Trans-Pacific Partnership je obchodní dohoda, která by usnadnila pro americké společnosti prodávat své zboží a služby v zemích Tichomoří. Dohoda bude přínosem pro americké společnosti poskytující služby, kteří budou schopni otevřít operace v asijských a jihoamerických zemí. Oponenti argumentují, že tento zákon bude motivovat americké společnosti se pohybovat služby a výrobní práce v zahraničí. Zastánci tvrdí,…
Přečtěte si více@2Q6VKQZ4 roky4Y
Yes, with the provision that companies may not move their base. This is to incentivize trade and create jobs and a stronger economy- we should have provisions and guidelines in place for participants to ensure the continued growth of the american workforce.
@2Q6L3VV4 roky4Y
No, free trade must be allowed and not subject to treaties guaranteeing reciprocity. We should not engage in trade wars; the market will provide the incentive for other countries to stop protectionism; even if they are deaf to the market, using force is counterproductive.
@2Q6CQC74 roky4Y
No, this will weaken environmental regulations and threaten labor rights.
@2Q5W52Y4 roky4Y
No, HELL NO. I live and work in China now. I'm here because I can't find a job in the US. Do something to make jobs at home so I can come home!
@44gangster4 roky4Y
It's like the Affordable Care Act; too complicated for the average citizen to understand and suspected of having hidden clauses. Build our economy and trade one on one with other countries
@2Q3SN7J4 roky4Y
Yes, but only if it were guaranteed that the companies would employ American workers, thus not taking away from American job opportunities.
@songture4 roky4Y
from leaked documents, this is a very biased agreement in favor of multinational corporations and their interests that will override other issues such as the environment and civil liberties.
@2MBZ2434 roky4Y
No, it is secret and will affect us all. Restrictions on intellectual property, outrageous extranational courts negating sovereignty and infuriating Internet rights infringements.
@2MBSN9B4 roky4Y
Without knowing what has been negotiated, I can't say. There are geopolitical reasons to have trade agreement with the countries engaged in these discussions. It could be an effective way to counterbalance China's influence.
@2MBRWXQ4 roky4Y
Yes, only if Malaysia is taken out of the deal.
@2MBJY6C4 roky4Y
No, tariffs are an important source of revenue. Instead of pursuing a free trade strategy, the United States should pursue an equal trade strategy, where signers of the partnership agree upon a universal tariff rate.
Favor free trade in principle as beneficial, but dislike increasing intellectual property law guarantees.
@2MBGD2T4 roky4Y
Some of the member countries routinely commit human rights abuses. This makes me uncomfortable.
@2MBBYF84 roky4Y
No, corporations will abuse the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions.
@2MB8H684 roky4Y
No it reduces a country's sovereignty and makes it easier for corporations to exploit countries for economic gain. Some countries will see a reduction in their food safety standards and some will miss out on jobs. Countries will loose some of their authority and will be able to be sued by corporations.
@2M9YRTZ4 roky4Y
support it, but only with the caveat that they limit the size of the operations allowable overseas and a majority % of jobs must remain stateside.
@2M9YJ454 roky4Y
No, I am suspicious of secret deals that the American public cannot see.
@2M9XS6Z4 roky4Y
Yes, but limit companies ability to move operations/manufacturing jobs overseas.
@2M9VQDS4 roky4Y
No... While I believe in free trade, I don't believe in all the hidden riders that the government will hide within the bill.
@2M96XRD4 roky4Y
Yes, but the deal has to be more transparent and publicly influenced
@2M8Q3PK4 roky4Y
No, I do not support any kind of agreement that may, by circumstance or design, force Americans to do business with any country or persons who commit criminal acts against humanity, as several of the intended "partners" are known to do.
