Interesting, but this misses something. This is still all based on what the trade deals are “supposed” to do; in other words, the PR that highlights the “benefits”. The whole assumption behind this argument is that the trade deals will actually serve as a resource for what Freidman says needs to happen. This kind of stuff, whether partially true, mostly true, or completely false, is secondary to what kind of trade and what kind of practices are going to be strengthened. And the history of these trade deals, including the same kinds of claims on “what they will do for America and free trade”, is long and infamous for things like shipping jobs overseas, expanding “work camp/concentration camp” instances around the world, and making it easier for corporations to have even more power over what nations who may resist can do about it on behalf of their people. If you saw the Sanders appearance on Andrea Mitchell show yesterday, he highlighted the proposals in the deal allowing corporatoions to sue the countries that “interfere” with their “right to make a profit”. Sounds like a scary license to give corporations.