Krugman: No Big Deal

[ProSense]

No Big Deal

Everyone knows that the Obama administration’s domestic economic agenda is stalled in the face of scorched-earth opposition from Republicans. And that’s a bad thing: The U.S. economy would be in much better shape if Obama administration proposals like the American Jobs Act had become law.

It’s less well known that the administration’s international economic agenda is also stalled, for very different reasons. In particular, the centerpiece of that agenda — the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or T.P.P. — doesn’t seem to be making much progress, thanks to a combination of negotiating difficulties abroad and bipartisan skepticism at home.

And you know what? That’s O.K. It’s far from clear that the T.P.P. is a good idea. It’s even less clear that it’s something on which President Obama should be spending political capital. I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away.

<...>

There’s a lot of hype about T.P.P., from both supporters and opponents. Supporters like to talk about the fact that the countries at the negotiating table comprise around 40 percent of the world economy, which they imply means that the agreement would be hugely significant. But trade among these players is already fairly free, so the T.P.P. wouldn’t make that much difference.... opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html

[JHB]

1. The most relevant section, IMO:

So what I wonder is why the president is pushing the T.P.P. at all. The economic case is weak, at best, and his own party doesn’t like it. Why waste time and political capital on this project?

My guess is that we’re looking at a combination of Beltway conventional wisdom — Very Serious People always support entitlement cuts and trade deals — and officials caught in a 1990s time warp, still living in the days when New Democrats tried to prove that they weren’t old-style liberals by going all in for globalization. Whatever the motivations, however, the push for T.P.P. seems almost weirdly out of touch with both economic and political reality.

And we certainly see that split reflected here on DU.

[Armstead]

3. But,but,but.....President Obama is different.

How? Still waiting to figure that one out.

[Armstead]

2. A very weird column

I guess as a semi-reformed "free trade" agreement supporter, this is the clearest Krugman is likely to be in saying "This is a mistake."

[pampango]

5. He does not sound like a 'semi-reformed' "free trade" supporter. "I am in general a free trader."

I think he looks at the TPP as not being a "free trade" agreement. Many others here have made that case. Only a few of its chapters have anything to do with trade. It is primary about other things.

What he said was that "trade among these players is already fairly free, so the T.P.P. wouldn’t make that much difference". "The economic case is weak, at best, and his own party doesn’t like it. Why waste time and political capital on this project?"

That's where his conclusion that it is "no big deal" came from. He is suggesting that Obama should invest his time and political capital in other areas.

[Romulox]

8. His supporters believe him to be, but cannot point to any "reform". He was a NAFTA booster, too. nt

[pampango]

9. I am a Krugman supporter, but I don't see any sign of 'reform'. AFAIK, he has not claimed

to have 'reformed'. He just does not think that the TPP has much to do with 'free trade' and is not worth Obama spending political capital on.

[Romulox]

10. You're as far right on trade as any on this board. So your praise should be taken in context. nt

[pampango]

12. I consider it far left - consistent with trade policies in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.

But I realize that anyone you don't agree with is 'far right', so that's OK. The real far right folks - our tea party and the far right in Europe - hate trade, 'free trade', immigration, safety nets, progressive taxes, strong unions, etc.

[Armstead]

11. I always put "free trade" in quotation marks because of that

All too often they have not been agreements simply to set rules for trade, but overreach to encompass other aspects of life and national laws

[Laelth]

4. Mr. Krugman is spot on, as usual. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Populist_Prole]

6. "No big deal" as in: All the damage has already been done?

Is that what he's trying to say but isn't saying?

[Romulox]

7. Way to hedge your bets, Mr. Krugman.