Wednesday, June 29, 2016


I find nothing wrong with the trade agreements that the U.S. has entered into; I find plenty wrong with our system that allows the perversion of these trade agreements.

Nothing in any of our trade agreements forces the U.S. to facilitate the transfer of our factories abroad.  This is done by our own greedy business owners and their elected and corrupt legislators. If 
a signatory to the treaty allows business to deduct expenses involved in moving the factory abroad, is that the fault of the treaty or the other signatories?

If a party to the treaty does not keep up with investment in infrastructure that makes a nation competitive, whose fault is that? The treaty or the other signatories? To paraphrase Shakespeare, "No, dear Brutus, the fault is not in our treaties but in ourselves.


  1. I agree with your assertions up to a point. Obviously, how any agreement is implemented has great bearing on how that agreement is viewed.

    That said, several of our trade agreements were written with embedded faults. Those faults left the agreements open to abusive interpretations. When any party to an agreement chooses to use the faults to their advantage, the agreement is sullied.

  2. I stick by my contention that the perceived faults of the trade agreements come from our own people abusing the pacts rather than the other signatories to the pact.