The TPP trade deal

I guess this is an issue that divides Democrats. Obama is for it, but Elizabeth Warren is against it (more broadly, businesses seem to mainly be for it, with some exceptions, while labor and environmental groups are against it). Me, I'm generally in favor of freer trade and lower barriers to trade, and against protectionism because I think the benefits outweigh the costs. However, the benefits can be harder to see than the costs, which is why populist arguments for protectionism seem to sway a lot of people.

This article is from the Boston Globe:
Warren, Mass. business groups at odds on trade pact

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The Capitol loomed behind Senator Elizabeth Warren last week as she raised her fist to the crowd of union workers and promised to fight against one of the world’s most expansive trade deals. The cheers by labor and environmental groups in Washington were met with silence by companies back in Massachusetts, where the state’s thriving life science and tech sectors consider the trade pact critical to the region’s economic prosperity. This disconnect pits Warren and some in the Democratic delegation against the state’s key business groups as lawmakers consider legislation that would propel the deal forward. “This [trade pact] is a huge opportunity not to be missed,” said Christopher Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council. The dichotomy underscores deeper fault lines among Democrats about the role of free trade and its effects on American workers. The divide is particularly acute in Massachusetts, where Boston’s surging technology, biotech, and medical device hubs contrast with post-industrial towns and their rising unemployment rates.

On the other hand, I think Warren has a good point to make about the deal: why is the fine print secret? Here she is in her own words:

You can't read this

Quote:

Have you seen what’s in the new TPP trade deal? Most likely, you haven’t – and don’t bother trying to Google it. The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret. Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.” If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the United States. The Administration says I’m wrong – that there’s nothing to worry about. They say the deal is nearly done, and they are making a lot of promises about how the deal will affect workers, the environment, and human rights. Promises – but people like you can’t see the actual deal. For more than two years now, giant corporations have had an enormous amount of access to see the parts of the deal that might affect them and to give their views as negotiations progressed. But the doors stayed locked for the regular people whose jobs are on the line. If most of the trade deal is good for the American economy, but there’s a provision hidden in the fine print that could help multinational corporations ship American jobs overseas or allow for watering down of environmental or labor rules, fast track would mean that Congress couldn’t write an amendment to fix it. It’s all or nothing. Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it.

Even though I am generally in favor of free trade, I find this argument persuasive: Why can't we see what's in the deal? Why can't we see the fine print? If someone asked you to sign a contract, but told you you can't read the fine print, would you sign it? What sorts of things did corporate lobbyists put in the fine print? I want to know before I sign on to it.

This isn't the side of the issue I want to be on, but I want to do my due diligence, and if the fine print is secret, I simply can't support it.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1DD6tkP