The New York Times is still defending the dying TPP:
The limits of President Obama’s ability to reassure the world about America’s future role in the international sphere was apparent at the summit meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders in Lima, Peru, on Sunday. There is no way to ease the concerns of those leaders about America’s retreat from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, a casualty of anti-globalization fervor, American politics and, in particular, the objections of President-elect Donald Trump, who has called it a “disaster.”
The presidential campaign focused on whether the deal, which would lower import duties and quotas, would benefit American workers. Mr. Trump said it would not and argued instead for a protectionist approach, including big tariffs that could end up inciting a trade war.
On Sunday, Mr. Obama again made the case that the trade agreement would be “a plus for America’s economy, for American jobs,” and failure to sign on to it “undermines our position across the region.” The Pacific Rim leaders urged the signatories to move ahead with the deal.
If done right, the pact could stimulate exports while helping to reduce environmental destruction and improve the lives of workers in countries like Brunei, Peru, Chile and Vietnam, which were part of the negotiation. For example, countries that signed the deal would have to adopt minimum wages, protect endangered species and agree not to discriminate against foreign businesses in the interest of domestic and state-owned firms.
The agreement, known as TPP, was intended to play a strategic role in American diplomacy. It was the economic linchpin of Mr. Obama’s effort to reaffirm the nation’s role as a Pacific power and counter the rising influence of China, which was not part of the negotiations. Washington’s abandonment of the pact is widely seen in the region as a blow to American prestige and an opening for China to negotiate trade rules, win friends among Asian nations and assert regional leadership.
You can read the rest @
Would TPP have done any of the things mentioned above? I doubt it. It WAS an attempt to further US hegemony, but is that what the people of the region want? You know they don't.
The next decade may in fact be America's swan song, but if it is it will be because We The People allowed bankgangsters, oligarchs, corporate CEOs, and their collaborators in the one percent to hijack our government and disregard what is best for the U S of A.
By the way, those who are whining about Trump mixing business with politics are hypocritical swine. How could TPP "play a strategic role in American diplomacy" when it was a corporate diktat in which the governments of the affected nations played no role other than to be coerced into rubber stamping the accord?