15 Asia-Pacific Countries Form World's Largest Trade Bloc, Exclude the US (cnbc.com) 295
"Fifteen Asia-Pacific economies formed the world's largest free trade bloc on Sunday," reports CNBC, "a China-backed deal that excludes the United States, which had left a rival Asia-Pacific grouping under President Donald Trump."
Amid questions over Washington's engagement in Asia, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) may cement China's position more firmly as an economic partner with Southeast Asia, Japan and Korea, putting the world's second-biggest economy in a better position to shape the region's trade rules...
RCEP could help Beijing cut its dependence on overseas markets and technology, a shift accelerated by a deepening rift with Washington, said Iris Pang, ING chief economist for Greater China. RCEP groups the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. It aims in coming years to progressively lower tariffs across many areas... RCEP will account for 30% of the global economy, 30% of the global population and reach 2.2 billion consumers, Vietnam said...
"For the first time, China and Japan reached a bilateral tariff reduction arrangement, achieving a historic breakthrough," China's finance ministry said in a statement, without giving further details. The deal marks the first time rival East Asian powers China, Japan and South Korea have been in a single free trade agreement.
RCEP could help Beijing cut its dependence on overseas markets and technology, a shift accelerated by a deepening rift with Washington, said Iris Pang, ING chief economist for Greater China. RCEP groups the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. It aims in coming years to progressively lower tariffs across many areas... RCEP will account for 30% of the global economy, 30% of the global population and reach 2.2 billion consumers, Vietnam said...
"For the first time, China and Japan reached a bilateral tariff reduction arrangement, achieving a historic breakthrough," China's finance ministry said in a statement, without giving further details. The deal marks the first time rival East Asian powers China, Japan and South Korea have been in a single free trade agreement.
Lesson for America (Score:3, Insightful)
A lesson for America: When your foreign policy is based on throwing temper tantrums, the world looks elsewhere for leadership.
China won. America lost in an own-goal.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We knew Asians were good at computers...!
Re:Dumbass Donald (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
A lesson for America: When your foreign policy is based on throwing temper tantrums, the world looks elsewhere for leadership.
China won. America lost in an own-goal.
Obligatory: 72 million "real" Americans voted for 4 more years of temper-tantrum foreign policy.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Interesting)
Obligatory: 72 million "real" Americans voted for 4 more years of temper-tantrum foreign policy.
Historical reality check: In 1944, after FDR had led the county through the Great Depression, kicked Hitler's ass, and destroyed Imperial Japan, 46% of the electorate voted against him. In 2020, Trump got 47% of the vote.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Informative)
FDR was extremely ill. He was also the only 3-term president in American history (and went on to become its only 4-term President). It's not surprising that many would choose to vote against him, despite his having been President during some difficult periods of American history.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. That was Truman, after FDR passed.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Interesting)
Man, we wouldn't even know if one dies from jumping from a skyscraper without others telling you how that works! (Nobody reading this ever did any research on this, did you?)
This is the age of social warfare, and you're surprised a deliberately low-educated part of the population follows a loud nutjob that promises them freedom from all their problems? Even Germany didn't manage that, about a 100 years ago. ;)
I say, yes they got some independent thought. About as much as when you piss against a thunderstorm....
Re: (Score:2)
A lesson for America: When your foreign policy is based on throwing temper tantrums, the world looks elsewhere for leadership.
China won. America lost in an own-goal.
Let me get this straight, you think that a regional trade deal of ASEAN countries hatched back in 2012 that is now coming to pass means "America loses"? This deal means "the world" is looking for leadership elsewhere because of Trump's antics? That if it wasn't for Trump's tantrums, the US could have been a part of this deal, and it would've been economically stronger for it? Or maybe the US could have convinced all the other ASEAN countries to dump the deal with China they'd been working on for years an
Re: (Score:3)
Lessons in reality is more like it.
The proportion of westerners among the richest peoples on Earth is dropping. Soon it will be below 50%. The world is catching up and it does it with greater acceleration than the west, since it can avoid mistakes and also uses the latest in scientific understanding and technology.
When the worlds population hits a plateau (we are almost there, the amount of added people per year is dropping since the 90's), Asia and Africa will account for 80 percent of all humans. https:// [worldometers.info]
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps it was america abandoning its allies over the past four years and doing everything possible to show that they wont help anyone but them selves anymore.
ask the kurds how much trust you should put in america.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Interesting)
This is false. The empire was deliberately carved up so as to separate ethnic and religious groups into several different countries (colonies) in a sort of divide-and-conquer strategy.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
None of this has to do with the military, Taiwan isn't going to start doing joint military exercises with China. That's just... that's a ridiculous notion.
Re: (Score:3)
The real lesson is that these places need a trade agreement, and we had spent years working one out only to throw it away. So they spent years making a new one. Without us.
Except that's not what happened.
The TPP included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. The US withdrew in 2017, and the remaining countries formed the "Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership", which went into effect roughly two years ago.
The RCEP includes Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thaila
Re: (Score:3)
Taiwan is a province of China.
Obligatory: No, Taiwan is not.
Also: Hong Kong should be granted its independence from China.
Taiwan may go to war with China (Score:2)
Not ally with them! Taiwan is the world's hot spot for a potential hot war. Fortunately Xi has toned it down a little bit recently, but he has threatened real war.
Today, they only way Taiwan might ally themselves with China is if the Chinese communist party resigns. Fat Chance!
Do not be ridiculous.
Maybe in 100 years time, the robots may decide to make some sort of peace. But not in our lifetimes.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It was going to be signed last year, but India pulled out at the last minute, so it ended up being signed by the rest of the countries this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this multilateral trade alliance was completely thought up and negotiated during the last two weeks. It wasn’t at all the result of Trump’s random walk of a foreign policy over the past four years.
Come on, seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
They started this in 2012, trump was elected in 2016. So if it can't be biden because it predates him, it can't be trump either for the same reason.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Informative)
They started this in 2012
It was started in 2012 under American leadership, and China was excluded from participation.
Trump pulled America out in 2017 as one of the first acts of his presidency.
The other nations of the Asia-Pacific region then continued without America and invited China to participate.
it can't be trump either
This is 100% Trump's fault because of his idiotic zero-sum view of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
They started this in 2012
It was started in 2012 under American leadership, and China was excluded from participation.
Trump pulled America out in 2017 as one of the first acts of his presidency.
The other nations of the Asia-Pacific region then continued without America and invited China to participate.
You were mixing up RCEP and TPP.
TPP has excluded China. RCEP was started in 2012 as ASEAN + China + Japan from the beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
China is the either the largest, or the 2nd largest, trading partner or importer of all the other 14 participating countries. Once China started negotiating free trade agreement with ASEAN, the rest (Japan, SK, Auz, NZ) would be left out if they didn't join.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TPP - America has a name. It the CPTPP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Informative)
RECP = TPP - America + China; Canada and Mexico were also forced out because once America pulled out, they couldn't be in both RECP and NAFTA.
SMH. You really need to better educate yourself. The countries of the RECP are:
Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam
The countries of the TPP (renamned "CPATPP") are:
Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam
So no, the RECP isn't TPP - America + China, and no, Canada and Mexico weren't forced out of the TPP. I have no idea where someone could possibly get such faulty information. Are you just making shit up?
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a winner! Yes he is just making shit up, it is what is technically called "bullshit". Philosopher Harry Frankfort published an important book several years ago On Bullshit [wikipedia.org] that analyzed the nature and role of bullshittery. It is important because we now live in the age of bullshit.
In former times people had a quaint practice called "lying". Lies were false things that were intended to deceive people and make them believe they were really true. This is very hard to do successfully since the lie must be convincing and maintained a all times, The famous Lincoln (?) quote "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." expresses this truth.
But GW Bush ushered in the age (not all by himself) of "truthiness" a word that soon fell into disuse as the specific historical epoch where it was notable disappeared. Something is "truthy" if is false, but is not intended to really deceive, only appear to plausible if not inspected too closely. It is a way of making inconvenient truths disappeared temporarily so that will not have the influence that they would if known.
Bullshit does not even try to seem plausible, or consistent, and is not intended to persuade you of any particular claim, not even for a moment. Instead it is just a fire hose of self-serving nonsense that fills up the information channels, and drowns out all other discussion. Even as each piece of BS is contradicted by another piece, they all individually serve the BSer's interest, and create the general atmosphere of support because only BS claims are heard. BS does not care what the truth actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
That you should not look for a "real" lesson just because you cannot accept the simple one at hand?
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the result of Trump's terrible foreign policy.
To be fair, back in 2016, Hillary also advocated the abandonment of TPP, even though as SOS, she had written it.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
The TPP had problems, some, if not all which the USA had injected into it. Reform was possible, but even the TPP would have favored the USA more than Asia forming a trade bloc which excludes the USA.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Funny)
The TPP had problems, some, if not all which the USA had injected into it.
America: We insist that TPP contains X, Y, and Z.
Others: Well, ok, if you insist.
America: We are abandoning TPP because it contains X, Y, and Z.
Others: Did you lose your pacifier?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about then putting x, y, and z into the CUSMA, the new NAFTA.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Lesson for America (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It does not exclude the US
Is the US a signatory to the agreement, and did the US participate in the drafting of said agreement? If the answer is "no" then the US was excluded.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
The TPP was negotiated by a large team, why would you think that Hillary Clinton had written it? Was she even on the negotiating team?
Re: (Score:3)
This is the result of Trump's terrible foreign policy.
To be fair, back in 2016, Hillary also advocated the abandonment of TPP, even though as SOS, she had written it.
To be really fair, it must be noted that she wasn't elected president, so what she advocated has zero relevance. TPP wasn't remotely the only thing that Trump and his cult damaged or destroyed.
We really do have to stop ascribing incredible powers of influence to Mrs Clinton as a private citizen.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump and his lackeys let racist ideology drive their decisions and the result is a loss to the US economy. They are incompetent and January 20 cannot come soon enough.
I don't think racism actually had much to do with it. It was sheer incompetence. It was hubris and jingoism. The unshakable belief that making everyone else lose meant that we win.
It is what we voted for in 2016 and a lot of people wanted it for another four years.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it was just sheer incompetence at all. If he never truly, faithfully tried to make the trade relationship better, then it is not incompetence to fail to do so. China served its purpose to him, and thus you could easily see it as competence, just not in the way you'd like.
China was just one of the bogeymen he used to get elected. The goal of his relations with China was to continue to treat China as the bogeymen and cement their position as one of the foci of hatred to unite his followers aroun
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the electoral college was elected by....
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant to the suggestion that *we* voted for Trump in 2016.
Look, we know that *you* voted for Trump in 2016, but the majority of the USA (AKA "we" in this context) voted for Clinton.
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect. A plurality of people (48.2%) voted for Clinton. That is, she received the single largest share of the votes. But she did not get a majority. And if you add in the votes for 3rd party candidates [wikipedia.org], conservative parties got a majority of the vote (50.1%). So like it or not, Trump was probably the correct winner in 2016, both by Electoral College and by popular vote.
2000 was similar. Gore only got 48.4% of the vote. But in that election, liberal parties received 51% of the vote. People wrongly blame the Electoral College for Bush's win, when it was Ralph Nader of the Green Party who siphoned away enough votes from Gore [wikipedia.org] to give Bush the victory. What we really need is to replace the stupid plurality wins system with something like instant runoff [wikipedia.org], so voting for a third party candidate doesn't hand the election to to a candidate you oppose. Even the current situation in Georgia's Senate races - where both will be decided by a runoff election in January because neither winner passed 50% - is preferable.
Thankfully, the Democrats fielded a more palatable candidate this time. Biden is currently at 50.9% of the popular vote. An indisputable win by any measure.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is not conservative.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is not conservative.
He has all the hallmarks of the modern American conservative. Most notably, He wants to Make America Great For Old White Men Again, and everyone else can go piss up a rope.
Being stupid is not the same as being wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia is part of that free trade agreement. Just as China is giving us hell by not allowing freight through customs. Including live lobsters rotting at the airport.
I am very wary of these secretly negotiated agreements. 90% politics, 10% trade. And they come with nasty stings in their tail, for example our FTA with the USA imported their nasty 70 year copyright laws to Australia. And I am not sure that the USA is actually importing much of our sugar in any case.
They should not be necessary in any case. The WTC is supposed to produce multilateral rules that encourage free trade in any case.
Australia actually needs to become less dependent on China and diversify for strategic reasons. (We have a huge trade surplus with China.)
Re: Lesson for America (Score:3)
No, this is what we ALL voted for in 2016 and ALMOST voted for in 2020. This is how our system is setup to represent us. The Presidential position is one for the USoA, stop calling him "not mine"; it was never a position for the people. That would just be HoRs.
Let's stop nitpicking on pointless details and metrics that only serve to define & separate our squabbling tribes. Atleast till our Congressional representatives and state governors change it.
Re: Lesson for America (Score:4, Insightful)
The electoral college is abhorrent to the American sense of equality and claims of equality in the Constitution and declaration of Independence.
That depends on whether one considers the USA as a single state in the traditional meaning of the word, that is, as a single nation state (more modern wording: a single country), or if they consider the USA, as its name implies, as a transnational federation of 50+ affiliated nation states/countries.
In the first case, then yes, there's something extremely wrong in some citizens of the same nation state having votes with a higher weight than others. It violates the 18th and early 19th centuries Enlightenment-based democratic notion of "one citizen, one vote".
In the second case, then no, given a transnational federation of nation states is based on the relative equality of every nation state, taken as wholes, within the federation.
As a non-American myself (I'm in Brazil), my impression is that the USA clearly began as the second case, but that over 200 years of common history have slowly but continuously erased its 50+ different national identities, thus making most current nationals of its many federated countries think less and less of themselves as such, and more and more as nationals/citizens of the one USA, which is thus in the process of transitioning from a transnational federation into a single unified nation state, with its original 50+ affiliated countries slowly having their status status as independent countries reduced into that of administrative provinces. The process isn't complete, so many aspects of the US as a federation of countries, such as the Electoral College, still remain, but I suppose over the next several decades or centuries it will become complete.
The interesting thing, IMHO, is this suggests something similar may happen in Europe, with the still prevalent notions of a national being first and foremost "an Italian", "a German", "a French" etc. and only secondarily "an European Union citizen" also starting a slow process of erasure so that in a few centuries a national will think of themselves first and foremost as "an European", and only secondarily as whatever old-nationality their great-grandparents sued to identified themselves with.
A very interesting historical process, for sure. I wonder if over time, from several centuries to a few millennia, it might encompass the entire planet, with any one individual thinking of themselves first as "an Earthian", and only very secondarily as "an American", "an European", "an Unasulian" etc. It's going to be very interesting if and when that happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Under longstanding agreements trade with China was a negative-sum game. It reduced America's power while devastating the environment, and only forestalled China's inevitable upcoming shortages.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
This is the result of Trump's terrible foreign policy.
Trump and his lackeys let racist ideology drive their decisions and the result is a loss to the US economy. They are incompetent and January 20 cannot come soon enough.
This.
This is the result of Trump's terrible foreign policy.
Trump and his lackeys let racist ideology drive their decisions and the result is a loss to the US economy. They are incompetent and January 20 cannot come soon enough.
This.
This is the result of Trump's terrible foreign policy.
Trump and his lackeys let racist ideology drive their decisions and the result is a loss to the US economy. They are incompetent and January 20 cannot come soon enough.
It wasn't just racist ideology. It was a weird form of crybullying about how the rest of the world was abusing the USA - to the point of accusations that Canada was "eating our lunch". It was a strange concept that the rest of the world must dance to our tune. It was an actual misunderstanding of basic math as applied to international finances.
Hell yeah, incompetent. The only thing that crew was any good at was trolling the world. Look where that gets us. The USA has suffered possible insurmountable damag
Re: (Score:3)
No the USA doesn't need to have anything to do with dictatorship and censorship. The more we buy from China ...
China was excluded from the original agreement. They badly wanted to be included.
Then Trump pulled America out, and the other nations invited China to join as the new "anchor".
So the result is that the world will buy more from China and less from America.
Re: (Score:2)
You're mixing up agreements. It was TPP from which Trump withdrew
Re: (Score:2)
You're mixing up agreements. It was TPP from which Trump withdrew
TPP and RECP are the same thing. Once America withdrew, it was renamed, and China was invited to join.
Re: (Score:2)
You're mixing up agreements. It was TPP from which Trump withdrew
TPP and RECP are the same thing. Once America withdrew, it was renamed, and China was invited to join.
You got it completely wrong. RCEP and TPP are different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of continuing to post nonsense, please do the minimum of reading the Wikipedia pages on these agreements. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why they would want to support China.
https://www.latimes.com/world-... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let them buy from corrupt dictatorships and let China grow into a bigger corrupt monster.
What people like you do not grasp: no one buys from a Chinese corrupt monster. We buy from Chinese companies. Oops.
USA will build up the America's and everyone will be happy
Like USA did after WWII? Fucking over every south and middle American country over at least twice?
Re: (Score:2)
Except maybe TikTok if some kids use it to embarrass our emperor of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lesson for America (Score:4, Informative)
China won .. LOL .. China lost years ago when the communists took over.
Perhaps you should read a history book? You have absolutely no clue about China.
It is a first world country with a first world army and a space program.
And that all thanx to "communist".
Before the communist won the revolution, the country was officially ruled by an emporer, in fact by 15 or 20 competing warlords, and most of the coast was occupied and conquered by european countries, which had raiding parties going into the hinterlands sealing artifacts from temples etc.
That was a quick summary. China is far better off now than "before communist times".
Dragged down (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In an agreement dominated by China?
Re: (Score:2)
Better than being dominated by the USA
Re: Dragged down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still a hundred times more trustworthy and cooperative than China, especially post-Trump. Just think of the rampant IP theft, violation of agreements (eg. the one country, two system with Hong Kong), violation of international law (nine-dash line), broad violation of human rights, child labor and no regard for the environment, with China constructing hundreds of coal plants just abroad (and more domestically), as well as restarting the release of CFC which is illegal.
Also, there's a mixup, Canada wasn't goi
Re: Dragged down (Score:5, Informative)
The USA routinely violates their trade obligations, and international law. They have deposed many regimes, and started countless international conflicts. They are no friend of ours.
Re: (Score:3)
As if any US version of christianity isn't Machiavellian, cut-throat and anything goes
Re: Dragged down (Score:5, Insightful)
I welcome rampant IP theft, Better than imposing the insane copyright laws we have on the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait till China soft powers other nations to be more like them, autocratic, dictatorial and anti-democratic. You'll want US hegemony back
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if Satan boils a soup for you, you at least want *you own* piss to be a flavor ingredient, don't you? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you mean, read up on China's innumerable negative actions over the past few decades which outweigh by far anything the West has been committing
Re: (Score:2)
From your point of view. From other points of view the american atrocities are worse and certainly much more numberous.
Re: (Score:2)
This is basically an expanded regional ASEAN bloc of countries that already trade with each other.
Canada isn't in the western Pacific. TPP is a separate agreement entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is basically an expanded regional ASEAN bloc of countries.
It is more than just ASEAN.
Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are all signatories.
India voluntarily pulled out because Modi is even stupider than Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Remind me, how are those Canadians rotting in Chinese jail for political reasons jail doing?
CCP fluffers out in force today.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada not obeying orders of Chinese government, and not subverting it's own legal system in face of the continuing and ongoing threats of violence towards its citizenry. Latest of which came just a few months ago from their top official.
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone who has even a sliver of experience of the Russian or Chinese style "socialist" dictatorships, it'd require quite a series of Trumps for the US to be less trustworthy and more dangerous than China.
Thanks, DONALD (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fifteen Asia-Pacific economies formed the world's largest free trade bloc on Sunday," reports CNBC, "a China-backed deal that excludes the United States, which had left a rival Asia-Pacific grouping under President Donald Trump."
Thanks for fucking us again, Donald.
But not to worry, I suspect that after President Super Spreader is out of office, we'll be able to join, but only as a junior partner until they trust us again.
Re:Thanks, DONALD (Score:4, Insightful)
Will anyone trust you again? It's not like trump was voted out by an overwhelming majority. This election just showed that america is as xenophobic and selfish as ever.
Re:Thanks, DONALD (Score:5, Informative)
"It's not like trump was voted out by an overwhelming majority. "
Trump got voted out by a larger majority than any incumbent president since Herbert Hoover.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump got voted out by a larger majority than any incumbent president since Herbert Hoover.
That ultimately doesn't matter. The number may show the biggest gap but it's a question of absolutes. 73,155,408 people (and counting) voted for an additional 4 more years of this dumbfuckery. Even if it failed it demonstrates the single largest example of mass attempted self harm ever.
Trump shouldn't just have lost by a larger majority, he should have been annihilated in a landslide. But he wasn't showing that the USA may very well re-elect either him or some equally destructive moron again.
There's no trus
Re:Thanks, DONALD (Score:4, Interesting)
Will anyone trust you again? It's not like trump was voted out by an overwhelming majority. This election just showed that america is as xenophobic and selfish as ever.
In some ways it will be a good thing that the US is no longer implicitly trusted. Because in order to actually be trusted in the future the US will have to work hard and achieve real results rather than just coast.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The agreement was started in 2012 (hint: Biden was VP then). The media is simply blaming Trump for everything bad that happens in the world. China doesn't think about what looks good in the next election, because it doesn't have a fair and free election, their dictator is in power forever and thus can realize long-term goals.
It was never China's intention to have the US included in these agreements. China wants regional domination, because it desperately needs resources from neighboring countries and desper
yeh (Score:2)
Bitter blow for Brexiters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bitter blow for Brexiters (Score:5, Insightful)
We share their Queen and their flag anachronistically appears in the corner of ours. What relevance is an island on the other side of the world? My ancestors left Britain 160 years ago. Aside from being flooded with BBC programming on the ABC, I have little cultural affinity with the 'motherland'. Australia of the 21st century isn't an 18th century colony.
The commonwealth is little more than an excuse to join other nations that are crap at athletics once every 4 years as an alternative olympics.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I can well imagine the UK government trying to join RCEP (despite not being anywhere the Pacific). The only thing that would stop them would be if the US objected.
Why does the US need to shape foreign things? (Score:3)
What is the basis for this view of having to rule the entire planet for your selfish advantage?
Why not make the world a good place for *everyone*?
Also, are we expecting too much, when we say that you *must* realize that behavior like that will get you shunned and excluded and disliked and at the first chance (like, during this presidency) stabbed in the back?
Social Behavior 102.
I mean there have been studies that show that literally squirrels, crows and monkeys get this!
Re:Why does the US need to shape foreign things? (Score:4, Funny)
Why not make the world a good place for *everyone*?
Because that's socialism.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not make the world a good place for *everyone*?
Because that's socialism.
No, socialism is where you make the world a bad place for everyone except those in power.
The US should have teamed up with ... (Score:2)
... China. America had innovation but lacked the motivation to pay for labour.
China has gobs of labour and has always looked for manpower solutions to do their work.
A combination of strengths would have been a good marriage.
As for niggling disparities such as human rights what with America separating children from parents and the Chinese disrespecting Muslims and all that crap, that's a fight for other departments extant to economics to figure out.
Re:The US should have teamed up with ... (Score:5, Insightful)
China sucks the air out of whoever partners with them. It infringes on its own neighbors' coastal waters and claims the entirety of the South China sea. They're signing countries into agreements that result in infrastructure buildout by Chinese companies and workers, establishing infrastructure critical for China's trade, meanwhile indebting the recipient country to an extent where they're likely to give up ownership or control of key infrastructure such as ports, which can also be used for military purposes.
China achieves a lot by throwing its weight around, and its motives and goals are rather clear.
That's what the TPP was for (Score:5, Interesting)
TPP had serious flaws. (Score:5, Informative)
But its main purpose was to curtail the expansion of Chinese influence.
The timing of this agreement isn't a coincidence; Biden's victory lit a fire under China to cement its control over the region before an administration that was less allergic to multilateral agreements took over. Despite Trump's hostility to China, his exclusive focus on bilateral agreements has been very good for China's international ambitions.
Re: (Score:2)
The timing of this agreement isn't a coincidence
The negotiation of this agreement started in *2012*, eight years ago.
The only possible relationship to the US election is that the Trump administration was finally too occupied elsewhere to try to delay the signing any further.
Worth considering why India pulled out of RCEP (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at the other comments on this story, this comment will probably be modded into oblivion. But it's worth considering why India pulled out of the RCEP.
From the linked article:
"India’s objections to the trade agreement aren’t hard to understand. For one, India has trade deficits with 11 of the 15 other RCEP members, many of them sizable .... As a country with one of the highest average tariff rates on all imports among RCEP members, India would be among those making the largest cuts to get tariffs to zero"
"Another major issue for India was the potential that opening up its market to China, another RCEP member, would lead to a flood of cheap Chinese goods crowding out Indian-produced products. India’s trade deficit with China accounts for about 50 percent of the country’s total trade deficit."
These same issues regarding trade deficits don't just apply to India ...
Here's the article:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019... [foreignpolicy.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Free trade normally benefits all participants as tariffs (in a mature product space) hold back efficiency improvements. If India can't make things as cheaply as China, they are better off focusing on things they can do better. And of course consumers benefit from lower prices.
Re: (Score:3)
You are right, but you understandably don't see one thing: This gives a ton of power-hungry dicks a huge stiffy and a ton of money from arms sales and such too.
Or why do you think the CIA gave money to Pakistan "to fight the terrorists" AFTER they found out that the last time they did that, the money was given to those very terrorist training camps in northern Pakistan, because according to Pakistani leaders, those are the freedom fighters and the US are the terrorists. The first time, one may understand, i