Don't call it free trade.

[PETRUS]

It's not. That cute little adjective denoting liberty is stuck in front of the word "trade" for marketing purposes, i.e. to sell the public on the concept. Our trade agreements are complex arrangements that work alongside immigration policy to the specific benefit of particular elite interests.

Actual free trade would allow for the unimpeded flow of money, goods, AND labor and produce rather different outcomes. I'm not arguing for this, necessarily, just pointing out the doublespeak.

It would be quite possible to strike trade and immigration agreements with other nations that work to the benefit of everyday people in both countries, but that's not what we've been doing.

[FreakinDJ]

1. "Job Free Trade" because it doesn't produce Jobs in America

[ClassWarrior]

2. That's not bad. Last night a labor leader on Countdown called...

..."Right to Work" legislation "Right to Work for Less."

It doesn't do much good for an OP to tell us, "Don't call it (thus-and-such)," unless we have a short, catchy alternative.

NGU.

[Romulox]

3. Our President is quite proud of his "free trade" deal with Korea.

What are we who oppose these deals supposed to do? Feels like we're caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[PETRUS]

4. Quite so. You can also "thank" the steering committee co-chairs:

Ted Austell, Vice President, Trade Policy, The Boeing Company
Lisa Barry, Vice President and General Manager, Chevron
Joseph Damond, Vice President, International Trade Policy, Pfizer, Inc.
Matt Niemeyer, Vice President, Office of Government Affairs, Goldman Sachs
Laura Lane, Managing Director and Head of International Government Affairs, Citigroup, Inc.

Predictably, two significant ramifications of the agreement are limitations on Korea's ability to regulate finance and negotiate over the cost (and insurance coverage) of prescription drugs.