• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Trump signs order to withdraw from TransPacific Partnership

How is production enhanced when disposable income for consumers is increased through the gains from trade? By purchasing cheaper foreign goods they have additional means of domestic consumption/investment. The issue that has been occurring as recently as the early 2000's is that companies prefer to invest in financial instruments rather than investing to expand production (which leads to job creation).

Don't you think there is some truth that the investment in production is largely being made offshore. Where the investment will produce higher profits due to lower labor costs, less regulation and lower taxes on the profits made by the investment?
 
Others will steps in to fill the vacuum, and our lead in the world will begin to slip.
The thing i dislike most about the TPP is the secrecy of its contents. I despise the lack of transparency.
Kudos to Trump on this one.
China is said to be the leader of the TPP for those countries now.
you deal with china by what helps them the most their currency manipulation.
without that they would be in huge trouble.
I have no idea why the TPP was ever pushed. Both sides hated this. I used to think the Chamber of Commerce was a pretty good organization but now I automatically question any agendas they get behind.

To answer NoNoBadBog -

Obama pursued TPP as a cornerstone geopolitical check against China in the Asia region, and because TPP would have been the world's largest trade deals, to push the foundations of international trade laws, which are as of yet still largely unwritten, in the direction of the interests of America and liberal Western democracies. TPP codified a great deal of Western values in addition to the lowering of trade barriers. Provisions that pushed APAC nations to address labor standards, environmental laws, human rights, anti-corruption, intellectual property protections and institutional integration.

Whether you choose to deny it or not - Our world is quickly globalizing. It is not a process that is going to stop or reverse course despite the isolationist Trump/Bernies of the world, because the forces that drive it are not going to go away. We’re not going to turn off the internet or ground airlines. People in the global community are not going to cease building relationships with each other. Technologies like automated transportation, cheap renewable energy and immersive telecommunications are not going to be uninvented.

Thus the intent of TPP was to "get ahead" of those changes and write China -- the world's largest "socialist market economy" and one-party, oligarchy Communist government -- out of the role of being the leader of globalization and prevent China from influencing international law to suit its own interests.

China is thrilled, of course, because the failure of TPP allows the China-led, USA-excluded 16 nation RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) to take its place.
 
Last edited:
Wherein you are quite right is that poorly applied rules can be worse than no rules. And that it part of the problem the American workers have had. If for instance you allow the currency value to be manipulated, you disadvantage parts of your own economy. That does not mean the trade agreements are wrong.it means your government isn't doing its job.

I'm afraid this may backfire on the U.S. if we let China take up the slack because of our exit. China is a different animal than even 10 years ago and will hopefully be a huge buyer of our goods someday and we can not afford to lose that market. It appears that Trump might be a decade late and we won't be getting any "better deals" from them. They are also in better shape than us to withstand a unilateral ( and it will be) trade war with the U.S. They sell to everyone else in the world...and our economy would tank without their imports. Like it or not they make everything we want and a lot of American will lose their jobs if it all drys up because Trump's demands aren't met. Don't think they don't know this either.

Of all the countries in the world, he said, China is “the best ever” at devaluing its currency, the renminbi. That gives its companies a big — and unfair — advantage when selling its goods abroad, the argument goes.

That’s no longer quite the case. Nowadays, China faces the opposite problem: It is shoring up its currency while the rest of the world is trying to push it down.

That change speaks to an enormous shift in China’s economic fortunes and to its position in the world. Not long ago, it was still an up-and-coming country looking for ways to nurture an economic boom that was lifting millions of people out of poverty.

Today, China is a world power with ambitions to call more of the shots in world economic affairs. Beijing is no longer content to cede that role to the likes of Brussels, London, Tokyo and Washington.
With that shift in attitude comes a change in the way China thinks about its money. A decade ago, China saw its currency as merely a tool to help its factories sell goods. That meant keeping it weak.

Now, China sees the renminbi as an instrument of its growing power. If more people around the world hold renminbi in their wallets, the thinking goes, then China will have greater say in the decisions they make. Someday, Beijing hopes, the renminbi may even rival the dollar as the world’s de facto currency.

With that in mind, China has moved in recent years to make the renminbi more appealing. On Saturday, when the International Monetary Fund is set to formally add the renminbi to its basket of reserve currencies, a move that will lump it in with the dollar, the pound, the euro and the yen, it will take another step in that direction.

But in the year since the monetary fund first said it would bestow that status on the renminbi, the Chinese currency has become less attractive. Despite Mr. Trump’s contention — which, like his assertions about Japan, harks back to another era — many economists say they believe the renminbi is overvalued, not undervalued.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/business/dealbook/china-trump-yuan-devaluation.html
 
Last edited:
Japan has stated that, without the US, this agreement is completely useless.
 
Don't you think there is some truth that the investment in production is largely being made offshore.

Not really. Sure the developing world is beginning to converge with the developed world, but that doesn't mean that investment in production is largely being made off shore. It's just that the U.S. economy has shifted dramatically in the past 30 years, and not everyone has not been able to realize the gains that accompany a more efficient equilibrium. And for a very real reason... wealth does not trickle down at the rate it was sold. The domestic U.S. economy is producing more than it has in it's history.

Where is the disconnect?

Where the investment will produce higher profits due to lower labor costs, less regulation and lower taxes on the profits made by the investment?

If this is the case, why does the U.S. continue to be the chief destination of foreign direct investment?
 
The thing i dislike most about the TPP is the secrecy of its contents. I despise the lack of transparency.

An anti-trade policy would seem to be at odds with the goal of prosperity.

The TPP was really about strengthening relations with Pacific nations, i.e. reining in China.
 
Japan has stated that, without the US, this agreement is completely useless.

Well, the way it was formulated is, the TPP only came into effect when 85% of the GDP among signatories ratified it. Given that the U.S. represents roughly 40% of GDP among potential member nations... it is dead.
 
I'm afraid this may backfire on the U.S. if we let China take up the slack because of our exit. China is a different animal than even 10 years ago and will hopefully be a huge buyer of our goods someday and we can not afford to lose that market. It appears that Trump might be a decade late and we won't be getting any "better deals" from them. They are also in better shape than us to withstand a unilateral ( and it will be) trade war with the U.S. They sell to everyone else in the world...and our economy would tank without their imports. Like it or not they make everything we want and a lot of American will lose their jobs if it all drys up because Trump's demands aren't met. Don't think they don't know this either.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/business/dealbook/china-trump-yuan-devaluation.html

TPP made (U.S.) concessions for greater (U.S.) intellectual property enforcement.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid this may backfire on the U.S. if we let China take up the slack because of our exit. China is a different animal than even 10 years ago and will hopefully be a huge buyer of our goods someday and we can not afford to lose that market. It appears that Trump might be a decade late and we won't be getting any "better deals" from them. They are also in better shape than us to withstand a unilateral ( and it will be) trade war with the U.S. They sell to everyone else in the world...and our economy would tank without their imports. Like it or not they make everything we want and a lot of American will lose their jobs if it all drys up because Trump's demands aren't met. Don't think they don't know this either.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/business/dealbook/china-trump-yuan-devaluation.html

The TPP decision and the way it seems to be being handled bodes ill for the country.
 
The TPP decision and the way it seems to be being handled bodes ill for the country.

Of course it (moving away) is a long-term net negative for the U.S.. Other pacific states will continue to craft their own trade agreements that allow them access to Chinese markets and enforcement on U.S. intellectual property will continue to barely exist. However... given the U.S. stance on health care and education, it doesn't make short term sense for US to try to and compete on the basis of U.S. comparative advantage because our government lacks the political will to ensure U.S. labor possesses qualities of resiliency. Entire segments of the country have not been able to transition into the post-industrial society that was sold under the pretenses of globalization.

It really is unfortunate on all accounts.
 
Kinda looks like Bernie and trump are singing from the same hymnal.:mrgreen:

” Sanders, joined by rust belt Democrats, praise Trump for nixing TPP “

<Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), who campaigned hard against the Trans-Pacific Partnership in last year’s Democratic presidential primaries, praised President Trump for an executive order to officially pull the United States out of the deal.>

“I am glad the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead and gone,” Sanders said. “For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals – including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others – which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers. Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations. If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers, then I would be delighted to work with him.”

<Most Democrats in Congress opposed the TPP, putting them at odds with the Obama administration until its final day in office. During the campaign, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton came out against the TPP after praising the negotiations that had resulted in it. After the election, Sanders and others saw Trump’s victory as the stake through the heart of the trade deal.>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-pro-worker-policies/?utm_term=.616c4af34cee

Looks like Bernie Sanders if following Trump's lead. But it doesn't matter, liberals have vowed to oppose Trump on deals like these because they hate the American worker base.
 
To answer NoNoBadBog -

Obama pursued TPP as a cornerstone geopolitical check against China in the Asia region, and because TPP would have been the world's largest trade deals, to push the foundations of international trade laws, which are as of yet still largely unwritten, in the direction of the interests of America and liberal Western democracies. TPP codified a great deal of Western values in addition to the lowering of trade barriers. Provisions that pushed APAC nations to address labor standards, environmental laws, human rights, anti-corruption, intellectual property protections and institutional integration.

Whether you choose to deny it or not - Our world is quickly globalizing. It is not a process that is going to stop or reverse course despite the isolationist Trump/Bernies of the world, because the forces that drive it are not going to go away. We’re not going to turn off the internet or ground airlines. People in the global community are not going to cease building relationships with each other. Technologies like automated transportation, cheap renewable energy and immersive telecommunications are not going to be uninvented.

Thus the intent of TPP was to "get ahead" of those changes and write China -- the world's largest "socialist market economy" and one-party, oligarchy Communist government -- out of the role of being the leader of globalization and prevent China from influencing international law to suit its own interests.

China is thrilled, of course, because the failure of TPP allows the China-led, USA-excluded 16 nation RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) to take its place.

We can globalize without ****ty trade deals and corporate giveaways.
 
A silly comment, which is founded on the notion that firms will not forego production. It is always refreshing to watch people abandon the most beneficial instances of market economics at the behest of party politics. :lol:

so if you are making 5 or 6 dollars more you are going to worry about .50 increase in a product?
yes you just made a silly comment.

you know why economists say that a 3-4% inflation rate is a sign of a healthy economy?
it means economic growth. which usually means wages have gone up as well.

so why do you do it so often you are projecting again.
 
Not really. Sure the developing world is beginning to converge with the developed world, but that doesn't mean that investment in production is largely being made off shore. It's just that the U.S. economy has shifted dramatically in the past 30 years, and not everyone has not been able to realize the gains that accompany a more efficient equilibrium. And for a very real reason... wealth does not trickle down at the rate it was sold. The domestic U.S. economy is producing more than it has in it's history.

Where is the disconnect?



If this is the case, why does the U.S. continue to be the chief destination of foreign direct investment?

You could be correct on the first part. However I still feel that if there is a new textile mill needed in the world in will not be built in the US. Until very recently same is true for investing in tthe production of new IPhones.

Regarding investment in the US. Two things. The relative safety due to the rule of law. So if you are in China,Russia ME etc you want assets here. Also we are still the biggest market in the world, both GDP & stock market so direct investments make sense.
 
so if you are making 5 or 6 dollars more you are going to worry about .50 increase in a product?
yes you just made a silly comment.

An appeal to fiction isn't a strong response. Anti-trade policies will increase the cost of goods on those who can least afford it, but will not result in more production. Reason being, more expensive goods relative to the cheaper alternative leaves less room for additional consumption. Foregone production, which can be realized in terms of opportunity cost, is a long-term negative ramification of seeking a less-efficient equilibrium.

It makes absolutely zero economic sense to divert resources away from industries that suit our competitive advantage. It might make for good politics, but in terms of realizing economic result... well, we already know why mercantilism was abandoned more than a century ago.

you know why economists say that a 3-4% inflation rate is a sign of a healthy economy?
it means economic growth. which usually means wages have gone up as well.

It's more like like 2%+ inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. However, this isn't support for your position.
 
An appeal to fiction isn't a strong response. Anti-trade policies will increase the cost of goods on those who can least afford it, but will not result in more production. Reason being, more expensive goods relative to the cheaper alternative leaves less room for additional consumption. Foregone production, which can be realized in terms of opportunity cost, is a long-term negative ramification of seeking a less-efficient equilibrium.

It makes absolutely zero economic sense to divert resources away from industries that suit our competitive advantage. It might make for good politics, but in terms of realizing economic result... well, we already know why mercantilism was abandoned more than a century ago.

again you are going to worry about a small increase in spite of making more money? you won't get that far ahead then.
You have no evidence or proof of anything you have said you are simply spouting your opinion as fact.

TPP was a horrible deal and both sides saw it as such. It never would have passed congress.
The cheaper goods will still come in. They will not stop with the deal gone.

With the deal gone though we can actually negotiate a fair trade instead of a free one.
free meaning we give up the house and barn so someone can by a cheap china knock off for 5 cents less than
he did yesterday.


It's more like like 2%+ inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. However, this isn't support for your position.
actually it does, because you just said it was silly that people wouldn't take a pay increase over paying a few more cents for an item.

yet that is exactly what they have done over the past 30+ years. the cost of bread, milk, a toothbrush isn't 5 cents anymore.
in exchange the amount of money earned as gone up as well.

in 1970 the median income was 3,893. that is about 24k in 2016.
in 2016 the median family income was 56,516 dollars.

so the median income for families has more than doubled. regardless of the price increases.
 
I still feel that if there is a new textile mill needed in the world in will not be built in the US.

And why would it?

Until very recently same is true for investing in tthe production of new IPhones.

The U.S. lacks the manufacturing infrastructure to build consumer electronics on a competitive level. But ignoring this point, where does the labor come from? :lol: Foxconn, for example, employs hundreds of thousands of workers at a single facility. Their Shenzhen campus can hold 300k + workers at a time. I have serious doubts a U.S. manufacturing facility can adequately staff and meet production quotas of their foreign counterparts. Not because American workers are lazy or unskilled, but because the level of turnover from 12 hour days at minimum wage and no benefits would render such operations as highly inefficient. This just isn't going to happen in the U.S..

Regarding investment in the US. Two things. The relative safety due to the rule of law. So if you are in China,Russia ME etc you want assets here. Also we are still the biggest market in the world, both GDP & stock market so direct investments make sense.

Absolutely. Protectionism hinders this current reality.
 
again you are going to worry about a small increase in spite of making more money?

You haven't yet demonstrated this. Why are firms going to pay people more money than what they already make?

You have no evidence or proof of anything you have said you are simply spouting your opinion as fact.

It isn't a matter of opinion. The gains from trade, which allow an economy to operate on the basis of comparative advantage shouldn't be forgotten due to an infatuation with populism.

TPP was a horrible deal and both sides saw it as such. It never would have passed congress.
The cheaper goods will still come in. They will not stop with the deal gone.

TPP was more about protecting intellectual property than guaranteeing low-cost manufactured goods. It is true that we currently lack the drive to prepare our labor for the dynamics of a post-industrial society, and so forcing them to compete on a global scale, with limited support, would be irresponsible.

With the deal gone though we can actually negotiate a fair trade instead of a free one.
free meaning we give up the house and barn so someone can by a cheap china knock off for 5 cents less than
he did yesterday.

Making up figures out of thin air won't fly. The U.S. already manufactures more than it has during any other period in U.S. history, and does so with far less labor. Plentiful manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past, as automation continues to dominate the domestic production process.

actually it does, because you just said it was silly that people wouldn't take a pay increase over paying a few more cents for an item.

Again, you haven't demonstrated that a company is going to pay people more money to produce goods that could be imported for pennies on the dollar in terms of investment. Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated that the price discrepancy would be marginal. Lastly, you haven't provided a coherent reason as to why capital will forego alternative investment avenues in favor of a less efficient process.

yet that is exactly what they have done over the past 30+ years. the cost of bread, milk, a toothbrush isn't 5 cents anymore.
in exchange the amount of money earned as gone up as well.

in 1970 the median income was 3,893. that is about 24k in 2016.
in 2016 the median family income was 56,516 dollars.

so the median income for families has more than doubled. regardless of the price increases.

You're rambling on a subject for which you lack the ability to articulate.
 
Must be some stars lining up somewhere.I agree with our newly minted POTUSA on this one.:(

<President Trump began recasting America’s role in the global economy Monday, cancelling an agreement for a sweeping trade deal with Asia as one of his first official White House actions.>
<After meeting with business executives to discuss the U.S. manufacturing industry, Trump headed to the Oval Office to sign an executive order formally ending the United States’ participation in the TransPacific Partnership. The move was largely symbolic -- the deal was unlikely to make it through Congress -- but served to signal that Trump’s tough talk on trade during the campaign will carry over to his new administration.>


<Trump’s protectionist rhetoric is part of a global backlash against the drive toward greater internationalization that has existed since the end of World War II. British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is in the midst of navigating her country’s own break from established trading partners, is slated to visit with Trump later this week. A White House spokesman said meetings with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican Prime Minister Enrique Pena Nieto are in the works.>


<“What we want is fair trade,” Trump said during his meeting with executives. “And we're gonna treat countries fairly, but they have to treat us fairly.”>


<House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed allowing businesses that export goods to deduct many of their expenses, while those that import would not receive the same benefit. But in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump dismissed the plan, known as border adjustment, as “too complicated.”>
<Economists have warned that many of Trump’s proposals -- including suggestions that he would impose blanket double-digit tariffs on goods from Mexico and China -- could backfire on the American economy by causing prices to rise or igniting a trade war. And business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had lobbied extensively for passage of TPP, touting the deal as an engine of job growth and an important check on China’s growing ambitions.>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-to-withdraw-from-transpacific-partnership/


A lot of people agree with trump on this
 
Back
Top Bottom