Krugman: TPP

[ProSense]

TPP

I’ve been getting a fair bit of correspondence wondering why I haven’t written about the negotiations for a Trans Pacific Partnership, which many of my correspondents and commenters regard as something both immense and sinister.

The answer is that I’ve been having a hard time figuring out why this deal is especially important.

The usual rhetoric — from supporters and opponents alike — stresses the size of the economies involved: hundreds of millions of people! 40 percent of global output! But that tells you nothing much. After all, the Iceland-China free trade agreement created a free trade zone with 1.36 billion people!!! But only 300,000 of those people live in Iceland, and nobody considers the agreement a big deal.

The big talk about TPP isn’t that silly. But my starting point for things like this is that most conventional barriers to trade — tariffs, import quotas, and so on — are already quite low, so that it’s hard to get big effects out of lowering them still further.


<...>

As I read it, to make TPP something really important you have to (a) bring China inside, which isn’t on the table right now and (b) have major effects on foreign direct investment.To be fair, NAFTA seems to have had effect (b) — but NAFTA changed the political environment in Mexico in a way TPP probably won’t.

OK, I don’t want to be too dismissive. But so far, I haven’t seen anything to justify the hype, positive or negative.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/tpp/

[NoOneMan]

1. If you see a bloodied dying man bleeding out, kicking him isn't going to probably do much more harm

But then again, that isn't in itself the most convincing argument that kicking the dying is the most sane and logical choice.

Sure, NAFTA has laid a heavy hand already. But it just may be that we should be drastically trying to renegotiate it (or kill it) as our Democratic candidates (Obama & Clinton) promised to do during the debates, rather than continuing to pile straw on the camels back. If TPP truly is a negligible extension of these types of policies--when we should be trying to tear back at them--its probably the last thing anyone needs.

[Hoyt]

2. Thank god, you mean it's not really that sinister?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

3. What about when “free” trade trumps U.S. law

But those deals’ “hundreds of pages” are chock-full of protectionist provisions for multinational companies — provisions that, for example, allow foreign firms to sue governments for lost profits and empower international panels to unilaterally override a nation’s domestic laws if those laws reduce corporate revenues.

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/24/free_trade_corporations/

[freshwest]

5. The WTO set the stage. And with a bit of music, here is the problem laid bare after the 6:40 mark:

Our leaders see this reality face to face, and work with it. They didn't choose this, the problem extends over generations.

As long as we look at this world and other people as numbers on a business ledger, the name of the agreements don't matter. IMO, the problem is deeper than a treaty.

[great white snark]

4. Third Way Krugman strikes again.

How dare he not mention Obama's evilness for even considering this trade deal?


Thanks ProSense.

[freshwest]

6. PBO has worked hard to open Asia to our goods and move manufacturning back to the USA.

With little help from anyone, but he knows it's necessary for the American people to have work.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. Actually although said in sarcasm, Krugman this title......

isn't far from the truth. Krugman is a Keynesian and, as such, he's a firm believer in capitalism. The Third Way is merely capitalism unleashed to be what it is supposed to be.

Also being a Keynesian and a believer in capitalism, I'm not surprised that he is not actively opposing this treaty. It's a "capitalism" thing.

[edhopper]

13. Krugman "Third way"???

He has actively fought "entitlement reform" and defended SS and Medicare as much as Warren. He was for single payer from the beginning and advocates taxing the wealthy. Hardly Third way.
I think he is looking at this like an economist and doesn't see the impact as harsh as others, but seems open to arguments otherwise. I think he is off here, but he is as progressive as they come.

[DefenseLawyer]

7. Capitalist economists are trained to look at workers as simply another cost

and profit as the definition of success. From that perspective, global "efficiency" and "free trade" make plenty of sense. Meanwhile, back in Youngstown:

[ljm2002]

9. Normally, I agree with Paul Krugman's analyses...

...and of course, defer to his knowledge of economics.

In this case, though, I have to wonder WTF he was thinking? Does he really think it's okay for a huge agreement like this to be hammered out by private corporate hacks, while leaving our own legislators in the dark? Does he really think it's okay to allow governments to be sued when they implement their own environmental laws that might cost the big companies some money they don't want to spend? Does he really think it's okay to have corporate hacks as the adjudicators when such suits are brought?

Well I do notice that this time, in the comments, Dr. Krugman is having his ass handed to him. Sorry to be crude, but there it is. A lot of knowledgeable and articulate comments are made there, I've read a bunch of them and so far it looks like it's at least 20 to 1 who are bringing up salient points that contradict the position Krugman has taken.

Thank goodness.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

10. A few weeks ago I had done a search for Krugman and TPP...

...and was surprised I couldn't find anything. So it wasn't a faulty search. As a Krugman devotee, I have to say I disagree with him here.

So this morning I tried a Reich-TPP search and, surprisingly, it's not turned up anything, either...

[mmonk]

11. I'll disagree with Krugman this time.

[NuclearDem]

12. Nowhere in there does he discuss the intellectual property or arbiter sections of the TPP.

Nor the secrecy of the negotiations, which is why most progressives are against the TPP.