|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
VINA DEL MAR, Chile — Here’s what happens when the U.S. pulls out of a major trade deal: New Zealand seizes the opportunity to send more of its milk and cheese to China. Japanese consumers pay less for Australian beef than for American meat. Canadians talk about sending everything from farm products to banking services to Japan and India.
President Donald Trump dumped the 12-nation TPP right after he took office, saying it was a “horrible” deal and blaming it for sucking American jobs abroad. But now other countries are ready to rush into the vacuum the U.S. is leaving behind, negotiating tariff-cutting deals that could eliminate any competitive advantage for U.S. goods.
That phenomenon is on stark display this week in Chile, where more than a dozen Pacific Rim countries are meeting in a beachside hotel to talk about moving on in the post-TPP era. China, not one of the original signers of the TPP, is here looking to cut deals. So are Canada and Mexico. And while the U.S. would normally send a high-ranking trade official to this kind of gathering, the Trump administration, is just sending an envoy from the embassy in Santiago.
Competitors say they have no choice but to take the money U.S. businesses would have earned otherwise.
“We are not trying to take market share from the U.S. It’s more like you are putting money on the table and pushing it towards us,” said Carlo Dade, director of trade and investment policy for the Canada West Foundation, a Calgary-based think tank.
In the long run, U.S. companies could move jobs and factories abroad to take advantage of trade deals that make it cheaper to produce goods in other counties. And U.S. industries, particularly agriculture, could lose billions of dollars a year in export sales.
The White House said its message in Chile this week “will be to underscore the commitment of the Trump administration to engaging actively with all our Asia-Pacific partners and our intention to remain a key member of the Asia-Pacific community.” The Trump White House this week could feel out other countries' appetites for the bilateral trade deals it wants to pursue instead of multi-country pacts.
But that could backfire.
The meeting could instead bring other countries closer to the idea of pursuing an 11-nation deal excluding the U.S. And additional nations could sign on. In addition to China, representatives from South Korea and Colombia, also not TPP members, will be here.
If there is a new deal, U.S. companies eager to take advantage of the potential trading bloc could move operations to Canada, Mexico or other TPP countries, said Dade, who helped write a recent analysis showing that U.S. losses from TPP are everyone else’s gains.
China could also use the meeting this week to further sideline the TPP in favor of its own agreement, the 16-nation Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and solidify its newly self-assumed role as the guardian of regional economic integration. But Beijing may have to find a way to to push its own deal while upholding some of the high-standards TPP rules other countries spent so long negotiating.
Meanwhile, U.S. agricultural exporters are already starting to see threats to their global market share.
America’s farm economy is suffering from dropping commodity prices and ballooning supply costs. The TPP represented a major opportunity for cattle ranchers, grain growers and wine producers to get more of their product to Asian markets hungry for well-marbled Texas beef or prized California chardonnay. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated the deal would have boosted annual net farm income by $4.4 billion.
Dairy exporting powerhouse New Zealand by 2020 is already expecting to have entirely free trade on dairy products with a bloc of 10 Southeast Asian nations, creating an obstacle for U.S. producers to get into those markets.
"We're still paying 10 percent tariffs and their demand for dairy is really taking off," said Darci Vetter, who served as President Barack Obama's chief agricultural trade negotiator. "You want to have the best level of access at the time they start forming relationships with buyers and so the timing on this is critical and we're going to be way behind New Zealand."
New Zealand is also looking to revamp its deal with China and last week set up initial talks for a trade deal with the European Union. Canada, a major exporter of farm commodities and banking and insurance services, this month formally launched consultations on a trade deal with China and has ambitions of doing deals with Japan and India. Australia, a major beef exporter, is poised this year to further push a 10 percent tariff advantage over U.S. beef in Japan as it ramps up a free trade deal with Tokyo.
“This is a competitive game and of course we aren’t going to sit in a hole and do nothing on these non-TPP fronts because everybody is in this game and if you fall behind you are in a competitive disadvantage,” said Tim Groser, New Zealand’s ambassador to the U.S. and the country’s former trade minister.
But even as the political landscape may change across the Asia-Pacific, proponents of a high-standard regional trade deal hope this week will cement some of the trading rules that would have been in the TPP.
Source
|
On March 14 2017 08:09 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. If it was a real argument the Democrats would be saying "This is how we get medicare for all..." wait, the democratic primary for the democratic nomination for the democratic nominee for the democratic party is for democrats? next thing you'll be telling me that football games include football players wearing football equipment playing by the rules of football in a football stadium using a football.
That would still be the equivalent of an open primary. To finish the analogy the only people able to watch the game would be members of the other football teams in the league.
|
btw you can love it or hate it, but "ObamaCare" did one thing thats great. It gave a lot of people coverage. And now we see, something that Republicans still seem not to get, is that there is no going back from this. If Ryancare passes for some reason, it would be the biggest self inflicted wound every and you'll see it at the polls. All Democrats have to say is that they would expand coverage and they will win
|
Further, there are literally entire towns throughout the Rust Belt that depend entirely on the Medicaid expansion under the ACA to fund and attract local care providers. It's hard to say exactly what will happen to these places and their people, but I think it's clear that it won't be good.
|
United States43587 Posts
On March 14 2017 07:44 Nevuk wrote:
Hillary's results speak for themselves - she successfully got a self-confessed grabber of involuntary pussies elected president. It's quite the accomplishment, but her supporters keep trying to run from it.
That one is on the American voting public friend. There is a large segment of America that, after asking one of their high school graduate friends what deplorable meant, promptly put "proud to be deplorable" hats and bumper stickers on. I think a lot of this "just blame it all on Hillary" sentiment is an attempt to gloss over just how profoundly despicable much of America is. Sure, we elected a guy who brags about his sexual assaults, but what about Hillary? Well, what about her? People chose Trump. They didn't have to.
|
On March 15 2017 00:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:44 Nevuk wrote:
Hillary's results speak for themselves - she successfully got a self-confessed grabber of involuntary pussies elected president. It's quite the accomplishment, but her supporters keep trying to run from it. That one is on the American voting public friend. There is a large segment of America that, after asking one of their high school graduate friends what deplorable meant, promptly put "proud to be deplorable" hats and bumper stickers on. I think a lot of this "just blame it all on Hillary" sentiment is an attempt to gloss over just how profoundly despicable much of America is. Sure, we elected a guy who brags about his sexual assaults, but what about Hillary? Well, what about her? People chose Trump. They didn't have to.
You knew these people existed before the election too. And yet you went for the long ban bet, because you were so sure that Hillary had it in the bag. Stop pretending that America is such that we should definitely expect someone who runs against Trump to struggle; even you didn't think that.
|
United States43587 Posts
On March 15 2017 00:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 00:09 KwarK wrote:On March 14 2017 07:44 Nevuk wrote:
Hillary's results speak for themselves - she successfully got a self-confessed grabber of involuntary pussies elected president. It's quite the accomplishment, but her supporters keep trying to run from it. That one is on the American voting public friend. There is a large segment of America that, after asking one of their high school graduate friends what deplorable meant, promptly put "proud to be deplorable" hats and bumper stickers on. I think a lot of this "just blame it all on Hillary" sentiment is an attempt to gloss over just how profoundly despicable much of America is. Sure, we elected a guy who brags about his sexual assaults, but what about Hillary? Well, what about her? People chose Trump. They didn't have to. You knew these people existed before the election too. And yet you went for the long ban bet, because you were so sure that Hillary had it in the bag. Stop pretending that America is such that we should definitely expect someone who runs against Trump to struggle; even you didn't think that.
You're right that I thought more of America before the election than I do now. I think most people did. Even if we look past the proven history of discrimination against African Americans (see the Justice Department suing him for refusing to lease to "colored" people, a case he bragged about fighting and then settling), the public bragging about sexual assaults, the birtherism, the attacks on war heroes, the draft dodging, the fraudulent businesses (Trump University et al) and the rest of it, this is still a man who when asked about the Iranian nuclear deal says this
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
So yeah, no shit I thought he was going to lose. I mean it should have been the easiest decision in the history of voting and I still think it was, even if half of America believe that their religious convictions force them to vote for the least Christ-like fake Christian imaginable.
|
On March 15 2017 00:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 00:09 KwarK wrote:On March 14 2017 07:44 Nevuk wrote:
Hillary's results speak for themselves - she successfully got a self-confessed grabber of involuntary pussies elected president. It's quite the accomplishment, but her supporters keep trying to run from it. That one is on the American voting public friend. There is a large segment of America that, after asking one of their high school graduate friends what deplorable meant, promptly put "proud to be deplorable" hats and bumper stickers on. I think a lot of this "just blame it all on Hillary" sentiment is an attempt to gloss over just how profoundly despicable much of America is. Sure, we elected a guy who brags about his sexual assaults, but what about Hillary? Well, what about her? People chose Trump. They didn't have to. You knew these people existed before the election too. And yet you went for the long ban bet, because you were so sure that Hillary had it in the bag. Stop pretending that America is such that we should definitely expect someone who runs against Trump to struggle; even you didn't think that.
We have always known they existed, they exist in every country in the world.
Kwark made the same mistake I did, we underestimated just how many stupid people America has.
|
Gonna have to agree with this. For all of Hillary's faults, being not Trump should have been all she needed. Fuck, being not republican should have been enough.
Can we agree, as a forum, that women should be allowed to have abortions? Can we agree that gays should be allowed to marry, and not be discriminated against? Can we agree that healthcare makes sense economically, and forcing people to not go to hospitals until they'll die if they don't, overburdening ERs and still making those people pay with money they don't have is fucking stupid?
The more I learn about Trump (from pre-elected, and during campaign) the more I'm convinced that this is what the people wanted. America has a large portion of pretty backwards people, and there's no way any rational person would have looked between the two candidates and say "yup, Trump is the one who will benefit us". If you're super-rich, maybe, but most people aren't.
|
On March 15 2017 01:01 Dark_Chill wrote:
Gonna have to agree with this. For all of Hillary's faults, being not Trump should have been all she needed. Fuck, being not republican should have been enough.
Can we agree, as a forum, that women should be allowed to have abortions? Can we agree that gays should be allowed to marry, and not be discriminated against? Can we agree that healthcare makes sense economically, and forcing people to not go to hospitals until they'll die if they don't, overburdening ERs and still making those people pay with money they don't have is fucking stupid?
The more I learn about Trump (from pre-elected, and during campaign) the more I'm convinced that this is what the people wanted. America has a large portion of pretty backwards people, and there's no way any rational person would have looked between the two candidates and say "yup, Trump is the one who will benefit us". If you're super-rich, maybe, but most people aren't.
Americans having a very rational view and a very different notion of what qualifies as backwards are still as slandered or misunderstood as before.
You'd have majorities on any of those subjects, but no unanimity except for perhaps "healthcare makes sense economically" (acquiring modern medicine and healthcare against injury and disease makes economic sense) and maybe a broad pronouncement that access to health care is a noble societal goal. The rest you will not find absolute agreement, speaking according to my understanding of what you've just written.
|
Stupid and deplorable aren't the same argument. You can deduce from the election that America is stupider than you thought, I don't see a way to disagree. Deplorable was what Kwark was going for and this is where I react against the argument, it's logically much easier for a candidate's strategy or policies or appeal or history to be "wrong" (in a very loose definition of wrong) than it is for everyone's assessment of much of their country.
|
LL must be laughing. He is banned and we're still talking about Hillary 
|
On March 15 2017 01:25 On_Slaught wrote:LL must be laughing. He is banned and we're still talking about Hillary
Well that says something about how settled the argument is and how much of a troll he is for bringing it back, doesn't it.
|
United States43587 Posts
You're missing the point. This eagerness to insist that Hillary was a bad candidate and therefore America couldn't have been expected to vote for her over Trump is ridiculous. America could have been expected to vote for her over Trump. Hell, America could have been expected to vote for a return to British rule over Trump.
The problem isn't that Hillary was bad. The problem is that a large number of Americans actually like Trump. That's the elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about. When he retweets neo-Nazi facebook forwards about black on black crime they feel validated. When he blames the Chinese for America's woes they're happy about that. When he degrades women, insults minorities and promises to commit war crimes they have their waning sense of masculinity restored.
Hillary did not force anyone to vote for Trump. She didn't go into the polls with them. She didn't twist their arms. She didn't fill in the ballot for them. She ran and she presented a credible alternative and people chose Trump over her because they wanted what Trump was offering. And nobody seems to want to talk about that. When they ask themselves how America managed to elect an openly racist President nobody wants to say "well maybe racism is an issue in America", it's all "well Hillary must have made them do it". Hillary didn't make them do shit. If you want to explain the election result then you have to talk about the voters, this Hillary shit is nothing but misdirection from people in denial. It's all "it's not that our message failed to resonate with the voters, our message is fine, it's just the messenger was wrong" as if anyone went into this election not knowing that one of the candidates was a racist.
|
On March 15 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:
You're missing the point. This eagerness to insist that Hillary was a bad candidate and therefore America couldn't have been expected to vote for her over Trump is ridiculous. America could have been expected to vote for her over Trump. Hell, America could have been expected to vote for a return to British rule over Trump.
Nobody is saying that America couldn't have been expected to vote for her because of how bad she was. I did expect it, hell I'm pretty sure LL and GH expected it too. We're saying it's absurd to pretend that because Hillary lost to Trump, the conclusion is that America is so fucked up that a race between candidate x and an orange pussygrabing monkey is by definition close and that's the new reality of the country we have to accept.
|
United States43587 Posts
On March 15 2017 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:
You're missing the point. This eagerness to insist that Hillary was a bad candidate and therefore America couldn't have been expected to vote for her over Trump is ridiculous. America could have been expected to vote for her over Trump. Hell, America could have been expected to vote for a return to British rule over Trump. Nobody is saying that America couldn't have been expected to vote for her because of how bad she was. I did expect it, hell I'm pretty sure LL and GH expected it too. We're saying it's absurd to pretend that because Hillary lost to Trump, the conclusion is that America is so fucked up that a race between candidate x and an orange pussygrabing monkey is by definition close and that's the new reality of the country we have to accept.
Just because it happened is no reason to accept that it's reality? Is that genuinely your argument or are you pitching new slogans for Fox News?
|
On March 15 2017 01:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 15 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:
You're missing the point. This eagerness to insist that Hillary was a bad candidate and therefore America couldn't have been expected to vote for her over Trump is ridiculous. America could have been expected to vote for her over Trump. Hell, America could have been expected to vote for a return to British rule over Trump. Nobody is saying that America couldn't have been expected to vote for her because of how bad she was. I did expect it, hell I'm pretty sure LL and GH expected it too. We're saying it's absurd to pretend that because Hillary lost to Trump, the conclusion is that America is so fucked up that a race between candidate x and an orange pussygrabing monkey is by definition close and that's the new reality of the country we have to accept. Just because it happened is no reason to accept that it's reality? Is that genuinely your argument or are you pitching new slogans for Fox News?
Just cool down and read my sentence again. You're better than this.
|
United States43587 Posts
On March 15 2017 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:47 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2017 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 15 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:
You're missing the point. This eagerness to insist that Hillary was a bad candidate and therefore America couldn't have been expected to vote for her over Trump is ridiculous. America could have been expected to vote for her over Trump. Hell, America could have been expected to vote for a return to British rule over Trump. Nobody is saying that America couldn't have been expected to vote for her because of how bad she was. I did expect it, hell I'm pretty sure LL and GH expected it too. We're saying it's absurd to pretend that because Hillary lost to Trump, the conclusion is that America is so fucked up that a race between candidate x and an orange pussygrabing monkey is by definition close and that's the new reality of the country we have to accept. Just because it happened is no reason to accept that it's reality? Is that genuinely your argument or are you pitching new slogans for Fox News? Just cool down and read my sentence again. You're better than this.
It's absurd to pretend that just because there was a close race between Hillary (centrist candidate) and Trump (youtube comment section brought to life) we should accept the reality that what Trump says and does is popular?
Am I just not getting this? What are you trying to say here? That Trump getting as many votes as he did isn't reality? Or that it is reality but that we shouldn't accept it?
|
On March 15 2017 01:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On March 15 2017 01:47 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2017 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 15 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:
You're missing the point. This eagerness to insist that Hillary was a bad candidate and therefore America couldn't have been expected to vote for her over Trump is ridiculous. America could have been expected to vote for her over Trump. Hell, America could have been expected to vote for a return to British rule over Trump. Nobody is saying that America couldn't have been expected to vote for her because of how bad she was. I did expect it, hell I'm pretty sure LL and GH expected it too. We're saying it's absurd to pretend that because Hillary lost to Trump, the conclusion is that America is so fucked up that a race between candidate x and an orange pussygrabing monkey is by definition close and that's the new reality of the country we have to accept. Just because it happened is no reason to accept that it's reality? Is that genuinely your argument or are you pitching new slogans for Fox News? Just cool down and read my sentence again. You're better than this. It's absurd to pretend that just because there was a close race between Hillary (centrist candidate) and Trump (youtube comment section brought to life) we should accept the reality that what Trump says and does is popular? Am I just not getting this? What are you trying to say here? That Trump getting as many votes as he did isn't reality? Or that it is reality but that we shouldn't accept it?
I believe he is trying to say that other candidates could have scored better then Hillary and could have won where she did not.
Trump does not beat all possible candidates.
(And while that might be factually correct I dont really agree with it. Trump's victory very much shows there is a lot more deplorable/stupid people in the US then we all though/hoped).
|
I don't understand why xDaunt isn't already all over this conversation, but from talking to him, I learned that there are some rather reasonable people (with very different opinions from mine, but definitely not stupid) who voted Trump despite him being Trump, with rational justifications, such as likelihood of putting forward policies that they perceive will benefit them. I don't know how big this electorate is, but you really need to give credit to the fact that there are just two options and that it is always all-or-nothing. To put it very simply, if you feel like taxation endangers your ability to provide for you family, you may easily look past the topics that don't affect you if you aren't gay, black or a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
