Economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics predict that the TPP would increase revenues in the United States by $131 billion a year, or 0.5 percent of GDP. The deal would increase U.S. exports by $357 billion a year, or 9.1 percent.  However, two economists at Tufts University argue that Pierre`s research is based on unrealistic assumptions such as full employment: lost jobs are immediately replaced in other industrial sectors.  According to Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, “Petri and Plummer believe that labor markets are flexible enough that job losses in negatively affected sectors of the economy are necessarily offset by job gains elsewhere. Unemployment is excluded from the outset – an integrated result of the model that TPP supporters often introduce.  Rodrik finds that “the Petri Plummer model is directly rooted in decades of academic business modelling that makes a clear difference between microeconomic effects (organization of resource allocation between sectors) and macroeconomic effects (relative to the overall level of demand and employment). In this tradition, trade liberalization is a microeconomic “shock” that affects the composition of employment, but not its overall level.  Twelve countries participated in the TPP negotiations: the four parties to the 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement and eight other countries.
All twelve signed the TPP on February 4, 2016.  The agreement would have entered into force after ratification by all signatories if this had been done within two years. If the agreement had not been ratified by all before February 4, 2018, it would have entered into force after its ratification by at least six states that together have a GDP of more than 85% of the GDP of all signatories. The withdrawal of the United States from the agreement in January 2017 effectively ended any prospect of the agreement entering into force. In response, the remaining parties successfully negotiated a new version of the agreement, which did not have the threshold of 85% of GDP, the CPTPP, which entered into force in December 2018. The content of the TPP goes far beyond the standards developed by the World Trade Organization. The TPP contains a negative list of all sectors covered for liberal trade, with the exception of the sectors clearly mentioned. The TPP includes new regulations for e-commerce, treatment of foreign investors, much broader protection of intellectual property, labor laws, and a neutrality agreement vis-à-vis state-owned enterprises.
 The original TPP contained measures to reduce non-tariff and tariff barriers and to establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.   The U.S. International Trade Commission of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank, and the Office of the Chief Economist of Global Affairs Canada found that, if ratified, the final agreement would result in positive net economic outcomes for all signatories, while an alternative methodological analysis conducted by two economists from Tufts University found that the final agreement would lead to economic outcomes. s net positive for all signatories, that the agreement would negatively affect the signatories. [Note 1] Many observers have argued that the trade deal would have served a geopolitical purpose, namely to reduce the signatories` dependence on Chinese trade and bring the signatories closer to the United States.     “This is another signal for the United States,” says Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a longtime American. . .