May, 19 2016, 02:00pm EDT

TPP Study Projects Worsening Trade Balances for 16 of 25 U.S. Economic Sectors, Overall U.S. Trade Deficit Increase
Despite ITC Reliance on Model that Has Systematically Overstated Benefits of Trade Pacts Relative to Outcomes
WASHINGTON
Today the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) released a study on the potential impacts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The report:
- Estimates a worsening balance of trade for 16 out of 25 U.S. agriculture (p. 124), manufacturing (p. 228), and services (p. 340) sectors that the ITC selected to feature. This includes vehicles, wheat, corn, autoparts, titanium products, chemicals, seafood, textiles and apparel, rice and even financial service. Autoparts would be hard hit with employment projected to decrease by 0.3 percent.
- Estimates the TPP will increase the U.S. global trade deficit by $21.7 billion by 2032.
- Projects even the U.S. services trade balance will worsen by 2032 as service imports of $7 billion swamp the estimated increase in exports of $4.8 billion (p. 35).
- Temporarily disregarding the fact that the ITC has underestimated the increase in the U.S. trade deficit caused by almost every pact it has assessed, the trade deficit increase the ITC does project from TPP implementation would equate to 129,484 American job losses, counting both exports and imports, according to the latest administration trade-jobs ratio. This makes even more curious the ITC estimate that the TPP would raise employment levels by 0.07 percent (128,000 jobs) in 2032.
- Estimates a decline in output for U.S. manufacturing/natural resources/ energy of $10.8 billion as exports would increase by $15.2 billion and imports would increase by $39.2 billion by 2032.
- Estimates tiny U.S. economic growth gains (42.7 billion or 0.15 percent) and income gains ($57.3 billion or 0.23 percent) by 2032. In other words, the ITC projects that the United States would be as wealthy on January 1, 2032 with TPP as it would be on February 15, 2032 without the TPP.
- Notes concern that the TPP would empower more foreign corporations to sue the U.S. government in private tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation over U.S. laws they claim violate their TPP rights and that the Investor State Dispute Settlement System is expanded to allow new grounds for financial service firms to challenge domestic policies (p. 36).
Statement of Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, on the Report:
"This report spotlights how damaging the TPP would be for most Americans' jobs and wages given it concludes 16 out of 25 U.S. agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors spotlighted by the ITC would see a worsening trade balance while the "upside" projection is miniscule gains in economic growth despite these findings being based on the same widely criticized methodology and unrealistic assumptions that have resulted in past ITC reports systematically overstating the benefits from trade deals that ended up causing serious damage.
Given that the ITC's past studies on pending trade pacts have usually projected improvements in the U.S. trade balance and gains for specific economic sectors but the opposite occurred, that this study projects an increase in the U.S. trade deficit and losses for 16 of 25 U.S. economic sectors suggests that if ever implemented, the TPP could really be disastrous."
How the ITC's Faulty Methodology Has Systematically Led to Overly Optimistic Projections
The actual outcomes of past trade pacts have been significantly more negative than ITC projections generated using the same methodology employed for the TPP study. This makes today's unusually negative ITC findings on the TPP especially ominous.
NAFTA: U.S.-Mexico Trade | ||
1993 - Baseline | ITC Projection | 2015 - Actual |
$2.6 billion goods surplus | $10.6 billion goods and | $57 billion goods and |
China-WTO: U.S.-China Trade in Goods and Services | ||
2000 - Baseline | ITC Projection | 2015 - Actual |
$113 billion deficit | $120 billion deficit | $340 billion deficit |
U.S.-Korea FTA: Trade in Goods | ||
2011 - Baseline | ITC Projection | 2015 - Actual |
$15.6 billion deficit | $10.6 billion deficit | $28.5 billion deficit |
The ITC's TPP report uses the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model that had led to past ITC trade pact projections being entirely unrelated to actual outcomes by simply assuming away the very results that have often occurred under past pacts: long-term job loss, trade deficit increases and currency devaluations.
By design, the ITC CGE model assumed the U.S. trade balance would not change and that overall U.S. employment levels would remain constant - that workers who lose jobs will simply obtain new jobs in other sectors where wages are presumed to increase. Implicit in the assumption that the trade balance does not change is the assumption of flexible exchange rates. But in reality, currency manipulation is a significant problem among some of the TPP countries. The U.S. Department of Treasury just recently included TPP nation Japan on its new Monitoring List in its semi-annual report on "Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States."
When Tufts University economists employed a model that allowed for job loss and increases in income inequality, they concluded that the TPP would reduce U.S. GDP by 0.54 percent over a decade and cost 448,000 American jobs. The Tufts findings spotlight just how drastically the assumptions baked into a CGE model used for the TPP study can affect the outcomes; the Tufts economists actually employed the Peterson Institute trade flow simulation data. They plugged the Peterson findings on import and export levels at full TPP implementation derived from one set of unrealistic assumptions into a model that applies more realistic assumptions about how trade flow changes affect growth and employment - and found that the TPP would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs and drag down growth rates.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Survey Shows Progressive Voters Want 'Fighters,' Not 'Status Quo' Democrats, to Battle Trump
Our Revolution connected the sentiments expressed in the survey to a bid by Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg to support primaries against safe-seat incumbents.
Apr 23, 2025
Active progressive and Democratic-leaning voters are interested in seeing primary challengers to Democrats who represent the "status quo" and are "failing to meet the moment," according to a survey from the group Our Revolution, which polled more than 4,100 voters meeting that description between April 18-20.
According to survey results published Wednesday, 92% want primary challenges to status quo Democrats who aren't generating enough grassroots energy—and 96% support "transforming the party from within," which Our Revolution defines as electing Democratic challengers who reject corporate political action committee (PAC) money and are "ready to take the fight directly to Trump and his enablers."
Our Revolution, a progressive political organizing group launched as a continuation of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign, said in a statement Wednesday that the results reveal a deep frustration with Democratic Party leadership.
Our Revolution also connected the survey results to an effort by David Hogg, Democratic National Committee vice chair and survivor of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, to primary "ineffective, asleep-at-the-wheel" Democrats in safely blue seats.
The PAC Hogg co-founded, Leaders We Deserve, has pledged to spend $20 million to support primary challengers in such races.
"Our Revolution polling shows Hogg's sentiment is shared by a large majority of engaged progressive voters," Our Revolution said.
"The voters we organize with are sounding the alarm: they want fighters, not placeholders," added Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution. "If the party establishment continues to sleepwalk through this crisis, they'll be replaced by a new generation of leaders who aren’t afraid to take on the fight of our lives."
In the release, Geevargheese called the survey respondents voters that Our Revolution organizes, though the statement about the survey results doesn't offer more information about the survey sample.
In addition to support for primarying establishment Democrats, 87% of respondents said the Democratic Party has "lost its way."
What's more, 82% want the Democratic Party to stop accepting "Big Money" from billionaires and corporations, 70% said they are not confident Democratic leaders will do what's needed to stop Trump, and 72% support moving away from a "cautious, centrist approach" in confronting Trump and the far right.
In March, Our Revolution conducted a survey of its own members which found that nearly 90% of respondents believe Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) should step aside from his leadership role, and 86% said they would support a primary challenger against Schumer for his Senate seat, should he refuse to step aside.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Trump 2.0, Business Is Booming for Corporate Lobbying Firms
"Lobbying firms like Ballard Partners know they can trust the Trump administration to fight on behalf of their corporate clients."
Apr 23, 2025
Disclosures filed this week show that lobbying firms with close ties to U.S. President Donald Trump's White House have seen business surge at the start of 2025, with one group that used to employ Trump's chief of staff and attorney general more than doubling its first-quarter revenue compared to last year.
Ballard Partners, a firm led by a Trump donor, reported $14 million in lobbying revenue in the first three months of this year, up from $6.2 million during the same time in 2024.
Politicoreported earlier this week that Ballard "has disclosed more than 130 new lobbying clients just since Election Day, including JPMorgan Chase, Chevron, Palantir, Netflix, Ripple Labs, and the Business Roundtable."
Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles both previously lobbied for Ballard, as did Trump's deputy director of personnel, Trent Morse.
"Lobbying firms like Ballard Partners know they can trust the Trump administration to fight on behalf of their corporate clients," the anti-corruption group End Citizens United said in response to the new disclosures.
Mother Jonesnoted that Ballard "wasn't the only lobbying firm to see a Trump bump."
"Mercury Public Affairs, where Wiles briefly worked repping a tobacco company, reported earning $5.1 million from lobbying in the first quarter of 2025—nearly half the $11.4 million it earned in all of 2024," the outlet observed. "Miller Strategies, run by super-lobbyist Jeff Miller (the firm's website includes a link to a Wall Street Journalarticle proclaiming Miller 'Trump's K Street rainmaker' for his prominent role in campaign fundraising), reported earning $8.6 million in the first three months of this year. In all of 2024, it only reported $12.6 million."
Despite claiming on the campaign trail that he was "not a big person for lobbyists" and that politicians "have to stop listening" to them, Trump has shown a willingness to do their bidding at the start of his second term in the White House.
Earlier this month, as Common Dreamsreported, Trump signed an executive order aimed at delaying Medicare negotiations for a major category of prescription drugs after pharmaceutical industry lobbyists pushed aggressively for the change.
On Monday, The Leverreported that Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "hid data that mapped out the locations of thousands of dangerous chemical facilities, after chemical industry lobbyists demanded that the Trump administration take down the public records."
"After President Donald Trump's victory in November, chemical companies donated generously to his inauguration fund," the outlet observed. "Oil giant ExxonMobil, which is a member of the American Chemistry Council, the industry's main lobbying arm, donated $1 million. The multinational chemical company DuPont donated $250,000."
Trump has placed Lynn Dekleva, a former lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council and DuPont, at the head of an EPA office with "the authority to approve new chemicals for use," The New York Timesreported in February.
During her time with the American Chemistry Council, Dekleva led the group's lobbying campaign to limit EPA regulations on formaldehyde, which the U.S. National Toxicology Program labels as a known carcinogen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Need Urgent Global Action': Study Warns Humanity on Path to Trigger 16 Climate Tipping Points
"It is clear that we are currently on a dangerous trajectory," said one University of Exeter professor.
Apr 23, 2025
Scientists on Wednesday released yet another study warning that humankind is at risk of triggering various climate "tipping points" absent urgent action to dramatically reduce planet-heating emissions from fossil fuels.
The new peer-reviewed paper, published Wednesday in the journal Earth System Dynamics, comes from a trio of experts at the United Kingdom's University of Exeter and the University of Hamburg in Germany.
Climate scholars use the term "tipping point" to describe a critical threshold which, when crossed, "leads to significant and long-term changes of the system," the paper notes. Debate over it "has intensified over the past two decades," prompting several studies of specific risks.
"Climate tipping points could have devastating consequences for humanity," said co-author Tim Lenton in a statement. "It is clear that we are currently on a dangerous trajectory—with tipping points likely to be triggered unless we change course rapidly."
"We need urgent global action—including the triggering of 'positive tipping points' in our societies and economies—to reach a safe and sustainable future," added the Exeter professor and Global Systems Institute director.
Lenton's team calculated the probabilities of triggering 16 tipping points. They looked at the risks of serious damage to key glaciers, ice sheets, sea ice, and permafrost; the dieback of forests such as the Amazon; the die-off of low-latitute coral reefs; and the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is part of a crucial "global conveyor belt" of ocean currents.
To assess the risk of current policies triggering climate tipping points, the researchers focused on a scenario in which median warming of 2.8°C takes place by the end of the century.
On that pathway, the study says, "our most conservative estimate of triggering probabilities averaged over all tipping points is 62%... and nine tipping points have a more than 50% probability of getting triggered."
Under scenarios with lower temperature rise, "the risk of triggering climate tipping points is reduced significantly," the study continues. "However, it also remains less constrained since the behaviour of climate tipping points in the case of a temperature overshoot is still highly uncertain."
The paper concludes that "rapid action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since climate tipping points are already close, and it will be decided within the coming decades if they will be crossed or not."
Lead author Jakob Deutloff shared that takeaway a bit more optimistically, saying that "the good news from our study is that the power to prevent climate tipping points is still in our hands."
"By moving towards a more sustainable future with lower emissions, the risk of triggering these tipping points is significantly reduced," he added. "And it appears that breaching tipping points within the Amazon and the permafrost region should not necessarily trigger others."
▶️New paper from Jakob Deutloff, Hermann Held and Tim Lenton highlights the need for action to prevent triggering climate tipping points. More on this at The Global Tipping Points conference @exeter.ac.uk Register now! global-tipping-points.org/conference-2... esd.copernicus.org/articles/16/...
[image or embed]
— Global Systems Institute (@gsiexeter.bsky.social) April 23, 2025 at 4:45 AM
The paper was published during Covering Climate Now's joint week of media coverage drawing attention to the 89% of people worldwide who want their governments to do more to address the global crisis; ahead of a Global Systems Institute conference on tipping points this summer; and just over six months away from the next United Nations climate summit, COP30, in Brazil.
While some governments are trying to prevent the worst-case scenario by taking action to cut emissions, U.S. President Donald Trump has made clear since returning to office in January that he aims to deliver on his pro-fossil fuel campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill."
On the heels of the
hottest year in human history, Trump is working to gut key agencies, ditched the Paris climate agreement, and has taken executive action to boost planet-wrecking coal, gas, and oil, including declaring a national energy emergency.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular