President Trump has officially pulled the U.S. from the TPP and announced plans to renegotiate NAFTA, angering farmers. ICYMI, check out these top stories from Law Street below!

Trump Officially Pulls the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

President Donald Trump made good on one of his campaign promises on last week, signing an executive order to pull the U.S. from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The deal, a 12-nation free trade agreement molded by President Obama but never introduced to Congress, was a lightning rod for anti-trade rhetoric throughout the campaign.

What is the REINS Act?

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. The bill, which passed with a vote largely along party lines by 237-187, would require certain executive regulations to be approved by a joint session in Congress. Republicans see the bill as a necessary check on the executive branch, while Democrats dismiss it as a way to gut much-needed regulations.

Will Trump’s Opposition to NAFTA Lose Him the Support of Farmers?

President Donald Trump began his first week in office by announcing plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. The announcement itself is unsurprising. Trump railed against NAFTA throughout his campaign claiming it and other free trade agreements threatened American firms and workers. However, in fulfilling his campaign promise Trump runs the risk of alienating a support base that was particularly reliable during the election: farmers.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Trump’s first week, but the protests haven’t stopped quite yet. For example, actor Shia LaBeouf has launched a four-year-long livestream art project called “He Will Not Divide Us.” It involves a camera outside of New York’s Museum of the Moving Image and its first featured guest was Jaden Smith. Check it out here.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Team Hired Actors to Attend His First Campaign Speech

Way before President Donald Trump won the election, back when he publicly announced his candidacy in June 2015, his campaign team indirectly hired actors to be in the audience. Members of Trump’s team were accused of doing so at the time, but denied it—and they are right, in a sense. They didn’t hire the actors directly, but they worked with a contracting firm, which then subcontracted a talent agency to make sure that some actors came to cheer for the new candidate. A complaint that the American Democracy Legal Fund filed in March was made public last week and confirms the allegations. That organization supported Hillary Clinton and is alleging that Trump’s campaign team didn’t pay the agencies appropriately.

Trump hired a firm to provide actors to cheer during his 2015 campaign announcement then didn’t pay them for months https://t.co/7Ktaj6Jiec

— Liam Stack (@liamstack) January 22, 2017

A journalist from the Center for Public Integrity found that the Trump campaign also failed to pay the contracting firm until a month after the company had filed a complaint, and four months after it was originally hired. In the end, the Federal Election Commission ruled that the Trump campaign hadn’t done anything wrong. But if nothing else, it’s an embarrassing revelation for a team that only days ago claimed to have had the largest inauguration audience in history, despite photo and video evidence to the contrary.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump made good on one of his campaign promises on Monday, signing an executive order to pull the U.S. from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The deal, a 12-nation free trade agreement molded by President Obama but never introduced to Congress, was a lightning rod for anti-trade rhetoric throughout the campaign.

“We’ve been talking about this for a long time,” Trump said while signing the document to formally withdraw the U.S. from the pact. He added that his decision would be a “great thing for the American worker.”

Obama spent eight years pushing his signature trade achievement. Trump’s executive action dashes any chances of a U.S.-led free trade agreement in the Pacific region. It is also an abrupt change in Democratic and Republican orthodoxy, both of which prize global trade ties and U.S. leadership on the world stage. Trump is rebuking that decades-old mode of thinking.

During his Inaugural Address on Friday, Trump made his most recent promise to follow through on his “America first” ethos: “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs,” he said. “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.”

Dumping the TPP was not the only executive order Trump signed on Monday. He also froze federal hiring, excluding the military, and rolled back federal funding for non governmental organizations that work with organizations that perform abortions.

Up until the primary season, Obama, and many other lawmakers from both parties, thought the TPP would usher in a new era of U.S. economic leadership. The agreement featured some of the Pacific Rim’s largest economies, including Japan and Australia, and would have eliminated tariffs and provided a framework for solving trade disputes. It would have strengthened the fiscal ties of 12 countries that make up 40 percent of the world’s economy.

But then came Trump on the right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on the left. Both tapped into an anti-globalization fervor that was gripping parts of the country, forcing Hillary Clinton to take a similar stance on the issue. Clinton once called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade agreements, but as the anti-trade rhetoric gained traction, she switched her position.

Now that Trump is in the driver’s seat, U.S. trade policy, and perhaps its broader influence around the world, is set for a new course. Trump’s style of governing will be informed by two rules, he said in his Inaugural Address: “buy American and hire American.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Officially Pulls the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Who is Richard Spencer?

If you hate the fact that “alt-right” is a thing or are just plain confused as to why it is a thing you can blame this guy named Richard Spencer, I guess, who pretty much coined the term.

Spencer gave a chilling speech at a conference in Washington D.C.  last night. The conference was attended by alt-right writers and activists and was meant as a celebration of Donald Trump’s election and to proclaim the “awakening” of white identity.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Like most of America’s longstanding allies, Japan is probably concerned, or at least surprised, about what happened here on Tuesday night. Japan, which the U.S. occupied for a time after World War II, now depends on the U.S. for almost all of its security needs–including deterring a nuclear North Korea and an encroaching China. As world leaders seek the ear of Donald Trump to probe whether his campaign rhetoric will hold once he takes office, Japan bursted out of the gate. In a show of good faith, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held a 20-minute teleconference with Trump on Thursday and arranged to meet with him in New York next Thursday.

According to his deputy chief cabinet secretary, Abe told Trump that “a strong Japan-U.S. alliance is an indispensable presence that supports peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.” And though Abe embodies Japan’s version of the “political establishment” Trump railed against during his campaign, the prime minister bit his tongue and chose to pursue the amicable relationship Japan has enjoyed with the U.S. for decades: “America will be made even greater,” Abe told Trump.

President Obama has often signaled a “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific region throughout his presidency–seen with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a buildup of troops in the region, and engagement with its market, the largest in the world. Based off of Trump’s statements over the past few months, Obama’s Asia-Pacific vision and agenda could be upended by his successor.

“Of course they should pick up all the expense. Why are we paying for this?” Trump said, referring to the nearly 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan. He has blasted the TPP trade deal, which Japan’s lower house of Parliament passed on Thursday. Trump has also toyed with the idea of Japan and South Korea building up their own atomic arsenals, which would scale back the U.S.’s role in defending both countries against China and North Korea.

President Park Geun-hye of South Korea also called Trump on Thursday, and stressed the importance of the U.S.-South Korea alliance in pressuring its erratic northern neighbor. Trump assured her that he “agreed “100 percent,” according to a statement Park released after the phone call. “We are with you all the way, and we will not waver,” Trump said in a statement.

It’s the unknown of Trump, as well as the unprecedented campaign he ran, that spooks Japan and other traditional U.S. allies in the region. Some in Japan worry that even if Trump does not abandon Japan and Asia altogether, he could place the region much lower on his priority list than Obama, creating a void of influence that China could fill. Additionally, building up a nuclear arsenal in Japan might be difficult, if not impossible, because anti-nuclear sentiment runs rampant in pacifist Japan, which technically does not even have a military.

“We should be aware that the U.S. will pay less attention to Asia,” Nikkei Shimbun, a Japanese financial newspaper, wrote in an editorial Thursday. “During the transitional period, China could make a new move in the South or East China Sea. The Japanese government needs to be ready for such a situation.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Trump as President, What’s Next for Japan and the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

November 8 looms over America, and as the days tick away and the leaves turn brown, the nation’s focus is squarely on two people: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates had their time in the spotlight during Monday’s first of four debates (one will be between the two VP picks) leading up to November. At times on Monday, the two butted heads on issues from tax returns to Obama’s birthplace to the Iraq War. Here are the top five most contentious exchanges from Monday night:

Tax Returns and Deleted Emails

About 30 minutes in, Holt asked Trump about his tax returns. For a few bumbling, nearly nonsensical minutes, Trump pointed to an IRS audit as to why he has withheld his returns. He also said: “When Secretary Clinton releases her 33,000 deleted emails, I’ll release my tax returns.”

Clinton and Holt both prodded Trump–Holt said the IRS audit does not prevent Trump from releasing his tax returns–who continued to “bait and switch,” in the words of Clinton. The audience cheered at his admonishing of her private email server. For the next few minutes, Trump’s tax returns and Clinton’s deleted emails left the two red-faced and hoarse.

NAFTA: “The Worst Trade Deal Ever Negotiated”

At the beginning of the evening’s discussion, trade, a rising, contentious issue, cropped up. Trump thrashed NAFTA, the Atlantic trade pact supported by former President Bill Clinton, as “the worst trade deal ever negotiated.”

This is not a new stance, but the first direct discussion between Trump, who has spent the past months bashing trade deals as they currently stand, and Clinton, whose husband supported NAFTA and who herself has previously expressed support for trade deals such as TPP, on the trade issue. Things got heated fast: Trump trashed NAFTA as a job killer. Clinton defended it. Trump said she once called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade deals, which she did. Clinton said she said that before the deal took its final form.

Obama’s Birthplace

It’s an issue that hogged the headlines and the airwaves for the past few weeks: the “birther” claim. Trump finally admitted, to the nation, that Obama was in fact born in America. His admission followed years of rumor-mongering that Obama was born elsewhere. Many viewed it as a racist tactic meant to boost his political profile.

An hour or so into Monday’s debate, Holt brought up the issue. Trump deflected, birthing the birther issue to Clinton, whose campaign, he said, dispatched a reporter to Kenya to dig up details on Obama’s true birthplace in 2008. Clinton didn’t quite respond to that claim, instead drudging up the 1973 lawsuit against Trump and his racist rental policies. Trump of course defended them and said the lawsuit ended without an admission of guilt.

Iraq Vote

During an interview with Howard Stern in 2002, Trump, in response to a question about whether he supported the impending Iraq invasion, said: “Yeah, I guess so.” That, his critics say, amounts to explicit support of the invasion, even though his political career was 13 years from beginning at that time. Either way, his stance on the Iraq vote, and Clinton’s vote in support of it when she was Senator of New York, has been a contentious issue all year.

On Monday, Holt asked Trump about his Stern interview.

“That is mainstream media nonsense put out by her because the best person in her campaign is the mainstream media,” Trump said. He mentioned arguments he had at the time with Sean Hannity, who he said supported the Iraq War, while Trump did not. “The record shows otherwise,” Holt replied. Clinton stood by, smiling and nodding.

“Trumped Up, Trickle Down”

After Trump described pieces of his economic vision, which include tax cuts from 35 to 15 percent for “big businesses and middle businesses and small businesses,” Clinton called his plans “trumped up, trickle down.” It’s an extreme revival of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economic policy, Clinton said, using an oft-used pun with his surname to color that point.

When Clinton mentioned her “broad based,” approach to economic growth, Trump responded: “All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Our country is suffering.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Road to November: Top 5 Testiest Moments at the First Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: both issues have lingered in the media and on the minds of voters for the duration of this presidential campaign. These two controversial topics intersected recently, when the State Department announced that Clinton’s TPP related emails will not be ready for public release until late November, well after votes are in and a new president is elected.

TPP is a 12-nation trade deal involving partners from the Americas and Asia–Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia along with America and seven others–that is currently stalled in Congress, with friction coming from both sides of the aisle. The Obama Administration has been pushing hard for the deal. It’s also proved a contentious issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump–two men who often decry trade deals’ impact on the middle class American worker–have paraded the TPP as detrimental to those who have been hurt in the past by trade. Clinton’s history with TPP is a roller-coaster ride of support and opposition.

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton voiced support for the controversial trade bill on 45 separate occasions, at one point in 2012 saying: “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.”  But Clinton reversed course in October 2015, saying in an interview with PBS that she “did not work on TPP” and that she was “not in favor of what [she had] learned about it.” Analysts and opponents saw this as a forced move to the left in reaction to the rejection of the TPP by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the support that their positions drew from progressives.

At an event at The Brookings Institution–a think tank in Washington D.C.–last week, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and a Senior Brookings Fellow Robert Kagan discussed the tenets of the plan, its strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy, and how it has been used as a policy point by candidates.

“It’s unfortunate that in this campaign Clinton has had to come out against TPP because presumably she’s going to have to reverse herself on that and explain why,” Kagan said in front of a room of foreign business leaders.

Pritzker reiterated the trade deal’s strategic importance regarding American influence on the world economic stage. “It’s about whose going to set the rules of the road for trade in the 21^st century,” she said. “That means setting labor standards, setting environmental standards, ensuring access for e-commerce. It means protecting IP and trade secrets, or strengthening national security.”

Initially, the State Department said Clinton’s TPP related emails were going to be released–per a FOIA request from the International Business Times–in the spring. And although some of the emails have been released,  they do not provide a comprehensive picture regarding Clinton’s role in shaping the agreement, which is what IBT was originally after. Simple State Department requests require an average of 111 days to process. If completed by the last day of November, as the State Department claims, the duration of this request would span 489 days.

“In my opinion it is more incompetence than maliciousness, but either way, it is a gross error by FOIA processors to not get these documents out before the election,” said Nate Jones of the National Security Archive, a group that assists journalists in filing FOIA requests.

And on Monday, after news of the delay broke, the Donald Trump campaign predictably weighed in: “Hillary is 100 percent controlled by corporate interests, including foreign corporate interests, and it is essential these emails see the light of day.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State Department to Withhold Some Clinton Emails Until After Election appeared first on Law Street.

There is not a lot that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on in their current presidential campaigns, but one thing the two do seem to share is a general disdain for free trade. The notion of free trade has joined the lexicon of despised things in the United States right next to bank bailouts and tax breaks for the rich. The clearest evidence of this is all the candidates’ desperate efforts to move as far away as quickly as possible from free trade agreements like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But is this much ado about nothing? Is free trade really gutting the economy and costing millions of jobs as suggested? More to the point, what does free trade mean? Read on to learn more about what free trade is and to find out if it is really as bad for Americans as some argue.

What is Free Trade?

Free trade does not mean that goods are given to other countries for free. It’s the idea that, for the sake of economic efficiency, tariffs, quotas, and trade barriers should be lowered or removed altogether, which economists argue will make goods cheaper for consumers. The process is aimed at improving efficiency by focusing on what is known as a country’s comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is the idea that a country should produce and export goods that it can make better, faster, and cheaper than other countries. By removing barriers to trade, two countries are left to compete with each other on their natural footing and whichever country can produce a good most efficiently has a comparative advantage for that good.

Comparative advantage is essential to free trade and is generally why economists like the concept of trade in general. Without barriers to trade, countries begin to specialize in products that they have a comparative advantage to produce, which ensures that all goods are made as efficiently as possible and lowering prices for everyone. The video below clarifies further what free trade is:

Globalization and Free Trade

Globalization and free trade are often seen as synonymous, but the two are not quite the same thing. According to the World Bank, “‘Globalization’ refers to the growing interdependence of countries resulting from the increasing integration of trade, finance, people, and ideas in one global marketplace.” Put simply, it’s the increasing inter-connectedness of every country and person on the planet.

Free trade, on the other hand, is a major driver in making globalization happen. By eliminating things such as tariffs and quotas, countries are encouraging exchange and, as a result, more people are coming into contact with each other and new connections are being made, further integrating the global system. Free trade, then, is just one part of the larger globalization puzzle.

History of Free Trade

Globally

While the constant battle over free trade seems to be an American issue, this is certainly not the case. While earlier theorists may have touched on its concepts, it was Adam Smith who first articulated the concept of free trade in his book “The Wealth of Nations” back in 1776. David Ricardo later introduced the concept of comparative advantage in 1812. The idea of free trade was rapidly adopted by economists after that as the preferred method of economic interaction. It was also embraced by the British Empire who, as the world’s dominant power for over a century, used its power to spread free trade internationally. Today, there are several free trade blocs across the world most notably the European Union as well as Canada, Mexico, and the United States, all of which are part of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Domestically

Free trade, while not an America invention, does have a long history in the United States. However, for much of that history, the inclination was to resist it. In fact, from the inception of the United States, economic leaders such as Alexander Hamilton advocated for protective tariffs to help the nascent nation’s industry grow, instead of promoting free trade. This movement continued with the number of goods and the size of tariffs fluctuating over time.

Beginning in the early 20th century, a series of events played a major role in altering this narrative. In 1913 the United States government adopted the federal income tax, which became the country’s new largest source of income, supplanting the money made from trade tariffs. With the new guaranteed revenue stream, the government could change tariff rates without fear of forgoing necessary income.

The second major event was the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. This tariff was unique because it united industries like agriculture and manufacturing around one policy. It was also unique in the sheer amount of opposition that it faced. The debate following the tariff was whether it directly caused the Great Depression or just intensified it. While common wisdom now points to the latter, the tariff reduced trade and produced reactive tariffs from other nations during the worst period of economic contraction in U.S. history.

The tariff quickly became unpopular and was a major issue during the 1932 presidential campaign when Franklin Roosevelt ran on a platform opposing it. Once elected, Roosevelt made good on his promise, virtually eliminating the effects of the tariff by 1934 through a number of laws such as the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Roosevelt and his advisors had their eyes on a post-war future in which free trade would be the dominant philosophy at last.

Following WWII, the United States finally adopted its free trade stance. The United States was under pressure to support free trade because many other nations were desperate following the war and wanted greater access to U.S. markets. This move was codified by the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1948. This organization later transformed into its current iteration, the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. While the United States did not embrace free trade for much of its history, it was already benefitting from the concept. This is because the United States was such a large market itself that trade between states was a lot like free trade enjoyed by countries in places like Europe.

Trade Agreements

NAFTA

NAFTA or the North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States that took effect in 1994. Unlike other free trade agreements, this did more than eliminate tariffs and quotas, it effectively synced the policies of the three nations. It was also notable because of the economic differences between the three countries. NAFTA faced a lot of criticism because it sought to create uniform trade laws among the three countries involved. As a result, countries ended up changing their laws to meet the agreement’s requirements even if the same policies had been rejected at a local level in the past.

Namely, while treaties are supposed to require a two-thirds majority to pass in the Senate, according to the Treaty Clause, NAFTA received only a simple majority–more than 50 votes–and was still able to be signed into law. The question at hand was whether NAFTA was a treaty or an international agreement, which would not require a two-thirds majority in the Senate. As a result, NAFTA it was challenged in court but the case was eventually dismissed. The constitutionality of NAFTA was also challenged for its binational trading panels, which review the enforcement of U.S. trade laws and could even override such enforcement.

TPP

The TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership is another free trade agreement like NAFTA but on a much larger scale. In this case, the deal includes 12 countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, notably excluding China. This deal again has many of the traditional criticisms and promises. Unlike NAFTA, however, the TPP has not yet been approved by Congress and may face significant opposition given the current backlash toward free trade.

Read more on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its potential impact on intellectual property rights.

The accompanying video looks at free trade and free trade agreements following the switch in focus to free trade following WWII:

Criticisms of Free Trade

While free trade has been lauded in the past by economists, politicians, the media, and corporations, it has also drawn a lot of criticism. Most of these criticisms center specifically on its effects–namely that while free trade promises to be the rising tide that raises all boats, opponents claim that it actually does the opposite. First, by reducing tariffs and other protective measures a country is not only eliminating its own trade barriers but is doing the same thing for another country. If the two countries were operating on equal footing this would not be a problem, however, that is generally not the case.

In the case of a developed nation, like the United States, it has the economies of scale to put less efficient, smaller operations out of business. This is what happened in Mexico as large American agricultural companies started competing with small Mexican farmers, forcing them from their livelihoods and leading, in part, to their migration to the United States. Conversely, in countries where workers’ rights and environmental regulations are less developed these too can be exploited. In these countries, companies can lower the cost of production and undercut advanced nations with stronger regulations and higher standards.

In this sense then, the notion of comparative advantage is turned on its head. Instead of rewarding the best producer it can reward the cheapest or the least concise. This problem alone would be bad enough, but the critique continues. During this process of racing to the bottom, free trade has eliminated jobs in wealthier countries that pay more and created them in less advanced nations that pay less. Unfortunately, these newly employed workers are not wealthy enough to buy more goods and the now unemployed workers in the developed country are also buying less. According to critics, instead of creating a mutually beneficial society, free trade has brought about reductions in trade.

A major issue is that comparative advantage is supposed to move laborers from unproductive endeavors to more useful ones. But instead of seeing their efforts refocused in a more prosperous industry, workers in developed countries typically have to find jobs in different sectors of the economy. In countries like the United States, many factory workers have lost their jobs due to international competition. But instead of getting a different factory job they tend to move to the services industry, which typically involves lower wages.

There is some empirical support for these criticisms as well, with workers in the United States seeing a loss of manufacturing jobs since their height in the 1970s, rising trade deficits despite free trade, and low or negative wage growth. The question then is why would anyone support a concept that hurts the American worker while rewarding countries with loose regulations and low wages? The answer and the primary culprits in the criticism of free trade are the people who run multi-national corporations. According to the critics of free trade, the process naturally benefits these people as it allows companies to cut costs by paying its workers less while facing fewer regulations. The following video details some of the effects of free trade:

Despite all of its criticism and shortcomings, free trade is not all bad. The concept of competitive advantage increases the efficiency in the global economy. Aside from that, free trade offers a number of other potential benefits including reduced inflation, economic growth, greater innovation, increased competition, and greater fairness. Proponents of free trade also argue that turning to protectionism now won’t really solve the problem and may even be impossible. Finally, although manufacturing jobs have left the United States, many of those who gain jobs in other countries have been lifted out of extreme poverty.

Conclusion

Throughout U.S. history, Americans have grappled with whether protectionism or free trade is in their best interest. While free trade means more markets it also means greater competition, especially from places where things such as workers’ rights and environmental concerns are less prevalent. And it means doing away with protections that may very well have helped the nation develop and become a dominant world power.

However, trade policies, like anything else, move in waves. For the majority of the nation’s history, this wave has crested with protectionism on top. In fact, it took the greatest depression and largest war in the history to finally create a global system that favored free trade. While the Bretton Woods agreement and other deals such as NAFTA or TPP have continued, free trade policies have never been universally accepted. In an election where it seems like voters and candidates can hardly agree on anything across party lines, the current backlash against free trade may bring people together for at least a brief moment.

Resources

WBUR: Free Trade Fact-Check: NAFT Becomes Campaign Issue

Common Dreams: What’s The Problem With ‘Free Trade’

Foundation for Economic Education: Free Trade History and Perception

World Bank: Globalization and International Trade

CATO Institute: The Truth about Trade in History

The Fiscal Times: Free Trade vs. Protectionism: Why History Matters

The Economist: The Battle of Smoot-Hawley

BBC News: A century of free trade

Public Citizen: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

BBC News: TPP: What is it and why does it matter?

Reference for Business: Free Trade Agreements and Trading Blocs

Law Street Media: What’s Going on With The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Law Street Media: Trans-Pacific Partnership: Why is the IP Rights Chapter Receiving So Much Criticism?

Los Angeles Times: Court Rejects Challenge to Constitutionality of NAFTA

PR Newswire: Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Reinforces Doubts About Constitutionality of NAFTA Chapter 19 Panel System

Mercatus Center: The Benefits of Free Trade: Addressing Key Myths

“

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Costs (and Benefits) of Free Trade appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been about a month since the Obama administration publicly announced that the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were completed, and just last week the full text of the agreement was released to the public. It will be the largest free-trade agreement in history, including 12 counties and roughly 40 percent of the global economy.

The umbrella agreement writes universal rules and standards for trade markets around the Pacific. Although all the countries involved still need to ratify the agreement, the release is an important step in that direction. In the United States, President Obama is now in the midst of securing Congressional consent, despite heavy criticism. This will likely be an uphill battle that comes down to one basic question: will the TPP benefit the U.S. economy and global markets? While the text of the 30-chapter deal was only recently made public, trade groups and labor unions are already entrenched in their support or opposition for the deal, which will become even more contentious in the coming months.

An Overview of the TPP

Who is involved?

In total, there are 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, namely the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand. Indonesia may also join in the future.

Why does the United States support the TPP?

According to the White House, the TPP will establish American leadership and influence in the Pacific. President Obama strongly supports the deal because he believes that it will strengthen the U.S. economy and national security. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the deal is meant further U.S. interests and create an equal playing field for everyone “by requiring other countries to play by fair wage, safe workplace, and strong environmental rules that we help set.” The TPP will also cut over 18,000 taxes that countries have on American goods and services, which may help American companies gain additional access to global markets.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is intended to make the United States highly competitive in the Pacific while prioritizing American interests and values. According to the White House, the TPP does this by eliminating preferential treatment of state-owned enterprises over American businesses, protecting trade secrets, ensuring open internet access, and creating fair markets between the United States and foreign countries.

What’s Covered by the TPP?

In short, almost everything. The pact will affect 12 countries and over 40 percent of the world’s economy and a massive amount of goods and services. For example, tariffs will be removed on textiles and clothing and potentially eliminated for carmakers. Tariffs on American cars are as high as 70 percent in Vietnam, making their removal a major win for the U.S. auto industry. Currently, American poultry is taxed up to 40 percent in some countries and soybeans are taxed as highly as 35 percent. Other foods that may be affected include dairy, sugar, wine, rice, and seafood. Major food-exporting countries like New Zealand and Australia stand to benefit from the removal of these barriers.

Removing tariffs is not the only potential consequence of the TPP; there are also notable, but controversial, patent protection provisions. The TPP would allow pharmaceutical companies eight years of protection on new biotech drugs. Doing so ensures that pharmaceutical companies can profit from new groundbreaking drugs, but may also keep prices high as competitors have to wait longer to make generic versions. The TPP intends to removal global internet barriers as well. For example, Google will be able to sell products in foreign markets that are currently restricted. The intended reduction of global roaming charges could cause an increase in competition among Telecom heavyweights. For more information on the intellectual property implications of the TPP check out Sam Whitsell’s issues brief explainer.

The TPP also creates new labor standards for all countries involved. Each country must adhere to the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The TPP protects unions, prohibits child labor and forced labor, and standardizes minimum wage and work hours, along with a variety of other protections. The agreement also strengthens international environmental standards with new resource protections. The White House argues that these provisions will “level the playing field” between the United States and the other countries and President Obama has also called it the “most progressive trade deal in history.”

Where is China?

It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, right? One could reasonably think that China’s massive economy would be involved–China is the largest exporter and second largest importer in the world. But China has, so far, not played a role in the negotiations and has no plans to join the agreement.

In fact, the White House argues that, “with the TPP, we can rewrite the rules of trade to benefit America’s middle class. Because if we don’t, competitors who don’t share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void.” The TPP specifically attempts to work around what some perceive to be obstructionism from China. Despite being part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has made free trade agreements more challenging to develop. The TPP ultimately allows for Chinese inclusion, but isn’t designed to “Chinese specifications” and cannot be vetoed by China. The agreement seeks to spread Western values to many of China’s important trading partners.

Some believe sidelining China is a mistake, even if the United States is trying to limit China’s control. Felipe Caro and Christopher Tang, business professors at UCLA, argue that the idea that China can be locked out of the agreement is naive, as China is the world’s leading trading nation. China has loaned money to and indebted a variety of countries, in an effort to spread its influence abroad. As of the end of 2014, China gave Bangladesh $3.8 billion and Pakistan $17.8 billion, which illustrates the power and influence that China has in many developing nations. Furthermore, China is aiming to create the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an international bank that according to Caro and Tang “would help finance infrastructure projects across the Asia Pacific.” They further note that the bank has the support of “47 regional and 20 non­regional members, including TPP nations, such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.”

China also has pre-established trade agreements with a number of TPP members. This could severely hinder the efficiency of the TPP in practice. China has a lot of leverage at its disposal and leaving China out of the negotiations may have unforeseen consequences.

TPP Lingo

While Congress has not yet decided on the Trans-Partnership itself, there have been a number of votes on related issues. Before we get into those, let’s go over some of the acronyms that get thrown around in discussions of the TPP.

The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP): A separate trade deal that the United States is negotiating with the European Union. According to the U.S. Trade Representative:

T-TIP will help unlock opportunity for American families, workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers through increased access to European markets for Made-in-America goods and services. This will help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.

This agreement is related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership in that it will also utilize the Trade Promotion Authority that was recently passed by Congress–which brings us to our next definition.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): This simply means that Congress cannot amend or filibuster the TPP or TTIP. Congress must vote on each trade deal exactly as it is–yes or no. Trade Promotion Authority is what many refer to as the “fast track” method. It authorizes the president to formalize trade agreements with countries abroad, limiting Congress to simply voting to approve an agreement. In terms of Congressional oversite, TPA will give members of Congress access to read the negotiating text, receive briefings on negotiations, have time to review the deal, and outline objectives for the U.S. Trade Representative.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): Initially created in the Trade Act of 1974, it offers compensation to workers and companies hurt by trade agreements, along with job search and training assistance. According to GovTrack, the current TAA would give states more control over job assistance and reduce healthcare costs to workers affected by the TPP. Historically, trade assistance has always been associated with Trade Promotion Authority because it appeases Democrats, who worry about the effect of trade agreements on blue collar workers. Although TAA initially failed in Congress after it was separated from TPA, it was eventually included in the Trade Preferences Extension Act, which passed several days later.

Criticism of the TPP

There are many TPP supporters who believe that the agreement will stimulate economic growth in all countries involved. President Obama wrote in a press release that “if we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win.” However, there are many loud critics of the partnership in the United States.

A major fear is that American jobs will be shipped overseas to developing countries. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the TPP’s predecessor, remains controversial in the United States. Although some claim NAFTA boosted small to medium sized American businesses, others argued that the agreement resulted in the loss of thousands of domestic jobs to foreign countries. Free trade agreements inspire competition between international labor forces, which can cause jobs to move to where businesses can save money. For example, with increased integration under the TPP, the American labor force could be forced to compete with workers in Vietnam where the hourly wage is $2.75 and labor laws are less strict.

Others also argue that the politics of other nations involved are equally delicate. For example, Australia has a major problem with the TPP’s potential consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, as it will extend the length of patents for drug companies. Critics claim that these extensions will result in decreased competition, leading to inflated prices for name brand drugs. Poorer countries could have even less access to life-saving medicines due to the influence of intellectual property protections on drug prices.

It is also interesting to note that Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, a former supporter of the TPP as Secretary of State, recently came out against the deal after having supported it in the earlier stages of negotiations. When asked about her stance on the deal in the Democratic debate, Clinton responded:

It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not.

She expanded on her position in an interview with PBS.

It seems that Democrats and Republicans alike have doubts on this agreement, despite its aggressive backing from the White House.

Conclusion

Although the text of the deal was only released recently, the fight behind it has become particularly heated over the past several months. As politicians, trade and labor groups, and the public continue to review the text it is likely that it will become even more controversial in the coming weeks. Congress will soon have to vote on the deal, which could have wide-ranging implications for the United States and other members of the protocol.

Resources

Primary

Medium: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: How the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Boosts Made in America Exports, Supports Higher-Paying American Jobs, and Protects American Workers

The White House: Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Additional

BBC: TPP Trade Deal: Who are the Winners and Losers?

CNN Money: Why Everyone Hates Obama’s Signature Trade Deal

Fortune: Leaving China out of the TPP is a Terrible Mistake

The Atlantic: Why Americans Are Turning Against Free Trade

BBC: TPP: What is it and Why Does it matter?

Gov Track: How Congress Voted on Trade?

Politifact: What Hillary Clinton Really Said About TPP and the ‘Gold Standard’

USTR: Strategic Importance of the TPP

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on With the Trans-Pacific Partnership? appeared first on Law Street.

Since Wikileaks released an early draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive international free trade agreement, many groups have raised concerns about its potentially negative consequences, particularly when it comes to intellectual property. Most of the concern has focused on the potential expansion of copyright protections for pharmaceutical companies as well as the potential for stricter punishment for copyright infringement. A wide coalition of groups has since come out against the deal, including free internet groups, medical professionals, Youtubers, video game modders, and journalists.

The agreement involves 12 Pacific Rim nations (Canada, United States, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore) which combine to make up about 36 percent of the global economy in terms of GDP. The objective was to lower trade barriers and access to goods in all countries involved, as well as to present a strong economic front against China.

Critics of the Intellectual Property (IP) Rights chapter see dangers to fair use of copyrighted works, corporate watchdogs, whistleblowers, and patients dependent on drug treatments. The new opponents to the TPP provide a contrast to the traditional opposition found in political and labor circles in the United States. Even Wikileaks founder Julian Assange criticized the IP chapter saying, “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs”

Political Objections to the TPP in the United States

In the United States, presidential candidates in both the Republican and Democratic parties have come out against the TPP deal signed by President Obama. Both primary front-runners Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have spoken publicly against the TPP in the wake of its finalization. Despite the president’s signature, the bill still needs to pass Congress with a straight up-or-down vote. Congress voted away its right to amend the bill when it passed the TPP Fast Track Bill in June. Once they receive the document, members of Congress will have 90 days to read, debate, and ratify the treaty. According to the bill, the text of the agreement is to be made public within 30 days of the president’s decision to sign it.

Notable progressive figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have a long history of protesting the TPP. Skeptics on the right claim that the treaty doesn’t do enough to reign in other countries’ use of tools like currency manipulation, which can give domestic businesses an advantageous playing field. Skeptics on the left point to the perceived failure of past trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and their consequences for American labor. People on both sides have also criticized the shroud of secrecy that has gone along with the negotiations.

Senator Sanders cited former trade agreements and the loss of American jobs as a result of the agreements. He also questioned whether any company would invest in the United States when they can freely go abroad to countries that allow for lower wages. He claims that the primary supporters of the agreement are large, multinational corporations and the primary victims of the deal will be American workers.

Those defending the TPP claim that the lowering of trade barriers will allow American companies to sell more of their products abroad, increase revenue, and provide for more jobs. President Obama argues that the deal will lead to the elimination of approximately 18,000 customs taxes from American goods.

The IP Rights chapter is designed to protect companies that invest in innovative products, treatments, and services and promote innovation. For countries like the United States and Japan, whose economies focus on technology and innovation, it is important to expand intellectual property rights internationally to maintain the competitiveness of domestic companies.

The TPP is also generally seen as President Obama’s attempt to level the playing field in the Pacific with China. While critics point out that China isn’t even involved in the deal, the TPP was intentionally left open-ended, which would allow it to join in the future.

Medical Objections to TPP

Doctors Without Borders voiced concern over the IP Rights chapter of the TPP, particularly when it comes to drug patents. The United States and numerous pharmaceutical corporations spent the negotiations attempting to export the current U.S. model, which allows for 12 years of data protection. For the most part, other signatories of the TPP resisted lengthy protections, but the most recent draft includes a five-year protection (Article QQ.E.16). Skeptics argue that this as a direct attack on the generic drug market and an attempt to limit competition, which could prevent other companies from potentially driving the cost of a drug down.

There is also debate over whether patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry actually promotes research and development or hampers it. Supporters of the trade deal say that these protections will ensure companies view such investments as less risky from a financial standpoint, as they provide a guaranteed period to make a profit on groundbreaking drugs. Critics suggest that the regulations will make it more difficult for scientists to build on the work of others and could stifle the exchange of information.

It is important to note that it often costs drug companies hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug to the market. A controversial example of this is a hepatitis C drug that cost $500 million in private investment to get to market, in addition to publicly funded university research. That drug sells for $84,000 but only costs between $70 to $140 to produce.

Internet/Content Creator Objections to TPP

The IP Rights chapter also led to concerns among people whose internet habits are based around the United States copyright doctrine of Fair Use. In short, Fair Use is the concept that a copyrighted work may be copied and used in a transformative way for the purposes of comment, teaching, scholarship, or research without being in violation of copyright. While the TPP does encourage member nations to promote Fair Use-like protections for journalists, parody writers, and consumers, these protections are not mandated (Article QQ.C.4). Additionally, the TPP includes provisions that would criminalize the act of piracy or the divulging of trade secrets with fines and jail time.

These provisions have groups ranging from journalists to amateur manga writers concerned over the TPP. While there isn’t as much concern in the United States regarding fair use, there is the question of how violations of copyright and trade secrets would play out if an international corporation is involved. Gamers also fear that the provisions in the TPP could make game modding effectively a criminal offense, as software would fall under the category of “trade secrets.”

However, these fears seem somewhat unfounded given Australian Trade and Investment Minister Andrew Robb’s assurance that his country would only support the provisions that are consistent with the existing government. It seems unlikely that the TPP will force the wholesale change of member states’ copyright laws to the extent feared.

Views from Around the World

Canada

The recent election in Canada shed some light on where the country currently stands on the TPP. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper viewed the deal as crucial, particularly for Canada’s auto industry. Current Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau’s main point of contention with the TPP is the secret nature of the negotiations. He hasn’t committed to approving or rejecting the agreement until he’s carefully evaluated the deal.

The TPP’s predicted beneficiaries in Canada are its agriculture industry and its consumers of foreign imports, particularly from Japan, as many tariffs will be removed over the next five years. Most of the deal’s partners view Japan as a major potential marketplace for agricultural products.

Australia

A major part of the TPP for Australians was the assurance that they wouldn’t be subject to additional penalties for online piracy. As stated above, it appears unlikely that the current Australian government will alter its piracy and copyright laws to criminalize offenses critics fear. However, the language in the IP Rights chapter still has some alarmed with the potential damages that film and television companies could seek for illegal downloads of their products.

New Zealand

Medical professionals in New Zealand responded to the leaked IP Rights chapter with concern over rising prices of pharmaceuticals and the installation of potential patent extensions. Potential cost increases could place a heavy burden on the country’s healthcare system and cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars. Currently, New Zealand has strong price protections for drugs in order to prevent high costs for consumers, but the agreement could lead to a challenge of those protections. The country’s prime minister acknowledged that under the TPP, drug prices will likely go up due to its data protections, but he argued that those costs would not significantly affect consumers.

Japan

The primary concern for Japan is how the TPP will impact the state of its agriculture industry. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe argues that the agreement will allow Japan to boost its agricultural production, despite Japan having to increase its annual imports of tariff-free goods from TPP members. Japan’s large corporations are also expected to benefit significantly from the agreement, perhaps most notably auto manufacturers who will benefit from new markets.

Conclusion

For now, the debate regarding the TPP will rage on in all 12 of the countries that hashed it out over the last five years. In the United States, the deal faces significant opposition from both parties, notably the Democratic party, as well as support from many Republicans and large corporations. Across the Pacific Rim, doctors and healthcare agents have raised concerns over the language found in the IP Rights chapter and are warning of rising costs in the drug market.

Journalists and other professionals who are dependent upon Fair Use view the punishments allowed for in the TPP for divulging trade secrets and copyright infringement as deterrents to doing their jobs. Concerns have even been raised in the gaming community, who feel threatened by the expansion of copyright protection internationally.

Given the language of the document and the assurances of political leaders across the Pacific Rim, it seems unlikely all of these fears will come to pass. However, the detractors also have reason for concern as international copyright laws will likely face some change.

Resources

Primary

Wikileaks: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter

Additional

Politico: Leaked: What’s in Obama’s Trade Deal

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

Office of the United States Trade Representative: Trans-Pacific Partnership: Summary of U.S. Objectives

Doctors Without Borders: Statement by MSF on the Conclusion of TPP Negotiations in Atlanta

NY Times: Trans-Pacific Partnership is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress

News.com.au: Wikileaks Releases TPP Agreement Which Gives More Rights to Film Studios over Copyright

The Sydney Morning Herald: No New Penalties for Australian Internet Pirates under Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Globe and Mail: The ABCs of TPP

The New Zealand Herald: Dr. Joshua Freeman: Free Trade Deal Sold us a Monopoly

The Japan Times: Too Early for TPP Cheers

Kotaku: Japanese Fan Comics Could Die Under New Trade Deal

BBC News: Trans-Pacific Partnership: What is it and What Does it Mean?

Senator Elizabeth Warren: Trade Deal Should be Public Before Congress Votes on Fast Track

Bernie Sanders: Sanders to Senate: No on TPP

UpTakeVideo: Obama Pitches Trans-Pacific Partnership to American People

Tarmack: The TPP Effect on the Video Game Industry

RT America: Sanders, Trump Lead Charge Against TPP

PBS NewsHour: Hilary Clinton says she doesn’t support Trans-Pacific Partnership

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trans-Pacific Partnership: Why is the IP Rights Chapter Receiving So Much Criticism? appeared first on Law Street.