And you thought net neutrality was kind of boring? Well the Trans-Pacific Partnership isn’t the most scintillating of subjects, unless you’re the U.S. Trade Representative, but it might just be the most important piece of legislation that Congress will debate this year.Don’t take Paul Krugman’s word for it, though.
He says that it’s “No Big Deal.”
Now, I’m not a Nobel laureate, I don’t teach at Princeton, and my beard is not as thick as his, so I wouldn’t even begin to question his economic analysis. It is true that the worst argument in favor of this trade agreement, or really any trade agreement, is that it will create a certain number of jobs over a certain period of time. Just no evidence to support that. It is also true that, as Krugman says, trade pacts “aren’t what they used to be” because previous worldwide agreements have eliminated a lot of the tariffs and barriers. The world isn’t so protectionist anymore. Finally, it’s true that this trade agreement is largely about “others things.” Krugman notes that the real force of the pact would be in its increased protections for the property rights (intellectual and otherwise) of U.S. companies.
But I think Krugman is missing a big “other thing.” That other thing is China.
Comments are closed.