6 ms·

Obama was manufacturing the pivot to Asia. The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. This presents its own set of problems though

Obama was manufacturing the pivot to Asia. The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. This presents its own set of problems though. Clinton was adamant that her grandchildren would not be speaking Chinese. China has been acknowledged as a threat since 2008 really, by everyone really, just, sometimes people need a very visual and visceral demonstration of action (no matter how less-optimal it actually is). Surely some business people in here can relate to that sentiment?

sremani 7y ago
Obama and Trump administration demands are pretty much similar, but when China said NO, their responses are totally different. Trump is taking China to the mat which Obama did not (what ever the reason may be).
- learc83 7y ago
  Obama's response to contain China was the TPP. It could have been more (or less--no way to know) effective than Trump's, Obama just didn't tweet about it.
  - sremani 7y ago
    TPP was bad idea, it was so anti-worker I am surprised that a Democrat is supporting it. I do not have to say about the settlement system of TPP. It was stupid, literally having parallel legal system outside of all the current legal system. TPP died for good reasons because it for technocrats by technocrats.
    - pesmhey 7y ago
      Can you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw
      - maximente 7y ago
        it was certainly anti american worker. here are some reasons why: - would have removed US govt general requirement to buy goods produced in america - would have moved jobs to vietnam (lower min. wage than china) instead of back to US, putting downward wage pressure on US manufacturing workers - protect more investments in offshoring than NAFTA does (read: incentivize offshoring) in both manufacturing and services http://cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf
        ABeeSea 7y ago
        Those aren’t necessarily bad for American workers. American manufacturing is high skill and involves precision equipment and manufacturing. What would have moved to Vietnam would have been more basic textiles and cnc/molding. Not sure why everyone glorifies basic manufacturing work like it’s the pinnacle of American labor.
        pesmhey 7y ago
        Because it used to be, and a lot of people never really made the transition. An incredibly unfortunate situation, for everyone.
        neltnerb 7y ago
        When less big construction happens, we lose the experience and skill to build things that we used to do without complaint, and this works its way up the value chain until we cannot build a complex machine without parts from far away. Alternatively, we leapfrog a generation of manufacturing processes and go straight to high speed 3D printing and clothing made from recovered landfill materials by nanobots. I don't know if what we need is more protection or faster innovation. The two tend to work in opposite directions. Certainly they require different training and expectations.
        mc32 7y ago
        Because now those people work even “better” gig jobs or warehouse work for retailers or crappy retail jobs... But yeah, really good for American workers so we can buy more shitty products which we can throw into the landfill...
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      And under Trump, the steel tariffs have basically forced Ford and GM to stop making sedans in the USA and instead make them in Mexico. Ford Focus: moved to China (Ironically). Ford Fusion: Cancelled. GM Volt: Cancelled. Harvey Davidson: moving to Europe. Things aren't exactly simple, and I am not convinced that the tariffs + tax cuts have helped the American worker at all. US Manufacturing is down for two months in a row now, and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. We're at a point where the Trump-defenders need to start explaining exactly what these tariffs are supposed to do and why they think the tariffs are helping. The tariffs have been in effect for well over a year, do you have any evidence that they're helping yet? --------- Frankly, I don't care how much we hurt, or help, China. It was supposed to be "American First". So lets talk about America and whether or not these policies help Americans.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        It's too early to tell. Wars of any kind, including trade wars, are a short term cost hoping for a long term gain. If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success. Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success.
        dragontamer 7y ago
        > If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success On the contrary, if the US economy was hurt, then its a failure. The point of "America First" is to care most about America, not about hurting others. > Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success. No. The only success is if manufacturing moves back to the USA. For example, Ford moved to Mexico. This is NOT a win for USA.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        Basically any long term goal has short term costs. Building a new road costs money up front. We don't want jobs just to come to the US. We want to help build the economies of the people scrambling across our border too. So jobs in Mexico is great, as long as there's also new jobs in the US.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it. Regardless, you're still right. In lieu of the TPP falling apart, China created it's own version to control APAC trade and fill the power gap, called RCEP. The trade war and the "America First" attitude has only incentivized China to speed up the negotiations, which if successful, will control something like half the world's global GDP. The next RCEP meeting is next month and it will be interesting to see what comes from it.
    - mc32 7y ago
      I think it’s early. Many of those countries see China suspiciously but also want trade. We’ll see if those countries are able to push back on one sided aspects.
    - tzs 7y ago
      > Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it What do you mean by "just said he'd talk about it"?
    - bakuninsbart 7y ago
      Very doubtful that it will go anywhere soon. Not only do half the ASEAN countries and China have territorial disputes, India and China have rather cautious and cold relationships. Both SK and Japan are also very cautious towards China and have cold relationships with each other. I would think that at least the South China Sea territorial dispute would have to be settled, China would have to (at least symbolically) drop its support for Pakistan, and Japan and SK would need some form of reconciliation.
wavefunction 7y ago
From what I understand many corporate victims of Chinese industrial espionage since 2008 specifically declined to pursue prosecution for fear of what it would do to their existing or potential for business with Chinese entities and individuals.[0] And this was despite a Justice Department that was chomping at the bit to prosecute Chinese industrial espionage. I bring this up because I think this shows why leaving weighty matters involving the security and future of your country up to corporations is a poor idea, especially when corporations are motivated solely by profit as corporatists gleefully remind us at all times. [0]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s-businesses-turned-a-blind-eye https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...
- pesmhey 7y ago
  Do you think the TPP was a response to this fear? Genuine question here.
dillondoyle 7y ago
Also in my opinion TPP critically united other Asian nations. I think Trump admins' abandoning of traditional allies/structures like TPP and ceding soft/hard power across the board for the sake of 'America First' is going to have lasting damage and is thus not putting America First in the long term...
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Pan-Asian relations is far more complex than just China and not-China. TPP wouldn't change that.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Yep, also Bernie denounced the TPP. So it’s not an anti-Democrat position, thought it’s an anti-globalist position.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
bassman9000 7y ago
would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China How? Apple and the NBA just bent to China's wishes. How would that have worked out?
- Karunamon 7y ago
  The NBA rescinded that IIRC
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    Rescinded what? We just experienced how quickly they'll throw anyone under the bus if it harms their chinese market. For the downvotes: how would the TTP have helped companies police this? edit: https://twitter.com/i/events/1182034806474825728 https://twitter.com/i/events/1182034806474825728 even at home
ENOTTY 7y ago
My instinct is that an Obama/Clinton administration would not have used a trade blacklist or tariffs.
- refurb 7y ago
  Probably not. The Obama approach was a much softer touch. Trump is certainly following up on his threats, but that approach carries some big risks as China can retaliate. It will come down to who blinks first.
  - thawaway1837 7y ago
    It may have been a “softer” approach but it would Have been a far cheaper, and more effective approach. It would also have had the benefit of building alliances that centered around the US, as opposed to weakening alliances. The tariffs have served to strengthen China’s position in the world, more than anything else. As an example, consider the fact that Germany is now allowing the Chinese to enter their market. The reality is that when the RoW sees the US trying to strangle China economically in this fashion, they recognize that they also could be next (or, as was the case in the Trump tariffs, the European and Japanese allies were first on being hit by tariffs). The only long term effect this is gonna have is basically to blunt American economic leadership, and the centrality of the American economy to the world. Which may be a good thing, frankly, for the world at large, but is almost certainly not gonna be a good thing for American leadership and quality of life.
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      "…Germany is now allowing the Chinese to enter their market." Out of curiosity, when did the Federal Government have a ban on Chinese companies doing business in Germany?
    - refurb 7y ago
      It will remain to be seen how effective the Trump approach is.
deogeo 7y ago
> The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. It would have given a lot of power to corporations, period. The same corporations that lobbied for so many anti-consumer and anti-democracy provisions, that both Trump and Sanders agreed it was awful, and ultimately caused the TPP to fail. As for Clinton and the democrats - I wouldn't count on them to oppose China. Even after it was revealed Biden and Kerry's kids got $1 billion of Chinese investment right after their parents' diplomatic mission to China [1], they haven't denounced either. In fact, Biden is one of their presidential candidates. [1] https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equit...
- bavell 7y ago
  TPP was awful just on it's copyright content alone, nevermind the other purported garbage in there. Here's [0] the EFF on TPP copyright. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpps-copyright-trap https://www.eff.org/issues/tpps-copyright-trap
mytailorisrich 7y ago
The pivot to Asia was extremely sensible policy. It recognised that Asia was going to be the most important region by far, and that short of a war China and likely India were going to be superpowers at least as big as the US. Therefore the logical conclusion was to engage in order for the US to be able to influence and to reap the economic benefits.

sremani 7y ago

Obama and Trump administration demands are pretty much similar, but when China said NO, their responses are totally different. Trump is taking China to the mat which Obama did not (what ever the reason may be).

learc83 7y ago
Obama's response to contain China was the TPP. It could have been more (or less--no way to know) effective than Trump's, Obama just didn't tweet about it.
- sremani 7y ago
  TPP was bad idea, it was so anti-worker I am surprised that a Democrat is supporting it. I do not have to say about the settlement system of TPP. It was stupid, literally having parallel legal system outside of all the current legal system. TPP died for good reasons because it for technocrats by technocrats.
  - pesmhey 7y ago
    Can you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw
    - maximente 7y ago
      it was certainly anti american worker. here are some reasons why: - would have removed US govt general requirement to buy goods produced in america - would have moved jobs to vietnam (lower min. wage than china) instead of back to US, putting downward wage pressure on US manufacturing workers - protect more investments in offshoring than NAFTA does (read: incentivize offshoring) in both manufacturing and services http://cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf
      - ABeeSea 7y ago
        Those aren’t necessarily bad for American workers. American manufacturing is high skill and involves precision equipment and manufacturing. What would have moved to Vietnam would have been more basic textiles and cnc/molding. Not sure why everyone glorifies basic manufacturing work like it’s the pinnacle of American labor.
        pesmhey 7y ago
        Because it used to be, and a lot of people never really made the transition. An incredibly unfortunate situation, for everyone.
        neltnerb 7y ago
        When less big construction happens, we lose the experience and skill to build things that we used to do without complaint, and this works its way up the value chain until we cannot build a complex machine without parts from far away. Alternatively, we leapfrog a generation of manufacturing processes and go straight to high speed 3D printing and clothing made from recovered landfill materials by nanobots. I don't know if what we need is more protection or faster innovation. The two tend to work in opposite directions. Certainly they require different training and expectations.
        mc32 7y ago
        Because now those people work even “better” gig jobs or warehouse work for retailers or crappy retail jobs... But yeah, really good for American workers so we can buy more shitty products which we can throw into the landfill...
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    And under Trump, the steel tariffs have basically forced Ford and GM to stop making sedans in the USA and instead make them in Mexico. Ford Focus: moved to China (Ironically). Ford Fusion: Cancelled. GM Volt: Cancelled. Harvey Davidson: moving to Europe. Things aren't exactly simple, and I am not convinced that the tariffs + tax cuts have helped the American worker at all. US Manufacturing is down for two months in a row now, and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. We're at a point where the Trump-defenders need to start explaining exactly what these tariffs are supposed to do and why they think the tariffs are helping. The tariffs have been in effect for well over a year, do you have any evidence that they're helping yet? --------- Frankly, I don't care how much we hurt, or help, China. It was supposed to be "American First". So lets talk about America and whether or not these policies help Americans.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      It's too early to tell. Wars of any kind, including trade wars, are a short term cost hoping for a long term gain. If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success. Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success.
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        > If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success On the contrary, if the US economy was hurt, then its a failure. The point of "America First" is to care most about America, not about hurting others. > Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success. No. The only success is if manufacturing moves back to the USA. For example, Ford moved to Mexico. This is NOT a win for USA.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        Basically any long term goal has short term costs. Building a new road costs money up front. We don't want jobs just to come to the US. We want to help build the economies of the people scrambling across our border too. So jobs in Mexico is great, as long as there's also new jobs in the US.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it. Regardless, you're still right. In lieu of the TPP falling apart, China created it's own version to control APAC trade and fill the power gap, called RCEP. The trade war and the "America First" attitude has only incentivized China to speed up the negotiations, which if successful, will control something like half the world's global GDP. The next RCEP meeting is next month and it will be interesting to see what comes from it.
  - mc32 7y ago
    I think it’s early. Many of those countries see China suspiciously but also want trade. We’ll see if those countries are able to push back on one sided aspects.
  - tzs 7y ago
    > Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it What do you mean by "just said he'd talk about it"?
  - bakuninsbart 7y ago
    Very doubtful that it will go anywhere soon. Not only do half the ASEAN countries and China have territorial disputes, India and China have rather cautious and cold relationships. Both SK and Japan are also very cautious towards China and have cold relationships with each other. I would think that at least the South China Sea territorial dispute would have to be settled, China would have to (at least symbolically) drop its support for Pakistan, and Japan and SK would need some form of reconciliation.

wavefunction 7y ago

From what I understand many corporate victims of Chinese industrial espionage since 2008 specifically declined to pursue prosecution for fear of what it would do to their existing or potential for business with Chinese entities and individuals.[0] And this was despite a Justice Department that was chomping at the bit to prosecute Chinese industrial espionage. I bring this up because I think this shows why leaving weighty matters involving the security and future of your country up to corporations is a poor idea, especially when corporations are motivated solely by profit as corporatists gleefully remind us at all times. [0]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s-businesses-turned-a-blind-eye https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...

pesmhey 7y ago
Do you think the TPP was a response to this fear? Genuine question here.

dillondoyle 7y ago

Also in my opinion TPP critically united other Asian nations. I think Trump admins' abandoning of traditional allies/structures like TPP and ceding soft/hard power across the board for the sake of 'America First' is going to have lasting damage and is thus not putting America First in the long term...

Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Pan-Asian relations is far more complex than just China and not-China. TPP wouldn't change that.
- mc32 7y ago
  Yep, also Bernie denounced the TPP. So it’s not an anti-Democrat position, thought it’s an anti-globalist position.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

bassman9000 7y ago

would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China How? Apple and the NBA just bent to China's wishes. How would that have worked out?

Karunamon 7y ago
The NBA rescinded that IIRC
- bassman9000 7y ago
  Rescinded what? We just experienced how quickly they'll throw anyone under the bus if it harms their chinese market. For the downvotes: how would the TTP have helped companies police this? edit: https://twitter.com/i/events/1182034806474825728 https://twitter.com/i/events/1182034806474825728 even at home

ENOTTY 7y ago

My instinct is that an Obama/Clinton administration would not have used a trade blacklist or tariffs.

refurb 7y ago
Probably not. The Obama approach was a much softer touch. Trump is certainly following up on his threats, but that approach carries some big risks as China can retaliate. It will come down to who blinks first.
- thawaway1837 7y ago
  It may have been a “softer” approach but it would Have been a far cheaper, and more effective approach. It would also have had the benefit of building alliances that centered around the US, as opposed to weakening alliances. The tariffs have served to strengthen China’s position in the world, more than anything else. As an example, consider the fact that Germany is now allowing the Chinese to enter their market. The reality is that when the RoW sees the US trying to strangle China economically in this fashion, they recognize that they also could be next (or, as was the case in the Trump tariffs, the European and Japanese allies were first on being hit by tariffs). The only long term effect this is gonna have is basically to blunt American economic leadership, and the centrality of the American economy to the world. Which may be a good thing, frankly, for the world at large, but is almost certainly not gonna be a good thing for American leadership and quality of life.
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    "…Germany is now allowing the Chinese to enter their market." Out of curiosity, when did the Federal Government have a ban on Chinese companies doing business in Germany?
  - refurb 7y ago
    It will remain to be seen how effective the Trump approach is.

deogeo 7y ago

> The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. It would have given a lot of power to corporations, period. The same corporations that lobbied for so many anti-consumer and anti-democracy provisions, that both Trump and Sanders agreed it was awful, and ultimately caused the TPP to fail. As for Clinton and the democrats - I wouldn't count on them to oppose China. Even after it was revealed Biden and Kerry's kids got $1 billion of Chinese investment right after their parents' diplomatic mission to China [1], they haven't denounced either. In fact, Biden is one of their presidential candidates. [1] https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equit...

bavell 7y ago
TPP was awful just on it's copyright content alone, nevermind the other purported garbage in there. Here's [0] the EFF on TPP copyright. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpps-copyright-trap https://www.eff.org/issues/tpps-copyright-trap

mytailorisrich 7y ago

The pivot to Asia was extremely sensible policy. It recognised that Asia was going to be the most important region by far, and that short of a war China and likely India were going to be superpowers at least as big as the US. Therefore the logical conclusion was to engage in order for the US to be able to influence and to reap the economic benefits.