China and the TPP

I've noticed a trend. When your argument gets demolished you get dismissive. That's transparent.

 

You know what they say... Much better than Trump's 80 billion tax on the American consumer.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...ma-enforcing-trade-rules-what-you-need-know-1

 

Please explain how my argument was demolished. I'm curious.

 

This article was funny!

"Today, the U.S. is launching its 14th trade enforcement challenge against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its 23rd overall since President Obama took office."

Wow, all of those challenges were SO successful! Yep Obama really cowed the Chinese!

Look I get it. You want to return to the pre-Trump status quo. Well OK, you are getting it. You win. Not win on trade, but in a globalist kind of "let China do what it wants" way.

 

How about you spend some time reading about how experts saw the TPP as the best way to bring pressure to bear on China so they would be more likely to comply with international trade rules/laws and then get back to me with any questions.

 

You mean the same experts who thought we could turn China into a Western democracy by sending all of our manufacturing there? Such experts!

So...you can't explain how you demolished my argument. OK

 

You seem to have forgotten I started the thread as a way to curb China.
It was your boy Trump that screwed the pooch.

 

No such experts ever existed. Do you always make things up when you are foundering?

"So...you can't explain how you demolished my argument."

If you're asking me if I thought you'd acknowledge the demolition, the answer is no.

 

I was asking if you could describe the demolition, and the answer apparently is no.

 

Actually, I just never thought you really cared about curbing China. You're simply trying to provide cover on an issue which you realize is a a real issue with millions of Americans, and you probably think you can shut it down by getting China to sign some agreement, or at least saying you want China to sign some agreement.

 

You must have missed it. The only agreement signed was the one China did with the former TPP nations. They get a free trade agreement we get minus 80 billion in tariffs.

 

China has already replaced us in the TTP trade agreement, they now have a free trade agreement with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and others.

Cheers

 

More.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...l-with-14-countries/ar-BB1b32Q1?ocid=msedgntp

 

I think that the ship has sailed on the TPP. After the Trump Admin. unceremoniously dropped participation in the agreement, in the intervening years China has had the opportunity to steal a march on us when it comes to regional trade relations. I much doubt that we can simply pick up the agreement where the Trump Admin. dropped it. It was essentially designed as an economic counterweight to China, a peaceful means of being able to apply pressure to the Chinese state. Since the Trump Admin. has markedly increased tensions with Beijing, trying to re-invigorate the agreement would not only likely falter, but would be seen by the Chinese as an aggressive move in a way they may not have earlier.

The primary foreign policy challenge of the United States between now and midcentury will be trying to accommodate China's rise in such a way as to maximally conserve our geostrategic position. We will have to approach the relationship the same way they do: we will have to look at all dimensions of the relationship - trade, diplomatic-military (including cyber and space exploration), human rights - as all of a piece. Problems in any one of these areas will bleed into the others.

In my view the United States is in a classic "Thucydides Trap" conundrum (where an established power is confronting a quickly-rising rival) with regard to China. We must make the uttermost effort to see that we do not fall into a war with China. A Sino-American war would shatter American power globally, and could very well lead to a nuclear war.

 

I don't think anyone can have an educated opinion on this, without having a rough idea of what's in the deal. Thanks for this VERY vague, ultra-general article on the deal, eventually. Sorry if I'm cranky (so a little sarcastic) at the moment. But this article told me about what I already knew before I read it: that there had been BOTH positive & negative aspects to the deal; that is, I was aware that was the case of the version Obama wanted us to sign onto, two deals & 8 yrs. ago. China had not initially been a part of that deal, but intellectual property rights were. Since it was assumed China would want to be part of the partnership, this would be our leverage. In the Obama view, this made it a win-win. Even though some other parts of our economy would take something of a hit, and there were not substantial provisions for raising worker-wages, etc., in other low-wage nations, we had a way either: A) to be at the head seat at the Far Eastern/Western Pacific table, & exclude CHINA; or B) force China to abide by these copyright protections for intellectual property, if they wanted to be in the deal. Of course, now they're already in, so it would be more a case of our only being able to get whatever small concessions China would be willing to give (& it's not clear that the Chinese might prefer it if we stayed out, & left them as the principal power).

That is one of the things on which, awareness of the details would allow a person, to voice an intelligent view. I must add, however, that I don't even know if the full agreement is available &, if it is, it probably runs thousands of pgs., and requires a law degree, not to mention a master's in economics, to read, interpret, & understand. So I would not expect you, ronv, to be able to do that on your own, if I was, earlier, unclear about that. All I'm saying is that if this is the depth-level of available analyses, there's really not enough to go on to make an informed decision (as if someone in government is going to ask us). Here is an excerpt from the article:
++++++++++++++++++
On the 2016 campaign trail, presidential candidates including Trump, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton all criticized President Barack Obama’s TPP as a threat to American manufacturing jobs. In this year’s election cycle, President-elect Joe Biden has not committed to a position on whether he would opt in or out. Biden has said he would prioritize first strengthening American worker competitiveness and infrastructure before considering entering trade deals.

India, Asia’s third-largest economy, also pulled out of the RCEP last year amid fears that some domestic industries would be ravaged if it lowered tariffs on Chinese products.

But the new deal has been toasted by several Asian leaders, none more than Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who praised the signing as “victory for multilateralism and free trade” and “a ray of light and hope amid the clouds.”


Across Asia, reactions were more mixed. In Japan, where industries from cars to sake would probably see tariffs slashed, the Keidanren business alliance cheered while security analysts fretted about the implications of Beijing’s growing regional clout and the absence of the United States or India — counterweights to China.

+++++++++++++++

The article also backed up what I had assumed would be true, as I read posters saying that we'd missed out: NATURALLY, the other nations would love to have the U.S. in their deal (of course, now we'd have to accept most of it, as is). Biden has not indicated his preference, other than to wait, according to the article (part of the quoted section, above). As for myself, as I said, I was not privy to sufficient details, & so trusted the view of my Presidential hopeful, Bernie Sanders (while acknowledging that there was a case to be made from either side). Apparently, those who supported Biden all along, have even less guidance on this issue.

I will only put forth that, should Biden decide it is in our interest, here will be an opportunity to prove his touted toughness on China. Though, even w/o joining this partnership, there is a need for him to do that. I'm not holding my breath, but I hope he will be able to rise to the occasion. What is even more crucial, & just as questionable, is our President-elect's ability, once he gets into office, to wield the deal-making magic he's promised (&, I'm sure, believes he can deliver) to persuade McConnell & Senate Republicans to stop obstructing. That, & what happens in the 2022 midterms, look to largely be the determining factors in what the next four years will bring. Though I wish him the best of luck, I'd rather see Democrats pick up both Georgia Senate seats, in January.

 

You are the second to overlook that the thread was started before the announcement of a deal. So of course details are slim.
What is important however; is that China is in and we are out.

 

What about the WTO and TRIPS? China didn't sign those?

 

Sure. And they have been prosecuted under those.
But this one, they get the goodies and we get 2 more months of Spanky.
So much losing.

 

So...no point then?

 

Which 1) Is not beyond changing, though it would no longer be the same, as I noted; &,
2) after my initial remark--that I identified as being attributable to a transitory grouchiness-- I thought I made clear I realized that you could not be held responsible for a dearth of available information. If it helps there from being any hard feelings, I will formally say that I'm sorry if I was rude.

That said, 1) there may be good reason that two of us, already, have not realized that this thread predates the formal announcement of the deal. How would we know that? Your Opening Post was very sparse in information. And, regardless,
2) the earliness of the thread does not alter the validity of my contention that, without further information, any opinions on it could not be called, "educated."

 

Sounds like you still have the grouchies.

 

Lol.