The TPP Case Analysis

The core intend of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to endorse economic adaptation in the Asian Pacific province. The affiliates of the

These export trade agreements, in the next two decades, will create thousands of available jobs, and also boost the GDP by approximately $25 billion, which benefits consumers, households and economic growth. There are several strategies under the new trade agreement that targets partnership and bring benefits:

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

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.

It was created after almost a decade of discussions among the member nations about what it would include (Ferguson et al, 2015). In short, the goal of the TPP was to eliminate many of the trade barriers that existed in the Pacific Rim. It included many different provisions, each of which was designed to provide significant amounts more protection for various important causes. While it is like most trade agreements in that it seeks to do away with barriers to trade, it also had clauses about human rights and the environment. There had been much concern about the human rights situation in the Far East, especially in regard to American companies that were doing business there. A major part of the reason for the conception of the TPP and a part of why it got so much support among Western nations is because it attempted to do away with some of the corruption and human rights abuses that have long dogged nations that provide assistance to US companies. There were other elements to the TPP, too, including provisions on proper governance, designed to normalize relations in order to make it easier for the signatories to the deal to find trade partners that might work in the modern

As Canada is not a very large country population wise, it is crucial that Canadian companies are protected from large, capital-orientated companies worldwide. Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership will eliminate many tariffs, the beef and pork industry will still benefit greatly. Canada exported about $3.9 billion dollars worth of product to the potential TPP markets in the years 2012 to 2014 (The ABCs of TPP. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from

A draft of a top-secret piece of interstate agreement on the Trans- Pacific Partnership leaked online causing a hot status to its discussion. Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) - is the largest supra-trade and economic organization, the creation of which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2013. In an agreement on the TPP participating countries, generating more than 40% of global GDP: the U.S., Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile, Vietnam and Peru. China and Russia are not included to this list.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership started over a decade ago in negotiations. These political meetings have been happening for years between pacific countries such as The United States, Japan, Canada and Australia. There are twelve countries as of now working towards an agreement. The United States, Canada and Mexico are now part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP is an agreement that would essentially serve as the new NAFTA. (The North American Free Trade Agreement) The new agreement would open the agreement to other countries around the world and create much more globalization than we experience today. Canada has recently decided to join the agreement after much opposition. Canada mainly exports to the United States. This

With both social and economic aspects of Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement being examined with a vast of details, it can be concluded that the U.S. Congress shall not approve TPP agreement. This is best option because the cost associated with TPP will be critical to the U.S. society both in economic and sociological ways. Although there are enormous benefits to TPP, the costs associated are too harmful and outbalance gain from TPP. The government should not take the risky choice to improve economy and fix social gap problem.

In the article, “Trade Agreements Trump Loves To Hate Actually Have Small Positive Effects”, the main idea is that trade is affecting United States in both negative and positive ways, although many just see the negative effects. Both of the presidential candidates oppose NAFTA and TPP, as Donald Trump said, “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere.” The article shows several graphs describing that NAFTA only contributed 7.5% growth to US economy during the 90s. Although preferential trade agreements have said to have small positive effects on trade between small countries, the negative effects cannot be overlooked. For example, workers temporarily lose their jobs, wages are distributed unevenly, and low skilled workers are in trouble.

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.

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

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a trade agreement which was set to expand market, reduce non-tariff and tariff barriers, promote economic growth, reduce poverty and etc.12 countries were involved in the negotiation. The countries that participated in the negotiation are Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand, Chile, United States, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada and Japan.The negotiation were going on for 7 years, and after 19 round of tough negotiation the proposal was finalised and was signed on 4th February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand. Different versions of Computable General Equibrium Models (CGE) were used to stimulate the impact of this agreement on exports and imports of partner companies. At the same time,