. A lot of it is Trump's team stirring the pot. They thrive on chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
Still trying to understand why this is on slashdot. News for financial wonks?
The TPP comes with plenty of technology-related changes as well, especially in the realm of copyright law and copyright protection.
Including Chinese IP -- packets, as well as TCP packets. They're much cheaper than US packets, even if you feel like re-sending them an hour later.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol! The irony of this comment could collapse the Earth into a black hole. If we're not careful we could easily hit hypocritical mass.
Re: (Score:2)
What possible leverage could the US possibly have to re-join the TPP after Trump exited it with such fanfare?
But if we don't let the US back in, how will Trump howl and scream how unfair it is to American workers and pull out of it again next month?
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
China has significant influence in Asia.
Asia accounts for 60% of the worlds population, the USA 4%.
China's economy will soon be bigger than the USA's
Getting freer access into the Chinese market will be of significantly greater benefit long term than the USA's
Re: (Score:2)
But the USA economy is still currently larger than China, despite 325M vs 1.4B population.
$61,000 GDP per capita vs $8,500 per capita.
China's GDP growth has recently gone flat for the last year, USA is still going up.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.focus-economics.co... [focus-economics.com]
http://www.imf.org/external/da... [imf.org]
China growth 6.5% US growth 2.3%
http://fortune.com/2018/02/23/... [fortune.com]
President Trump didn’t quite get the 3% GDP boost he was hoping for in 2017, but at 2.3%, the U.S. economy is chugging along. Meanwhile, India and China soared more than 6%, and overall global growth saw a 2.9% increase.
Re: (Score:2)
So by "soon be bigger than the USA's" you mean, maybe 20 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Do we need leverage to join an existing treaty? We'd need leverage to renegotiate, of course, but it's likely we could just step into the treaty actually signed.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of tradeoffs between countries for various segments of the economy , for example agriculture.
The TPPA was a trade agreement, not a free trade agreement.
There is no good reason for the TPPA to allow the US back in, China would be the better choice, its middle class is growing, the US's is shrinking.
Re:Hahahahahaha why? (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I understand mostly around particularly harsh copyright nonsense. It's hard to know though, because of the secrecy surrounding the whole deal, as if the people involved were ashamed of it or something.
Trump has been good for Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see you've been wondering for a whole 3 minutes now, so I'll put you out of your misery...
He earns my praise for the aspects of his behavior favoring globalism
let's all judge people by their behavior
Re: (Score:3)
A bit like the it's going to be in a few years when the UK decides it didn't really want to Brexit from all those cushy concessions it once had, only to find that Breentry is not going to get them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? The IP stuff has all been pretty much gutted now that the US isn't involved.