A few days ago, Paul Krugman announced that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was no big deal.

I think that he got this very wrong, because he viewed it through the lens of comparative advantage, which is, after all pretty much his specialty in economics.

It was a classic, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” error.

He misses the fact that the objections to the TPP have nothing to do with so-called free trade, and everything to do with it being structured to benefit the rent seekers in IP and finance by strengthening the regulations on IP, and by preventing meaningful regulation on finance and capital flows, in addition to the very basic infringements on sovereignty that the entire regime entails.

Well, Krugman has admitted that his initial comments were hasty and a bit ill considered:

Dean Baker takes me to task over the Trans Pacific trade deal, arguing that it’s not really about trade — that the important (and harmful) stuff involves regulation and intellectual property rights.

I’m sympathetic to this argument; this was true, for example, of DR-CAFTA, the free trade agreement with Central America, which ended up being largely about pharma patents. Is TPP equally bad? I’ll do some homework and get back to you.

This reflects well on him.

It’s an admission that he did not consider the issues as comprehensively as he should have, with a promise of further comments, without any excuses.