US Chamber of Commerce: TPP benefits far outweigh the costs

[mjvcaj]

I haven't read much before regarding the USCC, but found its pro-TPP stance interesting. Not that I didn't think globalization would benefit U.S. multinationals and exporters, of which the USCC's membership interests are primarily made up from, but more because of the statistics that it put out seem quite aggressive. I realize that the USCC has minimal accountability for these stats and data, and that the report was constructed by a third party, The Peterson Institute. Nonetheless, you can decide for yourself how realistic these expectations are.

A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates the TPP will increase annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion and boost annual exports by $357 billion by 2030, when the agreement is nearly fully implemented.

A separate Peterson Institute study estimates the benefits of the TPP “are more than 100 times the costs” and will be widely shared.

While the benefits for exporters of goods and services are clear, it neglects to discuss the impact on the rest of the economy, deliberately ignoring the reasons for the rise of populism.

 

[Sope Creek]

I haven't read much before regarding the USCC, but found its pro-TPP stance interesting. Not that I didn't think globalization would benefit U.S. multinationals and exporters, of which the USCC's membership interests are primarily made up from, but more because of the statistics that it put out seem quite aggressive. I realize that the USCC has minimal accountability for these stats and data, and that the report was constructed by a third party, The Peterson Institute. Nonetheless, you can decide for yourself how realistic these expectations are.

A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates the TPP will increase annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion and boost annual exports by $357 billion by 2030, when the agreement is nearly fully implemented.

A separate Peterson Institute study estimates the benefits of the TPP “are more than 100 times the costs” and will be widely shared.

While the benefits for exporters of goods and services are clear, it neglects to discuss the impact on the rest of the economy, deliberately ignoring the reasons for the rise of populism.

How does the US propose to compensate those who bear the costs? Seems like to me a 100 to 1 ratio ought to provide plenty of room to make the "losers" whole. How do we do that? For how long? Or do we "buy" the costs from the losers, by present valuing and/or annuitizing the costs, and giving that to them?

 

[mjvcaj]

How does the US propose to compensate those who bear the costs? Seems like to me a 100 to 1 ratio ought to provide plenty of room to make the "losers" whole. How do we do that? For how long? Or do we "buy" the costs from the losers, by present valuing and/or annuitizing the costs, and giving that to them?

That's a great question and unfortunately, I haven't had time yet to read about the details. As they say the devil is in the details and without more clarity and understanding of who is benefiting and how, I won't have any idea of how to support the losers in this agreement.

I don't know much about The Peterson Institute, though it obviously tends to follow much of Smith's Comparative and Absolute trade theory. Some of the figures don't make sense to me though, as it claims 55.5 million Americans not only changed jobs (seems high), but also in the fashion of "churning", as defined here:

https://piie.com/publications/worki...fects-trans-pacific-partnership-new-estimates

Again, I'm obviously more of a free market follower, and somewhat support the TPP. I just find these arguments rather uncompelling and disappointing.