I can garuntee you that my post is not trying to stir up fears. (I know this because I wrote it...)

That said if the idea that the gloomier prospects of US finances and it needing to jockey for position in the Asian Pacific region is new and scary I would suggest two things: first that the original post included some perspective regarding the importance of the region in upcoming decades and second that it is mere truth that the dollar, US bonds and Western financial institutions have not been seeing strong trends. The US and China are in the same relationship the UK and US were when the Stirling Pound was traded for the US Dollar as the international fiat currency; with the UK as the largest debtor nation and the US as the largest creditor. This is true today but it is the US who is the largest debtor and it is China who has been establishing international banks and building an empire of credit. I do not claim that the sky is falling, nor that this is somehow a secret disclosure - it is in fact commonly traded knowledge. My bet is that if you do independent research regarding the strength of the US as an economic power you will see that she is facing challenges. Not sky is falling challenges. But challenges that require action to address them. One of those things is the TPP. Or rather, one option is the TPP. The US government chose the Asia-Pacific option a decade ago and the TPP today is one tactic in that continuing strategy.

The TPP is not the fix. Complex problems do not have simple singular fixes. It is, however, a keystone effort to establish a primary trade treaty in the region at a time it may be otherwise denied from.

Nor does the post champion the TPP. I hoped to show how it is both important and potentially damaging, specifically in regard to domestic law.

> No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of corporations

I'm exactly the sort of person who would agree that there are dangerous trends toward corporate world governance. Nestle owns nearly half the world's potable water and 51 of the world's one hundred largest economic forces are international corporations (and as opposed to a democracy of any sort corporations are primarily autocratic and required by law to maximize the wealth of their leadership at the possible expense to others).

However, I think we depart. Where you see a cabal of corporations running the show, bending the US government to its will, I see something very different. I see a US government, earnest to do right by its people (albeit partially blind to some of it's peoples ideals and struggles), positioned in stride with corporations. That is: from the perspective of both the US government and from US corporations the TPP is a strategic win.

That the TPP may go further to enshine corporations as global players and a powerful political class is not mutually exclusive with the TPP being an important diplomatic and financial opportunity for the US as a republic. Rather, it is precisely what I say in my parent comment - that it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. The TPP is sincerely important for the US as a nation. It also further benefits large and international corporations. This is to say - yes I agree with you that corporate governance is an emerging threat. But it isn't the only emerging threat. The US's future is too. It's important that we recognize the issue in full scope rather than make it about any singular favorite issue.

> I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the constitution, aka "sedition".

The constitution directly allows the US to make treaties with other nations and for those treaties to be the law of the land. This is also not the first time, nor and exceptional time, that this has been done.

So I think I misunderstood you here. You're clearly not saying this is unconstitutional. I think you're saying that the TPP is an agreement that will hurt the US more than help it - and that US leadership knows this - and thus it is 'sedition'? Again we depart. The TPP is important for the US and US leadership recognizes this. An unfortunate truth is that the TPP will not correct, and will probably exacerbate, the power and wealth concentrated within large corporations. We should definitely be having conversations about the role of corporations and their domestic and international political power. But we don't need to unilaterally reject the TPP - in fact if we were to we would still have a problem with corporate power. It's absolutely important we deal with consolidated capital and influence inside of these institutions - but it should not blind us from everything else going on. I would suggest, with my tongue partially pressed to my cheek, that making the TPP out to be entirely about corporate world order sounds a whole lot like... fearmongering?

> Any legitimate concerns about specific details of trade or the US's relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own.

Negotiating trade deals with so many divergent interests is not something that is done well by normal legislative bodies - nor do I think you want to suggest our deadlocked legislation would be an improvement. But with regard to the general sentiment that you wish there were more transparency: I agree.