Why TPP Is High Risk, Low Reward (Facts, facts, facts)
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is a very smart man whos at home in the military-industrial complex, but hes not very sharp on trade issues. Case in point: Carters recent claim in a speech at the start of his Asia trip: We already see countries in the region trying to carve up these markets.
That was Carters attempt to show his support of the Obama administrations big push to obtain fast-track authority to win eventual passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership the implication being that without TPP, America will lose ground in Asia. But all Carter did was show that when it comes to economics, hes stuck in an earlier century.
And with such scare talk, he and the administration are vastly overstating the benefits of TPP, which risks exacerbating Americas already tense relationship with China.
<snip>
But it doesnt work that way with trade. There are no spheres of influence, theres no winner-take-all game. In contrast to colonial-era territorial acquisition and mercantilism, the possibilities of who can trade with whom are, for all practical purposes, nearly endless. TPP will not provide American ownership of markets in the countries involved, nor will it cede that ownership to any other country.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/why-tpp-is-high-risk-low-reward-117658.html#ixzz3ZM5ghxlL
Some of the facts in the article:
The U.S. has fta pacts with 6 of the 11 TPP nations
Japan's average tariff is 1.2%
Malaysia's GDP is smaller than Marylands.
The average annual income in Vietnam is $1,740