Negotiations for the TPP agreement should be abandoned

My opponent seems to have assumed that my policies are anti-globalisation. I reckon globalisation is great - provided that you maintain regulatory freedom. To this end I support more trade, but not if that trade comes at the expense of social or economic concessions in the name of short term profits. In the last round I told you free trade has never created some ongoing profit without vastly exploiting some non-renewable natural resource. I'm still waiting to be proven wrong.EconomicsIn the last forty years we've exploited more non-renewable natural resources than at any point in our planet's history, so that's how we maintained profit despite increasing free trade. I must disagree that this growth has been equal among the rich and poor. There is ample evidence showing that some countries (which lost - or worse, won - the race to the bottom) have a massively increased income gap now, which can be explicitly linked to free trade - see http://bit.ly....GDP, however, I would not confuse for economic growth. When a multinational creates lots of products in NZ but steals the profits to Australia, that improves NZ's GDP (and that's the main reason economists aren't calling us junk yet). Only when those funds are reinvested in Australia does it count for theirs. So those of us that haven't run away to Australia have a few more years of safety while stuff becomes increasingly less affordable. The capital outflows that occurred in this period to generate that growth are masked in the measurement system the economists in con's sources use.Having more exports does not mean more sustainable exports. Increasing exports by $200b over a signature on a piece of paper is setting up an economy for collapse, because the production value of that economy does not magically increase by $200b, nor is consumption reduced. Having a "trade surplus" in manufactured goods doesn't mean things will stay that way - the primary business of the US remains making China richer. It also means that other countries in NAFTA have a trade deficit in manufactured goodsGovernment manipulation of trade markets is just as bad as corporate manipulation of trade markets, if not worse for social reasons. There's no economic advantage to the re-regulation of markets from governments to business.I just don't accept that "The U.S. labor market will then adjust accordingly" for the multiple reasons I gave last round. Even if they did the trade will still be zero-sum since the new jobs will cause job losses somewhere else just as the Chinese jobs did.The 25% higher steel prices also massively allow you to increase steel output and achieve economies of scale, lowering costs on manufactured goods, raising wages in the industry, bringing in more jobs, and not using steel from countries where steel-making conditions might not be so good.For prices to adapt to local disruptions is normal and good. When there is a huge disaster and prices don't immediately drop for example, people become short-changed as they lose income instantly. They're volatile because prices are no reflection of local conditions, but international ones. Free trade with more countries makes this worse.Reinvesting money from trade surplus is the PROBLEM. It locks up money in producer countries like Japan and drains it from consumer countries like the USA.Trade WarsThere's a difference between mandating no protectionism and overdoing protectionism. Free markets may be good in many instances but not all - we have exceptions. Sometimes SOEs are among them (like, for example, NZ's monopoly on drugs buying with "Pharmac", which has saved New Zealand billions in bulk discounts at the expense of US big pharma profits).The world is not in a trade war, nor is the pacific, nor is there any reason to believe it will be soon, nor is mandating free trade the best possible response. In fact, a trade war with an undesirable trading partner (which is why you'd have tariffs, right?) is desirable.HegemonyThat hegemony has frequently upset stability, and the USA has a very bad track record when it comes to peace. In any event it's not helped by the fact all the negotiating partners are historical enemies of China (one even has an ongoing land claim), and that China is likely to perceive any growing hegemony in the region by the US as a threat. Moreover, the Asian nations don't really want US hegemony either. They're quite happy maintaining their right to self-determination.Social costMy opponent has no response to any of my arguments that price signals do not factor externalities that governments should correct for.Contrary to my opponent's assertion, much actual economic research is clear that races to the bottom do exist in free trade - see http://bit.ly..., http://bit.ly..., and http://bit.ly... - as well as much investigative journalism - see http://bit.ly..., http://bit.ly..., http://bit.ly... and http://bit.ly.... Naturally it's very hard to prove free trade CAUSED certain bad policies to be implemented later, but the logic WHY is sound.I'm not opposed to international trade. Only free trade, and even then not always. Con's research is all irrelevant.While the P4 agreement had some mandates to soften the impact of the social costs, that doesn't mean there hasn't been a social cost. All four signatories aren't exactly rolling in wealth as a result. In NZ worker rights have been reduced with trial period employments and youth wages, Chile has seen a string of high-profile industrial accidents (particularly involving mining), Singapore - well, they've always had next to no worker rights let alone human rights. Brunei is the sole exception, having strengthened labour laws - but also seen the least benefit, with a year on year real GDP growth rate of only about 0.52% since signing (in the 3 years prior it had been 3.2%), which is well below inflation. This loss of economic power has in effect been a social cost.CorporationsThe many SMEs who do import and export don't do a lot of the actual importing and exporting, as my opponent's own data shows - in fact they do about a third of it, according to con's source. In real terms, it's clearly very heavily skewed towards megacorporations. The point is that that issue will get worse under the TPP for all the reasons I gave last round.Foreign subsidiaries and other loopholes are exactly that - loopholes. Governments who ignore them are corrupt as opposed to protectionist. We both oppose corruption.Even if the market is flooded with foreign SMEs, that undermines business competition as well, as economic theory is quite clear you can't make a profit in perfect competition. The assumption is that all businesses face equal costs, which they don't, creating strong incentives for a race to the bottom that most countries just can't win.My opponent does nothing to combat my three reasons why comparative advantage doesn't work. He just reasserts it without considering my rebuttal.Other stuffThere's no reason for this negotiation to be secret, other than the fact that every leak so far has made it apparent the heads of state have a lot to hide. It's not like any negotiating party's trade interests are a big secret or anything. It's bad because it's tacking a hidden agenda on to an otherwise harmless-looking policy. That's bad for democracy, transparency, and ultimately accountability.A website is accessible from anywhere, so it's not very hard for SMEs to launch themselves into overseas markets online. You don't need to add agreements like forcing ISPs (as opposed to courts) to be responsible for policing copyright for the sake of SMEs overseas.I look forward to the final round.