Why does Paul Krugman think the TPP is no big deal?

[Nye Bevan]

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.

....

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

Quite a contrast to the "OMG this is going to be devastating!!!!!!!" crowd.

So what is going on here?

0 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Paul Krugman is just not that smart. His Nobel Prize was won mostly through luck, but he simply does not grasp economics like most DUers do.
	0 (0%)
	He is corrupt. Someone (the Koch Brothers?) is writing him big fat checks to pretend that the TPP is not a big deal.
	0 (0%)
	He is evil. He knows that the TPP is going to devastate the workers of the United States, but that's what he wants, because he hates them.
	0 (0%)
	Early-onset Alzheimers? He is a smart guy, winning the Nobel and all, but is not as young as he used to be. He no longer has the mental acuity to understand stuff like this.
	0 (0%)
	Blackmail or extortion. Someone knows something embarrassing about him and is extorting him to pretend that the TPP is not a big deal.
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Hissyspit]

1. Nice push poll.

[Scuba]

2. He's not saying that the TPP is "no big deal". He's saying he "hasn't seen anything" ....

... which is the problem. Why negotiate in secret?

[Nye Bevan]

3. "WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP...."

Today, 13 November 2013, WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. The WikiLeaks release of the text comes ahead of the decisive TPP Chief Negotiators summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013. The chapter published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents. Significantly, the released text includes the negotiation positions and disagreements between all 12 prospective member states.

http://wikileaks.org/tpp/

So it's pretty much all out there for anyone who wants to see it.

[Scuba]

4. Are they real? How do we know? Why would our government negotiate in secret? Why ....

... does it take WikiLeaks to bring the TPP into the public eye?

[randome]

5. Negotiating in public is rarely done on any treaty.

Do you think 300 million Americans should be micro-managing every agreement that gets proposed? We'd have groups trying to put abortion restrictions into everything, and on and on.

I'm not saying the TPP is a good thing, mind you. Just that until there is something on paper for us to read, we should not expect to be negotiating ourselves. That's why we elect representatives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hoyt]

10. Totally agree.

[treestar]

6. Maybe people should be considering his reasoning behind that opinion

But that is not to be done on DU - TPP = bad and no further analysis allowed.

[steve2470]

7. I think, in fairness to Krugman, that...

he's not focusing on the sovereignty aspect of the TPP. When I read his piece, he never mentioned that aspect, only the economic/trade aspects. We at DU are opposed to it because of the sovereignty aspects.

[Hoyt]

11. Maybe Krugman does not believe in "our way, or no way" when it comes to such agreements. n/t

[steve2470]

12. that could be true, yes nt

[cali]

8. He has admitted that he isn't fully informed about it.

[Fumesucker]

9. What? No "All of above" option?

Actually I kind of agree with Krugman, what shakes down in the next decade or three ain't gonna be pretty no matter what trade bills are passed.

The mistake we make is to think the battles are ever over, there is no end game there is only the game.

To effect significant change on the system will take a cultural tsunami, much like a real tsunami though a cultural one is hard to see until it breaks over you.