Donald Trump opposes the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, thus denying its undoubted benefits for all countries involved. Free trade decreases the price of goods and services, promotes competition and augments disposable income. All research into the effects of trade deals has proven that the benefits outweigh the negatives. While it is undeniable that freeing up trade can cause loss of jobs, the upside is greater than the downside because the greater flow of money supports the people negatively effected.
Research shows that 80 per cent of job losses are actually caused by automation and introduction of technology. To trash the trade deal and instead levy import duties, as Trump proposes, would not only deny the population the benefits, but would also result in a cost greater than the loss of jobs. This was proven by the Obama administration’s import duties on cheap Chinese steel, which cost US$900,000 per saved job – money which could have been used in a far more effective way.
JC Wilcox offers confusing statements about the implications for Thailand of signing the TPP. His talk about the repercussions are vague; he gives no examples except that Thailand will be flooded by immigrants. Really? Unlike Europe or the United States, Thailand has no social safety nets – no work, no money. The “flood” will in fact be the same trickle that exists now, since free movement of labour will be limited. Equally strange is his claim that signing the TPP would place Thailand under Washington’s control as a satellite nation of the US. How? Evidently he hasn’t read the TPP.
Instead he holds up the European Union as an example of the anti-democratic nature of trade federations. Here Mr Wilcox displays a disturbing lack of knowledge about the EU’s policymaking process, where in fact a council of prime ministers decides the policies and a commission executes them. His letter is full of such unsupported insinuations and thus typical of the arguments routinely employed by Trump’s supporters.
Egon