What the Hell is the TPP?
As someone that reads the news every day and has studied political science, I like to think that I'm fairly educated on issues of international importance. A few weeks ago when the draft of the Democratic Party Platform was first being discussed, I realized there was an erroneous gap in my knowledge of a mainstream issue affecting this election cycle. What issue? The Trans-Pacific Partnership, "TPP".
Upon realizing my inadequacy in knowledge, I briefly read a few articles from various views surrounding the issue. I realized in my research and subsequent conversations about TPP, that like me, there were others who only had a vague idea of the treaty to which the TPP refers. In light of its controversial nature and impending relevance in Congress and the elections, I've enumerated below some basics.
Disclaimer: I honestly haven't made up my mind yet, and have tried to remain impartial, but admit to a personal bias in thinking that most people don't fully understand the implications of trade deals, and focus too much on the "job losses" while not acknowledging the global ramifications and domestic job creation potential.
So, what is TPP?
TPP is a trade deal that involves 12 countries, the US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru. According to Noah Smith at Bloomberg, "The pact aims to deepen economic ties between these nations, slashing tariffs and fostering trade to boost growth." The TPP imposes new regulations as agreed upon by its partners that would play a role in determining the viability of pharmaceuticals, increase environmental standards, and impact issues from illegal wildlife trafficking to the minimum wage and child labor.
The document is 30 chapters long, and if you'd like to take a gander at that bit of light reading, you can find it here. In lieu of a full read through, below are the key issues in the TPP (as outlined on Ballotopedia).
Eliminate or reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, which will create new opportunities for businesses.
Facilitate "the development of production and supply chains, and seamless trade."
Address "new trade challenges, ... including the development of the digital economy, and the role of state-owned enterprises in the global economy."
Help "small- and medium-sized businesses" take advantage of regional trade.
Create a platform to allow countries in the Asia-Pacific region to enter into the agreement in the future.
So there you have it, the key features. But what does that mean?
The critics of TPP including Senator Bernie Sanders, and recently Hillary Clinton say that it is bad for American workers, and that it will outsource American jobs to other countries like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 56 cents. People like Sanders claim the treaty was designed with Wall Street and Big Pharma in mind, and that it will benefit the big guy and hurt the little guy. Sanders and other critics also resent the closed door negotiations that resulted in the treaty, as Congress was left largely in the dark in the negotiation process. Opponents use the term "race to the bottom" to describe the outsourcing of American jobs and the decline in worker wages as a result of deals like TPP. Opponents criticize TPP in the same ways that they have historically criticized NAFTA, which according to Sander's campaign website resulted in a loss of 700,000 jobs for American consumers.
In contrast, proponents of the treaty note that it is not solely about trade-the treaty has geopolitical importance and would be a firm commitment to engaging United States interested in the Pacific Rim, at a time when China has been dominating global export. The treaty could also bolster US exports, as over 18,000 taxes on US goods will be eliminated by the treaty. These lower barriers could increase jobs at home. The White House website notes that jobs which are supported by US exports are 18% higher paying than average jobs. For example, Vietnam charges an almost 70% tax on US made cars. This tax could be eliminated by the TPP, showing the potential for increased growth in US industry. US Poultry is taxed up to 40% in member markets, which would be severely decreased if the TPP were to pass. These examples represent the potential benefit for US industry expansion should the TPP take effect.
The debate is complex because the Treaty is complex. There are a wide variety of sources available to investigate this issue further, and I encourage the general public to be educated about these issues. Something like the TPP can't be boiled down into one article, which is why it's important that in voting this fall we elect people that will understand these complicated issues. If we educate ourselves about the issues, and challenge our candidates to do the same, we can begin to shape our nation's destiny on the foundation of knowledge and curiosity that is inherent in the American spirit.
"Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret." -- Bernie Sanders' Platform
"when we think about economic policy, it’s important to realize that there’s often more at stake than economic concerns or popular anger. The TPP isn’t just a trade pact -- in fact, its main purpose probably isn't economic, but geopolitical, and part of the effort to cement U.S. alliances in Asia against growing Chinese power." -- Noah Smith, Bloomberg
