You learned trade from Feldstein?  He was teaching mostly graduate macro theory, in my recollection.  At least, that's the class I sat in on. Unless you're talking about Ec 10, but that's not the same thing at all.

In any case, what's going on here is that the US has no interest in pursuing what we would recognize as free trade.  Free trade involves all goods and services. Labeling any kind of agreement involving the OECD that does not eliminate agricultural subsidies, and does not address free flows of labor (rather than just capital) is not.  And, you know, aviation and military trade is also heavily subsidized, and a large part of US exports.

The reason it's secret is that it undoubtedly consists of lots of corporate welfare.  But, of course, your question was rhetorical.

I had little doubt before the current round started that most of the FTAs would be greenlighted by Pelosi and Reid (Colombia gives them a figleaf) plus there'd be some warm words on fast track renewal and Doha, to cover the Dems in case the US's lack of fast track was blamed round the world for Doha's final demise.

It's not so bad.

What is bad is the way that Dem honchos have gone about it: the cloak and dagger stuff implies skulduggery that I don't think exists.

Would the current deal have been impossible if negotations had been more open? Perhaps.

Is there now any excuse for keeping the text agreed secret? Absolutely not.

For the very good reason that, in short order, it's bound to become public, because, despite its shady conception, it has to be executed in broad daylight.

Are Pelosi and Rangel a wee bit tipsy with power? Did they want to stick it to some allies (labor unions?) who they thought needed putting in their place?

Who knows?

The point is that such an ostensibly pointless proceeding invites questions about ulterior motive.

Not since the Hastings affair has Nancy gone so wayward.

I am still mostly all for Free Trade. But only if it means that that it's free trade that's fair to the people. Free trade that helps us. Free trade where the labor standards, environmental standers and all that are exactly the same there and they are here. It takes away almost all incentive for off shoring but helps the flow of trade without killing American workers.

No matter what kind of deal they were going to strike the Progressive Caucus, Labor, Other Fair Traders, Environmental groups etc. Even if it was a deal they wouldn't like. They should still have been at the table.

This is the first big test in the progressive/fair trade movement. If we can stop these bad deals and get better deals. Then we truly have a strong movement. If we can't. We need to work harder.

The Teamsters, and I suspect most of labor, are opposed to this anti-labor deal.

http://www.teamster.org/07news/nr_070511 _1.asp

John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C

Sweeney, at the AFL-CIO is waiting for further analysis of the deal before passing judgement.

http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm /pr05112007a.cfm

As a former, over six years ago, lobbyist, there could be many, many reasons for selective secrecy but I'd bet that it's because someone needs to be bought off.  That someone is probably, but not necessarily a Member of Congress but it could be even a foreign leader or a trans-national billionaire.  Probably it is, for example, some key Committee Chairman or leader who has a bottom line of an exception for some industry such as domestic sugar or grain or coal or cotton or software.  The administration don't really want to give up these special little favors (that could be worth billions) but they know they might need powerful Sen. X or Rep. Y.  This is a negotiation.  It needs sunlight.  Nothing is more insiderish & back room than trade deals though the tax code is a close second.

#6 The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information) - Donella Meadows

I believe the entire notion of so-called "free trade" has evolved to secure further advantage to establishment corporate vehicles. One needn't live in developing countries for much time objectively to recognize labor/environment "fig leafs" for what they are. Yes. You got it. They are, indeed, fig leafs.

I also note (to avoid any possible inference) that it is not necessary to appeal to conspiracy theory to explain how this has happened. Capitalism has become an extraordinarily powerful self-organizing system, now dominated 1) by the systemic "success-to-the-successful" archetype (accruing to corporations, "free-market"-type framing, politicians, economists, profiteers), and 2) by increasingly unregulated (from a systems perspective) positive growth/profit feedbacks.

--
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast? (video clip: 8.5min)

if the corporations are happy then by default labor is fucked

If one listens to the Bushies the reason workers have not felt the benefits of free trade is that there has not been enough of it.  The country needs more and more free trade before workers experience the rewards.

There is no such thing as a "free trade agreement"-

things like NAFTA are actually old fashioned Republican protectionism dressed up as free trade- kind of like Bush's Clear Skies Initiative.  

What these deals really do is protect multinational corporations from competition and market forces:
1.  They prevent local control- remove the idea that a town council can get together and decide they don't want Wal-Mart or Dow building across the street from a school.

2.  They give a market edge to multinationals and prevent potential local and regional competitors from truly competing.

3.  They permanently drive the cost of labor down- which pretty much erodes a key component of true capitalism- which says that the value of your good or service, including labor, goes up depending on demand.  

I think Clinton was a good president- he would have been great had he been on the correct side of the trade issue.  Had Clinton been where Sherrod Brown is- the Dems would not have lost nearly the numbers they did.  Why not vote Republican if the Democrat is gonna side with your boss on not protecting your job?

The "fair traders" were given lots of input. They met with Rangel & Levin and their leaders Mike Michaud and freshman Betty Sutton organized several group and individual meetings with Rangel or Levin.

The Ways & Means staff distributed the the details of "the deal" yesterday morning. And stakeholder groups like the AFL or the Chamber all have it. As do Congressional offices. So the details are out there and not so secret.

Gee....

I wonder when us 'little people' will get to see it.

'Course we are all doin' so well and all.

Don't bend over...yer liable to get a very unpleasant surprise.