NAFTA

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama discuss NAFTA in the 2008 Cleveland debate.by Gaius PubliusModerator Tim Russert: Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months." ... Will you, as president, say we are out of NAFTA in six months? Clinton: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you’d have to say to Canada and Mexico that that’s exactly what we’re going to do. . . . Yes, I am serious. . . .

Hello, is anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone home?

If you want to know how Monsanto gets trade agreements in foreign countries without a truly democratic or legal process, you can look no further than South America for answers. Using antiquated laws and the North American Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA), one of the ‘most hated companies’ in the world has forced its wares into multiple South American countries without considering farmers’ rights, indigenous seed, or food sovereignty for millions of people.

These three agreements solidify the creeping corporate coup d’état along with the final evisceration of national sovereignty. Citizens will be forced to give up control of their destiny and will be stripped of the ability to protect themselves from corporate predators, safeguard the ecosystem and find redress and justice in our now anemic and often dysfunctional democratic institutions.

It was amusing to see Peter Baker refer to the Democratic Party legislators’ threat to President Obama’s possible “legacy” of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), often described in the media as a “free trade” agreement, although Baker here makes it only a “trade: deal” (“A Trade Deal And a Legacy,” New York Times, June 15, 2015).

Paul Samuelson, serving as advisor to Presidents Kennedy and LBJ, was the first American to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He said the ultimate goal of economic science is to improve the living conditions of people in their everyday life. That goal should be an easy one to put into practice in a modern economy, but it is immediately beset with problems in the twenty-first century.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a global corporate noose around U.S. local, state, and national sovereignty – narrowly passed a major procedural hurdle in the Congress by gaining “fast track” status. This term “fast track” is a euphemism for your members of Congress – senators and representatives – handcuffing themselves, so as to prevent any amendments or adequate debate before the final vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership – another euphemism that is used to avoid the word “treaty,” which would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate.

No one should have expected anything good coming from conservative New Dem Kathleen Rice when she joined the Republicans and other conservative Democrats to try to pass Fast Track authorization. John MacArthur, writing Friday for Harper's, said, "Rice last week reversed her opposition to fast-track the TPP.

Ross Perot describes the "giant sucking sound going south." Notice how right he is about all the other evils he describes — how public officials "cash out," for example, or the simple logic of dumping your domestic work force if all you care about is "making money." Notice also that the questioner is a pro–trade agreement shill.by Gaius PubliusI'm not sure how the coming vote on Fast Track and TPP in the House will go.

"These are agreements negotiated on behalf of corporations by governments to divide up the ways that money will be made."-- from GP's post yesterday, "Fast Track Will Also Apply toTISA, the 'Scariest Trade Deal Nobody's Talking About' "by KenDo your eyes glaze over when the subject of "trade agreements" -- NAFTA, TPP, PTA, etc. -- comes up?