
Obama Administration Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal - aroberge
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-gives-up-on-pacific-trade-deal-1478895824
======
snowwrestler
The "world order" will look very different by the time Trump leaves office. He
wants to cede more of the Middle East to Russia, reduce our participation and
leadership in NATO, reduce our military presence in South Korea and Japan, and
cancel or renegotiate trade deals, including the TPP.

The result will be a world that is more clearly apportioned among 3-4 major
powers. Small Asian countries, if they can't get a feeling of solid support
from the U.S., will eventually ally themselves with China. And the EU and
Russia will battle (hopefully not openly) over the lands between and near
them.

It's essentially the end of "pax Americana". I think it's incredibly short-
sighted. Trump looks at international relations as a quarterly balance sheet
but almost certainly does not properly account for the value of the stability
the U.S. provides throughout the world now.

~~~
MichaelApproved
This is an argument that Trump has been making for decades. He believes US is
getting the short end of these deals because he sees the US almost as mob guys
providing protection but forgetting to collect protection money. He sees the
US as spending money protecting Japan, S. Korea, and Europe without getting
proper return. I believe we've been getting peace and favorable trade deals in
return. He thinks that isn't enough and that it's time to collect.

The same thinking has him arguing that we should get the oil fields after the
Iraq war.

I don't agree with this reasoning but we're about to see this play out.

Edit: here's a video that I linked to in my other comments. It's an Opera
interview from 1988 where Trump says Japan is "beating the hell out of this
country" and "they aren't paying"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI)

This has been the most consistent part of Trump's platform. America is getting
the short end of the deal.

Again, I'm not a Trump supporter but this policy is what Trump genuinely
believes and will likely pursue.

~~~
krisdol
But he's not aware of the whole story. Japan is paying us money (billions, I
think) to keep those bases there. I assume the same goes with other countries.
This isn't free protection.

~~~
ern
In 1988, Japan loomed large in the American psyche, the same way China does
today, if not more so. It was the unstoppable economic juggernaut that was
destroying American jobs.

I doubt Trump would had the same views of Japan specifically, as he did then.
He seems to have transferred his ire to China.

~~~
jrockway
He took out a full-page ad in 1987:

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-trump-
spent-n...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-trump-spent-
nearly-100000-on-an-ad-criticizing-us)

And read it almost verbatim at the third debate. It was quite interesting how
little his views have changed in the intervening years.

------
binalpatel
With a background in Economics - I've always been inclined to support free
trade deals. Granted it's one thing to theoretically say they're great, and
another to say it to the face of someone who's lost their job because of it.

Cheaper goods help the American people in aggregate - but they
disproportionately hurt certain swathes of the population, primarily those who
work in manufacturing and related fields. One has a large intangible benefit
spread out - another has a very tangible human face to it.

~~~
twblalock
The problem with this argument is that numerous studies have shown that trade
is responsible for a small proportion of manufacturing jobs lost in America in
the past few decades.

Increases in productivity and automation have been shown to be responsible for
most of the job losses, and those would have happened with or without free
trade agreements. In fact, the US manufactures more things than it ever has
before -- it simply does so with fewer workers.

This means that restrictions on trade won't bring many jobs back. If US
companies have to manufacture things in the US, they will automate their
factories as much as possible to save money.

These articles cite the studies I mentioned, and are pretty good in general:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-
weal...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-wealth-more-
jobs-but-not-for-everyone-what-fuels-the-backlash-on-trade.html)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/the-rage-
ag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/the-rage-against-
trade.html?_r=0)

~~~
riazrizvi
Maybe the point is that an economic strategy that chases marginal cost savings
only creates short term benefits for investors while selling out an
industrious workforce that were otherwise poised to create the next big
innovation.

~~~
twblalock
What big innovation did you expect factory workers to create?

~~~
riazrizvi
Well, in a Widget Factory there are all sorts. It's a hierarchy of workers
with different skills. Typically though it is experienced/managerial/technical
staff, who figure out how to improve things. Yes some of them do come out of
the lower ranks. Pretty sure Henry Ford was just an engineer in someone else's
company before he started making cars which lead him to inventing the modern
assembly line as we know it today.

~~~
eru
Ford used to work for Edison. (According to Wikipedia.)

------
acconrad
Can someone explain to me why the sentiment on here has changed? If I remember
correctly, when we first learned of this TPP, everyone here was up in arms
that it was a secret cabal designed to infringe on innovation. I think there
was an EFF blog post describing those sentiments.

~~~
thisisdallas
I'll get down voted but it doesn't really matter. The sentiment changed
because of identity politics. As soon as Trump mentioned he was against the
tpp places like hn and reddit suddenly became very quiet in their opposition
to it.

~~~
grzm
You know, it would make a really interesting study to follow up on theories
(in the scientific sense) like this. The HN data is available, isn't it?

~~~
thisisdallas
I agree it would be interesting!

This certainly isn't scientific at all but a quick search for tpp (all time
popularity) shows the first page of results as posts that primarily took place
more than a year ago.
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

Trump mentioned he was opposed to the tpp almost exactly one year ago today.

If we search the popular 'tpp' posts from December 1st 2015 to today, we get
results that show posts that are critical of the tpp but over half of the
first page of results have less than 100 upvotes.
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=custom&type=story&dateStart=1448928000&dateEnd=1478908800)

Like I said, not scientific but kind of interesting I guess?

~~~
grzm
Cool. Nice quick hack! How would you go about tying in identity politics?

~~~
thisisdallas
My theory is that, and this totally based on opinion, most people don't want
to show support for a specific idea or policy of the "enemy" politician out of
fear from being persecuted by those who are on their same team. "I might agree
with Trump on the tpp but I will certainly never say I agree with Trump about
anything."

~~~
grzm
Working with what you've described, how would you go about supporting that
with HN data? Selfish reason for asking: I've been thinking about doing
something like this, but haven't yet spent much time thinking about it. :)

------
AndrewKemendo
I think as a somewhat meta-analysis of the outspoken HN crowd on this deal
(based on current comments) - it's valuable to look at previous discussions on
HN:

Top comment excerpt from this thread from a year ago [1]:

 _It is an awful document, with horrible policy, yes....What these leaders are
pushing is not democratic, it is oligarchic._

Top comment excerpt from this thread from a year ago [2]:

 _Reading these things makes me angry. There are people in the world who
uphold economic wealth and ownership over life itself._

And there are many others from this search:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=TPP&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=TPP&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

Note that the EFF's stance hasn't changed:

[https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp](https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp)

What seems to have changed is the messenger only. That's worth closer
introspection.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500)
[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037232)

------
Jerry2
Didn't Google openly support TPP? Seems to me that Google's was one of the
biggest losers on Nov 8. Eric Schmidt openly supported Hillary, there were
accusations of SERP manipulation, YT censorship and so on. I wonder if FTC [0]
will finally be able to go after them for anti-trust since Google's lobbyists
won't be able to stop them [1].

[0] [http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-
report/](http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/)

[1] [https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-
close...](https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-
relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I strongly suspect you'll see a shift in how the US handles Google. At least a
dozen or so Googlers work at the White House, and they'll need to find new
jobs by January 20th. (Someone with more time on their hands than me will
hopefully track whether or not they all go back to working at Google HQ
instead of Google White House.)

Given their liberal slant and their strong support for Hillary, even a pro-
business-leaning Trump probably isn't going to do Google any favors. And as
the four antitrust cases in the EU are likely to go through within the next
year, the FTC will probably at least feel some pressure to do their job.

Here's Google's open endorsement of the TPP:
[https://blog.google/topics/public-policy/the-trans-
pacific-p...](https://blog.google/topics/public-policy/the-trans-pacific-
partnership-step/)

------
guelo
The reason Obama wanted TPP so badly was that he saw it as necessary to
contain China's growing influence in South East Asia. Trump, who also claims
to want to contain China, seems uninterested or uninformed in this type of
geopolitical struggle.

The part of the TPP that turned off most techies was the extending and
exporting of our draconian Intellectual Property laws. Those laws were
designed and pushed by Hollywood as a form of protectionism for the their
industry, exactly the kind of protectionism for American companies that Trump
claims to support. Hollywood politically is normally aligned with Democrats,
but Trump's celebrity is a product of that same Hollywood, so I imagine Trump
understands very well the desire for those IP protections.

------
georgeglue1
This is a shame. Globalism is good for people overall, and the US has almost
instantly lost a lot of credibility and influence in the region (especially in
contrast to China).

EDIT: I'm amazed to see all other comments so far are anti-trade.

~~~
YuriNiyazov
Did you miss the part where the election was partially a referendum on
globalism?

~~~
redditmigrant
If you are assuming Clinton and Trump are proxies for and against
globalization respectively, more people (aka popular vote) actually voted for
continuing globalization.

~~~
krisdol
Clinton also stood against TPP.

~~~
tomp
She only changed her stance because of pressure from Sanders. Given her
"private and public policies", I didn't believe her.

------
cakeface
At least one silver lining to the GOP/Trump change in the wind. I hope that we
are able to find more as time goes on. As outrageous as Trump is and as much
as I find him personally reprehensible I hope for at least a few welcome
policy changes.

------
Hjugo
TTIP is probably dead as well: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-
election-eu-trade-idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-eu-
trade-idUSKBN1361UN) Only problem with that is that CETA is still on it's way,
so there is still a possibility that the American corporations get what they
wanted to have with TTIP.

~~~
kuschku
With Trump wanting to end NAFTA, and CETA having no ISDS but a real court, and
Canada being a lot more liberal, I actually don't see much of a threat in
CETA.

------
cpr
The TPP was a disguised corporate takeover of national sovereignty, with
supranational TPP courts deciding trade policies.

~~~
cconroy
I dont know why your getting downvoted. This is a serious problem. Also
copyrights and patents. Think drugs that people need. This is more about
protectionism than free trade from what I've been reading

"ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially
to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S.
court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic
chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and
environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical
opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But
with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an
international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be
challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American
taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages"
[0]

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-
set...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-
language-in-the-trans-pacific-
partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html)

------
walterbell
New trade agreements can be negotiated with a broader set of government,
corporate and civil society stakeholders, with early public transparency when
possible.

NAFTA 1.0 is likely to be re-opened. One outcome could be that sensible
provisions in TPP find their way into NAFTA 2.0, while parts of NAFTA 1.0 are
removed. TPP was a giveaway to a narrow set of special interests. If it is
renegotiated, it will at a minimum include a larger set of stakeholders. This
time around, there will be a high level of public scrutiny.

~~~
milesskorpen
Trade deals and transparency unfortunately don't go well together. Trade deals
are negotiations — the government can't just decide what to do, since they're
dealing with other governments. There needs to be a give and take. If
negotiated in public it is way too easy for carefully balanced deals to
collapse in the face of opposition from small subgroups even if the net impact
is moderately good for lots of people.

The flip side is that it is not great that this results in influential
industry groups having way too much power. Not sure how to resolve this.

~~~
mixedCase
>The flip side is that it is not great that this results in influential
industry groups having way too much power. Not sure how to resolve this.

Don't make multinational all-encompasing trade deals. If you want freer trade,
the best way to do it is to make small agreements on a country-by-country
basis to tear down some protectionist policies each party has against the
other.

This allows you to pick and choose the deals the population wants.

~~~
eru
If you want free trade, the best way to go about it is to just lower your own
barriers to trade: just because other countries are banging their heads
against the wall doesn't mean we should do so, too.

No negotiation required.

The classical parable uses the more topical `if that other country was putting
rubble in all their harbours, would we do so too? If not, why does it make a
difference if their barriers physical or political?'

~~~
mixedCase
> If you want free trade, the best way to go about it is to just lower your
> own barriers to trade: just because other countries are banging their heads
> against the wall doesn't mean we should do so, too.

Are you saying protectionist policies don't work? Because your idea would do
nothing but hurt your own country by putting you at a disadvantage.

~~~
eru
Protectionist policies are as a whole bad for the country enacting them. (But
they can benefit certain special interests.)

This is basically the least controversial and most orthodox position in the
history of all of economics. Basically all economists agree with this one,
even if they disagree on a lot of other things.

------
dnprock
I think abandoning TPP is a mistake. TPP is for curbing China influence. I
think many Americans underestimate China. They are a lot more powerful than
they show.

~~~
venomsnake
And why should USA curb china?

~~~
dnprock
They're eating our lunch. If you think China is a nice guy and compete fairly,
you are wrong. China is dominating Asia, pulling away American allies,
spreading its economic influence, fast. If we are ok, then we don't have to do
anything.

~~~
chillacy
That didn't seem to happen with the USSR, and that sentiment was very popular
during the Cold War.

------
hourislate
It has been my observation that Free Trade / Globalization has typically
benefited the weaker party in the deal or Corporations. The American worker
has historically been the causality. Ross Perot use to say hear that sucking
sound, it's your jobs going to Mexico and Canada.

As time goes on I suppose automation and AI will make cheap labor a non-factor
in the cost of a widget. Countries/Corporations will want to trade to secure
access to products and markets instead of using cheap labor to gain an
advantage. Products will have to compete on their quality and technological
advantages. The main factors determining the cost of a product will be clean
and reliable power, good transportation network and access to raw materials.

Either way it seems likely now that in the future the Manufacturing worker in
Asia or America will eventually be a casualty.

------
jimbokun
I wonder if this would have helped Hillary if they did this a few months ago.

------
eva1984
Grant multinational corporate supremacy over government is wrong.

------
dmode
Republicans are against free trade now.

~~~
mixedCase
Why do a suprising amount of people in this thread act like the TPP is "just
free trade".

~~~
cardiffspaceman
The Fine Article:

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.

The WSJ article we are here to talk about actually equates the treaty with
free trade.

The article also basically describes an alignment with Congressional GOP with
Trump on the subject:

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.

There are reasons not to equate the treaty with free trade and not to equate
GOP with Trump but the actual article points out the links.

------
siliconc0w
Why Democracy is difficult:

There is a politician Who says they believe in an ideology Which tends to
favor an idea Which may result in them voting for a policy/law Which leads to
an implementation Which needs to be enforced Which is finally very difficult
to measure ( because there is no 'control' country that is identical save for
this particular law.)

And that is like the best case scenario without the analytically impenetrable
layers of bureaucracy and politics which can derail and subvert the process.

------
audessuscest
Good. One thing Trump will not have to do.

~~~
theandrewbailey
One could say he's already done it.

~~~
walterbell
Yes, before even taking office.

------
mc32
Neither here nor there now, but would Obama or was Obama planning on giving up
on it regardless of winner? If so, why wait till after election results?

Why not undercut one of Trump's platform items before the elections?

------
mrfusion
I'm curious if they had left out the most objectionable parts of this deal it
seems like it might have been approved without much fanfare.

------
clarkmoody
You don't need 3000 pages of legalese written by corporate lobbyists to have a
trade agreement. Instead, you need to declare unilateral free trade with a
single sentence:

    
    
      We hereby impose no tariffs, quotas, or restrictions on 
      goods imported from _____.
    

Yes, free trade hurts some jobs at home. Yes, they may never come back. But
for the vast majority, their standard of living goes up with the reduced cost
of imported goods.

~~~
twblalock
Life is not nearly that simple.

First of all, there is rarely a good reason to accept unrestricted imports
from another country unless that country also allows unrestricted imports from
you -- and even then, it might not be a good idea.

Second, trade doesn't just "happen" \-- it's not like someone shows up with a
boat full of shipping containers and the port unloads it and starts selling
the stuff to passers-by out of a booth in the parking lot. There are tons of
safety regulations, customs laws, retail distribution agreements, etc. that
need to be negotiated before it is legal to bring stuff from one country into
another. That often requires coordination between governments to make sure
their laws are compatible, applications get sent to the right departments and
actually get processed, inspectors are hired and sent to the ports, etc.

So, before any corporate lobbying is involved or anyone even mentions
copyright and IP law, a trade agreement is already extremely complex.

------
user837387
So I read these comments in the Wall Street Journal and wanted to repeat them
here. I was pretty depressed but David Van Wie's attitude has uplifted me and
I believe that I will follow his example. I'm the opposition now.

>>>David Van Wie:

“It’s different now,” he said

You better believe it is. Now, Mr President-elect, you are entrusted with the
hopes and dreams of 60 million people who made you president of all 320
million Americans. In spite of everything they knew about your shortcomings
and character flaws, they still chose you.

You made many, many extravagant promises, Mr. President-elect. Lots of people
were paying attention and now expect that the amazing people you appoint to
replace the incompetent idiots there before will stand and deliver for the
country. You talked a good game, and now you need to put up your best stuff
under a white hot spotlight.

More people voted for your opponent. Remember that when you say, "I won" as if
you came into town with the wind at your back instead of through the mysteries
of the Electoral College. It ain't bragging if you got it. Do you got it? Time
will tell.

The job requires absorbing constant criticism 24 hours a day for 1,500 days in
a row, unless you are reelected. Then you can have 1,500 more days of
unrelenting criticism. The rap on you is that you can't take criticism at all.
Show us what you've really got! Show the world that you are better than your
critics think you are.

>>>>Gustavo Luzardo

@David Van Wie At some point you have got to let it go man... take a deep
breath, calm down, and enjoy the ride... ONLY in the western world, you have
the fortune of having events like this, change left and right, within seconds,
continuously re inventing the world, the peoples, the politics.

This victory, the unlikeliness, the teaching lessons, the change of course,
the reversals that yes, will come with this, ALL OF IT, is the marvel that the
West offers to its people, eternal, swift and deliberate change.

Or...

find a safe space, with hot chocolate, comfort dogs, full of kleenex for your
"cry in", all the while you sooth with Play Doh... Live in fantasy, day
dreaming

I suggest you embrace and help everybody plough thru the first choice

>>>>David Van Wie @GUSTAVO LUZARDO "take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy
the ride"

No. I'm the opposition. My job is to punch you in the mouth every day for the
next 725 days, then kick you in the balls and stomp on your head. Figuratively
speaking, of course.

I think I understand the West pretty well. Skip the guided tour of cliches. Go
tend your own garden. Your little team of Western philosophers promised the
country quite a bit. Get to work.

I got these comments from:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-
par...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-parts-of-
health-law-1478895339#renderComments)

------
ianai
I hope he spends the freed up time doing more important things. I suggest he
go as far left and oversweeping as he can in his remaining days.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
There's this thing called "Congress" that is designed to prevent exactly that.
(Granted, Congress has been pretty useless at that task for at least the last
12 years...)

~~~
mwfunk
Just about the only thing Congress has been doing for the last 6 years is
preventing the president from doing anything. Seriously, that's it. So if
that's your criteria for congressional success, mission accomplished.

However, pushing back against the president is only one of many things
Congress is designed to do. Other things include governing the country and
dealing with its problems. These are the tasks they have been useless at. Long
on obstruction, short on governance. It's what their supporters elected them
to do, so in some sense they are doing the will of the constituents, but it
doesn't make it any more adult or responsible or constructive.

~~~
cnnsucks
> Just about the only thing Congress has been doing for the last 6 years is
> preventing the president from doing anything.

That is correct. And the electorate just validated them for their service at
protecting the nation.

~~~
mwfunk
So, you're saying that Obama winning in 2012 was a validation by the
electorate of the work he did during his first term? I can see that. Well,
since by your logic the electorate has already validated the ACA, I'm sure
that the incumbent won't do anything to change it.

Based on your username, you're clearly a thoughtful, mature, and rational
person, who is constantly fretting over details and being their own worst
critic and relentlessly playing devil's advocate with their own beliefs in
pursuit of the truth. So by your logic, Clinton winning in 1992 and 1996 was
clearly a validation by the electorate of Democratic policies in the '90s. I'm
sure those policies will find a resurgence under Trump, since as you say
elections represent the will of the country as a whole, and not something far
more complicated than that. It's so refreshing living in such a black and
white world, where everything's simple to understand.

