The Trans-Pacific Partnership Isn't Boring. Here's What It Means for Seattle.

Comments

1
The Chamber of Commerce's primary (some would say "only") concern is to maximize corporate profits and shareholder equity. So anything that the Chamber of Commerce is FOR is typically something that the American people and the U.S. government should be AGAINST. That's a litmus test you can count on.
2
@1: Corporate profits and shareholder equity put food on the table every day for Americas. That's the real litmus test you can count on.
3
@raindrip I'm not clear what your argument is here. Can you explain what your problem with is with camlux's post?
4
Short of a massive response by the U.S. citizenry to the TPP, I can't help but think this will just... happen. Seems like the whole process is designed to be passed with minimal discussion or scrutiny. Not that I except significant opposition would come from Congress.
5

They are running a coal train through the densest part of down town and they're worried about the environment from shipping?

6
Outstanding article, Ms. Brownstone, although one must add that any comments from former Wall Street Journal hack and stooge, David Wessel, should always be ignored: Wessel has the deserved reputation of never responding to his detractors or those who question his typical ongoing bullcrap.

Many a time I've asked for proof on his many bullcrap assertions, and never --- I repeat --- never, has Wessel ever responded! (Even Catharine Mann, bullcrap pseudoeconomist for the Peterson Institute and former Federal Reserve stooge, sent me a graph with her useless assumptions as the basis for the "evidence" in support of offshoring American jobs: assume two new jobs are magically created for every one job offshored; problem is, assumptions are not valid sources in the Real World!)

What the TPP means, is that instead of the 10% owning 90% of everything, with the remaining 90% fighting over the 10% crumbs, the .01% will then own 99%, with the remaining 99.9% fighting over the 1% of the crumbs.

Not a positive future for anyone buy psychopathic greedheads and their descendants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5gevSY4…
8
Also, it should be added that Brookings also houses the Hamilton Project, the misnamed project, established by Robert Rubin, to privatize everything!
9
The Stranger needs to either bring back the "see more" jump for comments that are longer than they should be, or just fucking ban sgtdoom already. No one is going to read a comment like @7. Put it behind a jump.
10
...And also ban this new person who is somehow not sgtdoom who just signed up to post a wall of text @7 with links to his own blog.
11

Keystone XL KILLER argument & Alberta tar sands as oceanic shipping fuel dispose':
If we're going to build pipeline, build pipe from Oklahoma to Dakota Bakkan fields.
1) Safety upgrades to existing petro facilities.
2) Reduces demand for off-shore drilling in the Gulf,
(yet reaches world market and US East West Coasts)
3) Reduces hazards rail transport/terminal operations.
4) Fuels find more domestic uses.
5) Makes Warren Buffett unhappy.
(Hint: Warbutt's mishandling the CRC fiasco didn't help)
12
Yes, we clearly need the "more..." link back on comments. Getting really tired of having to scroll all the way through sgt doom's stupid comments, and other poorly written comments like #7, which no one will ever read.

On another note, hey sgt. doom, you said you were leaving forever because not everyone here shared your misogynist views. Why don't you take a stand and leave forever, again?
13
The TPP is a red herring. As Wikileaks pointed out years ago, there are over a dozen elements in the IP section alone the US refuses to accept, and as such we will never be an actual signatory to the law. Congress would have to amend the Trade Powers Act, giving the executive new, broad powers, and even under the proposed amendments, Obama would have to wait 90 days before signing it.

When somebody rolls out the TPP, look around for what they're trying to hide from you. That is the purpose of the TPP. It is an obfuscating Boogeyman, trumped out to gin up fear and to get the rubes looking in the wrong direction with smoke and mirrors.
14
@13, How can a super-secret trade agreement that has never been publicly released be a boogeyman? Unless you want to go full-paranoia and claim that the few glimpses we've had by un-authorized leaks are 'intentional.' If you go there, I have some chemtrial, twin-tower demolition, fake moon landing lit you'd be interested in.
15
What better Boogeyman than an agreement that has never been publicly released? If it was fully released, it would be a known element, and therefore much less scary. All the leaks show is that this agreement is DOA. In that respect, the leaks worked against the building of the spectre of fear.
This isn't Alex Jones paranoia mongering. Rather, it is CoIntelPro 101. It is a magician's trick. Look at the left hand, ignore the right. The TPP is the left hand. Any time someone mentions it in the news, look for the right hand. It is the one you should be paying attention to. It is the one they don't want you to pay attention to. This type of maneuvering has been standard operating procedures for decades. Clinton used it. Both Bushes used it. It is a tactic straight out of 1984.
The amazing thing is that people still fall for it..
16
Want to do something to actually defeat the TPP? Sign my petition to the White House:

http://wh.gov/iWuxA
17
@6 sgt. doom: Exactly! This is why TPP is so BAD and should be stopped!
18
There was a Town Hall speaker and a panel on U.S. trade agreements on March 23rd. Former Congressman David Bonior (D, Michigan) led off and one thing that made a huge impression on me was that Bonior also blamed these so-called "free trade agreements" for the massive rise in our trade deficit since 1994. How long can the U.S. be only a 'consumer' state and not a 'creator' state? Write your congressional representative and your senators and urge them to vote against the TPP and Fast Track. Right now Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are planning to vote for them.
The TPP will also have huge negative consequences for citizens of developing countries on the Pacific rim, like much higher drug costs, while Big Pharma gets to extend its patents out longer before drugs can go generic.
19
Murray and Cantwell can't vote for the TPP. It is a treaty, and therefore must be signed by the President. The power lies in the executive branch, not the legislative. Republicans are blocking the TPA amendments in committee, so Murray and Cantwell can't for them, either.

On November 10, 2014, Murray stated her public opposition to the TPP, citing the lack of monitoring and potential negative impact to the state. Cantwell has been one of the bipartisan heads of opposition to the TPP since May of 2011, citing IP concerns.

It hardly seems like they are going to vote for them considering their vocal opposition and inability to vote for them.
20
libertine @ 19 -- Re treaties, please read your Constitution.

And re-check your sources on Cantwell's and Murray's positions.
21
RonL, I triple checked both before posting. Read up on the TPA, passed in 1974. While Congress does get a final up or down vote, it is only after presidential approval and the president has to sign it afterwards. The proposed amendment would allow the executive to sign such treaties into law if Congress does not vote on them within 90 days of the treaty being delivered through Congress.

My sources on Murray and Cantwell are direct quotes from them, rather than the conspiracy sites who listen to people like Alex Jones. Obama is essentially the only Democrat supporting the TPP. It is Obama and the Republicans who want it to pass. The only reason the Republicans are blocking the TPP provisions is they'd rather spite Obama than win a political victory.

This has all been well known for years. Catch up before you try to tell somebody they're wrong.
22
Wow! So many errors in so few words.

Patty's 11/10/2014 statement strongly supports TPA (and TPP). Maria co-authored an op-ed in Roll Call calling for TPA. On several points you seem to have TPP conflated with TTIP. And of course they get to vote on TPP under TPA - that's the whole idea: to force an up or down vote. And a giant shipload of other stuff, which life is too short to slog further.
23
Patty Murray's statement in 2014 only supports the TPP on Bizarro-Earth. She calls it unnecessary, in point of fact. She points out that massive amounts of trade we already have with those Pacific partners, and expresses reservations about altering the status quo,

Your op-ed by Cantwell similarly can only be supportive of the TPP if you look at it cross eyed. It attacks Japanese tariffs, and points out that the TPP would work to remove such tariffs. It never supports the TPP. It does support amending the TPA, but again only to provide the US government with better tools to fight tariffs.

The whole point of the TPA is to give the president an end run around the congressional vote. It doesn't force an up or down vote. Quite the opposite.

Are you actually reading what you're posting? Are you actually reading what I'm posting? You're so far out in left field I'm not sure you even know what's on.
24
My apologies for my substantial grammar errors. Nursing a migraine has not done my typing any favors.
25
http://www.rollcall.com/news/a_bipartisa…

http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/inde…

As for the conceit that a negotiated agreement can become "law" without implementing legislation (by an "up" vote of both houses), there is no basis for this in fact ... or even in a healthy but over-active imagination.

Loon.