Please read the following case and submit your analysis. Students are required to write at least 400 words per case (not 400 words per question of each case). This does not include assigned questions. At the top of the first page, include the word count. I require minimum word counts to give students an idea of how much work is expected. Otherwise, students may do much less than they need to do in order to develop their critical and analytical thinking skills.
Opening Case: The Trans Pacific Partnership
QUESTION 1: Do you agree with the characterizations of the TPP as “a terrible deal” and “disastrous”? Discuss the pros and cons for the United States of enacting the trade agreement?
QUESTION 2: What are the differences across the studies focusing on the TPP’s impact on the United States economy? What is your assessment of the trade deal’s influence on United States workers?
Case: On February 4, 2016, ministers from 12 governments signed off on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade deal between 12 countries including the United States, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Chile, Canada, Mexico, and Vietnam. China was not part of the deal. Together these countries account for 36 percent of the world’s GDP and 26 percent of world trade. In the United States, critics of the deal were quick to register their opposition. Donald Trump, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said that the “TPP is a terrible deal.” Bernie Sanders, one of the leading Democratic contenders, called it “disastrous” and “a victory for Wall Street and other big corporations,” Many other politicians, wary of the fact that 2016 was a general election year in the United States, were also quick to criticize the deal. On the other hand, the administration of Barack Obama heralded the TPP as a historic deal of major importance. Editorials in influential publications such as The Wall Street Journal and The Economist urged the U.S. Congress to ratify the deal.
So what does the deal try to do? The TPP will eliminate or reduce about 18,000 tariffs, taxes, and nontariff barriers such as quotas on trade between the 12 member countries. By expanding market access and lowering prices for consumers, economists claim that the deal will boost economic growth rates among TPP countries and add about $285 billion to global GDP by 2025. Since the United States already has very low tariff barriers, most of the tariff reductions will occur in other countries.
U.S. agriculture looks to be a big beneficiary. The TPP would eliminate import tariffs as high as 40 percent on U.S. poultry products and fruit, and 35 percent on soybeans, all products where the United States has a comparative advantage in production. Cargill, Inc., a giant U.S. grain exporter and meat producer, urged lawmakers to support the pact. A number of large efficient U.S. manufacturers also came out in support of the deal, which eliminates import tariffs as high as 59 percent on U.S. machinery exports to TPP countries. Boeing, the country’s largest exporter, said that the deal would help it compete overseas, where it gets 70 percent of its revenue. Several technology companies including Intel voiced support for the deal, pointing out that it would eliminate import taxes as high as 35 percent on the sale of information and communication technology to some other TPP countries.
On the other hand, some U.S. companies urged Congress to vote against the deal. Ford opposed the deal because it would phase out a 2.5 percent tariff on imports of Japanese cars into the United States and a 25 percent tariff on imports of light trucks—even though under the agreement, those tariffs would be phased down over 30 years. Labor unions were quick to oppose the deal, arguing that it would result in further losses of U.S. manufacturing jobs and lead to lower wages. The tobacco company Philip Morris Page 154opposed the deal because it would prevent tobacco companies from suing foreign governments over antismoking measures that restrict tobacco companies from using their logos and brands to market tobacco products. Several big drug companies also opposed the deal because it only protected new biotechnology products from generic competition for five years, rather than the 12 years they had before.
Data supporting these various claims and counterclaims was offered by a number of independent studies, including those from the World Bank, the Institute of International Economics (IIE), and Tuft’s University. Both the World Bank and the IIE concluded that by creating more overseas demand for American goods and services, by 2030 the TPP would raise U.S. wages slightly above what they would have been without the deal. The IIE study estimated that the TPP would increase annual U.S. exports by $357 billion, or 9 percent, by 2030. The IIE study also calculated that overall, there would be no job losses in the United States. Although some sectors would see job losses, the IIE suggested that these would be offset by job gains elsewhere. The study from Tufts University was the most pessimistic, estimating that the deal would result in the loss of 450,000 jobs in the United States over 10 years. To put this in context, between 2010 and 2015, the U.S. economy created 13 million new jobs, so the worst-case estimate of losses amounted to no more than two months of job growth during the 2010–2015 period.
These case assignments are to be completed individually. Please use your own words when completing the assignments. There is no required format, but you must write in organized paragraphs with complete sentences. Do not use bullet points. Do not use direct quotes.