Thank you for the honest, accurate analysis, Mr. Reich.
These 2 points bear repeating:
“White House strategists seem to think such corporations are accountable to the U.S. government. Wrong. At most, they’re answerable to their shareholders, who demand high share prices whatever that requires.”
“In fact, today’s “trade agreements” should really be called “global corporate agreements” because they’re mostly about protecting the assets and profits of these global corporations rather than increasing American jobs and wages. The deals don’t even guard against currency manipulation by other nations.”
In response to the 2nd paragraph, it’s even worse than here depicted in that profit will trump all other objectives, and any corporation that can prove that a nation’s labor or environmental laws thwart its holy claim to profits, can have those laws nullified or held as exemptions. Big fines are used in the way that Mafia strongmen demand “protection money” from any shopkeeper wanting to continue to do business.
As The Piketty Study reveals, and further commentary has articulated: when vast sums of money are held in virtually few hands, the sovereignty of people all over the world is placed into jeopardy. THAT is the case and it explains treaties of this nature… and who they serve.