DATE: 10/8/15
Summary: Hillary Clinton came out against the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Wednesday, breaking with President Barack
Obama on the 12-nation trade deal that is set to become a key part of
his legacy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend
restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite
international rules on its enforcement. "I have said from the very beginning that we had to have a trade
agreement that would create good American jobs, raise wages and advance
our national security. And I still believe that's the high bar we have
to meet," she said. "I have been trying to learn as much as I can about
the agreement. But I'm worried. I'm worried about currency manipulation
not being part of the agreement. We've lost American jobs to the
manipulations that countries, particularly in Asia, have engaged in. I'm
worried the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits --
and patients and consumers fewer. I think there are still a lot of
unanswered questions." However, Mrs. Clinton’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership represents a
reversal of her earlier support for the agreement. She backed the pact
while serving in the Obama administration, calling it the “gold
standard” for trade deals during a trip to Australia in 2012. Now, Hilary, along with her rivals, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) are all against it. Organized labor, environmental groups
and public health experts all strongly oppose the agreement, arguing
that it will empower corporate deregulation and send jobs to low-wage
countries with poor human rights records, including Vietnam and
Malaysia. Doctors Without Borders and other groups maintain that the
multiyear monopolies that the deal would grant to pharmaceutical
companies will drive up the price of life-saving medicine. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other
corporate lobbying groups, meanwhile, strongly support TPP, saying it
will boost U.S. exports.
Questions: Do you agree with Hilary's point of view or Obama's? Why? Do you believe that the Trans-Pacific Partnership benefits the US? Do you think that Hilary's stance against TPP is because political analysts told her to be due to Sanders being in the race?
I believe that both Hillary and Obama are right in different aspects, just as their rationale answered separate questions. Yes, the TPP would be a bonus to the US and World economy, because partnership and deregulation foster more business development. However, with all benefits, there are downsides. These include those mentioned by Hillary, and others including environmental and social problems in some of the developing countries where much of the economic benefits will be going to. Ultimately, I believe that the fundamental question any lawmaker should answer about this plan is whether the guaranteed growth the US economy will experience is going to far outweigh the amount of US manufacturing jobs lost to outsourcing. In my own opinion, I would support the TPP plan, mostly because having a multinational trade agreement is far better than each nation sticking to its own interests, allowing countries like China to continue to devalue their currencies to the detriment of other nations. However, an agreement with more provisions on how to handle potential environmental and social issues, as well as preventing corporate monopolies would be better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hilary's point of view as the TPP would create one huge monopoly in international trade, taking away jobs from many people and thus creating sweat shops that are less regulated and cheaper. This has been going on in Asia for quite sometime and the TPP would simply make this an international issue. I do however agree with Obama with his attempt to make one international trading agreement as that would help limit the complications businesses have with trading amongst countries when having separate interests. The goal was to increase the growth of the American economy, and I do believe there is a way to achieve that goal, however the TPP is not the answer to what we want and need.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hillary that the trade agreement may be hurting society and also do not believe that the trade agreement should be secretive. If the government is doing something or anything with american jobs, we should know about it. Benefiting the economy is possible, but this is not the way to benefit it. TPP is not effective and has taken away american jobs instead of increasing them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hillary that the trade agreement may be hurting society and also do not believe that the trade agreement should be secretive. If the government is doing something or anything with american jobs, we should know about it. Benefiting the economy is possible, but this is not the way to benefit it. TPP is not effective and has taken away american jobs instead of increasing them.
ReplyDeleteCan you say flip flop?
ReplyDeleteAs Hillary mentioned in the First Debate, new information is constantly coming to her and she makes her opinion based on the newest information. As the information changes, so must she.
DeleteI agree with Sage and his point that it could create monopolies. A monopoly is very harmful to the economy and can create dangerous environments for workers. Without competition, prices go up and working condition goes down. Americas should focus on returning jobs to the United States to lower the unemployment rate and if removing the TPP would cause that then it should definitely be done. America needs to be more selfish and focus on themselves and the issues we face.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to remember that most trade deals are made behind closed doors, and they are entirely up to the president to negotiate and congress to approve after the fact.
ReplyDeleteThe TPP partnership is very secretive and does not get put into clear view for the american people like other things, However the people need to open their eyes because in fact they could be taken advantage of, if this is agreed upon and kept then many jobs could be taken from the american people and be given to other counties. Leading to importation and exportation costs, and lower national revenue.
ReplyDelete