There will be a free concert in Denver, at Summit Music Hall on Saturday, July 23rd, to mobilize opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. This concert will kick off a national " Rock Against the TPP " roadshow tour.
Northern Dynasty Minerals is threatening a lawsuit against the U.S. government for not approving a permit allowing them to dig one of the world’s largest open-pit gold and copper mines in Alaska’s Bristol Bay wilderness.
After endorsing Hillary Clinton, President Obama went on "The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon" Thursday night to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership – which Clinton, and much of the public, opposes.
The groups are concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership allows fossil fuel companies to sue governments that try to restrict carbon emissions.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership does not address a key driver of the job-sapping trade deficits the United States has with some of its trading partners, trade expert Pat Mulloy explains in this Burning Issues video.
A trade deficit is a measure of the jobs sent out of the country. The April trade deficit was $37.4 billion. The economy only added 38,000 jobs in May while manufacturing lost 10,000 jobs.
Democrats need to persuade President Obama to not bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership before Congress in the lame duck session. If he doesn't pull back, Donald Trump can use this as a campaign issue against Hillary Clinton.
This is a must-listen segment in which Richard Eskow interviews Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch describing how TPP hijacks democracy.
Membesr of Congress are weighing in against the U.S. government's use of "gunboat diplomacy"-style intimidation against Colombia over a generic cancer drug.
More than 1,500 public interest organizations representing trade and democracy "stakeholders" sent a joint letter to Congress urging them to reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
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.
Do laid-off workers stay where they are, or do they move to look for jobs, competing with people elsewhere, thereby lowering everyone's wages? There is a simple way to check.
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.
The trade deficit news sets up this message: "We're not going to let ... all of these companies just think that they can move, go to another country, make their product, sell it back to us and we get only one thing, unemployment."
Details of another secret trade deal have been leaked. This time it's on the Atlantic side. Yet again we see corporations dominating the process, working to get governments out of their way.
The US can become a weakling, reliant on other nations for steel, including some, like China, that clearly are not allies. Or, the United States can act now, as U.S. Steel demands, to secure America’s industrial strength and independence.
Sometimes an event comes along that crystallizes people’s awareness of an issue. Layoffs at the Indianapolis Carrier air conditioner factory focused many people’s feelings about our disastrous “trade” agreements.
A coalition led by farm and rural groups sent a letter to Congress opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Meanwhile Pride At Work called out the dangers of TPP opening up Malaysia, a violator of basic human rights.
This election will be at least partly, if not mostly, about trade. The consequences of decades of moving jobs out of the country are coming home to roost. People are fed up.
Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market?
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.
Clinton needs to make clear statements – no hedging – in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other similar trade agreements and policies. And she has to mean it.
China is producing much more steel than the country and the world can use, forcing steel companies in the U.S. and elsewhere to shut down production and lay off workers. They are rejecting calls to stop this overproduction.
China makes way, way too much steel – nearly 500 million tons more than it needed last year – to keep its citizens employed, its mills running and its country free of civic unrest. It exports that steel – and unemployment.
The Panama free trade agreement actually restricted the ability to do anything about Panama's bank and corporate secrecy. Was that the point all along?
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.
Current global overcapacity is estimated at 700 million tons — more than seven times what U.S. steelmakers can produce. This is expected to get worse. How should the U.S. respond?
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.
Prohibiting the ability of plutocrats, corporations, outlaws and the worst of the worst to create anonymous shell corporations to avoid taxes and scrutiny should be at the center of our trade negotiations.
Voters have certainly caught on that these disastrous trade policies, resulting in continuing enormous, humongous trade deficits, are driving jobs and wages away.
The Wisconsin primary is Tuesday and Senator Bernie Sanders is pounding on his opposition to trade deals that have closed factories and cost jobs.
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 U.S. has had trade deficits every years since the late 1970s, when Wall Street started advertising that "free trade" - moving jobs and factories out of the country -- is good for us.
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.
As Bernie Sanders' and Donald Trump's campaign criticisms of our country's disastrous trade policies resonate with voters, "establishment" pundits explain that moving millions of jobs out of the country is good for us.
Last week's Washington Post "Fact Checker" column criticizing Donald Trump's positions on trade demonstrates the elite blindness to how bad things have gotten for millions of Americans.
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 senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, explains in a video released Tuesday the sharp difference between Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on trade.