Here's the speech.  I saw a tension between two parts of it. First, Obama makes the point that it's a competitive world out there: Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or

There's an opening for the head of the U.S. NAFTA Secretariat: Are you interested in assisting U.S. businesses compete globally? The International Trade Administration is the largest federal agency helping U.S. firms to succeed in the world economy.  You can help us create opportunities for

Todd Tucker refers to the current trade regime as a "pro-corporate global governance system."  Is that a fair characterization?  Aren't just as many corporations opposed to the system as are for it?  There are winners and losers from every policy -- some corporations are hurt and

This story has a similar feel to the concerns about producing the U.S. flag abroad: A Wisconsin towel maker is smack-dab in the middle of the Green Bay Packer-Pittsburgh Steeler Super Bowl matchup. McArthur Towel and Sports, a WinCraft company, has been producing officially licensed sports towels for years,

Todd Tucker of Global Trade Watch recently complained that the WTO Government Procurement Agreement restricts the ability of the U.S. government to favor domestic solar panel producers through its Buy America procurement policies: ... dig a bit deeper into the NYT story to understand what the phrase "subject to

The House Ways and Means Committee is holding a hearing on the Korea FTA.  Todd Tucker is live blogging it here.  You can view the live stream here.

I wonder if readers would agree with the following preliminary analysis of whether the NAFTA "prudential carveout" applies to except capital controls from the provisions regarding free transfer of investments. Capital controls for limited purposes are becoming more popular among economists, including those at the IMF. First, using

. . . could fill an international law library.  See his statement against "pooling sovereignty" in the Washington Examiner (is that a newspaper?).  This seems to be a general position against all international law, including presumably trade, investment, IP, etc.  To add insult to ignorance, he refers to President Obama as