You don't have to read the details to grok the truth here.
A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty, labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent.
In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who?
In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way going to benefit the little guy in the client states.
These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the rest of the people get shafted.
For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-assisted projects in the developing world, check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated portions personally.
Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.
The rhetorical question is that if it's so minor why is so much effort being expended to try and get it in?
The answer is that it's not minor and a corner stone of the corporatism agenda.
EDIT: And his dismissing of the gutting of safety standards by using the lowest common denominator is disingenuous at best and nakedly corrupt at worst.
A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty, labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent.
In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who?
In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way going to benefit the little guy in the client states.
These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the rest of the people get shafted.
For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-assisted projects in the developing world, check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated portions personally.
Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.