Pew Research, May 27: "Free Trade Agreements Seen as Good for U.S."

[MFrohike]

101. Is that a serious question?

GATT was a general lowering of tariffs. With the notable exception of the northeast, that is a position that has been historically supported by most of America. The IMF and the World Bank were proposed in order to prevent liquidity crises in order to support the Breton Woods agreement. None of that is remotely comparable to the "trade" treaties of today. TPP and TTIP have virtually nothing to do with tariffs, since those are already covered under WTO (and are about as low as possible).

I ask if you're serious, because I don't see how you can be if you actually know anything about the institutions you mention. The issue today has nothing to do with free trade because, assuredly, we have it. The most optimistic estimates of the effect of the TPP on US GDP are a couple of percentage points over a 10 year period. Most of those assumed gains come from financial services and government granted monopolies. That's not a strong case for attacking what are euphemistically called "non-tariff barriers." It's not actual products made by American workers that are going to benefit, it's finance and those very government granted monopolies (patent and copyright) that will benefit. Given their commanding position in our economy as it is, do we really need to give them yet another leg up?

GATT, the IMF, and the World Bank were a response to a genocidal war. They were a rational response to prior economic competition that had helped begin two world wars. If that is your concern, I suggest you contact Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, or Mario Draghi. Their QE and zero interest rate policies have enabled the largest currency war in history. That's a continuing source of diplomatic irritation and does not lend itself to a more peaceful world.