Contrary to the administration's claims of its export-expansion prowess, the steep decline in U.S. exports to Korea under the FTA contributed to an overall disappointing U.S. export performance in 2012.
We can rehabilitate a Social Contract that connects us. With a restored self-image, we can reverse Citizens United, rebalance our political process, and find trade policies that serve society as a whole.
Romney's weak economic nationalism didn't turn out to be strong enough to win over a recession-weary electorate that still blamed Bush for the economic crisis that Obama seemed to be handling, if at an unsatisfyingly slow pace.
The next four years provide dramatic opportunities for trade liberalization across the Pacific and the Atlantic. Barack Obama will use those opportunities to build a durable bipartisan consensus on trade. Mitt Romney won't.
Mitt Romney says that he wants more trade with Latin America. How? By negotiating new trade agreements in the region. With which countries, exactly? He doesn't say, and frankly it's difficult to name a likely candidate.
In an election dominated by the urgent agenda of U.S. job creation, it is a sorry statement about the domination of corporate money in American elections that both presidential candidates tout NAFTA-style "free trade" deals.
Guaranteeing a fair local wage would empower developing countries to raise their labor standards. By improving the conditions and livelihood of foreign workers the Trans-Pacific Partnership can create new markets and stimulate world economic growth.
Mitt Romney has certainly been making some pleasant noises about fixing America's trade mess, whose $500 billion a year deficit is probably the biggest unsung reason our economy isn't turning around. But does he really mean what he says?
Instead of the Democrats turning against free trade and the Republicans turning against mass immigration, as I formerly predicted, the Republican convention and platform reveal we're getting something else.
While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) does strive to include the high standards necessary for a "21st century" trade agreement, I believe that the potential inclusion of Japan in the negotiations is not in the best interest of the United States.
When we allow companies to just import stuff that is made by exploited workers in countries where people do not have a say, we are granting not-having-a-say an advantage over having a say. We make democracy a competitive disadvantage.
In the wake of the worst financial crisis in 80 years, I thought it would be a no-brainer for the U.S. government to give up its longstanding policy of banning capital controls through trade agreements.