Challenge For The International Free Trade Era

The international trade sector of the U.S. economy continues to draw attention in economic and political circles. It is true that, the international market has become increasingly important as a source of demand for U.S. production and a source of supply for U.S. consumption. Indeed, it is substantially more important than is implied by the usual measures that relate the size of the international sector to the overall economy. This paper explores the role international trade now plays in the U.S. economy and answers the important questions for economic policy: How does international trade affect economic well-being? Who gains and who loses from free

The article entitled “The Tide That Sinks All Boats” by Chris Matthews discusses how feelings of protectionism and nationalism are making it difficult for President Obama to pass the Trans-pacific partnership (TPP) through Congress. The implication in this article is that the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump during this presidential election stirred these feelings amongst Americans. Thus, members of Congress fear that passing the free trade agreement will make them a “traitor to the American Worker”. The article also mentions how free trade agreements often take the brunt of people’s fears regarding global trade and its impact on domestic job security referencing NAFTA (Matthews, 2016).

With all the research and reviews on Trade Agreements, it has been interesting to read that the U.S. President, Donald Trump continues to baffle the world including the Republican Party, over how he plans to honor his campaign elected political agenda, which vowed to scrap away years of American Trade Policies, with hopes of reestablishing domestic manufacturing jobs. Subsequently, Allegations streamed from the president’s cabinet that provided insights on his the plans not to go forth with renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), yet in March, 2017, the president changes directions to revamp the so called “job-killing disaster” policy for a more favorable US deal instead – this on-again, off-again, flip-flop behavior appears uneventful, to say the least.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a grand, 21st century regional free-trade treaty which was commenced on 2003. It initiated as a trade contract involving Singapore, New Zealand and Chile. Presently, the TPP consists of 12 countries as their members that includes US, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Brunei, China, Korea, Australia, Peru and Vietnam. Other countries like Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, India etc. have also revealed their concern in merging with the TPP trade agreement. In 2011 the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries declared that the TPP is expected to “develop trade and investment accompanied by the TPP partner countries, to uphold innovation, economic expansion and advancement, and to support the formation and preservation of jobs. TPP will undo prospects for American employees, families, businesses, farmers, and ranchers by offering increased permission to some of the greatest growing markets in the world.

After a lengthy negotiation of over 3 years, Canada, the United States, and Mexico reached an agreement on trilateral trade ― the North American Free Trade Agreement. Commonly referred to as NAFTA, it came into effect on the first day of 1994. Covering 450 million of population and reaching $17 trillion in combined GDP, NAFTA proudly ranks the first among the world’s free trade agreements (USTR). It is usually seen as a remarkable success for the countless benefits it brings to its members. Some of NAFTA’s main advantages are promoting closer relationships, eliminating trade barriers, and increasing market opportunities. However, as the first proposer of NAFTA, the United States has indeed benefited the most from it in several different

Two of the well-known theories are absolute advantage and comparative advantage theory. Absolute advantage trade theory is when the producer is able to input a small amount to produce a good or service. It is also recognized to attain better through the acts of low-cost production. By this I mean, an example of absolute advantage is when a small country like China manufacture or produce a good and participate in the ability to have low labor cost on that item. Meanwhile, comparative advantage is the action of a country being able to produce or manufacture a good/service at a lower cost than another country. When having the theory of comparative advantage country that produces an item has an advantage over the company that has a desire for that specific item. Their ability to produce the item locally gives them a cheaper source of the ingredient causing them to offer their product cheaper than other companies. The Trans-Pacific Pacific Partnership is an agreement that has threatened to extend restrictive intellectual property laws across the world and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. Countries involved in the TPP are Australia, Peru, Japan, Canada, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Mexico. Basically, all the countries along the Pacific Ocean signed the agreement on February 4, 2016. The trade agreement is said to makes trading easier, adds intellectual property protection, and raises labor environmental standards in all countries involved, but there is no set person to write the rules and regulations to the agreement along with no one to make sure they are enforced. If the U.S doesn’t ratify the agreement, China can step in and continue to dominate and control the market. I believe if done right TPP can bring world domination for all countries to work together in creating one huge market to live by. Regional trading groups are

The greatest achievement that I have been able to accomplish in terms of securing the material national interest of the United States has been the agreement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This trade agreement amongst twelve member states (United States, Canada, Chile, Peru, Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Japan) was adopted to strengthen the economic ties for a more interconnected global economy. For the average working American it shows great promise to increase their income and for the nation as a whole. It also possesses the potential to allow for the growth of the nation’s GDP and annual exports, thereby increasing the living standard.

After the controversial TPP fast track legislation was passed by Congress, the world woke up to the devastating effects of other "trade agreements."

America’s diminishing faith in free trade has been a controversial topic in the 2016 presidential election. As the former Secretary of State to a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has changed her attitude in regards to the Trans-Pacific Partnership because these different positions have allowed her to view different perspectives in international relations. When she was Secretary of State promoting the TPP was her duty but as a presidential candidate she spoke against it, claiming it is “for more new good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.” In an interview with PBS Clinton argued that the TPP “kills American Jobs” because there is no safety net support that American workers need in order “to be able to compete and win the global economy”. Meanwhile as seen in Donald Trump’s campaign website, the Trans-Pacific Partnership undermines our economy and it will also threaten American independence. Trump told Breitbart News that “he would negotiate trade deals with individual countries, rather than a giant multinational deals like TPP” yet he tells Fox News that he is all for free trade “but it’s got to be fair” and wishes to go back to the days when America used to produce their own items.

Trans-Pacific partnership opens a new free market field with minimal trade restrictions. Members are expected to conduct trade within the jurisdictions of the member states with much

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was introduce as vehicle spark growth between the United State and the European Union. The US and EU represent the most developed, modern and committed to the highest consumer protection in the world. It is the T-TIP goal to capitalize on the relationship by providing economic growth and more jobs to US and EU to 13 million jobs already supported by transatlantic trade and investment. It is the T-TIP goal and desire to cut the edge and tariff agreements to allow for greater compatibility and transparency, in trade and investment regulations, while maintaining high level of health, safety and environmental protection.

As mentioned earlier, the TPP is a major potential free trade agreement between twelve of the Pacific Rim countries. The countries are Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, The United States, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore (Freil, Sharon, Gleeson, Thow, Labonte, Stuckler, Kay, and Snowdon 1). Interestingly enough, this agreement is the technical successor to the P4 agreement that was initialised in 2006 (Elms 29). This agreement was held between Chile, Brunei, New Zealand, and Singapore. In 2008 the U.S. showed large interest in joining this agreement giving spark to a new agreement that has enticed other Pacific Rim countries (Elms 29). Taking charge of this new agreement the U.S. has laid down most of the TPP 's foundation to create an agreement that should allow for a

Globalization has become one of the most influential forces in the twentieth century. International integration of world views, products, trade and ideas has caused a variety of states to blur the lines of their borders and be open to an international perspective. The merger of the Europeans Union, the ASEAN group in the Pacific and NAFTA in North America is reflective of the notion of globalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement was the largest free trade zone in the world at its conception and set an example for the future of liberalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement is coming into it's twentieth anniversary on January 1st, 2014. 1 NAFTA not only sought to enhance the trade of goods and services across

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an economic free trade agreement currently being negotiated between New Zealand and 11 other Pacific Rim nations (Wyber & Perry, 2013). It seeks to reduce trade restrictions including tariffs, create shared guidelines for intellectual property rights, sanction codes for environmental and labour regulations, and create an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system (Fergusson, McMinimy & Williams, 2015). The implications of the TPP are immense, encompassing nearly 40% of global gross domestic product (GDP), with the potential to affect various aspects of a nations’ domestic policy environment (Wyber & Perry, 2013). On-going formal mediations have taken place since 2008; however public interest in the ramifications of the agreement has increased as negotiations have proceeded (Wyber & Perry, 2013). This is likely a result of its growing media coverage, which has raised public awareness to the issue. The private nature of TPP negotiations has evoked widespread controversy and debate throughout the media (Jairath, Johnstone & Moore, 2015). While confidentiality amid trade agreements is common, some consider that the TPP has been concealed in specific secrecy, giving more influential power to industries involved (Wyber & Perry, 2013).

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a 12-nation Asian-Pacific trade agreement that seeks to increase economic integration among participating nations by lowering barriers to trade, improving trade facilitation and enhancing standards harmonization. Upon completion, the TPP trade area would comprise a region with $28 trillion in economic output, making up around 39 percent of the world’s total output. If the TPP is successfully implemented, tariffs will be removed on almost $2 trillion in goods and services exchanged between the signatory countries.