Obama's pushes TPP that will grow Vietnam manufacturing and shrink US manufacturing

obama_barack.jpg

During the second day of U.S. President Barack Obama’s three-day visit to Vietnam, Obama continued to push for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

[Sean Caleb| May 24, 2016 |CCTV]

Obama says the deal will benefit many Asian nations but the U.S. president admits he’s facing a hard-sell back home with a skeptical Congress.

The U.S. president shared the stage with entrepreneurs in Ho Chi Minh City.

Vietnam’s manufacturing, and export driven economy is expected to be among the big winners if President Obama can get the U.S. Congress to approve the TPP.

Since Hanoi and Washington normalized relations two decades ago trade between the two countries has skyrocketed, from $450 million a year to a whopping $45 billion last year.

President Obama believes the partnership will wrestle some economic might away from China-which dominates Asian trade. 

Ahead of Obama’s trip overseas, China’s foreign ministry said there’s room for more than one agreement in global trade.

TPP is considered a linchpin in Obama’s so-called, Asian Pivot. Critics at home contend the TPP will do more harm than good to U.S. businesses and benefit cheaper overseas goods, while slashing jobs and U.S. wages. 

But Obama calls TPP, “the right thing to do” for the U.S. and nations like Vietnam.

 

 

Reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2016-05-31 08:38:04 -0400
    “Since Hanoi and Washington normalized relations two decades ago trade between the two countries has skyrocketed, from $450 million a year to a whopping $45 billion last year.”

    So if you check what that means, you have the problem with “free trade” for the US worker. “It’s the imports, stupid.” In 2015 we exported $7,071,000,000 to Vietnam and imported $37,993,000,000 according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the total trade therefore is $45.064 billion. If our goal with trade pacts is to raise the standard of living of developing countries, then let us just say so. Trade agreement then become an alternative to foreign aid. But it strikes me as hypocritical to say this trade imbalance is “good” for the American worker who can no longer afford to buy what we are importing. O.k., you say that what we buy from Vietnam is so much cheaper that the reduced-salary U.S. worker can afford it. I doubt that logic works in the long run, unless you say that eventually Vietnamese salaries will get to the level of U.S. salaries and everything will work out. (I should live so long.) And by that logic and time, the U.S. worker will not be able to afford what the Vietnamese are selling. If I am missing something, let me know.