[johnnybowman]

Devil's advocate here:

- America already has low tariffs (hence our lust for imported goods). The rest of the world has higher tariffs. US goods producers stand more to gain from TPP than foreign goods producers.

- Average wages for traded/export industries, such as Kentucky bourbon, are higher than for local industries, like hospitals. The more the US can focus on traded industries, the more wages rise in America. Germany does a great job of this. We don't but TPP would help.

- TPP still has to get approved by Congress. Fast track just strips Congress' ability to amend or filibuster the deal - two tactics that favor special interests over majority interests.

- Special interests are always powerful in trade negotiations. Limiting their power is crucial to passing equitable, long-term focused deals.

[crdoconnor]

>America already has low tariffs

The TPP isn't about tarriffs. They're the smallest and least important part of the deal.

>- Average wages for traded/export industries, such as Kentucky bourbon, are higher than for local industries, like hospitals.

Survivorship bias.

>- TPP still has to get approved by Congress. Fast track just strips Congress' ability to amend or filibuster the deal

Fast track also legislates away Congress's own constitutional trade authority over future deals. Basically (Hillary) or whomever will be able to dictate what goes in future deals.

>- Special interests are always powerful in trade negotiations. Limiting their power is crucial to passing equitable, long-term focused deals.

It was drafted in complete secrecy by corporate lobbyists. It's their bill. It's their dream. Limiting the power of special interests like them means striking the bill down.

[smutticus]

We can't engage in any nuanced conversation of the TPP because we don't know what's in it. Given that, I find no reason to be anything but completely against it.

[mpyne]

How can you be completely against something that, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with? Would you have been "completely against" North Korea and the U.N. signing an armistice in 1953 while it was still being negotiated?

[anigbrowl]

That's just absurd. The rational thing is to be neutral about it until it comes in front of Congress for a vote. At that point you can read it and decide whether you want your representative to support or oppose it.

[o0-0o]

God's advocate here:

I'd like to note that amendments are important, and taking away the ability to amend a bill is not a good thing. Take for example the 1st amendment to the constitution: Freedom of Speech.

[sbassi]

for agriculture product US has high tariff and/or agricultural subsidies (to compensate some low tariff) and even quotas for selected products (mostly not manufactured).