11 Countries Sign Historic TPP!

[Economy 53,075]

https://www.google.ca/amp/business.financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-and-rest-of-trans-pacific-partnership-agree-to-revised-text-say-reports/amp

 

11 Countries have gone ahead and signed TPP free trade deal without the US.

 

This involves a large economic sum. Below is a list of countries and their economies:

 

Japan: $4.9 Trillion

Canada: $2.1 Trillion

Australia: $1.2 Trillion

Mexico: $1 Trillion

Singapore: $300 Billion

Malaysia: 296 Billion

Chile: $277 Billion

Vietnam: $202 Billion

New Zealand: $190 Billion

Peru: $190 Billion

Brunei: $11 Billion

[ELEMENTALITY 1,298]

So dumb. I hope the United States does NOT agree to anything like this. The last time we pulled a stunt like this in the 90's it completely destroyed the midwest of America. Within a decade massive cities like Detroit, MI, Cleveland, OH, Dayton, OH, Indianapolis, IN, Cincinnati, OH lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and half their cities' populations.

[Economy 53,075]

13 minutes ago, ELEMENTALITY said:

So dumb. I hope the United States does NOT agree to anything like this. The last time we pulled a stunt like this in the 90's it completely destroyed the midwest of America. Within a decade massive cities like Detroit, MI, Cleveland, OH, Dayton, OH, Indianapolis, IN, Cincinnati, OH lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and half their cities' populations.

Was it specifically because of a free trade deal? If so which one?

[ELEMENTALITY 1,298]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Was it specifically because of a free trade deal? If so which one?

Yeah. I just think that had alot to do with making the rich of the world richer. Not "freeing the marketplace". Because it hijacked part of an already middle class nation to give crapier paying jobs to the needy. How is that freedom? You're now dangling cheese in front of mice in a system that won't allow 99.99999% of those poor to ever achieve the cheese, and in order to do that you had to **** over people who were already established (and pay taxes and so on). And who does it really benefit? The rich.

I wonder if our world leaders would be so excited about this agreement if they took a loss? 

[Economy 53,075]

4 minutes ago, ELEMENTALITY said:

Yeah. I just think that had alot to do with making the rich of the world richer. Not "freeing the marketplace". Because it hijacked part of an already middle class nation to give crapier paying jobs to the needy. How is that freedom? You're now dangling cheese in front of mice in a system that won't allow 99.99999% of those poor to ever achieve the cheese, and in order to do that you had to **** over people who were already established (and pay taxes and so on). And who does it really benefit? The rich.

I wonder if our world leaders would be so excited about this agreement if they took a loss? 

How so tho? Usually the idea behind free trade is freeing up taxes on imports. That in itself should increase poverty

[ELEMENTALITY 1,298]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

How so tho? Usually the idea behind free trade is freeing up taxes on imports. That in itself should increase poverty

exactly. who do you think keeps those dollars that are no longer going to taxes? Those countries are not making sure their business leaders are super ethical.....too many people in eachothers asses tbh

[Economy 53,075]

4 minutes ago, ELEMENTALITY said:

exactly. who do you think keeps those dollars that are no longer going to taxes? Those countries are not making sure their business leaders are super ethical.....too many people in eachothers asses tbh

That's not true exactly. Imports from countries with free trade tend to cheaper as a result of competition. If there was no competition Wed pay way more for everything.

 

But even if it didn't, there is significant efficiency advantages to producing a lot in bulk in each Nation

[FGGrayson 9,670]

Mexico is there, good!! 

I hope Mexico with this stops depending so much on US and starts having better business relationship with another countries, TimesUp, #BuilDatWall

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

https://www.google.ca/amp/business.financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-and-rest-of-trans-pacific-partnership-agree-to-revised-text-say-reports/amp

 

11 Countries have gone ahead and signed TPP free trade deal without the US.

 

This involves a large economic sum. Below is a list of countries and their economies:

 

Japan: $4.9 Trillion

Canada: $2.1 Trillion

Australia: $1.2 Trillion

Mexico: $1 Trillion

Singapore: $300 Billion

Malaysia: 296 Billion

Chile: $277 Billion

Vietnam: $202 Billion

New Zealand: $190 Billion

Peru: $190 Billion

Brunei: $11 Billion

The US was supposed to be in this deal but Trump pulled us out during his first week. I was so angry. 

One of his stupidest decisions. Some protectionists will never understand the benefits of free trade and how competition decreases prices and allows for us to purchase clothes, toys, ect at much cheaper prices.

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

38 minutes ago, ELEMENTALITY said:

So dumb. I hope the United States does NOT agree to anything like this. The last time we pulled a stunt like this in the 90's it completely destroyed the midwest of America. Within a decade massive cities like Detroit, MI, Cleveland, OH, Dayton, OH, Indianapolis, IN, Cincinnati, OH lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and half their cities' populations.

Why? NAFTA and other free trade agreements drasrtically brought down the prices of shirts, foods, ect. Almost every economist says free trade is good and it is good. Sure some jobs are lost, but you have to take into account automation and other factors. Sure, free trade does hurt some people, but it helps the most.

Just remember, tariffs hurt the poor. YOU pay the tariff. The rich don't care if there is a tariff, they are rich enough, they could afford to spend a few extra bucks. But if a poor person working for $7.25 an hour is buying a shirt, and a trade agreement that brought down the costs of clothes is repealed to protect industry, the poor person gets hurt the most. 

Free trade is good, TPP is good, NAFTA is good. 

[Economy 53,075]

4 hours ago, Gaga Monster said:

The US was supposed to be in this deal but Trump pulled us out during his first week. I was so angry. 

One of his stupidest decisions. Some protectionists will never understand the benefits of free trade and how competition decreases prices and allows for us to purchase clothes, toys, ect at much cheaper prices.

Yeah I know would be better if USA was in it. With the US gone it removes half the GDP in this free trade but oh well

 

I'm also worried about NAFTA as a lot of integrated trade will affect all 3 Nations

 

Also Trump does not understand basic economics. He wants to spend a lot on Corporate Tax Cuts and infrastructure spending when the US economy is close to full capacity. He should save this money for the next recession not overheat the economy and force higher rates and inflation

 

Half of US construction firms ATM report difficulty filling all their construction positions. It's not the time for the Government to compete for labor in a sector that's already tight 

 

Right now longer term investments like growing small businesses and more start-ups with tax cuts for them, or innovation and education programs would work best for longer term success which Trump can do now...

 

More direct faster acting stimulus like Corporate tax cuts or higher infrastructure spending shouldn't be spent when the expansion is more than halfway thru the cycle

He's just going to waste money to create inflation

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

10 hours ago, Economy said:

Yeah I know would be better if USA was in it. With the US gone it removes half the GDP in this free trade but oh well

 

I'm also worried about NAFTA as a lot of integrated trade will affect all 3 Nations

 

Also Trump does not understand basic economics. He wants to spend a lot on Corporate Tax Cuts and infrastructure spending when the US economy is close to full capacity. He should save this money for the next recession not overheat the economy and force higher rates and inflation

 

Half of US construction firms ATM report difficulty filling all their construction positions. It's not the time for the Government to compete for labor in a sector that's already tight 

 

Right now longer term investments like growing small businesses and more start-ups with tax cuts for them, or innovation and education programs would work best for longer term success which Trump can do now...

 

More direct faster acting stimulus like Corporate tax cuts or higher infrastructure spending shouldn't be spent when the expansion is more than halfway thru the cycle

He's just going to waste money to create inflation

Agree. I am very worried for the next recession if Trump passes the Infrastructure bill because the tax cuts are enough to get us to the 3-4% GDP growth. The stock market is also going WAY up, like historically up. It jumped 1,000 points in 8 days. It is going way to fast, I am worried the crash is going to be Great Depression bad. 

Yeah, I agree, the US is having trouble filling low skill jobs and he wants to cut LEGAL immigration in half (which is going to hurt the economy, growth, and hurt businesses that rely on low skill/construction jobs) plus he is chasing all the Illegal Immigrants out which is also going to hurt the economy since they are very big on farms. Some farms are having trouble filling positions since he is getting rid of their labour and natural born citizens will not do that type of work. Plus it is really hard to get work visas for skilled tech workers here in America, from what I heard. 

I am glad the economy is doing better than it did before and that the stock market is going up, but I see it getting out of hand soon. 

If the US does pass Infrastructure before the next recession, I think what we could do to stimulate the economy would defiantly be Single Payer Healthcare, the thousands each person would save and the amount of jobs that would de created would be huge, and I do think a Flat Tax to replace our Progressive Income Tax system on all incomes would stimulate the economy. 

[doppelganger 4,022]

USA's loss to be honest. 

A lot of people in my country are nervous too (we signed the TPPA) as we're opening up trade to countries that have cheaper labour - but on the +ve side I think this opens a whole new market for everyone involved. 

[Economy 53,075]

2 hours ago, Gaga Monster said:

Agree. I am very worried for the next recession if Trump passes the Infrastructure bill because the tax cuts are enough to get us to the 3-4% GDP growth. The stock market is also going WAY up, like historically up. It jumped 1,000 points in 8 days. It is going way to fast, I am worried the crash is going to be Great Depression bad. 

Yeah, I agree, the US is having trouble filling low skill jobs and he wants to cut LEGAL immigration in half (which is going to hurt the economy, growth, and hurt businesses that rely on low skill/construction jobs) plus he is chasing all the Illegal Immigrants out which is also going to hurt the economy since they are very big on farms. Some farms are having trouble filling positions since he is getting rid of their labour and natural born citizens will not do that type of work. Plus it is really hard to get work visas for skilled tech workers here in America, from what I heard. 

I am glad the economy is doing better than it did before and that the stock market is going up, but I see it getting out of hand soon. 

If the US does pass Infrastructure before the next recession, I think what we could do to stimulate the economy would defiantly be Single Payer Healthcare, the thousands each person would save and the amount of jobs that would de created would be huge, and I do think a Flat Tax to replace our Progressive Income Tax system on all incomes would stimulate the economy. 

Basically all of this. The economy has a full capacity. Once there is full employment you cannot grow more unless you grow your output/productivity per worker (which can be done with technology or efficiency gains) or have the workforce grow in size with higher labor force participation rate or population growth

 

If labor market or productivity can't meet demand, then economy can't grow without serious inflation as every industrial resource (labor, services and equioment) will be fought for and raise the cost of everything. So Trump can't stimulate the economy with infrastructure right now. He's just gonna steal labor the private sector needs right now

 

Also I agree with lower taxes to an extent. Lower business taxes increase competitiveness, innovation, investment and hiring

 

Personal income taxes can be harmful too if the wealthy are taxed crazy rates. But within reason, taxing higher income a little more I think can be a net positive for economy by giving a little wealth redistribution. As long as the top income bracket doesn't surpass 40% to 45% I think it's ok

 

In some US States and Canadian Provinces I know top income brackets go to almost 50% when adding federal and State taxes. That goes a little too high

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

Basically all of this. The economy has a full capacity. Once there is full employment you cannot grow more unless you grow your output/productivity per worker (which can be done with technology or efficiency gains) or have the workforce grow in size with higher labor force participation rate or population growth

 

If labor market or productivity can't meet demsnd the, then economy can't grow without serious inflation as every industrial resource (labor, services and equioment) will be fought for and raise the cost of everything. So Trump can't stimulate the economy with infrastructure right now. He's just gonna steal labor the private sector needs right now

 

Also I agree with lower taxes to an extent. Lower business taxes increase competitiveness, innovation, investment and hiring

 

Personal income taxes can be harmful too if the wealthy are taxed crazy rates. But within reason, taxing higher income a little more I think can be a net positive for economy by giving a little wealth redistribution. As long as the top income bracket doesn't surpass 40% to 45% I think it's ok

 

In some US States and Canadian Provinces I know top income brackets go to almost 50% when adding federal and State taxes. That goes a little too high

Agree. The reason I agreed with a flat tax of about 16% on all incomes (business & personal) is that it will help end corruption and bring in more revenue when taking into account GDP growth. The thing is that the top rate is 37% in the US, but no one pays that rate because of the loopholes, tax lawyers, and paying off politicians to get more changes to the tax code. If you just throw the whole thing out and have a flat rate, but make the first $50,000 for a family of fours income tax free, making it not regressive, it will be good because everyone will pay the same rate if you are wealthy. Some people pay 30%, some pay 15%, and some pay nothing in our current system because of deductions and loopholes. If you just throw all the pages out and start fresh with a flat tax and limited deductions, there is no reason for tax lobbyists and tax avoidance. It increases the amount of income reported, decreases tax avoidance, increases GDP growth, and will bring in more revenue. 

Here is Rand Paul's flat plan, 14.5% on everything (i think is too low)

https://taxfoundation.org/economic-effects-rand-paul-s-tax-reform-plan/

The Tax Foundation says Rand's plan will bring in $737 billion more dollars over 10 years when taking into account the massive GDP growth of a simpler system. If you make the tax system simple, file taxes on a simple postcard since everything is taxed at the same rate and there are only 5 deductions available, corruption will lessen and revenue increases. A win win for the US