Why does Obama support TPP?

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Discuss.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

because globalism is coming whether you want it or not, and if people dont want their companies to accelerate the inevitable and take their jobs overseas, its best to have mechanisms in place to ensure that these same entities play more fair and prefer USA ties, markets, goods, and services over that of China.

Its a set of band-aids you wrap yourself in before the war starts. Total prophylactic.

No one wants to lose a job, but some will, many won't, and many will get new jobs.

Theres some questionable "civil rights" shyt in there, but to entirely make this some low-brow "corporate shill" argument, you have to understand that corporations employ the same critics of said policies.

If you're not independent from the system, you really are just promoting your own replacements by opposing the TPP.

 

[Enzo]

I think it's because the US doesn't want any other countries having stronger trade influence than them in the south pacific seas..

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Because how would we ever have free trade with Australia and Japan without it?


Edit: I don't know if that comes off like it or not but that was sarcasm.

 

[blotter]

because globalism is coming whether you want it or not, and if people dont want their companies to accelerate the inevitable and take their jobs overseas, its best to have mechanisms in place to ensure that these same entities play more fair and prefer USA ties, markets, goods, and services over that of China.

Its a set of band-aids you wrap yourself in before the war starts. Total prophylactic.

No one wants to lose a job, but some will, many won't, and many will get new jobs.

Theres some questionable "civil rights" shyt in there, but to entirely make this some low-brow "corporate shill" argument, you have to understand that corporations employ the same critics of said policies.

If you're not independent from the system, you really are just promoting your own replacements by opposing the TPP.

I'm relatively independent, off the grid in multiple ways, minimalist etc

I reject the idea that it's inevitable. The US government could easily support intentional communities that are based in sustainability. Give people a basic income and support eco communities and let's see how many craftsmen pop up, how many alternate building materials and designs pop up.

The government is steering people into the idea of cheap Chinese, overseas goods, and in general being consumers. It's so deeply imbedded into our way of life we take it for granted,but the truth is it's all bullshyt, people are fatter, more stressed due to working longer hours, generally less happy than they were 40 years ago, and people will say with a straight face that these goods have made life easier. By what metrics?

If we were really interested in protecting ourselves for this inevitable war we'd be taking these steps.

 

[Scoop]

I think it's because the US doesn't want any other countries having stronger trade influence than them in the south pacific seas..

A lot of it is this. He's using trade to maintain foreign policy influence over countries.
He also is a corporatist that believes what is good for corporations is good for America.
He's also trying to maintain a voting coalition for the Democratic Party.

I think those are his 3 motives.

 

[King Kreole]

It's a mix of 1 and 2. He's a neoliberal through and through. Not because he's evil, but because he truly believes it's the best way forward for America. He also has a personal love for the Asian values exemplified by placed like Singapore. He truly believes that Asia is the future, which is why his administration made the pivot to Asia a priority. I don't think Obama has any sentimentality towards the American working class that is being gutted by policies like this. I personally think he believes they're too stupid to know that their way of life is unsustainable, so he's going to drag them into the future kicking and screaming. That's why there's a natural rift between old school leftists like Bernie who have an inherent distrust of the corporate class, and new school neoliberals like Obama who are more cosmopolitan and grew up in an era when that old school leftist ideology was no longer en vogue. The recent health care battle was a perfect proxy for that ideological rift. Bernie wants a big government approach, which is considered an embarrassing anachronism to new school neoliberals like Obama. They've accepted the primacy of the corporate class as a given, so they go with the flow, so to speak.

 

[Deutsche Bank]

Dudes running interference for Hillary's flip-flop already.

 

[No1]

It's a mix of 1 and 2. He's a neoliberal through and through. Not because he's evil, but because he truly believes it's the best way forward for America. He also has a personal love for the Asian values exemplified by placed like Singapore. He truly believes that Asia is the future, which is why his administration made the pivot to Asia a priority. I don't think Obama has any sentimentality towards the American working class that is being gutted by policies like this. I personally think he believes they're too stupid to know that their way of life is unsustainable, so he's going to drag them into the future kicking and screaming. That's why there's a natural rift between old school leftists like Bernie who have an inherent distrust of the corporate class, and new school neoliberals like Obama who are more cosmopolitan and grew up in an era when that old school leftist ideology was no longer en vogue. The recent health care battle was a perfect proxy for that ideological rift. Bernie wants a big government approach, which is considered an embarrassing anachronism to new school neoliberals like Obama. They've accepted the primacy of the corporate class as a given, so they go with the flow, so to speak.

This. If you ever study political economy in school or elsewhere, it's pretty established that Democrats feign like they care about protecting working class jobs but actually believe that freer markets and open economies are the future. They understand the losses people will take but believe that it makes sense in the long term and the benefits from cheaper products outweighs that. But that's not why things like the TPP are dangerous. Aside from what it does to jobs, it allows foreign companies to basically bypass US regulations whenever they come in conflict with the company's interests. They appeal to tribunals instead of US courts. For example, Phillip Morris is currently bypassing all of South Korea's anti-smoking laws.

Anyhow, Professor Reed predicted who Obama was back in 1996:

In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program — the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics, as in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway. So far the black activist response hasn’t been up to the challenge. We have to do better.

 

[King Kreole]

This. If you ever study political economy in school or elsewhere, it's pretty established that Democrats feign like they care about protecting working class jobs but actually believe that freer markets and open economies are the future. They understand the losses people will take but believe that it makes sense in the long term and the benefits from cheaper products outweighs that. But that's not why things like the TPP are dangerous. Aside from what it does to jobs, it allows foreign companies to basically bypass US regulations whenever they come in conflict with the company's interests. They appeal to tribunals instead of US courts. For example, Phillip Morris is currently bypassing all of South Korea's anti-smoking laws.

Anyhow, Professor Reed predicted who Obama was back in 1996:

Adolph Reed

 

[Jello Biafra]

My personal rule of thumb is to not believe any presidential candidate when they say they are against free trade legislation because they may say all the right things while running and if elected, may even seem to be staying consistent with their campaign promises but by their 2nd term they will be all in publicly on trying to get their own trade deals made into law.
Hillary will undoubtedly be pushing a trade deal at some point in her presidency.
Donald Trump would do it too if her were to be elected.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm relatively independent, off the grid in multiple ways, minimalist etc

I reject the idea that it's inevitable. The US government could easily support intentional communities that are based in sustainability. Give people a basic income and support eco communities and let's see how many craftsmen pop up, how many alternate building materials and designs pop up.

The government is steering people into the idea of cheap Chinese, overseas goods, and in general being consumers. It's so deeply imbedded into our way of life we take it for granted,but the truth is it's all bullshyt, people are fatter, more stressed due to working longer hours, generally less happy than they were 40 years ago, and people will say with a straight face that these goods have made life easier. By what metrics?

If we were really interested in protecting ourselves for this inevitable war we'd be taking these steps.

With.

What.

Money?

Ya'll want the benefits of huge profit, with none of the investment in vehicles that permit these vastly successful entities to exist.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

A lot of it is this. He's using trade to maintain foreign policy influence over countries.
He also is a corporatist that believes what is good for corporations is good for America.
He's also trying to maintain a voting coalition for the Democratic Party.

I think those are his 3 motives.

Dudes act like corporations don't employ like 60% of Americans.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

My personal rule of thumb is to not believe any presidential candidate when they say they are against free trade legislation because they may say all the right things while running and if elected, may even seem to be staying consistent with their campaign promises but by their 2nd term they will be all in publicly on trying to get their own trade deals made into law.
Hillary will undoubtedly be pushing a trade deal at some point in her presidency.
Donald Trump would do it too if her were to be elected.

Nothing wrong with a trade deal in itself and I get the ideological motive behind elimination of tariffs and trade barriers and having open competitive global markets, but the investor-state arbitration mechanism is particularly troubling and sounds like some shyt to send us more on the way to every dystopian movie, book, or comic about a future where the world is ruled by lawless corporate overlords.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Nothing wrong with a trade deal in itself and I get the ideological motive behind elimination of tariffs and trade barriers and having open competitive global markets, but the investor-state arbitration mechanism is particularly troubling and sounds like some shyt to send us more on the way to every dystopian movie, book, or comic about a future where the world is ruled by lawless corporate overlords.

I am not ready to be completely anti-free trade either but the issue always come from the fact that no one ever makes the process transparent. With all the talk that had been going on for years about TPP if that leak last year of one part of it didn't come out, the Obama admin would never have been forced to release the full text. Maybe if the public was kept informed about the particulars of the legislation during its negotiation process there wouldn't be such a negative reaction to the very idea of trade deals..