Free Vs. Fair Trade

I am writing to inform you of my concern toward the recent repeal of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. This repeal has negative effects on the men and women who call themselves America’s farmers and ranchers. As a consequence, these men and women are the ones who bare the cost of this decision. In addition American agriculturalist will lose $7.2 billion that this trade agreement will bring. These gains come primarily in the form of lower tariffs. Arguably current tariffs hinder the sale of Missouri agricultural products, and we must view agriculture markets at an international level not just the domestic level.

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.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, commonly known as the NAFTA, is a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico launched to enable North America to become more competitive in the global marketplace (Amadeo, 2011). The NAFTA is regarded as “one of the most successful trade agreements in history” for its impact on increases in agricultural trade and investment among the three contracting nations (North American Free Trade Agreement, 2011). Supporters and opponents of the NAFTA have argued the effects of the agreement on participating nations since its inception; yet, close examination proves that NAFTA has had a relatively positive impact on the economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

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.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was designed to create trade that was mutually beneficial for all North American countries. Yet a recent change in the U.S. administration has threatened continued trade between the three major players – the U.S, Canada and Mexico. New President Donald J. Trump’s promises to renegotiate NAFTA have both Canada and Mexico on edge, and without stability, can possibly force Mexico to opt out of the agreement altogether. While NAFTA has holes in its implementation, this agreement has aided in economic growth, tripled foreign investment, and lowered prices within the US.

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

With the United States currently experiencing another presidential election the world is in suspense, watching to see who will become the next leader of the free world. Such halt corresponds to the running of two presidential candidates: Hillary D. Clinton and Donald J. Trump. Such halt derives from candidates proposed trade policies for the United States and its ramifications. This emphasis on trade originates from this idea that we live in a globalized economy and with the United States being a predominate actor within the international community, policies, for instance, that do not support globalize trade potentially harm developing and developed countries who have ties to the U.S.. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share similarities amongst their trade agendas; for example, Clinton’s policies surrounding trade must “work” for the U.S. while Trump 's objective is to renegotiate current and future trade agreements to better suit the U.S.. Therefore, each candidate’s trade proposal must undergo an evaluation of the potential outcomes that derive from each proposal and identify which candidate 's agenda is better suited for the United States and the global aim to liberalize trade. Candidate Hillary Clinton’s trade policies, although minimal in its size, maintains relationships with allied countries and does not harm the United States in trade; while on the other hand, candidate Donald Trump’s trade policies lead to negative ramifications that hurt the

The recent executive order signed by President Trump stating the U.S. will withdraw from negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal has major implications for “globalization.” Obama’s administration had pushed hard for it because it was essentially an attempt to create a single market for the United States and 11 other countries that border the Pacific Ocean, including Canada, Mexico, and Chile. The TPP’s idea was to make goods flow more freely and cheaply between all partners. All of TPP’s partners represented one third of global trading. The goal for TPP was to maintain U.S. trade dominance in Asia, attempting to ward off China’s growing economic influence. The problem is TPP did not produce jobs or increase wages. The issue is that

A multinational corporation is one that possesses or controls the manufacture of goods or services in one or more countries aside from the country to which they belong and Fair trade is trade that takes place between companies in developed countries and producers in developing countries where fair prices are paid to the producers. Usually, the prices are more than what the traditional markets would pay. Fair trade generally advocates better pay, working conditions, and fair treatment for farmers and workers. Some issues with Fair trade are:

After five years of negotiations, the United States and 11 other countries signed the Trans Pacific partnership. The tpp is a deal that is to promote trade through out nations and will remove tariffs, promote competition and create more opportunities for businesses. President Barack Obama argued that tpp will create new jobs by opening up foreign markets for exporting goods and set minimum standards for working conditions in the 11 other nations, leveling the playing field in the global market. The tpp is a bad trade deal as it will cost the United states thousands of jobs and hurt the economy.

I agree with your argument that somehow the United States would be at the short end of the stick when TPP is implemented. However, supporters of the TPP would argue that the TPP provides an opportunity for made in America products to be sold to member countries without high tariffs being imposed on them. Even though the TPP will have an impact on wages and employment, it is expected to be in low skilled labor industries. Whereas, high skilled and capital intensive made in America products would have a level playing field internationally.

Cohort 4 believes that fair trade is the most prosperous way to trade with other countries. Both free trade and fair trade have advantages and disadvantages. The researchers in Cohort 4 have established a viewpoint regarding fair trade and free trade. Considering the research that the cohort has conducted, they are in opposition to free trade.

Being the world 's largest economy, the United States is also largest exporter and importer of goods and services. American economic growth relies heavily on trade. According to a recent report on NAFTA, “Since 1992, nearly 20 million new jobs have been created in the U.S., in part due to the 1994 NAFTA agreement. Total trade between the NAFTA partners -- the U.S., Canada, and Mexico -- rose from $293 billion in 1993 to more than $475 billion in 1997, and has increased since. ” (Bowman, Free Trade). It is obvious evidence that international trade is beneficial to the US economy, at least in the 1990s.

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, shows support for free trade and emphasises it as a trade policy which ought to be adopted. Krugman and Obstfeld back Smith's support by stating that the efficiency of trade is increased by free trade and accumulates the national income of countries. Free trade is a theory which suggests that each nation benefits in specialising in an economic activity from which it gains absolute advantage, enjoying absolute superiority over other nations in a specif economical activity (Peng). With free trade follows opportunity, replacing regulation and growth of economic activity. (Rugmann and Collinson).

”Free trade policies have created a level of competition in today's open market that engenders continual innovation and leads to better products, better-paying jobs, new markets, and increased savings and investment” (Denise Froning). Though Free trade plays a huge role in the economy today because of what and where it is used. Free trade allows for traders to trade across national boundaries and other countries without government interference. Meaning that traders have very few regulations that allow for them to do this without the government intervening. Free trade makes things for traders much easier and also allows for many more jobs in the US, such as exporting jobs, or jobs in the auto industry and plants. Though there are many