CreateDebate


Debate Info

117
73
I'm for TPP I'm against TPP
Debate Score:190
Arguments:106
Total Votes:204
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I'm for TPP (49)
 
 I'm against TPP (33)

Debate Creator

Thames(131) pic



The Trans Pacific Partnership

The Trans Pacific Partnership was a punching bag for everyone in the 2016 campaigns. Yet before this both Bush and Obama were for it. After five years of work it was passed. After a few months of campaigning, it was killed. Let's have a postmortem and dissect this debate one last time.

NOTE: I am a teacher and I made this debate for my students. If you are not my student, welcome! Please keep in mind that this is their first conversation about this topic and they barely care about it. They are smart, good people who do not deserve your guile. If you are thoughtful and/or well informed please join me in trying to introduce them to this great conversation. Oh, and listen in on soundcloud. Search for "HThames" to find the class podcast. This is AP Comparative Government.....


Grading: 

Your first statement will be evaluated on the quality of the claim and that you referenced a credible source.

After submitting your opening claim I will look for an honest give and take between you and another debater. The numbers of comments and length are indicators, but not absolute markers of a good job. The point is for you to have a thoughtful argument using sources. If you do this, you will do "enough" for a good grade.

I'm for TPP

Side Score: 117
VS.

I'm against TPP

Side Score: 73
8 points

Let's get one thing straight up top. I'm a moderate and an independent. What I support is whatever works, what makes sense, what gets results, etc.

With that said, I'm not certain the TPP was either good OR bad. In trades there's usually someone somewhere who gets the shorter end of the stick. Trump's opposition to most pre-existing business deals is based on whether he or his side is getting as much as they think they should get. Obviously TPP didn't work for him.

But, it's trade. No matter what, it's still trade. And as someone who values the free market and capitalism I'd rather see some trade then no trade, and more trade than less trade. And most likely by killing this deal the President has shut off agriculture from markets it really needs in Asia, which will be very bad for that heartland of red states which voted for him thinking he was going to be their salvation.

The remaining question is what sort of trade is Trump going to put in it's place. and tied to that, will the nations who already made deals with each other even want to bother to fit us in somehow now that our President has insulted them and tossed out an agreement years in the making? Probably not.

Trump wants to make America great again. Well then we all better start buying and eating TONS of our own bread.

Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
4 points

I appreciate your argument as a whole and that you are not ideological. I'm caught up on your point that our farmers need Asian markets. Don't they need U.S. government subsidies that the TPP would end? And wouldn't the lifting of subsidies (I'm thinking of corn) open the corn belt to lower international prices, leading to--at best--a regional economic crisis and a national one at worst?

From Farm Aid's website:

"And far too often, our rural communities have paid a hefty price as trade policies undermined supply control and price support policies that had for decades kept prices stable for family farmers."

Supporting Evidence: Farm Aid on TPP (www.farmaid.org)
Side: I'm for TPP
Grenache(6103) Clarified
3 points

Great questions. And to be honest, I'm just not sure. Pasted below under Outlaw's response I added some links, but the truth is it's so hard to know which published information is right anymore that I'm really not sure.

I'm trying though. I don't think either of us are following gut reactions or hunches or simply the story lines of politics.

Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
3 points

One thought on Farm Aid point about removing subsidies hurting "family farmer": only 2% of US workers are in agriculture sector and those are dominated by corporate (and international) agribusinesses, not farms....Much sympathy may dissipate when we imagine agribusiness rather than "family farm" subsidies being curtailed....

Side: I'm for TPP
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
3 points

Do you truly know what was in the TPP ? Never was explained to the American people so if you have some knowledge on it feel free to explain !

Side: I'm against TPP
Grenache(6103) Clarified
3 points
Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
3 points

What I understand is pretty undramatic and sounds good--improving environmental and labor standards, which would raise standards closer to the U.S.'s. It also promotes access to and competition among telecommunications providers. Doesn't seem like a conspiracy against the working class.....

But if it is pernicious it's harm would lie in those parts (and there are many) that I don't understand fully. In the end, it's a technical deal that took five years to come to. That gets me to the point of having to trust a news source--essentially I need someone to read it for me. I have used the Council of Foreign Relations and the Economist as touchstones and I haven't been disappointed by their analysis which usually stays relevant years after a topic became "news" or a political distortion of a complicated matter. Both of those say it is a mistake to scrap it....

Supporting Evidence: Full Text of TPP (www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz)
Side: I'm for TPP
6 points

It is important to remember why the TPP would be beneficial in the long run. While many argue against this trade deal, there are several reasons why a deal like this would work.

1.) It is beneficial to the economy of not only the United States, but also to the economies of the other 11 member countries. The U.S. exported more than $622 billion in goods in 2013 -- about $2 billion every day -- to TPP member countries, according to the U.S. trade office. Because we live in such a globalized and competitive world, price disagreements caused by tariffs can make U.S. products less affordable in other contries. For instance, Vietnam puts a 27% tariff on automotive parts manufactured in the United States. Malaysia adds a 40% tariff on U.S. poultry. Protectionism isn't a new subject to the United States. Mainstream economic analyses by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all countries that signed into the TPP. The TPP would decrease tariffs, over the course of several years, creating a more level playing field among countries that are already trading with each other. Former President Obama was accurate in his statement, "When more than 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can't let countries like China write the rules of the global economy. We should write those rules."

2.) The TPP does have standards. It isn't without rules. The TPP comes with very strict guidelines on environmental and labor standards. It addresses things such as overfishing and illegal logging. It also seeks to limit the trafficking of endangered species. The TPP also provides forums for citizens to point out how their own countries are falling short of their environmental commitments. TPP also requires that member countries institute minimum wages, allow workers to form unions, and adhere to the labor rights specified by the International Labor Organization.

3.) The TPP is a means to achieve a geopolitical vision, to rebalance America's priorities and increase its influence in Asia. For instance, the TPP draws closer two allies, Japan and the United States. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has claimed the plan would aid his Abenomics growth plan, and the agreement may even boost Japan's GDP by more than 2 percent, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In contrast, China is conspicuously absent from the agreement. The TPP creates a sizeable counterweight to China's economic influence in the region. There is hope that one day China may even join the TPP, wanting to access better trade terms with countries with which it is already trading.

All in all, the TPP would benefit the economies of other nations, including the U.S., and it creates high standards that would be beneficial to the member nations.

Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
3 points

1. I like that you make your focus on the long run and "net" results. This automatically qualifies (puts limits on them and places them in a context) your points.

Not a criticism, more of a backhanded complement. Limit #'s and references when "talking to people." Choose your faves and use the link option/footnotes.

Great use of quotes.

2. clear. I'd like to know more about those forums.

3. If you were to form this into an essay, this section--the big picture, with #2)--would make a great intro. For the body, the content of #1 would do well with an expansion.

Side: I'm for TPP
4 points

TPP is good for not only America, but every country involved. TPP would cause our annual income to increase and GDP to increase. Globalization needs to happen in this world today.

First, TPP would eliminate close to 18,000 tariffs making our exports less costly therefore letting us compete with other nations more. Also, the trade deal would allow us to change with times more than we have, the world is constantly changing and we need to keep up with the world around us to keep moving forward. By knocking down the barrier, the US could compete with the ever-growing Asia-Pacific region. TPP also allows not only the free trade of goods, but with those goods comes ideas. We, as the US, could get our ideas out to the world in an easier and more acceptable manner than now. Furthermore, the trade agreement would foster peace between nations we have been historically hostile with, more specifically Japan and Vietnam. Exports account for 13 percent of our GDP, and doing this deal would greatly increase the amount of goods we export causing a growth in GDP. Lastly, the TPP deal would cause pay increases in the export market. Some say exporting job pay could increase as much as 18 percent.

Now I am not saying this is a perfect and flawless deal by no means. With this amount of powerful countries, there is going to be error and conflict, but the thought of forming a powerful union with 12 countries is too much to pass up. The good of this deal greatly outweighs the bad as we see an increase in our income. We do not need to be a standalone islationist of a country. Trading with other countries fosters growth not only for the US, but the world as a whole.

Supporting Evidence: why TPP is good for the US (www.washingtonpost.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
2 points

Also, the trade deal would allow us to change with times more than we have, the world is constantly changing and we need to keep up with the world around us to keep moving forward. ---------------------a good place to make the case for "globalization" and make your statements more direct.

Furthermore, the trade agreement would foster peace between nations we have been historically hostile with, more specifically Japan and Vietnam. _-----------------------------Aren't these "hostilities" old??

Exports account for 13 percent of our GDP, and doing this deal would greatly increase the amount of goods we export causing a growth in GDP. Lastly, the TPP deal would cause pay increases in the export market.------------------------------would you do a bit of research on the trade deficit and comment on the effect the TPP would have had on it?

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

TPP is good for not only America, but every country involved. TPP would cause our annual income to increase and GDP to increase. Globalization needs to happen in this world today.

First, TPP would eliminate close to 18,000 tariffs making our exports less costly therefore letting us compete with other nations more. Also, the trade deal would allow us to change with times more than we have, globalization is happening all around us. We need to build these trade bonds to help us have international influence. By knocking down the barrier, the US could compete with the ever-growing Asia-Pacific region. TPP also allows not only the free trade of goods, but with those goods comes ideas. We, as the US, could get our ideas out to the world in an easier and more acceptable manner than now. . Exports account for 13 percent of our GDP, and doing this deal would greatly increase the amount of goods we export causing a growth in GDP. Lastly, the TPP deal would cause pay increases in the export market. Some say exporting job pay could increase as much as 18 percent. The US' 2015 trade deficit was $531 billion dollars in 2015. That means we imported 531 billion dollars worth of goods more than we exported. This number has been increasing for the past 10 years, but TPP can reduce this deficit because we would have more exports going out to other countries.

Now I am not saying this is a perfect and flawless deal by no means. With this amount of powerful countries, there is going to be error and conflict, but the thought of forming a powerful union with 12 countries is too much to pass up. The good of this deal greatly outweighs the bad as we see an increase in our income. We do not need to be a standalone islationist of a country. Trading with other countries fosters growth not only for the US, but the world as a whole.

Supporting Evidence: why TPP is good for the US (www.washingtonpost.com)

2 days ago

Side: I'm for TPP
4 points

There is no question, in any trade deal, there will come the good and bad aspects. Instead of initiating a shouting match between who is right and wrong, the best answer lies in figuring out if the good outweighs the bad, or vice versa. In this case, I will be arguing for the TPP, and how its positives outweighs its negatives.

One initiative of the TPP is to promote relations between countries involved. By fostering a mutually beneficial deal between the US and countries involved, ties will be strengthened, peace will be promoted. The deal includes former 'rival' countries such Japan and Vietnam, and the opportunity to strengthen the relation between these countries can not be ignored. Although I am not saying world peace would be created, a trade deal that would help both countries would create a more peaceful understanding between the two.

Countries involved in the TPP have high tariffs set in place on US goods, and these tariffs make US goods less affordable in these markets. It is the same on both sides of the spectrum, with the US setting tariffs on imports. If the TPP were initiated, these tariffs would be nonexistent, which would then boost consumer rates of the products.

More of this, and less of high-set tariffs, will boost the flow of money and increase the imports and exports of goods and services between involved countries.

--eac

Side: I'm for TPP
Johnmarquez4(14) Disputed
2 points

You don't seem to be too bought in to your own argument... While international relations are important, can they really outweigh the fact that we are outsourcing tons of jobs over there. No wonder they will be happy with us if we are hand delivering them American middle class jobs. What good is money flow if there is no one in our country who will be able to support it when the middle class is gone from our economy?

Side: I'm against TPP
3 points

Both sides argue valid points, but confusion tends to arise when one were to assume the Worker as the consumer. Say a farmer gets fired from his job and now earns nothing and some wealthy investors stock goes up because the product is being produced in a market with lower labor costs. Most people against the TPP would tend to say that ever since NAFTA our Midwest had been hallowed out of its jobs, and the wealthy stock investors have never had it better. The fear that the TPP will have the same affect on the economy is what fuels those against it. Their confusion stems from assuming the worker is the consumer. A worker is he who works, not buys. Profit isn't based on how much product the workers make but on how much the consumer buys. One cannot accosiate a decline in job loss to a change in workers, without first looking at the consumer.

Side: I'm for TPP
3 points

Globalization is steadily progressing and is inevitable. Considering all of the reasons, it is understandable why that is. As a wise man once said, "Today a teenager in the United States has more in common with a teenager in Japan than he or she does with his grandmother". Globalization is a force that is sweeping the world, and it would be the optimal decision to travel through the slipstream rather attempt counteract it. The force of globalization, however, is not a negative one. Previous presidents, such Barack Obama, understood the benevolence of globalization and worked along with it to reap its benefits. A major decision Obama has made to for globalization was on February 4, 2016, when he signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The TPP produces more substantial benefits than negligible contradictions making it a necessary trade agreement.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is more than an agreement to benefit large businesses or the countries involved; it is an agreement to benefit all constituents as well. Unlike other agreements that may seem similar such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) that the United Sates has also been involved in, the TPP is more than just centered around economic desires; it incorporates the governed's quality of life. For example, the TPP places regulations on countries forcing governments to establish fair pay for workers and ensure other civil rights.

An argument that the opposition makes to the TPP is that it's economic effects are extremely detrimental to the US's economy. The TPP, however, has many economic benefits. A specific argument is that the agreement encourages foreign business to dominate the United State's market. While the argument is valid, it is overestimated. The result would just be a little competition that pushes business leaders to be better. Furthermore, the competition produced between business would force one to innovate or fail which would ultimately lead to more jobs. Moreover, in thrusting the United States into globalization through the trade agreement, the United States would be exposed to new markets which would produce new American businesses; and with the low tariffs that the agreement offers, the American business could easily expand internationally. The United States does not have many barriers for international trade compared to other countries who do in fact have a lot. With the TPP, those international barriers will be lowered facilitating the American trade. America's exports are worth $2.3 trillion which supports 11.7 trillion jobs. Contrary to popular belief, the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not only benefit large business. Ninety-eight percent of companies that export internationally are small business, businesses that have less than 500 employees. They are the ones that truly benefit from this agreement.

It would be an inane decision to attempt to counter the TPP for fear of its economic effects. Globalization is spreading and it is best to tag along.

As the former President Obama said, "Building walls to isolate ourselves from the global economy would only isolate us from the incredible opportunities it provides."

Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
1 point

That man sounds most wise....

You restate the other position's argument and take better aim at because you do so.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP is a trade agreement that encompasses many strict guidelines that include environmental protection and the requirement of minimum wages. I believe that these such guidelines will ultimately be the most rewarding to the currently involved countries. With the restrictions on over-fishing, illegal logging, and the trafficking of endangered species, the fish, trees, and endangered species will be allowed to grow back, and therefore we will be more likely for the endangered species to not become extinct and there will not be a shortage of fish and trees. Also because of the requirement of minimum wages the currently involved countries that do not have a set minimum wage should see improvement in living standards and will promote economic growth. So among the many important aspects that the TPP incorporates I believe two of the most important things is the guidelines on the environment and requirement for minimum wages.

Supporting Evidence: What Does Trump's Executive Order to Withdraw from the TPP Mean? (www.thebalance.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
Johnmarquez4(14) Disputed
1 point

The TPP does have positives, but are those positives in favor of the US economy? You say that there are protection requirements, but we are surrendering our own policies by agreeing to the deal and will have to oblige by their terms. A Minimum wage would be a plus as workers in Vietnam are working for as low as $.56 per hour; however, the fear of currency manipulation should trump all. How can we trust these countries not to manipulate their currency to help boost their income from the trades. That is putting alot of trust into a deal that seemingly has no end to it. It is in the best interest for the US to take care of itself before surrendering sovereignty and jobs for the betterment of other countries.

Supporting Evidence: TPP (www.epi.org)
Side: I'm against TPP
2 points

The TPP ensures that the products imported into America were not manufacured in conditions that compromise workers safety and livelyhoods, cause exsessive environmental damage, or use child/slave labor. The TPP will force the member countries to enforce higher standards across the board and increase their workers wages. If foreign labor becomes more expensive this could benefit American jobs because outsourcing labor will become less appealing to American manufacturers. Also, agreeing on a set of tarriffs for imports/exports will prevent other countries from effectively barring U.S imports by raising tarriffs on our goods. Overall, this deal addresses humanitarian concerns and benefits our global trading by addressing potentially unfair tarrifs.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

I think one of the most important parts of this deal is how it addresses these important concerns (required minimum wage, child and slave labor, workers' safety and other labor laws). This will be an overall good move for not only the whole world, but our country specifically. What you mentioned about foreign labor becoming more expensive and outscourcing becoming less appealing is a very important aspect some people are missing; one of the main points of the partnership is to make labor in the East safer and, in turn, more expensive. Outsourcing wouldn't be as much of a problem as people think it would.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The Trans Pacific Partnership or ,TTP, is perhaps one of the deciding factors in the future of our great free market, capitalist US of A. There are great arguments for both sides of the argument , however I believe that the dignity of a nation is outweighed by the plethora of opportunities presented by the deal. I think that the trade in theory is a good idea but it takes cooperation between all the countries , but it we all cooperate we could create an amazing multilateral trade deal.

The main goal of the deal is to decrease tariffs on trade between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. It will also increase wages and the quality health environments in the Asian countries and to help reduce outsourcing jobs from the US which will also boost our own economy at the same time.

A main bonus in this deal for the US is the exclusion of China from the 350 Billion dollars in trade between them and Japan. The 12 countries in the deal account roughly for 40 percent of the worlds economy. This will help the flow of trade in between these countries and to promote a healthier market. The exclusion of China will not boost any one of our economies but will help to slow down the rapid growth of China's rapidly expanding GDP and economy.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP would be a good way for the US to increase its economy. It will reduce costs for businesses, and that would boost growth and lower consumer prices. In other words, it will give manufacturers more of a chance to compete or keep up with manufacturers in Asia. Increased competition would be beneficial to our consumers. Overall, the TPP would add over a 100 billion dollar boost to the US economy.

Supporting Evidence: TTP support (www.latimes.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
lil_thames(1) Disputed
3 points

You mention the benefits the TPP brings to businesses and consumers, but you leave out the crucial piece that the TPP tarnishes: workers. The competition that the TPP will bring will force domestic corporations to further automate, outsource, and drive down wages to keep production costs competitive. Also, workers ARE consumers, so low wages take money out of the pockets of people who would otherwise have put it right back into our economy.

Side: I'm against TPP
Wildcard3(8) Disputed
2 points

How would the TPP be great way to increase economy when so many jobs will be lost. The TPP would be taking more jobs from american workers and outsourcing them to other countries. The TPP may be good for corporations, but it does little to nothing for the workers who fuel these big corporations.

Supporting Evidence: Is the TPP good for you and me? (www.freep.com)
Side: I'm against TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
1 point

You use figures that beg for a reference. Where did you get this information?

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

I don't really think that I'm in the position to argue whether it's good or not for the U.S. but my opinion is that the TPP is not such a bad thing as a lot of people like to say. There are always arguments against things like this. This deal would be a real benefit for the U.S. economy but by killing it it's going to benefit China instead. Without the TPP the U.S. is going to miss out on the good opportunities this deal provides.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

One of the TTP's main goals is to streamline customs and regulations. This will set a "rule of law" for businesses to adhere to during international negotiations. Such provisions will increase trusts were foreign business relations are concerned, making for a smooth transition into the globalized world we are all living in. There is a concern that making it easier for business to make international negotiation will contribute to outsourcing, harming U.S. workers, and exacerbate wealth inequality. However, consider the TPP's move to enforce labor and environmental standards. Such provisions will level the playing field for U.S. workers.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

Frankly, the TPP is beneficial to the US. The opposition states that the TPP creates a pathway for other countries to take American jobs, but exports of goods and services make up 13% of our GDP and supports 1 in 12 jobs. The TPP is an agreement that promotes peace and good relations with the eleven countries included. The gradual decrease in the tariffs would decrease the price of our exports and bring forth more competition in the market. The new relations with these eleven countries would increase exports and increase GDP as well as increase the GDP of the partnering countries. The overall global GDP would improve. The TPP is an agreement that comes with repercussions, but don't all good things come with a cost?

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

Being able to tap into these markets and export our products to these other countries through a free-trade market would be very beneficial to us. The TPP focuses a lot of labor conditions and workplace safety which would not affect us but it would cause the wages and money put into companies in over nations to increases, leveling the playing field for the United States by eliminating the cheap labor overseas. By eliminating the cheap labor that makes companies go abroad, we would be able to retain more jobs here at home.

Supporting Evidence: Detroit Free Press (www.freep.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
Johnmarquez4(14) Disputed
1 point

We have the power in this situation. Why would we give up our jobs to tap into these countries that will out produce our middle class? While the prices would go down on items circulating in our economy, so would wages leaving few able to support themselves and consume these new products. Im not saying that the TPP is a bad thing for the world, but shouldn't our own problems and costs be the forefront?

Side: I'm against TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
1 point

Source(s)? You use lots of figures. We need to know they come from a reliable source.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

TPP is good for the U.S. It increases the demand for farmed goods in America. We benefit from American agriculture like beef, corn, and lettuce. Farmers throughout out the U.S. help us obtain these goods, but for our farmers to succeed open markets in and out of the U.S. is important. There are farmers all over the country who rely on the ability to export their goods outside of the U.S., but with trade barriers in place we're holding back our own economy. By opening the markets to export more U.S. goods to more countries overseas we help our farmers flourish which helps America flourish. 95% of the world's consumer live outside the U.S. So when people from outside of the U.S. buy our products we get the benefit in better paying jobs and a growing economy. TPP also gives the U.S. the opportunity to lead on global trade.

Supporting Evidence: TPP is Good for Agriculture (youtu.be)
Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
1 point

You need a source. Use the link feature. Get in this habit....

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

Free trade means international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions. Trade has been a large factor in the United States economy for years. According to Pew Research.org, the United State $246.5 billion worth of overseas crude last year. This number goes to show how dependent the US is on trade. TPP would give the US trade a boost from the flat line it has been at since 2011 by opening trade markets in Japan, Southeast Asia, and other places. People against TPP argue that it will eliminate jobs in the US and send them overseas. However, 80% of the jobs in the US are service industry jobs such as teachers, lawyers, and other jobs that would still be available. TPP would be an overall good thing for the economy despite the loss of a few jobs.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

Overall, the TPP's purpose is to boost economic growth within the 12 countries involved. It is also supposed to raise environmental and labor standards to ensure that products are not manufactured in conditions that would harm workers. By raising labor standards in foreign countries, this will help secure jobs in the U.S. When labor standards are raised, this will cause foreign manufacturers to raise their workers wages. By doing this, companies within America will not want to send their products to be manufactured in another country therefore securing American jobs.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

Has America’s openness to globalization gone too far? In recent years America has experienced a sharp decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. Many attribute this to the liberalization of trade policies. For instance, in “The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment” The National Bureau of Economic Research states that “employment losses are larger in industries where the threat of tariff hikes declined the most.” More specifically, industries that saw a reduction in import-tariff uncertainty, due to the liberalization of trade policies, subsequently experienced a “‘fundamental shift’ in manufacturing trends”: “anemic job creation and exaggerated job destruction.” (https://www.usitc.gov/researchandanalysis/documents/Pierce%20and%20Schott%20-%20The%20Surprisingly%20Swift%20Decline%20of%20U.S.%20Manufacturing%20Employment_0.pdf).

This phenomenon and the increase in corporate “offshoring” have left many politicians with a rotten perspective of trade deals like the TPP or TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).

However, while the decline in U.S. manufacturing can be partly attributed to the growth of Asian imports, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers points out trade agreements themselves have little to do with it: “technological innovation plays a much larger role.” The rapid technological advancements seen in recent decades have brought us into an Age of Abundance. For businesses the question is no longer whether they can efficiently produce goods, but whether they can effectively design products that will stand out to consumers amongst the plethora of other brand choices. Consequently, there has been an increase in “right-brain” jobs, while more “left-brain” oriented tasks, such as manufacturing, are being automated or outsourced. (A Whole New Mind by Daniel Pink)

While we cannot stunt the growth of technology, trade agreements such as TPP can help U.S. workers, businesses, and consumers by embracing globalization.

Workers: By enforcing labor and environmental standards the TPP will level the playing field for U.S. workers.

On the other hand, if the U.S. allows China to continue building economic and military dominance in southeast Asia, we risk losing more jobs to outsourcing and a decrease in exports.

Businesses: “Trade, and exports in particular, play a major role in supporting U.S. growth and employment… U.S. exports are directly responsible for 11.7 million jobs.” Of the 300,000 businesses exporting their goods or services, 98 percent are small-and medium-sized enterprises. By promoting competitive and transparent business laws, and streamlining customs and regulations TPP will make such business across borders easier.

Consumers: “The Lower-priced imports and the gains in productivity arising from increased competition will benefit consumers.”

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP will lowers tariffs for all signed countries which will help American businesses. It Strengthens labor agreements and environmental agreements. Currently Vietnam is changing their constitution to recognize labor organizations because of the TPP.

We'r raising standards for workers in those countries so it's harder for them to undercut labor standards here in the United States, as well as environment standards and human trafficking

If we want to prevent child labor, trafficking, less overfishing, maintain our forests and maintain a healthy environment then the TPP is great for that. We'r not only improving conditions for numerous countries and providing jobs, we'r also strengthening our economy and benefiting our corporations greatly. Are the existing trading rules better for issues like labor standards? Nope.The tpp will significantly lower the price of goods and lower inflation, globalization gives us access to more products.We have a strong, competitive market, and we need to maintain that. Without this deal china would have taken a stance and set the rules for trade, which could hurt American businesses. We have 18 tariffs, this deal is better than nothing, better than what we have right now.

If we're so worried that the money hungry American corporations will provide jobs only to oversea nations,then why doesn't the government place taxes on them? The TPP is not the evil here, these corporations must have stricter, environmental and labor standards.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

When looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership,TPP, it is beneficial to give credit to all that it will do. 1) It will help the United States economically. The TPP will eliminate most tariffs and allow for faster trading with the other 11 member countries. In the U.S. alone 11.7 million jobs depend on trading. Opening up the trade routes with these other countries will allow for those people to export their goods and services more frequently and with less hassle. It is also estimated the the TPP could potentially bring in 178 billion dollars a year to the U.S. This can be mainly caused by the increase in money flow that will happen with the 11 member countries,especially Asia. Those against the TPP will say that it will be a financial burden because it will eliminate jobs for a large majority of consumers. This is not exactly the case. The TPP will bring in other jobs and allow for job specialization to increase. With automation already taking over thousands of jobs, the TPP will allow for a jump start in the creation of new technology.

2) The TPP will increase the alliances between the 12 involved countries. The spread of ideas and trust is beneficial to the future of the U.S. It will allow communication on foreign policies to increase as well as provide the best options at the best price for everyone.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

Let's talk about the tpp and protectionism. Now.... has protectionism ever worked because if thats your only argument against the tpp when it's a pretty weak argument. Every job can't be protected and stopping the advancement of the entire world as well as us as a country is ridiculous. The tpp is a huge treaty thay somehow the whole world agreed apon. It took 5 years to create and it protects people in countries that have it worse then ours. Things like child labor that we no longer have to worry about could be eradicated and we could finally get China on our side due to the fact that the world would be trading around them. Honestly if people really want to "protect US jobs" they would complain about amazon and factories who stop factory work. The TPP is a partnership and there are low chances of the US getting the short end of the stick

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2012/08/whats-so-bad-about-protectionism/

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP is a very controversial matter, with very solid arguments for and against it. However, in this case, the benefits of the deal outweigh the consequences. The deal will not only strengthen diplomatic ties, but boost the economies and create mutually beneficial deals between all of the countries involved.

There are countries involved in the deal, Japan and Vietnam, that the US have a, to say the least, shaky past with. However, this deal is an opportunity that can not be overlooked. Initiating the largest trade deal in history, effectively boosting the flow of money and services, will be huge in relieving tensions that go back decades. Although this is almost a 'side' benefit, the real opportunity comes into play in another form.

According to the Washington Post, in the past 5 decades, the trend of the export of goods and services has increased. Today, these exports account for more than 13% of the US GDP and supports 1 in 12 US jobs. Also, workers in the export-manufacturing field make 18% more money than workers in other manufacturing fields. Instead of turning our backs on the trend, embracing the TPP will further improve this flow of products, bringing in more money to the US economy. Also, there are roughly 18,000 tariffs in place that the trade deal would virtually eliminate. With these tariffs gone, products would become cheaper, and consumers would buy more, furthering the flow of money in the economy.

My last argument is a very interesting point I ran across in research. There is no question, the world is becoming digitized. Today, you can look up and see a 10 year old with an iPhone, while only 100 years ago this technology would probably have scared people. This only goes to show how quickly the world is advancing, and the trend that it is following. The TPP would set up a secure framework for digital commerce, and allow data flow across borders. This is not only essential for American businesses, but for the future of advancement.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

I agree with you. The TPP do have its pros and cons, but the pros definitely weigh out the cons. The U.S economy would not survive without globalization. It helps our economy while benefiting the other countries that are involved in the deal.

Benefits of globalization:

1. Free trade

2. Free movement of labor

3. Increased economies of scale

4. Greater competition

5. Increased investment

Supporting Evidence: Cost and benefits of globilization (www.economicshelp.org)
Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

We have physical barriers already. Are they effective?

The Secure Fence Act was signed by President George W. Bush in 2006. Majority of the fencing was built in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California before he left office, and the remnants were completed after President Obama took office in 2009. Coinciding with the fence construction the population of illegal immigrants decreased for several years, however this perceived success of the wall is “largely a residue of the Great Recession, which dried up job opportunities for would-be migrants and created a perception that finding employment in the United States is now quite hard.” According the National Research Council (in 2011), “Rising [border] enforcement does not seem to have played a significant role in lowering the likelihood of undocumented migration.”

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ systems/mexico-wall.htm; http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/) )

So the physical barriers has not deterred illegal migration, but what it has done is kept undocumented migrants here. In the 1960’s approximately 60% of illegal immigrants returned home within a year; today that percentage has fallen below 10%. The fence has made crossing the southwestern border more costly and dangerous, incentivising immigrants to stay longer to amortize the expense. Furthermore, of America’s increased population of permanently settled undocumented immigrants a much higher proportion are whole families with U.S.-born children. The long-term fiscal impact of this increase in permanent illegal immigrants is “larger outlays for education, healthcare, and other services.”

If the first wall was not effective, why do we want another?

Irrational fear that all immigrants are criminals

Though the illegal immigrant population has exploded in recent years, crime rates in America have decreased significantly. If most immigrants are violent criminals shouldn't these two events be mutually exclusive?

Evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants are law abiding-- excuse the oxymoron. “According to a 2000 prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.” These “low crime rates” amongst undocumented young men “are invariably lower… than their native-born counterparts.” “Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.”

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Follow this link to learn more about the facts behind the myths surrounding undocumented immigrants impact on American Society

https://www.aclu.org/other/immigration-myths-and-facts

Side: I'm for TPP
1 point

Many have argued that the TPP will kill jobs and lead American into economic disaster, but we must take into consideration the back fire of killing the TPP instead. Killing the TPP will benefit China and not solve the matrix of job worries we are currently prisoner to and would take a huge blow to the U.S's influence in Asia. On the contrary, if TPP is alive and thriving, it will support economic growth and jobs by removing trade barriers, increasing U.S. trade with these 11 countries and invest ties with them ( combined population of 486 million people and accounted for about 15% of global trade). This also could lead to Japan and American to draw closer and opening Japan's market so the West does not have to depend on China. The long-term affect benefits not only the U.S., but other nations by creating high standards, counter-weighting China's increasing economic influence, and let's not forget trading with countries who GPD is 40% of the entire world's will not hurt the U.S. but benefit the economy.

Side: I'm for TPP

There are many stipulations with the TPP, but ultimately it would be a favorable deal for the United States. Bringing awareness to issues such as requirements for minimum wages, labor laws, and environmental standards would ameliorate all of the countries involved and bring them closer to the level of the United States in these areas. Globalization is a good thing; trading with other countries in general, but especially the eleven in this deal, would open the United States to more possibilities and more economic opportunities. These 12 countries alone would create more than 40% of the world's GDP; the partnership would decrease tariffs over time and make our exports cost less. In all the countries involved, the partnership would increase income and GDP and improve living conditions.

The deal would also make the United State's presence in Asia more prominent, allowing more competition, and it would open the way for the United States to trade with Japan, allowing the West to be less dependant on China. China's economic influence in the east and even west, however, will decrease, allowing the United States (and the partnering countries) to have more economic control. Without the TPP, China's economy will continue to grow and China will continue to "steal our jobs," instead of facing a major setback as far as economic control of the east.

Supporting Evidence: TPP Effects on China (foreignpolicy.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
4 points

Regardless of the merits of the TPP in its current form, wouldn't it be more sensible to negotiate our trade agreements bilaterally? In doing so it seems we could secure terms that are more favorable to us than the current ones being that by engaging the planned member countries individually they would be willing to make greater concessions when the concessions are better tailored to their individual interests instead of trying to negotiate blanket terms.

Side: I'm against TPP
kidneymugger(6) Disputed
2 points

You are treating the TPP as a zero-sum game. We have already established that Adam Smith, the godfather of economics, was wrong and that in competition, individual ambition serves the common good. It is in fact that when you do what is in the best interest for the group that you do the best for yourself.

Side: I'm for TPP
3 points

Capitalism has become stagnant. Globalization has gone to far. The middle class is dwindling as the gap between wealthy and poor increases... and who is the middle class? That's right, they are consumers. We can either outsource our jobs to places like Vietnam where the hourly wage is $0.53 OR protect our jobs and economy. By keeping more jobs in America for the lower classes, the middle (consumer) class will be revived. Let's remold capitalism into one that benefits America as a whole and not just the already wealthy corporations. Let's remold capitalism into protectionism.

Side: I'm against TPP
Jenaya_simon(4) Clarified
2 points

Can you explain to me how we could keep jobs for lower class if they don't want to do or aren't capable of doing them?

Side: I'm for TPP
DKrent(17) Disputed
1 point

How are people who are basically forced into slave labor more capable than Americans at doing their jobs? The places these jobs are outsourced to are horrible . There are people who are forced into outrageous hours and absolutely disgusting work environments in these countries that the TPP would open up. If we as Americans chose to throw away the morals we vlaue as Americans then yes the TPP is a great idea.And do you really think that the lower-class are lazy or that they just aren't qualified. I would appreciate that statement being explained further.

Side: I'm against TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
1 point

Clear and well-founded argument! I think your last statement is probably overstated. What do you mean (Let's remold capitalism into protectionism)? "Protectionism" has a negative connotation....

Side: I'm for TPP
3 points

The TPP would be a hindrance to US economy, especially in its current state. If we continue to pursue the TPP and free trade with other countries, what will become of the jobs we need in our own country? If we get most of our automobiles from Japan, what will happen to the automobile makers and factory workers in the US? Outsourcing our jobs is what is killing our country today. When workers complain about not being able to afford simple things with their current pay, companies can simply build a factory elsewhere and pay those workers even less than American workers. Also, the TPP would introduce our farmers to lots and lots of competition. We would basically be throwing our own farmers out into the cold, which would be another form of outsourcing the jobs.

Plus, look at the TTIP and see how it worker out for the European Union. If the world crises continue to continue the way they are going, the world won't be able to sustain any trade agreements.

Side: I'm against TPP
floradedeaux(11) Disputed
2 points

You say the TPP would be a hindrance to the economy, but in reality, it would be a great thing for not only our economy but the economies of all the countries involved... boosting GDP, income, and overall quality of living. Trading more would bring better economic opportunities to our country.

Side: I'm for TPP
JackGAllen(9) Disputed
2 points

Sure, but what about all the jobs lost to the other countries? We do some things better than other countries, but other countries do things better than us, leading to a loss of jobs for those particular occupations.

Side: I'm against TPP
LILLIS(8) Disputed
2 points

It may be true that we get a lot of imports of vehicles from Japan but did you look at all of the american companies/factories that have a high percent of their productions being exported to other countries. If we stay with the topic of cars, Ford,GM, and Jeep send large portions of their productions made in America overseas every year. In 2014 GM exported over 380,000 cars alone from their factories in America. And because of these huge sales in other countries, in 2015 GM announced their investment of new plants in America creating thousands of new jobs for our fellow Americans. I would say this is a win for us and our economy.

Supporting Evidence: Export paper 2015 (www.trade.gov)
Side: I'm for TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
1 point

Paragraph 1 is clear and concise, though I'd like some more detail or historical/comparative reference (when it's happened before or where this has happened). Paragraph 2 is ambitious and unclear. Don't even open that door. You've done enough in 1. Make one, at the most 2, points at a time.

Side: I'm for TPP
3 points

The TPP is a bad idea. If we look at precedent created from NAFTA, what initially seemed like a good idea failed and harmed the US and Mexico badly. For the US, in 1992 Gary Hufbauer from the institute of international economics predicted that NAFTA will create a $7-9 billion surplus that would create around 170,000 jobs in the first year alone. Quite the opposite occurred causing a US trade deficit with both Canada and Mexico costing the US 150,000 jobs in 1994. As of 2007, the trade deficit with Mexico reached an all time high of $74 billion. As of 2011, the US has lost over 700,000 jobs due to NAFTA. While bad for the United States, NAFTA hurt Mexico if not as much more. The wage gap in Mexico has grown and continues to grow. From 1994-2000 the poverty rate grew from 45.6 percent to 50.3 percent. As of 2010 the most recent poverty rate report from the world bank was 51.3 percent. Also due to sharply declining food prices in Mexico, 2 million farm workers lost their jobs and 8 million small scale farmers had no choice but to sell their land at exuberantly low prices or to desert it. Since the US subsidizes domestically produced agricultural products to be sold in Mexico for prices 30 percent below the cost of production, NAFTA essentially caused the US to be the main food supplier of Mexico rendering their corn crop useless and non-competitive. We should withdraw from the TPP in the best interest of everyone involved to prevent a repeat of the harm NAFTA caused.

Supporting Evidence: Sources (www.coha.org)
Side: I'm against TPP
Patrickc(7) Disputed
2 points

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was much different from other regional trade agreements such as NAFTA. A major detriment inflicted on the US from NAFTA was due to the lack of regulations imposed by the deal. The TPP required that business award fair pay to its worker, where a NAFTA did not. Consequently, US business decided to relocate where they received a greater net profit. The TPP was constructed to benefit all citizens and economies of the participating countries. Moreover, the TPP exposes the US to new promising markets that will benefit the US's economy by broadening its possibilities to profit, rather than relying on the same market for extensive periods of time.

Side: I'm for TPP
3 points

In terms of wages for American workers, the TPP is a race to the bottom. It would only add to the numerous failed trade deals that the US has enacted, further stagnating wages by letting companies choose to operate in countries with lower working standards. By loosening restrictions on Asian countries, we significantly harm domestic competition, because in the end, it comes down to whether or not American consumers are willing to pay higher prices for domestic products when they can buy the same products from Asian-based companies. Consumers cannot afford and simply are not willing to do this. We can't expect to open up trade without opening corporations up to further outsourcing of American labor. And countries that stay in American will be forced to drive down their wages to stay competitive, which will take billions of dollars out of our economy.

Side: I'm against TPP
3 points

Look here we have to start putting AMERICA FIRST and countries currently included in the TPP are the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam with Mexico and Canada has recently joined. With the TPP, more jobs will be sent overseas to countries that pay workers around one cent to $1 AT MOST. If we get rid of the TPP that leads to more jobs for US citizens and is beneficial for our economy. The TPP goes against democratic views and will just empower transnational corporations instead of thinking about consumers and laborers. Also where the heck is the transparency in this deal!! Approximately 600 corporate lobbyists have been given access to the TPP negotiating texts and advise the U.S. trade negotiators as to exact language of the treaty. Meanwhile, the people whose lives will be affected by the TPP have been barred from even reviewing what negotiators have proposed in OUR names.

Side: I'm against TPP
EvanTreadawa(5) Disputed
2 points

Not that you didn't bring up great points to support your argument but I do disagree with a couple of your points. The main proposition of the deal is to increase the wages and health conditions of those oversees jobs so that there will be less outsourcing of our jobs. The TTP has not been put in place so there are no jobs to be added for the citizens and money to go for our economy. All transnational corporations that are already in the US have been lobbying for decades to get bills passed to help benefit their profit. For example look at the private prison system within the US. There is 25 million spent on lobbying spent on prison laws while they make a profit of 3.3 Billion dollars a year.

Side: I'm for TPP
bigeggb(5) Disputed
2 points

Health conditions can't be improved without also improving the environment, which the TPP does not plan to do, at least not extensively. Also instead of typing it all out, I'll just link you to a credible article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/tpp-environment n4602727.html

Side: I'm against TPP
JendayiL(8) Disputed
2 points

You mistakenly list TPP countries as evidence to support the claim that jobs will be outsourced to countries with lower wages because of TPP. However, one of the main aspects of TPP is enforcing higher labor and environmental standards in partner countries. This will level the playing field for U.S. workers, by make “offshoring” less advantageous for U.S. businesses.

Moreover, “transnational corporations” are not the only beneficiaries of this plan. TPP helps small businesses and consumers too. For instance, consider this: out of the over 300,000 businesses that export their goods or services, 98% of them are small-medium enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. TPP will make exports and business negotiations with our trading partners in the Asian region easier, while lower-priced imports and the gains in productivity arising from increased competition will benefit consumers.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The only good trade arrangement is one that is good for America.

The days of the U.S, giving a helping hand to so called struggling nations has long since gone.

It's America with it's 21 trillion dollar debt, that is in dire need of a helping hand(s).

Fortunately, in the form of Donald Trump, the Messiah has arrived, and not one second too soon.

Obama's misguided benevolence has been exploited by other, more ''street wise'' governments who have manipulated the poor old gullible U.S.A, in a way which benefits them at the expense of America whilst an enormous % of it's workforce languishes on benefits.

My motto; never go to bed without making a profit.

I'm sure my man in the White House will run the nation's affairs along the same lines.

Time for Saudi Arabia, Russia and China to accept the refugees of the world's failed nations and for Mexico to police its own borders and control the drug cartels.

At last, at looong last, America appears to have woken up and smelt what Obama has been shoveling for the past 8 years.

Donald Trump appears to have started the process of dragging Americans out of the surreal world of cloud cuckoo land into which ex President Inertia Obama led them.

Side: I'm against TPP
Isocrates(42) Disputed
5 points

Dear Antrim,

Do you as a Protestant Christian put your loyalty to your God, or your country? If God loves all his children, and that includes not only people in America, but in Africa, Japan, and everywhere else, how can you sit her and say that the on good trade arrangement is one that is good for America. Does God care if you're American, or Polish? A trade agreement is a mutual agreement that benefits everyone involved. It is not a demand one country makes and forces. America has suddenly woken up from its stupor of being lazy and now is demanding things when we are not willing to change and just assume that the problem lies somewhere else. The day America decides to change to not only benefit themselves but the world, through means of peace and not demands and threats is the day America will be great again.

Side: I'm for TPP
JendayiL(8) Disputed
2 points

On “giving a helping hand”: Antrim step back for a second, you are not seeing the big picture. China’s increasing military and economic dominance in southeast Asia, a region that “account[s] for 44 percent of total U.S. goods exports and 85 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports, is a threat to American economic interests. Why? China is notorious for its low labor and environmental standards. Countries with such standards are the main cause of outsourcing. By forging a trade deal (TPP) that calls for higher labor and environmental standards, amongst other regulations that will make business across borders easier American workers and manufactures will be able to compete on a more level playing field. By “giving a helping hand,” the U.S. is indeed helping itself.

http://www.cfr.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership-us-trade-policy/p36422

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

Do any Americans really know what is written the TPP ? Was no transparency on the TPP by the Obama Administration.

Side: I'm against TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
2 points

I responded to your question and it appeared under Grenache's. Not sure why. First debate on this site. I'm liking this format....

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP is not overall beneficial to the United States. In an economy where jobs are already needed, we as a country cannot afford to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs due to outsourcing by major corporations. This was seen through NAFTA where the US lost 700,000 jobs. The US workers will not be able to compete with some of the overseas workers and won't be able to work for as cheap of a price. As a result of this, wages and jobs that would normally belong to Americans will go over to desperate workers overseas who will work for a fraction of the cost. Many farmers and manufacturers will be left out of luck in the US.

In addition to losing jobs, The United States will also lose sovereignty by being forced to follow the laws of the TPP and not our own regulations. This will shift power from the country to major corporations. This is a shot to our own power and will also not allow us to help monitor the environment as the corporations will be profit seeking.

Globalization has gone too far. We need to help ourselves before we seek out to help other needy nations. American workers need to be the forefront.

Supporting Evidence: Reasons the TPP needs to be stopped (www.commondreams.org)
Side: I'm against TPP
Thames(131) Disputed
2 points

Can you support the 700,000 claim with a link?

Do you know how much of global GDP is in multinational corporations' hands? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's approaching half. The trend is definitely towards globalism. Is there any example of a nation reversing this trend or even trying to? More specifically, has a nation ever become more powerful or wealthy through protectionist policies or rejecting new technologies (the Internet doesn't care what flag you fly, nor does its commerce. As far as technology, look at what happened in Japan when they tried to hang on to Samurai culture).

Side: I'm for TPP
Johnmarquez4(14) Clarified
2 points

While there haven't been examples of countries completely shutting down outside sources or turning down new technologies, plenty of countries have moved to a system more towards protectionism to reboot their economies. For example, both Germany and France succeeded in doing this after WWII. They did not completely shut down trade or go against the trade, but they kept as much internal as possible for the betterment of the nation. Im not saying all global trade needs to be shut down; the TPP just does not favor America and its lower/middle class as it does these other countries involved. Before we can go help the world, we need to be concerned with helping our own economy

Side: I'm for TPP
Johnmarquez4(14) Clarified
2 points

Here is a link about the NAFTA job losses. It states that trade deficits with the countries involved pose an even greater threat than that of Mexico and NAFTA.

Supporting Evidence: NAFTA jobs (www.epi.org)
Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

We need to look at the precedence of TPP more- NAFTA. Our trade deficit with Mexico deepened and about 700,000 jobs were lost.

Here is a link on more about how it was bad for all of the countries involved in the deal, not just America.

Supporting Evidence: NAFTA failure (www.coha.org)
Side: I'm against TPP
istrickler(7) Disputed
2 points

The misunderstanding with TPP is jobs. Recent studies coauthored by Peter Petri shows that the TPP agreement will increase wage gains slightly but will not alter the U.S. employment levels. This theory is known as the "Classical Economic Theory". Basically, if competitive industries flourish, and less competitive industries struggle, job gains and losses even out. Some workers will not be able to make the transition, but those who do will get new higher paying jobs which will balance out the unemployment rates.

Supporting Evidence: TPP Trade Deal (www.ibtimes.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP would contribute to income inequality. The free trade agreements is not necessarily a bad deal but has a couple risky factors that make it too high risk at the moment. Generally, competitive markets are a good thing but in this instance it could harm our agricultural industry. What will happen to our economy if we end up being like Mexico after NAFTA? Too risky. The TPP needs more discussion and planning before its worth the jump.

Side: I'm against TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
2 points

end up being like Mexico after NAFTA?

Paint this picture out for us and make the case that TPP will lead to us being in MX's place.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP was created by corporations, which makes it evident that this deal plays in favor of the companies at the expense of consumers and laborers. As a supranational trade deal, it ignores borders. Workers and their families, however, still live within these borders. Their nations, not international corporations, are obligated to provide the preconditions for democracy and a decent standard of living. Corporations are not obligated to anyone but their shareholders. They care about profit. Nations are the only entities through which a common good can be served. Our policies should keep national interests before corporate profit goals. Until Coca Cola has citizens instead of customers and shareholders, nations need to look out for their own people.

Side: I'm against TPP
Patrickc(7) Disputed
2 points

The Trans-Pacific Partnership was agreement regarding trade signed by countries, not corporations. On February 4, 2016, democratic president Barack Obama signed the agreement. His decision was a wise for the civil and economic benefits. The TPP places regulations on exporting businesses such as fair pay for the workers. These regulations not only benefit all citizens, but also restrict business from unfairly dominating any market. Moreover, 98% of the 300,000 business that export their goods from the US are small businesses that have fewer than 500 employees (McBride). That leaves only 2% of large companies, such as Coca-Cola, that benefit from this agreement.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP has a heavy consequence if we join. The TPP benefits mostly people who are not poor, only expanding the wealth inequality. This is a concerning issue in America because the wealthy .1% lobby and control what politicians will and will not focus on. A clear example is Barack Obama's health care bill, which was changed so much from the original purpose it seems that it isn't the same idea. Also, without clear options to rally the working class as factory voting blocs are almost non-existent. This all points to the fact that if the TPP is kept the wealth inequality will change the American government to an oligarchy.

Supporting Evidence: CEPR Report on Net TPP effect (cepr.net)
Side: I'm against TPP
AutLopez(8) Disputed
3 points

Many Americans are worried right now that our jobs are going to foreign countries where labor is cheaper and companies are not held back by strict environmental standards as they are here in the states. This outsourcing of jobs is negatively affecting the American lower and middle class. The TPP will help people who ARE poor by forcing foreign member countries to increase their labor and environmental standards. Increasing their standards will result in foreign worker's wages to increase which will make the outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs less desirable to companies. This will help to protect American manufacturing jobs

Side: I'm for TPP
brandonguap(5) Disputed
2 points

People who lost their job to outsourcing might not get it back. Why would a company want to move their Japanese institution back to America when it already is present in another country doing its job. I can't agree that a company will feel it necessary to bring manufacturing jobs back in America when the minimum wages are shared in each country in TPP. Some companies may come back but these global businesses have no interest in returning to America based solely on the fact "it's America."

Side: I'm against TPP
istrickler(7) Disputed
2 points

The TPP benefits the poor as well as the wealthy. The aim of the TPP is the benefit the poor and wealthy, the consumers and the producers. These past few decades of globalization have led to the largest fall in absolute poverty in our history.

Side: I'm for TPP
brandonguap(5) Clarified
2 points

How does the TPP benefit consumers who are poor? The countries that make stuff super cheap will have to increase their wages when the TPP is formed thus making the price of ordinarily cheap things from other countries increase. Also, looking at my link, in the last 25 years there has been almost 0 change in percent of people in poverty

Supporting Evidence: US Poverty Rate 1990-2015 (www.statista.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP is a bad idea. It favors companies and the rich and harms workers and laborers who would losing jobs due to this deal. We're already seeing a decrease in jobs and the TPP would only increase that by outsourcing more of our jobs that could be for Americans. The TPP would continue to shrink the middle and stagnate our wages. For the pas t 20 years since was created, the u.s has lost millions of jobs. The TPP would be doing more harm than good for America.

Side: I'm against TPP
AutLopez(8) Clarified
3 points

You say workers will lose their jobs, but which workers? American laborers or foreign laborers, and how would they be losing their jobs as a result of the TPP?

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

I think they were referring to Americans losing jobs from the jobs possibly transferring overseas. However, the few jobs that TPP could possibly take away do not affect the majority of the country since 80% of the jobs in the US are service jobs that will not be affected by the trade deal.

Side: I'm against TPP
Wildcard3(8) Disputed
2 points

Americans would be losing jobs. Most of the gains from the TPP would not go to the workers. So it wouldn't be benefiting workers at all and it would also be taking their jobs.

Side: I'm for TPP
MMRockLee(4) Disputed
2 points

You are saying that the TPP would harm workers and laborers, but in reality, the TPP states that there will be strict guidelines on environmental and labor standards. The TPP requires that member countries institute minimum wages, allow workers to form unions, and adhere to the labor rights specified by the International Labor Organization. The TPP also provides forums for citizens to point out how their own countries are falling short of their environmental commitments. Also, you have to think about the results in the long run. The TPP was created for long term results, not to have beneficial qualities happen overnight. It would be highly beneficial to not only our economy, but to the other member nations' economies. Mainstream economic analyses by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all countries that signed into the TPP. The TPP would decrease tariffs, over the course of several years, creating a more level playing field among countries that are already trading with each other. People need to stop thinking that the TPP will cost Americans their jobs. Rather, they need to keep in mind the economic benefits that could potentially bring jobs back to America.

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

The TPP could possibly ruin America's economy which is already close to a crash that would put the 2008 crash to shame. The TPP would essentially outsource thousands of American jobs to countries where they can and will be preformed the cheapest. Not only will this cause thousands of people to lose their jobs, but it will further put America in dept which if you don't know is high enough as it is. These thousands of people whose jobs have become outsource now have no money to feed themselves much less a family. So where do they turn? Sure they can find another job, but doing what? If the jobs are in another country it"s not like they can just fly over there and start working. So where do they turn? The only thing I can see happening is that they have to turn to the government for assistance. The tax payer's dollars are going to feed the American's whose jobs have been outsourced. Which even furthers American's overwhelming debt. Yeah the TPP sounds like is a sure fire way to fix America's economy.

Side: I'm against TPP
huntermace(12) Disputed
2 points

The TPP is a deal that has a highlighted emphasis on tougher labor provisions, hoping to crack down on countries rampant with forced child labor and sweatshops. By forcing countries to adopt minimum wages, working hours, and occupational safety regulation we are taking an awesome step forward. This deal would make it more expensive for companies to more their operations overseas, promoting less outsourcing of American jobs. This deal would not hurt the little man, it would help him.

Side: I'm for TPP
DKrent(17) Disputed
2 points

Thought you make some good points, the TPP will still cause countless problems. The TPP opens not only America but all off the countries in the agreement vunerable to being sued. Under the TPP’s investor protection provisions counties and companies can sue if they feel that their economy can or would be effected. An example of this would be America rising the minimum wage rate and Vietnam or any other country in the deal losing money or possibly losing money. This makes U.S companies vurnable it makes them scared to change anything for fear of a lawsuit. And if i've learned anything about the effect of fear on people is that it can make them stop or change and this is not always for the better. And how would this get rid of sweatshop? Companies are dirty and want to make the biggest profit possible. Is the money of the people who pay taxes everyday in order to better America going to go toward cleaning us other countries? I don't see this happening but you never know. Not only that but it allows other countries to challenge American laws under the ISDS which undermines american soverignity. This does not only discourage free-trade but it affects American economy which effects alot of other countries which doesn't discourage "sweatshops" but encourages them.

Side: I'm against TPP
Thames(131) Clarified
1 point

Would you please cite a source and indicate what part of your argument comes from the cited source?

Side: I'm for TPP
2 points

More over this deal makes it easier for global cooperations to move capital offshore leading to trade deficits and falling wages.

Side: I'm against TPP
2 points

Have we forgotten about the poor countries who are locked into the TPP? There are 6 countries-Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, and Vietnam- involved in the TPP who are categorized as poor and developing and if approved it could lock all of them into their current states of rampant poverty and economic strain. The TPP was written by and for the rich countries and the poor countries were left in the dark. The tax reforms in the TPP harm poor and developing countries because it prohibits levying taxes on a countries exports; this encourages the goods to stay in home but lessens the value of the good. This means that poor countries who's economies rely on the collection of those taxes will suffer even more. This agreement encourages international competition, which is great for the rich countries but hurts the poor countries because they cannot compete. The TPP essentially forces countries to perform economically on the world stage, even if they aren't ready. If the developing countries get left behind all parties suffer, and the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will have to pick up their slack, on top of dealing with their own economic problems. We don't let toddlers playin the NFL for good reason.

Supporting Evidence: 9 reasons why the TPP is bad for poor countries (www.google.com)
Side: I'm against TPP
AnikaDaBeast(6) Disputed
2 points

Actually, the opposite would be true. Yes, there are many poor countries involved in the TPP - this deal is very beneficiary to them. Firstly, the TPP forces those countries to improve their labor standards and environmental standards. It is designed to ensure children aren't forced into labor and prevent human trafficking - i would say this is an improvement for any country. Secondly, the TPP allows for trade between wealthy countries such as USA and poorer countries such as Malaysia. "The United States has agreed on multiple occasions at the World Trade Organization (WTO) that it should provide duty-free, quota-free market access for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries, as all other rich countries have done." (http://www.cgdev.org/blog/tpp-shaping-be-mixed-bag-developing-countries) Poor countries will have more access to goods from all over the world. Lastly, many wealthy corporations will move overseas to these poor countries. This will certainly provide millions of those people with jobs and as a result, boost their economies. More goods, more trade, more jobs, this is a win for poorer nations.

Side: I'm for TPP
1 point

Is the TPP truly beneficial to the majority of the citizens in our country? With globalization spreading throughout the world and with most countries joining the "pivot to Asia" strategy, the TPP at first glance may seem like a great deal. In the end though, the overall outcome of the TPP is not as beneficial to the vast majority of our citizens. If the TPP would have been approved, most of the benefit would have gone towards large corporations (aka the rich). The Public Citizen reported, "the TPP would mean wage losses for all but the richest 10% of U.S. workers." I am not a citizen of large trade corporations, I am a citizen of the United States.

Side: I'm against TPP
ceweems(4) Disputed
1 point

The U.S. would benefit from the Trans Pacific Partnership because it would lead to an increase in income. By 2025, the increase in income is valued at $77 billion. This increase is due to the lowering of prices on goods through free trade. Another great benefit of the TPP is that it would create over 650,000 jobs in the United States. "Many trade economists believe trade agreements do not change the number of jobs, but instead change the types of jobs. More productive trade should lead to more productive jobs, raising incomes; not increasing the number of less productive jobs."

Supporting Evidence: Source: (www.investopedia.com)
Side: I'm for TPP
Jenaya_simon(4) Disputed
0 points

The TPP actually would boost the economy because it would help us not have to heavily depend on other countries for all of our imports. We could have our own manufacturers make some of the things. "When it comes to the TPP, /TTIP the deal would add over $100 billion to the US economy..."

Side: I'm for TPP
Johnmarquez4(14) Disputed
2 points

How is this true? By agreeing to the TPP we would be relying a lot more on foreign imports. Thats where the job loss argument stems from because our jobs would be outsourced to countries who do it cheaper. It may boost overall numbers, but does that take into account the gigantic and continual growth of the gap in wealth distribution?

Side: I'm against TPP