Actually, the goal was to eliminate a lot of that.
In trade, countries usually have two general aims:
1. Negotiate reduction or elimination of tariffs in foreign markets so that domestic producers can expand abroad.
2. Protect their own domestic producers from foreign competition by retaining the import tariffs that keep them competitive.
So, Japan subsidizes its domestic rice farms and tarrifs rice imports, but wants to sell its cars unfettered. Brazil wants to export its oranges and other produce more, the US wishes to export more of it's beef and cattle market. (These are the ones I'm thinking of off hand.)
The thinking goes however, that nations will gain more if they can all agree to open their tariffs, and allow goods to "trade freely". This means that while there will be short term disruption and decline in some markets, that their economies will have net growth on the whole, because economics is not a zero-sum game. For the TPP, the math is somewhat easy: One or more domestic industries will face internal competition, while their export markets will now be open to a dozen new countries. If they all do this, it's a net gain. (So the thinking goes.)
The portions that people seem to take issue with mostly in our line of interest have to do with the intellectual property provisions. This is to shore up the mismatch in legal protections that exist in countries with weaker IP laws. You can more or less sum this up with pointing out that pirated software and media is sold openly in countries like China and Vietnam. The provisions pertaining to those are other countries saying "Look, we'll trade, but only if you respect our IP."
Whether or not you agree with those provisions is of course, the million dollar question, and on things like that, the fate of the TPP depends. But that's the rationale.
And yes, you're exactly right, a rising global standard of living is /exactly/ what everyone wants. It's not some evil conspiracy, it really is that. And so long as no one can game the system (too badly), that's exactly what will happen.
(More reading on that last point. Can't recommend it enough: In Defense of Globalization - Jagdish Bhagwati http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Globalization-With-Afterwor... )
We can argue about whether or not that will really be the end result but I'd imagine quite a few of the participants are more concerned with their own gain than a rising global standard of living.
It's hard to believe a statistic more than it is a news report of someone losing their job. But things are improving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Free_mob...
Everyone as a person does the same, we use our major source of income(dayjob = profession we have the best skills relative to everyone else) to trade it with the labor of others, we dont try to make everything by ourselves even if we have the technical capacity. (Comparative advantage)
I guess everybody does the same as well, we insist in having some understanding of other skills so that we aren't at the mercy of others.
Which is the exact opposite of how the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan all got rich in the first place, so it's hard to see the real world examples that back this up.
The alternative of actual free trade, free from meddling governmental interference, without corporate subsidies and targeted protectionism?
At least in spirit, this agreement largely exists to remove subsidies, tariffs and import restrictions.
I suppose you're referring to the (expected) "harmonisation" of intellectual property law in the agreement, though? In that case I'd tend to agree with a characterisation of it as a protectionist measure, though I doubt that's a popular way to put things in official channels.
In fact, this long stability in Europe traces its roots to a free trade agreement the Schuman Declaration, leading to the European Coal and Steel Community, which later becomes the European Union.
Future peace may be. An interesting quote from Lee Kuan Yew (From Third World to First, p. 534):
"October, 1985. […] During my official visit, I was given the honour of addressing a joint session of the US Congress. […] I spoke on an issue then at the top of the American agenda - protectionism to safeguard jobs and check growing US trade deficits with newly emerging economies of East Asia. In 20 minutes, I described how the issue of free trade was really the question of war or peace for the world.
Nations wax and wane. I argued that if a nation on the rise, with an excess of energy, was not allowed to export its goods and services, its only alternative would be to expand and capture territory, incorporate the population and integrate it to make for a bigger economic unit.
That was why nations had empire which they controlled as one trading bloc. It was a time-honoured way for growth. The world had moved away from that after the end of World War II in 1945. GATT, the IMF, the World Bank and new rules made possible a prosperous and dynamic Germany in spite of large numbers of Germans returning from the East into a shrunken land area
So also with the Japanese, who had to leave Korea, China, Taiwan and Southeast Asia and be packed into a few Japanese islands. The Germans and the Japanese were able to stay within their boundaries and grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars.
But if trade in goods and services was blocked, then China would revert to its historical solution of small warring states conquering one another to gain control of more territory and people until they become one colossal continental empire. This tight, logical exposition may have convinced the legislators intellectually, but many found it emotionally difficult to accept."
Think of it - a lonely academic invents/discovers something, and 50 million people die over it. No, not talking about nuclear fission.
The Nazi approach was markedly different. They borrowed a lot from Lamarckism, Malthusianism and pan-Germanic mysticism, not necessarily just flawed, naturalistically fallacious interpretations of Darwinism. Eugenics, particularly, was largely started by Francis Galton.
In other words, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy. It should also be noted that much of "Social Darwinism" is actually quite old, going back to Plato's endorsement of selective, rationed breeding in The Republic.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/ec...
edit: have -> halve
Sure, but can't we have global trade in the absence of such a treaty?