Asia Urged To Ditch U.S. and Go Ahead With Regional Trade Deal
David Tweed
ricky l
The 11 TPP members without US should go ahead and ratified the TPP to ensure multi-lateral trade deals will benefit the region.
This is to demonstrate to Trump that his protectionist and isolationist view - is damned wrong - and it is a high opportunity cost that Trump has missed and doing US a disfavor.
Trump need to learn a lesson, a painful one - and the World must teach him.
This is to demonstrate to Trump that his protectionist and isolationist view - is damned wrong - and it is a high opportunity cost that Trump has missed and doing US a disfavor.
Trump need to learn a lesson, a painful one - and the World must teach him.
ricky l
More than 38 million Americans jobs - are dependent on trade.
When the World teach Trump a lesson for restricting trade, 38 million American jobs dependent on trade will be impacted.
Trump need to learn this lesson.
When the World teach Trump a lesson for restricting trade, 38 million American jobs dependent on trade will be impacted.
Trump need to learn this lesson.
- Pict 3 hours agoIt not about teaching anyone. It about 11 countries should just go ahead and trade amongst themselves. Yes the volume will be small but it a start and slowly others will come in and the 11 countries should have the upperhand to negotiate.
- Alamak 3 hours agoAgree to all comments. The Pacific Trade Pact will eventually gain traction and benefit all participating countries. We will survive without US.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoUS Economy is about $18 trillion.
- But the rest of TPP members though not as big, is also not that small. Japan Economy is about $5 trillion. Australia, Canada and Mexico Economy is about $1 to $2 trillion.
- The rest are couple of few hundred billions of dollars each.
- Thus without US, though a big loss, the rest will still provide very good multi-lateral trade deal.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoTeaching Trump a lesson on Trade, on Globalisation is extremely important - because anti-trade, anti-globalisation --- is a recipe for trade war, economic war that will lead to Global Economic crisis - and in fact will even lead to military confrontation and in the worst circumstances will even bring about World War.
- In 1930s Deep Depression, US trigger a trade war worldwide that eventually lead to World War 2. Trump don't read historical lesson and fail to understand the implication of Economics and Security.
- And he is not listening to professional aides who understand the implication and linkages.
- Thus Trump must be taught lessons, painful one and learn from it. Trump is a businessman, not an Economist, not a politician, not a governor - and that why he will err badly along the way - and yet he is not listening to his professional aides.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoThe rest of trade partners must attempt to strike multi-lateral trade deals - to insulate the impact cause by US anti-global trade and isolationist policies.
- So that when US adopt trade war, the impact to the rest of the World will be limited.
- And US will as a result of disintegration with the World Economy will suffer badly - through loss of business due to losses from trade revenue - that will translated into massive job losses - 38 million jobs.
- Only then Trump will sit up and realise he make a bad mistake - while the rest of the World cruise by with good Economic growth without US.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoUS trade with the World is about $3 trillion.
- I think multi-lateral trade deals will be able to cover the loss - if TPP with the rest of the members go ahead.
- Also the RCEP and FTAPP will be more than recover this loss.
- And US will lose $3 trillion from its GDP of $17 to $18 trillion - well US can absorb the loss - except Trump have to lick his wound of 38 million job loss from trade.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoWhen China close its Economy during Mao era - China Economy was in a very bad shape - even with 1 billion people relying on domestic economy.
- US is about 500 million people to rely on its domestic economy.
- See whether US economy will grow or not without trade. Trump don't understand Economics - that why can talk and act "ya-ya".
- Wait till he drive US to China-Mao era economy - then he will wake up.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoTrump is now boxing US in - with his "Great Wall of America".
- Trump is now issuing travel ban to US. Good now less and less people will want to travel to US.
- Now more and more Countries will be taking measures to insulate themselves from US protectionist policies - and minimise the impact of trade loss with US.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoEven common man in the street understand the benefits of multi-lateral trade deals.
- But Trump - call "smart man" by Russia - don't understand the benefits.
- Trump "smart" meh?
- Trump sounds more like "ya-ya" - papaya - kepala - kalapa.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoTrump must learn from China historical lesson :-
- That the industrialisation initiative "Great Leap Forward" - lead to a domestic failure.
- And as a result of massive domestic economic failure country-wide - "Cultural revolution" was launched that killed more than 1.5 million people domestically.
- So now Trump is trying to start a trade war, Trump is trying to build "the Great Wall of America",
- Trump is trying to issue travel ban, Trump has cancelled TPP trade deals etc ---- is Trump trying to emulate the historical mistake of China?
- ricky l 0 seconds agoTrump - smart man?
- Only Russia think so.
- 0
- Plaintruth 1 hour agoAnyway the TRUMP advocacy is for the rights and for the future of the CAUCASIANS, WHITE, BLACK, RED, BROWN and YELLOW skins and more AMERICAN skins of AMERICAN people.. If it would happen. These Asian countries if would lead by Communist of China. Then maybe the system of USSR as a communist countries would be repeated. And it would be happen in Asian countries. These 15 countries and more as a members of USSR were lead in COMMUNISM system since 1922, 1955 up to 1991. These countries were members of USSR were suffered in 69 years in COMMUNISM SYSTEM= THEORY OR SYSTEM OF OWNERSHIP IN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTIONS BY THE COMMUNITY. Where the leaders on these countries were implemented by their own principal laws of Communism system. How to SLAVE their own people. While the people on these countries were worked for the rest of their life without freedom. And the people were paid a high value of taxes to their government, but the people cannot benefit and cannot receive a pension from the welfare of their taxes, wealth and natural resources. They will die until for the rest of their life as a SLAVES in their own countries. While this communism system were already spread out almost 2nd World and 3rd World countries all over the World. But for 69 years of COMMUNISM these countries were SUFFERED in COMMUNISM who were the members of USSR. Without any INTERVENTIONS of FEDERAL STATES OF AMERICA for 69 years. But since 1991 these Communist countries of USSR were UNITED and LIFTED COMMUNISM system since 1991. In the DECISION of Michael GORVACHEV was transformed these USSR countries into genuine DEMOCRACY and they were forced to follow International law. And their countries were transformed into INTERNATIONAL LAW in genuine DEMOCRACY = GOVERNMENT IN WHICH THE POWER IS VESTED IN ALL THE PEOPLE, EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, PEACE, FREEDOM, UNITY AND LIBERTY FOR THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONS, PEOPLE, CHILDREN AND FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS. Where the people, children and for the next generations were received a pensions as a benefits from the welfare of their taxes, wealth and natural resources in equal rights system. Like the system of G7 countries and all 72 countries who were followed INTERNATIONAL LAW. Then if it would happen in ASIA the people would suffered in HIGH VALUE of INFLATION of G7 CURRENCIES. Or else the FEDERAL RESERVES of G7 countries could BAN the currencies of ASIAN countries. And could BAN their natural resources. And even YUAN currency would be BAN by the G7 countries. Like USSR before. Then the ECONOMY of ASIAN countries would suffered automatically the people on Asian countries were suffered. Except those countries who were the members of G7 countries JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, SINGAPORE, BRUNEI and more countries who are in ASIA. Who were followed INTERNATIONAL LAW in genuine DEMOCRACY and neglected COMMUNISM SYSTEM. But the rest were 3rd World countries were suffered including Communist of China. If it would happen the NATURAL RESOURCES of COMMUNIST OF CHINA would be BAN by G7 COUNTRIES. What would happen in ASIAN countries. It would be like a USSR before. The Currency and NATURAL RESOURCES of USSR before were banned by the G7 countries. The members of USSR countries before were suffered in COMMUNISM system. Again the RESERVES of GENUINE FEDERAL STATES countries lead by FEDERAL STATES OF AMERICA were not INTERVENES this USSR before for 69 years. But in the end they were give up and LIFTED, GREED system and SLAVERY system of COMMUNISM system. ended. And transformed their countries into INTERNATIONAL LAW in genuine DEMOCRACY and they were followed INTERNATIONAL LAW and became the powerful EUROPEAN UNION countries and became EURO CURRENCY as a members of G7 countries. Since 1989 up to 1999 these countries were joints to G7 countries and became genuine PARLIAMENTARY countries they were UNITED and became genuine FEDERAL STATES COUNTRIES they were FEDERATES and UNITED to and were followed INTERNATIONAL LAW for the future of the Nation, people, children and for the next generations. Ended GOD BLESS EVERYONE.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoTrump is moving away from International Trade and WTO.
- China is embracing International Trade and WTO.
- There is no reason why Countries all over the World that embrace International Trade and WTO - will want to move with Trump and not China.
- Your argument is flaw - with the current Trump policies that are anti-trade, anti-globalisation, protectionist and isolationist stance.
- US is not a monopoly of International trade - as Trump move US away from International Trade and adopt confrontation rather than cooperation and collaboration with its trading partners, Countries all over the World will move away from US anti-business stance and go with China that is pro-business, pro-trade that embrace cooperation and collaboration.
- 49 seconds agoricky lAsia Pacific region is projected to generate $100 trillion in trade revenue by 2050 and Asia Pacific is the fastest economic growth region in the World.
Trump by cancelling TPP - is making a big mistake - by unplugging US trade with Asia Pacific.
US will miss the biggest pie in the fastest economic growth region - that is Asia Pacific - for adopting a confrontational stance with its trading partners --- and will live to regret it.
- Plaintruth 33 minutes agoWorld Trade Organization a former GATT were established by 124 nations around the World. While Free Trade a former NAFTA established by North AMERICA. These agencies were founded because the goal of G7 countries is to help the economies of its nations for the people around the World. There were billions DOLLARS and TRILLIONS dollars, industries and technologies were spread out by the Industrialized countries or G7 countries and around the World. But since the CHINA was benefited on this system because this country were not follow the rules of International law of trade system but this country continue produced fake products to destroy the economies of its countries around the World and this country was fishnet the economy of G7 countries. This is the problem of G7 countries who were developed and helped all countries around the World. Anyway the DOLLAR reserved currency is an INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY for economies businesses, negotiations and transactions by imports or by exports. Anyway on this situation, let see and observe soon, if these G7 countries would agree the principle of Communist of China to lead the communism system economy in this World. Maybe this is very impossible. The super power countries of the World and the people, I'm sure they will panic. Again very IMPOSSIBLE not even POSSIBLE. Then if China would insisted their principles of their communism system of economy. There would be a possible these G7 countries would lift these ASIAN countries. Or it might be there would be a WAR against Communist of China.
- ricky l 0 seconds agoTo be honest, our trade with China is the highest, whereas US trade with us is less than half of China trade with us.
- Now China want to push a massive multi-lateral trade of RCEP, FTAPP and One Belt One Road - that will generate $100 trillion trade revenue.
- US with Trump on the other hand cancel TPP. Do you think we will go with China or with Trump - US?
- ricky l 0 seconds agoBTW, the rest of the World (including US traditional trade partners) are going with China and not Trump-led US.
- They are :-
- (1) EU- with China One Belt One Road
- (2) Australia
- (3) New Zealand
- (4) Japan
- (5) S Korea
- (6) ASEAN
- (7) Canada
- (8) Mexico
- (9) Peru
- (10) Chile
- (11) India
- (12) Asia Pacific
- - and many others not mention here.
- Trump intend to "box up" US with his "Great Wall of America" and his "travel ban".
- US will be alone in the World - and the World will gladfully let US be, under the leadership of Trump.
- What Donald Trump Doesn’t Know about U.S. Trade
- Cargo container ships at the Port of Oakland, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty) SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON August 19, 2015 4:00 AM @KEVINNR A great deal of Donald Trump’s silly and illiterate trade talk presupposes the gutting or repeal of NAFTA, the trade accord between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in 1994, with his dreams of punitive sanctions and blockades. Indeed, NAFTA is a favorite whipping boy for populists Left and Right, a reminder that populist conservatives have much more in common with populist progressives such as Senator Bernie Sanders than they do with the political tendency that connects Adam Smith to F. A. Hayek and Ronald Reagan. Trump fancies himself an ace negotiator, a skill that he has had some chance to hone in an embarrassing series of corporate bankruptcies, and he proposes to employ those skills to ensure trade that is “fair” by whatever ethical standards occur to this particular serial adulterer/crony capitalist/pathological liar/reality-television grotesque. While Trump himself is fundamentally unserious, the Right has witnessed a destructive reemergence of the old anti-trade populism articulated by Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. Perot was the Trump of the 1990s, a billionaire businessman with an absurdly high estimate of his own importance, though Perot at least had the distinction of having made his own fortune. It was Perot who famously warned of the “giant sucking sound” that would accompany U.S. capital shifting south if NAFTA were to pass. And as many election scholars figure it, it was also Perot who ensured the election of Bill Clinton, a previously obscure political figure if a gifted campaigner. Another billionaire megalomaniac ensuring the election of another Clinton would be almost pleasing in its symmetry if it weren’t for the fact that it would do tremendous damage to the country and the world. In real terms, U.S. manufacturing output today is about 68 percent higher than it was before NAFTA came into effect. Trade is one of those issues about which the strength of people’s opinions tends to be the converse of their level of knowledge. With that in mind, it is worth revisiting a few facts. U.S. manufacturing has not been undermined by NAFTA. In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, U.S. manufacturing output today is about 68 percent higher than it was before NAFTA came into effect. Real manufacturing output today is nearly twice what it was in 1987, when NAFTA’s predecessor, the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, was negotiated. Manufacturing output per man-hour has skyrocketed as investments in information technology and automation pay off, which is the main reason a smaller share of the work force is employed in manufacturing even as output continues its steady climb. Fewer people work in our factories today because we’ve gotten better at running them. RELATED: Why Should Washington Control Our Buying and Selling? The United States does run large trade deficits, though the cause and consequence of these is generally misunderstood. (Daniel Griswold’s 1998 analysis, though inevitably dated, remains an excellent primer.) For many years, nearly half of our trade deficit came from imports of a single product: oil, not Hondas or cheap flip-flops from China. Oil accounted for 40.5 percent of the trade deficit from 2000 to 2012. Thanks to fracking, the United States is today a very substantial petroleum producer, but federal law prohibits most crude-oil exports. A recently negotiated swap of U.S. light crude for Mexican heavy crude required presidential dispensation, which gives an indication of how unfree that market is. What that means is that one-way trade in the commodity that has been an important driver of our trade deficit is not the result of protectionist policies abroad but of protectionist policies at home, a federal ban on oil exports enacted in 1975 to keep our precious fluids out of the hands of wily foreigners. RELATED: Why Organized Labor Hates Free Trade In fact, there isn’t a great deal of evidence that trade restrictions enacted by foreign countries have a great deal of long-term effect on American producers. Annual U.S. exports have been setting new records for years, and did so again in 2014. The largest share of U.S. exports go to Canada and Mexico, respectively, with the third-largest market for U.S. exports being China. China consumes about twice as much in U.S. exports as does our next-largest overseas market, Japan, and far more than any other country down the list. The United States runs trade surpluses with relatively protectionist countries such as Brazil. What drives bilateral trade deficits between the United States and other countries is not, for the most part, trade policy, but simple supply and demand. The United States exports a lot of farm commodities and industrial products, along with a great deal of very high-end goods. The effects of that are mainly psychological: We see a lot of goods on the shelves marked “Made in China” but few overseas goods marked “Made in the USA,” because what the United States exports isn’t consumer goods, for the most part. But you’ll find American robotics in German automobile factories and American cotton in Vietnamese textile plants. GET FREE EXCLUSIVE NR CONTENT Because of our size (we sometimes forget that we’re the third-most-populous country on Earth and account for 22 percent of the planet’s economy), we tend to run relatively large trade deficits or surpluses as a share of trade with smaller countries, big deficits with Saudi Arabia, and big surpluses with the Netherlands. And we tend to do lots of business with our immediate neighbors and with other large and diverse economies. Among that group, we generally send more exports to richer countries and fewer exports to poorer countries, for the obvious reason that poor people are “undercapitalized” when it comes to buying $50,000 Ford pickup trucks or Boeing jets. The poorer countries do buy a lot of U.S.-produced food: At $152 billion a year, our annual farm exports slightly exceed our automobile imports. And about $30 billion of those farm exports go to China; Beijing may try to game trading terms, but hungry people are hungry people. RELATED: The Art of the Con, by Donald Trump For the same reason that the United States tends to excel in high-value exports, foreign companies have often found it amenable to make some high-end goods for the American market, and other markets, in the United States. That is not because we have protectionist policies encouraging that, but because it saves on shipping costs and because we have a highly skilled work force. There aren’t any Chinese companies making $1 plastic water-guns to sell at Wal-Mart in the United States, but Mercedes-Benz makes automobiles here and Leica makes high-end optics here (not the famous cameras, but rifle scopes — know your market!), and not because American labor is cheap. Indeed, the race-to-the-bottom analysis is deeply flawed; with the notable exception of China, where wages have steadily climbed but are relatively low, global investment tends to be concentrated on high-wage countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the countries of Western Europe. The next time somebody tries to sell you a race-to-the-bottom story, ask why they don’t make the BMW 7-Series in Haiti. Conversely, because Ford sells the Focus all over the world (it sells twice as many in China as it does in the United States), it has made them in places as different as Michigan, Portugal, Germany, and the Philippines. Mexico has made great strides in automobile manufacturing — but not because it has pursued a protectionist agenda. The opposite is the case: While the United States pursues the occasional free-trade deal in its sluggish and desultory fashion, Mexico has closed some 45 free-trade accords over the past few decades, which means that builders in Mexico can export duty-free to virtually any significant market in the world except China. Meanwhile, the United States languishes: By most estimates, the United States has a trade environment inferior to Sweden’s, and it has a higher corporate tax rate than Sweden does, too. MORE FREE TRADE A 100 PERCENT TARIFF ON MOTORCYCLES? THE WISHFUL THINKING OF THE BORDER-ADJUSTMENT TAX’S ADVOCATES UNFAIR TRADE HURTS ORDINARY WORKERS IN BOTH CHINA AND THE U.S. NAFTA has had a modest positive impact on the United States economy: positive in that it has increased both output and employment in the United States, modest because there already was a great deal of North American trade absent NAFTA. The treaty is not without its defects. My colleague Jonah Goldberg has written that an ideal free-trade treaty would be one sentence long: “There shall be free trade between . . . ” But NAFTA, like our other trade accords, is more Rube Goldberg than Jonah Goldberg, an overly complex piece of political machinery. But it has, despite its defects, lowered trade barriers, to the benefit of all three parties. It is very likely that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which gives so many of our talk-radio friends the willies, will do the same. Some conservatives despise TPP because of the fast-track trade-negotiation authority that has accompanied it — any delegation to the president is tantamount to treason in their view — while others, mainly on the left but some on the right, abominate its intellectual-property standards and other provisions. The analysis that sees TPP as giving the president leverage against Congress is so narrow as to be blind. The real advantage of negotiating a trade deal that requires consensus among such countries as Singapore and Australia is that these countries generally have economic policies that are superior to our own and better suited to the realities of 21st-century markets and economic conditions. Which is to say, it’s an opportunity to leverage Tony Abbott and the ghost of Lee Kuan Yew against Barack Obama on the matter of free markets — a desirable situation for conservatives. Don’t expect to hear any of that from Donald Trump, who imagines that the global economy is a poker game and is transfixed by the phantasm of the inscrutable Oriental dealing from the bottom of the deck while the sneaky Latin sharpens his machete. — Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.
