The Trans-Pacific Free-Trade Charade

Oct 2, 2015 Joseph E. Stiglitz , Adam S. Hersh

As negotiators and ministers from the US and 11 other Pacific Rim countries meet in Atlanta in an effort to finalize the details of the sweeping new Trans-Pacific Partnership, some sober analysis is warranted. The biggest regional trade and investment agreement in history is not what it seems.

NEW YORK – As negotiators and ministers from the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries meet in Atlanta in an effort to finalize the details of the sweeping new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), some sober analysis is warranted. The biggest regional trade and investment agreement in history is not what it seems.

You will hear much about the importance of the TPP for “free trade.” The reality is that this is an agreement to manage its members’ trade and investment relations – and to do so on behalf of each country’s most powerful business lobbies. Make no mistake: It is evident from the main outstanding issues, over which negotiators are still haggling, that the TPP is not about “free” trade.

New Zealand has threatened to walk away from the agreement over the way Canada and the US manage trade in dairy products. Australia is not happy with how the US and Mexico manage trade in sugar. And the US is not happy with how Japan manages trade in rice. These industries are backed by significant voting blocs in their respective countries. And they represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the TPP would advance an agenda that actually runs counter to free trade.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Writing for PS since 2001
312 Commentaries

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.

Adam S. Hersh

Writing for PS since 2015
1 Commentary

Adam S. Hersh is Senior Economist at the Roosevelt Institute and Visiting Scholar at Columbia University’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 77 Comments on this article

MARTINE HAMON Mar 13, 2016

Authors seem to support TTP actually, least mistaken! Seems an exercise in obscurantism, sadly.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
E Walker Mar 13, 2016

I don't think capital is entitled to protection in any country but its own, and only in accordance with the laws of other countries. If Pfizer wants to take know-how and capital developed in the US and use it to open factories in some foreign country, why should I care if the other country expropriates their money?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
James Edwards Oct 17, 2015

While I'm in agreement that the trade negotiation was shrouded in secrecy that no one was able to find out what the agreement entails, the public will learn more when it is put out for comments and voted on by the US Congress during the 60 days period.

On Stiglitz's comment on the length of the intellectual property: TPP would provide between 5-8 years of protection when the US provides 12 years of protection. Senator Hatch came out against that length of protection as being too short of the US standard something the pharmaceutical companies wanted to retain.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
James Mboya Oct 15, 2015

I am against TPP because when developed economies enter into free trade agreements with developing economies, the free trade agreements result in more net benefits to the developing economies than to the developed economies. However, when developed economies enter into free trade agreements among themselves, there's trade and economic synergies realized, such that both or all the developed economies benefit. For this reason, a free trade agreement with say, the United States and Japan be beneficial to both nations. But, a free trade agreement between the United States and China would be more beneficial to China than the United States. Free trade agreements should be entered into between developing nations and other developing nations, and, developed nations with other developed nations.
- John Lockheed Oct 2, 2016
  
  Apparently, authors had a chance. To look at the draft documents. Concidering that similar agreement wiyh EU was put on hold recently, can anyone share the link to the acual documents? Or drafts at least? Because otherwise all discussionsabout e effect of such an agreements have no point unlesswe discuss particular docuents.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Oct 14, 2015

President Obama said that the TPP agreement would strengthen US strategic relationships with its partners and allies in a region that would be vital in the 21st century.
It is very conceivable that it is sowing seeds of wide-spread frustration, in a region that will be vital in the 21st century, with US trade policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Lucas Oct 12, 2015

Anyone who is in favour of TPP or TTIP (or TISA) is either uninformed, or dependent on Big Business ("I know you are a member of a pro-democracy political organization, but if you want your daughter/son to even have a chance of a career, consider our reach. It is your choice: 'our agenda versus a career perspective for your daughter/son'").
Since the 70s, Big Business has completely undermined democracy, and TPP and TTIP are the stealth-weapons of Big Business.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Oct 11, 2015

Today the German people have finally woken up and realised what their political/financial leaders have been plotting behind their backs on TTIP and other issues.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cam Jennings Oct 8, 2015

The bully at the end of the table, or the wolf wearing woolen clothes...the agreement will benefit the United States. Only history will reveal the true nature of the deal. NAFTA failed and the piper is still playing and the little players are blindly following. Big mistake for Australia & New Zealand to enter the agreement
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Oct 7, 2015

Just another attempt to bring about an agreement, cooperation, "union" which ignores our present existential conditions.
We have evolved into a globally integrated and interdependent system. In such system any cooperation, agreement that is aimed against another, excludes any parts of the global system, is based on selfish calculations, ruthless mutually exclusive competition is by default doomed to failure.

We can see such failures repeating themselves again and again from the "European Union" to all other "alliances", trade, economic, financial or military agreements.
In our "new" global, integral world we have to learn a completely new negotiating, decision making and acting framework.
In this system the so called "butterfly effect" acts with full force, one cannot even move a finger until it is certain the action will be beneficial for the whole integral system. Otherwise the negative input will return with multiple force as a boomerang.

We keep repeating how we exist in a global system, how we live in a global village, how integrated we have become, and we are all sitting on the same boat. Now finally we have to start acting accordingly.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lakshma reddy Oct 7, 2015

Joseph E Stiglitz is right. The motives behind the TPP trading block free trade agreement are apparent like military alliances of opposing group of nations over Syria. Which side is the author is moot point. Are they in favour of any trading or ominous military blocks or in favour of global public for global citizenship without political borders inhibiting freedoms of global citizens rights to economic right to travel,settle,and carry trade and business in any country subject only to reasonable restrictions laid down by federal democratic world government?

The trends that now appear both in economic and military sphere on global scale in an atmosphere of tough conflict of national and corporate interests when the global slowdown of economic growth and shrinking investment and profit opportunities and intolerance/anti free trade protectionist policies increases call for greater vigil by global vigilance against such practices in the interests of global public since the vigilance is the price of freedom.

It is to be noted that science and technology is the driving force of globalization and some countries are trying to monopolise or impose unreasonable restrictions on other nations or global public from the benefits of tecknology without concern to the global public interests
or affected nations or public from consequential cross border ecological climatic disasters.But such efforts of those countries will,except increasing global unrest, conflicts,inequalities and injustices, not succeed if lessons from history is the guide and global free trade and sovereign global governing structures bound to be created in global public interest.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joshua Ioji Konov Oct 7, 2015

This article excellent in some of the details on the TPP's harm on the Rule of Law in Business and the Health & Environment it will impose - and it is about the conception - what is 'good' and 'bad' for America, whereas the Big Transnationals and Investors are considered National Interests - are they? Isn't it about employment and underemployment that are mostly coming from the Small and Medium Companies, and what are these going to gain from the TPP? - seemingly, not too much; but, again, it is all about the philosophy of what is productive for the US Economy and who is suppose to benefit so the Economy grow? Sure, it is a misconception far beyond the reality of the 21st Century globalization and rising productivity when instead of establishing the Rule of Law in Business it prompt curving it with the expectations of benefits - a sad story of a not working philosophy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sam Lim Oct 6, 2015

Another case of BIG Business hijacking the lives of ordinary folks for the sake of profits
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bob Schiller Oct 6, 2015

I'm neither a politician nor an economist but it seems to me that the whole idea of capitalism is to let the market decide. Any attempt to rig the market therefore goes against this whether it be restrictive trade agreements , trade subsidies or import regulations etc. As already noted, generally this measures increase the wealth of the wealthy and excludes the poorer thereby making the them less able to take part. Such self centred activities are not in the best interests of the world as a whole and will only encourage the divide between the haves and the have-nots. How will that impact terrorism I dread to think. Or am I making a connection that doesn't exist?
- Enrique Woll Battistini Oct 6, 2015
  
  Secrecy was required in the binding of the hapless poor who will bear the brunt of the further enrichment of the rich; secrecy would be required in the binding of the rich who would yield the brunt of the transfer of riches to the hapless poor, but would this be possible in the XXI Century? What has happened to the concept of transparency?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan baur Oct 6, 2015

You don't need to know much about TPP. Just that Stiglitz opposes it, which makes TPP a good deal. Stiglitz is always wrong.
- Cam Jennings Oct 8, 2015
  
  Can you please explain and give evidence of this as I believe that the deal is not so good for Australia & New Zealand.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ivan Chow Oct 6, 2015

ISDS is probably the most ominous but least covered issue of the TPP, as if there is a concerted effort by mainstream media to prevent the public from getting informed on the topic. The dispute settlement mechanism uses secret tribunals and their decisions override state and federal laws and are binding with limited appeal. Foreign corporations have been increasingly using ISDS to bypass the legal system of sovereign countries, and the number of incidents and compensation amounts are alarming. I have documented over a dozen real life examples in my series on ISDS here: http://thenextturn.com/isds-obscure-free-trade-rules-turn-malignant-part-1/
- Ivan Chow Oct 7, 2015
  
  Uruguay has become the first country to end its participation of the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) after pressure from the public culminating in a general strike. TISA is even more shrouded in secrecy and hardly covered by mainstream media. The walking of Uruguay is completely unreported.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Enrique Woll Battistini Oct 6, 2015
  
  It would seem that the poor of the world are exhausted and unable to defend themselves from assaults like the TPP...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Oct 6, 2015

Well, sad to say, the TPP deal was clinched today! Treachery and treason have many guises, and this one is the thinest yet. Poor countries will become poorer, and rich countries richer; poor people will become poorer, everywhere, and rich people will become richer, everywhere. Common sense dictates that Global Free Trade Agreements, under any guise, should follow North-South Global Investment Promotion Systems, like the following one, and not precede them: https://www.academia.edu/13062837/La_Reforma_Tributaria_del_Siglo_XXI_The_XXI_Century_Tax_Reform_-_2011100411
- Enrique Woll Battistini Oct 6, 2015
  
  https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Oct 5, 2015

TPP is now a done deal. But it'll still require formal approval by parliaments of all member states who signed it today in Atlanta (Georgia). US Congress must vote up or down!
Japan will have to open its rice & cars import market from US. Australia won the argument on five - not eight year - monopoly by US pharma industry on its generics....

NZ and its dairy industry fought a battle royal. I still don't know if Wellington will finally approve the deal - in its parliament or not.

The canary in the globalization generics market is (cheaper!)Indian generics which are taking over OTC drugs, licensed by FDA. India is not party to TPP....

Bottom-line, TPP is a victory for Obama! It's not a charade. It'll impact mainland China and its regional trade policy - going forward.

TPP, when finally ratified, will introduce a fundamentally different set of trade policy regulations & dispute settlement mechanism on globalization in 21st century.

WTO is no longer dealing on global trade policy - why?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank Schmidtsdorff Oct 5, 2015

Sorry, I am a bit naive, maybe.

The discussion is somehow stuck in the middle and seems to be getting absurd. Somehow it sounds like everyone (left and right) wants to stop international trade because f. e. - and yes - a lot of jobs could be lost. But they were and will be, an ongoing process. Conclusion: Stop international trade. On the other hand we already have an - for good or bad reasons, but necessarily, regulated - international trade. So all trade should be regional from now on and I should buy American, German, French, Cyprian? What we will have could be still delivered, sure, to our conditions.

And there is, was or will be no such thing as a free trade - but we still have trade - and bilateral regulations, often dictated by the stronger part.

So the question in my eyes should be: How could we come to fair regulations, especially in favour of consumers, workers and small enterprises.

For example: in the years of internet I as a consumer more and more like to buy products which are not on my regional market - and they get too expensive through transport and tariffs.

Unbearable is the secrecy of this process - And the proposed court deals in favour of big corporations. These are absurd and dangerous proposals for the future of democracy in the 21. Century and for a fair development.

The democratic discussion should be about trade in the 21 century - considering the main aspects of the sustainable development agenda. And I hope the discussion and movements changes in this direction.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Lyu Oct 5, 2015

the 2 specific examples here - drug IP and tobacco arbitration are both addressed in the agreement. I wonder if Stigliz and Hersh are still against the TPP?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Oct 5, 2015

I am not opposed to expanding international trade per se, though I am against the TTP.
Every country often has its peculiar economic and social problems, and expanding international trade may as well be done with good attention paid to them though I do not say, either, that this is easy among coflictual interestes of countries concerned.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sergio Paradiz Oct 5, 2015

No one can ignore or rebuck these arguments. What Sitglitz and Hersh need to concentrate on are the alternatives ( and there are ) to the "charade" that is the current proposal for TPP and TPIP. Free trade and globalizastion fo hand in hand . You may succeed in delaying the process but you will not succeed to stop or rewind it. Thus the need to concentrate on constructive proposals rather than just gunning down the ongoing process.
To the point: Stiglitz&Hersh arguments though very real, presented as they are, carry the same flaw which they point out on the TPP and TPIP. It ames to "manage" public opinion the same way big business aims to "manage" trade and investments relations of TPP&TPIP members.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert REYNOLDS Oct 5, 2015

It seems that the capitalist class are at the same time becoming more subtle, yet more viscous in their quest for profits. Karl Marx, where are you when we need you?!
- Curtis Carpenter Oct 5, 2015
  
  Better to ask: where are working people? Are they finally starting to catch on? Perhaps so:
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34441238
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Brien Desilets Oct 4, 2015

Because it's not an FTA at all but a political effort to isolate and antagonize China
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Linda Jamin Oct 4, 2015

French is one of the official languages of the European Union as well as the UN and many other major world organizations. Like Spanish, it is also (still) among the languages most spoken on this planet. NOTHING will change until and unless you start directing your arguments to the French and Spanish speaking populations as well as to the Arab and Chinese speakers. if you want your ideas to promote change, you have to make them accessible to everyone.
- Laurent Enckell Oct 5, 2015
  
  http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trans-pacific-partnership-charade-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-and-adam-s--hersh-2015-10/french
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jaap Bosma Oct 4, 2015

Thx for this usefull information!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Werneken Oct 4, 2015

Why should people NOT be paid to change their behavior? Who defines ANYTHING for another, so who defines harm? Maybe I like fireproofing more than I care about worker cancer...
- Stamatis Kavvadias Oct 7, 2015
  
  Well, you should care more about worker cancer and organized societies should make sure you ***do not*** have this choice!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kathy Holland Oct 4, 2015

Of course not, happy to hear you figured this important point out. But, there is always a silver-lining that follows bureaucratic clouds. This too, was a mistake -- follow rather than lead!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernard Fudim Oct 4, 2015

The TPP would establish uniform international testing standards which nations would have to enforce to engage in trade. That is a plus for the TPP.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Luke Lea Oct 4, 2015

A little off-topic I suppose, but so-called "free trade" between high- and low-wage countries diminishes the employment opportunities and wages in the high-wage country. This is standard text-book economics. Moreover, experience over the past twenty years shows that the so-called gains of trade (which show up in GDP figures) are swamped by a wholesale redistribution of income from labor to capital, which is to say, from the have-nots and have-littles to the have-mores and have-most." What's good or fair about that?

If the policy makers in Washington were honest about this they would admit that without redistributive taxation free-trade in our lopsided world is bad for the American people. Trump, and before him Ross Perot were essentially right about this. Paul Samuelson and Paul Krugman were not so much wrong as disingenuous when they implied otherwise. They cared more about the welfare of the Third World poor than working people here at home, including the least-skilled and most vulnerable segments of our population. This is what you get when cosmopolitan elites make policy.

It would have been better not only for American working men and women but for the future of free trade if these two gentlemen and many others had been honest about this. Then they would have given more attention to the difficult and as yet unsolved question of how to tax capital to subsidize wages while maintaining market efficiency.

Though I am a mere amateur, many welfare economists would probably agree that in theory at least part of the answer is likely to include some form of a graduated expenditure tax which progressively taxes the consumption of the biggest spenders in society.

The revolution in information technology makes it possible to actually implement such a tax, though it would still require the cooperation of all our major allies and trading partners overseas. That being the case allow me to draw professional economists' attention to the existence of what I believe may be the simplest, fairest, most transparent, as well as the least arbitrary possible version of a graduated expenditure tax, one based on a single parameter that can be adjusted to raise the amount of revenue required: https://goo.gl/Pe5YW6
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
George Hariton Oct 4, 2015

Stiglitz and Hersh argue that TPP is about managed trade, not free trade. As an example, they give Canada's trade in dairy products. It's true that the TPP would not result in completely free trade here. But currently Canada has tariffs of 250% to 300%, effectively completely closing its domestic dairy and poultry markets. We don't know how far TPP would go in dismantling these barriers, but any progress would be most welcome.

Stiglitz and Hirsh have completely mischaracterized the impact of the TPP in the one area I know well. How many other errors are there in their commentary?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
douglas ungredda Oct 4, 2015

So which country would be willing to sign such agreement to its damage?
- Curtis Carpenter Oct 4, 2015
  
  A country represents a collection of diverse interests which are often in conflict. Thus aggressive protection of the intellectual property rights of a pharmaceutical companies may, for example, cause "damage" to the interests of the mass of the country's citizens, as has been noted here.
  
  So the question at the end of the day, it seems to me, is: can I trust the government of my country to defend MY interests when they are in conflict with others within the polis? And if the answer to that is no -- and most of the comments below seem to offer that answer -- then TPP is (or in my view ought to be) the least of the common citizen's worries.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
kiers sohn Oct 4, 2015

Malaysia is arguing for "Racial" carve outs to continue it's system of racial preferences within the TPP. Obama will be enabling that as well.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lance Brofman Oct 4, 2015

Bernie Sanders has the exact same position on free trade and the TPP as Donald Trump.

Many of those who ridicule climate change deniers correctly point out that 99% of all PhD meteorologists agree that carbon dioxide is associated with rising global temperatures. However free-trade opponents do not consider the fact that that 99% of all PhD economists agree that free-trade and the TPP in particular will greatly benefit America and raise standards of living .
Protectionism is the progressivism of fools. Gandhi was a great statesman but a horrible economist. Just as the ignorant in the USA argue that American workers who earn $15 per hour should not have to compete with Chinese workers who make $2 per hour, Gandhi thought that Indian workers should not have to compete with American and European workers who have the benefit of modern machines. As a result India adopted protectionism. In 1947 the per capita income of India was similar to countries such a South Korea. By 1977 the per capita income and standard of living in South Korea was ten times that of India. India has since largely abandoned protectionism and has benefited immensely from free trade. Just as David Ricardo proved would be the case when he developed the concept of comparative advantage.

“....Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality which results in the overinvestment cycle that caused the depression are various non-tax factors. Issues such a minimum wage laws, unwed mothers, globalization, free trade, unionization, problems with our education system and infrastructure can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is the compounding effect of shift away from taxes on capital income such as dividends each year as the rich get proverbially richer which is the prime generator of inequality…”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Miki Mikić Oct 4, 2015

Last sentence says it all: "That is what happens when the policymaking process is closed to non-business stakeholders – not to mention the people’s elected representatives in Congress."

It seems that democracy in U.S. has the same role as monarchy in England...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Eugene Patrick Oct 4, 2015

The TPP would destroy to possibility of U.S. health care reform whereby the government would control the development and manufacture of medications and provide free medication to all citizens. This could be bone at very little cost and both the government and taxpayers would reap the profit from cures. Think of it as the needed incentive for a Stair Trek jump in medicine.
Why does my government put big pharma first?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Roger Merritt Oct 4, 2015

Supporters of the TPP insist that "the U.S. has never lost in an issue before the ISDS." This is not true. The U.S. recently had to change U.S. law requiring the country of origin of meat be shown on the label. We lost at the WTO, but the mechanism is similar to ISDS, except that challenges at WTO at least have to be brought by another national government. ISDS allows corporations to challenge nations in a binding arbitration where they pay the arbitrators.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jonathan Story Oct 4, 2015

We have known for many years that multinationals account for up to 70% of world trade. There is bound to be corporate efforts to create monopolies or oligopolies, much as Adam Smith pointed out. The key is to have competition between corporations on open markets and to ensure as far as possible that markets are not sewn up. Its much better to have such as system than a closed economy, where large corporations dominate the national economy, the government, the media and all. Stiglitz has to show what he means in practice to opening the policymaking process to non-business shareholders.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ken Davies Oct 4, 2015

Good points. A major drawback of the TPP is the lack of transparency in the negotiating process. If there is a case to be made for secret diplomacy in some niches of national security policy, there is no such case in the are of international trade and investment policy, which touches on the interests of all citizens of all countries. Reliance on leaked texts for commentaries like this one is no substitute for open public debate in all the countries involved in the negotiation.
- Ian Maitland Oct 4, 2015
  
  Ken:
  
  We all favor open covenants, openly arrived at. In principle. But isn't it a well-established truth in diplomacy (and not just on national security grounds), in labor-management negotiations, in Congressional budget negotiations ("we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" or Bismarck on making laws and sausages), and so on, that transparency hinders mutually advantageous outcomes?
  
  Isn't my point supported by the fact that the people who are invoking "transparency" are the same people who want the see the TPP (any TPP) fail?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Maitland Oct 4, 2015

Stiglitz says the TPP is not "free trade."

(1) So what else is new? Back in the time of NAFTA, someone made the point out that a real free trade agreement would take a single page, not a thick volume.

But half a loaf is better than none. The question all good people should ask themselves is whether the deal reduces trade barriers. Stiglitz doesn't even try to offer a ballpark estimate answer to this key question.

(2) In any case, does Stiglitz really care if the TPP is or isn't free trade? Would he support an unadulterated free trade agreement? Or one that on balance increased free trade? Until he answers that question, his claim that the TPP isn't free trade is little more than a debating point.

(3) The basic reason why Stiglitz's opinion doesn't deserve to be taken seriously is because he hasn't done his homework. Instead of offering us a global assessment of the deal that is shaping up and its welfare impacts, Stiglitz simply cheapshots it with cherry-picked anecdotes. He is wasting his breath and our time.

I am willing to stipulate that there will be lots of clauses that free traders will dislike. That leaves the question: What will be the net effect?

(4) Stiglitz says that "economic research clearly shows the argument that such intellectual property rights promote research to be weak at best." But that is not true of pharmaceuticals -- which is what the controversy is over. And when I turn to the first article that Stiglitz links to, I find speculative proposals for reforming, not scrapping, the pharmaceutical patent system. So Stiglitz's claim is contradicted by his own evidence. The truth is that, unless we come up with a better regime, IPRs are critical to developing new medicines, and they should be protected by the new trade agreement. Meanwhile, it is a scandal how other First World countries free-ride on drug R&D paid for by American consumers.
- Ian Maitland Oct 4, 2015
  
  Roger:
  
  Krugman's switch from supporting NAFTA to opposing TPP has nothing to do with the evidence. He's against TPP because Republicans support it. He wrote recently: "I think it’s fair to say that the liberal intelligentsia has been somewhat radicalized by Republican extremism; making common cause with those who share your basic values matters more than it seemed to a couple of decades ago.... Yes, I’m partly talking about myself, but it’s much broader than that; even Larry Summers is at best praising TPP with faint damns..."
  
  It has ever been thus with ideologues -- pas d'ennemis a gauche.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Roger Merritt Oct 4, 2015
  
  Actually, the way to evaluate the agreement is whether the results are good for most of our citizens or not. According to Paul Krugman, the existing barriers among the twelve participants is about 1.2%, hardly a huge barrier to be overcome. On the contrary, this agreement adds new barriers and restrictions. Fortunately it looks like Malaysia might suffer a huge political scandal and be unable to pass the agreement. I'm also hoping New Zealand and Australia will continue to hold out for their own best interests. It's kind of like when we were relying on the Tea Party to save us from the "Grand Bargain" Obama was so anxious to pass.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carlos Castro Oct 4, 2015

Deveriam estimular comentários em outras línguas, portuguese por exemplo, já que seus leitores não nativos do inglês não vão despender tempo e $$$$ para comentar.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wojciech Pasieka Oct 4, 2015

This is a manageable asymmetry theory at work, where by using "screening" in a form of the ISDS, the parties are changing the trade environment, and its outcomes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
eusebio manuel Oct 4, 2015

We win or lose our rights to any fitness luck TTIP
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Oct 4, 2015

Obama's Trade Sec is ex-Goldman's banker...that's all you need to know.
TPP is Obama's answer to XI's new-Silk Road infrastructure investment project across ancient trade routes....
Globalization has forced US to think anew about protecting intellectual property (Pharma & autos) at the cost of NTBs fomenting new barriers - intended primarily to contain rising Chinese economic juggernaut, methinks.
If you read the fine print of TTP, we never had this type of tariffs and trade negotiations under GATT/WTO.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Oct 4, 2015

What the world needs today more than ever is “Real” Open Government, Transparency and Accountability at all levels of government and policy making.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Oct 3, 2015

We just plain don't need any such treaties. We've managed up till now without them. They never live up to expectations anyway, always oversold.
I read Obama has considered cutting big tobacco out of any ISDS provisions. But the Chevron case in Ecuador can be seen to demonstrate there are other ways to harm a country.
Frankly if any sovereign nation signs up the politicians involved should be liable for treason.
- Brent Beach Oct 5, 2015
  
  Ian - putting the car before the horse.
  And after over a century, we are beginning to extract ourselves from the tyranny of the automobile.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Doyle Oct 5, 2015
  
  Ian, your comparison has no relevance. The auto revolution was not politically motivated. The TTP etc are not trade motivated. You are living in la-la land if you think this will have much benefit. Anyway the civilization we live in is closing in on its limits.[the finite world]
  Also trade is misunderstood; Imports are benefits and exports are costs to the economy. By exporting, Australia is only worth half of the natural capital it had 200 years ago, maybe even less.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Ian Maitland Oct 4, 2015
  
  John:
  
  "We've managed up till now without them."
  
  That irresistibly reminds me of the man who saw one of the first automobiles. "It's ingenious," he said. "But it will never replace the horse."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
barry stanley Oct 3, 2015

To understand the "logic" of the TPP read "The Wikileaks Files".
Barry Stanley
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Oct 3, 2015

Underlying the TPP debate is, it seems to me, a very, very fundamental question: Do you trust your government to act anymore in the best interests of the majority of its people, or has it caved in entirely to corporate pressure and moneyed interests?

If we can no longer trust our governments in this respect, then whether the TPP goes forward or not is the LEAST of our problems as citizens of our supposedly democratic societies.

TPP represents a highly complicated collection of issues, certainly beyond my own individual abilities to understand fully. So I can be moved to anger by reports that Big Pharma is about to fleece me even worse than they do now. But I have no choice but to trust my government, on its "fast track," to protect me from such abuse in these negotiations. Will they deliver for me? If not, then it is essentially Game Over for government of, by and for "the people" -- and time to start thinking about some sort of Jeffersonian Plan B.
- Brent Beach Oct 5, 2015
  
  Curtis
  Do we need a plan B?
  This is not the first instance of our inability to trust our government to act in the best interests of its citizens.
  Iraq War ... Wall Street and 2008 ... Citizens United ... When will we have enough proof? Is it already too late?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Giovanni Macchia Oct 3, 2015

Interesting article. It is very curious that it is not translated in other language, like the other articles of Prof. Stiglitz: I would have posted this article on FB and Linkedin immediatly. Howevr, what is written happens when there is no transparency on the agreement processes: the Parlament should not allow to be bypassed during this negotiations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Oct 3, 2015

Exactly, there isn’t such a thing as a “Free” lunch, neither will there ever be….
A new reply to this comment has been posted.