Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both wrong about the Trans Pacific Partnership
mohdzia
2016-08-10
Views 13
Extremists of all stripes oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and it’s not just the fringes on the left and right. Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers recently remarked at the Council on Foreign Relations that the four leading contenders for the US presidential race all oppose it. TPP certainly got no love at the recent Democrat debate: Bernie Sanders said he supported “fair trade” but not “free trade.”
But there’s a difference between not supporting free trade and being against trade agreements. Trade agreements, such as TPP or the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promote trade by eliminating tariffs and other barriers. But they also (as is the case of TPP) enforce patents, labor and environmental standards, copyrights, and other legal protections. Rather than unfettered globalization, trade agreements steer trade to certain countries and give participating governments more control on how trade is conducted. You can be against a trade agreement because you think there should be less trade (like Sanders and Donald Trump) or because you don’t like the structure of the agreement (which Hillary Clinton claims is her issue). But opposing TPP for either reason is a mistake.
The structure of TPP may not be perfect, but it is expected to increase real incomes in America by $131 billion and boost exports by $357 billion by 2030. In absolute terms, the United States will benefit most from the deal. And while there are things not to like in the deal—like allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge higher prices to developing countries—TPP maintains US’s leadership role in the global economy. Countries like Mexico, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia (who might join later) are already becoming larger participants in the global economy by trading more, educating their labor force and moving them to cities. If the US backs out on the deal it took years to negotiate (pending Congressional approval), as the leading candidates have promised, it will show it is too divided and populist to follow through on its word.
But there’s a difference between not supporting free trade and being against trade agreements. Trade agreements, such as TPP or the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promote trade by eliminating tariffs and other barriers. But they also (as is the case of TPP) enforce patents, labor and environmental standards, copyrights, and other legal protections. Rather than unfettered globalization, trade agreements steer trade to certain countries and give participating governments more control on how trade is conducted. You can be against a trade agreement because you think there should be less trade (like Sanders and Donald Trump) or because you don’t like the structure of the agreement (which Hillary Clinton claims is her issue). But opposing TPP for either reason is a mistake.
The structure of TPP may not be perfect, but it is expected to increase real incomes in America by $131 billion and boost exports by $357 billion by 2030. In absolute terms, the United States will benefit most from the deal. And while there are things not to like in the deal—like allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge higher prices to developing countries—TPP maintains US’s leadership role in the global economy. Countries like Mexico, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia (who might join later) are already becoming larger participants in the global economy by trading more, educating their labor force and moving them to cities. If the US backs out on the deal it took years to negotiate (pending Congressional approval), as the leading candidates have promised, it will show it is too divided and populist to follow through on its word.
Report form
RELATED VIDEOS
