Finally, we look at popular arguments for and against these two agreements.
The arguments that support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) include reduced non-tariff barrier rates and increment in jobs for U.S citizens.
In the first argument supporting the TPP, supporters mentioned that TPP would reduce non tariff barrier rates and thus increase trade flow among countries. As compared to the U.S whose non tariff barrier rates for agricultural imports are relatively low at 17%, this is not the case for other countries involved in the TPP negotiations. Japan, South Korea and Australia’s rate for non tariff barrier on agricultural imports are 38.3%, 48.9% and 29.5% respectively. By lowering this rate, it would increase trade flow among the countries involved within the negotiations thus benefitting all parties.
…show more content…
Critics have questioned if TPP would result in the same ending as NAFTA which caused a loss of jobs in the US, however, Obama rebutted with the following statement. He argues that “NAFTA was a different agreement, passed 20 years ago. In fact, this agreement fixes some of what was wrong with NAFTA by making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable.” He mentioned that not only would it not cause a loss in jobs for the US citizens, it would also benefit the large US companies as work standards for its foreign workers are raised.
Overall, the supporters for the TPP agreement believe that TPP would reduce red tape that currently surrounds businesses and improve trading conditions among the countries involved.
Next, we move on to discuss on the two arguments that critics pose against the idea of the TPP agreement. The arguments include the restriction of affordable medicines and also the lack of transparency concerning the