The enormous, humongous trade deficit is doing incredible damage to our economy. Our country’s elites used to care about that.
It is not entirely fair for President Obama to dismiss critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership for having a "lack of knowledge" of what is being negotiated, as he did at a recent news conference.
A huge trade treaty is coming that will change the relationship between giant corporations and governments around the world. Why is the American corporate media telling the public so little about it?
Research concludes that if you're making less than $87,000 per year (the current 90th percentile wage), the Trans-Pacific Partnership would mean a pay cut. But that's fine for corporations who want this treaty.
The New York Times gets it right: It's time to "improve the ground rules of global trade." In the face of overwhelming evidence of the damage done by NAFTA-style trade deals, could the tide of elite opinion be changing?
We have a trade deficit in the $500-billion-per-year range. American billionaires and their giant corporations are benefiting tremendously by tapping into this drain of American’s wealth.
Many Wall Street and D.C. elites say that more trade is always better. But is the goal more trade, or trade that benefits We the People of the United States and our economy?
We know that the Trans-Pacific Partnership has an intellectual property section that will override government rules that limit the ability of giant corporations to trample the interests of smaller competitors and the public.
The old trade model has failed us miserably. Isn't it time to stop pursuing a fast track for another bad trade deal when the train is already off the rails? Isn't it long past time to take another look and think anew?
Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly told House Democrats the administration is backing off pushing fast track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The new progressive populism is having an effect.
We have to stop fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Then we should take the momentum from that to demand Congress and President Obama instead fix NAFTA first.
Advocates of the Trans-Pacific Partnership claim that trade adjustment assistance for displaced workers will make it OK for the people who lose their jobs. The record of "NAFTA-style" trade agreements says otherwise.
We're in the middle of a David vs. Goliath battle. Corporate lobbyists are waging a campaign to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal rushed through Congress with little debate. But a broad coalition has come together to take on Goliath.
The main theme of Obama’s State of the Union address was his battle against growing American income inequality. But economists of all stripes agree that U.S. trade policy has been a major contributor to that inequality.
Multinational corporations are demanding new trade deals that will open our markets to goods made by millions of low-wage workers. The next time the president starts whispering sweet nothings about trade, ask a few questions.
Free trade is not always a win-win proposition. It can be win-win under some circumstances, but it can also be a losing proposition under other circumstances. For the United States, the latter has too often been the case.
The reason NAFTA was so harmful to working people was the way it was negotiated – under fast-track authority, behind closed doors. We know from experience what happens once legislators have the fast-track ticket in their hands.
The plan President Obama mentioned briefly during Tuesday's State of the Union speech to promote manufacturing hubs would be undermined by his desire to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he does not support fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on the same day that a new poll reveals the extent of public opposition to the trade deal.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not really about trade. The point of the deal is to put in place a structure of regulations that will be friendlier to the large corporations who are in many cases directly part of the negotiating process.
Today 564 organizations released a joint letter to Congress opposing fast-track trade promotion authority. The organizations cover the entire field of what would be considered President Obama's "base."
The head of the Alliance for American Manufacturing warns that allowing the Trans-Pacific Partnership to be fast-tracked through Congress will lead to more lost manufacturing jobs and more downward pressure on wages.
This could become the model for a new and profoundly subversive model of governance, in which elected government becomes little more than an afterthought to corporate-backed deal-making. But the fight isn't over.
Here's what President Obama should say about fast-track authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the State of the Union: I’m dropping my request that Congress give me fast track authority. I’d rather get it right than get it fast.
Back in 1986, leaders of the US, Canada and Mexico sold the North American Free Trade Agreement to the public as an economic win-win for all parties involved. Twenty years later, we can test how those claims panned out in the real world.
There is no momentum for these "trade" agreements that favor corporate rights. They are engineered to pit American workers and our democracy against low-wage workers in non-democracies.
The president of TransAfrica explains why the fight against the Trans-Pacific Partnership warrants the involvement of all people who care about racism, economic justice and human rights.
Hard work, smart planning and perseverance made 2013 a year of inspiring fair-trade activism. This sets the stage for the most important fights on globalization and “trade” in decades, beginning in a few short weeks.
NAFTA has cost about 700,000 jobs. The recent Korea-U.S. trade agreement has already cost 40,000 jobs. "Trade" with China has cost us jobs, factories and entire industries. Now we're about to "fast track" one more bad trade deal.
Fast Track should be as much of an electoral test for progressives as Social Security is. Progressives have to make this a line that cannot be crossed. This is about democracy vs big-corporate dominance of our economy and society.
Americans got a peak behind the curtain of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and what we found is frightening. Wikileaks published a draft of the “intellectual property rights” chapter, and it poses a serious risk to free speech and information access.
If this agreement becomes law it will fundamentally alter the relationship between our government, other governments and giant multinational corporations. But the only reason we get to even read it at all is because it was leaked to Wikileaks.
Considering the recent performance of the U.S. economy, and the ongoing, relentless pursuit of austerity it's, an especially bad time to be making any "trade deals." So let's just table that little project for the time being, shall we?
Giant corporations are asking Congress to give up its constitutional obligation to consider and amend a trade treaty that requires our country to give up its sovereignty. Many Republicans don't appear to be falling for this one.
The government might be shut down, but the Trans-Pacific Partnership is still rolling toward us. House and Senate Democrats are getting worried. Many U.S. industries are now getting worried, too.
The idea is to penalize countries and companies that try to win a competitive advantage in the marketplace by paying subpar wages, allowing unsafe working conditions or escaping compliance with environmental regulations.
A largely anonymous group of officials late last week wanted their work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership – often described as "NAFTA on steroids" – out of the spotlight. But a small group of activists put a spotlight on the negotiations.
What would you expect if the giant corporations negotiated a treaty among themselves, without labor, environmental, consumer and other groups that represent the interests of anything besides corporate profit?