The TPP--I heard it here first.

[clear eye]

I've been keeping up w/ the news fairly well this past week, but an off-comment to one of my posts about the proposed Dem jobs bill was my first inkling that Pres. Obama had pushed ahead in joining a smaller version of the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Zone, called the TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is made up of Australia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam. So I Googled it wondering why I was so ignorant. There were exactly two hits for it in the media of western countries--the webpage of MSNBC cited by the DUer, and a mention buried toward the bottom of a story on Obama's interaction w/ the Chinese, in The Guardian. I found a much more expansive version on a gov't website from Australia. Otherwise, unless you regularly read Singapore papers, you would have no way of learning of this move. Even critics from the left, like the blogs of In These Times and The Nation breathed nary a word.

My guess is that the President has absorbed the reasoning of U.S. int'l bankers who hold that since the European countries have formed the EU and the MidEast has OPEC and Latin America has the OAS and China is making short and long term pacts w/ countries all over the world, the U.S. has to have the most and the biggest trade alliances to remain a superpower. How we're suppossed to remain so all powerful w/ an economy on life support is apparently not part of the equation, though, to be fair, the int'l bankers have a truly religious faith in the economic benefits of unrestrained capital. Actually it goes beyond religion into the realm of superstition, as most religious tenets can't be proven or disproven, but, like superstitions, these economic beliefs persist despite being disproven over and over again.

Nor are the major unions posting anything about the agreement on their websites. I do have to wonder if the President's sudden interest in communing with Pennsylvanians is not somehow related.

At any rate, the media silence is downright spooky.

[sandnsea]

1. First negotiating round next year

It has been mentioned in various articles but there really isn't enough there to do any in-depth reporting on. The purpose of his trip was the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, a free trade organization. I don't think most people are surprised that he discussed trade agreements with countries like New Zealand, Chile, Vietnam, etc. It is something we will have to watch as negotiations go forward next year.

http://thegovmonitor.com/economy/australia-to-host-first-trans-pacific-partnership-negoitations-15164.html

[clear eye]

2. He didn't simply discuss "trade agreements with countries like New Zealand" et. al.

He made a specific announcement on Sat., Nov 14th, that the U.S. had decided to participate in the TPP, something that had been put into motion by Bushco, but not finalized. As for the free trade purpose of the President's trip, that's been rarely mentioned. Mostly it's been billed as a sort of feel-good act of diplomacy--a trip to listen to what the Asian countries are concerned about vis a vis the U.S., and to lay the groundwork for ironing things out in our relationships with them. It's made to sound like trade is just one of many issues, and with all the talk of U.S. protectionism, promoting "free trade" even sounds unlikely.

Now you're telling me that our President is making a major international tour and somehow the main purpose has been fudged by just about all the media in the Western world? Interesting.

For instance, from the Washington Post, "President Obama embarks on a nine-day tour of Asian countries, including Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea, addressing topics such as security, environment, the economy and U.S.-Asia relations."

The most coverage has been given to deals he's been trying to make concerning the environment.

[sandnsea]

4. TPP is a trade agreement with New Zealand et al

That's what you were referring to so that's what I responded to. Presidents don't have time for feel good trips with no goals.

"President Obama embarks on a nine-day tour of Asian countries, including Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea, addressing topics such as security, environment, the economy and U.S.-Asia relations."

There you go.

Maybe you didn't know the purpose of APEC, maybe you missed it. I thought it was a given that they would discuss the economy, they actually always are. Trade is just one of many issues, especially when there's no trade agreement that has been ratified.

Do you think we're just going to stop trade?? They have to talk about trade and trade agreements.

[clear eye]

3. Which "various articles" has it "been mentioned" in?

As I said above, I Googled it every which way I could think of, and only two mentions came up.

Clearly you move in circles where international trade is followed, so you assume some things are commonly discussed that are actually being suppressed. Let me guess--Prof. of business? commodities broker?

[sandnsea]

5. Google News

There's thousands.

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=pacific+trade

[clear eye]

8. You made your search ("Pacific trade") too general and got thousands of non-applicable items.

I see 4 stories from major sources that are actually relevant to the TPP (two of them business sites):

• Lawmakers, business laud Obama Pacific trade step
  Washington Post - Mark Felsenthal, Alan Elsner - ‎Nov 14, 2009‎
  
  
• us Signals Shift on Asia-Pacific Trade
  Wall Street Journal - Tom Wright, Jonathan Weisman - ‎Nov 14, 2009‎
  
  
• Australia, NZ Welcome Obama's Commitment on Pacific Trade
  Bloomberg
  
  
• Obama endorses Pacific free trade bloc
  ABC Online

Oddly these don't come up in a search for "trans-Pacific" or "trans-Pacific Partnership" or "Trans-Pacific trade"--the search terms I used earlier.

Then there are a couple dozen by obscure or SE Asian sites like TVNZ, John Birch Society, Radio Australia.

If you click on the "all {however many} news stories" in the first two categories on the results page, you will find the rest are completely extraneous. Strangely, in the third, most relevant, category of stories on the results page:

Obama Pledges US Entry Into Pacific Trade Deal
John Birch Society - Jim Capo - ‎14 hours ago‎
US commitment to the trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is being called a "major breakthrough" in the New Zealand press. ...
Kirk Says US Will Work With Congress on Pacific Trade Pact Bloomberg
Obama endorses Pacific free trade bloc ABC Online
Trans-Pacific Partnership hopes to benefit Pacific Radio Australia
NASDAQ - Tax-news.com (subscription)
all 37 news articles »

clicking on the "all 37 news articles" brings up a page saying "No related articles were found."

No info suppression here.

[sandnsea]

10. So make it trans pacific trade

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=trans+pacific+trade

There's no conspiracy. You need to read more, that's all.

[clear eye]

11. Not if you limit it by putting the terms in quotes.

If you don't want to bring up every story that has the words "Pacific" and "trade", but only those on the agreement and use quotes for that purpose they all vanish except the one from TVNZ that was from before Obama made his announcement.

In other words you can get a very few stories on the TPP announcement buried in piles of stories on everything related to Pacific and trade, but not by searching for it by name or even its partial name "Trans-Pacific". In conjunction w/ the disappearing 37 stories in your original search, it really looks like something is fishy (no pun intended).

[sandnsea]

12. The articles mentioning trans pacific trade

are referring to that trade agreement too. But here. Thousands. Nothing fishy. No conspiracy.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22trans%20pacific%20partnership%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

[clear eye]

13. Did you see the sources?

tax-news.com? ISIRA?

In this kind of specific search, none of the articles from major U.S. media come up. N-O-N-E.

I dug further and found a couple. That's why I thought there were only the two, which is what started this subthread.

Even using your unspecific search style only 4 showed up amongst the heap of irrelevancies.

Where are the AP and Reuters stories, and all the versions of them in the 100's of local papers? That's what you usually find when the President makes a pronouncement about a new U.S. policy. And they all normally show up on Google.

[clear eye]

7. Oh wait. I get it. You get your news from the WSJ.

I had a hunch they would be interested in only that aspect of the Asian trip, so I searched their site. Lo and behold, this came up:

11/16/09Asia-Trade Pact Shows U.S. Constraints
The U.S.'s move to start talks to join an Asia-Pacific trade pact is more a measure of the extent to which U.S. trade policy remains hostage to domestic politics than the kick-start of a free-trade agenda. WSJSave This↓ More

11/12/09Chamber of Commerce Urges Trade Deals
The U.S. should take more action on making trade deals with Asia, or risk being left behind, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief said. WSJSave This↓ More

11/11/09U.S. Aims to Expand Trade in Asia
The U.S. remains committed to expanding trade in Asia, but will insist that China and other countries "play by the rules" as it contemplates future trade agreements, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said.

Although it shows that the only purpose of the U.S. Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, has w/ Asia is, as expected, promoting free trade, I think it's an over-extension to think that such is the only purpose of Pres. Obama's visit there. Seems like I should pay a little attention to what they report to get what the gov't is doing for big business, but it also seems like you should substitute some other papers a few days a week to get an inkling about things that don't make the business news.

[sandnsea]

9. Actually I get my news from press briefings

and direct from the President. I've been tracking it since it was planned.

http://obama-mamas.com/blog/

If the WSJ does have it though, perhaps you're the one that needs to substitute some other papers in order to get an inkling of everything going on in the world, don't you think.

[dysfunctional press]

6. the revolution will not be televised...

because it will never happen.

in part because there's already plenty of stuff on television to keep most people's interest captive...just long enough.