Right now as elected representatives they have a lot of power.

Once the world is just a huge free trade zone ruled by a corporate oligarchy there'll be no need for them.

they approved the "patriot act" with out reading it too!

they don't ever read these bills that are sometimes 1000's of pages long... none of them. Remember, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

sP

I noticed this:

That is a complete falsehood. Maybe, those with a union background can understand it better if we were to refer them to the collective bargaining process that has served union members well. The negotiating team negotiates the contract terms (in a similarly, secret process) and the negotiated terms are presented to the body for a up or down vote. This is what fast-track does.

Now to the rest of the OP ...



Commentator fails to indicate that the "last war" refers to the effect of NAFTA, which incentivized job shifting ... what the commentator buried was what President Obama actually said:



And then:



Then, in the commentator's summation, it is stated:



But that's not what he said ... actually, President Obama stated the exact opposite ... NAFTA did cost jobs (though not as many as were the result of automation and capital investment). But, again, NAFTA is the war of yester-year ... the TPP (will) establish(es) higher wages, more worker protections and higher environmental standards.



Again ... the commentator is talking about NAFTA; the President isn't.



I wonder what the commentator believes will happen, when TPP levels the playing field, and it is no longer cost effective for corporations to locate operations half-way around the world to places with time zone differences, language barriers, and the quality control issues that arise when operations distanced from design units?

Further, I wonder what more a trade agreement can do to move jobs back, beyond leveling the playing field?

Finally,



No "WE" (the government) didn't ... Corporations had a fundamentally different corporate citizenship ethos ... they (largely) valued corporate citizenship and felt a nationalistic obligation, if not tie, to the U.S. That ethos went out the window with the entrance of the B-School executive, who were taught "Profits (shareholder value) above All."

I really dislike these type of OPs, especially when they appear on DU.

What makes you think that will happen? It's certainly never happened with previous trade agreements, and certainly not implied by any of the TPP that's been made public.

Is the key phrase. Why would those leaking stuff, link the very thing that would resolve the thing that has the most people opposing it?

But that said, What makes me think it will happen?

Well ... the leveling of the field (i.e., universe wage floor, increased work conditions protections, increased environmental regulations) is the Administration's negotiating position.

Now, do I think any of these protections will be enough to completely satisfy me? ... Probably not, for example, I would like to see the wage floor set at $10+/hour and have the work conditions mirror FLSA, OSHA and other Federal worker protections ... likewise with the environmental protections. But I doubt that will happen.

... "Administrations's negotiating position"?

Since the labor chapter has not been leaked, we cannot know if the public position is being followed in private negotiations. The ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation is complaining about the administration's labor and environmental 'posturing' in the negotiations so maybe that is a good sign.

It would be great if the labor chapter were leaked. Not sure what to make of the fact that it has not been.

Unfortunately, TPP negotiations to date have included excessive U.S. posturing on environmental standards and labor regulations. There is a danger of further such posturing as a proposed U.S.–European Union FTA moves forward.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/2013-global-agenda-for-economic-freedom

I don't agree with everything in your post but we probably agree that the only way to integrate labor/human rights and environmental standards into the rules of international trade is through negotiations with other countries.

The question is whether these provisions are in the TPP. If they are, some other countries would lose much of their 'competitive advantage' in the form of weak unions, human rights abuses and ineffectual environmental regulations. Those would be points in TPP's favor from a liberal perspective.

We do not know if these provisions are in it or not. Those chapters have not been leaked - either intentionally or by happenstance - so we cannot know. The irony is that without fast track Obama would be a fool to submit the TPP to a republican dominated congress. Any labor/human rights provisions that are in there would be stripped out by republicans majorities. Which is why a republican congress will never give Obama 'fast track' authority. Heck, republicans would not renew 'fast track' authority for Clinton even after NAFTA because they were afraid he would include labor and environmental provision in trade deals and they would not be able to delete them.

And, actually, when one examines the provisions one finds that, contrary to corporate propaganda, the TPP is mostly NOT about trade, but about erecting stronger monopoly power by expansions of intellectual property law (such as increasing copyright on corporate content to 120 years), and destroying the abilities of state & local governments to carry out their constitutional duties to enact laws that protect the environment, workers, consumers, etc (by the TPP's allowing multinational corporations to sue them in a corporate controlled tribunal immune from appeal in the judicial system.)



Thanks for an important post.

K & R

MONEY!

Why would they vote to give up the right to amend an agreement negotiated by someone they do not like or trust? If Obama submits the TPP to congress without 'fast track', republicans can take their time to go through it, delete anything they don't like (pesky labor and environmental provisions, if they are in there), add in anything they want (who knows what they can dream up) then use their majority to approve the "new" agreement.