I’m familiar with studies showing estimated economic gains from TPP in the neighborhood of $1.9 trillion (pdf). Given the past performance of trade models, I am willing to believe that might be an overestimate. So let’s cut those gains roughly in half to say a trillion. (That said, if I understand the Peterson document correctly, they are not even trying to incorporate gains from reallocation on the production side, as might result from comparative advantage or dynamic specialization; in this sense $1 trillion may be a considerable underestimate of the upside.)
That is still a sizable sum of economic gain.
What would convince me to oppose TPP if is somebody did a study showing the following: when you use a better trade model, use better data, and/or add in the neglected costs of TPP (which are real), those gains go away and indeed become negative.
Then I would change my mind, or at least weigh those economic costs against possibly favorable geopolitical benefits from the deal.
What does not convince me is when people simply list various costs and outrages associated with TPP. Furthermore if one of those problems with TPP is addressed, or partially addressed, often these commentators circle around to another possible problem. In fact that response pattern is a sign the critics don’t themselves have a very good comprehensive estimate of global costs and benefits. By the way, it also fails to convince me when the critics attack those who support TPP for being craven, superficial, lackeys, and so on.
I say let’s just have a two-way button and ask everyone to press it: do you believe that TPP would lead to a net gain in economic welfare or not?
If those costs and outrages associated with TPP are so bad, it ought to be possible to do a study which makes the trillion in benefits go away. Has anyone done such a study? Would such a study survive the commentary from the NBER annual macro conference?
I am not suggesting that economic welfare should be the only criterion for evaluating a policy. But making everyone press this two-way button — and in the process citing their favorite comprehensive policy study of TPP – would do wonders to bring clarity to the debate. Commentators still would have the liberty of accepting the reality of the economic gains while disfavoring the policy, as indeed I do with forced kidney extraction and transplant.
In the meantime, the more desultory lists I see of possible negative consequences of TPP, the more likely I am to think it is a good idea after all.