Comments by "T WE" (@TWE_2000) on "Ian Bremmer: No, America Is Not Back. It Will Take Time | Quick Take | GZERO Media" video.
-
3
-
Generally speaking free trade is good so long as there isn't a deficit in the country's balance of payments (all transactions made between entities in one country and the rest of the world, includes the imports and exports of goods and services, investment, loans and interest gains).
While the US has a trade deficit it has a surplus in foreign investment, which leads to an overall balance of payments. So long as a country has a balance of payments it can get can goods from other countries for cheaper prices without an overall loss of money to other countries that would have otherwise stayed in the US. And since the goods and services being imported are purchased cheaper prices than they would have been if they were made domestically, consumers will have that extra cash available, which means overall a country will be wealthier/more-productive through free trade than if it didn't have free trade. This is still the case even if the free trade agreement results in certain workers in an industry becoming unemployed and never getting a job again (so long as there is a balance of payments). However if the country doesn't have some type of system that helps distribute the wealth, taking part of gains made from free trade to cover those who lost out to workers from other countries, then instead of everyone being a winner from free trade, only some people are winners of free trade (although it's still usually most people since we're all consumers). As I noted earlier, the US has a trade deficit but surplus in foreign investment. In terms of overall financial gains it doesn't really matter whether a country has a surplus in trade or investment so long as it has a balance of payments. But when it's a surplus in foreign investment (particularly in developed countries like the US) a lot of times that money goes to the wealthier income groups, while the trade deficit is usually more damaging to the lower income laborers. Because the US hasn't been too good at spreading the gains made from free trade, it has added to increased income inequality. But even for the average or lower income American, free trade is still usually beneficial because we're all consumers and most of us don't lose our jobs, while we still get cheaper goods.
The other issue with free trade is that it might lead to a being dependent on other countries for vital goods like pharmaceuticals or rare earth mineral, which had huge national security implications and can have dire consequences if the global supply chain breaks down, which is what has happened during he Covid-19 pandemic. But remember free trade can also mean diversifying where you get these components from, whereas before one nation might have been dependent on a sole country for vital goods like oil, pharmaceuticals, computer chips, etc, new free trade agreements can diversify where it gets these goods which would make the nation more secure.
My take is that since none of the countries in the TPP are enemies or threats to US like China, and since we're already trading heavily with China while competing with China (especially in East Asia) to prevent them from expanding their sphere of influence and ablility to bully other countries into siding with the CCP, it makes sense to join the TPP. And like I said most Americans as well as the country overall will benefit from the free trade. Although it would probably be a lot more attractive to most Americans if the government implemented programs that would take some of the gains made from the free trade agreement and used it to compensate those who lost out because of the TPP
2
-
1