[1] - http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21659716...
For the record, I think the TPP is pernicious for all the reasons pointed out by the EFF.
> the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is the most important free-trade agreement in years
How does "29 chapters of dense rules and hundreds of tariff lines " == "free trade"? Free trade is meant to be open, without restriction, and free. Some of the conditions being reported are anything but.
More significant is that there is little transparency and a, seemingly, active avoidance of public discourse about the rule-setting. The rule-setting is where the power lies, and that's what most of the objection is about.
Instead, when the TPP (et al) talk about "free trade", they are referring to the free trade of capital, which is an absolutely insane idea[2]. As you note, as it relates to actual goods and services, the TPP is generally restrictive, which is probably part of the larger goal of creating corporate sovereignty (e.g. ISDS), and general export of western power (e.g. the IP restrictions).
TL;DR - It's imperialism via corporate corruption and regulatory capture.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo...
For example, free trade in mayonnaise. That should just mean that anyone can import/export mayonnaise right? Well, no. Mayonnaise is food so there's certain health standards and facility inspection regimes. And you and I have different ones now they need to be harmonized. Also, what is Mayonnaise anyway? We need to harmonize our labeling requirements. Also. is your country producing subsidized eggs (major ingredient in mayo)? Well now we need to add a line to our contract that eliminates those subsidies.
The lists of this kind of stuff goes on and on.
Hum... No. Not at all. A company is perfectly capable of making mayo for different health requirements.
There are a few cases where harmonization is needed (mostly between small and poor countries), but overall "harmonizing" laws is just a propaganda presentation of giving exorbitant benefits for an external company that is bribing your government.
As always, it is not as simple as it initially appears.
And this does not even get into the barriers that foreign manufacturers face in trying to set up local manufacturing in Japan. There are a million ways a government can stall an investment or construction project if they want to.
These are collectively known as "non-tariff trade barriers" or NTBs. They are the weapon of choice these days to restrict trade, so modern trade agreements have to spend many of their pages addressing NTBs.
To name another example that might resonate with HN, consider the local restrictions that a nation might put on data. For example, a nation might require that any company serving its citizens build data centers within its borders and keep all data within those data centers. That would make it extremely difficult for any but the largest U.S. tech firms to enter foreign markets. That's not a tariff but would obviously slow down trade in Internet services.
As I understand it, TPP will have language to allow data to cross borders.
But hopefully you were there.
This is like you (the people) hiring a lawyer (elected representative), who then goes to negotiate your salary in secret without you.
And who receives all kinds of benefits for himself in exchange for accepting a low salary for you.