
The TPP Deal Won’t Improve Our Security - walterbell
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/why-the-tpp-deal-wont-improve-our-security.html?_r=0
======
snowwrestler
> It is hugely dependent on China to fund its borrowing. Were it not for the
> fact that the dollar is the main global currency and that Washington can
> still borrow in the dollars it prints, the country would have gone bankrupt
> long ago.

Yes, a sovereign nation can print its own currency. This passes for insightful
analysis these days?

The author fails to mention (on purpose, I'm sure) that the U.S. is paying
very low interest rates for the privilege of borrowing all that money from
abroad. The U.S. is not leaning precariously on lenders like China; it is
selling something that everyone wants these days: a stable store of value.
That's why the dollar is the global reserve currency: because it is the most
desired currency. That is not a weakness, that is a strength.

Speaking of China, where does the author think it gets all that money it lends
to the U.S.? China is still an economy that is highly dependent on exports
driven by foreign IP. We hire Chinese companies to manufacture stuff that we
invented, then we buy that stuff, and then China takes that money and buys
U.S. Treasuries. Yet somehow in the author's mind it is China that has the
upper hand.

The author accuses the Obama administration of using fear of China to sell the
TPP, then proceeds to push even dumber China fear-mongering. His argument is
essentially that China is just so damn good that we shouldn't bother with the
TPP. Does anyone buy that, either on the facts or the logic?

~~~
Taniwha
What makes you think China isn't creating it's own IP? it is after all 1/4 of
the worlds people, and contains 1/4 of the world's smart people ... more than
are in the US ....

~~~
programmarchy
Partly because Western culture evolved differently and emphasizes the
individual rather than the collective, which is a big driver behind
innovation. The immaterial/philosophical elements of culture diffuse much
slower than the material/technological which explains why Asian and Orthodox
civilizations lag behind in IP production, despite having adopted tech from
the agricultural/industrial revolutions.

~~~
mc32
Chinese parents have begun to question Confucian orthodoxy in pedagogy and are
demanding less rote learning and more exploration, inquisitiveness and
questioning authority (of teachers).

However, their main issue will become an aging population --like Japan/Korea
and Europe.

~~~
brobinson
>Chinese parents have begun to question Confucian orthodoxy in pedagogy

Do you have a source for this? This is the first I've heard of it.

~~~
mc32
You can search for it. Here is one reference but you can find others.

[http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20160526-FACING-UP-TO-
HISTOR...](http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20160526-FACING-UP-TO-HISTORY/Life-
Arts/Innovation-creativity-making-inroads-into-China-s-education-system)

~~~
brobinson
Thanks!

------
walterbell
From Joseph Stiglitz, [https://medium.com/@GlobalTradeWatch/will-tpp-help-to-
curb-c...](https://medium.com/@GlobalTradeWatch/will-tpp-help-to-curb-chinas-
rise-b0190e86d64c#.sre7o43xa)

 _" Rather than checking China’s economic power, TPP would actually afford
China substantial benefits via generous “rules of origin.” ... sets the origin
threshold so low that even if the vast majority of value-added content come
from outside countries, a product may be able to get preferential treatment
... more than 90 percent of the value of a product can come from outside TPP
and still qualify for benefits under the agreement ... This is the worst of
both worlds: goods sourced from countries that do not commit to TPP’s labor,
environmental, and other standards or reciprocate market opening to our goods
can still get free access to TPP markets.

Rather than strategically countering China’s influence, TPP will hand a win to
China’s companies and the multinational corporations that have put China at
the heart of their global business strategies. This should be no surprise
given who wrote the rules and the secrecy with which they were written — not
“we” the people, but the battalion of lobbyists working tirelessly with the
U.S. Trade Representative, who now hope to ram it undemocratically through a
lame duck Congress later this year._"

~~~
tptacek
Is Stiglitz claiming that Obama is hopelessly naive, or that he's been
captured by pro-China lobbyists?

~~~
MawNicker
He seems _very_ "meh" on everything lately. Could be one of those reasons. Are
you saying we should speculate about that before we complain about the
drafting and ratification process?

------
sunstone
The TPP is Obama cashing out of his presidency. Notice that he's been the
prime force behind the deal but he's not been front and centre in promoting
the deal. That's because he knows this deal represents corporate interests
that are not particularly well aligned with citizen's interests.

TPP is really just a warmed over version of the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (MAI), which was the last big push corporations made to further
their interests and just like that agreement the TPP will flounder in the
court of public opinion. Obama though will have paid off favours he accrued
during his presidency to corporate interests by making this half hearted
attempt to make it happen.

In the end it's all good. Obama pays his bills and the TPP ends up in the
trash where it belongs.

~~~
snowwrestler
Obama announced his intention to pursue the TPP in November 2009, less than a
year into his first term. This is not something he came up with at the end of
his presidency.

~~~
sunstone
Actually no. In January 2008 the Bush administration entered talks with the
Pacific 4 which was the original trade organisation started by Brunei, Chile,
Singapore and New Zealand and which has since morphed into the TPP under US
influence.

However, my original post doesn't imply anything about the timing of when the
TPP negotiations originated, it just speaks to my view of what's happening
with it currently.

------
ting_bu_dung
lots of talking points. let's break them down:

1.) China is negotiating its Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with
all the Asia-Pacific TPP countries -> this is old news. Ever since the South
China sea incidents/ruling, China has been acting belligerent towards all its
neighbors, and as a consequence, most countries have shied away from China and
towards US. thus the THAAD missile deploys in south korea, joint military
exercises between Japan, US, Australia, and even closer relationships between
Japan and South Korea. Less we forget, China's power is now fundamentally in
the hands of one dictator - Xi, who grows closer to another dictator, Putin.

2.) One Belt, One Road project -> also old news. Ever since China's stock
market crash, and the world finding out China's heavily indebted, supporting
its state enterprises such as banks, steel and coal, it has no power nor
finances to go abroad. This project has simply gone nowhere, much like
supposed growing trade between China and Russia.

3.) China is now by several important measures the world’s largest economy,
with about $4 trillion of reserves -> US is the biggest economy, period. the
second biggest is US last year. China has now $3 trillion reserves and falling
(and no one knows how much it really has, since it's covering up the capital
outflows).

~~~
princeb
the RCEP is apparently being written to allow members to play fast and loose
with IP and labour laws. If TPP goes through, TPP members signing the RCEP
will not accept an agreement that allows non TPP members to be held to a lower
standard while trading with TPP members who are bound to the TPP requirements.
The RCEP is not an opposing plan to the TPP that is true, and likely both will
coexist peacefully in the future, but TPP going through is going to influence
the nature of RCEP significantly. the RCEP is still in infancy, so a lot can
change in that thing.

------
mark-r
Don't forget that TPP is also about doing an end-run around our own Congress.
Once something is locked into the agreement it becomes near impossible to
change it unilaterally.

