The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement soured the American public on trade deals that were supposed to boost the economy -- remember the giant sucking sound that followed? -- but it left America's globe-spanning corporate behemoths panting for more.

Since then, powerful business interests have cheered the signing of 19 more such agreements. The three most recent, with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, won congressional approval in October.

Despite being hawked as job-creating measures that open the world to American goods, however, these trade agreements have historically resulted in massive outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing jobs and increases in exports.

[snip]

And now the White House is forging another one -- this time a regional compact, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It's the first trade agreement entirely negotiated by President Barack Obama, the biggest since NAFTA -- and potentially a lot bigger if and when China and Japan join in, as they are expected to eventually.

I'm struck somewhat by the, ummm, contrast, if you will between a comment I recalled you posting here about your view of Occupy last November in your own post The 1% Empire: Occupy and Gandhi in which you noted that "The Occupy movement is engaged in a campaign of noncooperation with the 1% empire".

I agree with their goals and am not one to nitpick with methods that have worked better than anything I have suggested or tried.

...and the I think fairly obvious conclusion people should draw from your discussion with Conn in the video above that you at the same time appear to hold a strong - for lack of a better word - faith(?) in the two party system (a 1% construct) as a vehicle for constructive and positive social change.

Here's a better summary of some such matters.