Does the Pacific trade agreement make sense?

The best basis for comparison is the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been around for decades.  Here's what I wrote about NAFTA in the 8th edition of my Employment Law Answer Book:

In late February 2014, the three nations, the United States, Mexico, and Canada, met for their annual summit. The countries agreed that trade has grown “at least 265 percent larger than twenty years ago” when NAFTA was born, but must continue to look at other areas to remain a competitive region, and according to the official statement:

Our engagement as a region with the rest of the world has a direct impact on the competitiveness of our economies and the prosperity of our societies. We will continue to work closely on matters related to international trade, so that our integrated supply chains are deepened and strengthened. We will jointly promote trade and investment in those sectors in which the integration of our production chains serves as a distinct global advantage, and work together to highlight those advantages.

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/19/joint-statement-north-american-leaders-21st-century-north-america-buildi]

According to a February 2014 report of the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, Public Citizen, NAFTA has:

·       Increased the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada;

·       Contributed to the loss of U.S. jobs; and

·       Contributed to downward pressure of U.S. wages and growth in U.S. income inequality.

[http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf]

The director, Laura Carlsen, of the Center for International Policy’s Americas Program in Mexico City lists similar drawbacks of NAFTA on Mexico:

·       About two million small farmers have left the land, unable to compete with American corn imports.

·       The informal (gray) economy has expanded significantly.

·       Sluggish economic growth has increased the number of Mexicans below the poverty line.

“The daily lives of millions of Mexicans have gotten worse as a result of this trade policy,” she asserted. [http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2014/0219/Three-amigos-summit-Can-US-Mexico-and-Canada-modernize-NAFTA-video]

http://www.wklawbusiness.com/store/products/employment-law-answer-book-eighth-prod-1454825502/hardcover-item-1-1454825502

These facts don't seem to bode well for a Pacific-wide trade agreement that mirrors NAFTA.

As I have said before in this space, while there are significant differences between Democratic and Republican Administrations in Washington, they all seem to share a reverence for Wall Street and the top .1%.  Thus, Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which repeal paved the way for the 2008 Great Recession.  And in the wake of that recession, the Obama Justice Department sent essentially none of the thieves to prison.

Mr. Obama has drunk the Wall Street-Harvard-K Street Koolaide.  The real liberals in his own party, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, oppose him on this.  Organized labor is opposed. Many human rights groups are opposed.  But he proceeds full-speed ahead.

I'm with Senator Warren and AFL-CIO on this one.  A decade from now, if the pact comes to be, we'll see --- as with NAFTA --- that it has accelerated the trend toward ever-greater income disparity between America's Super Rich --- the 400 who have assets equal to those of the bottom 150,000 million of us ---and the rest of the nation. 

No doubt by then, the Obamas, like the Clintons today, will be cruising with the the top .1% in a stratosphere from which the unfinished business of racism, poverty, militarism and the implosion of the great American middle class will not be visible down below.