Activists hold up “Stop TPP Now” signs during a news conference Jan. 11, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. House Democrats held a news conference “to stand against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” (Alex Wong, Getty Images)
Re: TPP will harm Colorado’s workers, environment, Jan. 17 guest commentary.
Sam Schabacker and Josh Downey did a skillful job of raising many narrow objections to the pending trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. However, they conveniently omitted the biggest potential losers if this agreement is not approved by the Congress: the common consumer.
Trade agreements that remove barriers and allow unimpeded trade between countries are always a threat to some domestic interests, whether they be companies fearing competition, labor unions wanting to protect their members, or potential weakening of the environmental regulation of production. Invariably, however, the price-sensitive consumer is going to pay for the protection of these special interests.
As noble as the authors arguments seem to be, we free-market economists will continue to argue for minimization of trade impediments, the production of goods and services by economies that can make them at the least worldwide cost, and the open trade of those products and services to the benefit of the wider populations of domestic and foreign consumers.
Ken Maxey, Arvada
This letter was published in the Jan. 26 edition.The Trans-Pacific Partnership would throw the country in reverse on many important issues: U.S. employment, livable wages, a clean environment, access to medicines, LGBT rights, Wall Street reform and safe foods, to name just a few. The best thing that could happen for President Obama s legacy is for Congress to reject the TPP.
Tom Jackson, Denver
This letter was published in the Jan. 26 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
