Can anyone explain why the President is pushing terrible FTAs?

[cali]

29. how is the alternative worse? What do you think is the alternative?

Sorry, it would not be worse. At least investors (corporations) wouldn't be able to sue over such things as this:

Last month, Eli Lilly, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in North America, filed a lawsuit against Canadian taxpayers for $500 million dollars. On what basis is an American corporation suing us for such an outrageous sum you ask? The $4.3 billion dollars Eli Lilly earned in profit in 2011 was not enough for the pharmaceutical giant.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a company can sue another NAFTA country if that nation’s laws affect its expected future profit. In this case, Eli Lilly is “losing profit” because Canadian regulators dared to act within Canadian laws and rightly denied patents on two of Eli Lilly’s expensive drugs.



<snip>

http://action.sumofus.org/a/eli-lilly/3/6/?sub=homepage

this doesn't happen in a Canadian Court, but in a tribunal where the odds are stacked monumentally in favor of corporations.

<snip>

The claim raises the possibility that the drugmaker may be able to use a private NAFTA tribunal, which is a form of arbitration, to override judicial rulings on patents. The drugmaker maintains this was necessary because Canada violated its rights, but consumer advocates worry the move is a way of thwarting generic competition and, as a result, higher drug prices.

"All domestic avenues of appeal in Canada have been exhausted and the only recourse left to Lilly is to seek arbitration under Chapter 11 (of NAFTA). Lilly did not make this decision lightly," a Lilly statement says. The drugmaker maintains that 17 drug patents were "rendered invalid or unenforceable" under a new judicial standard despite approval by Health Canada.

<snip>

http://www.pharmalive.com/100m-brawl-lilly-canada-an-invalidated-patent