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

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Yes, it's all speculation ...

The idea that we use trade deals to
"lift" workers from poverty is misguided.

Response: Why? Are you saying that trade deals cannot have as an objective to lift workers out of poverty, i.e., create more consumers?

Is that what US policy is supposed to do?

Response: To this point in our nation's history, it hasn't; but, one would think a liberal would hope that it would be considered.

What about our people in poverty?
TPP will NOT help them, will it?

Response: As I've stated repeatedly ... If the US negotiating objective(s) are met ... Yes, it will work to lift more Americans out of poverty, as it will slow, if not stop, the off-shoring of jobs.

And yet you qualify the idea of lifting from poverty
with the caveat that raising income can have negative effects.
Is this a Catch-22? Or just setting up rationals to explain failure?

Response: Neither, it's a recognition of the damage that globalism, i.e., introducing cash into traditionally agrarian/barter societies, can do/has done.

You suggest that the TPP would create a disincentive to off-shore.
That sound incredulous!

Response: Only to someone that knows very little about economics and business systems. The reason corporations off-shore jobs is to take advantage of low wage/low regulation markets, the TPP, if the US negotiating objectives are successfully negotiated, will shrink the cost advantage ... perhaps to the point where the 12+ hour engineering/production separation no longer makes sense.

What recent trade agreement has worked to that effect?

Response: None, that I am aware of. Name an insurance company that covered pre-existing health/medical conditions. None, until negotiations resulted in pre-existing health/medical conditions being covered. Times change.

It's also inconceivable that the negotiators would create
disincentives for corporations that makes staying in the US desirable.
Doesn't the US have the *highest corporate taxes in the world*?

Response: No ... the effective US corporate tax rates, what corporations actually pay, are pretty much some of the lowest of industrialized nations.

There is no evidence available that the environment will be positively effected.
In fact history has shown the opposite is more probable.

Where is the evidence that the environment will be positively effected?
And by what metric will this be measured?

Response: Regulations that outlaw the dumping of industrial sewage into the nearest stream/river won't positively affect the environment? Really?

The premise that corporations value stability and predictability
over nominal profits is based on what? The invisible hand?

Response: Economics ... and your mentioning of the invisible hand, in this context, suggests that you haven't the faintest idea what I am talking about.

Simply valuing something does not equate with action.
There are plenty of cases where nominal profits trump rational action.

Response: Really? ... and the businesses that make those choices, typically, are not in business long.

Basically, you seem to sum up support for the TPP based on feel good
and wishful thinking about what might happen "if negotiated successfully".

Response: And your opposition to TPP is based on similar, but negative speculation about economic Armageddon. No?

The leaks coming out about TPP show that the "negotiators" are not
working in good faith.

Response: No ... the leaks coming out about TPP show nothing but what a/a few/some/several or a number of trade partners have proposed, nor do they say anything about what the US negotiators' have proposed or counter-proposed.

In fact, its been said that the public would oppose the treaty
if the details were made known.

Response: Yes, I know that has been said ... by people that claim to have not seen, nor been a part of, the negotiations. Doesn't that give you a moment of pause?