Overdrawn: Bungling burglar caught cracking into bank in Phuket

[snoop1130]

Japan says trans-Pacific trade pact, without U.S., to be signed in March

By Kaori Kaneko and Takashi Umekawa

 

FILE PHOTO: Trade ministers and delegates from the remaining members of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) attend the TPP Ministerial Meeting during the APEC 2017 in Da Nang, Vietnam November 9, 2017. REUTERS/Na Son Nguyen/Pool

 

TOKYO (Reuters) - Eleven countries aiming to forge a new Asia-Pacific trade pact after the United States pulled out of an earlier version will hold a signing ceremony in Chile in March, Japan's economy minister said on Tuesday in a big win for Tokyo.

 

Trade officials from the 11 countries had been meeting in Tokyo to try to resolve rifts including Canada's insistence on protection of its cultural industries such as movies, TV and music.

 

An agreement is a huge plus for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government, which has been lobbying hard to save the pact, originally called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. U.S. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the original 12-nation trade agreement last year.

 

Abe has painted the deal as a spur to growth and reform in Japan and a symbol of commitment to free and multilateral trade at a time when Trump is stressing "America First" policies.

 

Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said that the new agreement, known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTTP), or TPP-11, would be an "engine to overcome protectionism" emerging in parts of the world.

 

He also said Japan would explain the importance of the deal to Washington in hopes of persuading it to join.

 

Ministers from the 11 countries including Japan, Australia and Canada had agreed in November on core elements to move ahead without the United States, but demands by countries including Canada for measures to ensure the deal protects jobs have been a sticking point to finalising the agreement.

 

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull also said last week that the new agreement would leave a door open for eventual U.S. participation.

 

(Writing by Linda Sieg; Editing by Nick Macfie)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-1-23

[dunroaming]

Yes I think it is best to just keep doing the right thing without involving the USA at all for the time being.  As soon as they have dumped Trump and they get a real President then things will return to normal.

[Emster23]

Hey Donald, can you tell us about that great deal you made? Oh, you just walked out on it? Not very artful one would think. Left the field wide open for China?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

Yes I think it is best to just keep doing the right thing without involving the USA at all for the time being.  As soon as they have dumped Trump and they get a real President then things will return to normal.

Good for every country but the USA. Isolationist Idiocy! 

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Good for every country but the USA. Isolationist Idiocy! 

Well, Clinton was opposed to it, too.

[Trouble]

My understanding of "free trade" is that there are no quotas, tariffs, or restrictions. It seems to me that if all it leads to is trade deficits for the US then what's the point.  Everyone complains about low paying jobs, manufacturing moving off shore and the same people tout these trade agreements which basically give unrestricted access to sell goods from lower wage countries to the USA driving our own manufacturing out and keeping wages low to compete.  Realize it is more complicated than this but still one has to think what the F, tell me why this is good for me if the trade is not balanced.

[lannarebirth]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, Clinton was opposed to it, too.

Well, she flip flopped anyway. I'm sure she'd have flipped back given the chance.

[Credo]

2 hours ago, Trouble said:

My understanding of "free trade" is that there are no quotas, tariffs, or restrictions. It seems to me that if all it leads to is trade deficits for the US then what's the point.  Everyone complains about low paying jobs, manufacturing moving off shore and the same people tout these trade agreements which basically give unrestricted access to sell goods from lower wage countries to the USA driving our own manufacturing out and keeping wages low to compete.  Realize it is more complicated than this but still one has to think what the F, tell me why this is good for me if the trade is not balanced.

Well, that's a two way street and it's not entirely true that there are no restrictions.   Countries can set restrictions on a wide variety of things, such as no GMO, levels of pesticides, quality of appliances (such as UL ratings), safety standards can be imposed as well.   For example, how successful do you think it would be to try to import rice to Thailand?  

 

The US may have trouble competing with some labor intensive manufacturing, but it doesn't matter, those jobs aren't coming back to the US because no one is going to pay the price of those goods manufactured in the US at US wages.   As automation takes over, it might be feasible.   

 

The US has plenty of high quality and reasonably priced manufactured goods that will be in demand as the economies of many of these countries grow.   But we will be left out of that market, since Europe also produces excellent goods for those who are looking for quality and are willing to pay a little more.   

[simple1]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

Well, that's a two way street and it's not entirely true that there are no restrictions.   Countries can set restrictions on a wide variety of things, such as no GMO, levels of pesticides, quality of appliances (such as UL ratings), safety standards can be imposed as well.   For example, how successful do you think it would be to try to import rice to Thailand?  

 

The US may have trouble competing with some labor intensive manufacturing, but it doesn't matter, those jobs aren't coming back to the US because no one is going to pay the price of those goods manufactured in the US at US wages.   As automation takes over, it might be feasible.   

 

The US has plenty of high quality and reasonably priced manufactured goods that will be in demand as the economies of many of these countries grow.   But we will be left out of that market, since Europe also produces excellent goods for those who are looking for quality and are willing to pay a little more.   

Trump has just imposed some trade sanctions (tariffs) on South Korea and PRC. An US industry group claims the extra costs for solar panels from China will lead to 23,000 losing their jobs. Westinghouse say they will employ an additional 200 people due to the washing machine tariffs on LG and Samsung, though costs will increase for US consumers. As I understand non partisan trade & economic professionals view imposition of additional tariffs as overall a backward step for the US economy and warn of catastrophic economic consequences for the USA if NAFTA is cancelled. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by simple1

[quandow]

From the responses I'm reading, most don't realize that TPP was NOT just a trade agreement but a corporation takeover of global business.  Here is an example:

 

Let's say I want to sell my GMO products to your country. Your country replies, "No thanks, we don't like this product." According to TPP laws, I can now SUE your country for PERCEIVED loss of profits.

 

There are actually 17 different facets to TPP, each one just as abhorrent as this. As much as I can't stand the pussy-grabber-in-chief, this was a good decision of his.

[Credo]

13 minutes ago, quandow said:

From the responses I'm reading, most don't realize that TPP was NOT just a trade agreement but a corporation takeover of global business.  Here is an example:

 

Let's say I want to sell my GMO products to your country. Your country replies, "No thanks, we don't like this product." According to TPP laws, I can now SUE your country for PERCEIVED loss of profits.

 

There are actually 17 different facets to TPP, each one just as abhorrent as this. As much as I can't stand the pussy-grabber-in-chief, this was a good decision of his.

Not so.   You can only get action if you are growing allowing it to be imported from another country.   If something is not allowed by law or regulation, then it's not allowed.   So, if I am growing weed, do you think I can sell it to countries where it's not permitted?   

 

As far as the GMO thing is concerned, go ahead and see how many European countries refuse to allow certain GMO foods and even Thailand didn't allow GMO Papaya because it could mix with the local non-GMO strains.   

[mtls2005]

China 1, U.S. nil.

 

 

to try to resolve rifts including Canada's insistence on protection of its cultural industries such as movies, TV and music.

 

Hoser.

 

What about Poutine?

[pegman]

36 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

China 1, U.S. nil.

 

 

to try to resolve rifts including Canada's insistence on protection of its cultural industries such as movies, TV and music.

 

Hoser.

 

What about Poutine?

We can now export Poutine to these 10 new trade partners. Also pork, beef and grains. Take that Iowa!

[Samui Bodoh]

9 hours ago, Trouble said:

My understanding of "free trade" is that there are no quotas, tariffs, or restrictions. It seems to me that if all it leads to is trade deficits for the US then what's the point.  Everyone complains about low paying jobs, manufacturing moving off shore and the same people tout these trade agreements which basically give unrestricted access to sell goods from lower wage countries to the USA driving our own manufacturing out and keeping wages low to compete.  Realize it is more complicated than this but still one has to think what the F, tell me why this is good for me if the trade is not balanced.

I think a big part of the problem is in the messaging. No, they usually are NOT actually 'Free Trade' agreements, but simply have elements of free trade in an agreement of "Managed Trade". Further, not all 'Free trade' agreements are actually about 'free trade'.

 

Let me take the second point first. One of the main reasons for including Mexico in NAFTA (formerly AFTA) was to allow for economic development in Mexico to stabilize the country, decrease emigration to the US and to bind Mexico (both politically and it terms of security) closer to the northern half rather than the Southern half of the Americas. These reasons weren't discussed much, but it is very hard to ignore them. And they have largely been successful; without the economic growth generated by NAFTA in Mexico, you'd likely see ten times the Mexicans crossing into the US and you might actually need a wall, but for protection and not to keep people out.

 

To my first point above, it is instructive to look at the US-Canada relationship on trade. The two economies are quite similar in development, and simply increasing the ease of trade is a good thing for both countries as it leads to benefits for both sides. However, not everything is simple economics; there was no way in hell that Canada was going to do this as simple 'free trade' because the US is ten times its size. The clearest example of managed trade within a free trade agreement is the cultural protection for Canadian entertainment industries. Simply put, the US culture is LOUD. There was no way that Canada was going to allow unfettered access to US cultural industries as Canada would just get drowned out; restrictions were put in place to allow for the benefits of free trade while at the same time creating circumstances where a deal was palatable politically. 

 

As you noted, these things are complex as hell. 

 

TPP was about security and politics against China more than it was about economics or trade. It was a mistake to pull out of it as nature abhors a vacuum and China will create its own security and political "Free Trade" agreement now.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[Anak Nakal]

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, Clinton was opposed to it, too.

and she was wrong also