The great negotiator

[transporter]

2017 was a lost year for U.S. trade policy. We took several steps backwards and none forward.

The losses started in January with the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with 11 other nations that had been negotiated by the Obama administration, but not yet signed into law by Congress. Rather than suggest any improvements, the Trump administration abandoned the agreement entirely

There's a common theme to all of this: 2017 brought no new trade liberalization. Despite Trump's promises of great new bilateral trade agreements, no such negotiations were even initiated, much less completed.

In contrast, major U.S. trading partners have been pushing ahead with their own trade liberalization. The European Union and Japan are getting close to a final trade deal. And the remaining TPP countries are working to complete one without the United States, having suspended some of the provisions that were in there because of U.S. demands. Instead of leading the way on trade liberalization, U.S. interests are now being shoved aside by others.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/how-trump-can-get-his-trade-act-together-in-2018-commentary.html

Unfit for the position...was...is...and always will be.

 

[Bird Dog]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/how-trump-can-get-his-trade-act-together-in-2018-commentary.html

Unfit for the position...was...is...and always will be.

MAGA....just sayin’

 

[black dog]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/how-trump-can-get-his-trade-act-together-in-2018-commentary.html

unfit for the position...was...is...and always will be.

lol......

 

[Merlin99]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/how-trump-can-get-his-trade-act-together-in-2018-commentary.html

Unfit for the position...was...is...and always will be.

Apparently your mother wasn't fit for her position either, what with dropping you on your pointy little head all of the time.

 

[Gilligan]

Gee tranny.....got nothing but CNBC editorial piece to work with today? Your "bile low" warning lamp must be on by now....

 

[BOP]

Gee tranny.....got nothing but CNBC editorial piece to work whil today? Your "bile low" warning lamp must be on by now....

I think her bilge pumps aren't working.

 

[PsyOps]

Unfit for the position...was...is...and always will be.

The people spoke. Still president!

 

[littlelady]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/how-trump-can-get-his-trade-act-together-in-2018-commentary.html

Unfit for the position...was...is...and always will be.

You are so lobotomized. I was open to Obama, and was hopeful that he would be a great prez. Alas, he wasn’t a patriot. Do you not see that after 8 years? Do you not see that Trump is a patriot? I have, always, said that I don’t like Trump’s personality, but I like what he is doing for America. Do you understand what Obama meant by ‘hope for change’? You should thank your lucky stars that the Obama/Clinton regime did not succeed; at least for now. You, really, should be careful what you wish for.

And, Obama is still trying to undermine America. Here is my bing search. I put out internet searches because so many here are not happy with one website, and poo poo them.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=obama...39B1B17C6E49B98EE9613FD6476054&FORM=QBLH&sp=1

 

[awpitt]

You are so lobotomized. I was open to Obama, and was hopeful that he would be a great prez. Alas, he wasn’t a patriot. Do you not see that after 8 years? Do you not see that Trump is a patriot? I have, always, said that I don’t like Trump’s personality, but I like what he is doing for America. Do you understand what Obama meant by ‘hope for change’? You should thank your lucky stars that the Obama/Clinton regime did not succeed; at least for now. You, really, should be careful what you wish for.

And, Obama is still trying to undermine America. Here is my bing search. I put out internet searches because so many here are not happy with one website, and poo poo them.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=obama...39B1B17C6E49B98EE9613FD6476054&FORM=QBLH&sp=1

Did you read the link posted by the OP? I would be interested in hearing what specific parts of it that you disagree with and why. It's easy to say someone is not a patriot and another person is a patriot but it (just a cheap shot considering neither of the people served). It takes a little more effort to rebut the actual commentary that was posted. That would certainly add more substance to this thread.

 

[Gilligan]

Did you read the link posted by the OP? I would be interested in hearing what specific parts of it that you disagree with and why. It's easy to say someone is not a patriot and another person is a patriot but it (just a cheap shot considering neither of the people served). It takes a little more effort to rebut the actual commentary that was posted. That would certainly add more substance to this thread.

You are kidding right?? Tranny is a drive by poo flinging monkey. Rational people realize there is nothing to debate or rebut there.

 

[awpitt]

You are kidding right?? Tranny is a drive by poo flinging monkey. Rational people realize there is nothing to debate or rebut there.

Regardless of the poster, read the commentary and reply with what you disagree with and why. It would be nice to hear some intelligent policy discussion for a change instead of the usual mindless insults.

 

[This_person]

I would be interested in hearing what specific parts of it that you disagree with and why.

Personally I did not make it past the first quoted piece

2017 was a lost year for U.S. trade policy. We took several steps backwards and none forward.

The losses started in January with the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with 11 other nations that had been negotiated by the Obama administration, but not yet signed into law by Congress. Rather than suggest any improvements, the Trump administration abandoned the agreement entirely.

In my personal view, TPP was a bad idea, so abandoning it entirely was a step forward. I needed to read no further.

 

[awpitt]

Personally I did not make it past the first quoted piece
In my personal view, TPP was a bad idea, so abandoning it entirely was a step forward. I needed to read no further.

In your view, why was TPP a bad idea?

 

[This_person]

In your view, why was TPP a bad idea?

For one, China was not involved. That's like having a "Trans-Automotive Agreement" and excluding GM.

TPP would have weakened the allowance of countries to have private firms and partner-governments use American products preferentially ("Buy American" goals).

The concept would have strengthened low wages for American workers, and encouraged companies to relocate overseas for even cheaper (and less skilled, and less regulated) labor.

State-owned firms were included pretty much equally with private firms.

Really, the secrecy with which it was negotiated and released implied a lot of things people won't like. That's not to say it is there, but whenever things like this are negotiated and released in great secrecy, there is a reason.

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement essentially overrides US law, but only for foreign firms.

Just a few things. It was not in the United States' best interest. Recall, most (R) members of Congress were in favor of this, with Mr. Obama. This is not a partisan disagreement in any way, as those two entities rarely agreed on things.

 

[Gilligan]

Regardless of the poster, .

Tranny is never worth that, sport.

I'll specifically avoid following any "advice" offered by you anyway..

 

[awpitt]

For one, China was not involved. That's like having a "Trans-Automotive Agreement" and excluding GM.

TPP would have weakened the allowance of countries to have private firms and partner-governments use American products preferentially ("Buy American" goals).

The concept would have strengthened low wages for American workers, and encouraged companies to relocate overseas for even cheaper (and less skilled, and less regulated) labor.

State-owned firms were included pretty much equally with private firms.

Really, the secrecy with which it was negotiated and released implied a lot of things people won't like. That's not to say it is there, but whenever things like this are negotiated and released in great secrecy, there is a reason.

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement essentially overrides US law, but only for foreign firms.

Just a few things. It was not in the United States' best interest. Recall, most (R) members of Congress were in favor of this, with Mr. Obama. This is not a partisan disagreement in any way, as those two entities rarely agreed on things.

Thanks. Good thoughts and they make since.

 

[GURPS]

Really, the secrecy with which it was negotiated and released implied a lot of things people won't like. That's not to say it is there, but whenever things like this are negotiated and released in great secrecy, there is a reason.

Other input .......

How to Tell TPP Is a Bad Deal - Huff Po

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Is a Bad Deal for American Workers - Time

Obama's Bad Arguments In Favor Of The TPP

8 Terrible Things About the Trans-Pacific Partnership

When think tanks pass bad trade deals

Here's why Trump hates the Trans-Pacific Partnership so much

 

[MiddleGround]

In your view, why was TPP a bad idea?

For one, China was not involved. That's like having a "Trans-Automotive Agreement" and excluding GM.

TPP would have weakened the allowance of countries to have private firms and partner-governments use American products preferentially ("Buy American" goals).

The concept would have strengthened low wages for American workers, and encouraged companies to relocate overseas for even cheaper (and less skilled, and less regulated) labor.

State-owned firms were included pretty much equally with private firms.

Really, the secrecy with which it was negotiated and released implied a lot of things people won't like. That's not to say it is there, but whenever things like this are negotiated and released in great secrecy, there is a reason.

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement essentially overrides US law, but only for foreign firms.

Just a few things. It was not in the United States' best interest. Recall, most (R) members of Congress were in favor of this, with Mr. Obama. This is not a partisan disagreement in any way, as those two entities rarely agreed on things.

Thanks. Good thoughts and they make since.

Did anyone else picture that scene in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon told off the pony-tailed guy in the bar; while they were reading this exchange?

TP... my boy is wicked SMAAART!

 

[GURPS]

Did anyone else picture that scene in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon told off the pony-tailed guy in the bar; while they were reading this exchange?

No. but it is a great scene .....

 

[This_person]

Did anyone else picture that scene in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon told off the pony-tailed guy in the bar; while they were reading this exchange?

TP... my boy is wicked SMAAART!

He asked a reasonable, smart, respectful question. I responded in kind, he responded in kind.

He and I do not always agree, do not always disagree. Same with Chris. I think we (vast majority of the time, but not always) try to be kind and respectful to each other despite the differences, and that seems like a good way to discuss things.

There's a meme out there right now that essentially says, "not talking about religion or politics has not been good. We should have been taught how to respectfully discuss difficult areas, not taught to avoid them." I agree with the spirit of the meme.