What are 3 things that would make any trade agreement acceptable to those opposing TPP?

[Hoyt]

31. First off, why is it always from our/USA perspective? What about poor counties who we have not

participated in world wealth. The USA has taken more than it's share of the world's resources and wealth, and that's true for a lot of European countries. Now we want to win all the money at a poker game and leave.

Second, how do side agreements -- like the Paris Environmental Accord -- factor into all this? That is, why do people expect a trade agreement to solve all the world's problems? What if Clinton is able to enact some controls on currency manipulation to supplement trade agreements. Point is, one can't look at trade agreements in isolation, but opponents do.

Actually the TPP does strengthen international labor protections -- not enough, I'll grant you, but better than the current situation and something to build upon. Maybe with a country's progress, there will be enough dues money for so-called "international" unions to actually do something internationally.

As to corporations bypassing US Law -- there's that Nationlistic "who give a crud about foreigners" again -- that really is a bunch of junk if you look into the few cases that have been filed. The same dispute mechanism has been in place in darn near every trade agreement since 1959, and not just agreements which USA is party to. Countries sign these agreements for obvious reasons, they want the investment, jobs, taxes for social purposes that come from jobs. If they didn't want the investment, they wouldn't sign the agreements.

Trade agreements help small companies trade worldwide too. They are not as likely to trade worldwide on a large sclae, because it takes capital and fact is, a bunch of small business people just cant's raise the funds very easy to do it.

You can't stop globalization, so might as well jump in and participate rather than sitting out or getting pushed out. The Nationalists and America First types are quite wrong on this. Our long-term future does not depend on trading among ourselves, unless we are prepared to use our bombs some day to regain our wealth. I'm not.

Finally, trade agreements are much more than about trade. They bind us together with other countries in very important ways.

Personally, if Sanders or someone else can set up a new economic mechanism to compete globally, raise necessary investment funds, manage the cooperative successfully (by letting everyone of us be heard), and all the other stuff that would be required, I'd be for it 100%. But, right now -- and for the foreseeable future -- corporations are the mechanism who can do that. Most of us work for corporations, directly or indirectly, so regulate the hell out of them, tax the hell out of of profits from overseas investment (for domestic country's good and that of the country where they do business), force them to adopt more socially responsible activities (probably through tax incentives), and even assist them if they do all those things. If you want this generation to be better off than the last (using the standard people seem to be using like income, wealth, etc.), taking every penny we can from the wealthy won't do much but for a short period, if that. Might make us feel better by "sticking it to the man," but that's about all we'll get out of it.

Point is, we aren't going to be able to afford healthcare, education, welfare, guaranteed income, increased minimum wage, etc., very long without being part of a big old world that can grow faster than us. Trading manly among ourselves, just won't work long-term.

There's more, but what's the use.