Negotiations for the TPP agreement should be abandoned

EconomicsPro concedes that my free trade economy arguments are correct; Pro concedes that the TPP will lower the cost of goods and generate wealth. Right here I win the economy argument, by Pro’s own admission.Pro’s main contention is that the TPP will hurt “standard of living.” Yet all the evidence I have given in this round shows that free trade reduces poverty, creates more efficient economies, and generates wealth. Together these all suggest a drastic increase in standard of living. The economic well being of individuals is clearly improved by the TPP, so Pro must mean something different when he says “standard of living,” though he fails to define exactly what that might be.According to Pro, selling $200b of stuff is the same as “just giving it away” and “just losing stuff.” Aside from this being a ridiculous argument at face value, the evidence shows the opposite- my [8] shows statistically that free trade produces an economic multiplier and [1] shows that huge rate of modern growth was due to the fall of trade barriers post-WWII.Pro makes a new argument that the growth of the past 40 years has been due to bubbles, yet provides no evidence to this effect. Pro claims NAFTA caused job displacement, despite the period following NAFTA’s enactment showing record job growth and a boost in industrial output.[2] And again, “job displacement” is just the market adjusting to become more efficient. Yes, many US IT jobs are now in India, but the result is that the services these IT jobs support is now cheaper and the US employees now have different jobs. Yes NAFTA displaced jobs, but the US economy responded by rapidly growing in other job sectors.When foreign steel must cost at least 25% more, it means US steel companies will bid jobs just under 25% more than foreign companies. This is something that actually happens, though in the example given the US companies bid 23% higher). [1]WarsPro is completely ignoring my China argument: I am not arguing that China will outright attack the U.S. I am arguing that when major power shifts happen, countries are more likely to forcefully assert their interests and are more likely to make miscalculations that result in war. One example of how this might happen is over the island of Taiwan, where China maintains the right of forceful intervention and the U.S. denies this right while supplying Taiwan with weapons. This is a point of contention specifically about military power that could easily erupt into war.Currently U.S. Hegemony is in decline due to the rising star of China. The loss of influence in Asia due to developing Asian economic agreements that exclude the U.S. represents a zero sum power struggle between the U.S. and China: either the U.S. is frozen out of the Pacific economic architecture and China get a monopoly on regional influence, or the U.S. establishes itself in the Pacific and China loses influence. The TPP is a unique opportunity for the U.S. to build itself into the Pacific economy and prevent a decline of Hegemony. The TPP is also a springboard for much larger agreements like the FTAAP.The Cuban missile crisis is totally different from an economic free trade agreement- China won’t threaten nuclear war over the TPP.Of course Taiwan has not heated up historically, because the US maintains Hegemony and is overwhelmingly stronger than China. The danger comes if China gains equal footing to the US, then asserting strategic interests becomes feasible and conflict becomes inevitable.Again, whether the US is a benign Hegemon is irrelevant. Yes the US starts wars, but that doesn’t change the fact that the unipolar global system created by the US is much more stable and safe than a bipolar one where China and the US compete militarily. Additionally, Pro’s source on how violent the US is comes from “the first Iranian news network;” the fact is the U.S. global order is much more peaceful than the international anarchy that lead to the world wars.Pro doesn’t dispute my specific examples of how the US maintains global order- by protecting territorial sovereignty as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in the Gulf War.Trade WarsPro is unresponsive to my central claims on trade wars: that they historically occur when protectionist policies are enacted and they are economically devastating.Countries will eventually enact protectionist policies, whether its due to domestic political pressures or for whatever reason, unless international agreements are in place to prevent said protectionist policies. The TPP prevent protectionism and so is crucial to preventing trade wars.Also, free trade reduces the probability of war by 50%- the TPP makes war less likely.Social CostThere is no way to account for every economic externality, but the TPP at least tries to by building in a commitment to sound labor practices. Most importantly, the TPP explicitly prevents changing labor policy to improve trade relations- this is a crucial anti-protectionist provision but it also prevents race to the bottom.Even if you think the TPP won’t help labor practices, any negative impact it would have would be marginal. Pro says labor practices are bad already and makes no quantification of how much worse they could possibly get. Additionally, Pro concedes that free trade contains only the possibility of race to the bottom, making adverse social costs a low probability impact. More importantly, any possible social cost of the TPP has to be weighed against the economic and global security impacts of the TPP. CorporationsPro gives no evidence that the TPP will create monopolies. Cross apply all my evidence that shows that free trade has caused poverty reduction and economic growth, not monopolistic race to the bottom, in the past 40 years. This is the same hard evidence that proves that comparative advantage is real and that Pro concedes is correct.Corporations benefit from trade barriers the most because they have the most public policy influence and because they can more easily establish foreign subsidiaries. Pro claims he refutes this by pointing out that these are loopholes and corruption. This is true, but these are also realities of how the system works- free trade removes these loopholes and corruption.Extend that 1/3 of trade is done by SME’s which stand to benefit from the TPP.Other stuffThis other stuff is honestly just not that important compared with the economic and geopolitical impact of the TPP. Global democracy won’t change because the TPP was negotiated behind closed doors, internet security provisions are needed to prevent corporate espionage.UnderviewGlobal security should be prioritized above all other impacts; the magnitude of a Sino-US war is huge and would cost thousands of lives and devastate the US and global economy.The Economic impact of the TPP is the next most important impact. Pro has conceded that my analysis that free trade reduces global poverty and causes economic growth is mostly correct. Even if you think Pro is correct that free trade has some negative impacts on the labor market, the economic benefits I have shown at least mean the TPP will be neutral to the economy. Factor in that the TPP prevents risk of a trade war and the TPP is clearly an economic plus. When all the economic arguments are weighed, the TPP is at worst economically neutral at best a strong benefit to the economy.The Social Cost of the TPP is barely worth considering next to global security and economy. Labor conditions are already poor and Pro concedes even if his arguments are correct TPP has only a small risk of creating race to the bottom. Even if you think Pro is 100% correct, the global security and economic benefits of the TPP outweigh concerns of social cost.Negotiations for the TPP ought to be continued, please vote Con.[1] http://intelligencesquaredus.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_effect_on_United_States_employment