International Trade Commission reports on pending trade agreements present best-case scenarios. Even so, its report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership shows few benefits, and even says that the trade deficit will get even worse.
A backlash against so-called free trade is evident in the groundswell of support for insurgent presidential candidates on the left and right who denounce these failed policies. The first victim of this uprising should be the proposed TPP.
The Korean free trade agreement was sold with promises of jobs and increased exports. The opposite happened; the damaging trade deficit doubled. The vastly larger Trans-Pacific Partnership is being sold with the same promises.
Call your Representative and both your Senators and let them know how you feel about the possibility of Congress sneaking in a vote for TPP after the election.
New Balance says the government offered the company a big contract in exchange for its silence about what the Trans-Pacific Partnership would do to domestic manufacturers.
As much as President Clinton and President Obama like to talk about "free trade" deals, the truth is that the working class ends up paying.
"We urge Congress to reject the TPP as long as these damaging provisions are a part of it. The stakes for public health are too high."
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has an opportunity to address her trade credibility problem by asking President Obama to withdraw the Trans-Pacific Partnership from consideration by Congress.
Measures in the Trans-Pacific Partnership pushed by the Obama administration's negotiators will raise the price of many items by several thousand percent above the free market price. Here's why you may have missed that discussion.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s strongest opponents are not against trade. What we are arguing for is using a blueprint that already exists to write trade agreements that actually benefit American workers.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not all that is in trouble with voters; the entire corporate-dominated free trade agenda is coming under fire as well. For good reason.
The U.S. runs massive trade deficits with the other 11 TPP countries. Trade deficits mean products are shipped to the U.S. rather than made in the U.S. The math is simple. A drop in Asian currency means a drop in U.S. jobs.
China makes too much steel. With government subsidies and currency manipulation that are illegal under international trade rules, China sells steel overseas at below production cost, bankrupting fair market manufacturers and killing jobs.
A World Trade Organization ruling shows how the Trans-Pacific Partnership would restrict the ability of governments to make decisions if they collide with the interests of giant, multinational corporations.
The difference is very difficult to spot. The word "paragraph" has been changed to "subparagraph." But this makes a major change for the worse to the intellectual property provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
GOP candidates boast about building a physical wall to keep poor Mexican immigrants out of America. They fail to offer an economic barrier to prevent U.S. corporations from impoverishing American workers by exporting their jobs to Mexico.
Promoting TPP in front of the Montery Bay Aquarium shark tank is reminiscent of President Obama promoting TPP at job-offshoring Nike as increasing American jobs.
Which candidates will promise today not to send the TPP to Congress for approval if elected, or promise not to sign the TPP into law if Congress approves it? Bernie Sanders has; will Hillary Clinton?
As America’s tool makers and freight car builders are furloughed, their factories shuttered and offshored, America is wasting. Ill-conceived free trade deals, like the proposed TPP, are reducing it to a nation of stooped shoulders.
Bernie Sanders strongly voiced his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Wednesday and committed to doing what he can to kill the deal if he is elected president. Will Hillary Clinton commit to doing the same?
As trade representatives officially sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership in New Zealand, significant opposition is rising.
The Heritage Foundation has released its annual “Index of Economic Freedom.” As we enter an election influenced by anger at an economy rigged in favor of the wealthy, it’s time to ask: What is “economic freedom," and who is it for?
Ford Motor said this week that it will close operations in Japan and Indonesia because it sees "no reasonable path to profitability." Last year GM pulled out of Indonesia. This is in spite of the coming Trans-Pacific Partnership.
It's been out of the news, but there's always the risk that Wall Street will find a way to force the Trans-Pacific Partnership back to the fore. Contact Congress and ask your representative to come out publicly against the TPP.
Will the President provide a positive, progressive message for the future in his last State of the Union address, or will he continue to push the wildly unpopular, corporate/Wall Street-written Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
Two recent cases demonstrate the danger to democratic government from investor-state dispute provisions in trade agreements. It appears it is President Obama who was “absolutely wrong” about the dangers of TPP.
The Freidrichs case is not just about unions; it is also setting up an argument against separation of church and state.
They say that if you get up in the morning and swallow a live toad, nothing worse will happen to you for the rest of the day. Well, we Americans have just been fed a live toad by the World Trade Organization.
Fear-mongering GOP candidates divert attention from real problems like bad trade deals and urge us to burn with anger about immigrants and refugees. In a real democracy, the smoldering in America would be piles of discarded TPP texts.
Do not be misled about reports that a Trans-Pacific Partnership vote is being delayed. It's a bargaining ploy. Republicans want “side agreements” that give corporations even more. We have to keep up the fight.
The U.S. Congress is being told they must repeal country-of-origin labeling law or we face billions in punishment. U.S. courts don't get a say. We the People don't, either.
The Labor Advisory Committee created by Congress to assess the Trans-Pacific Partnership says the proposed treaty is "skewing benefits to economic elites while leaving workers to bear the brunt of the TPP’s downside."
Will Hillary Clinton actively and boldly lobby against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, convincing members of Congress who voted for fast track authority to vote against the trade deal itself?
If you close a factory in the U.S., move the production to a low-wage country, bring the same goods back to the U.S. and sell them in the same stores, you have just "increased trade" because now those goods cross a border.
The group's print ads will appear in Politico, The Hill, and Roll Call and are intended to drive awareness of the lack of enforceable currency provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
With the Trans-Pacific Partnership now public, "foreign-owned companies" illegally fire workers who will be making less than $7 a day. Workers are harassed, arrested and beaten if they try to organize to improve their lives.
When talking about trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Donald Trump was correct about China: "The TPP ... is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble."
Noted economist Jeffrey Sachs – who makes it clear he likes its free-trade provisions – explains why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is nonetheless too flawed for Congress to sign.
Congress demanded that the Trans-Pacific Partnership outlaw currency manipulation. The administration promised that the TPP and accompanying side agreements do that. Then Japan said it will continue manipulating.
President Obama has laid out the bottom line, saying the Trans-Pacific Partnership “puts American workers first.” That's the right measure, but there are deficiencies even a thousand pages of legalese can't obscure.