[thedaveoflife]

Maybe the best way to ensure access to medicine is by providing economic opportunities to the worlds most impoverished citizens. In other words, if the trade off is say a 10% increase in per capita GDP in exchange for less access to generics, maybe the former is better than the latter?

[zanny]

Those writing the TPP have no interest in passing any of the profits of these trade deals off to impoverished third world nations to enrich their societies.

If you want a mutually beneficial trade agreement, you don't need secret meetings or a rush to get it through congress.

[thedaveoflife]

The reason it is kept secret is presumably because the general public has difficulty seeing the ancillary benefits (reduction of trade barriers) and pays close attention to the obvious drawbacks (IP rights for "evil" corporations). This contention is fairly well supported by a cursory read through this or any other internet thread about a trade agreement.

Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.

[stephengillie]

That's an incredibly weak justification, and it comes off as patronizing. You're telling me that they have to hide when they do trade deals, because people might object to the concessions?

So you're going to commit is to something we didn't agree to? That's exactly why we need transparency.

And who decides who gets to make these deals? "Oh let us decide for you." No, you'll make a decision I don't want.

[lugg]

They must be some pretty weak and nuanced ancillary benefits if you're unable to explain them in such a way this "dumb" populace can understand the trade offs.

> Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.

Its not an open question, its a closed, hidden question we don't get access to, let alone any answers to.

This is a one-sided discussion because it is a one-sided situation.

[chad_oliver]

Perhaps, but there is no way that the TPP is going to produce at 10% increase in GDP per capita. I'm generally supportive of free trade agreements, but in the case of the TPP, all the low-hanging economic fruit has already been picked. There are no significant remaining trade barriers that can be removed to generate quick growth.

[fweespeech]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/05/16-us-tr...

> Economic modeling estimates that the benefits to the U.S. from the TPP will be $5 billion in 2015, rising to $14 billion in 2025

Yeah, its not worth it.

Btw US GDP is ~$16 trillion. This isn't going to move the meter at all. Its primarily about securing foreign IP rights for US companies, Obama's legacy, and strategic influence.

[snowwrestler]

I think the parent meant 10% GDP growth in the other (non-U.S.) countries.

[fweespeech]

It doesn't do that either.