0:00

You're listening to Taking Stock with Kathleen

0:03

Hays and Pim Box on Bloomberg Radio.

0:06

No TPP has

0:08

been a popular slogan in chants

0:10

and printed signs at the Democratic National

0:13

Convention because of broad opposition

0:15

to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade

0:17

deal. It is heavily favored by President

0:20

Barack Obama, but it is also heavily

0:22

opposed by primary loser, Senator

0:24

Bernie Sanders. Here to tell

0:27

us more, Irene Vanelle Hanigman, adjunct

0:29

Professor of International Affairs at

0:31

Columbia University, and

0:34

she joins us now, Irene,

0:36

thank you very much for being with us. UM. How

0:38

is the Democratic Party going to

0:40

reconcile the opposition to the

0:43

Trans Pacific Partnership inasmuch

0:45

as President Obama is so heavily

0:48

in favor of it, UM, I think

0:50

this is going to be actually a

0:52

major problem. Having been

0:55

in the Clinton administrations in the

0:57

nineties nineties, I feel like we were

0:59

living battles of NAFTA twenty

1:01

three years later with a lot of residual

1:04

bitterness. Perhaps we

1:06

never paid attention to what the actual

1:08

impact was of NAFTA

1:11

on particularly a small and rural

1:13

areas across America over

1:16

these decades. The problem

1:18

is that Hillary Clinton, in many

1:20

ways is now caught in a bind because

1:22

she originally called it the gold standard. A

1:24

Secretary of State, she promoted it.

1:27

It is very much part of what Obama

1:29

would like to see as his legacy. However,

1:32

because of the Sanders campaign,

1:35

and what to me is even very

1:37

odd is this is a time where

1:39

both Democrats on the left

1:41

and Republicans have voiced

1:44

very strong disapproval of this deal,

1:47

so she now appears to

1:49

be completely against it. However,

1:52

the question is how in

1:54

fact will she be able to perhaps

1:57

have to calibrate or recalibrate

1:59

the biggest problem she faces if she

2:02

cannot appear to be fudging

2:04

on this issue, uh as she

2:06

could risk totally losing the

2:08

Sanders supporters that she does. She definitely

2:11

needs um. I think the

2:14

problem to me is that this

2:16

is a code word, and it almost

2:18

seems like t p P is not really understood

2:21

for what it is. A tremendously complex

2:23

trade agreement which in fact

2:26

as supposed to promote exports and

2:28

help particularly small and medium

2:30

businesses, but in fact

2:33

has simply now been equated with losing

2:35

American jobs. And this is

2:37

sort of the cry on both the right and

2:39

the left. UM not at

2:42

all clear how she will proceed,

2:44

but I certainly do not see this as

2:46

a topic that's going to go away. We just

2:49

saw it explode and almost explode.

2:51

Uh just two days ago when Terry mccauliff

2:54

suddenly stated that she may want

2:56

to rethink her position, and he was

2:58

immediately put down by Camp Pine chair

3:01

John poggested that will not be the case, so

3:03

clearly ongoing problems. Well, I mean, you know,

3:06

economists, the consensus view, of course

3:08

is that trade is good for the economy,

3:11

and I think that the more complicated

3:13

question then is he yes, is it good for big

3:15

corporations who who benefit?

3:18

Is it good for American workers who might lose their jobs

3:20

because some of these jobs go to the countries,

3:23

and that's what Donald Trump has been exploiting. It

3:25

also seems that since um,

3:28

Barack Obama now is

3:30

going to go on the road apparently for the next three

3:33

months and try to help Hillary and

3:35

other Democrats running for office.

3:38

This is something he pushed for on his watch.

3:40

So it's very tough for Hillary now, I think, for

3:43

to shift her

3:45

position. And where does that leave Barack Obama won't

3:47

there be a lot of questions on the trail about this. Well,

3:51

I am quite concerned about that. And

3:53

the question is are they going

3:55

to be able to deflect it uh

3:57

and simply to turn it around to more mediate

4:01

issues? And uh, you know,

4:03

in a way, will Donald Trump continue

4:05

giving them gifts of very strange,

4:07

outrageous tweets Uh that sort

4:10

of distracts them? But at the

4:12

end of the day, yes, she is finally

4:14

going to have to explain much

4:16

more clearly why she is

4:19

now specifically against it, uh

4:22

and in a way try to square that

4:24

with the president's position. I'm

4:27

not sure how she is going to manage

4:29

to do this. Uh. The other problem,

4:31

of course, is that both labor unions and

4:33

environmental groups that are

4:35

a core part of the Democratic constituency

4:38

have come out very strongly against it.

4:41

Uh. So this is going to make the

4:43

the issue even even more complex. As

4:45

the co author of International Banking

4:48

for a New Century, what does

4:50

a Glass Stiegel Act for the twenty

4:52

one century look like? Um?

4:57

I was, you know, both

4:59

amused of a little bit stunned when

5:01

Senator Sanders made that

5:04

claim that that should definitely

5:06

be part of the platform. Again,

5:10

I think there is an oversimplification,

5:12

and this was in part one of the problems

5:14

that Senator Senders had when he came to

5:17

New York during the primaries and spoke

5:19

about breaking up big banks. Uh,

5:22

it is very unclear whether you

5:25

can go further than what is already

5:27

now in place, which is the Vocal

5:29

rule, like in the UK, the Vickers

5:32

Rule, which clearly separates

5:35

basic banking from trading functions

5:37

in the most basic terms. Uh,

5:40

is it now possible to actually

5:42

bring American banks back to

5:44

the type of structure and methodology

5:47

they had in the nine nineties. I don't think

5:49

so. I think there's too much

5:51

interconnectivity between US

5:54

banks and foreign banks. Would

5:56

this put US banks in a position

5:58

of losing competitiveness? Where

6:01

does this put foreign banks with major

6:03

presence in the US. I'm

6:06

gonna have to leave it there. Irene Vlhana would

6:08

thank you so very much for joining

6:10

us from Columbia University.

6:12

This is Bloomberg