Do not trust anything with Obama's Marxist hands on it.

I have written both of my Senators urging them to oppose fast track authority on TPP. Senator Casey(D) responded that he had problems with the way this was being handled and I feel he may oppose it. Senator Toomey(R) was rather bland in his response making me think he is supporting it. I agree with the central point that the deal is far more complex than is necessary.

From the basic standpoint of free trade between complimentary countries, it seems a simple arrangement (of course I'm a simple man) to agree on how to transfer goods and services between our countries. It should not impose a universal set of laws and rules that may override my laws or your laws. We operate with the full understanding that we are separate entities that wish to do business with one another to the mutual benefit of both of us. We both wish to retain our cultural, moral and legal rights without imposition of some third party intervening. If our mutual trade does not meet our needs, we can just go our own way and seek out other trade partners. It's international capitalism at it finest; we do business with one another until the arrangement no longer meets our needs or we find a better, cheaper, faster or more convenient place to do business with.

My trade agreement with Home Depot was fine. I gave them money and they gave me goods and services. When the new Lowes opened up closer to my house, I liked their tools selections and their delivery arrangement enough to cancel my trade agreement with Home Depot and establish a new trade agreement with Lowes. Can't it be that simple? OK, maybe this is a stretch.............

Two other 'opinions' on the TPP:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/public/89...
The New American (pdf):
https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLink...

Good post. As the article makes clear, the secrecy of this deal is key. Just as we discovered with Obamacare and may discover with the potential Iranian agreement, deals that cannot be exposed to the light of day until the very last moment, not giving any opposition the opportunity to ask questions or pose challenges, are inevitably bad deals.

Thanks for posting, Zen.

This 'agreement' was in the news frequently when I was living in Australia, and many people there have the same questions.
This agreement is about transfer of power from the sovereign governments (with inconvenient courts of law that must sometimes answer to the people and protect their property) to international corporate interests without ties to any community. Power corrupts in ALL concentrations of power, in business and government. If this was about a free market, it would not be secret, and it would not contain provisions that prevent sovereign countries from looking after the best interest of their people.

How To Solve Any Problem: Obfuscate it with so many rules and regulations that nobody cant tell what it's about. That way, everyone can interpret it in any way they choose. In other words, just like Obamacare.

You now see that they are all birds of a feather. The bickering that goes on between these politicians is only for public show. The will do what ever they can to damage the hand that feeds them the AMERICAN BUSINESSMAN!

Some libertarian groups have been misguidedly campaigning in favor of TPP. EFF knows better -- it would make IP laws worse and more abusable. Let any trade treaty be debated in public so bad stuff can be cut out, or don't enact it!

Well said, Z.

Secrecy is not just a clue, by any reasonable standard of justice, it counts as "overwhelming and conclusive evidence" of wrongdoing and bad intentions.

And I compliment you also on your one sentence statement of all an agreement on trade between countries needs to say.

Just to add some clarification: secrecy may indeed be necessary between governments, I'm thinking in terms of something like mutual defense plans against a common and real enemy, details of weapons systems.

But I see no possible reason for any secrecy in a trade deal, but am willing to consider other points of view.

[edit to expand and clarify]

I appreciate the argument but there were no specifics in the article. What sorts of things do they think are being argued? Only let company x trade or give companies a and b a special break on any taxes? I'd like more information.