Robert Reich on the Real Reason the Corporate-Friendly TPP Is Nearly Dead

[kentuck]

http://www.alternet.org/robert-reich-real-reason-corporate-friendly-tpp-nearly-dead?sc=fb

<snip>
How can it be that the largest pending trade deal in history – a deal backed both by a Democratic president and Republican leaders in Congress – is nearly dead?

The Trans Pacific Partnership may yet squeak through Congress but its near-death experience offers an important lesson.

It’s not that labor unions have regained political power (union membership continues to dwindle and large corporations have more clout in Washington than ever) or that the President is especially weak (no president can pull off a major deal like this if the public isn’t behind him).

The biggest lesson is most Americans no longer support free trade.

....more at link

[think]

1. No Deal!

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. " they say it’s worth the price of avoiding unfairness."

I would phrase it that Americans still support fair trade. But that is not what these free trade agreements have brought us.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. As someone said the general public probably doesn't know what they are talking about

[Enthusiast]

3. Proponents of TPP on DU come on here and say, "Those jobs are going away TPP or no TPP."

This ignores the fact that there are zero alternatives to these manufacturing jobs we are going to lose. Proponents of these no job trade deals just do not give a fuck if your state is devastated. They have a job. Their job is lying to people online about the TPP and other issues. I imagine they are well paid.

I have better idea. Keep the jobs here. Protect those jobs through tariffs. If other nations wish to partake of our markets they must play fair.

Tariffs should be enacted based on the behavior of the trade partners in question. If they pay cheap wages—enact a tariff that offsets these slave wages. If we maintain high environmental standards but a prospective trade partner does not—enact tariffs to offset the additional costs associated with environmental measures. And on and on.

This is the way it would be done if the negotiators loved their country in the slightest fucking bit. But they don't love the nation. They literally don't care if YOU or your family draw another breath. They hope you die and they hope you suffer doing it.

[rurallib]

4. wish I could rec a reply

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. No, actually, they are saying ...

(and President Obama has said) ... those jobs that you are concerned about have ALREADY GONE, and most won't come back.

[kentuck]

8. The jobs aren't coming back but their products are...

produced at lower labor costs and total disregard for the workers of this country.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Lower labor and environmental (regulatory) costs ...

Both of each, the USTR's Negotiating Objectives address.

total disregard for the workers of this country

Again, those jobs are already gone ... the bigger issue with regard to workers in this country, today, is the abuse of H1-B.

[Enthusiast]

19. Those jobs are not already gone. We must put the brakes on right now.

Look at the trade deficit. Trade numbers like that are UNSUSTAINABLE!

We must protect US workers and their jobs. So, devastation was brought about by NAFTA. Let's not compound the problem by enacting another anti-American worker trade deal.

Stop it right now, this very moment. Call the President (if you still believe in the President), call your representatives, immediately.

So, stop the abuse of H1-B, stop the TPP and TTIP and every other fucking worker sell out trade deal these malevolent fuckers can come up with.

[turbinetree]

33. Right Now

my brother is wondering about his job in a TACONITE / IRON ORE mine refining facility in MN.
They are having lay-offs in the middle of summer-------------normally does not occur until the winter because of obvious reason----------cold weather.
The Korean steel "trade deal" and the Chinese steel dumping off the previous "deals is gutting the mining of this and other ores in this country----------this product is the back bone of to the automobile, trains, girders, ect..................that produce jobs.

These vacationing hypocrites in the right wing congress (was in session 139 days last session----vacation days 244 days making $174,000 a year $14,500 a month----------that's what is amazing) are going to try and pull a fast one today (6-16-2015) on the "deal" and we must continue to call these people to vote no.
What is really galling is that a member of the DNC voted in favor of this legislation along with 30 others.
Now they are trying as I write to pull a fast one--------time to make a call---------its either no or yes

[Enthusiast]

36. +1

[LondonReign2]

35. But you haven't decided your position on TPP yet because the details haven't been made public

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. No ... I haven't taken a position on TPP because what is in it hasn't been made public ...

Why is that so difficult for some to understand ... not being AGAINST something doesn't mean one is FOR that thing; nor, does being decided on something mean one is for that thing.

Besides, my being undecided has nothing to do with spotting and challenging BettyEllen narratives.

[LondonReign2]

45. Of course you have taken a position. Seriously, you are fooling no one

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Yes ... You're correct. I have taken a position ...

The let's see what's in it before praising or condemning it.

There once was a time when liberals prided themselves on making informed decisions. Apparently, we no longer have to do that because ... BETTYELLEN! !!!

[cui bono]

61. So have you asked Obama to make the details public?

There once was a time when Dem leaders cared about the people and didn't make secret deals with Republicans and huge corporations.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. No ... I haven't because I know that ...

once the parties have agreed, the finished product will be presented to Congress (i.e., made public) for dissection and debate and then a vote ... all before the President will sign it (assuming Congress approves it) or not. Just like with every other trade agreement/treaty.

There once was a time when Dem leaders cared about the people and didn't make secret deals with Republicans and huge corporations.

I have no doubt that the Democratic leaders care about the people, even when I disagree with them.

But when was the time that Democratic leaders didn't make secret deals with republicans and huge corporations? That time has never existed ... not even in FDR's days.

[cui bono]

73. When has a Dem President sided against his own party to pass a deal written

by transnational corporations? A deal that they know exactly what is in it but the little people are not allowed to know?

If Obama cares about the people, why doesn't he let them know what's in the 'trade deal'? What is the reason?

And to your first point, at that time it will be too late to amend it. I'm not clear where it stands now, but it was a pass TPA and then we get to see TPP before, is that still the deal? That's a no brainer that we shouldn't do that. Why on earth would we not fight being in that position? Do you really want something unknown to get to that point where it cannot be amended, a take it or leave it proposition? Why would someone who cares about the people put them in that position? It doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, but imo, anyone who isn't against that is just defending Obama because Obama. There's no thinking person who would think that is okay unless they just have to say it so they can defend Obama. This is supposed to be a democracy. Of, by and for the people. Governing by the consent of the governed. That's impossible in this scenario.

[pampango]

79. He has not "sided against the party" since polls show most Democrats support TPP.

He has "sided against the party" if by "the party" you mean its politicians.

If Obama cares about the people, why doesn't he let them know what's in the 'trade deal'? What is the reason?

For the same reason that FDR did not let people know what was in his "secret tariff deals" while they were being negotiated. (And once he signed those deals they were law without going back to congress.) International negotiations are usually done in private. The ratification process should be done in public (FDR notwithstanding).

This is supposed to be a democracy. Of, by and for the people. Governing by the consent of the governed.

Agreed. And the majority of Americans oppose TPP even if most Democrats support it.

[redruddyred]

91. so what is this 'fast track' then?

and why does obama want it so bad?
from what I read would give congress limited authority in the ratification process.
sorry, not buying it. the whole notion of free trade is bullocks after all. maybe it's the ultra-liberal email lists I'm on, but it seems like every time I check my mail I hear something else that's wrong with this deal. no thanks!

[brentspeak]

97. Here's Pampango with the bull$hit propaganda, yet again

"And the majority of Americans oppose TPP even if most Democrats support it."

Failing to divulge to the casual DU reader that the "poll" he's citing is a made-up poll commissioned by Obama's astroturf "Progressive Coalition for American Jobs".

Truth seems to be like Kryptonite for you.

[pampango]

99. Rather than going after me, it would be helpful if you posted the polls showing opposition of the

Democratic base to TPP and fast track.

... the "poll" he's citing is a made-up poll commissioned by Obama's astroturf "Progressive Coalition for American Jobs".

There are multiple polls that show Democratic base's support for TPP and fast track. It is not just one poll. If you like I can post them ... again.

[brentspeak]

100. There is a good need to expose you

Your apparent solitary reason for posting on this website is simply to promulgate pro-"free trade" corporate bull$hit.

As for your latest garbage: there are no "multiple polls that show Democratic base's support for TPP and fast track." All too funny that you first posted on this thread the unsourced assertion that "since polls show most Democrats support TPP", and then, when I called you out on it, you expanded that to "...and fast track".

There was some poll where those polled people who identified as "Democrats" said they would, in general, support Presidential fast track authority -- but the question wasn't asked specifically in regards to TPP. And needless to say, you can't produce any credible polls which show that "Democratic base support for TPP". Maybe you thought, yet again, you'd be able to slip that bit of disinformation onto the boards without anyone noticing.

Another pratfall for Pampango.

[pampango]

102. I am sure that everyone appreciates your commitment to exposing my pratfalls. Even I appreciate your

'evidence-free' "exposures". It actually helps make my case.

If one day you do come across some polling data that substantiates your opinion that the Democratic base has learned to reject the FDR/Truman approach to trade, please feel free to post it. I promise not to 'expose' your 'pratfalls' in doing so but to focus on the content of your post. So far I have only seen evidence that the republican base rejects the FDR/Truman approach but they have rejected it all along.

There was some poll where those polled people who identified as "Democrats" said they would, in general, support Presidential fast track authority -- but the question wasn't asked specifically in regards to TPP.

... you first posted on this thread the unsourced assertion that "since polls show most Democrats support TPP", and then, when I called you out on it, you expanded that to "...and fast track".

I have posted these polls many times. If you have not seen them, or feel that I should have reposted them, I apologize for not repeating them in my earlier post.


Democrats were specifically asked about TPP.

Poll done in April of Democrats only:

Initial TPA Ballot
Q5. From what you have heard, do you… granting President Obama trade promotion authority?

Strongly support 25%
Somewhat support 39%
Somewhat oppose 13%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 14%

SUPPORT 64%
OPPOSE 21%

Initial TPP Ballot
Q7. From what you have heard, do you… President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

Strongly support 20%
Somewhat support 31%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 30%

SUPPORT 52%
OPPOSE 18%

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e2b1d1e4b043f1c9a2a9ed/t/55424db8e4b04641a244468d/1430408665168/trade-poll.pdf

They support TPP and fast track.

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

[brentspeak]

103. Lol

So, in the end, you just couldn't help yourself from posting the bogus "Progressive Coalition For American Jobs" poll, after all.

There's gotta be some sort of condition listed in the DSM-IV for this sort of behavior: "Psychotic Serial Posting of Discredited, Trumped-Up Bogus Statistics Disorder", or something.

And has been already been pointed out several times on these forums, Pew Research is a pro-globalization polling service, as its polling partner in this "survery", the Bertelsmann Foundation, a noted supporter of neoliberal economics. Bruce Stokes, Pew's resident "free trade" polling shill, refuses to release any corroborating information to support his polls, including the exact questions asked of respondents and how the polls were conducted.

The only halfway-credible source you list, the Hart Poll, suggests that, among Democrats, only Obama's most vociferous supporters might be like the TPP.

You sure you want to keep humiliating yourself like this?

[pampango]

105. Again, you post nothing to back up your opinion. If these polls are bogus, you should have an easy

time finding and posting polls showing the 'real' opinion of Democrats with respect to fast track and TPP.

So, in the end, you just couldn't help yourself from posting the bogus "Progressive Coalition For American Jobs" poll, after all.

FYI, the polling results from this 'bogus' organization are consistent in terms of Democratic support for fast track and the TPP with those of Hart poll which you term "halfway-credible source". What does that tell you? And you post no polling data to refute any of this - just a "messenger blast".

And has been already been pointed out several times on these forums, Pew Research is a pro-globalization polling service ...

Another 'messenger blast'. I have only seen posts from you expressing that opinion of the Pew Research. They poll on many topics. The few times they have polled on trade and trade agreements does not make them "a pro-globalization polling service" no matter how often you repeat that assertion. You just don't agree with their poll results so they must be discredited. I understand that.

The only halfway-credible source you list, the Hart Poll, suggests that, among Democrats, only Obama's most vociferous supporters might be like the TPP.

Actually the Hart Poll concluded that only "liberal Democrats" (not "Obama's most vociferous supporters", unless 'liberal Democrats' and 'Obama's most vociferous supporters' mean the same thing to you) were strongly in favor of TPA.

In the "halfway-credible" poll, a slim majority (52%) of Democrats supported TPA (with "liberals" being the only group in strong support), while 87% of republicans and 66% of independents oppose fast track. You may want to add the Hart Poll from your list of 'halfway-credible' polling firms to your expanding list of "pro-globalization" polling services. Their results are not what you like to see. Someone must work there whom can be used to discredit their results.

You sure you want to keep humiliating yourself like this?

[jwirr]

43. You may be correct but look at what has happened to labeling our meat (food) products because

NAFTA requires it. That hurts our agriculture and those who work in it. So workers do get hurt and up until now most of our agriculture was US based. So they are not all gone.

Also in the TPP is a chapter that deals with medications. It is going to make the medications we get higher prices all over the world. That means us - the workers and taxpayers will be paying more. And for poorer nations many are not going to get the medications at all. That is why Doctors Without Borders is so upset.

And what about new businesses created by Americans that will get offshored because of these deals?

I for one think that tariffs would allow real enforcement of fair trade. The only enforcement we have now is multi-national corporations and it is crazy to expect them to enforce either labor or environmental rules that make their profit less.

[Chan790]

64. You realize most anti-free-traders also support terminating the H1-B program, right? n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Yes. n/t

[Bubzer]

86. A thought.

"Again, those jobs are already gone ..." A lot of jobs are certainly gone. I think there are still a sizable number of them that could still be lost overseas.

"the bigger issue with regard to workers in this country, today, is the abuse of H1-B." This seems right. I know Microsoft and other big computer software and hardware makers want wages decreased. H1-B visas do this. Corporations want more H1-B visas, I think, because there are more jobs to displace with those H1-B workers.

It might be an oversight to think there are no more jobs to be lost to overseas workers (Which, in this case, I'm including H1-b visa workers in the "overseas worker" grouping).

[Chan790]

63. ...but they will come back. That is very much the point...

when tariffs are high enough that foreign production is no longer more profitable...in-sourcing of jobs skyrockets because it's cheaper to produce domestically than to pay the cost to transport goods internationally.

That's entirely the point. The positive effects of murdering FTAs like TPP is that it brings jobs back. The President and free-traders are just simply wrong.

[Enthusiast]

78. +1

[redruddyred]

92. already coming back, but to different parts of the country, with lower wages.

here up north we have something called "advanced manufacturing", which I'll admit I don't completely understand.

[Chan790]

95. That's why we in traditionally-union states need to not stop at killing FTAs.

It's time to have a discussion about protecting workers by repealing Taft-Hartley and making "Right to Work" (for less) illegal again.

[whathehell]

98. +10. n/t

[redruddyred]

111. I think maine voted against right to work recently

apparently a lot of ppl think lepage is scum

good for maine I say

[rhett o rick]

72. Wrong. When I asked my Senators about the TPP they both gave me bullshit but were sure

to point out that compensation was included in the agreement for those that MIGHT lose their jobs. They are assuming that Americans will lose their jobs. But can there really be compensation for losing a job? Training to flip burgers? And who will pay for the compensation? Not the corporations that are going to make billions, nope the taxpayers. And now rep Reichert has introduce legislation that says the compensation will come from Medicare.

Whose side are you on here?

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Whose side am I on here? The side that waits to see what's in it ...

before determining whether to praise or condemn the agreement (that hasn't be reached yet) ... IOWs, the anti-speculation crowd.

[rhett o rick]

87. The side that's standing on the track waiting to see if the train will really run over them. nm

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Yeah! That side. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

112. From the history of your posts, I assume you don't mind making favored partners out of anti gay

religious States such as Brunei.
Brunei was one of the 4 initiating nations, but while negotiations have continued, the Sultan has established strict religious laws which will include the death penalty for gay people, and he says he is doing this to insulate his culture against the globalization wrought by the TPP the Sultan wants. See the problem there?
Of course the Sultan and his family are exempt from the religious laws, they are famously corrupt and venal. The partners you seek so ardently, Mr President, want me dead.

Why any human being who opposed bigotry would favor this deal is beyond me. The fact that these facts never get mentioned defines those who support this deal.

The President, he stands with those who hate me and my kind. As such, he has no loyalty from me at all, nor does his segment of the Party. This is why I support Sanders. The 'centrists' sell my people to the Sultans for a few bucks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. No, I oppose making favored partners of anti-human rights regime ...

unless doing so, comes with/influences human rights changes.

Why any human being who opposed bigotry would favor this deal is beyond me. The fact that these facts never get mentioned defines those who support this deal.

Please don't "BettyEllen" me on this issue ... no where have I said that I FAVOR anything, other than waiting to see what is in the trade agreement, before praising or condemning it.

The President, he stands with those who hate me and my kind. As such, he has no loyalty from me at all, nor does his segment of the Party. This is why I support Sanders. The 'centrists' sell my people to the Sultans for a few bucks.

I do not condemn anyone based on their associations (at least I try not to), especially folks whose position requires them to associate with people with whom they may have a common interest/concern on a specific issue. Associating/working with someone on one (or more) issue(s) does not mean one supports their views (bigotry) on other/all issues. If that were the case I would condemn everyone in Congress and the White House, past, present and, likely, in the future.

This is why I support Sanders.

Do you think that Bernie doesn't "stand with"/hasn't stood with heterosexist bigots? Think again ... he has worked with the likes of McCain, Paul and a host of other conservatives.

[fasttense]

7. Well put n/t

[raouldukelives]

9. Hear, hear Enthusiast. Succinctly stated.

Common sense, why don't they understand?

It's almost like they believe laboring for and investing in multinational corporations who disrupt, discount and discredit our democracy is justified, nay, even honorable, because "money".

For some, being rich and guilty is far, far preferable to poor and innocent.

[Skittles]

62. they don't understand because they are among those who benefit from pimping off American jobs

fuck them

[raouldukelives]

84. But I believe they do care, I have to. I love this country too much as I know they do.

As I love all countries and all people. All the animals and forests. All the oceans and streams. So much beauty. So little left.

I just think they are blind, Skittles. We can right this ship. If not for us, for our natural world., for common decency to all people. We have to.

It will require great sacrifice and great effort. We have one shot staring us in the face. Act now or seal our fate.
We can go down in history as the Greatest Generation or as the last to squander the chance.

[Skittles]

90. yes they care

ABOUT MONEY

[Ed Suspicious]

13. Yes! Trade can be used as a tool to improve global working conditions and labor while at the

same time keeping standards high at home, but the free-market-fetishists will cry protectionism, isolationist, and inevitability of the invisible hand . . . I think there is a sane balance to be had, we just need to use the tools we have to achieve a good balance.

[Enthusiast]

22. Let 'em cry protectionism. It's been so long since we have had protectionism, they no longer

even know what it is.

It is way past time to stop this giving away of our nation—selling it for the personal gain of a few.

[kentuck]

26. Amen to that!

[bvar22]

59. Some things are worth protecting,

....like the American Working Class/Middle Class.

[Enthusiast]

60. Yes!

[pampango]

80. Agreed. And that's what Scandinavian countries do. Their RW populist parties want tariffs

to come back along with immigration restrictions, withdrawal from the EU, lower taxes, etc.

It is funny that in Scandinavia it is the left accusing the right of "protectionism, isolationist, and inevitability of the invisible hand". In Scandinavia they seem to have achieved something close to a 'good balance' in terms of lots of trade while achieving a strong middle class, strong unions and a world-class level of income equality.

[L0oniX]

15. ^^^this^^^

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. ^

Yes yes. When did tariffs become a bad word?

[Enthusiast]

23. They spent decades dirtying the tariff word along with the liberal word and others.

It's way past time to be fighting back.

[jwirr]

44. If I am not mistaken they were made illegal in NAFTA.

[Chan790]

65. Fuck NAFTA.

We should publicly burn NAFTA on the steps of the US Capitol as an indicator of our future intent to withdraw from it and no longer consider ourselves bound by its terms or recognizing the legitimacy of its enforcement mechanisms. Just pretend it was never ratified.

[jwirr]

71. I would agree. The tarriff is one of the tools that can be used and they take it away because

it would force both the country of origin and the companies to obey labor and environmental laws. That is the last thing multi-national corporations want.

[pampango]

81. When FDR reversed Herbert Hoover's high tariffs and proposed the International Trade Organization.

It's been all downhill for tariffs since then. The republican establishment has changed its tariff-phobia but the polls show the republican base still adheres the the trade policy of Hoover, Coolidge and Harding who enacted higher tariffs in 1921, 1924 and 1930.

It may have bottomed out with "the Donald's" embrace of a 35% tariff (5 years after proposing a 25% tariff on imports from China), although even he does not use the word 'tariff' preferring to call his idea an "import tax". Perhaps that is proof that you are right about it becoming a 'dirty word'.

If Hoover had just defeated FDR in the 1932 election, "tariffs" might still be accepted policy rather than a dirty word. Maybe "the Donald" can be the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century.

[PotatoChip]

32. As Prof. Richard Wolff would say:

"We need to be making our own underpants; and let Asia make theirs".

[Enthusiast]

37. Yeah. No kidding. I love Professor Wolff.

[jwirr]

46. I love that idea. Regional businesses could still make a reasonable profit and supply jobs.

Unfortunately that is not the plan of AID, IMF, WTO or the World Bank nor is it of any interest to the multi-national corporations.

Take for instance Africa - from small farms that fed their families to corporate farms that export crops to people like us while the former owners of those small farms set in huge cities with very few jobs.

We have made some huge mistakes when it comes to how we interfered in the development of these poorer countries. If we look at our own development here in the USA we once had those small farms and businesses who first satisfied the needs of our own people and only then started exporting on a larger scale. With poorer nations we skipped the whole idea of fulfilling their own needs first. Just went straight to multi-national corporations profits.

And the trade agreements we are have passed in recent decades are more of the same mistakes. Including TPA and TPP.

[U4ikLefty]

107. He's great & he has a weekly radio program.

Here's the link if anyone is interested in listening to a few of his shows: http://www.rdwolff.com/

[hedgehog]

50. Absolutely!

[Dont call me Shirley]

54. Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. And Rec. Fair Trade, not Fake-Free Trade!

One must hate the other in order to connive and steal from them. Those who negotiate these trade agreements certainly do hate us.

[Betty Karlson]

76. This response deserves its own thread.

Please?

[tblue37]

101. +1 million! KnR. nt

[magical thyme]

5. It's not a trade deal. It's a Corporate Rights deal, and a bad one

in which Corporations have all the rights, and we the people have none.

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. Stop! You're both right! TPP is TWO *clap* TWO *clap* TWO bills in one!

AND it contains the last golden drop of ObamaCredibility (tm) -- the amazing political equilizer!

[Auggie]

21. LOL

[Enthusiast]

24. Pffft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[winter is coming]

52. It's also a floor wax and dessert topping. n/t

[Elwood P Dowd]

49. Yep, just like NAFTA, CAFTA, the Uruguay GATT/WTO, Korea, and all the others.

A corporate coup d'etat masquerading under the name of "free trade".

[pampango]

82. ITO/GATT - FDR/Truman, NAFTA & WTO - Clinton, Korea - Obama, only CAFTA (the smallest) - Bush.

You can see the confusion among the Democratic base. They support these trade agreements more than republicans do because they see the history of the Democratic Party, at least since the Civil War, as the anti-tariff, pro-trade party. They don't understand that "New Democrats" would have rejected all the trade agreements and organizations that earlier Democratic presidents fostered.

The republican base does reject all these previous "globalization" agreements. The right views them as part of a "liberal globalist" plot to undermine conservative America's national sovereignty. Of course, many on the left view the same agreements as a "conservative globalist" plot to undermine liberal America's national sovereignty. This has produced the 'bipartisan' opposition to these agreements when the left and right agree about little else.

[Art_from_Ark]

108. They desperately want their worldwide "Reagan Economic Zone"

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Free_Trade.htm

[Enthusiast]

53. +1

[zentrum]

11. Nearly dead?

If only.

If it squeaks through—then it's as bad as a march through, except for a few bruised egos. Then it's damn alive!

[L0oniX]

14. When "free trade" is not free in costs of US jobs.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. And the peasants are about to storm the Bastille.

Seriously, have the .001% never cracked a history book? There's a point in which critical mass is reached and this country is at it. How do I know? Look at the response to Bernie Sanders, the ONLY candidate who can honestly talk to real people. Voters are sick of the canned candidates and, thanks to Barack Obama whom many people put their trust in to do the right and progressive thing turned into a Republican right there in front of our eyes. The candidate that will win the hearts and minds of people is Bernie Sanders. He doesn't need focus groups, he doesn't need polls, he doesn't have to remember what position he's taking on what this particular week, he just goes out there and does what he's been doing for the last 50 years -- fighting the Good Fight.

There is a REAL opportunity here. Maybe the last one this country will have and that's to bring our government back to working for the people, not the other way around. I think the Founding Fathers would EXPECT us to fight the oligarchy and as descendants and as Americans, that is our obligation.

[kentuck]

17. There's definitely things going on that we don't know...

People are tired of "politics as usual", in my opinion.

[Enthusiast]

25. +1! Oh, baby!

[Autumn]

31. I am so fucking glad you are back

Don't you take another damn break. We need you.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Well, thank you, Autumn.

I 'preciate that.

[MisterP]

70. we just need a sinister member of the House of Orléans

[thesquanderer]

18. this psychology of economics is great for Bernie

The failure of TPP could represent the turning point in our latest experiment with virtually unfettered capitalism.

Great article.

[Enthusiast]

27. It's been unfettered, alright. Laissez-faire or whatever you want to call it,

it's destroying the world.

I hope it is a turning point. Those miscreants need some real regulation (and jail time).

[Divernan]

28. 2.1 Mil. EU citizens petitioned to & did stop TTIP cold last week.

TTIP is the United States-European Union Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Organized opposition by various far-left, far-right and Green political parties, fueled by the aforesaid 2.1 million signatures in opposition to the deal blocked approval. The deal isn't totally dead - supporters will try to resurrect it next fall, but with 2.1 million on-line signatures and growing opposed, it's unlikely the EU Parliament, which has the power to reject any final deal, will be able to pass a resolution supporting it.

The EU parliamentary debate process on resolutions allows amendments (no Fast Track crap). When a resolution supporting TTIP was brought up for a vote, over 200 amendments were immediately proposed, in effect killing the deal.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/divided-eu-parliament-postpones-vote-ttip-315265

The European Parliament failed on Tuesday (9 June) to agree a unified stance on a proposed trade deal with the United States, postponing a vote that was meant to cement its support for the biggest accord of its kind.

The failure to agree on a resolution meant that the Parliament would merely debate the proposed deal in Strasbourg on Wednesday, but not hold a vote, highlighting the growing doubts in the European Union about its benefits.

Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would encompass a third of world trade, are still under way but, because the Parliament has the power to reject any final deal, it must set out its position during the process.

EU lawmakers preparing the resolution received more than 200 proposed amendments, meaning it was highly unlikely to pass, prompting parliament president Martin Schulz to postpone the vote to avoid the public embarrassment of having the resolution defeated.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2015/06/european-parliament-vote-on-eu-us-free-trade-deal-postponed

Deutsche Welle adds,

EU parliament postpones TTIP trade deal vote

The European Parliament should have been taking a first vote on the controversial TTIP trade agreement with the United States. But 200 proposed amendments and a 2 million signature petition have caused a delay.
"The Socialist group in the European Parliament insisted on excluding a controversial mechanism for resolving disputes with investors from the trade deal. ...The USA has insisted current arrangements are adequate but European negotiators have proposed a separate investment court. [In addition], a Europe-wide online petition against the TTIP, set up by the 'Self-organised European Citizens' Initiative Against TTIP and CETA' has raised more than 2.1 million signatures. It has claimed that TTIP and the CETA, which is a similar deal with Canada, are a 'threat to democracy, the environment, consumers and labour standards.'" http://www.dw.de/eu-parliament-postpones-ttip-trade-deal-vote/a-18506334

[WillyT]

29. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Romeo.lima333]

30. it's b/c fool me once shame on........ shame on you?.............. fool me we cant get fooled again

[mmonk]

34. Thanks for posting this.

[historylovr]

39. Nearly dead?

That thing needs to be beheaded, staked through the heart, and dismembered, with all the relevant parts posted on pikes as a warning against future bad trade corporate sovereignty deals. Then burn it.

[Dems to Win]

40. I'm opposed to trade, except in very limited circumstances

About 25 years ago, I was eating some pretzels I had bought from Trader Joe's, and noticed on the package that they were made in Israel.

What the hell? They harvested wheat in a desert country and made it into pretzels, then shipped it to the other side of the world for me to buy in a Utah market? What a travesty for our Mother Earth, such a waste of precious resources.

It is so wasteful as to be evil to catch fish in the US then ship them to China (in a container kept frozen, using fossil fuel to do so) for processing then back to the US for sale.

Economic signals -- the invisible hand of the free market -- are incredibly wrong and wasteful and exploitive of the Earth and its people.

The only trade that should be happening would be trade in very rare minerals, for example. That makes sense.

But using fossil fuels with abandon to ship items and raw materials across vast oceans, because oil is being kept artificially cheap, to take advantage of cheap labor in poor countries, is just wrong. Wrong for our planet, wrong for people.

As an environmentalist, I try to limit what I buy. Grow as much of my own food as I can, forget buying clothes made in sweatshops (I wear secondhand stuff, though I could afford to buy it new), and even my computer I'm typing on right now is secondhand.

Yes, I'm an American proudly opposed to free trade. Glad that Robert Reich has taken notice!

[raouldukelives]

104. Crazy, isn't it? Thank you Dems to Win!

Your story mimics mine in so many ways. Right down to my computer.

The more power, the more assistance, the more talent, the more owners multinational corporations have behind them, the less of a future we all do.

They use that power to deny democracy, climate change, civil rights, justice, culpability and remediation.

Some think the personal responsibility they have to their neighbors and life on earth ends with the vote, others think it is just the beginning.

Thank you for being one of those.

[Dems to Win]

106. And thank you, raouldukelives!

It's not easy living a thoughtful life, swimming against the current, rethinking conventional wisdom. But once I start thinking about this stuff, it's impossible not to try to live wisely.

[madokie]

42. Free trade is killing us

and everyone around us

[Elwood P Dowd]

47. You mean fake "free trade". Our so called "free trade" deals, including TPP, are nothing more

than corporate investment/outsourcing scams and corporate power grabs masquerading as free trade. Basically, they are a form of corporate coup d'etat against our local, state, and federal governments.

[madokie]

48. YES by all means YES

those very ones

[Dont call me Shirley]

55. Do not stop calling Congress and Whitehouse to express opposition to these global corporate

takeover deals. Keep calling. Do not get complacent. Round 2 is coming.

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

[AzDar]

110. This info should be an OP...

[hifiguy]

56. KnR

None of this is about "trade." It is ALL about furthering the worldwide portability of capital. Period.

[Man from Pickens]

57. nobody supports free trade in large part because it ain't free trade

An actual free trade agreement wouldn't need to be more than a couple of pages long.

What we have been getting under the Trojan Horse of "free trade" are a series of one-sided deals which universally undermine the financial position and prospects of the American middle class.

Just like the bank bailouts, these deals are arranged so that profits are private and losses are socialized.

[rock]

58. For Reich's imaginary game of $1000 to each pair

(See link for explanation of the game.) I recommend "Flip the Deal". If you offer me $250, I'll counter-offer and take $750. If you offer me $1, I'll say I'll take $999. You see the game is absolutely symmetrical in terms of gains (unless I am misunderstanding the rules of the game). He should quickly offer me $500. Don'cha think or don'cha?

[MFrohike]

68. I don't think so

I think a large majority supports free trade in the abstract. It's the experience of repeated failures in trade treaties that has pushed people to oppose the three on deck. The average person may not know all the ins and outs, but he or she can easily recognize the job losses, the stagnation of wages, and the same old, tired arguments used to sell each new treaty.

[Phlem]

69. It just needs to disappear.

The TPP is Not worker friendly among'st dozens of other red flags.

Bury it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. Most Americans want background checks too.

[the band leader]

77. TPP is TBTF

too big to fail.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. And the results would be like TATB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TATB

[closeupready]

89. Coming from Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary who helped NAFTA get passed

by helping Bill sell it to a reluctant Congress, this is an interesting perspective.

Reich has never apologized for his efforts on NAFTA. What this op-ed seems to explain is that while Reich has always supported free trade and still does, the American people do NOT - not because they are stupid, but because elites like Larry Summers have hornswoggled the average American to believe that, whatever NAFTA represented was what "free trade" is. (Though most of us here on DU know that NAFTA was absolutely NOT about free trade, but about US 1% domination of subservient foreign markets at the expense of the global 99%.)

Thus, in light of the devastation that NAFTA precipitated on the median standard of living in the US, it would make sense (Reich argues) that Americans reject "free trade"/NAFTA.

K&R

[Snow Leopard]

93. I'm cynical

I don't have much faith that they care what we think about it. If so then the fear of corps had been overstated

[nikto]

94. TPP is a conspiracy-in-plain-sight

http://thesuspicionist.blogspot.com/2015/05/tpp-when-conspiracy-hides-in-plain-sight.html

[Autumn]

96. Rumors Of It's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated n/t

[AzDar]

109. Stop the TPP!