president barak obama wants the u.s. to join a trade free zone, and the range of countries and, economies large and small would represent more than a third of the entire planet's trade and, it's just about the only thing that he has supported that republicans have backed him on, and opposition is coming from his own democrats and we

asked who benefits. it's the inside story ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ welcome to inside story. trade deals seek to eliminate the barriers to commerce between nations. tariffs and, taxes and get harmon niased so a company selling laptops can sell them in a mexico city mall or a mail order site. but linking together countries large and small, low wage and high in a trade packet, is tricky, there are strong interests that see themselves winning and losing. i have been very clear that.

the tpp is good for american business and workers. president barak obama says it's the future of america's economy, critics many from his own party are calling it and a half take, on steroids. just last week, the senate voted to allow the president to fast-track the partnership. if the house agrees the white house can subject the house with an up or down, without filler bustering. if it passes it would be one of the largest in u.s. history bigger than and a half take, and like and a half take, opponent he is fear it's going to sen american jobs abroad. some manufacturing jobs are likely to be hit because you have low cost manufacturing countries. on the other hand you do have this whole section for investment, and property and, so on, which play to the

strengths of american companies. so, it's going to have some boost for jobs at home, and it is just too early to say what the economic impact is going to be like. another area of particular concern, what's known as the investment chapter. critics argue it would allow international corporations to collect billions of damages from the u.s. government, if they can prove that their businesses are hurt by u.s. regulations and another issue the deal is being negotiated secretly, the details won't be released until after the negotiates have finalized them. but after the documents were leaked activists and labor unions and others complained about the lack of commitment to job creation, and preventing currency. there are many details to be hashed out. but the reasons why it is

important, are straight-forward, and sensible. the proposed agreement would account for 40% of global economic output and the white house is casting it as a vital weapon, for containing china's rising commercial influence and china is the power glaringly absent from the deal, and the administration insists pass it go is the only way to stay competitive in the global marketplace. in the modern world we can't expect our economies to grow if all we do is buy and tell sell to ourselves, it is not going to happen. trade supports jobs, and it builds prosperity, period. and joining me now from new york is, alley. welcome become to the program, you know, when you look at the live of countries that are part of the tpp we're in

special trading relationships with it. what does it do that takes it further? so that, some of the countries involved, australia chilly and mexico, singapore and, japan and korea some of the u.s.' biggest commercial partners and here's the issue together, the countries account for about one-and-a-half trillion dollars worth of trades and goods, that was as of 2013 and, about a quarter after trillion dollars in services. so these countries are responsible for 40% of the world g.d. p and 26% of the world's trade and, they have their own individual issues, we have relationships with all of them and, we have seen, on one side, good results from larger trading relationships. so, the free trade agreement with canada, evolved into and a

half take, and mexico, and there's some sense, when you negotiate these broader deals with makes it easier to do business and costs are lowered and there are some negatives to it but a bigger trade deal is just better for countries involved. is there a lot more than just tariffs. the relationships between the commercial codes of countries and property rights, and, sort of 21st century architecture. yeah tariffs are hundreds of-years-old, thousands of years, and they are part of this and we have tariff deals with most of these places. property is a very big one with asian countries and access to each country's market, is a big deal and, one of the biggest deals are mechanisms for resolving trade dispute. another issue, is that almost all of the countries save for

japan are countries with lower wage structures and, the u.s., has to come up with deals that, enhance prosperity, and make it easier for u.s. manufacturers to do business in other places while at the same time, facing criticism, as he is at home, that largely these trade deals do have the effect of bringing u.s. wages down or transferring work out of the country. so this is where the rubber hits the road. america is trying to get the best deal for american businesses and exspotters and at the same time, not add further downward wage pressure on american workers, and that's a tricky one. one of the countriers very not in this group is china. why is that? many of the countries have significant cornerstone trade relationships with china.

as does the united states, china is one of the biggest traders with the united states. many are actually designed specifically to exincluded china. one that requires yarn, to come from countries that are party to the agreement. and a lost clothing comes from china, and little things like that, that could possibly invite retaliation. on the other side, china doesn't think the tpp is a big challenge as one might think. they'll still trade. china has its own agenda, it's pushing toward the association of southeast asian nations, and the civic road, and it has by sea and land and launched its own development bank to compete with the world bank, and also

cutting deals with russia, which has been cut off. so, you know, it is not keeping china out, the united states and other countries have concentrated on china and we're missing the boat. part of the it is not successful. but china will be a major trade partner. when you look at the list, just about every country is a functioning democracy and many advanced industrial on the planet australia, canada and the united states, and one country is vietnam. can you be sure that with its protection of workers right and other parts of its legal code, that it can harmon nias with singapore and japan. you can be sure. vietnam has been trying for some

years, to get into the modern economy. and it's getting there on some fronts with help. so there's some sense if there is greater investment, by virtue of it being in a more liberal trading environment, it will meet them. and it's like the conversation, that the rest of your rop should have had with. this is not a political union it is just a trading union. vietnam is not there along with korea and japan. mexico and canada. and australia that are in the deal. but there is some sense these trade deals work well for countryes like vietnam and manufacturing countries and they'll probably see a net increase in their trade and standard of living. join him weeknights at 10:30 eastern. thanks. some of the countries

involved in negotiating the partnership don't have the heated domestic debate that you're seeing in the united states. how do they look at themselves? benefiting from lowering trade barriers without the fear of job loss and thing of goods and more than 20 years after the free trade act, will it be different? avoid some of the things that made america suspicious. stay with us. it's inside story.

she's the senior northeast

issue asia associate and rob scott is here. rob, what's the basic objection? this follows the item breath of earlier trade deals. the problem is, that those deals have helped a few and hurt many, many workers in the united states, and there are a number of ways. with many, we have seen growing exports, but i am ports grew faster and, that led to rising job loss. president barak obama negotiated that final details of the details and, he said export woes go up by 12 billion and create 70,000 jobs, and, they went up by 1 billion and imports 12 billion and, we lost 75,000 jobs. mexico, we lost almost

700,000 jobs, and of course, the big trade and investment deal, that is out there and hurting the economy, is the deal with china, we have lost over 3 million jobs. but the job losses are really just "the tip of the iceberg," they really, are the leading edge of what's happening to wages. everybody who has a similar skill set and those who make them most are manufacturing and they are workers without a college degree, and 90% of the labor force and these trade investment deals have put pressure on them, about 100 million. downward that's not compensate had by cheaper goods and, freer access to better quality, and not lower inflation, none of these things?

none of these things are countering it. the minimum wage worker lost 1,800 dollars a year, in real income. and sure, there are benefits from these agreements and some goods come in cheaper but the well-known fact is that, for every dollar benefit gained there's 6 dollars transferred from those at the top to those at the bottom. it's 6-1,. the losses are not being compensated. why is there so much support, it sounds terrible. i have to disagree with that. there is a lot of objection from other countries japan, there's a lot of domestic opposition. to move forward.

it's actually seen as detrimental to japan's agricultural sector and the idea is that, japan needs to move forward with this, unless it moves forward, there will be other opportunities that it will be lost. that go beyond agriculture. isn't he one of the prime movers for this? yes. so we could argue that president barak obama is a big proponent but the democrats are not. and many republicans are for his trade deal. in japan many of his own democratic party are fearful of what could happen and others who are willing to bite the bullet and move forward because they see this as a opportunity to pursue, make it more competitive and make it an economic basis for -- that will be competitive. let's stay on the example of

japan. one of the most advanced economies and has been. it's already heavily invested in many of the countries included. manufacturing plants, and large staffses and disbursed world-wide production chains, you would think that something like this would be great already standing industrial plant like japan. not if you talk to the rice farmers or sugar farmers and what's important is that, there will be losses. we need to look at those losses head on and there hasn't been enough from the white house to look at the reality. what is going to be done to those who will lose out? is this an opportunity for the united states to invest in new ways to make the american workforce more competitive and.

but training those who may be displaced and, giving incentives to invest, that could lose out. that would be a very healthy thing to do. but at the moment, in this environment, that kind of talk is not moving forward. americans, haven't been able to look over the shoulders of the tpp negotiators what should you know about? stay with us.

welcome back, the tpp, the president wants to move ahead to create this new trade zone. he's got willing partners and plenty of critics at home. now, back our guests.

can country he is under the tpp, any longer pass laws that favor their own national interests? it sounds like no. no. in theory but in practice, there will be ways to make rules that will give you it a leak up. if we look at the example of vietnam and, there will be different standards among the country's how they're going to adhere to these rules. one of the challenges, at the moment, is what was stated before, about the lack of transparency and negotiations, and, very difficult to gauge what is on the line. when i think of something like the requirements that

american ships carry american goods. that kind of thing looks like it is a dead duck. that if another country makes a lower bid it carries the stuff. i think that will be a problem and, under the rules of national treatment, the u.s. will be required to offer them from any country. but i think there's a deeper concern here, which is, buried in the rules of the so-called investment chapter. this chapter contains, an invest tor state dispute settlement, that it will allow private companies, to take disputes out of our national league system and have them arbitrated by private attorneys. and these disputes, will be empowered to impose huge finds that can have a chilling effect

on regulations. if it comes from canada they have been hit with many of these suits, there was a company called bill con that wanted to build a quarry, in sensitive area and canada said no. this is unsafe. they took it to the panel, and they ruled against the canadian government. and now they have sued canada for 300 million dollars, this will be tough to pursue it, and that is problem in many other countries that have been exposed to these investor dispute settlement procedures and, this is a big concern. there's been polling on american's at take out on free trade, does it help or hurt? 37%, said help. and 31% said hurt and 25 said

no difference, and 7% said they were unsure. when you refine it more and go to the impact of and a half take 29% said it was positive. roughly, 26% about the same,. said that will it had been negative. and, again similar numbers no difference and not sure. and i think looking back to the 1990s, one of the biggest problems was the feeling that this was a one way street. that it benefited the other signature na toreys and not the united states. when you look at in sound korea the idea that you will be able to use the kind of leverage that's used against north american countries to break up domination of south korean

industry, it seems a little farfetched. this can be seen as the first way that the united states is challenging the east issue a chans. the issue a chan countries japan, korea and thailand, and all those that benefited from gain in part due to a strong support from their governments that u.s. companies can only dream about. one of the issues that's being discussed. and if it is done right it, could level the playing field for u.s. companies and, make them more competitive and competing against asian countries. possible benefit. a possible benefit and again there are many things that

are missing, that are going to de prive of us of the potential gains. one of the big ones, is the issue of currency manipulation. there are 20 countries and most of them in asia, spending in excess of a trillion dollars a year, to press the value of their currency. this is like a is up sidney. acts like a tax on everything that we sell, not just to china and japan, and every country. that's not in there. if we eliminated it, we could create 2 and almost 6 million jobs in the united states and, president barak obama has refused to put that on the table and other countries like japan and singapore and some of them standing in the wings, also, are engaged in this

practice. this is something that's hurting us. as we move forward we'll have to have you back, this is not over. the debate continues. robert scott and, wilson center, thanks for joining me. i'll be back in a minute. hard to see gains and easy to see losses. have you heard all you need to, in order to understand it? how about your job? send us your thoughts on twitter and inside story. you can always visit our facebook page and exchange views, we want to know what you think.

the modern global hiring hall is turning, what we were told job security, on its head. you could be in taiwan and write software for an american company, about you can't pay the house, from singapore or give someone a haircut.

but if you are not providing a service or physically delivering a product, the big message of the 21st century is no one is safe, workers' comp pete against everyone everywhere, who does the same work, so a demand for a raise is flirting with seeing your job go away. american executives, top flight business schools churn out how to sands of graduates and c.e.o.'s in europe, and earn a fraction of u.s. pay excessive pay will move their jobs to mexico, india or china. thanks for joining us. see you next time. i'm.

i'm not perfect nobody is perfect and we can do a good job together i'm sure. promises the to steer them out of the corruption problem ♪ ♪ hello, welcome. tensions rice, from the south china say.