"The Obama administration’s illusionary job gains from the Trans-Pacific Partnership"

Why tell the truth when a convenient lie is just sitting there?

"“Estimates are that the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] could provide $77 billion a year in real income and support 650,000 new jobs in the U.S. alone.”

–Secretary of State John F. Kerry, in an opinion article titled “Alliances for Peace,” Jan. 14, 2015"

"“Completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership provides the opportunity to open up markets, lower tariffs and, according to the Peterson Institute, increase U.S. exports by $123 billion and help support an additional 650,000 jobs.”

– Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, in an interview with the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, Jan. 26, 2015"

The Pinocchio Test

Clearly, with the Peterson Institute refusing to play the game this time and cough up a jobs number, the administration decided to concoct its own. But, as we have shown, one cannot at the same time claim both a gain of $77 billion in income and a gain of 650,000 jobs; the same effects simply cannot happen at the same time.

Moreover, these are big numbers with virtually no context. It is pretty lame to use such huge numbers to tout what, in the context of the U.S. economy, amounts to minuscule changes in income —10 years from now.

Our advice remains: be wary whenever a politician claims a policy will yield bountiful jobs. In this case, the correct number is zero, not 650,000, according to the very study used to calculate this number. Administration officials earn Four Pinocchios for their fishy math.

Four Pinocchios



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/30/the-obama-administrations-illusionary-job-gains-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership/?hpid=z5

Obama wouldn't know a job if it slapped Michelle's booty

We could spend all day arguing over "what ifs". That still wouldn't change the fact that 7 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy during the Obama administration.

That is 7 times as many as the last two republican presidents combined.

Zero pinocchios.

boards of FL wrote:We could spend all day arguing over "what ifs".  That still wouldn't change the fact that 7 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy during the Obama administration.  

That is 7 times as many as the last two republican presidents combined.  

Zero pinocchios.

What does that little bit of (yawn) information have to do with blatantly misleading TransPac information? Nothing.

FYI

Now that Ted Cruz is running the NASA committee they've reopened the Challenger investigation and determined it was, in fact, Obama's fault.- John Fugelsang

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We could spend all day arguing over "what ifs".  That still wouldn't change the fact that 7 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy during the Obama administration.  

That is 7 times as many as the last two republican presidents combined.  

Zero pinocchios.

What does that little bit of (yawn) information have to do with blatantly misleading TransPac information? Nothing.

They both pertain to jobs.  The difference there is that the jobs that I am talking about are real.  The jobs that your article is talking about may or may not be.

And there was nothing "blatantly misleading".  They specifically showed how they arrived at the 650,000 number.  The author of the book that they used as a reference then said their calculation method doesn't necessarily work because his comment regarding a job being supported by every $121,000 of income requires income to be held constant...or roughly something to that effect.  Long story short, it isn't as if the Obama administration - or any one else - simply made shit up.  They used what they thought was fairly straightforward research by the Peterson Institute for International Economics but were later corrected by the author of that research.  They will now have to stand corrected on that.  The end.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We could spend all day arguing over "what ifs".  That still wouldn't change the fact that 7 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy during the Obama administration.  

That is 7 times as many as the last two republican presidents combined.  

Zero pinocchios.

What does that little bit of (yawn) information have to do with blatantly misleading TransPac information? Nothing.

They will now have to stand corrected on that.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a politician to admit they played fast and furious with data.

Clinton screwed us with NAFTA and my link below show evidence of that travesty. Obama wants to screw us with the TPP. What else is new with Democratic leaders who want to give US jobs away?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/trans-pacific-partnership_b_6571496.html

Twenty years ago, as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was coming into force, the nation had high hopes. The trade pact's backers promised tens of thousands of new high-paying jobs, lower prices for consumers, and an export-driven renaissance for American manufacturing.

NAFTA's legacy, tragically, bears no resemblance to these promises.

In the two decades since the agreement came into existence, the U.S. has lost nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs, and my home state of Michigan has lost one out of three jobs in this essential sector. America's trade deficit with Mexico and Canada ballooned from $27 billion to $177 billion, and economic inequality has risen to record levels.

Right now, as Wall Street and Washington seek to drag the American people into a massive new trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim nations, Congress must keep the dreadful legacy of NAFTA in mind.

The new Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) -- an agreement between the U.S. and Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam -- has rightfully been called "NAFTA on steroids." The 11-nation trade deal would force Americans to compete against workers from developing nations like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is less than 60 cents per hour.

Much like NAFTA, the TPP has more to do with big-business protectionism than with genuine free trade. Of TPP's 29 sections, only five relate to traditional trade issues like lowering tariffs. The rest of the chapters seek to limit the powers of governments to protect the safety of food, medicines, and the environment, as well as to forestall governments from implementing financial regulations of the sort that are needed to safeguard taxpayer money from bank bailouts. Most damaging of all, the TPP would create new incentives for corporations to ship jobs overseas and would forbid governments from using strategies like "Buy American" provisions that keep jobs in our country.

But the TPP is only part of the problem. This same failed NAFTA model is being replicated yet again though a massive new Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) with Europe. Like NAFTA and the TPP, this proposed agreement would empower corporations to offshore jobs, attack U.S. and Michigan consumer protections, and sue taxpayers.

Thankfully, there's a way to stop these deals. Because they contain individual provisions that are harmful to every group of Americans -- from farmers to factory workers -- the agreements will almost certainly be amended beyond recognition once they're debated openly in Congress, forcing international negotiators back to the drawing board. That's why the agreements' backers are pushing for a special legislative procedure known as Trade Promotion Authority, or "Fast Track," to remove Congress's power to decide on the content of trade agreements. Fast Track would prevent Congress from being able to fully debate and amend the TPP or TAFTA and would force lawmakers to consider the agreements under expedited timetables. Because Congress has constitutional authority over trade policy, members of the House and Senate have a sacred obligation not only to stop these destructive deals but to stop the usurpation of their constitutionally granted powers. By rejecting Fast Track, we can defeat the TPP and TAFTA.

In this era of partisanship and gridlock, the fight for fair trade is an extraordinary opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together. In the last Congress, 178 lawmakers from both parties signed letters expressing strong opposition to Fast Track. In the weeks ahead we will work to build on this support. Protecting American workers, consumers, and taxpayers from foreign lawsuits and a regulatory race to the bottom isn't liberal or conservative; it's simple common sense.

http://seeingtheforest.com/lets-take-apart-the-corporate-case-for-fast-track-trade-authority/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SeeingTheForest+%28Seeing+The+Forest%29

Obama promised to renegotiate nafta... but doubles down the other way.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323975-3/washington-journal-linda-dempsey-robert-scott-presidential-trade-authority


For those seeking competing views on this topic you may want to watch this discussion . . . . very complex subject and there is not a black or white answer.

PkrBum wrote:Obama promised to renegotiate nafta... but doubles down the other way.

Yep! It's the liberal way.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbNhdhKJpf0

For those seeking competing views on this topic you may want to watch this discussion . . . . very complex subject and there is not a black or white answer.



Complex is the answer. The simplification of trade is usually half wits who understand very little. I have within one hundred and fifty miles 10 large manufacturers who totally depend on exports. A strong American dollar is making it tougher on these manufacturers with John Deere laying off employees in Feb. for a month shutdown to match the dropping international demand. When we only look at one side of the equation, you do not get the answers. The Labor unions dislike all trade. They attack all trade agreements, but all benefit from FAIR trade. The question is not trade agreements but enforcement from illegal dumping......which destroys our domestic industries and often goes unchallenged with tariffs. If you know the history of this country, you understand at one point we supported our government on tariffs. We must be vigilant in the use of tariffs where a particular segment of our economy needs protection from unfair trade practices. These general across the board condemnations are for simpletons. Trade policy is complex and requires an intelligent and diligent response to unfair practices.

Trade policy is complex and requires an intelligent and diligent response to unfair practices.


I agree Mr. Oats, thanks for a lucid post , , , ,

boards of FL wrote:We could spend all day arguing over "what ifs".  That still wouldn't change the fact that 7 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy during the Obama administration.  

That is 7 times as many as the last two republican presidents combined.  

Zero pinocchios.

Now please tells us how many people are no longer in the job market compared to those supposed 7 million jobs and how many of those jobs are part time?

If you don't, it is because you are afraid to post the truth.

Keep up the "good" work.

I know myself and friends are enjoying our semi retired out of the labor force status.....it must hurt when you continually are made to look foolish. Do those job creation stats which are records eat at you just a little bit......or do you really have the ability to ignore reality?

The reality that we're floating along in an imaginary govt construct of value? That huge govt runs everything into ruin?

Where does this amazing faith of yours spring? You're a terrible steward.

PkrBum wrote:The reality that we're floating along in an imaginary govt construct of value? That huge govt runs everything into ruin?

Where does this amazing faith of yours spring? You're a terrible steward.

Admittedly the government are pros at mismanagement: however, the waste in an absence of government is a fairy tale ending . . . it too produces waste, fraud and abuse.  Controlling either/or/both are the continuing source of political discontent and dialogue as it should.