Free Essay On Tpp

I do not necessarily agree with Reich’s assertions. While the TPP might have the result of moving many jobs offshore, the agreement should also make it easier for small businesses to compete with foreign manufacturers, by making it easier for them to trade with countries that are a part of the partnership. Furthermore, as many of the lower skilled and manufacturing jobs leave America, many have been replaced by jobs orientated towards the growing technology fields. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the deal is designed, on the part of the United States, to increase access of various products to United States businesses, from manufacturing to construction. If the deal has the effects that it is intended to have, then it should be beneficial to the United States. However, if the author of the article is correct in his assumption that the deal will have negative consequences, then it would seem that the agreement will do more harm than good.
Beyond providing access to a greater share of goods, the agreement also involves applying more strict rules to those manufacturing suppliers who use any type of forced labor. In this way, the agreement should actually help to reduce the amount of products that are produced in this way that enter the United States. In this way, the agreement could bring businesses like Nike that have gone offshore in order to gain the advantages of cheap labor back to the United States. If the deal is able to curb the ability for these companies to unfairly promote cheap labor, then the businesses may return to the United States in order to benefit from a more wiling work force.
Hegel believed in the power of ideas to unite individuals and to inform our history. If the trade agreement were able to unite those who were a part of it in some common ideology, and to create something entirely new in doing so, then I would think that Hegel would agree with it on some level. It would seem that he might disagree with the article for this reason. To Hegel, the state should have the power to mediate economic prosperity without creating conflict. He does not believe that it is in the capacity of the state to create legislation that is against the interest of the individual, therefore, he would probably disagree with the article. This is due to the way that the blog has questioned the actions taken by the state, which, in Hegel’s view, are only in pursuit of creating a more idealized society.
Marx believed that we must provide the state the ability to mediate conflicts of interest between individuals, as that is its primary purpose. His philosophies were directly influenced by those of Hegel, however, the capacity to which the agreement can benefit society as a whole would be called into question. He would not be concerned with a capitalistic framework, only those that would distribute wealth equally. For this reason, he would agree with the article. However, if the deal actually were to lead to a more beneficial outcome for society as a whole, Marx would probably, for this reason, agree the article as well. The article makes the argument that the law unfairly divides income between those who are at the top of the economic latter and those below. In this sense, the law would be something that he would be against.
List was a Nationalist, and believed that the specific circumstances of a nation were what essentially determined what the right or wrong course of action they would take might be. In his mind, the behavior of the individual is in direct conflict with the needs of the nation. While an individual might be selfish, the nation is in service. In this sense, List would disagree with the article. He would most likely be in favor of this type of legislation, understanding that the legislation put forth by the national government sets the stage for the advancement of all individuals. However, his opinion concerning how the trade should be handled would most likely be dependent on how the agreement plays out in reality, rather than simply as an idea on paper.
Lenin’s philosophies were geared primarily towards the eradication of capitalism. In this sense, it is difficult to believe that Lenin would agree with either the article or the agreement. In his view, it would seem that any trade that allows for the benefit of capitalism would be unnecessary. This would, essentially put his views at odds with the idea that any sort of value should come out of trade. Instead, any accumulated value would need to be dispersed amongst the populace. In this way, any trade that occurred between nations would have to be beneficial to the workers, not those who own the means of production. Therefore, the impact of the article on Lenin’s position would probably be minimal.
Schumpeter, in his economic theories, attempted to take into account all of the complexities of economic policies. His interest in entrepreneurship would play a part in his position on the trade agreement. If the agreement is able to help individuals compete in the market against larger corporate structures, then he would probably not be completely against it. Furthermore, it would seem that many of the arguments laid out in the article are presented in a way that give them little weight. Schumpeter would seem to be motivated more by logic then by rational, or appeals to ideological perspectives. For this reason, the arguments set forth in the article would have little impact upon his economic positions regarding the trade agreement.
The impact that the article would have, and the amount to which these economic and political philosophers would agree with the author is difficult to determine. While the article outlines the intent of the countries in the partnership to commit to a more humanitarian and inclusive trade agreement, their actual dedication to this idea is less absolute. As for the author of the article himself, there are numerous arguments that are posed against the trade deal, however, many of these revolve around the assumption that the deal will not work the way that it is meant to, and will instead lead to a higher gap in income equality. If this is the case, then many of the more socialist thinkers, such as Marx and Lenin would definitely be against it. However, if it did succeed in this purpose, then they might have different opinions about it.