West Coast Publishing Surveillance 2015 november page

TPP Good – Alternative is Protectionism / Depression

The alternative to TPP is extreme protectionism and global depression

Past experience reinforces the view that, ultimately, voluntary trade is a good thing. Extreme protectionism in the early 1930s, following an era of relatively free international trade, had devastating consequences, ultimately setting the stage for the second world war. As the MIT economist Charles Kindleberger showed, America’s Smoot-Hawley tariff, in particular, helped to turn a deep recession into a global depression. Even before the war was over, major powers convened in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to establish a new international trade and finance regime, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Through a succession of lengthy and difficult global negotiations – the so-called “GATT rounds” – tariffs were steadily lowered for an increasing variety of goods. As a result, global trade grew faster than world GDP for most of the postwar period. Virtually all economists agree that this shift toward freer trade greatly benefited the world’s citizens and enhanced global growth. The economists Jeffrey Frankel and David Romer estimate that, in general, trade has a sizeable positive effect on growth. At a time when growth is failing to meet expectations almost everywhere, the TPP thus seems like a good move. To be sure, because tariffs in the TPP member countries are already low (with some exceptions, such as Canada’s tariffs on dairy products and Japan’s on beef), the net benefit of eliminating them would be modest (except for a few items that are very sensitive to small price changes). But the TPP is also expected to reduce non-tariff barriers (such as red tape and protection of state enterprises); harmonise policies and procedures; and include dispute-settlement mechanisms.

All their anti-TPP arguments are empirically denied. The alternative is no free trade

Mark Warner, Canadian international trade and competition lawyer, October 18, 2015, “Attack on TPP is attack on all trade,” Toronto Sun, http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/18/attack-on-tpp-is-attack-on-all-trade, ACC. 10-30-2015

However, at this point, political attacks on the TPP appear to be stealth attacks against all of our existing and future trade agreements. If that’s what the deal’s critics really want, they should say so clearly and directly. In reality, the fact that the fight against free trade has been reduced to this very narrow point shows the progress that has been made. The sky did not collapse from our past trade agreements, and won’t because of the TPP.

TPP Good – Alternative is Protectionism / No Heg

No TPP means we slide into protectionist isolationism. Passing it is crucial to U.S. leadership

Ken Moriyasu, Staff Writer, October 30, 2015, “TPP a 'defining moment' for America-led world,” Nikkei Asian Review, http://asia.nikkei.com/Features/Trans-Pacific-Partnership/TPP-a-defining-moment-for-America-led-world, ACC. 10-30-2015

Besides eliminating trade barriers and tariffs, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is meant to ensure Internet freedom, work to abolish child labor, oppose wildlife trafficking and promote environmental protection. In other words, says former U.S. trade negotiator Ira Shapiro, it reflects key values that the U.S. stands for -- high-standard rules to govern the 21st Century economy -- and whether the U.S. Congress ratifies the agreement or not will be a "defining moment" for the America-led world. Shapiro, who was general counsel to U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and chief trade negotiator with Japan and Canada during the Bill Clinton administration, was in Tokyo on Friday to attend a TPP symposium hosted by The Nikkei. "If Congress rejects TPP, the world will conclude that we are a protectionist, isolationist nation, unmistakably in retreat," he told the Nikkei Asian Review in an interview.

Without TPP, we’ll slip into protectionism, which undermines U.S. leadership on global trade and resolving conflicts with ISIS and the South China Seas. Free trade causes de-escalation

Michael Jay Boskin, the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He also is Chief Executive Officer and President of Boskin & Co., October 30, 2015, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: the case for trade,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/30/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-the-case-for-trade, ACC. 10-30-2015

Though the TPP’s precise provisions have not been made public, political leaders in the member countries predict that the deal, once ratified and implemented, will add hundreds of billions of dollars to their economies and bolster employment. Smaller and developing economies will probably gain the most, relative to size, but everyone will benefit overall. Other important outcomes are not included in these calculations. The alternative to liberalising trade is not the status quo; it is a consistent move away from openness. This can occur in a number of ways, such as the erection of non-tariff barriers that favor domestic incumbents at the expense of lower-priced potential imports that would benefit consumers. Moreover, it is much easier to build mutually beneficial trade relationships than it is to resolve military and geopolitical issues, such as combating the Islamic State or resolving tensions in the South China Sea. But strong trade relationships have the potential to encourage cooperation – or, at least, discourage escalation of conflict – in other, more contentious areas.

TPP Good – Boosts Free Trade

TPP will spread free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific

Lee G. Branstetter and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Analysts at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 5, 2015, “The Case for TPP: Rebutting the Naysayers,” Trade and Investment Policy Watch, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://blogs.piie.com/trade/?p=436, ACC. 10-31-2015

Neither the United States nor Japan is a free trader. Tariff barriers to US imports of selected agricultural products are high and nontariff barriers to imports of services are severe. Japan’s agricultural trade is even more restrictive. Significant barriers remain on US and Japanese exports to the ten TPP markets abroad. Of course TPP will not eliminate all these barriers in one fell swoop but it will make a good start. Over the next decade, TPP could additionally serve as a gateway to productive deals with other Asian nations, and eventually serve as the foundation for a free trade agreement encompassing the entire Asia-Pacific region.

TPP Good – Boosts Japanese Economy

TPP will be a major boost to the Japanese economy

Kaori Kaneko, Staff Writer, October 31, 2015, “TPP to play key role in helping Japan meet GDP target: Nikkei,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-japan-economy-idUSKCN0SP04X20151031, ACC. 10-31-2015

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will play a key role in helping the Japanese government to boost economic growth, the Nikkei business daily reported on Saturday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed in September to raise gross domestic product by nearly a quarter to 600 trillion Japanese yen ($5 trillion), though he gave no timeframe. A draft by the government's top economic advisory panel, the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy, suggests the TPP free-trade deal, which still needs ratification, will help boost the nation's potential growth rate to around 2 percent from current levels of below 1 percent, the Nikkei said. The draft says 25 trillion yen will likely come from increased exports thanks to TPP, which will also help orders for infrastructure work such as bullet trains to grow 30 trillion yen from 10 trillion yen in 2010, the Nikkei said.

TPP Good – U.S. Leadership / Asia Pivot

TPP will solidify U.S. leadership and the Asia Pivot

Dan Steinbock, Difference Group analyst, October 30, 2015, “TPP – The Iron Curtain scenario And The Inclusive free trade scenario,” ValueWalk, http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/10/tpp-the-iron-curtain-scenario-and-the-inclusive-free-trade-scenario/?all=1, ACC. 10-30-2015

Recently, the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has been greeted with great fanfare by the U.S. foreign policy elite and mainstream media. In typical fashion, the Washington Post has argued that “by knitting the U.S. and Japanese economies together in their first free-trade deal – and binding both of them closer to rising Asian nations – the TPP would create a counterweight to China in East Asia.” While the creation of the TPP has been a great disappointment in China and resulted in mixed feelings across the Asia Pacific, it is very much in line with Washington’s new and more assertive approach in the Asia Pacific, as reflected by Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China, a recent Council on Foreign Relations report. In reality, the TPP seeks to expand U.S. geopolitical presence in the Asia Pacific, as deemed by the U.S. Department of Defense and its Joint Vision 2020’s ‘full spectrum dominance” – the aspiration to achieve control over all dimensions of the competitive space.

TPP Good – Agriculture

TPP opens agricultural markets to U.S. products to 66% of the world’s middle class

Tom Vilsack, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 29, 2015, “Vilsack: TPP deal is a good deal for rural America,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/article_eaa80e9e-aa0f-5dc3-aca3-ec750666ccf5.html, ACC. 10-30-2015

Why is the TPP agreement a good deal for American agriculture? TPP positions the United States and American agriculture as a leader. With TPP, American agricultural products have the opportunity to set the standard for excellence and build a loyal customer base in a region where demand for rural-grown and rural–made products is projected to grow substantially in the next 15 years. As with any negotiation, the final TPP agreement reflects compromise on all sides, but we believe our negotiators got the best possible deal for American agriculture. Despite current taxes on our products overseas, U.S. agricultural exports totaled over $13 billion to Japan, $2.3 billion to Vietnam, and just under $1 billion to Malaysia in 2014. Overall, TPP countries purchased 42 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports, totaling $63 billion, despite the disadvantage we currently face.

The TPP agreement balances meeting the diverse marketing needs of American farmers and ranchers right now with the market access we’ll need to cater to the tastes of consumers in TPP countries — the Asia-Pacific region holds the world’s fastest growing middle-class populations — 10 or more years from now. By 2030, the Asia-Pacific region will represent 66 percent of the world’s middle class and will be looking for even more high-quality products that the United States excels at producing, like meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables. No one is better positioned to meet that growing demand than the most productive farmers in the world, and with the TPP agreement, we have a business plan that helps get that abundance into the hands of consumers.

TPP Good – Environment

TPP sets a new benchmark for international cooperation to address biodiversity issues and transitioning to a low-carbon economy

Craig Foss, Staff Writer, October 29, 2015, “TPP offers green game-changer,” Hawkins Bay Today, http://m.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503459&objectid=11536778, ACC. 10-30-2015

The TPP sets a new benchmark for environmental provisions in trade agreements. It does more to address the growing pressure on our natural resources than any agreement before it. The reality is that environmental issues like protecting our forests, oceans, and wildlife actually do require a co-ordinated international response. The most significant environmental features of the TPP cover conservation of flora and fauna; illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; protection of sharks, seabirds, turtles and marine mammals; transition to a low-carbon economy; and tackling alien invasive species.

TPP Good – A2: Big Pharma

TPP will allow greater development of generic drugs at lower costs

Caroline Freund, Analyst at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 5, 2015, “The Pharma Compromise on TPP Is Good for US Consumers,” Trade and Investment Policy Watch, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://blogs.piie.com/trade/?p=440, ACC. 10-31-2015

The US pharmaceutical companies argued that the revenue they earn from the longer period is needed to cover the innovation costs of the drugs. But protecting data comes at the cost of delaying scientific progress on related drugs, because biosimilar products (the generics of biologic drugs) must either wait or repeat costly development and drug trials. Even with the data available, biosimilars are more costly to develop than regular generics. It is no doubt important to grant some protection to encourage innovation, but there is no evidence that such a long duration is required. Even Europe, with pharmaceutical giants such as Roche, Novartis, and Bayer, has shorter time spans. Determining the right length is tricky because the pharma industry has a strong incentive to push for a long period to expand profits. Balancing consumers and industry would have been hard to address unilaterally because of existing laws. TPP worked to improve the balance in favor of US consumers and the government. By definition, trade negotiations involve demands that are followed by concessions in exchange for concessions from the other side. The Australians and their relatively stronger consumer protection on this issue helped us reach a better balance.

Directory: documents
documents -> Concept stage
documents -> Concept stage
documents -> The great global switch-off
documents -> Nonprofit grant application
documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide
documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan
documents -> Chaos equipment included

Download 449.23 Kb.

Share with your friends: