business regulation, consumer protection, etc.

Of course, we have to deal with republicans who seem to oppose all efforts to add those standards to trade agreements - from FDR's agreement to Obama's. That never seems to change.

We've had protection provisions in other trade agreements. But when it came time to enforce them, the State Department takes a pass, especially on labor and environmental clauses. There's no point in having enforcement provisions if we aren't going to use them.

unions, environmental groups, consumer protection organizations, etc. - should be authorized to initiate enforcement actions (just like corporations can do). Of course that might alarm folks who think that national sovereignty trumps everything else and that national governments should not be subject to the decisions of international tribunals.

In my experience, a lot of folks who oppose the TPP can;t name one thing about it they oppose other than it will "outsource jobs."

One guy I argued with tried to tell me that "all our jobs went to China, because of NAFTA."

I'm certainly in support of trade agreements that preserve labor rights, consumer protection, etc.

Keep in mine, however, that many of those clauses are directed at participants who have traditionally locked American products out of the market by passing "safety" laws directed at American goods. There has to be some mechanism to prevent that kind of thing.

He/she is the expert on what's wrong with it.

Many have no idea.

But you are exactly right. This isn't really a trade deal but more of an investment deal for multinational corporations. And if a country wanted to pass an environmental law to protect its people or a wage law or retirement law to help its citizens, the corporation can sue under an international tribunal for damages to "future" profits. It must be defeated. Hope you are doing well as well as others. Take care.

But that I was in a Mac Davis kind of place at the time.

Thank you for not getting all weepy and saying "Leave Trade Alone!"