>> this is not the thing that will cause air equality, because there. >> exactly. >> thank you mary snow. that is the show, thank you for joining us, have a great weekend. 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 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. >> "compass" will challenge the way you look at the world. talking about big subjects. telling human stories. >> there's a tidal wave. >> we all have a problem.

>> could you have seen that coming?

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. 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 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 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 .

>> on hard earned, down but not out, >> i'm in recovery i've been in recovery for 23 years... >> last shot at a better life... >> this is the one... this is the one... >> we haven't got it yet... >> it's all or nothing... >> i've told walgreen's i quit... >> hard earned pride... hard earned respect... hard earned future... a real look at the american dream hard earned only on al jazeera america >> part of our month long look at working in america. "hard earned".

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 .