Back when the Korean-U.S. free trade agreement was being debated, several labor and other organizations warned this would happen: Instead of balanced trade and more jobs, trade deficits would increase and potential jobs would be lost.
Our country’s “free trade” agreements have followed a framework of trading away our democracy and middle-class prosperity in exchange for letting the biggest corporations dominate.
Look at Bernie Sanders' surprise 20-point comeback in this week's Michigan primary. With primaries coming soon in the Rust Belt and the South, will Sanders' trade appeal resonate again?
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.
The trade deficit is a metric for jobs leaking out of the economy, which causes wages to stagnate. The continuing trade deficit is the reason that Friday's February jobs report showed that manufacturing lost 16,000 jobs.
Trump is tapping into an economic anxiety felt by many, many Americans. Our trade policies are at the root of this anxiety. People get it, and he knows it and says it.
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 new study confirms what many activists have suspected for a long time: The private courts set up by international "trade" deals heavily favor billionaires and giant corporations, at the expense of governments and people.
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.
Hundreds of officials will be convening in Brussels next week to pound out the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, and consumer groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been mobilizing in opposition.
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?
The continuing trade deficit means that jobs, wealth and the economic ecosystems that enable a country to thrive (or at least make a living) are disappearing.
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.
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.
This enormous, humongous trade deficit sucked a quarter of a percent from quarterly economic growth and will continue to drag down job prospects, wages and living standards.
In keeping with the figgy-pudding and potato latke traditions of the holidays, here’s a recipe for delivering joy to the workers so that they can spread holiday merriment:
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.
A new study measured job losses from Walmart’s offshoring at 400,000. That doesn’t measure the cost of low-wage employees on public assistance, or budget cuts forced on us by the resulting billionaires.
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?
The U.S. Census Bureau reported Friday that the October goods and services trade deficit was an enormous, humongous $43.9 billion. This is for a single month.
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.
The U.S. aluminum industry is desperate for relief from a flood of illegally subsidized imports from China. Thousands of American aluminum workers would still be employed if the U.S. enforced trade regulations.
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.
The effort is now on to defeat this treaty in Congress, with labor, consumer, environmental and health care organizations united in their opposition based on the text released Thursday.
Lower crude oil prices helped cut imports. Sales of commercial airplanes and jet engines helped boost exports. The full effect of China's currency devaluation and the stronger U.S. dollar is yet to hit.
At some point the actual text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be made public. Organizations, academics, experts and regular people will be able to read, analyze and discuss what has been agreed to in our name.