By on November 5, 2015

Auto Worker at Japanese Honda Factory

The full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was released Thursday by pact member New Zealand. The trade agreement will set out trade rules for multiple industries — including automotive manufacturing and the import/export of those vehicles — for its member states.

TPP, an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, includes members Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States of America and Vietnam.

New Zealand leaked the details on its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.

Called “a landmark achievement for U.S. President Barack Obama” by Reuters, the deal is not without its critics on both sides of the aisle. Nor is it without opposition in the industry itself.

“Ford supports free-trade agreements that result in real market openings and a level playing field for all to compete,” said Ziad Ojakli, Ford’s group vice president for government and community relations, last month. “Within the U.S. Congress, there is bipartisan consensus that currency manipulation needs to be meaningfully addressed. This summer, U.S. lawmakers took unprecedented action to set a clear negotiating objective for addressing currency manipulation in all future trade deals. The TPP fails to meet that test.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

42 Comments on “Trans-Pacific Partnership Details Released...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    NZ better watch it or they might be next to be visited by some “moderate rebels”.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      28-Cars-Later – “moderate rebels” dropped off in the middle of the night from blackhawk helicopters using untraceable AK47’s?

      No wait, that was Bin Laden and Pakistan!

      Why, that looks like an unmanned airplane overhead ;)

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Sounds like Academi has been busy despite the fact several hundred of them haven’t returned from Ukraine… alive at least.

        There is no such thing as a moderate terrorist, I think even Lavrov said something to this effect. How stupid can people be?

  • avatar
    GiddyHitch

    So you’re just going to post this article without any analysis of the new automotive-related tariff rates and its potential impact on the industry?

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Since you’re all dying to know:

    -US car and truck tariffs are to be immediately eliminated for Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore (notwithstanding the fact that there already aren’t any such tariffs on imports from Australia, Canada and Mexico)

    -There is a ten-year phase-out period for Brunei, Malaysia, NZ and Vietnam

    -Japan is a special case. Full tariff for 29 years, then eliminated in year 30.

    • 0 avatar

      Thanks Pch!

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Not that it really makes an difference for RHD markets, NZ, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and lastly Japan

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        You’re welcome. You’ll need these for later:

        http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/2-D.%20US%20Tariff%20Elimination%20Schedule.pdf

        http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/2-D.%20US%20-%20General%20Notes%20to%20Tariff%20Schedule.pdf

        Cars are 8703—-, trucks and vans are 8704—-.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Most of the impact of the TPP will be felt in the Agriculture area. Automotive will be mainly unchanged

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Pch101 – there are no tarrifs between the USA and Canada but Canada does have an import tariff. IIRC 6.1%. That was a remnant of the pre-AutoPact era. Canada always had a tarrif on the books. The AutoPact did not actually get rid of it but build onto it. The AutoPact at first was found to be too pro-USA auto industry so it was extended to cover any company importing into Canada. Basically one had to build X number of units in Canada to import Y number without tariffs. The AutoPact was replaced by NAFTA and the tariff continued to cover all imports not under that agreement. It was contested but Canada yielded to pressures from Ontario politicians and the US companies with interests in Ontario. It was kept in place. It will be phased out under this accord with signatory countries.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    TPP is a hot mess of globalization. I’m irritated that Obama let his occur but this is what our modern capitalist system is promoting.

    In a perfect world when Hillary wins the Presidency and replaces Scalia & Kennedy with two more aggressive liberals we can start pulling this stuff apart and return worker’s rights.

    But for now we have nothing to do but twiddle our thumbs, the Democrats wanted worker’s rights in the TPP, the progressives wanted fair trade, and the Republicans wanted something much more aggressively in favor of corporations though this is pretty much what they championed.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      My limited understanding of the treaty is it was designed by and for the corporatocracy, with pharmaceuticals having a big say. The two color/one party system favored yet more globalism. This is me doing my shocked face *shocked*.

      I think we saw a similar trainwreck when the insurance lobby wrote the ACA.

      http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/tpp-deal-leaked-pharma-000126

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        It’s about the ONLY thing the two parties have been agreeing on for decades but that’s largely because the white moderate voters have bought the corporatist model hook, line, and sinker. I think that model is going to change in our lifetime simply because of candidates like Sanders becoming more mainstream and the Warren/Sherrod faction gaining steam.

        Gen Y is the first generation to not think ill of Socialism. Basically the Cold War allowed the powerful corporations to use it as an excuse to cut blank checks for themselves.

        In contrast, the ACA is actually pretty bad for insurers outside of everybody gets private coverage. The real victory was not prohibiting them from turning into vertical organizations where they buy the hospitals and use them as the cash cows while shifting away from insurance premiums. It’s a complicated game but the ACA did far more good than harm, the TPP sadly doesn’t have a silver lining.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I agree with some of this in that the Cold War spawned a private MIC (an outgrowth of WWII industry which didn’t want to go away) and a more organized civilian corporatocracy. I also agree the roughly 1985 or so and later children do not understand the ills of Marxism. The fact they have been pumped full of poison since birth along with the fact all major media has been controlled by six companies during their coming of age (as Carlin noted), they know nothing better. I even fell for the 9/11 rage and subsequent Iraqi invasion but I was old enough to know better at the time. Gen Y simply does not have the contrast to understand how different this country was prior to the Clinton administration but I and earlier people do have the clarity (I am not taking a jab at Bill Clinton specifically, but the country was much different 1989-91 than in even 96). I may be wrong but I seem to recall the so called “Y” generation being the largest in the history of the planet. Call me as you will but I do wonder if they are being fattened up for another global conflict. In the age of nuclear weapons you cannot have a large sustained war without coordination from the nuclear powers otherwise the risks are unthinkable. I do wonder if Moscow, London, Beijing and Washington DC actually meet behind the scenes to agree to their actions.

          You refer to so called moderate voters, I don’t think voters have mattered for some time and if they did than the Clinton administration they chose twice should have slowed down or stopped the globalization of the 1990s – it actually accelerated in his time. NAFTA and GATT (later WTO) both came about during his administration. The source I cited now paints him as someone who saw what was coming and accepted globalization. Trouble is Clinton who initially was believed to be protecting American (and specifically union) jobs passed NAFTA and showed his true colors. Cui bono of NAFTA? Not your beloved unions. Maybe his vision was accurate or maybe its just revisionism as I recall differently but Bill Clinton was a globalist in populist clothing. The phantom Democrats you describe who want to protect and grow US jobs simply do not exist. Do you really believe a lunatic like Sanders or an idiot like Warren has the competence and ability to be better than Wm Clinton when even he couldn’t avoid giving into globalists? Even I recognize Bill is twice the polticriminal than either of them and he was well liked by *all* of the proles even if he was lacing their food with economic arsenic. Bill today could win another “election” despite all of the reasons he should be in jail or otherwise for some of the things that went on fifteen years ago. He could beat the candidates you named, any GOP candidate, and even his shrill of a “wife” handily. Hell I may have even cast my “vote” for him. You don’t have this today, everything is too fractured. You have two loudmouth morons playing for the same team, Bill’s failure of a wife, and whomever else claims to be a candidate. Its over.

          There is no way for ACA to have succeeded other than as another welfare program the country could not afford, especially right in the middle of a depression. If you want to call limiting insurance co profits a victory ok that’s one but as you point out they moved their capital to other assets (oops). Another failure of the plan was to add previously uninsured people en masse as they are driving up the cost of the insurance pools for virtually everyone. The only folks I am aware of that did not get royally screwed on insurance were gov’t, academia, and certain private unions and from what I understand the newer Tier II type union members don’t get the same benefits as Tier I (although please correct me if I am wrong). D-i-s-a-s-t-e-r from the word go and yet just like the financial crisis nobody is being held accountable. I read somewhere the true purpose of ACA was suspected to be so awful it forces a full fledged single payer system.

          The country is cooked, I don’t see things ever fully coming back. The logical move from what I can tell is use the resources you have in country to increase one’s skillset and add training to prepare for a relocation if statist thugs haven’t wrecked all of the other decent countries yet.

          “And because he saw the changes globalization would bring to the world economy, his administration began to push for the kind of solutions our country would need to prosper in the 21st century as well.”

          So, accepting globalization.

          “President Clinton in particular understood that in a globalized world, where America is competing with an increasingly international workforce, we must invest in Americans’ education at every level. ”

          Accepting globalization and throwing money at education.

          “A stronger Community Reinvestment Act. Under President Clinton’s direction, lenders covered under the Community Reinvestment Act stepped up their efforts tremendously: From 1993 to 1999, banks and thrifts subject to CRA made $800 billion in sustainable home mortgage, small-business, and community development loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers and communities.”

          Which later wrecked the global economy and put us in the depression we are still in (ok that one was a jab).

          https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2011/10/28/10405/power-of-progressive-economics-the-clinton-years/

          “Mr. Clinton arrived in Washington before globalization had become a buzzword. And while he had talked about using economic levers to change the behavior of nations in the post-cold-war order — most notably in a speech at Georgetown University in 1991 that became the template for his plan — his initial strategy was far simpler, and more mercantile.

          Job No. 1 was using diplomatic power to open markets for American goods, helping to create jobs and lift the United States out of a recession. But in his zeal for free trade, he was at odds with most of the Democratic Party.

          His first struggle, winning passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, alienated labor unions and others who had voted for him and who feared that any free-trade agreement would drain jobs from the United States.

          The struggle set the stage for others: Mr. Clinton set up a war room, lobbied interest groups, cut deals with members of Congress and exaggerated the benefits for American workers.

          The next year, he used the same strategy to win passage of the largest global trade deal in history, establishing the W.T.O. as the arbiter of world trade.”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/28/us/economic-engine-for-foreign-policy.html?pagewanted=all

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            My brain hurts…but I’m going to try and weedle out some relevant points:

            1.) Ills of marxism? What ills? There are no ills when post-marxists form social democratic governments. I would much rather live in a German-like or Scandinavian style government than our current system because then I would be paid more, have better health, and a far more comfortable life.

            2.) Nobody has some secret cabal. You’ve said this a few times and I’ve pushed back mildly but I can tell you EMPHATICALLY there is no secret cabal and certainly no ‘sustained war’ brewing on the horizon. In fact, most of the international relations followers simply don’t believe there will EVER be another global-scale conflict like WWII. Instead what we’ll have is smaller less stable nations attack and defend and push refugees towards the power states. This can create short/medium-term instabilities but nothing that would destabilize the world.

            3.) Clinton actually watered down NAFTA significantly because Republicans who championed free market globalization efforts took over the driver’s seat. They were able to get white voters who initially voted against blacks to side with their vision of economics. This really happened after Nixon when the Keynesian model was replaced by neoliberal economics that Conservatives like but Liberals/Progressives dislike. Clinton really had no choice but to acquiesce to the powers that be in congress because they ultimately had the votes.

            4.) When you use terms like ‘lunatic’ for Sanders or ‘idiot’ for Warren you lose ALL credibility with me and with most intellectuals. Not because we disagree but because YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE PROOF. If anything, Warren teaching at Harvard and having one of the premier views on bankruptcy law and economics surrounding it simply make this hard to accept. What you’re really saying is you’re a disillusioned Republican/Conservative and like to keep a thin veneer of cynicism as cover for your own natural lean. I don’t fault you, lots of people do. I prefer to admit I’m a left-wing populist that understands economics and move on with my day.

            5.) You clearly don’t understand risk pools or how healthcare costs were spiraling. I’m going to keep this short: More people in the pool paying in equals more money to pay for things. You put in and you get out eventually. Yes, the young pay for the old, and you’ll be old one day. As for the economics of it, the ACA is saving immense amounts of money and again in a depression/recession you need the government to spend to off-set private reductions in order to not build losses. Short-term deficit spending is good, so you can actually credit TARP for not going far enough but the ACA only really activated in 2014 so there wasn’t much of a recession to discuss.

            6.) I’m sorry, if you think the CRA had anything to do with the banking collapse you’re not just wrong you’re stupid. You don’t get it sugarcoated because you don’t deserve it. The fact that you point out black people and poor people again really just makes you a cynical Republican. I take pity on you for falling into Dunning-Kruger so hard….or perhaps for reading just one too many breitbart articles…

            Whatever the case: You’re wrong, you’re painfully wrong, and while you’ll never agree the only countries you would want to move to are more socially democratic than us. So keep talking ill of Marx as the boogeyman you desperately need. We’re within a few years of each other and yet you turned into a sad loon and I became a progressive. Maybe it’s because I was raised around people who I knew weren’t doing that well but didn’t reflexively blame non-whites (since they were people of color). Either way, you really should educate yourself since I’ve tried and you’re not taking the clue.

            https://www.ncsha.org/blog/unc-center-study-debunks-role-cra-housing-crisis

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Xeranar,
            I do support your view regarding what Social Democracy is. It isn’t Marxism.

            Social Democracy is the left leaning elite who think they know better than the uneducated plebs.

            Social Democracy is when you have much interference by government in the daily lives of individuals and industry. In other words big government.

            Social Democracy is why we are becoming so risk adverse in society. No one is prepared to take a risk, but all feel entitled to an easy life.

            I believe in Economic Liberalism, balanced with some simple safety nets, ie, livable minimum wage, public health and a few other supports. Maybe you should read up on what this is. It is the best possible form of management for a country and it’s people.

            You could lean to the right a little. The left and their controlling Arts Degreed Elites are not the ones who make our society or should control our society.

            It’s the 70% who bust their asses that should. Maybe the middle class should remove the protected unions, corporations and other institutions that impede on the daily lives of the many.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “Clinton really had no choice but to acquiesce to the powers that be”

            Sounds like something VW engineers might have said when told to get those TDI’s to pass emission testing.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Wow, 28. Right on!

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I do have a rebuttal but the system wouldn’t take it for whatever reason at 1:30AM last night. When I return home to that computer, I will post it elsewhere on the interwebs. My only other thought is to break free from the false paradigm because it’s got a hold of you the way it did me several years ago. FDR said “presidents are selected, not elected”, was he wrong? I don’t believe so and for his statement to be true it implies collusion on some level. The game is rigged and there’s not a damn thing any of us can do about it other than to accept the truth of the matter and live life accordingly.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        Also worth noting is that the TPP will shred Internet freedom.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    What’s this going to mean to a dummy like me? Will there more offbeat cars to buy in the US?

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    The new Canadian federal government just put the whole thing online. It’s some 6000 pages, so it may take a while for various interest groups to ferret out what’s relevant to them. I agree with those who say these agreements are mostly about shifting power from citizens to corporations. Basically, if a transaction makes sense for all involved, no “trade deal” is needed to begin with.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It seems the nations with freer market style economies will benefit the most.

    Many nations have placed to much protection on manufacturing and agriculture.

    The most protective nations and the people within those nations should of started reducing taxpayer subsidies, protection, etc.

    I do know that the Australian agri industry will benefit from any reduction in tariffs, as we don’t have to lower any of ours as they are almost nonexistent.

    The same goes for manufacturing. I would like to see the stranglehold the US pharmaceuticals have on the US consumer reduced greatly. This will make medicine and health much cheaper in the US.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      “I would like to see the stranglehold the US pharmaceuticals have on the US consumer reduced greatly. This will make medicine and health much cheaper in the US.”

      Only if it has the effect of reducing the viability of counterfeit pharmaceuticals; this has to be a priority.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        shaker – once the patents are off anyone can make a drug. IIRC patents on drugs are usually issued for 7-10 years and extensions can be granted. That can extend patent protection upwards of 15 – 20 years.
        That is a different animal than counterfeit pharmaceuticals. One can argue that the high costs of medications in the USA is partially to blame. Even neighbouring Canada has cheaper drugs than the USA.
        I do agree that counterfeit drugs are a problem. The issue is how do you deal with countries like India and China that allow the practice?

  • avatar
    shaker

    I can’t say that I have an inkling of understanding of this trade agreement, and I’m sure that the nuances (loopholes, if you like) will be studied and revealed in “outrage units” by both the left and right to get people PO’d about the whole TPP in general.

    But, such is the nature with all complex agreements.

    My wish is that the over-arching desired effect of this deal is to intertwine the global economies to the point that armed conflict is somehow avoided, and differences are negotiated, rather than fought over.

    Of course, the world of the movie “Rollerball” was peaceful as well, with tight corporate control of the masses, and violent urges personified and restricted to the Rollerball arena (Football/Fütbol, anyone?)

    Corporate influence over policy (worldwide) has never been higher – people’s interest in pols like Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders are like a natural “immune response” to this trend.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      Shaker, that might be your wish, but it’s not what’s written in this treaty.

      What’s actually been negotiated here is the superseding of national governments by a corporate-ruled regime, complete with its own courts (and own judges) whose rulings on corporate matters are final.

      All these years, I’ve been chuckling along with everybody else about those tinfoil-hat types who screamed that the sky was falling and a dark group of conspirators were maneuvering to engineer a coup for one world government. Turns out they were right, and this and the TTIP are it. Damn.

      There’s a few months left. We still have our rights until we don’t. Call your senators and congressman. Write a letter or a post. Tell your friends on Facebook. If you like Internet freedom, or your sister not dying of cancer because she can’t afford the drugs, or knowing what’s in your food, or your nation having the right to regulate what’s done with the land under your town, or preventing a foreign corporation from suing the U.S. government because our minimum wage law hurts their “expected future profits” (the exact wording of the treaty’s lawsuit threshold) — yes, the actual TPP language does all this and more* — then do something while you still can.

      *If you don’t believe me, look it up. Honest really.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        tonycd – Thanks — I’ll look into this TPP some more; sounds like some scary stuff.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @shaker,
          From my understanding it is 6,000 page document, with many “side letters” for specific issues.
          A lot of these issues are in the process of being looked at.
          Yes, you get the feeling it is a ” Trojan Horse ” hiding quite a few nasties

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: “why aren’t the prices of EV’s going down every year?” They are, if one considers the product...
  • mcs: @ImageFont:”I think every EV should include an extra $7500 charge tacked on to the sticker price that is...
  • mcs: @ImageFont: “so why aren’t the prices of EV’s going down every year? ” It’s supply and demand....
  • Imagefont: Wait, I though battery prices were going down every year. The cells Tesla uses should be like $10/kwh so...
  • pmirp1: Come October 4th, I am walking to my friendly Chevrolet dealer, putting in an order for the new color Green...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber