Negotiations for the TPP agreement should be abandoned

In this round I will make a point by point rebuttal of my opponent: Hegemony Pro does not dispute that US Hegemony is in jeopardy or that the TPP is crucial to integrating the US into the Pacific geopolitical architecture. Unlike trade, geopolitics IS zero-sum: The threat to Heg is from China, the U.S. needs to integrate into Asian regional leadership or China will take that role. Asian economic agreements that exclude the US are already being created, the US needs to act now or it risks being permanently locked out of the Pacific power structure. Moreover, the TPP is a launching point for broader agreements like the FTAAP. China will perceive this as a threat, but China is not yet at a point where it can safely retaliate. The danger is in allowing the balance of power to shift to a point where China feels it is capable of challenging the US. The US actually has a great track record when it comes to peace. The wars under the Pax Americana have been small and localized compared to the ravages of the World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the constant state of medieval warfare. U.S. power is a stabilizing force, punishing territorial aggression in the Gulf War and preventing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Moreover, whether the US is a benign Hegemon is irrelevant, as Pro does not deny that Taiwan is a power symbol and that if China overtakes the U.S. it becomes a flashpoint for nuclear war. History proves that major power shifts are incredibly violent; a US-Sino war would be on the order of WWIII. The danger of upsetting the global balance of power is magnitudes larger than any possible economic impact (good or bad) of the TPP. Economics Pro claims the explosion of global economic growth is due to exploitation of resources, but the fact is it has been globalization and free trade which allowed humanity to profit from these resources. The resources have always been around, but only globalization catalyzed the economic explosion. My [1] explains that the economic boom occurred immediately following the fall of American and European trade barriers in the 50’s and 60’s. Only once free trade creates a comparative advantage that makes resource exploitation profitable can massive economic growth occur. GDP is a key indicator of economic growth, though it might be misleading in very peculiar cases, but my sources rely on a variety of indicators; [2] shows economic growth based on the decreasing number of people living below the poverty line. Pro makes a preposterous claim that increasing exports by $200b would collapse the US economy, and he makes it with no evidence. $200b is income for families, wealth for infrastructure development, and $200b worth of goods the rest of the world is able to purchase. My [8] clearly shows that open trade has a huge multiplier on economic growth. Pro claims government manipulation of trade markets is bad, but this is exactly what protectionism is! Tariffs and regulations create external costs of doing business and so manipulate market forces. Pro has no stable theory of what is actually good for the economy. He says it is better for markets to be isolated, but globalization is also good; he says protectionism is good, but government manipulation is bad; his argument can’t be true for the simple fact it’s so contradictory. According to Pro’s economic theory, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Considering the massive Hegemonic benefit to the TPP, it’s a no brainer to continue negotiations. It is unfortunate that Pro “just doesn’t accept” that labor markets will adjust to competitive pressures, but massive structural changes has occurred during the process of globalization [2] and not only did markets adjust, they excelled. The massive global economic growth in the past 40 years is an outgrowth of these shifting markets. Pro’s steel argument makes zero sense- economies of scale already exist but they can’t undercut Chinese steel prices. Artificially high steel prices means less projects get built, which means less steel is sold by everyone. It also means the projects that do get built are 25% more expensive, so U.S. steelworkers have to spend more of their smaller paycheck on goods. Pro doesn’t respond to my point that globalized markets create stability. If Ireland has a potato famine and is an isolated market, they starve. If they are a globalized market, there is a blip in global potato prices and the world moves on. Trade War Pro doesn’t dispute that historically protectionist policies lead to trade wars or that the TPP explicitly prevents trade wars. Pro’s only response is that we aren’t in a trade war now and won’t be soon. But no one plans to get in a trade war- protectionist policies can pop up any time a country thinks it will solve a trade gap, they are responses to inevitable circumstances. If Japan is suddenly undercut on auto exports, they might respond with protectionism and trigger a trade war. The only way to prevent such an event is to prevent it with an agreement like the TPP- the TPP prevents historically probably crises. Pro also doesn’t respond to the point that trade cuts the likelihood of war in half. This is an independent benefit to increased trade, regardless of whether a trade war occurs or not. Social Cost Even if price signals don’t factor in some externalities, abandoning the TPP doesn’t solve this. Pro needs to demonstrate what impact the TPP has on such externalities and he hasn’t done that at all. Cross apply [3] that the TPP actually explicitly acknowledge externalities. Pro’s use of sources on race to the bottom is terrible; he didn’t number them so I have no way to reference them and Pro gives no explanation of what any of them mean. Most of them are ambivalent about race to the bottom and contain only anecdotal evidence. Compare this to my [2] which is full of economic regressions showing decrease in population below the poverty line, rising incomes, and no increase in inequality due to globalization. Additionally, Pro’s third source says that “The race to the bottom can be prevented by South–South agreement to honour labour standards.” The TPP does this- it contains an agreement to promote sound labor practices; Pro’s own source says that such agreements solves race to the bottom. Pro’s sources are in reference to “globalization,” despite Pro’s opening claim that he is not anti-globalization. Again, Pro says his position is A then claims B. Pro tries to cherry-pick data to make it appear as though P4 countries are floundering (which is of course due to the TPP rather than the global economic downturn), but I could do the same, e.g. Chile is doing great economically [1]. Pro gives no evidence mining accidents have anything to do with the TPP. Corporations Again, Pro has no stable position- TPP is bad because it means we have more megacorporations but having more SME’s creates a race to the bottom. My refutation of Pro’s criticism of comparative advantage is in the empirical evidence: open trade carries a huge economic multiplier, results in global economic growth, and reduces poverty. Even if SME’s represent 1/3 of trade traffic, that’s still a huge portion of small companies that benefit from free trade. Moreover, that number will only get bigger since trade barriers are harder to overcome for small companies. Pro doesn’t refute my arguments that trade barriers disproportionately favor megacorporations. Other stuff There’s nothing special about negotiations being secret- this is standard international diplomacy. No matter, how the TPP is negotiated will have zero impact on democracy. Cyber corporate espionage is a serious threat to small companies. Internet security provisions are crucial to the success of SME’s [12]. [10] http://www.tradingeconomics.com... [11] http://www.unido.org... [12] http://www.cbc.ca...