"Free Trade" is a SCAM. It always has been.

[bvar22]

There is no such thing as "Free Trade". It does not exist.
The Giant Invisible Hand of the Market Place is also a Fairy Tale.
"Free Trade" is code for removing ALL the regulations on International Trade that were put in place to restrain Corporations/Capital, and protect the American Working Class. Some of these restrictions took years and decades to put in place.

WHY "Free Trade" is a SCAM
The simple explanation is that capital (money) will ALWAYS be able to outrun Human Rights, Workers Rights, and Environmental Protections.

It takes YEARS, sometimes DECADES, for Human Rights Activists, Environmental Activists, and Workers Rights activists to organize, petition the government, get the government to listen, a couple of more years to go through the legislative process, and maybe emerge as an effective regulation.

A Corporation can pack up and move overnight to another country with a corrupt, bribable government and an abysmal record on Human/Environmental Rights. All it take is a single board meeting.


"Free Trade" was designed to:
1) Bust Unions

2) Lower Wages and benefits for America's Working Class

3) Avoid Environmental Regulations
It has worked perfectly as designed.

For proof, just look at the history of "Free Trade" since it was sold to a gullible American Working Class by a smooth talking con man.

<snip>
"One problem with trade and investment deals, especially with lower-wage countries like South Korea and China, is that they often result in growing trade deficits and job losses. In 2011, President Obama claimed that the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) would “support 70,000 American jobs” because the agreement would “increase exports of American goods by $10 billion to $11 billion.”

Since KORUS took effect in 2012, exports to Korea have increased by less than $1 billion. Meanwhile, U.S. imports have surged more than $12 billion, resulting in a net loss of 75,000 U.S. jobs.

Similarly, Bill Clinton claimed that NAFTA would create 200,000 jobs in its first two years and a million jobs in five years. Instead, between 1993 (before NAFTA) and 2013, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17 billion to $177.2 billion, displacing more than 850,000 U.S. jobs.

<read more FACTS here:>
http://www.newsweek.com/free-trade-costs-american-jobs-332962

[Jester Messiah]

1. Ross Perot was right. n/t

[Kablooie]

26. That really sucks.

[freebrew]

63. I saw that...

a drive-by?

[pampango]

2. Sweden trades more than twice as we do. Their unions are strong. Their wages are high.

Their income equality is among the best in the world.

We can blame trade, 'free trade', immigration, foreigners if we want to. The Swedes (and progressives in any other countries) will, as always, marvel that Americans think they are so 'exceptional' that what works for other progressive countries will not work in the US.

[Human101948]

14. The Nordics and Free Trade

The Nordics tend to have positive trade balances while the US has endless negative trade balances that probably would be treated as a serious crisis in Nordic countries. The Nordics do protect industry, through active industrial policy among other things, to ensure that they have a successful economic base able to maintain high employment. And the Nordics have little choice when it comes to trade because of their small domestic markets.

Relative to the Nordics, the US trade/industrial policy can accurately be described as an incredible disaster and not only because the US is horrible at welfare.

[pampango]

51. How do they have positive trade balances without tariffs and with high wages and strong unions?

The Nordics do protect industry, through active industrial policy among other things ...

If they have a way of protecting industries that is consistent with international trade rules that is another thing we can learn from them.

[Akamai]

73. Also because wealthy corporations have gotten wealthy exporting jobs to other countries and then

importing finish goods to Americans, this leading to incredibly high trade deficits here, very high unemployment, a lack of good paying jobs, etc.

The mainstream media refuses to focus on these factors, and the huge changes that have occurred in America over the last 40 years.

[passiveporcupine]

18. This just means their trade policies protect them.

As well as having better social programs to redistribute the wealth.

Maybe we could sustain job losses and reduced wages for the middle class, if we had social programs like they do. I suspect, however, that they need to work together. Trade policies that protect local jobs and wages, and good social programs.

[pampango]

46. They have lower tariffs and more 'no tariff' trade than the US has.

As well as having better social programs to redistribute the wealth.

They certainly do. And they do that with a per capita income of $41,000 compared to our $57,000. We have more than enough financial assets to provide better social programs. We simply lack the political will that Swedes have.

[appalachiablue]

68. Uncle Alan on greater worker insecurity...

[Scruffy1]

69. That evil old face is scary. N/t

[passiveporcupine]

75. I'd never heard this

It makes me want to vomit.

[appalachiablue]

77. Yup/ Free Market Job Creation, Bedford Falls: 'It's a Wonderful Life' GOP Version.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

25. I would also propose

the average Swede is probably more active with their government than we are. That is to say, they are more than willing to hold government accountable. We never do that here unless its an extraordinary circumstance and even then..........

[pampango]

50. I'm sure you are right. They expect more from their government and "are more than willing

to hold government accountable."

[paleotn]

28. VAT tax....

...import tariffs in a different guise. It equals the playing field. We have none such, and are thus subjected to the full force of neo-liberal, wage arbitrage.


Next!

[pampango]

49. VAT applies to both imports and domestic products. Tariffs only apply to imports.

Sweden imports more than twice as much as the US imports. Their middle class is healthy. Their unions are strong. Their wages are high.

[paleotn]

52. Yes, it applies to both

...thus leveling the playing field for imports vs. domestic production. Secondly, much of their imports are from other Western European countries, with similar standards of living, and similar manufacturing cost structures....vs. say China and Vietnam.

Makes sense now?

[pampango]

58. So applying a VAT (say 20%) to both imports and domestic products levels the playing field?

So a $20,000 car made in Sweden costs a Swedish consumer $24,000 with a 20% VAT. A $20,000 Japanese car costs the Swedish consumer $24,000 with the same VAT. If Sweden had not VAT, the Swedish-made car would cost their consumer $20,000 and the Japanese import would cost $20,000. The VAT does not harm imports.

The VAT does provide much funding to the Swedish government which it uses to fund an effective safety net so it may well be a great policy (though somewhat regressive in who pays for the VAT), but it does nothing to penalize imports or shift consumers to domestic products.

US imports from China are 2.52% of our economy. Sweden's imports from China are 1.48% of their economy. (Germany's imports from China are 2.48% of their economy.) Our imports from Vietnam are 0.2% of our economy. Don't know how much Sweden imports from Vietnam. Sweden imports less from China than the US (neither import much from Vietnam) does but I doubt that a 1.04% difference in Chinese imports explains why Sweden's unions and middle class are strong while ours are weak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Trade is not the cause of our problems; not will limiting it be the solution to our problems; though for Donald it provides a nice scapegoat and a handy distraction from real solutions.

[paleotn]

59. What the heck are you talking about?

You don't seem to have a clue how VAT works. It is a percentage paid on the increase in value of a product throughout the production, distribution and retail process. Thus Value Add Tax. A Volvo, made entirely in Sweden, has had VAT assessed to incremental increases in value until it reaches the dealer. A Prius, made in Japan, has no Swedish VAT assessed, until it reaches Sweden. At that point the entire market value of the product is subject to VAT tax, not just the incremental increase in value since the last VAT assessment, as is the case for the Volvo. Thus VAT is a backdoor tariff system.


Oh, data from Wiki? Really? The US trade deficit in 2014 was $731 BILLION, over 3 quarters of a TRILLION dollars. In 1995 it was only about $115 billion. I wonder how many US jobs are represented in that $600 BILLION deficit increase?

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/

I wonder what happened in the realm of international trade during that time period? Hmmmm? And what are all these empty US manufacturing facilities dotting the countryside? Could it be that trade with China, unfair trade that is, devastated the US furniture industry and completely destroyed US textile manufacturing? And don't you fucking tell me it didn't, because where I live, the wreckage is all around me. Industry after industry has been lost. Hell, the computer your reading this on was made overseas. I remember when PCs were made in the US.

[pampango]

60. The Swedish VAT raises the cost of a Swedish-made car by assessing incremental increases at each

step in the process. If Sweden had no VAT there would be no assessment of incremental taxes at each step of the process so the car would be cheaper when it was delivered to the dealer. A 20% VAT would raise the cost of that car by 20% in total as a result of incremental increases at each step of the process.

The net effect of this is that each supplier in the chain remits tax on the value added, and ultimately the tax is paid by the end consumer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax#Domestic_supply

You are right that an imported car from Japan, let's say, is assessed all at once when it comes through customs.

The VAT raises the cost to the consumer of both imported and domestic products over what it would be if no VAT existed. That's the point of the VAT is to raise revenue for the government. If the VAT were an effective tariff, it would be considered as such under international trading rules which limit tariffs between countries. The fact that trading rules allow an unlimited VAT and limit tariffs shows that the two function very differently. The EU has the largest economy in the world. It is not like they are sneaking the VAT past the rest of the world without us noticing.

US imports are 12% of our economy. Imports are 30% of Sweden's economy. If excessive imports devastated an economy, Sweden's would be much more devastated than the US'.
Us exports are 9% of our economy. Exports are 32% of Sweden's economy. Our trade deficit is caused by our very low level of exports. Why is that? Wages are as high or higher in Sweden and their unions are much stronger and more pervasive than ours are.

Sweden seems to accept its role as a member of the global economy and has figured out how to succeed at it, while maintaining its strong middle class, effective safety net and widespread labor unions. Other progressive countries do the same. It cannot be that hard to figure out. I doubt that Swedes or Germans or Norwegians or Australian are any smarter than Americans.

OTOH, the US is fixated on what the world is doing to us and how we can punish foreigners for it. At least that is the Trump approach.

[Jim Lane]

3. Not always. Only in the last few decades.

At one time, consumers worldwide were hurt by protective tariffs, which rich business owners succeeded in getting imposed so as to protect themselves from foreign competition. The real meaning of "free trade" is to lessen or remove tariffs, along with nontariff requirements that have the same purpose and effect (i.e., they're not genuinely intended to protect consumers or the environment or the like, but were solely to benefit domestic corporations). This lessening of tariffs was a valid goal. For example, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 triggered retaliation by our trading partners, leaving everyone worse off. FDR campaigned on opposition to high tariffs and succeeded in beginning the process of mutual lowering of tariffs.

The problem with the "free trade" slogan is that this valid goal was largely achieved in the decades after World War II, under the aegis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The more recent trade agreements haven't lowered unreasonably high tariff barriers because there are few left to lower. In the TPP, for example, only a small portion of the text is devoted to tariffs. The rest is the stuff like Investor-State Dispute Settlement, which has nothing to do with tariffs and everything to do with empowering multinational corporations to override democratically enacted laws. This is not "free trade" in any meaningful sense. Instead, the TPP and similar agreements are referred to by their proponents as "free trade agreements" because they want to capitalize on the favorable connotations of that phrase, even though it's unjustified in this context.

[passiveporcupine]

19. Exactly

empowering multinational corporations to override democratically enacted laws. This is not "free trade" in any meaningful sense.

[Cryptoad]

4. Anything Trump is for , I'm against!

While many viewers may have been sympathetic to Cooper’s allegation of opportunism, there is no reason to doubt Clinton’s account of her position on trade. It would be foolish to think that because she had once supported the TPP in principle, she should remain committed to it unconditionally. Furthermore, Clinton’s longer record shows an increasing reluctance to support the free trade agenda that characterized her husband’s administration twenty years ago. While she has supported many past free trade agreements, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA) in 2005, while she was a senator. In 2007, reflecting on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), she offered mixed support, explaining, “what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain.” By 2008, she had concluded that NAFTA “had not lived up to its promises.” Later that year, she broke with members of her own campaign team — and her husband — over a free trade agreement with Colombia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-singh-grewal/why-hillary-clinton-is-ri_b_8295420.html

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Just because Trump stopped thinking doesn't mean Democrats should. No automatic positions, pls. . nt

[n2doc]

12. You must change your opinions often, then

Because tRump changes his on an hourly basis.

[passiveporcupine]

21. That is a pretty closed minded view.

Trump has had a few good ideas, but he keeps switching back to bad ones.

Some of his good ones were actually worthwhile, but they were just to attract his base. I don't think he had any intention of folloing through on them.

I do think he is far more democratic than most repubilcans though. He may spout a lot of racism and bigotry (for his audience) but I think he's far more socially progressive than most republicans.

Until he's been decared the republican candidate in the GE, I don't think anyone can trust anything he says.

And I still don't believe he really wants the job of President. It's too much work.

[Cosmocat]

66. Mostly agree

I agree, personally, he is pretty socially liberal, and outside of those things that serve all people with a lot of money, he is fiscally liberal, too, see his prior support for universal health care.

He knew what the touch stone would be for the stupid vote, and know the R party was the place to be to max that out.

I do think he wants POTUS, and to your point about not wanting to do the work, he is like W in that regard. He never really wanted to DO the job. But, he wanted to slay his father complex and spend 8 years having everyone kiss his ass.

The Donald does not want to DO the job so much. But, he wants the glamour and he wants to have policies enacted that that will benefit him personally, and as the final stage this great con, use the office to generally plunder and make money.

[paleotn]

30. Are you against broken clocks as well?

[Downwinder]

5. As with all "free" advertising campaigns.

[passiveporcupine]

23. Yeah, like free college tuition?

We all knew that meant tuition only,not all college costs, but many people tried to push that as pink unicorns and free stuff. It's so easy to make propaganda...but it's so hard to tell the truth when you do it.

[Downwinder]

27. Only for the Military.

All costs plus a stipend.

Aren't public health and education National Security issues?

No. We have to give people an impetus to sign up as cannon fodder.

[passiveporcupine]

36. We could always reinstate the draft

but then global domination wars would get a lot of unpleasant attention.

[Downwinder]

41. Conscripts have a different attitude.

Might not serve the Empire as well.

[LuvNewcastle]

39. That is it, right there.

If we give free college tuition, that is one less reason for young people to join the military. Gotta keep those poor kids desperate for an education that they would otherwise not be able to afford.

[Exilednight]

43. The military doesn't always cover full college costs.

The GI Bill gives the former soldier the money in monthly installments to pay for college.

I went to school on the GI Bill, Army College Fund and the Illinois Veterans Grant. I was really lucky. Illinois paid for my tuition and classes, then my monthly check paid for my books and lab fees.

The only downside is that no military funding for former military pays for advanced degrees and it's based on a 4 year timeframe to complete school if you go full-time. The bulk of the military is made up of low income kids who barely passed high school, and then they finish their enlistment, enroll in school and begin in remedial courses that can add up to two years to their education.

[Downwinder]

47. United States service academies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_service_academies

[leftstreet]

6. DURec

[sangfroid]

8. Quite so.

nt

[MohRokTah]

9. .

[mountain grammy]

11. That "giant sucking sound"

[paleotn]

31. Another broken clock....

...from the not so distant past. Ross was totally and completely wrong on everything except NAFTA.

[mountain grammy]

53. Pretty huge thing to be right about.

[madinmaryland]

13. I am for Fair Trade. One that benefits everyone.

[passiveporcupine]

24. Me too.

We want to bring third world countries up to our level, but there are ways to do it without bringing our country down.

[n2doc]

15. And the latest ones are mainly about proving more power and leverage to big corporations

Not about trade. They are about extending onerous copyright laws, corporate led tribunals to decide which laws are allowed to stand, extortion of money under the guise of 'lost profits' and so on. The days when such agreements were all about about lowering tariffs are long gone.

People can read the articles for themselves and decide for themselves which side they stand on, regardless of what some politician is saying at the moment.

[passiveporcupine]

16. Let's say it again

"Free Trade" was designed to:
1) Bust Unions

2) Lower Wages and benefits for America's Working Class

3) Avoid Environmental Regulations
It has worked perfectly as designed.

^^^this^^^

this is how we become competitive with other countries. We balance the cost of living so they go up and we go down. It's all for the advantage of the corps who keep moving to new low wage countries to keep their profits high.

This is what Clinton will back as soon as it's safe for her to switch back to her real agenda.

We all know it, even those who pretend to deny it.

[LuvNewcastle]

45. Yep.

All those rich people aren't giving her money just because they're friends.

[mckara]

17. Actually, You are Wrong About the Origin of Free Trade

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (2)

After the Second World War, Europe and Asia were in ruins and the United States was the only industrial power remaining intact. The Soviet Union was firmly entrenched in Eastern and Central Europe, while Western Europe was teetering on the brink of joining the Communist Bloc. The U.S. realized it must invest in rebuilding Western Europe, which it did with the Marshall Plan.

Prior to the war, most countries, including the U.S., protected their domestic production with customs and tariffs. A rebuilding Europe and Japan could not compete with American Industry, unless there were no trade barriers hindering their access to American consumers. Thus, Free Trade policies were agreed upon in 1947 at Bretton Woods to facilitate the growth of worldwide industrial production and to strengthen capitalism in the West.

That's how Free Trade started and the unintended consequences were the fault of subsequent American leaders who perpetuated these policies because of the advantages they provided to a burgeoning American Empire. Now, you can take over the argument to complain about the excesses...

[Dem2]

22. Post rec

[Scruffy1]

70. You are right.

One of the political spins on the free trade of the early fifties was it was important to keep it in place to prevent countries like Japan from "going communist". The first industry that the Japanese completely took over was sewing machines. They ran the Americans and Germans out of the business by the 70's. after they had developed their industry the machine tool industry was next. They succeeded by building high quality machines that were accurate and reliable. The American companies were slow to change to modern technology and their electronics sucked big time. I remember trying to get an American electronics company that would partner on a new control system for web printing in the 70's. No dice. I had to go to Japan. Looking back I think the failure of American industry was caused by a system that rewards very short term gains at the expense of long term success. I watched industry after industry topple because they didn't keep up with technology. It's actually very complex and there were a lot of reasons but a good example would be when Sears switched to Japanese sewing machines and White, their previous provider found it more profitable to rebrand Japanese machines than manufacture their own.

[rgbecker]

20. K&R

Just look at the results. Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

[Aerows]

29. Bankrupting a company so

that you can avoid paying the duly owed worker's pensions.

That pretty much sums up the US financial system.

[840high]

33. +1

[appalachiablue]

40. +5 It was Reagan's admin. that made pensions an "assett" I believe.

[appalachiablue]

32. K & R

[840high]

34. .that^

[Cary]

35. As far as I know Ricardian international economics is still sound

It's not even controversial

[Arizona Roadrunner]

37. TPP-ISDS and the Democrats

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

[Shebear]

38. "Free Trade" has very little to do with trade...

... but quite a lot to do with how corporations can get around democratic restrictions on the harm they can do to citizens..

[pansypoo53219]

42. the 'HOUSE' always wins.

[Cassiopeia]

48. It's simple really.

I'm baffled that so many just don't get it.

[nationalize the fed]

54. k&r

People just didn't listen to those few who told the truth all along. It's not brain surgery but it requires independent thought, which is almost non-existent.

Sir James Goldsmith, along with Ross Perot, tried to tell us but scumbags like Laura D'Andrea Tyson were shouting over anyone that tried to have a rational debate. "Luddites!", "Neanderthals!" and "Stupid" they said, over and over.

Sir James Goldsmith (26 February 1933 18 July 1997) was an Anglo-French financier. Towards the end of his life, he became a magazine publisher and a politician. In 1994, he was elected to represent France as a Member of the European Parliament and he subsequently founded the short-lived eurosceptic Referendum Party in Britain.

In this interview, Sir Goldsmith discusses the ramifications of free-trade agreements that were about to take place in 1994 (GATT), as you can retrospectively see, he correctly predicted many of the things that happened after that.

Time to OutSource a few politicians.

[Rex]

55. You have to explain simple concepts, most have degrees from Google U.

Free trade vs. fair trade, clueless they are. Like deer in the headlights.

[Nye Bevan]

56. Yep. The US would be a better place if all 50 states could impose tariffs on trade with each other.

Imagine how many auto manufacturing jobs would be created in Rhode Island, for example, if importation of vehicles to that state from Michigan and elsewhere could be banned or restricted.

Barack Obama is such a dummy for signing all of those free trade agreements, isn't he? He really should listen to Donald Trump on this issue.

[klook]

61. TPP enables interstate commerce?

Who knew?! Thanks for shedding light on this little-known benefit of a controversial proposal!

[Nye Bevan]

62. I was replying to the OP which did not mention TPP at all (nt)

[JEB]

57. 4)

Funnel wealth to the already obscenely rich and powerful.

[libodem]

64. Ahhh ha

Just as I suspected.

[FairWinds]

65. I'd suggest that we use some other term than "free trade"

It is deliberately intended to mislead and confuse.

Here is why -

There has never been and never will be such a thing as actual
"free trade." If there were, we could freely buy and sell babies,
body parts, nuclear weapons and much more . .

And of course, rotten deals such as TPP and NAFTA have little to do
with trade - they are really about corporate governance.

Thus, "Free Trade" is a complete misnomer.

I usually use "corporate trade"

[Baitball Blogger]

67. I wonder what we got in return for this "compromise."

[Urchin]

71. This is how it went

Here's how I think it worked:

Free trade enabled low-interest rates that have enriched asset holders over decades.

The plan was to keep interest rates low so that those people who invested in assets: homeowners, 401K holders, and the super-rich, could benefit from enormous gains.

Middle-class people who owned homes and had 401Ks, were very happy to see low-interest rates because they seemed to be making tons of money.

Meanwhile, offshoring the production of goods and services made most everything else cheap, which made it easy for the establishment to say we were in a time of low inflation so it was OK to continue low-interest rates.

The backdoor cost to this scheme, was the impoverishment of people who didn't own assets--especially the young who on becoming adults had little economic opportunity--but also the lower classes, whose jobs were first replaced by offshoring.

As for the older people who had assets of greatly inflated value, even they probably still approved of the scheme when they eventually lost their jobs. Only after they were unable to find jobs again and were forced to sell their assets did they probably realize it wasn't such a good plan after all. But they would be in the minority and they would be picked off by the new economy in small isolated numbers here and there over the years, their peers choosing to believe that they themselves would either hold on to their middle-class jobs or find another quickly should they lose their jobs.

In addition to investment assets which soaked up liquidity like a sponge and skyrocketed in value, the only other exception to low prices, were the few remaining goods and services that haven't been offshored, especially education and healthcare. But hey, mostly only those people who haven't "arrived" have to worry about education costs. For those that have arrived, any extra education and health insurance their employers pay for.

Each administration had no choice but to continue to keep the national Ponzi scheme going. Had any president told the people the truth, the majority of voters--who benefitted from owning assets, would have voted that president and party out of office.

[Angry Dragon]

72. FAIR TRADE

[Zen Democrat]

74. There's no such thing as free trade. Some people lose big time ... WORKERS

However, I have had many free lunches in my day. I've even provided free lunches to others. lol

[Craig234]

76. Free trade agreements aren't so much about free trade

As they are tools for destroying democracy. They give the wealth interests who can't get their policies passed by the legislature - as much as that is becoming a joke - the chance to put them in these deals, and they are often about taking power from the voters.

That's why they do things like create a group appointed by the business community, and give it the power to make governments pay unlimited sums to companies who lose profits because of laws passed, with no appeals.

But calling them free trade gives them cover - people say 'well free trade isn't bad' and have no idea what they do.