So, let's talk about the TPP and why it shouldn't go through

[Funyarinpa]

Privatization means that a sector that was once owned by the state (public sector), and thus created profit for said state, is sold off to a privately owned corporation.

Typically terms are created so that the state still generates some profit, and the sector is usually never sold in its entirety.

Why is it good?

Quick way to turn in a profit, especially if a sector is doing poorly or causing losses.

Why is it bad?

While the short term benefits are apparent, long term it usually ends up causing losses for everyone because:

1) Eventually the capital the state made with the sale will run out and then they're no longer profiting off that sector, meaning that long term the problem was not fixed. Governments make you believe they'll properly invest the money they made, but it usually goes to pay off debts

2) Privately owned companies tend to buy cheaper work whenever they can, and for a sector that was once public, this usually means firing a lot of the previously existing workforce, lowering salaries and outsourcing a lot of the work to cheaper places like China. Thus creating more unemployment.

3) Private sectors make their own rules and a sector that was once under state regulation now becomes subject to the wills and whims of corporation owners. 

The TPP essentially makes it even easier for a company to abuse their power in sectors they own, this could heavily impact the lives of all the people currently employed in all these countries and the countries wouldn't even be able to fight back.

Let this be clear: the TPP is made by companies, for companies, and you do NOT benefit from it.

Thanks! 

[Suzu Fanatic]

I've been reading up on this recently, and turns out the leading group in my country is pushing for this as well - I suspect due to just how far in debt we are - so yay for a real-life Shadowrun~ (since I know this will pass - at least in my country - too many people remain uninformed, and most don't use the internet in a meaningful way).

[KuroganeHomura]

http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/10817446/

Edit: Parody works in Japan won't get fucked at this point in time, basically.

Edited November 12, 2015 by KuroganeHomura

[Suzu Fanatic]

Dusting this off, since I came across some news - if you live in the U.S. - your government passed C.I.S.A quietly a few days ago. (can google it pretty easily, too lazy to link))

It's not directly related to the TPP - but good a place as any to put this. It's basically a law that allows businesses to gather and share all information it collects on you (searching habits, sites visited, etc) to the government - providing both useless and useful information for dissemination. Google, Youtube, Twitter, and so on. Though "businesses" is abit vague, I suspect ISPs fall under that as well. Just a word of warning to our U.s. members. Might want to reconsider yarharharrring - but time will tell if thats their goal, or if they have bigger fish to fry.

 

The times we live in, huh? Glad I'm not american - though I don't think it will be too long before my government mimics the bill. =/

[Zenophilious]

Yep, those fuckers shoehorned the entire thing into NASA's funding bill.  There was literally no way it wasn't going to pass.  Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will strike it down as the unconstitutional BS that it is.

[Mugi]

TPP is dead boiz, we can rest easy

[Nosebleed]

And may it remain that way. 

[EastCoastDrifter]

Is it official? Where did you get the info that the TPP is officially dead? Can you provide the link please?

[Nosebleed]

34 minutes ago, KonpekiUmi said:

Is it official? Where did you get the info that the TPP is officially dead? Can you provide the link please?

Was published on the Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-gives-up-on-pacific-trade-deal-1478895824

Full text:

Obama Administration Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal

Congressional GOP leaders indicated they wouldn’t consider Trans-Pacific Partnership in lame-duck session

The Obama administration on Friday gave up all hope of enacting its sweeping Pacific trade agreement, a pact designed to preserve U.S. economic influence in fast-growing Asia that was buried by a wave of antitrade political sentiment that culminated with Tuesday’s presidential election.

Just days after Donald Trump surprise victory, U.S. officials said Republican congressional leaders had made clear that they wouldn’t consider the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership in the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term. The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if the Democratic nominee,Hillary Clinton, had won.

The failure to pass what is by far the biggest trade agreement in more than a decade is a bitter defeat for Mr. Obama, whose belated but fervent support for freer trade divided his party and complicated the campaign of Mrs. Clinton.

The TPP’s collapse also dents American prestige in the region at a time when China is flexing its economic and military muscle.

Just over a year ago Republicans were willing to vote overwhelmingly in support of Mr. Obama’s trade policy. But as the political season approached and voters registered their concerns by supporting Mr. Trump, the GOP reacted coolly to the deal Mr. Obama’s team reached with Japan and 10 others countries just over a year ago in Atlanta. Winning a majority of votes for the TPP in the House and Senate would have required both a last-minute deal to address Republican priorities and an election result that didn’t show such broad discontent.

Neither occurred. Since the election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) have both said no to bringing the TPP to a vote in the lame duck session, despite many senators’ strong support for freer trade.

In the House, Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), the chairman of the House committee that oversees trade, said in a statement Wednesday that “this important agreement is not ready to be considered during the lame duck and will remain on hold until President Trump decides the path forward.”

Matthew McAlvanah, a spokesman for U.S. trade representative Mike Froman, said Friday that despite all the work the administration has done with lawmakers on Capitol Hill “ultimately it is a legislative process, and the final step is for Congress to take.”

White House officials preparing for Mr. Obama’s trip to meet Pacific leaders in Peru acknowledged the defeat on Friday. “In terms of the TPP agreement itself, Leader McConnell has spoken to that, and it’s something that he’s going to work with the president-elect to figure out where they go in terms of trade agreements in the future,” said Wally Adeyemo, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

Chinese officials preparing for the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit next week said they had heard the rumblings of protectionism and vowed to push alternative, lower-standard Pacific trade deals that aren’t likely to include the U.S.

President Xi Jinping will seek support for a broad free-trade area in the Asia-Pacific during the APEC summit, a senior Chinese official said.

U.S. officials have long warned that failure to pass the TPP, which doesn’t include China, would help Beijing take the lead with another framework, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which could be concluded in coming months and would lower or eliminate tariffs among some Pacific countries but not the U.S.

Neither proposed trade framework would have the TPP’s safeguards for intellectual property, the environment, labor or other U.S. priorities, administration officials say. A tariffs-only trade agreement led by China wouldn’t have the same strategic or economic impact as the TPP.

Recently China has started taking advantage of U.S. hesitation abroad to push its own international financial programs and economic alliances, marking a new phase in the U.S.-led order that has helped provide prosperity and security in the Pacific for decades.

This week’s election is also affecting European ties. The top trade official in Brussels said Friday that Mr. Trump’s election will further delay a big trade deal the Obama administration has been negotiating with the European Union—the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP.

Many American politicians see U.S. trade agreements as complicated and politically fraught deals that can provide a bit of extra economic growth and shore up strategic alliances.

But foreign officials see Washington’s willingness to enter into such deals as a crucial barometer on whether the world’s biggest economy and military power is looking outward toward international engagement and problem-solving or inward toward domestic problems.

The 2016 election season has shown that domestic concerns about globalization, the trade deficit and stagnant wages easily beat out the appetite for international engagement.

The TPP became a symbol Washington pursuing policies that disproportionately favor wealthier Americans over ordinary workers. Mr. Trump blamed the TPP on special interests trying to “rape” the country.

Some lawmakers and officials say the TPP or a similar deal could reappear in the Pacific in the future, perhaps with different countries in the region or even a single partner.

[EastCoastDrifter]

10 minutes ago, Nosebleed said:

Was published on the Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-gives-up-on-pacific-trade-deal-1478895824

So the whole thing fell apart because of Trump? Who knew. I am happy that the TPP is finally gone, but I still don't support the guy. I'll always remain neutral if politics come into play.

[Nosebleed]

4 minutes ago, KonpekiUmi said:

So the whole thing fell apart because of Trump? Who knew. I am happy that the TPP is finally gone, but I still don't support the guy. I'll always remain neutral if politics come into play.

Trump has been against the TPP for a long time now. Funnily enough, not for the same reasons as most other people are against it.

Trump hates the idea of focusing on a global economy because he claims that'll hurt the actual hard-working Americans, whereas other people hated the TPP because of how ridiculously powerful it made companies as well as its awful regulations on patents and digital property.

Their intentions were different, but their goals aligned: stop the TPP. And it worked.

[Darklord Rooke]

2 hours ago, Nosebleed said:

Trump hates the idea of focusing on a global economy because he claims that'll hurt the actual hard-working Americans

Free trade agreements dismantle barriers to trade. One of the ways they do this is by either reducing or eliminating tariffs. Tariffs were erected to discourage importing into a country, this way it rewards businesses manufacturing inside the country in question, producing jobs. Reducing or eliminating tariffs could very well encourage businesses to outsource labor to another country and provide American consumers with cheap imports. That's the theory behind Trump's reasoning, free trade agreements encourage outsourcing.

I'm no good at economics, but this sort of protectionism doesn't seem like a viable long term solution, but it does align firmly under the Protectionist ideology he was campaigning under. 

[ExtraMana]

Trump squashed the TPP.

Thank god.