"there’s reason to believe the link between falling unemployment and rising wages has been severed"

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. "Probably" ... "Surely" ...

do not equal to "Have" or "did."

Do you really believe they will be lobbying for legislation that will make generating profits abroad more burdensome? Do you really believe that they are writing this legislation and aggressively lobbying for it so that jobs will be more attractive for Americans instead of making things easier for them to make more profit everywhere they do business? They have the interests and well-being of American citizens in mind even if it comes at a cost to their bottom line when creating the TPP?

That's a bunch of questions in one paragraph; but ...

No, as you correctly mention, (most) corporations do not give a second thought to the interests of nation-state, nor their citizens; but, corporation are known for trading profits for security/predictability in dealing. That is what trade deals do ... provide that security/predictability in dealings.

I think you are naive about the extent to which corporations get to actually write legislation in this country as well. Lobbyists hand drafts over to legislators all the time that seem to make it into final legislation. I see no reason to believe that they haven't been able to do the same with the TPP (especially since it would be even easier to do behind the cloak of secrecy that surrounds it).

No ... I am not naïve to the workings ... ALEC has proven that industry actor can and do write legislation for elected officials, how press them into law ... sometimes without even redacting ALEC's name; but those are elected official ... that take industry dollars, not trade negotiators, i.e., professional bureaucrats.

And, I just don't believe that they would be willing to drive up their costs in the short-run. I don't buy that for a minute. I need to see and read the TPP before I could ever begin to support it. Have you read it? If not, how could you be so sure about the arguments you are making on its behalf?

I'll go one better ... I need to see and read the TPP before I, even, take a position (pro or con) on the proposed agreement. Go through everything I have written on the TPP ... point to a single instance where I have taken a position on TPP. I have, however, posted that part of the TPP "debate" that is being left out ... the US' negotiating objectives. Including information is not the same as advocating for a particular out-come.