A Naked View of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by Timothy Barnes

Higher-paid owners of intellectual property would have received more of the income gains. They promote cheaper goods from low-wage countries. This would have been particularly true for the TPP because it protected patents and copyrights.

Free trade agreements contribute to income inequality in high-wage countries. High-income workers benefited the most: Early analysis of the deal suggested that the income gains would have gone to workers making more than $87,000 a year.China has been beefing up its military to back its incursions in that area. The TPP would have given the United States an excuse to intervene in trade disputes in the oil-rich South China Sea. It was meant to balance the trade dominance of both China and India in East Asia. Offset China's economic power: Notably, the TPP excluded China.Bigger than NAFTA: The TPP trade area would have been bigger than the North American Free Trade Agreement (now the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement), currently the world’s largest.workers: The agreement would have added $223 billion a year to the incomes of workers in all the countries, with $77 billion going to U.S. The TPP would have evened the playing field. Of these, the United States had already allowed 80% of these imports to enter without tariffs. Removed tariffs: It would have increased exports by removing 18,000 tariffs placed on U.S.It would benefit the machinery, auto, plastics, and agriculture industries. exports would increase by $123.5 billion. It would have increased exports by $305 billion per year by 2025.

This would have created more jobs and prosperity for the 12 countries involved. exports and growth: The original TPP would have boosted U.S.

A Naked View of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by Timothy Barnes