Simon Johnson, former IMF Chief Economist: Good trade intentions gone bad

[cali]

The debate in the United States about trade has taken an unfortunate turn. Instead of discussing the detailed issues on their merits, President Barack Obama’s administration has chosen to emphasize the need for fast-track procedures (also known as trade promotion authority, or TPA) to negotiate any trade agreement. The administration may win that fight, but there could be real damage as a result.

The current battle is over the precise content of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a complex 12-country free-trade agreement. Unfortunately, the TPP’s provisions remain secret — meaning that it cannot be seen or discussed by members of the public. (Members of Congress may read the technical text, under restricted conditions, but are not allowed to describe its contents in detail.)

Anyone who raises legitimate concerns about any aspect of the TPP deal is immediately branded “protectionist.” The line from the White House is: TPP will lower barriers to U.S. exports, and thus increase jobs and wages. Everything else, in this view, is a distraction.

In fact, TPP will do little for exports — and for an obvious reason. The U.S. already has standard tariff-lowering agreements with almost all of the participating countries.

<snip>

In addition to trade, TPP includes important provisions related to investment, the most prominent of which concern intellectual property rights, such as patents. Although Obama says that the TPP is the most progressive trade agreement in history, Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee — and someone with full access to the text — disagrees. He says that access to low-cost medicine in poor countries, for example, will be restricted. Médecins Sans Frontières, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian organization, agrees. (These and related issues were raised at a recent event on Capitol Hill in which I took part.)

<snip>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/good-trade-intentions-gone-bad-2015-06-01

Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-founder of a leading economics blog, The Baseline Scenario. He is the co-author of "White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You."

[djean111]

1. Heart of the matter -

Anyone who raises legitimate concerns about any aspect of the TPP deal is immediately branded “protectionist.” The line from the White House is: TPP will lower barriers to U.S. exports, and thus increase jobs and wages. Everything else, in this view, is a distraction.

In fact, TPP will do little for exports — and for an obvious reason. The U.S. already has standard tariff-lowering agreements with almost all of the participating countries.

We see that here. The truth is, the TPP is designed to create more income for global corporations. Pharma will make more money by raising the cost of medicine for everyone - the US, those poor Vietnamese farmers that we are scolded about. Corporations will sue to overturn laws which restrict their profits in ALL of the countries. Like, say, poor Vietnam would be left out of that. The trade barrier thing is just a smokescreen.

If a politician votes yes, no more support. Or support for those who helped write it, who pushed it. No more support. That means votes.

[Jefferson23]

2. As I have mentioned before, Johnson has brought clarity on the upheaval since 2008

crash...I hope more listen to him and others on the subject. it is hard to fault the
many voices against the TPP and yet, it may pass. I find this disturbing beyond words.