Krugman: The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.

[pampango]

Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 05:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I’ve described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don’t share the intense dislike of many progressives, I’ve seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint. But the WH is telling me that the agreement just reached is significantly different from what we were hearing before, and the angry reaction of industry and Republicans seems to confirm that.

What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I’ll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer.

But it’s interesting that what we’re seeing so far is a harsh backlash from the right against these improvements. I find myself thinking of Grossman and Helpman’s work on the political economy of free trade agreements, in which they conclude, based on a highly stylized but nonetheless interesting model of special interest politics, that

An FTA is most likely to politically viable exactly when it would be socially harmful.

The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/

AFAIK, this is Krugman's first take on the recently signed TPP. He says still has much 'more homework' to do on it when 'the details are clearer'.

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin' to read later.

[Doctor_J]

2. well, obviously it is "politically viable" right now, so we can conclude that

It's socially harmful. I think prof Krugman should stop calling himself a liberal.

[delrem]

4. Doesn't matter what he calls himself.

He's allowing himself to be used as a mouthpiece of the WH in a bid to sell it, and he is doing so by using language that says that the TPP is a win for "the left".

Now he'd better bloody well deliver on that promise of "goodness".

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. I think you misunderstand the quote ...

he is talking about the sudden industry and republican backlash to Armageddon ... er ... the trade deal.

[Doctor_J]

8. hardly. I understand it perfectly.

This is another theatrical production, where the president and republicans try to give away the whole store, a few democrats with principles manage to get a few measly concessions, republicans complain because their corporate constituents get to rape and pillage, but not kill. The Fan Club screams loudly that because the republicans are complaining, that proves that Obama is the best negotiator in history.

These reruns are quite tedious.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Yeah. Okay. n/t

[OilemFirchen]

9. ...

Get that monster off this bus!

[emulatorloo]

26. I think Krugman need not submit to litmus tests from some dude on the Internet.

[delrem]

3. Wow. Krugman is going all in to promote the TPP.

Well, we'll see.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. "All in"? YMMV

His support seems pretty conditional and tepid to me.

[pnwmom]

21. As was his opposition. Unlike some people (not you) he hesitates

to make huge pronouncements without having been able to see the final document.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. An agreement I could be *happy* with would involve Pharma CEO's rioting in the streets...

... RIAA and MPAA disbanded and Mickey Mouse declared public domain.

But sometimes "not as bad as we thought" is as good as it gets.

[Andy823]

29. I agree

There is so much hate for the TPP here, yet as far as I know, nobody here as actually read the whole thing. I keep asking for links to any site that will show us the whole "finished" agreement, but so far not one link has been provided.

What I see are the same people who for years now have set their hair on fire over everything, and the nothing comes of it.

[Pastiche423]

6. I'll go with Richard Wolff's opinion on the TPP

Krugman has been heading further right in the past six years.

[Doctor_J]

7. just joined the personality cult and had to abandon his principles for the president

This is how nations die, when one of the few liberal voices in Big Media gives in and gives up. I assume when Clinton moves into the white house, prof Krugman will also fall in love with the keystone pipeline, arctic drilling, h1b expansion, and so on.

[randome]

11. Or maybe you were wrong. Is that a possibility?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[pnwmom]

12. He's more familiar with the details than we are. I tend to believe him

more than skeptics who haven't read a word.

[Doctor_J]

13. Richard Wolff hasn't read a word?

Thanks for clearing that up!

[pnwmom]

14. I haven't noticed any links you've posted here. Sorry if I missed them. And by that

I mean recent links, not ones from a year or more ago, when Krugman was a naysayer, too.

[Doctor_J]

32. scads of congressional democrats are against it too. is it OK to believe them?

Or does that make me a racist?

[emulatorloo]

33. "Does it make me a racist?" No.

It makes you a person who puts words in other people's mouths.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The blog post is all about the public reaction of certain groups

which actually tells us nothing about what's really in it. Of course the White House will say "this is a good deal"; and it's no surprise that industry lobbies have decided to complain it's not good enough for their special interests - that's a standard move for them, which doesn't tell us anything about the reality (see eg health insurers and Obamacare); and the Republican reaction is inevitable, since Obama says it's good.

What he actually says in his blog is "I’ll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer" - ir he doesn't know more details than we do.

[pnwmom]

17. I think if the rightwing hates it that's a promising sign. But it will be out soon.

There will inevitably be some good things and some bad things in any giant compromise. It will all depend on the details.

[YoungDemCA]

19. Remember, compromise is a bad word

I heard it from the Tea..er, Bernie Sanders supporters.

[emulatorloo]

27. Ass-ume makes asses out of you and me.

Sorry Krugman has a lot of credibility. Hyperbolic "death of the US" rants on DU, not so much.

[trumad]

18. Keyboard Warriors throwing PK under the bus.

This place is a fucking hoot.

[YoungDemCA]

20. They want a "political revolution"

A nonviolent revolution, led by and appealing to people like them, of course.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. ^^^This^^^

The purity police.

[DCBob]

22. Krugman will be joining others under the bus who were previously respected by DU "progressives".

I think he is right.. if the Rethugs are pissed it must be good.. at least partially.

[trumad]

23. And that's the point of his post.

[mmonk]

25. I admire Krugman and have used him quite a bit and will continue to.

It is my background nonetheless. However, I disagree with him. We all aren't the same. There is no reason to think a small country like Brunei is in this other than getting multinationals to get into their countries to exploit cheap labor. They have very little to export.

[pampango]

30. True. But Brunei's population is only about 400,000 and its per capita GDP is like the US.

Brunei: $51,000
US: $56,000.

Manufacturing workers average $26,000 a year. Construction workers: $17,000.

http://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/brunei

I'm not sure what the attraction of Brunei and for Brunei is in the TPP but cheap labor does not appear to be it. And with such a small workforce if many international companies showed up, pay scales would go up pretty quickly.

[mmonk]

31. You are correct there's not much labor to exploit.

Corporate headquarters may be an angle. It's all about divesting in the rich countries they grew out of, avoiding some regulations, though. Otherwise, why the attraction? How much of our goods are they going to buy?