The agreement would have increased workers` incomes in all countries by $223 billion a year, $77 billion for American workers. Morin and Baumier of the Canada Research Chair in International Political Economy argue that the TPP certainly contains an impressive number of environmental provisions and a wide range of environmental protection areas. , very few of these standards are innovative, most of which have been copied into previous U.S. agreements and that the TPP has missed an opportunity to make an original and progressive contribution to the environmental agenda. However, the TPP is breaking new ground in using a combination of U.S. and European approaches to environmental protection. In fact, the TPP has become much more detailed and specific than regular US agreements, when it was legally more binding than the European agreements.  In January 2008, the United States began discussions with Pacific 4 (P4) members on trade liberalization in the financial services sector.  This resulted in 19 rounds of formal negotiations and a series of other meetings, such as.
B the meetings of the chief negotiators and ministerial meetings, which culminated in the agreement announced on October 5, 2015. NAFTA was actually negotiated by Bill Clinton`s predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who decided that he wanted to continue discussions on opening trade with the United States. Bush initially tried to reach an agreement between the United States and Mexico, but President Carlos Salinas de Gortari insisted that a trilateral agreement be reached between the three countries. After talks, Bush, Mulroney and Salinas signed the agreement in 1992, which came into effect two years later after Clinton was elected president. The CPTPP covers a wide range of goods and services. These include financial services, telecommunications standards and food security. It thus affects foreign policy and even legislation within countries. For example, it is proposed that countries set up an agency such as the Information and Regulatory Affairs Office. It analyzes the costs and benefits of new rules.
In May 2015, U.S. Congressman Sander Levin argued that it was difficult to impose trade agreements because he questioned Vietnam`s willingness to comply with TPP labor standards.  According to a report by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, there is a significant gap between the labour standards of previous U.S. free trade agreements and the effective application of those rules.  However, PIIE analysts note that studies show that the presence of “sticks” (possible suspension of trade benefits) and “carrots” (technical assistance) in trade agreements increases the likelihood that work commitments in trade agreements will have a positive effect; there are sticks as well as carrots in the TPP.  Economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics predict that the TPP would increase U.S. revenues by $131 billion per year, or 0.5% of GDP. Exports from the United States would increase by $357 billion per year, or 9.1%, as a result of the agreement.
 However, two tufts University economists argue that Petri`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 labour markets are flexible enough to compensate for job losses in sectors of the economy affected by job losses elsewhere.