Krugman on TPP: No Big Deal

[flpoljunkie]

It’s less well known that the administration’s international economic agenda is also stalled, for very different reasons. In particular, the centerpiece of that agenda — the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or T.P.P. — doesn’t seem to be making much progress, thanks to a combination of negotiating difficulties abroad and bipartisan skepticism at home.

And you know what? That’s O.K. It’s far from clear that the T.P.P. is a good idea. It’s even less clear that it’s something on which President Obama should be spending political capital. I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away.

The first thing you need to know about trade deals in general is that they aren’t what they used to be. The glory days of trade negotiations — the days of deals like the Kennedy Round of the 1960s, which sharply reduced tariffs around the world — are long behind us.

Why? Basically, old-fashioned trade deals are a victim of their own success: there just isn’t much more protectionism to eliminate. Average U.S. tariff rates have fallen by two-thirds since 1960. The most recent report on American import restraints by the International Trade Commission puts their total cost at less than 0.01 percent of G.D.P.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0

[Hoyt]

1. Will Krugman become persona non grata because he says TPP is not an evil conspiracy?

" . . . . . . Meanwhile, opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy. . . . . ."


I appreciate his analysis and guts for printing it. Maybe some folks will quit crucifying Obama for this . . . . . . probably not.

[Sunlei]

3. No, never happen President Obama is all wrapped up in yarnlike blame, like a kitten!

It's ok, I bet President O looks forward to the day he is free at last

[mindwalker_i]

4. Nope, I simply disagree with him on this point

People aren't all good nor all bad. I generally agree with Krugman, although I disagree with him on this issue. Likewise, Obama isn't all good nor all bad. I disagree with Obama on this issue.

[Cal33]

8. "People aren't all good nor all bad." This is mostly true. But usually there are

exceptions to rules. Sociopaths, by definition, act only in their self-interest, and to hell
with the others.

[Sunlei]

2. It is ok if the USA doesn't sign a trade agreement,especially ifit makes Corp. drug profit go up,up

Our 'trade agreements' are pretty good as it is for American based businesses that hire American workers.

If for example, the USA dairy industry wants to cut-in on Australias dairy industry sales to Asia..let the dairy industries deal their own trade agreement. Why should Americans pay $10 a gallon for a domestic produced milk product when the dairy industry will ramp up export milk and use some TPP deal where they pay no taxes.

Drug Corps already make killer profits and we Americans are restricted from buying the exact same rx drugs from all those]much cheaper countries.

Perhaps we should stop the Drug Corp. from their monopoly of the American people directly. Instead of pretending TPP is just a big 'trade agreement'

[n2doc]

5. I would turn it around

If it is "not a big deal", then why the all-out push in the face of such opposition? And why the extreme secrecy? If it were "no big deal" then there wouldn't be much point in fighting to get it enacted.

With this one, I don't think trade is the motivating factor. I think it is the other stuff, like forcing countries to abandon their local environmental laws and labor laws. And enhancing opportunities for monopolies.

[daybranch]

6. I agree

now why would corporations try to undermine environmental regulations and fight against labor laws? It may not look like much to Krugman but it is just another attack on the people to cut a bigger slice of the fruitcake for the rich.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. I am fairly agnostic on the TPP ...

mainly because I don't know enough about it ... and not for not trying. Though there have been tons of links provided by DUers that a decidedly opposed to the TPP (and, really, everything that President Obama has done, and a lot of stuff that he hasn't did but might do if ...). But I have found the linked material to be largely speculative and pounding of anti-points, without addressing, or being lightly dismissive of the pro-points with little substantive discussion. I tend to be skeptical of using this as a source for full informing.

{Disclosure: though I have an economics education ... trade issues is a whole different field}

But that said ...

If it is "not a big deal", then why the all-out push in the face of such opposition? And why the extreme secrecy? If it were "no big deal" then there wouldn't be much point in fighting to get it enacted.

Why the extreme secrecy? I know of no "major" trade agreement (and a deal that covers 40% of the market, is "major&quot that has been negotiated in the public eye. I think the "extreme secrecy" feel is more a result of the recent hyper-distrust of secrecy that is in the air, than anything that is actually different in the negotiations/disclosures.

Why the push ... why fight the fight? I think it's because President Obama thinks it's a good thing. I have read that along with the much trumpeted negatives of intellectual property protections and the job loss comparisons with NAFTA, the U.S. is pushing enhancements and normalization of wage, workplace and environmental protections (the new tariff wars). From my understanding, to accomplish those enhancements would mitigate against U.S. job loss, as it would more equalize the cost of doing business across the market ... and all things being equal, it would be better to do business in the U.S. than most of the rest of the world because of our judiciary and relative lack of corruption.