Some members of the business community are still hopeful the agreement will pass during the lame duck session, but the latest statement by McConnell seems to pour cold water on that notion.

The corporate execs, both members of President Obama's Export Council, reduced the complex arguments for the agreement to five main points, pointing out in their preamble that U.S. exports are up 22 percent over the past five years, presumably thanks in part to the agreements with 20 countries now in force.  Our comments on their points appear in parentheses.

Point one: “Exports matter”

During the past 50 years, exports of goods and services have trended higher, and now equal about 13 percent of GDP and account for one out of every 12 jobs. (A return to protectionism would likely increase the unemployment rate, and not by a small amount).  Workers in export-intensive industries make about 18 percent more than those in other manufacturing sectors.  The TPP would eliminate 18,000 tariffs, making U.S. goods less expensive for foreign buyers.  This in turn would sustain the higher-paying jobs.  (Note that the authors don’t say the number of jobs will increase, perhaps because automation makes such predictions hard to defend.  Still, many of our members say they will hire more as demand for their products increases.)

Point two: “Change is the law of life”

In other words, disruption and technological innovation will continue.  The U.S. is in a good position to take advantage because of the entrepreneurial bend of the culture.  The TPP plays to this strength by knocking down the barriers to data flows, where the U.S. has an advantage.  (Note the authors don’t address the woes of people who don’t fit this description and who have lost jobs because of the trends they suggest we embrace and take advantage of).

Point three: “Supporting TPP is the right thing to do”

The right thing is support for workers’ rights, conservation, intellectual property, transparency and the rule of law.  The free flow of trade leads over time to the free flow of ideas.  (The second claim is dubious, as China and Russia remain as totalitarian as ever, despite their membership in WTO. We need to unpack the connection between free trade and democratic reform.  If it happens, great.  But to keep waxing on about it seems jingoistic and is not embraced by the majority of workers).

Point four: “Trade supports peace”

(This is a riff on the old saying that when goods cross borders, armies don’t.  There’s some truth to it).  TPP is intended to in part development closer ties with allies, especially in the Asia Pacific region.  It does so, by integrating two former enemies, Japan and Vietnam.  (One reason the Obama administration is keen to get this agreement is that it will increase the U.S. presence and role in a region that China covets.  Both superpowers would like to negotiate their way to more influence through trade and investment.  We agree that if TPP goes nowhere, China will step into the breach left by the U.S.)

Point five: “Nature abhors a vacuum”

(See point four.)  The U.S. will suffer damage if it is left out of future trade deals involving the region.  China wins, the U.S. loses.  (Countries not totalitarian will face an increasingly skeptical public who oppose such deals.  More work is needed to convince them that they are in their best interests.  For that to happen more public education is needed, and governments must do much more to provide for workers whose jobs have been lost and will be lost.  While it’s probably true, as the authors argue, that the TPP will produce significant net benefits for people in 15 years, the angst is now and it must be addressed if the TPP is to fly.