Rep. Chellie Pingree doesn’t know much about the advantages of trade and she is a reflexive protectionist, so it’s no surprise that she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will soon go to Congress for approval (“Commentary: Trans-Pacific Partnership would benefit multinational corporations at citizens’ expense, says Pingree,” Feb. 3).

Ms. Pingree complains that TPP might have a negative effect on Maine businesses and workers, but this misses the larger picture. It is possible that some Maine businesses would be adversely affected because of increased competition, but others would benefit, and not just large companies.

Tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods and almost all farm products would be reduced or eliminated under the agreement. Other provisions would make it easier for smaller firms to sell abroad. Labor and environmental rules would be strengthened.

One thing is certain: Consumers in Maine and elsewhere would be better off because of lower prices that result from greater competition and the elimination of tariffs and other trade restrictions.

Any trade agreement that encompasses many issues and that has involved years of negotiation among 12 countries will inevitably reflect compromises. But even if TPP isn’t perfect, all the participating countries and their consumers would benefit.

Politicians of both parties can fail to appreciate the role that trade has in expanding prosperity. They understandably fear the loss of local jobs, but what they should focus on is the primary effect of trade, which is to create new jobs by enlarging the size of the economic pie.

Martin Jones

Freeport