This is one of those topics where it is a little vague what it’s about. My “end of paper currency” wording implies a focus on whether we are finally approaching the long-imagined “cashless society” in which all transactions are electronic. Cash is probably far too convenient in transactions for that to happen anytime soon, from what I read. But, the rise of PayPal and other e-payment technologies make the idea at least worth discussing, maybe.
We also could talk about cryptocurrencies, a very different thing. Also called altcoins, these are non-government-backed monies (or, “monies”) that can be used in electronic peer-to-peer transactions. Bitcoin is the most widely known cryptocurrency, but there are hundreds of others, many with tech-bro names like Etherium, ZCoin, and Einsteinium. Cryptocurrencies have a lot of limitations and problems, notably no governmental central bank to back their value or control their volatility. They are vulnerable to bubble and the machinations of peculators and get used a lot in criminal commerce (but then, so do $100 bills). Still, cryptocurrencies may be here to stay, at least in some forms, and the idea of a currency free from government will continue to be appealing to some Libertarians.
A third way we could expand our topic would be to talk about some of the more, um, exotic (crackpot, maybe) stuff that comes up when you Google “the end of paper currency.” These range from advocates of returning the United States to the gold standard and Ron Paul’s “end the Fed” stuff, to survivalists predicting a collapse of society and a return to a barter-based economy. It’ll be fun for the whole family.
Re: Readings. Cryptocurrency is a brand new topic for me, so I don’t know which of the primers on the subject are best for you to read.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
A Cashless Economy? –
- What is a cryptocurrency? Wiki. More detail from an industry sight.
- How their prices get determined.
- Recommended: Atlantic Monthly clearly explains this stuff + a big potential problem with crypto-money.
- Views of cryptocurrencies’ future:
Gold standard –
- Returning to it = “world’s worst economic idea.”
- Trump has said we should, a truly loony idea. Recommended.
NEXT WEEK: What is the legacy of the 1980s?
What’s gone wrong with the U.S. economy? Outside of the horror of our national politics, this may be the central public issue of our time. This is true even though we have had almost eight straight years of economic growth, 4% unemployment, a 20,000 Dow, and record corporate profits.
Something just seems…broken. Wage growth is anemic and average real wages haven’t risen for 40 years. Economic inequality is at 1920s levels. Droves of Americans have dropped out of the labor force. Rural areas are especially stagnant. The gig economy and intelligent robot workers are coming. Americans are angry and anxiety-ridden.
We have talked about these structural problems of modern capitalism for many years in Civilized Conversation. Left and right tend to finger different culprits. But, as I have said before, experts focus their inquiries on these four broad causes:
- Technology – Technological advances have raised demand for highly-educated knowledge-based workers but not for anybody else.
- Globalization – Free trade and outsourcing expose more Americans to low-wage foreign industries.
- Immigration – Migrants depress wages, especially in labor-intensive sectors; and
- Government – Tax policy, regulation and/or deregulation, and lack of public investment have weakened the economy and benefitted only a sliver of Americans.
Monday’s meeting concerns a 5th possible perpetrator, one that is getting a lot of attention lately, even in the popular press: Corporate concentration and monopoly. There might even be some room for agreement among liberals and conservatives on the issue (although all national policy will remain frozen for the foreseeable Trumpian future).
But, the harm caused by monopoly power and how to combat it are tough issues. No one denies what we all see around us: Industry after industry has grown to be dominated by a handful of (3-5 or even fewer) gigantic companies. It’s true for health insurance, telecommunications, energy, mining, banking, social media platforms, even retail. Only a few industries are monopolies, dominated by a single company selling to the public. But, many are oligopolies (several firms dominate sales) or monopsonies (they dominate as buyers, of labor and supplies).
Yet, it is not clear exactly how much harm monopolistic concentration is doing to our economy. Experts even disagree on who is being harmed and how entrenched today’s monopolists are. I will go into more detail on Monday, but basically monopolies might be:
- Extracting what economists call “rents” from the rest of us; i.e., profits in excess of what could be earned in a competitive market;
- Raising consumer prices and limiting consumer choice;
- Extracting wealth from their supply chains or employees via lower wages;
- Depressing innovation and R&D;
- Contributing to growing economic inequality; and
- Buying off political power that could be used to stop them.
Here are some readings that purport to explain what’s going on. I’ve tried to note which ones are the easiest and hardest reads. Note the ones that argue growing monopoly power is NOT a big problem.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Easy reads:
- Harder: America needs more competition. The Economist magazine.
- Hard: Market power in the U.S. economy today.
- The other side POV: Let’s be skeptical of how bad this problem is, especially in the tech industry? Easy.
- Political monopolies: Summary of Dark Money , a book on the raw political power of hyper-concentrated industries.
NEXT WEEK: Re-thinking the U.S.-Saudi alliance.
I had this idea for us to do a series of meetings in the run-up to November that highlighted the starkest policy differences between the two presidential candidates. Oops. Donald Trump’s candidacy and Media’s obsession with horserace trivia make that pretty hard to do. Trump’s policy platform involves him basically riffing a stream of consciousness on whatever topic an interviewer brings up, hoping to run out the clock before anyone notices he has no policy ideas at all nor a rudimentary grasp of the issue. No one seems to know exactly what Trump’s position on the minimum wage is, much less what it might be tomorrow or in a face-to-face debate with Clinton.
But, I’m not sure it really matters. As I keep hammering away at week after week, we are electing a political party to govern us more than an individual. And, the Dems and GOP at all levels hold irreconcilably-opposite views on the minimum wage. The Republican Party is wholly opposed to raising the minimum wage at all. Period. Many conservatives would prefer it be abolished or reduced, although I doubt they would take the political risk of trying it at the federal level. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz oppose any federal minimum wage.
In stark contrast, Democrats really, really want to raise the minimum wage, either nationally or in as many states as possible. Hillary Clinton campaigned on raising it by 60%, from $7.25 to $12 per hour, to be phased in over several years. This would be the largest such increase in history. Under pressure from Bernie Sanders, Clinton stated she would sign a $15 minimum wage bill if a Democratic Congress sent one to her. This would double it. This November 8, minimum wage increases are on the ballot in five states. Democrats want to make this a wedge issue – one that motivates base voters to turn out – like Republicans did with same sex marriage bans in 2004.
Luckily for us, the debate over what would happen if the minimum wage were raised significantly is not all theoretical. The current federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour, one-third lower in inflation-adjusted terms than it was in the late 1960s. However, 29 states have a higher minimum wage, 12 of which are over $9.00 per hour. California’s is $10 – the nation’s second-highest –and Brown just signed a law to raise it to $15 in 2022. This means that lots of studies have been done comparing places that have raised the minimum wage to those that have not raised it. The results are generally encouraging to the liberal economic case for raising the wage. Yet, as I will explain, it’s not quite that simple.
On Monday I will open with a brief tutorial on the minimum wage and the types of questions we should be asking about what might happen if we raised it to various levels. I don’t think lowering the minimum wage is really on the table right now as a viable policy option, although if Trump wins, all bets are off.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Current policy:
- How high are U.S. minimum wages now and how high are they due to rise in some states?
- What else does govt do to support working poor? How important a policy tool is the minimum wage in comparison?
- Arguments: What arguments are used to support and oppose raising/lowering/ending the minimum wage
- Evidence: Based on history what affects would raising min. wage have on:
- Helping people: Raising incomes of the working poor, reducing poverty and reliance on govt transfer programs.
- Hurting business: Killing jobs, raising prices, other business decisions (like replacing workers with machines).
- Would more spending on other govt programs (EITC, etc.) do more to help the working poor than raising the min. wage?
- Can we predict what would happen if we abolished the min. wage?
- Will raising min. wage really put a dent in inequality?
- Will it make low-wage pay more “fair?” What’s fair?
- Does the minimum wage subsidize big corporations more than it helps the poor (they can keep paying low wages)?
- Politics: Is this a winning issue for Democrats or Republicans? How big a winning issue?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- ABCs of the issue:
- Raising the min. wage probably won’t do much good. Recommended and balanced.
- No, the economic case for a big raise is pretty simple:
- Would fast food workers just get replaced by robots?
- Do NOT raise the minimum wage:
Next Week (Sept 26): Progressives’ Constitutional Philosophy.
It is Econ 101 that ever rising labor productivity is the key driver of modern economies. When the amount of output per worker is higher every year than the year before all of the good stuff that Americans have come to expect is possible. The economy grows steadily with room for higher wages/benefits and consumer spending, business profits, savings and investment, and enough tax revenue for government to meet public investment and social needs. Without rising productivity, the economic pie stops getting bigger and we are all left fighting over the size of the slices. A zero-sum economy begets zero-sum politics, and we all look around for someone to blame.
Sound familiar? It’s starting to happen. Worker productivity roughly doubled in the USA from 1945 to the early 1970s, then slowed down for the rest of the 20th century. But since then it has slowed to a crawl, only growing about 0.5% annually since 2000. In 2016, productivity actually began falling.
Now, maybe the fall is temporary, an artifact of the Great Recession. Maybe it is not happening at all. There is some evidence that the way experts measure labor productivity fails to capture some important improvements in the quality of the goods and services workers produce. Maybe.
But, there I another problem independent of measurement error. Even before U.S. labor efficiency slumped, American workers were not getting paid in line with what they were producing. Since 1973, U.S. workers have become 75% more productive, but average worker compensation (pay + benefits) grew by less than 10%! When liberals say rising inequality is unfair, this is what we mean. It’s not some philosophical judgement of how much people are “worth” to society. How well do you think regular people will fare if, on top of this unfairness, the productivity slump persists and the pie stops growing altogether?
So, this is not a dry topic about formulas and equations. It is about what makes our economy healthy and innovative and how we can ensure that regular Americans share in the wealth they produce.
To keep us focused, I will start us off on Monday with a quick summary of:
- What is meant in plain English by labor productivity and what really drives it (opinions differ on the latter); and
- The main theories of why it has stagnated recently and whether we have a long term problem.
Then, we can debate any aspect of this broad topic-of-everything we want to discuss. The main driver of productivity in the long-run is technological innovation, but other things matter, too, including public policies. I hope we can devote a good chunk of time to discussing the growing divergence between worker compensation and productivity. But, keep in mind that any public policies to close that gap need to do so by raising the former, not reducing the latter.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Measuring it: How do they measure labor productivity? Could it be growing faster than experts think?
- Ensuring it: What keeps U.S. labor productivity rising; e.g., healthy biz/entrepreneur climate, R&D/Universities, tech innovation, worker edu/skills, government action/inaction?
- Problem. Why has productivity suddenly cratered? The recession?
- Problem! Is something deeper afoot? Are we entering a prolonged period of “secular stagnation” like we talked about in 2013?
- Problem!! Why has pay not kept up with productivity for decades?
- Solutions: Which pubic policies might (a) goose worker productivity in the short-term and long-term, and (b) ensure American workers benefit from it? Left vs. right solutions.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
Productivity Puzzle –
- This one chart shows how vital productivity growth is! Recommended.
- Overview of our economy’s low growth problem, including sagging productivity. Recommended.
- The productivity paradox Recommended. (If blocked by paywall, click here then on 5th link from the bottom, “Populists and Productivity.”
- The Great Productivity Puzzle. Recommended.
- Relax, innovation will return.
- Neither party really knows how to boost long-run economic growth. Krugman agrees.
- Progressive POV: Part 1 and part 2. Recommended.
- Conservative POV.
Next Week: Do government anti-poverty programs really work?
This one was Dean’s idea, and I think it’s got a lot of potential. Dean said he wanted us to explore the arguments that having “more” or “less” government regulation of business would solve a lot of our problems because that is the simple way the right and left often talk about the topic. Fewer regs = good = more freedom. Or, More regs = good = control evil corporations. To be sure, it is hard to debate such vague, I-love-my-ideology slogans. But regulating business to ensure that markets function smoothly and t protect the public interest is a core function of govt. Not to mention, we’re living in a country where presidential candidates promise to build 3,000 mile fences and turn us into Denmark, so I don’t think any proposal is too simplistic to merit our attention.
Now, we all know that there is no such thing as a completely unregulated market. In any market the public sector is there to help set and enforce the rules; police fraud and protect the rights of consumers, workers, and owners; provide and maintain the public goods that markets rely on, etc. As an article I’ve linked to before put it, Markets Are Not Magic.
But IMO, even the simplest slogans for reduced less government regulation raise key and complicated issues. Regulations always impose costs on businesses and often on workers and consumers, too. Some of those costs are easy to measure and to compare to the regs’ benefits. But, other costs are hard to determine and much harder to predict, like when regulation stifles competition and innovation, protects the powerful at everyone else’s expense, distorts prices and investment decisions, and erodes our companies competitiveness internationally. The way I see it, our topic is more like two questions.
- How can we know the true benefits and costs of government regs and therefore whose interests they really serve?
- How can we make govt regulation flexible enough to be effective and efficient as our economy rapidly evolves in the future?
I’ll explain what I mean a bit more in my intro on Monday and then ask Dean for his thoughts. CivCon has had several recent meetings related to govt regulation. (Aug ‘15 Is Big Finance finally tamed? Dec. ’12: What’s holding back small businesses? Feb. ’13: Religious conscience exemptions.) So, I’ll be brief and non-industry specific. I will, however, take the time to highlight the above and a few other important problems/issues facing federal and state and local govt regulation going forward.
Discussion Questions –
- What justifies govt regulation of business? What should be the goals?
- How (and how well) do they calculate the benefits and costs of regs? What factors, other than the raw $$$, should be considered, and whose voices are heard and not heard?
- Which govt regs are the most and least popular with (1) the public, (2) workers and consumers, (3) entrepreneurs and small biz, and (4) big corporations? Any common villains or inevitable conflicts of interest?
- Which regs do Republicans/Democrats want to repeal/add/change? Why? Why really?
- What needs to be done to keep regulation effective and efficient as our economy evolves?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
What Do People Want?
- Public opinion: By a 2 to 1 margin, Americans favor the POV that there are “too many” govt regs on biz rather than “too few.”
- But, notice that people like most specific regs and strongly approve of the their goals.
Asking the Right Questions –
- Do we need “more or less” regs is too simple a question. Recommended.
- What (and who) are corporations for is kind of at issue.
Benefits and Costs of Govt Regulations –
- ABCs of how they assess costs and benefits.
- Do regs harm business or cost jobs?
We Need FEWER Govt Regs –
No, We Need MORE Govt Regs –
- Krugman: Recent events highlight need for strong regs of corporate abuses.
- Hillary Clinton wants heavier regs of Wall Street.
- Progressives got big dreams: Rewrite the rules of our economy to fix our problems. Recommended.
21st Century Regulation – [longer and harder, but key]
- Five basic principles should guide us. Recommended.
- Fewer and more flexible regulations will be needed.
Next Week: Trumpism – What is it and will It will outlast him?
After seven long years, the most destructive financial crisis since the Great Depression is beginning to fade into memory – and myth. We haven’t talked about it in a while (2010 bailouts, 2012 EU crisis). Most discussions these days still are focused on assigning blame. This is understandable as well as necessary for accountability and for moral and ethical reasons. But, it shortchanges, IMO, another more timely aspect of the financial crisis that gets way too little public attention: Are our governments doing enough to prevent or a least, better contain the next one? Is our fragile financial sector finally tamed and at an acceptable cost?
We have to know the answer because there’s always another crisis. Since 1980, the world has seen 6 major global financial crises; a dozen or so smaller, regional ones; and, by one count, close to 150 single-country banking crises. Crises are frequent, getting bigger, and are easily transmitted around the globe. Our global financial system has yielded many benefits, but it is bubble-prone, panic-prone, and seemingly inherently unstable.
Since 2008, governments put in place a smorgasbord of new regulations to try to better monitor global finance, fix the system’s worst vulnerabilities, and prevent or better respond to the next crisis. What’s been done is very complicated (maybe too complicated, as we’ll discuss). I read a lot on this subject, but I don’t know the whole lay of the new regulatory and macroeconomic land very well, especially some of the more arcane efforts.
So, I thought Monday we would focus our discussion on the most important actions taken in the United States to prevent future financial catastrophes. Most of them stem from the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, so I will open us up by describing the basics of what that law tried to do and the major regulations that have come out of it. I may also briefly outline some other governmental actions in this area that have gotten even less media coverage but will affect us all.
Of course, we cannot spend an entire evening discussing banking regulations. (Who would want to?) So, in discussion maybe we can focus on a few big macro-level issues, like the “too big to fail” problem, the benefits versus the costs of new regulations, and the obstacle of Wall Street’s vast political power.
Discussion Questions –
- Causes – Big Finance: How much blame do private financial actors deserve for causing the crisis? How big a factor was financial fraud and lawbreaking? Were the banksters “out of control?”
- Causes – Who else: Were deeper, structural causes the real problem? What did governments do wrong and why?
- Choices: After the crisis hit, what options did governments have to stem the crisis and reform the system? Why did they choose some (bailouts) and not others (nationalizing big banks, aid to homeowners)?
- Fixes: What was done in the end? What is in the Dodd-Frank law? What else?
- Results: How can we know if these policies are either (1) working, or (2) working too well by burdening the financial sector/real economy?
- What do you think will happen in the next crisis? Same old same old, or something more radical?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Was Big Finance out of control?
- Our economy has become too “financialized.”
- Big Finance’s political clout is the underlying problem. Recommended. More detail: “The Quiet Coup.” (Long).
- Krugman: Causes of crisis were both structural and ideological.
- Wrong. A simple lack of effective govt financial oversight caused the crisis. (A much harder read).
- The Dodd-Frank law:
- Of special note:
Next Week: Is it time to change California’s ballot initiative process?
[Note: This will be our first meeting at the PANERA CAFÉ at 5620 Balboa Ave.]
It has been almost two years since President Obama declared that “a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility” are “the defining challenge of our time.” Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and every progressive I know believes the same. Hillary Clinton may not make inequality the rhetorical centerpiece of her campaign, but the policies she’s recommending are clearly designed to combat it. Even some conservatives are talking about inequality. (In fact, one might argue that Donald Trump sudden rise reflects a split between GOP elites and its base voters over inequality. His tirades target policies that downscale GOP voters blame – fairly or unfairly – for their stalled prosperity, like immigration and free trade.) The issue is not going away anytime soon.
I thought it might be useful for us to start at the beginning of the inequality debate by asking two basic (and not yet settled!) questions: (1) What’s been causing inequality’s sharp rise, and (2) what harm does it actually do? Of course, these are to some extent technical disputes among experts. Still, I think we’ll have no problem grasping the basic arguments, which will give us some insight and healthy skepticism going into the debate and bumper sticker slogan phase of the GOP and Democratic primary season.
I will start us off on Monday first by defining what is usually meant by “inequality.” Then, I’ll briefly explain its half-dozen or so most often-cited causes and effects. Partial lists:
CAUSES OF SOARING INEQUALITY (alleged) –
- Skills-based technological change: The idea that tech innovation has made Americans with the skills to use the technologies more valuable than those without the skills, and so the pay gap between them keeps widening.
- Trade and globalization may have put downward pressure on wages in sectors that are vulnerable to foreign competition.
- Immigration: The same night be true for low-skilled, non-college educated occupations that compete with either legal or illegal immigrants.
- De-unionization has weakened worker bargaining power.
- Financialization of the economy distorts incomes at the top and bottom.
- Corporate culture and structures may have changed to devalue workers and encourage excessive executive pay.
- Government policies: Tax cuts, spending cuts, anti-trust non-enforcement, mass incarceration, educational inequality, and a host of other policies have made the rich richer and left many of us to tread water or sink.
- The Great Recession could have suddenly magnified all of these other factors – or, maybe led us to overstate their impact.
EFFECTS OF SOARING INEQUALITY (alleged) –
- Stalled wages and social mobility for most Americans.
- Lower growth rates in the overall economy.
- Repeated boom and bust economic cycles from which only the rich recover quickly and fully.
- Slower recovery from the 2008 Great Recession and future recessions.
- Political polarization: There is an argument that soaring inequality contributes to partisan political polarization.
- Disconnected elites: Falling elite support for the 20th century American social contract, including full employment and the social safety net.
- Plutocratic elites: They’ve taken over our political system and used that power to…
- Rig the economic game to perpetuate their power and status.
Most conservative I’m familiar with argue that inequality has not risen by much if measured accurately, and/or that the increase is a result of “natural” market forces, and/or that it does more good than harm anyway.
Fewer links this week, even though it’s one of our more complicated topics.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Progressive POV:
- Paul Krugman on inequality’s causes and effects. Nice.
- Causes: Political decisions have been key. The rules we constructed caused the inequality. Especially, blame Wall Street for rigging markets. First two esp good.
- Effects: Some harmful ones you might not think of.
- Economic and political inequality are mutually reinforcing. Important.
- Conservative POV:
Next Week: Cyber-Security – Threats and Responses.
This might be our best-timed topic in a long time! Friday, the House of Representatives rejected President Obama’s request for “fast track” trade authority, officially known as Trade Promotion Authority. TPA is a voting rule that would prohibit Congress from amending any trade agreements that a president submits to it within a set period of time. Legislators still can vote any agreement up or down, but only exactly as submitted, unaltered. The politics of the vote were complicated, and I still think it will pass next week.
Yet, even though Obama has been pushing fast track really, really hard, he has hit a wall of fierce resistance from most Democratic members of Congress and progressive interest groups. So, this time might be different. We may have reached a tipping point on the Democratic voter base’s willingness to countenance free trade policies. If fast track really is dead, it will spoil Obama’s plans to ask Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact (TPP). TPP is a huge, 12-nation trade agreement that’s 30 or so chapters are in the final stages of being negotiated. Several lesser-known but still important trade pacts could be in danger, too, if fast track is killed.
What’s going on, here? Our topic is going on. More and more liberals are convinced that decades of free trade policies have been a major contributor to decimating the American middle class. This is highly debatable, IMO. But, there’s no debate on how sweeping modern trade agreements have become, nor on how poorly average Americans have fared economically in the last 30 years. The TPP, like NAFTA or the WTO regime, do much more than lower tariffs and barriers on manufactured goods trade. They’re about internationalizing the basic rules of commerce – all commerce, from services (inc. financial regulation) to agricultural trade to intellectual property rights. These agreements, most controversially, are enforceable by binding dispute settlement procedures. Progressives say these procedures could be used by foreign companies to challenge U.S. health and safety, environmental, and other laws.
This complexity makes our job harder on Monday because it makes it very hard even for the experts to judge the impact trade agreements have had on U.S. jobs and wages. Even knowing that would not settle the issue, because U.S. trade policy is also about broader, strategic goals (like countering China’s influence, a major TPP goal) that few people bother to think about when they add up free trade’s effects on the United States.
So, with all of this, I think it’s best for Monday if we have a two-part discussion.
- Trade agreements: What they are and their impact on the United States, esp. jobs and wages.
- TPP and related deals: Even though there is no final TPP yet, WikiLeaks has leaked enough draft chapters to reveal its broad outlines.
I will open each of the two subjects with a 5-7 minute presentation, each presentation followed by its own discussion. Sound good?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- ABCs: What is fast track, why do presidents say they need it, and why is it so hard to pass this time? What does “free trade” mean, really? What do modern trade agreements cover/not cover and why?
- Effects: How have past free trade-oriented agreements affected the United States, especially jobs and wages? How can we separate the effects of trade from everything else that’s going on in the economy (like growing automation, collapse of labor unions, etc.)?
- Other rationales: Are there any other benefits/costs from free trade aside from the economic ones? (National security, diplomatic, etc.) How much should they matter?
- TPP: What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership and what’s s controversial about it and why? What are the main arguments both sides use?
- Alternatives: Are there any good alternatives to free trade agreements that would do more for Americans? Is the U.S. in a position to dictate an about face on trade even if it wanted to?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
Has Free Trade Been Good for Us?
- It’s been harmful:
- Wrong: Free trade has helped us immensely. Recommended.
- Keep in mind: Experts’ prediction can be wrong.
Trans-Pacific Partnership –
- What is the TPP? What are the pros and cons? Two good explainers. Either recommended.
- It’s about much more than trade. My point.
- Obama’s reasons for pushing so hard on this. Recommended.
- TPP will be good for American workers. At the least, arguments that it won’t be are not very convincing so far.
- Robert Reich: It’s not a free trade deal; it’s something else and something worse. Recommended.
- Elizabeth Warren: TPP’s corporate dispute resolution panels should be a deal breaker. Joseph Stiglitz says TPP is a corporate takeover of U.S. legal system.
- [Optional: A long, detailed opposition piece at Public Citizen.]
- [Update: If you’re really interested in the TPP’s investor-state dispute settlement process and whether it would allow U.S. health and safety laws to be undone, read this, from a respected legal blog.]
Next Week: Is God a human invention?