Day after day, here on the floor of the Senate and back in their states, many of my colleagues talk to the American people about how deeply concerned… - Bernie Sanders

It is quite remarkable how quickly conventional wisdom on this issue has changed. Just over two decades ago, in September 2000, corporate America and the leadership of both political parties strongly supported granting China “permanent normal trade relations” status, or PNTR. At that time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the corporate media, and virtually every establishment foreign policy pundit in Washington insisted that PNTR was necessary to keep U.S. companies competitive by giving them access to China’s growing market, and that the liberalization of China’s economy would be accompanied by the liberalization of China’s government with regard to democracy and human rights. This position was seen as obviously and unassailably correct. Granting PNTR, the economist Nicholas Lardy of the centrist Brookings Institution argued in the spring of 2000, would "provide an important boost to China’s leadership, that is taking significant economic and political risks in order to meet the demands of the international community for substantial additional economic reforms." The denial of PNTR, on the other hand, "would mean that U.S. companies would not benefit from the most important commitments China has made to become a member" of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Writing around the same time, the political scientist Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute put it more bluntly. “American trade with China is a good thing, for America and for the expansion of freedom in China,” he asserted.:“That seems, or should seem, obvious." Well, it wasn’t obvious to me, which is why I helped lead the opposition to that disastrous trade agreement. What I knew then, and what many working people knew, was that allowing American companies to move to China and hire workers there at starvation wages would spur a race to the bottom, resulting in the loss of good-paying union jobs in the United States and lower wages for American workers. And that’s exactly what happened. In the roughly two decades that followed, around two million American jobs were lost, more than 40,000 factories shut down, and American workers experienced wage stagnation—even while corporations made billions and executives were richly rewarded. In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidential election in part by campaigning against U.S. trade policies, tapping into the real economic struggles of many voters with his phony and divisive populism.

Let's do something that the media doesn't do. Let's talk about the reality of American life. Why is it that, over the last 45 years, despite the huge increase in productivity and technology, the average worker today is not making a nickel more in real dollars? Why is it that, over the last 30 years, the richest 1 percent have seen a $21 trillion increase in their wealth; the bottom half of America, a $900 billion decline in their wealth? Why is that we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a human right? Why are we the only major country not to have paid medical and family leave? Why do we give tax breaks to billionaires when half a million people are homeless today? And it comes down to something, Jake, we don't talk about, the power structure in America. Who has the power? And I'll tell you who has the power. It's the people who contribute money, the billionaires who contribute money to political campaigns, who control the legislative agenda. Those people have the power. And if you want to make real changes in this country; if you want to create an economy that works for all, not just the few; if you want to guarantee quality health care to all, not make $100 billion in profit for the health care industry, you know what you need? You need to take on Wall Street; you need to take on the drug companies and the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry. You don't take campaign contributions from them. You take them on and create an economy that works for all.

We have to talk about democratic socialism as an alternative to unfettered capitalism, where the rich get richer and almost everybody else is getting poorer. I think that’s a message that young people are receptive to, and I think it’s a message that working people are receptive to.