EDITOR’S NOTE: At some point it's all about whom one trusts. I've supported Obama's fast track legislation and the Trans-Pacific trade deal on the premise that free trade is a net good and economic protectionism is a net bad idea.
But as they say the "devil is in the details."
Here's two opinion pieces that lay out the case against the Trans-Pacific Trade Pact by Paul Krugman & Jim Hightower...
Source: The Lowdown
All the bad arguments for the Trans-Pacific Partnership suggest that it isn’t a deal we should support.
Talking points against the Trans-Pacific Trade deal...
PS: Whether we like it, we live in a geo-political global village. Creating fair trade rules seems like a reasonable deal for all parties – in the developed and developing world. But giving the keys to the kingdom to multi-national corporations isn’t progress but yielding power to those entities that have plundered the earth and exploited labor all over the world.
But yielding trust to organized labor and to environmental groups is not a panacea either. American unions, like their counterparts in the developed world have their own self-interests at heart that is not necessarily the interests of those they claim to represent. And enviros as self-appointed paragons of virtue seem equally suspect to me.
Global corporations want an unfettered right to rape, ravage and pillage the earth and its people for profit. American unions and enviros want to tilt the balance to US workers or lock up western forests. In the latter case the results are forest fires across the West that add to global warming.
But the political process Jim Hightower describes gives one hope that a balance can be struck between the interests of the 'corporates' and the 'unionists' if the formula of John Kenneth Galbraith is embraced – countervailing powers – which can check mate each other in the marketplace and in the global political arena.
The question is can we move this discussion from a black and white talking points to shades of grey? In a presidential year this is problematic at best.
We can’t turn the clock back to the 19th century. But allowing corporations to use claims of “proprietary interest” as a smoke screen for a trade pact with secret deals built into it is not progress but the same old shell game the 1% uses to leverage their weath and to increase their unchecked power.
In Oregon the claim of proprietary interests denys the public access to how much, if any, state income taxes bullies like Intel and Nike pay! But they don't mind disclosing the net income taxes their employees pay to Oregon! Now you know why our transparency bill was killed in committee last session...
As the saying goes – “trust but verify" and while we're at it "read the fine print."