[inquest]

It is inevitable that there are disputes in free trade agreements - especially in that the agreement tries to address 'reverse tarrifs' (IE - subisidies) and scales down the tarrifs rather than doing them all at once. These disputes would need to be settled by a neutral party.

Hence, the loss of sovereignty. That's reason enough to be opposed to these agreements.

It is in the US's interest and not in China's interest for the US to have more vital trade with that region than for China to have more vital trade with that region.

Most supporters of these FTA's insist that economics is not a zero-sum game, that one party's benefit is not another's loss. Do you agree or disagree?

[mbraynard]

Hence, the loss of sovereignty. That's reason enough to be opposed to these agreements.

It's not a loss of soveriegnty - the nation itself has DECIDED that it wants to trade freely with another country. That is an example of real soverignty. If this trade agreement was forced on the US by the UN, for example, that would be a real loss.

Most supporters of these FTA's insist that economics is not a zero-sum game, that one party's benefit is not another's loss. Do you agree or disagree?

Economics is not a zero sum game, but war is not. If a given nation has more important trade relations with the US than with China, and China is trying to set up, say, a military base in that nation (extreme example), the US will be better able to get that other nation to deny China's request. This is a national security issue.