S&P futures for tomorrow just fell off a cliff. Trumpy wants 100B in new tariff

[HBFIRE]

Our last president didn't do anything other than his disastrous Trade agreement.

Care to elaborate on this or is it just a Sean Hannity talking point? Genuinely curious. @dustinst22

Don't want to derail this thread, happy to PM about it if you'd like.  In short, NAFTA cost the US a lot of jobs, drove illegal immigration to astronomical numbers, drove our trade deficit through the roof w/Mexico and Canada, and the deal has worked poorly for Mexico as well.

NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. Obama wasn't even an Illinois state senator yet.

Correct.  Obama renegotiated it.

[nereo]

Exactly.  The corporate tax cuts in particular were needed, and yes we've all benefited from it either directly or indirectly.

I have a big concern that this indirect 'benefit' will wind up costing me far more in the long term.  We punched a much bigger hole in the deficit, and as the saying goes, there's no free lunch. I'm deeply skeptical that this will be a net positive for the majority of Americans.  Trickle-down economics didn't work in the 1980s, I don't see why it will now.

Exact opposite.  Has nothing to do with trickle down, everything to do with the US being more competitive internationally.  We were near the top in terms of corporate tax rate.  China, on the other hand, has an effective corporate tax rate of 15% in tech, we need to be able to compete with that particularly as the AI revolution is on the horizon, where being first will be critical.  Cutting corporate taxes was a good long term move.

This is not the view that I see.  There's the changes to the corporate tax rates which happened in conjunction with the changes to the individual tax rates.  The latter certainly benefited the affluent disproportionately.  That's trickle-down economics any way you slice it.  The corporate tax rate changes are a different matter; certainly we had very high top rates, but for most corporations that wasn't the same as the effective tax rate.  Regardless, one of the public rationales of this tax plan (and continues to be a 'selling point') is that a reduction in the corporate tax rate will lead to higher employee wages.  Again, trickle-down.  Instead a lot of companies issued or increased their dividends and started stock-buy backs. We haven't seen the jump in employee wages. 

[HBFIRE]

Wage increases have been increasing, more than they have in 18 years according to the national association of business economics.  However, we've only had a few months since the tax decreases, so it'll take awhile to really see the benefit there.  Unemployment rate is lower than it's been in a long time, and that will likely drive up wage increases since companies will need to compete more for talent.

But more important than wage increases is simply ensuring our businesses have the cash needed to compete on a global scale, particularly long term.

[nereo]

Wage increases have been increasing, more than they have in 18 years according to the national association of business economics.  However, we've only had a few months since the tax decreases, so it'll take awhile to really see the benefit there.  Unemployment rate is lower than it's been in a long time, and that will likely drive up wage increases since companies will need to compete more for talent.

But more important than wage increases is simply ensuring our businesses have the cash needed to compete on a global scale, particularly long term.

You and I must be looking at different data.  Agreed that it's only been a short time, but if we're expecting wages to increase after giving tax cuts to corporations, that's still trickly-down policy.  Feel free to link yours.
FWIW - https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/real-average-hourly-earnings-increased-0-8-percent-from-january-2017-to-january-2018.htm
Wage growth since 1998 https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx?panel=1


I'm all for our companies competing on a global scale, but given the size and capitol of our largest companies it seems that i) we were already competing very well on a global scale and ii) starting tit-for-tat tariffs immediately after lowering the corporate tax rate seems to counter any 'gains' companies may have with a reduced taxable burden with limiting their competitiveness in oversees markets.

[HBFIRE]

You and I must be looking at different data. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wage-increases-reported-by-highest-number-of-companies-in-18-years-survey-finds-2018-01-29

Yes, expecting wage increases is a form of trickle down theory.  I don't see that as the real benefit of the tax decreases or the primary goal of it.

[nereo]

You and I must be looking at different data. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wage-increases-reported-by-highest-number-of-companies-in-18-years-survey-finds-2018-01-29

Yes, expecting wage increases is a form of trickle down theory.  I don't see that as the real benefit of the tax decreases or the primary goal of it.

yeah, I'm not sure that article supports your claim.  From the article you linked:

Wage growth has been the missing ingredient to the recovery from the Great Recession. But despite optimism in surveys, and anecdotes, official data continue to point to pretty lackluster wage growth.

Average hourly earnings on a 12-month basis hasn’t surpassed 3% growth since the recession.

(emphasis added). 
There's a pretty clear graph in there too showing how wage growth was higher before the great recession.

[HBFIRE]

Not wage %, but the percentage of companies which are increasing wages.  Again, we are only 3 months into the cycle anyway, so this is pretty statistically insignificant.


"The National Association for Business Economics said the net percentage of those companies which have increased wages and salaries over the last three months rose to 48 in January, up from 37 in October and the third-highest reading since April 1982."


Again, this isn't the primary benefit or goal of the corporate deductions in my view.

The primary benefit to me is that companies will be more globally competitive with more cash to invest and build larger work forces and hire better employees.  The competition for global talent will be heating up dramatically in the future.  Let's give our companies all the edge they can get to compete and hold onto this talent instead of handicapping them by taxing them at high rates so that our inefficient government can then squander that money away.

My own business, while small, has been able to hire 10 new employees this year due to the new tax rate.  While thats a drop in the bucket, hopefully there will be thousands of other examples like mine.

[nereo]

Not wage %, but the percentage of companies which are increasing wages.  Again, we are only 3 months into the cycle anyway, so this is pretty statistically insignificant.


"The National Association for Business Economics said the net percentage of those companies which have increased wages and salaries over the last three months rose to 48 in January, up from 37 in October and the third-highest reading since April 1982."


Again, this isn't the primary benefit or goal of the corporate deductions in my view.

ok, I see what you are saying.
From the press statements and media coverage I heard, the GOP was pushing the tax bill of a way of 1) reducing the taxes of almost everyone immediately, ii) savings by corporations would result in better wages and C) its necessary for sustained economic growth (this gets into global competitiveness, lowering employment, blah blah blah).

You certainly have a different take on how it was presented, and no doubt that could just be from us following different news sources.

In the end we're left with we'll have to wait and see. But specifically to your earlier comment I certainly don't see any direct (dollars in my pocket) benefit right now, and I am fearful that it will be a net negative in the years ahead.  I could be wrong. In fact I hope I'm wrong, because I'd rather be wrong and wealthier than right and poorer.

[bwall]

My own business, while small, has been able to hire 10 new employees this year due to the new tax rate.  While thats a drop in the bucket, hopefully there will be thousands of other examples like mine.

It is very hard to believe that 10 new employees are a result of the tax rate. Increased business, sure. Tax rate? Not convinced.

FWIW, I might have to lay off three or four employees if the trade war does happen.

[HBFIRE]

My own business, while small, has been able to hire 10 new employees this year due to the new tax rate.  While thats a drop in the bucket, hopefully there will be thousands of other examples like mine.

It is very hard to believe that 10 new employees are a result of the tax rate. Increased business, sure. Tax rate? Not convinced.

Was most definitely the tax rate.

[aspiringnomad]

Our last president didn't do anything other than his disastrous Trade agreement.

Care to elaborate on this or is it just a Sean Hannity talking point? Genuinely curious. @dustinst22

Don't want to derail this thread, happy to PM about it if you'd like.  In short, NAFTA cost the US a lot of jobs, drove illegal immigration to astronomical numbers, drove our trade deficit through the roof w/Mexico and Canada, and the deal has worked poorly for Mexico as well.

NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. Obama wasn't even an Illinois state senator yet.

Correct.  Obama renegotiated it.

Nope. This is totally false. Not sure where you got that info. The TPP was negotiated under Obama, but fell victim to our fact free political environment. IMO, it would have been the gold standard for trade deals had it gone through.

[HBFIRE]

IMO, it would have been the gold standard for trade deals had it gone through.

Your opinion?

You must be Michael Camunez.  What was it like being the Assistant Secretary of Commerce?

"TPP is the ‘gold standard’ for the modern free trade agreement," says Michael Camunez, president of Monarch Global Strategies in Washington and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce under Obama.

[aspiringnomad]

IMO, it would have been the gold standard for trade deals had it gone through.

Your opinion?

You must be Michael Camunez.

"TPP is the ‘gold standard’ for the modern free trade agreement," says Michael Camunez, president of Monarch Global Strategies in Washington and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce under Obama.

Ok, so we can agree that Obama did not sign into law or negotiate NAFTA. Good. It's impossible to debate something if you don't have the most basic of facts straight.

I'm not Michael Camunez, but I think I did read that article back when it was published. So he and I share an opinion, his likely more informed than mine, and at least we can tell the difference between fact and fiction.

[HBFIRE]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

[aspiringnomad]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

As if you (or Trump, for that matter) know anything about TPP other than it was an Obama initiative and therefore must be bad. I'll make sure to cross reference my opinions against your Google searches next time to make sure they don't match anyone else's out there.

[nereo]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

The TPP ≠ NAFTA. In many ways the TPP used NAFTA as a blueprint, and had the US ratified the TPP it would have superceded NAFTA and included agreements with a bunch more countries. But deciding not to participate in the TPP didn't negate NAFTA either.

FWIW, the term "gold standard" is extremely common as to be the default term anytime someone considers a policy to be the best one out there.  I don't see why it would be embarrassing to use the same language as Camunez to describe strong support.

[Travis]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

You're kidding right? They're separate trade agreements.  One involved just North America and the other involves most of the countries that touch the Pacific Ocean. It's right there in their names.

[HBFIRE]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

You're kidding right? They're separate trade agreements.  One involved just North America and the other involves most of the countries that touch the Pacific Ocean. It's right there in their names.

Not at all.  Read up on it.  It's absolutely a renegotiation of NAFTA.

[Space Pickle]

It absoutley wasn’t. Maybe turn ff the fox news once in a while.

[HBFIRE]

It absoutley wasn’t. Maybe turn ff the fox news once in a while.

Don't think I've ever watched FOX, but nice Ad Hominem.

But since we're already quoting Camunez, may as well stay in the theme of the Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/08/14/nafta-will-live-another-day-and-be-based-on-obamas-tpp/#518c8c596016

[sherr]

But since we're already quoting Camunez, may as well stay in the theme of the Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/08/14/nafta-will-live-another-day-and-be-based-on-obamas-tpp/#518c8c596016

forbes.com/sites/<anything> is not a "Forbes article." It's a blog site that basically anyone with journalistic tendencies can sign up for, more similar to wordpress.com than an actual newspaper or magazine. Except a lot of whackadoodles like to use Forbes Sites because having "forbes.com" in the URL lends false credibility to their blog.

And he's actually saying the opposite of what you are: that Trump's renegotiated NAFTA will probably end up being better than the current NAFTA because it will borrow from the superior TPP trade agreement.

[HBFIRE]

But since we're already quoting Camunez, may as well stay in the theme of the Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/08/14/nafta-will-live-another-day-and-be-based-on-obamas-tpp/#518c8c596016

forbes.com/sites/<anything> is not a "Forbes article." It's a blog site that basically anyone with journalistic tendencies can sign up for, more similar to wordpress.com than an actual newspaper or magazine. Except a lot of whackadoodles like to use Forbes Sites because having "forbes.com" in the URL lends false credibility to their blog.

And he's actually saying the opposite of what you are: that Trump's renegotiated NAFTA will probably end up being better than the current NAFTA because it will borrow from the superior TPP trade agreement.

Okay, I admit I didn't know that about Forbes.  Interesting.

Well, let's try this one from Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3377323/tpp-was-obamas-renegotiation-of-nafta-former-trade-envoy/

[nereo]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

You're kidding right? They're separate trade agreements.  One involved just North America and the other involves most of the countries that touch the Pacific Ocean. It's right there in their names.

Not at all.  Read up on it.  It's absolutely a renegotiation of NAFTA.

How the hell can you "renegotiate" a trade agreement with 10 other countries which weren't in NAFTA in the first place?
It would be more accurate (but still ridiculous) to say it was a renegotiation of the TPSEP, which the US wasn't even part of.

[HBFIRE]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

You're kidding right? They're separate trade agreements.  One involved just North America and the other involves most of the countries that touch the Pacific Ocean. It's right there in their names.

Not at all.  Read up on it.  It's absolutely a renegotiation of NAFTA.

How the hell can you "renegotiate" a trade agreement with 10 other countries which weren't in NAFTA in the first place?
It would be more accurate (but still ridiculous) to say it was a renegotiation of the TPSEP, which the US wasn't even part of.

because it's a modification, rather than a complete scrapping of NAFTA

[nereo]

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

You're kidding right? They're separate trade agreements.  One involved just North America and the other involves most of the countries that touch the Pacific Ocean. It's right there in their names.

Not at all.  Read up on it.  It's absolutely a renegotiation of NAFTA.

How the hell can you "renegotiate" a trade agreement with 10 other countries which weren't in NAFTA in the first place?
It would be more accurate (but still ridiculous) to say it was a renegotiation of the TPSEP, which the US wasn't even part of.

because it's a modification, rather than a complete scrapping of NAFTA

A modification? No.  A modification is when you ask for mashed potatoes instead of french fries with your hamburger. Here we've swapped out the potato for a salad, the burger for a steak, and oh yeah, now we've switched from Applebee's to Morton's Steakhouse.

Look, I get why pundits want to label the TPP a 'modification' or 'renegotiation' of NAFTA, because then they can pass the baggage of NAFTA on to the TPP by association. But this association doesn't pass even a precursory examination.  The TPP involved a dozen countries instead of three.  It dealt with trade across 4 continents instead of one. It included countries like Japan, which has a larger economy than Canada and Mexico combined.

[sherr]

Well, let's try this one from Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3377323/tpp-was-obamas-renegotiation-of-nafta-former-trade-envoy/

Except that still is saying the opposite of what you're saying.

You are saying that Obama "renegotiated" NAFTA (and is therefore to blame for its failings) and that TPP was terrible (and its a good thing Trump killed it). The article is saying that Obama was going to use the TPP to essentially replace NAFTA and would have fixed its failings in that way, and that now that Trump killed it he's having to scramble to try to fix its failings directly. Both articles you've cited have literally said the opposite of what you've claimed.

[HBFIRE]

Well, let's try this one from Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3377323/tpp-was-obamas-renegotiation-of-nafta-former-trade-envoy/

Except that still is saying the opposite of what you're saying.

You are saying that Obama "renegotiated" NAFTA (and is therefore to blame for its failings) and that TPP was terrible (and its a good thing Trump killed it). The article is saying that Obama was going to use the TPP to essentially replace NAFTA and would have fixed its failings in that way, and that now that Trump killed it he's having to scramble to try to fix its failings directly. Both articles you've cited have literally said the opposite of what you've claimed.

Really not sure what you're reading, Sherry.

Directly from the article:

“TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,”

[sherr]

Well, let's try this one from Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3377323/tpp-was-obamas-renegotiation-of-nafta-former-trade-envoy/

Except that still is saying the opposite of what you're saying.

You are saying that Obama "renegotiated" NAFTA (and is therefore to blame for its failings) and that TPP was terrible (and its a good thing Trump killed it). The article is saying that Obama was going to use the TPP to essentially replace NAFTA and would have fixed its failings in that way, and that now that Trump killed it he's having to scramble to try to fix its failings directly. Both articles you've cited have literally said the opposite of what you've claimed.

Really not sure what you're reading, Sherry.

Directly from the article:

“TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,”

Way to look for a keyword and miss the point.

Michael Froman explained to The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos that like President Donald Trump, the former administration recognized there were issues within NAFTA. It just had a different way of tackling the problem.

Rather than threatening to scrap the North American agreement, or even re-open it, Barack Obama tried to address those issues via the TPP.

    “TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,” Froman said.

“That’s why [TPP] included binding and enforceable labour and environmental standards. Why it reformed inter-state dispute settlement … gave us access to to dairy and poultry for the first time in Canada, and energy in Mexico [and] dealt with new issues like the digital economy and state-owned enterprises.”

[HBFIRE]

Well, let's try this one from Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3377323/tpp-was-obamas-renegotiation-of-nafta-former-trade-envoy/

Except that still is saying the opposite of what you're saying.

You are saying that Obama "renegotiated" NAFTA (and is therefore to blame for its failings) and that TPP was terrible (and its a good thing Trump killed it). The article is saying that Obama was going to use the TPP to essentially replace NAFTA and would have fixed its failings in that way, and that now that Trump killed it he's having to scramble to try to fix its failings directly. Both articles you've cited have literally said the opposite of what you've claimed.

Really not sure what you're reading, Sherry.

Directly from the article:

“TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,”

Way to look for a keyword and miss the point.

Michael Froman explained to The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos that like President Donald Trump, the former administration recognized there were issues within NAFTA. It just had a different way of tackling the problem.

Rather than threatening to scrap the North American agreement, or even re-open it, Barack Obama tried to address those issues via the TPP.

    “TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,” Froman said.

“That’s why [TPP] included binding and enforceable labour and environmental standards. Why it reformed inter-state dispute settlement … gave us access to to dairy and poultry for the first time in Canada, and energy in Mexico [and] dealt with new issues like the digital economy and state-owned enterprises.”

Still confused where you are going with this, Sherry.

Literally taken directly from the article:

A former U.S. trade representative says the Obama administration viewed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement as a sort of “renegotiation of NAFTA.”

[sherr]

Well, let's try this one from Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3377323/tpp-was-obamas-renegotiation-of-nafta-former-trade-envoy/

Except that still is saying the opposite of what you're saying.

You are saying that Obama "renegotiated" NAFTA (and is therefore to blame for its failings) and that TPP was terrible (and its a good thing Trump killed it). The article is saying that Obama was going to use the TPP to essentially replace NAFTA and would have fixed its failings in that way, and that now that Trump killed it he's having to scramble to try to fix its failings directly. Both articles you've cited have literally said the opposite of what you've claimed.

Really not sure what you're reading, Sherry.

Directly from the article:

“TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,”

Way to look for a keyword and miss the point.

Michael Froman explained to The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos that like President Donald Trump, the former administration recognized there were issues within NAFTA. It just had a different way of tackling the problem.

Rather than threatening to scrap the North American agreement, or even re-open it, Barack Obama tried to address those issues via the TPP.

    “TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,” Froman said.

“That’s why [TPP] included binding and enforceable labour and environmental standards. Why it reformed inter-state dispute settlement … gave us access to to dairy and poultry for the first time in Canada, and energy in Mexico [and] dealt with new issues like the digital economy and state-owned enterprises.”

Still confused where you are going with this, Sherry.

Literally taken directly from the article:

A former U.S. trade representative says the Obama administration viewed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement as a sort of “renegotiation of NAFTA.”

I'm not "going" anywhere with anything because I'm not trying to sell an agenda. I'm pointing out that the one that you're selling is not supported by the articles you're quoting from. Also note that "a sort of" means that it's literally the opposite of being an actual renegotiation, but that it would have accomplished some of the same goals. You know, like the article explicitly said, Obama recognized that there were problems with NAFTA too and, unlike Trump, actually had a plan to fix them (the TPP).

Our last president didn't do anything other than his disastrous Trade agreement.

Care to elaborate on this or is it just a Sean Hannity talking point? Genuinely curious. @dustinst22

Don't want to derail this thread, happy to PM about it if you'd like.  In short, NAFTA cost the US a lot of jobs, drove illegal immigration to astronomical numbers, drove our trade deficit through the roof w/Mexico and Canada, and the deal has worked poorly for Mexico as well.

NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. Obama wasn't even an Illinois state senator yet.

Correct.  Obama renegotiated it.

Summary: "NAFTA is a disaster and is Obama's fault."

And then after you get called out for that not being true, you switch over to:

TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA.  Trump killed it.  Thank God.

Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.

You're kidding right? They're separate trade agreements.  One involved just North America and the other involves most of the countries that touch the Pacific Ocean. It's right there in their names.

Not at all.  Read up on it.  It's absolutely a renegotiation of NAFTA.

How the hell can you "renegotiate" a trade agreement with 10 other countries which weren't in NAFTA in the first place?
It would be more accurate (but still ridiculous) to say it was a renegotiation of the TPSEP, which the US wasn't even part of.

because it's a modification, rather than a complete scrapping of NAFTA

Summary: TPP was a disaster (for unspecified reasons) and was the "NAFTA renegotiation" I was talking about.

Of course, that can't possibly have been what you originally meant, since the TPP was never implemented so NAFTA's current problem's couldn't possibly be Obama's fault.

And now you're trying to "win" by just getting super focused on the word "renegotiation" and claiming victory if anyone on the internet used it. My point is that all of your points are literally the opposite of the point of the articles you're claiming as support.

[nereo]

I'm trying to understand how we got here in the thread.  Near as I can tell dustinst22 linked NAFTA to Obama, then somehow the TPP became equated with NAFTA. Ignoring that whole argument for a moment, is the underlying assertion that the threat of these trade tariffs better from a policy standpoint than the TPP becasue it might lead to trade agreement with China that is more favorable to the US?

If so, I'm still very confused because China was never in the TPP to begin with.  If not... what are we talking about and how does it relate to these tariff threats?

[HBFIRE]

Summary: TPP was a disaster (for unspecified reasons) and was the "NAFTA renegotiation" I was talking about.

Agreed, TPP was an absolute disaster, and it's a good thing we avoided it, for many reasons.

This article explicitly states it was a renegotiation of NAFTA, Sherry.  "Literally".

Back to the thread, since it's been derailed.

Not a single tariff has been enacted yet, this is just “art of the deal” negotiations about Obamas disastrous Trade agreement, and rectifying THEIR unfair and illegal trade activities. Long term it is sorely needed and LONG overdue.

[nereo]

Summary: TPP was a disaster (for unspecified reasons) and was the "NAFTA renegotiation" I was talking about.

Agreed, TPP was an absolute disaster, and it's a good thing we avoided it, for many reasons.

You are agreeing with yourself, not with Sherr.  Sherr was simply summarizing your argument.  Please don't quote out of context in an effort to make it seem like others are agreeing with you.

Not a single tariff has been enacted yet, this is just “art of the deal” negotiations about Obamas disastrous Trade agreement, and rectifying THEIR unfair and illegal trade activities. Long term it is sorely needed and LONG overdue.

This makes zero sense to me, so please connect the dots to me.  How does the Obama administration's formulation of the TPP relate to trade with CHINA - which wasn't in the TPP. 

You seem to be conflate NAFTA, the TPP, and China when the former two have seemingly little to do with the current rhetoric.

[aspiringnomad]

Our last president didn't do anything other than his disastrous Trade agreement.

Care to elaborate on this or is it just a Sean Hannity talking point? Genuinely curious. @dustinst22

Don't want to derail this thread, happy to PM about it if you'd like.  In short, NAFTA cost the US a lot of jobs, drove illegal immigration to astronomical numbers, drove our trade deficit through the roof w/Mexico and Canada, and the deal has worked poorly for Mexico as well.

This post right here shows the cluelessness he started with, saying that Obama didn't do anything other than a "disastrous" trade agreement and then pointing directly to NAFTA as it has existed for the past 24 years when asked for clarification (his assessment of NAFTA anyway), not to some possible "renegotiation" of NAFTA via TPP (which involved several other countries and had different objectives and which never actually came into effect). The rest of it is just him making it up as he goes along via Google search.

[HBFIRE]

The disastrous TPP Was signed Feb 4th 2016. In January of 2017 (just after taking office) Trump withdrew from TPP. Had Trump NOT been elected it would have been ratified by Clinton. THEREFORE it is Obama’s disaster.
 
Obama LET China steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs.
 
Watch Obama defend HIS deal and  MOCK  Trumps saying “ I’m going to negotiate a better deal” in June of 2016 DURING the campaign!!!!:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-EWG6gYlhQ
 
Trump is solving the problems Obama turned a blind eye to, then exacerbated. 

[maizefolk]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

[HBFIRE]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

In case you haven't been paying attention, China has been doing this for a long time.  Obama turned a blind eye to it, Trump is finally doing something about it.

[aspiringnomad]

The disastrous TPP Was signed Feb 4th 2016. In January of 2017 (just after taking office) Trump withdrew from TPP. Had Trump NOT been elected it would have been ratified by Clinton. THEREFORE it is Obama’s disaster.

The TPP would have to have been ratified by Congress before any president could sign it and before it "enters into force." That's true for all countries that were party to the agreement (replace Congress with Parliament or whatever). The signing you reference was only ceremonial.

And you weren't referring to TPP at the outset, but NAFTA, anyway. Keep googling! Maybe you'll learn the TPP as it was constructed was anything but a disaster for the US, especially if the goal is to grow exports while pressuring China to engage more fairly.

[aspiringnomad]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

Because facts are of little import these days.

Ironically, TPP would have been a revolutionary step forward in establishing rules for digital trade, data flows, and IP in the Asia-Pacific. Current rules were established before the internet.

[nereo]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

In case you haven't been paying attention, China has been doing this for a long time.  Obama turned a blind eye to it, Trump is finally doing something about it.

Perhaps I was too vague earlier - I'll condense my question:  What does the TPP have to do with China?

[HBFIRE]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

Because facts are of little import these days.

Ironically, TPP would have been a revolutionary step forward in establishing rules for digital trade, data flows, and IP in the Asia-Pacific. Current rules were established before the internet.

That's not irony, sorry pet peeve of mine when irony isn't used right.  There are many many problems with the TPP.

[nereo]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

Because facts are of little import these days.

Ironically, TPP would have been a revolutionary step forward in establishing rules for digital trade, data flows, and IP in the Asia-Pacific. Current rules were established before the internet.

That's not irony, sorry pet peeve of mine when irony isn't used right.  There are many many problems with the TPP.

It does fit the definition of irony; when an outcome is the opposite of the intended or predicted outcome.  In this case you are rightfully pointing out that China has demanded intellectual property in exchange for foreign countries being permitted to do business there.  One of the provisions of the TPP was stricter controls on intellectual property for other countries in SE Asia, rules that are still largely absent.

[HBFIRE]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

Because facts are of little import these days.

Ironically, TPP would have been a revolutionary step forward in establishing rules for digital trade, data flows, and IP in the Asia-Pacific. Current rules were established before the internet.

That's not irony, sorry pet peeve of mine when irony isn't used right.  There are many many problems with the TPP.

It does fit the definition of irony; when an outcome is the opposite of the intended or predicted outcome.  In this case you are rightfully pointing out that China has demanded intellectual property in exchange for foreign countries being permitted to do business there.  One of the provisions of the TPP was stricter controls on intellectual property for other countries in SE Asia, rules that are still largely absent.

In that case it would be the intended consequence of the TPP, that's not irony or even close to it.

The correct term here would have been interestingly, or coincidentally.

[aspiringnomad]

How is a trade deal which was never ratified with a group of countries that doesn't include china letting "china steal our patents, steal our copyrights, steal our technology, and steal our jobs."?

Because facts are of little import these days.

Ironically, TPP would have been a revolutionary step forward in establishing rules for digital trade, data flows, and IP in the Asia-Pacific. Current rules were established before the internet.

That's not irony, sorry pet peeve of mine when irony isn't used right.  There are many many problems with the TPP.

Nope, I think it's textbook irony: TPP would have gone a long way towards curbing IP theft in Asia, thereby growing a coalition of countries that play by our rules, thereby pressuring China, the same thing you are railing against Obama for not doing. Oh, the irony.

I'm sure there are some anti-free trade (or maybe anti-Obama but otherwise free trade) pundits out there that criticize the TPP and can nitpick "problems." Doesn't mean it wasn't a positive for the US, including a good portion of Trump's rural base.

[HBFIRE]

Yeah that's not irony.

[aspiringnomad]

Yeah that's not irony.

^And that's not sarcasm.

[HBFIRE]

[nereo]

so back to the TPP and China....

[marty998]

Would just like to point out how much of a disaster the TPP would have been to Australia had it been enacted in one of the original forms.

You guys keep wanting to fuck us over on pharmaceuticals and when our government wants to enforce health policy for the public benefit (Hello Philip Morris!!!) your multi-nationals would have taken legal action for "deprivation of profits"* against our government using ISDS provisions in secret courts and tribunals.

I really don't understand your outrage that the TPP would have been "disastrous" for America. You guys would have won big time. I am all for free trade. Proper free trade. But companies can't go around suing governments just because they don't like laws that stop them from killing people or destroying the environment. I am glad the new TPP somewhat sorta addresses it, but given everything was done hush hush in secret with no public review you have to question whether there's some nasty crap in there. Trump's deplorables are onto something, but they don't realise they would have been the winners out of it.

* This actually happened. Philip Morris sued the Australian Government in the jurisdiction of Hong Kong for loss of profits over plain packaging of cigarettes. They lost (thank Christ).

[bwall]

I'd love it if someone could explain to me in plain English why the TPP was bad for the USA. Perhaps Dustinst22 can do this?

What provisions would hurt US companies?

How would the USA be worse off?