Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,056 posts)
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:45 AM Mar 2016

Fools or Liars on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?


Fools or Liars on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Monday, 21 March 2016 00:00
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed


Given the recent flood of op-eds and editorials on the wonders of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Obama administration must be about to present the deal to Congress for approval. Otherwise, it's hard to see why so many pieces would spontaneously appear on the TPP. Since there is real money at stake, we can expect the debate to get pretty low and nasty, with the pro-TPP forces liberally substituting ad hominems and claims to expertise for serious arguments.

My favorite on the lack of argument side is the exciting news that if the TPP is approved it will eliminate 18,000 tariffs on US exports to the countries in the deal. That sounds like a huge boon to trade, right? Public Citizen looked up the 18,000 tariffs that would be eliminated. If found that the United States is not currently exporting in more than half of the categories in which these tariffs apply. Included in the list of tariffs to be removed are Malaysia's shark fin tariffs, Vietnam's whale meat tariffs and Japan's ivory tariffs.

The overwhelming majority of these tariffs are of little consequence in very narrow product categories, like Brunei's tariff on ski boots. So when the proponents of the TPP tout the 18,000 tariffs is this because they have no clue what they are talking about, or are they deliberately trying to deceive the public?

But this is just the beginning of the fun when it comes to the TPP. The very pro-TPP Peter Peterson Institute for International Economics produced a study showing that the deal will add 0.5 percentage points to GDP when its effects are fully felt in 2030. While this projection is supposed to convince people of the huge benefits of the TPP, taken at face value it means we will be as rich on January 1, 2030 as we would otherwise be on March 15, 2030.

But even this limited projected gain is dubious. The model used to project this result explicitly assumes that the TPP cannot increase unemployment. If people are concerned that the TPP will lead to a further rise in the US trade deficit, which would cost jobs, the Peterson Institute model has nothing to tell them on the topic. It rules out this possibility by assumption. ...........(more)

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35300-fools-or-liars-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership




5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fools or Liars on the Trans-Pacific Partnership? (Original Post) marmar Mar 2016 OP
I'll take liars and deceivers for millions of jobs, Alex! n/t djean111 Mar 2016 #1
K and R! thanks for posting this bbgrunt Mar 2016 #2
It may be that TPP is worse than just sticking with the WTO/NAFTA rules pampango Mar 2016 #3
Evil liars. SamKnause Mar 2016 #4
Will this dismantling of democracy be Obama's final legacy? Scuba Mar 2016 #5

pampango

(24,692 posts)
3. It may be that TPP is worse than just sticking with the WTO/NAFTA rules
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:58 AM
Mar 2016

that we have now. Krugman posted recently that, while it may be a marginal improvement, it is not worth the political capital a president would have to expend to try to overcome resistance from the left and right.

... the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins — but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ... Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?_r=0
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
5. Will this dismantling of democracy be Obama's final legacy?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 11:34 AM
Mar 2016

I can't imagine that normalizing relations with Cuba or the ACA will outshine this shit sandwich.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fools or Liars on the Tra...