joining us, who will provide more details shortly, and there will be some sessions organized over the course of the next few days. so, we believe that with strong, domprehensive, consistent an cooperated -- or coordinated action, countries and actually lift that growth, which needs to be more inclusive, in order to resist the political dynamics that are not helpful. i will be happy to take questions. muchice: thank you very madame lazardgarde. i was asked you to keep your questions very brief. let us start with jeremy. you mentioned the debate on globalization. i was wondering if you think the imf has given too much attention about the losers of globalization. it seems to be we are one month away from the u.s. election, the you think that the anti-trade policy promises by the republican candidate will cause a big damage to the u.s. and world economy? thank you. dir. lagarde: well, we believe that the international trade, that is what i will call it because globalization is sort of a much broader topic that includes integration, innovation as a result, and so on and so forth, but we certainly believe that international trade has been helpful over the course of the last two decades. if you look at the level of growth that has helped china, that has helped countries like india and other low income countries to pull himself out of massive poverty, it has been hugely beneficial on a global basis. now, have policymakers paid enough attention to those areass, those regional where there were more losses than gains? probably so. that is why we are calling for today for inclusive globalization, one that actually benefits all players. not one that reduces inequality between countries, but one that also allocates fairly within countries, and pays attention to those that are at risk of losing out. i think by the way that this does not only apply to trade, but this more urgently applies to the impact that the digital economy will have on our societies. the ways in which not only manufacturing, but services are going to be impacted by automation, by 3-d printing, by new ways of earning and learning around the world, which will require that people be equipped, which is why we are recommending in many instances investment in infrastructure, investment in education, in order to bring people up to the level or they can participate and benefit from this new society. i do not comment on u.s. elections. trade hasote that been in the main engine of growth, and if we want better growth in order to address, all of the issues i have mentioned today, we need that in order to support and accelerate growth. mr. rice: thank you, madame. ctv, thank you. >> my question is how the chinese financial reform, regarding the inclusion last week, to what extent in your mind it may affect domestic china to reform? and next, what is the domain in which you are most willing to see improvement among all of this economic reform in china? thank you. dir. lagarde: well, we didn't celebrate around -- we did celebrate around the world the inclusion of the currency in the basket. it means two things. one, we can use the currency as one in which we at the imf and all of the never ship conduct financial -- membership conduct financials. we are certainly operational in the currency. that is one thing. secondly, it certainly anchors the chinese economy in the growth of large, international, open economies in the world. this is a process. we regard it as a major step. there will be probably more steps to come, in order to really consolidate deposition, but we regarded as a really positive statement on the part of the chinese economy and the authorities to actually move in the direction, in a decisive manner. workedyou know, we have hand-in-hand with the chinese authorities to help them through the process of reforming the financial market, making sure that openness is not just the word on the shelf. and there will be more reforms coming along. and hopefully, the anchoring of china through the currency in the basket amongst the five a very valuable step. mr. rice: thank you very much. i will swing over to the front. please. >> thank you. madame, the imf has warned of political risk to world growth, but the same can be said of greece, where the debt relief is stumbling amongst others on political considerations in the eurozone, forthcoming elections. isn't that worrisome for greece, given that you are only protecting some growth in the few years, if the primary surplus is lower? surpluses aimary conditionality for the imf to participate in the program? and howdy respond to -- and how do you respond to officials asking the imf to respond to debt relief? dir. lagarde: you know, we have just concluded an article 4, which is the bilateral efforts between greece, our member, and the imf greek team. the results are very accessible, and indicate that some reform has been conducted. a lot more work needs to be done going forward, as we all know. and we will be actually sending a team and a couple of weeks time, in order to help with the assessment of the various commitments that have been made under the esm program. because, as you know, the imf is not part of debating any greek program. but conditions have not changed. we believe there has to be very significant structural reforms in place, and we also believe there has to be a debt that is sustainable going forward. and we have demonstrated flexibility in the past, in order to assess the debt sustainability, but we clearly believe that as is, the debt is not sustainable. mr. rice: thank you very much. i am turning to our friends from the british press. ed conway. ed: everybody is our friend. [laughter] madame, at the time of the uk referendum on european membership, you wanted that the rangedvote would hav from bad to very very bad. seeing the numbers come in, do you have that assessment? dir. lagarde: we have done a lot of scenario planning work, in the weeks that preceded the referendum. and that was clearly our job. we had various scenarios. one was our baseline. one was as a result of the referendum, and a determination for the european area -- the european community, one was a mild scenario. and one was a very adverse scenario. we are very encouraged that because of the policies and good international cooperation between central bankers of the world, is currently the mild scenario, and not the adverse scenario. and that was my comment, when i reported on article 4 and the uk in the weeks prior to the referendum. mr. rice: thank you very much. africa, in the front row, please? >> thank you. cnb africa. my first question is, the population of africa is looking close to 200 million. and with structural forms, one of the pillars of the imf, what structural reforms would you be looking at for the continent, especially in the 1980's the imf and world bank push for the consensus and we hardly saw any yield, after so many years after. the second has to be china. spillovers, the imf did draw an interesting statistic that shows one percentage drop in exports from africa to china did have a 0.6 in verse drop when it came to grow for the african continent for sub-saharan africa. are we going to see any spillovers when it comes to china? thank you. dir. lagarde: on your first question, the reforms in africa, there are certainly two areas where we would be pushing strongly. the first one is infrastructure. and i am not necessarily talking about roads, bridges, and railroads exclusively, but i'm also thinking about soft infrastructure in order to improve broadband access, the process from which a will move to agriculture and some industry and services. we have seen good examples of the micro level, and we believe that it should really be expanded to much more macro level. that is one. the second one is education. you rightly point your finger on the proportion of young people who will be joining the workforce, will want to access the job market, who want to make a living. and there has to be a strong push in the area of education, so that these young people are equipped to the societies of tomorrow. i am actually concerned about sub-saharan african countries. and it is bad to say to consider them as a bloc, because some countries are doing reasonably well. others have natural resources and are not in that category. others do not have natural resources, tend to do a little bit better. and you have the three large countries, south africa, nigeria, not doing well at the moment clearly. growth for thell sub-saharan africa, we really are going to develop technical assistance, our training, our help in building capacity so that in addition to financing infrastructure, there is also the capacity to deliver on the ground. in relation to china, we have done quite a bit of work on the spillovers from china to the rest of the world, particularly in the vicinity of china but also elsewhere, given the strong intelligent linkages that there are between a large bloc country, which has grown at a very high rate over the last two yeras. and the countries from which it actually purchased massive natural resources, in particular.and there are clearly spillovers between the two, which is why we are strongly advocating diversification of those economies based on the extraction of natural resources in africa. mr. rice: thank you. essandro, on the right. alessandro: good morning. you mentioned germany among the countries that needs to use the fiscal base they have, and the government is preparing to announce cuts of 6 billion this year and next. do you think that satisfies your call? my other question is about deutsche bank. will you be talking to the german authorities about the situation there, considering of course, you are not the supervisor, but the fund itself defined deutsche bank with an institution as a very large, systemic repercussions, or potential risks. dir. lagarde: well, first of all, on the to be announced tax cut, this is clearly part of what we hope is a larger package, that will exploit the fiscal space that germany has available. we believe that in the area of infrastructure, maintenance of investments toso be had.and as i said , given the very, very low of the financing cost, particularly in a country like germany, it is certainly the right time to divvy up that infrastructure further, and to further contribute to the collective effort that i have referred to. but it is not just about germany. let us face it, huh? every country can do something. now, on the banks, i would observe first of all the we don't mention for a microsecond deutsche bank in the gsfr,. ok? we also say that many banks around the world have to look at the business model and have to undertake the right efforts in the right re-architecture, in order to respond to the conditions. so, that is what we perceive at the moment. and we are also saying in our report that we believe number one, the determination to do so, and number two, the means available to proceed to those changes. alessandro: thank you very much. mr. rice: bloomberg? >> good morning, madame. dir. lagarde: good morning. >> if you could talk a little bit about monetary policy. the banks of japan did a deep rethinking of the tools at disposal recently, and came up with a lot of what people interpreted as more of a tweaking, pulling another bazooka out of the arsenal. we are also seeing speculation that the ecb might start to taper the quantitative easing program. we have heard for so long that monetary policy is reaching the limits of its efficacy. are we reaching that point? we certainly observe that monetary policy has been under a lot of pressure to act and to respond. and that it has been the first point of call in response to the current situation. and it has acted in many countries in isolation, which was not helpful. so if there is one message, here, all policies, monetary, fiscal, structural reforms have become together. they cannot be left to the bankers, which have used many unconventional tools which unchartedored territory for the benefit of economy. the liquidity in the circuit, it can not just be about monetary policy. and when we look at the business models of the banks, of the insurance companies, of the operate atds, who zero lower bound interest rates, below zero occasionally, is really compensating the picture. so, that is the reason we are advocating for the other tools to be made effective. mr. rice: i'm going to swing down here to brazil, please? >> bonjour, madame. dir. lagarde: bonjour. >> on this movement to contribute to international is ations, brazil, globally or regionally could help the economic problems in the country, or are the problem so serious that prevent any outward look? and want verification. says that in 2017, brazil grew at 0.57%. america gives 1.1% for the same year. if you could come help us understand the difference. dir. lagarde: i will deal with the difference first because that is an easy one. we operate on different methodologies, using different references, and that is why we consistently, forgot all of our numbers, have a slight variation which explains the gap between our forecast and their forecast. in terms of trends, what we are seeing is very, very large countries in latin america moving in positive territory, as opposed to that contraction that we have observed in brazil. currencyso seeing discussed policies, including fiscal policies, including structural reform, that will in our view take the country into a much more stable and hopefully prosperous territory. so, brazil is such a large component of latin america, that it can only help the whole of the continent. latin america is in negative territory as a whole, at the numbers, butin our because particular countries such as brazil, such as venezuela. and if brazil and fix its policy, show discipline in so doing and restore stability, that will help a great deal. mr. rice: thank you, madame. two more. i will take our friend from indonesia. >> thank you. i am from the news agency in indonesia. by first question will be about a week ago, you mentioned at a university your policy is to not harm. what do you mean by that? is it ever included the recommendation that the imf offers? and secondly, the second one is, in a letter to the 2018 meeting that will be held in indonesia, what do you expect from that? and how can we bring indonesia to that? thank you? dir. lagarde: thank you very much. at northwestern university, the first policy message was do no harm. and what i meant by that is, when you have growth that has long,oo low for too benefiting too few, you cannot afford to put in jeopardy one of the engines for growth, which trade has been. now, we know that a lot of the trade freefall is largely attributable to lack of demand. but clearly what we are seeing in terms of political dynamics and rhetoric against trade would, in our view, do harm to the economy, economic malpractice. that is what i meant. 2018, we are very much looking meeting,o that annual which indonesia will host. and i hope you all come. i think it will be really important for the region, which is one of the regions and the world where growth is still going quite strongly, where there is some regional on andtion, +3 and so arrangement ishe in place with which we are cooperating. so, many great developers administration of cooperation with the region, added to which we can celebrate some of the reforms that are being conducted and the leadership of prime minister of indonesia will be great. and i will be looking forward to seeing my friend, who has decided to move from across sea over to jakarta. mr. rice: thank you. this we last question, in the front row. >> thanks. my name is andy, with russia. congratulations on the meeting. systemtion is about the -- many people feel that the brexit,while we had the why we have donald trump, that is why my prime minister complained about the "credita zation" of the economy. many people believe that the imf nk part world ba of that treaty. we had the rule against lending, in that instance. in turn, the owners of the system, when they needed to circumvent it, they just change the rules. as you know, of the world bank, know russian project cannot be approved, at this point. so, my question is, what do you say to those people who feel that the system is rigged? and they are not getting a level playing field? thank you. why do they still need to support the system? dir. lagarde: you know, one of our imperatives and certainly one that is high on my agenda is that level playing field. it is critically important that whether a country is small or developing,d or they received the same degree of attention, everything being relative. we also believe that rules are changed, as result of discussion, dialogue, conversations. and of the end of the day, hopefully, most the case is consensus. but if not so, majority rules accordingly. i would also note that in terms of participation, in terms of representation and voices, the imf is making changes and will continue to make changes, so that it reflects better the global economy. and i do not buy that comment, biased in the way in which we do with countries. we try to apply the rules because it is an institution that is not only quota based, but rule-based. precisely, in order to make sure that level playing field principle is respected. and we will continue to operate in that fashion. dir. lagarde: thank you, madame. thank you, mr. lipton. you have that reminder. to you all in the meetings. thanks again for coming. [indiscernible] can you all take a seat, please? we will get started. thank you. there were no. thank you. good morning. i'm the secretary for the world bank. we will have brief opening remarks from the world bank president, dr. jim young can -- dr. jim yong kim, and then we will take questions. if you have a question, please identify your name and your outlet. thank you. dr. kim: thank you very much. i just want to say first a few words about haiti, a country i have worked in for many, many years going back to 1988. i was devastated, of course, by hurricane matthew. my thoughts are with the people of haiti, many of whom are still recovering from the earthquake attorney 10. we reached out with the government to offer immediate support. our staff are already working with the ministry of public works to begin restoring access to the hardest hit areas in the south of the country including a key bridge that was washed away. it is too early to know the full impact of the storm as some of the most vulnerable communities live along the coast and cannot be reached. the civil protection municipal by antees, supported ongoing program with house to house and encouraged people to leave high risk areas. we are sending a rapid assessment team to coordinate with haiti's partners and determine the extent of the damage and we will be using funding from existing operations to help kids return to school, clean up roads, which require heavy equipment. our sympathy and solidarity go to the people of haiti and to who have been and unfortunately may still be affected by hurricane matthew. disasters like this remind us of the need to help countries build greater resilience against ever more frequent shocks. extreme weather also underscores the urgency for global action against climate change. that's why the remarkable pace at which nations of the world this agreement gives us hope. with the eu ratification this week added to that of many other countries, the agreement will enter into force in less than a month. this is a multilateral system at its best. to whennow like to turn i will be discussing with shareholders this week, and then i will take questions. developing countries continue to struggle amidst the sluggish global economy. many countries have been hit by stagnating global trade and falling commodity prices. we have the highest number of developing countries in recession since 2009, and we have been working to meet rising demands for assistance to help countries meet global challenges. once again, the bank is playing a strong countercyclical role in the global economy, but multiple threaten hard-fought gains in many countries. report on goals earlier this week. our research shows that inequality is still far too hard, both globally and within countries, constraining growth and breeding and stability. we need to focus on growth and continue to reduce inequality, and we have to make growth more equitable and sustainable overlappingiple global shocks including climate change, forced this placement so we have to scale of our efforts dramatically. to continue to focus our efforts and face each global challenge with an urgency and scale commensurate to the problem. my message for shareholders this week is that we are pursuing tatum goals -- ending poverty, boosting share prosperity -- with three major ways. first, we will focus more on inclusive and sustainable growth. any quality is still too high, and the kind of growth we need must be shared for more broadly. we must also take advantage of a --uation in which many funds trillions of dollars -- are earning very little and looking for more returns. we think there is an opportunity to crowd in many more resources into, for example, investments in infrastructure and developing countries. the second, a key ingredient for building more inclusive growth, is investing in human beings. haveutomation is going to a tremendous impact on the kinds of jobs that will be available. we think all countries, but especially the poorest, need to invest more and more effectively in human beings. third, as i just discussed, we will be focusing on building resilience to global shock. did of goals, three ways to get there, and now i am happy to take your questions. >> thanks very much. once again, if you could identify yourselves by name and outlet, that would be great. and we will turn to questions. and if you could wait for the microphone, please, to come to you. "the financial times," and congratulations on your second term. i wonder if you could address some of the controversy surrounding reappointment in terms of the process and also association and the concerns it has raised. second, do you think you have -- you have outlined a big agenda in terms of things the bank has to do. does the bank have the financial resources it needs? dr. kim: thanks. as you know well, the pace of reforms and the number of reforms we did at the same time have caused some staff to be very uneasy. election goes,e though, it is really up to our governors. 189 member countries. i was very encouraged to see the kind of support that i received from member countries. the things they told me, what we have been able to do, more lending volume, better knowledge across different countries. we are now moving knowledge much more effectively than we have before. review, the expenditure was something that they really required us to do, and we got through it. on the one hand, there's no question that in large bureaucracies like the world kinds ofp, these large-scale changes always cause disruption, but we are passed it now, and i was very encouraged by the response of our clients and the board to reappoint me unanimously. of -- the second question was -- capital increase. to step up insked many areas that we have not traditionally been involved in. climate change was not a traditional area of work for us. forced displacement was not a traditional area of work for us. even pandemics, finding ways to utilize insurance products, protectguarantees to the kinds ofgainst pandemics that are almost certain to come -- we had not been doing these things before. we feel like we have brought unique tools and skills to the thelems, but if you expand agenda like that and then at the same time also have increasing demands for the traditional things that we have been doing, it is hard to see how we will meet all those demands without a capital increase. case.e been making the i think there is, generally speaking, much more openness to a capital increase. i think also, though, the case that we can make is one dollar given to us multiplies many times. the total paid in capital for ibrd over seven years is $15 billion. the asian infrastructure investment bank by 2020 will have $20 billion paid in capital. billion paidd $15 in capital to $600 billion in .oans today, and ibrd loan, if we do the right swap, we can offer countries 15% maturity money. is an extremely efficient way to move capital to places that need it in order to spur economic growth. and justake the case, as my election was up to the governors, the capital increase will be up to the governors. >> right here on the third row. thank you. >> thank you very much. good morning. in mexico, we have low interest rates. we made structural reforms. .e made fiscal reform what else could we do to increase our gdp? i have a second question, please . should we be worried about the commercial rebirth in the usa? are there some kind of policies we can do. dr. kim: commercial rebirth? i'm not aware. first of all, i have been a great admirer of the reforms that president pena nieto has put in place. they were very courageous. although mexico has not yet experienced all the benefits of the reforms, there are some very remarkable positive experiences. for example, one of the things president pena nieto did was he really reformed the energy sector. after that reform, he was able to launch an option for solar energy that brought an extremely low price, around 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour, which for any country in the world is good, about half the price of electricity in the united states. you're not going to see all the impact of the reforms right away. but that is one of the ones we have seen. you know, apart from the fundamentals of mexico, the exchange rate has been going up and down based on political considerations more than looking at the fundamentals of the mexican economy, so i think probably after the u.s. election, there will still be some potential volatility, but we believe very strongly in the really wide-ranging reforms in the economy that president pena nieto has put in place. i'm not sure what you mean by commercial reverse, though. >> over here, please. thank you. morning.od congratulations for your election. argentina bus telling his agency. theerday, you talked with finance minister about new poverty measures, and then the new direction argentina will take in 2018 next year. if you could talk about the way that argentina could reduce poverty. dr. kim: thank you very much. we have been extremely encouraged by what argentina has been doing. to reimburse global markets has extremely important. at a time when so many countries are talking about closing borders and slowing trade and disengaging with the global economy, the fact that argentina is re-engaging in such a thoughtful way is very, very encouraging. the reason we now know more about the poverty level is because of a commitment to providing clear, more accurate data. that is just a prerequisite for all of us to engage in. because of that commitment to providing cleaner data, we felt very comfortable engaging. so argentina will now be one of our largest portfolios in latin america. was bothty rate surprising and disturbing, but again, i think the positive to take out of this is that argentina has recommitted to accurate data in a transparent way. there's been many experiences with poverty reduction in latin america. the condition of cash transfer programs direct to four people. also, there are still many issues in terms of increasing productivity in argentina. it is a broad agenda. both policy reform and also trying to create an environment where after many years we can begin to think about attracting private sector investment from outside argentina. focusedgrowth strategy specifically on supporting the poorest. we are expanding our portfolio at argentina, and, frankly we are optimistic that things will get better. >> fourth row, please, in the middle. >> good morning. larry elliott of the guardian -- of "the guardian." long ago, these meetings were .ominated by debt relief how close do you think we are to another debt crisis, given the a large number of developing countries, particularly in sub-saharan africa, are coming under as a result of commodity price falls and large amounts of lending during the good times? dr. kim: i think if you look at debt to gdp ratios, most of africa is still in good shape. there are some countries that are now above 50%, but there are still many countries that are still quite a bit below 50% in terms of debt to gdp ratio. what we are doing now is really try to focus on things like can we create asset classes, even, for example, in african infrastructure that will require relatively less indebtedness and really bring private sector investments into these countries. we are watching debt levels very, very carefully. i am not yet concerned that we are reaching a debt crisis level, certainly not in most of sub-saharan africa, but we have to watch now. if you look at the places that have gotten into trouble recently with debt, two are lebanon and jordan. jordan itself went from a little over 50% debt to gdp to over 90%, and that was mostly because of the response to the refugee crisis. one of the rings we are now doing is we are being much more strategic and much more flexible in the way we use concessional finance. for jordan and lebanon, we are providing concessional lending. we took some money from the uk that was given as a grant, got to capital markets, blend the two, and can provide 15 to 20-your money, because we want to show that when countries provide a great service to the world -- absorbing syrian refugees -- that they should not become indebted, and certainly not with short maturity high interest debt. we are following it very closely. wehink the new flexibility have in using concessional resources will help us even more in being able to respond to situations like jordan and lebanon. >> in red please. >> thank you. your goal to end extreme global poverty by the year 2030 -- what is your expectation from china to help you achieve that goal? the second is on the world bank and china in the development of african countries. what are the key areas you will focus on during your second term? thank you. of all, without china, we would have no chance to even think about ending extreme poverty. china lifted 700 million people out of extreme poverty over the last two for three decades. there are still people living in extreme poverty in china, but not very many. china itself is determined to bring the number down to zero in the very near future. in terms of our work in africa, of course, this is one of the places we have to focus on most in terms of ending extreme poverty. we have many different kinds of partnerships. for example, the managed wasending portfolio project started actually with investments from china. it is our first effort to create infrastructures and asset class, money, and nowus private companies have joined. we are taking a number of different infrastructure in africa and other parts of the developing world and turning them into an overall portfolio, the first step toward creating emerging-market infrastructure as an asset class. china has done it with capital. we have projects where we are working on investing in parallel with them on infrastructure projects. the asia infrastructure investment that we have already done, a joint lending project to indonesia, but i expect that china will be a very important partner in this effort to end extreme poverty, not least of which -- and people try to understand how they so rapidly lifted so many out of extreme poverty, and i think the message we all need to take from china is that the reason china was able to lift 700 million people out of poverty was very much related to, one, trade, and two, the openness of their it, -- economy to competition from the outside. they had to make product that are competitive in the global market. those are two key determining factors. that is the message we're sending to all developing countries. >> in the fourth row please. thank you. >> thank you very much, and congratulations on your election. the question is about the fundszation of the hedge .o the infrastructure how can we manage, and how could hope, especially when you see problems with transparency in countries like mexico? and every country, the task of crowding in private sector finance is different because every country has a different policy regime and different regulations and a different track record in working with the private sector. our commitment is that for every country that asks us, every country that has infrastructure needs, we will begin exploring with countries, of course, but also with private sector investors. what level of de-risking is going to be required for us to be able to attract those funds? in some of the poorest countries, the level might be very, very high, but to give you a swedish developer agency and isc are going to be taking first slot. the first percentage, and we have not decided what that will be yet, will be taken by sweden and isp. if we provide political risk insurance or credit enhancement, risk.an also decrease the we are also looking to provide tools like exchange rate risk aaron tees, and in many poor countries, the market simply will not provide an exchange rate risk guarantee, so we are looking to do that using our equity. and we already do partial risk their in teas. there's many instruments we have that can lower risk. we are now saying the entire world rank group has to work together. all the different parts have to work together to find out what level of de-risking is necessary. again, this is a unique opportunity. there are not many good things about the current global economic situation, but one of them might read that because these ones are earning so little, we might have an opportunity to crowd in much more private capital than we would if they were earning more. >> yes? kim.anks a lot, dr. congratulations on your reelection. just a few questions. that low income countries continue to struggle. you are seeing projections at about 1% sub-saharan growth. do you feel investments in infrastructure have been paid off in africa? are also seeing a lot of countries going into recession in africa. if you could comment on that. the second question is -- what is your big picture outlook for africa now that you are serving another term? what other areas or sectors will you be keen on? among the most worrying numbers coming out of this meeting is the growth estimates for sub-saharan africa, which we revised downward. 1.6%. for next year, we are expecting about 2.9%, and that is in the context of population growth of .% if growth cannot keep up with population growth, that is essentially negative growth. we are very worried about it. has a lot to do with the fall in commodity prices. if there is any good news, it would be that commodity prices seem to have bottomed out. have infrastructure investments paid off? yes, they have, but there's just no where near enough in africa. the deficit in terms of energy, in terms of roads is just enormous. when i talk about this new doing everything we can to crowd in private sector investment, of course, africa is one of our prime targets. we have to find ways of de-risking the investments in a way that will work. let me give you a possibility. in senegal, a private sector group built a toll road. at first, it came under great critique because they were saying a toll road would exclude the poor. it would not work. people do not want to pay money to go on a road. after they built it, what commute timeshat for everybody in their car went down because those who could afford to use the toll road were very happy to use it. it cut their time down dramatically, but it also dramatically reduced traffic on regular roads so that even the poorest who could not afford to use the toll road -- they saw that their commuting time dropped dramatically. there are solutions out there that will both provide a good return for private investors and very positive development impact, like something you would not expect, so we road in senegal, are looking at every sigel possibility where public-private investments could provide energy for poor people, provide access to roads, while at the same time providing a return that will attract investors. let me give you another example. it was thought that it was very difficult to put auctions together in africa for solar energy, but we now have something called scaling solar, which is a one-stop shop solution where we do everything from policy reform at the world bank side, the public-sector side helps with policy reform, forms necessary -- just the paper forms necessary for people to apply, and then we run the option. in zambia, just a few months ago, we got a price of cents a kilowatt hour. very, very low, especially in africa. it zambia can get that kind of price -- and these were all private sector power companies that made these bids. this is the perfect example of how you can crowd in private sector and both provide more energy and at a lower cost to people in zambia. one more. >> thank you. the russian prime minister just an economic report where he complained that the economic system is unduly politicized. as you know, the bank of russia could not have the project if it wanted it approved at this point. i wanted your opinion on if the system is politicized, if that is a major risk to the economy. thank you. let me see. you know, the uncertainty around certain elections and political processes in the future is definitely a risk for the global economy. uncertainty around the ultimate impact of brexit, uncertainty around the u.s. election, uncertainty around elections in ,urope -- these are all risks and at the world bank group, what we see is uncertainty. uncertainty is usually very bad for most developing countries. cooperative of 189 member governments. despite the fact that it says in our articles of agreement that we are not supposed to be it is very politics, difficult for any multilateral institution to be completely apolitical, so, yes, we do see the impact of politics in our is decision, but we try every day to focus on providing financing, knowledge, and support to end poverty. that is our goal. our goal is not to be involved in politics and take a stand one way or another. >> all right, we will do one more. >> good morning. i am from zambia. i would like to find out how much the world economy is scaling up zambia's energy structure and what have's of energy are we looking at. dr. kim: i do not know the exact number we are committing to zambia. we can get that. extremelylar idea is encouraging. i saw zambian leaders in nairobi when we had the tokyo -- the japanese organized meeting, and they told me they love the solar deal. and they want more of it. the interesting thing about if yous that, especially are talking about providing electricity to villages, you can very quickly put in place solar-based micro-grids, not necessarily to connected to the central grid, but can transform the lives of the world people. in this particular case, there was very little financing that we had to do because zambia was .ble to put together the deal the government was able to come through with the kind of policy changes that give confidence to private sector providers. this was a landmark deal, the lowest price ever received in was sixso the average cents, but the lowest bid was six cents, and that number was not going to go up for 25 years. if you say six cents for 25 years, that ends up being about 4.5 cents. zambia received a bid for almost solar.d a half cents for zambia has a lot of sun, and i think we can scale up solar .ramatically for many other reasons, zambia still needs baseload and will still need to use other kinds of energy sources, but i think the promise of solar, not only in zambia but all throughout africa, is really very exciting. >> thank you all very much. we will have the opening remarks of the world bank press conference available in a transcript shortly. >> tomorrow, the wto will talk about double trade and the possibility of a prolonged slowdown in international commerce. watch live coverage from the national press club in washington, d.c., at 1:00 here on c-span. >> this week, the supreme court heard oral argument in the death .entence case of bucket b davis in that case, the court is considering if a lower court improperly denied an appeal for a convicted murderer. listen to the oral argument in its entirety friday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and we have a new page on www.c-span.org to help you follow the supreme court. , selectw.c-span.org supreme court at the right-hand top of the page. once you are there, you'll see a calendar with his term, a list of current justices, and with supreme court video on demand, watch oral arguments we had aired and recent appearances by supreme court justices. at www.c-span.org. >> if you missed any of the vice presidential debate, go to www.c-span.org using your desktop, phone, or tablet. once on our debate page, watch theentire debate using switch screens -- split screen or switch camera options. find the content you want quickly and easily and use our video clipping tool to create clips of your favorite debate moments to share on social media. your desktop, on phone, or tablet for the vice presidential debate. >> on today's "washington journal," guests debated the narrative trade agreements like the transpacific partnership. this is just under an hour. >> for a complete schedule go to c-span.org. host: as we continue to spotlight the issue of trade this morning on "washington journal," we are joined by daniel ikenson from the cato fromtute and lori wallach public citizen. why has this issue of trade become, if not the issue of the cycle, one of the issues of the election cycle? it is anll, interesting question. i have looked at a lot of focus groups and polls about that. it is not the trade part. americans have woken up to the fact that agreements like tpp the tpp, at the heart, are about expanding and locking in corporate power at a time when americans are furious about the role the corporations have been controlling our lives and shaping the government. at the heart of the tpp are provisions that would allow thousands of multinational corporations to sue the u.s. government in front of tribunals of three corporate attorneys who would be authorized to pay corporations unlimited funds of money, including for speculative , future lost profits, if those corporations say any u.s. law, court decision, state, local, federal, violates new rights and privileges the tpp would give them. there is no appeal to these three corporate attorneys, and there is no limit as to how much they can make us pay. that makes people nuts. host: so, it is an issue that americans feel we are giving away more of our own rights or things that protect us as americans? guest: it is the notion that these agreements are trojan horse maneuvers. in the good name of trade expansion -- who is not for that -- instead, are giving brand-new powers to operations. you think of more competition, except the agreement gives special rights and privileges to special interests. not shocking, because the thing was negotiated with 500 official corporate advisors, and largely congress shut out. you get these lopsided rules. another key provision is protectionism for the pharmaceutical and is cheap. it stops the competition that brings down prices and making it easier to get generic medicines agreement areade monopoly-seeking packed expansions. this is making people nuts. host: his assent an issue in the 2016 election? guest: you ask why it is an issue -- why it is topical. it has been topical since 1982. this year it is resonating more profoundly. trade has become more of a catchall for concerns, economic dislocation, anxiety, people have. demagoguedsily a issue. politicians love to distract voters from the issues -- their own failures, their own failures to adopt policies that help the economy grow. it is so much easier to blame foreigners, their products, for copies. donald trump is good at talking up his economic nationalist string where trade is portrayed as competition -- competition between team america and team china, or team mexico, where exports are america's points, imports of the foreign team's points, and we have a trade deficit, so we are losing a trade, and losing, of course, because the florentine is that foreign -- foreign team is cheating. it is wrong. to get to the point that lori was making -- there is this myth that trade only benefits rich corporations and rich americans -- the 1%. disproportionately beneficial to smaller companies relative to large companies because mother copies have a harder time absorbing the costs -- the trade barriers, tariffs -- regulations. big companies don't mind it at all. likewise, lower-income americans benefit from trade more than anything else. host: when you think about trade being portrayed as a competition, are some supporters of the trans-pacific partnership portraying the tpp as a competition -- if we do not sign, do not get involved in this 12-member deal, we are seating 40% of the global trade market to china, and they are going to then make the rules? in that sense, isn't the administration calling it a competition? guest: i think the administration is trying to point out -- not as articulately as it should -- the trance pacific partnership is a new model for trade liberalization. trade liberalization has occurred with these trade rounds, where companies got together to a seat -- achieve consensus. that is not working and. the dough how round launched in 2001 broke down in 2008. i do not think we will go back to that. is ane -- the tpp american-led initiative. joinus, and if you do not this agreement, you will be on the outside, and supply chains will be diverted out of your country. partial be put on countries like china to join. what the president is saying is if we do not get is ratified, then, u.s.-based rule of law -- you know, the rule of law and trade, institutions that have persisted since the end of the second world war will start to decay and the chinese-led initiative will take old. host: what likelihood you give the tpp of being ratified in the lame-duck session when congress comes back? guest: very small. there might be a small window of opportunity that could be a vote. i'm not a big fan of lame-duck votes on anything. it seems to be evasive of the democratic process, but i do think the tpp will be ratified in a commerce, and if hillary clinton is present -- president, she'll be happy to support it. host: lori wallach, do you agree? guest: i think we will see a knockdown battle in the lame-duck. they do not have the votes now. it is outrageous that a policy that can not pass when members of congress feel accountable before the election can be sly lame-duck, during a when ostensibly, the retired, getunexpectedly newly fired to vote without accountability. i do not think the tpp that president obama signed will go into effect as is, and to some degree the fierceness of the debates you point out, has catalyzed for the political elite -- people that have supported the agreement in the past -- that the choice we are not -- now at is not between the tpp and nothing, but rather this tpp is not going to happen, so what is it people could support that can harvest trade expansion without the baggage of tpp? is of the secrets of tpp only six of the 30 chapters have to do with trade liberalization. i suspect that tpp literally said get rid of the tariffs, we would not have a debate. it is the other garbage they put into the agreement. host: lori wallach is with public citizen. daniel ikenson is with the cato institute. we are talking about global trade. you can call in. normal phone lines in this session. daniel ikenson, as colors are calling in -- do some cleanup. one caller said there is no manufacturing in the u.s. anymore, and another said we are on track for the best manufacturing year ever. can you talk about manufacturing? sure. it is one of the prominent myths -- the fact that we do not make anything anymore. year,ct is year after manufacturing sets new records ,ith respect to value added return on investment. of course we have recessions and during cyclical downturns it contracts like the rest of the economy, but on a trend basis, is going up year after year. the one area where people focus, and it is an issue is that the sector does not support as many jobs as it once did. in 1979, there were 19.4 million workers in the manufacturing sector. since then, it has been on a downward trajectory. we are manufacturing more with fewer inputs. that is the objective of economics -- to overcome scarcity. when we are producing more, manufacturing output with fewer workers, we cannot blame trade for that. we need to make sure our system is fluid enough so that the labor market frictions that exist go away. we need policies that make it easier for people to transition into new -- new jobs and that is where policymakers are failing us. host: lori, jotting down notes. did you want to jump in? guest: we have seen a surge in job loss since our current trade agreement, and it is not clear if it is because of cutting tariffs, or the kind of investment rules that includes corporate tribunals, but also the rules that incentivize job off life insuring. they cut the risk premium of going overseas, making it less risky. you do not necessarily have to worry about how the other government is going to treat you. you have special privileges if you leave. as a result, since nafta and the pto, we have seen over 5 million u.s. manufacturing jobs gone. every four.t of there are other factors involved. a dominant factor -- you can see tradevernment-certified, jobs -- you can go to trade watch.org, putting your zip code, and it pops up a list of the one million plus jobs certified under nafta as trade job losses. up first. will be antioch, california could a donald trump supporter. caller: good morning. first, i have to say lori wallach, next to ron paul, you're one of the biggest heroes i have. i heard you once say when nafta went into effect how manufacturing jobs went to mexico, and also how it forced mexican peasant farmers to have to come to the united states to work because of how it locked in the price of agriculture. when i heard you say that i was flabbergasted. thanks. well, eric has a very good point because that is a classic example of the winners and the losers in the cooked agreements because of who was at the table. for instance, nafta got rid of the kinds of agricultural policies the big companies -- grain-trading companies, etc., wanted so they could move corn between the u.s. and mexico, but they did not discipline the subsidies on the production of that stuff. what ended up happening -- mexico, that had never imported corn, must there was a drought or some other kind of problem, suddenly had to import a lot of corn. under the nafta rules, there are trade barriers to remove. at the same time, there are no disciplines on how the trade business gets help from the government. tons of corn was dumped into mexico. we were already more efficient, but in addition, thumb on the scale. what ended up happening is the second farmers got wiped out in the course of two growing seasons. literally, there was this placement of over 3 million families off the corn-growing territories in new mexico in -- in mexico in the course of 18 months. what is really tragic, actually, is since nafta -- you would think a lot of american jobs went there -- people got knocked off of their firms -- there is a race to the bottom trend with investment rules helping jobs go to china. admit there is less than you fetching employment in mexico, plus the rural sector has been up.bered, but prices went they started to have more monopolies with the concentration on who control the trade. host: lori wallach is with public citizen. daniel ikenson is with cato institute. our two guests. nafta is an issue that comes up whenever we have trade discussions. jared is in kyle, texas. undecided voter. good morning. hi.er: i was wondering -- i have a big problem with the tpp, and the biggest problem for me is that there are -- there is this par in there that has these international tribunals, so let's a corporation like exxon mobil, or someone like that, fracking ort doing something like that in a random country and a country decides to sue them, yet when they do that, they have this tribunal, and the person gets to pick who is on -- the person who gets to pick who is on the tribunal are the corporations. that is really a problem for me. what that tells me is they can water, ourollute our food supply, or something like that, and it is, like, we cannot do anything about it. that is my biggest problem. host: kyle, giving voice to some of the concerns lori wallach brought up earlier. daniel ikenson. guest: this is an area lori and i agree about. in 1959, the idea was developing countries post second-world war needed investments, and they were worried about the lack of rule of law and appropriation, so the investor state dispute settlement emerged between an egg dish in an agreement between germany and pakistan. over the years -- in an agreement between germany and pakistan. over the years, there has been little use. there has been an increase with corporations who feel policies adopted after investments were made that adversely affected assets could sue governments before these tribunals. i am opposed to it. i think it is an unnecessary subsidy for business. i do not think for governments need these types of disciplines. the world is competing for an investment -- to attract investment, and if you asked appropriate, or fail to give equitable treatment, they will not be that kind of investment. this is totally blown out of portion. too many people are making a big deal. we are opposed to it and we did an evaluation. we were skeptical of it we looked at 30 chapters. we were able to score 22 of the 30. beof the 32 we found to trade liberalizing. we found -- to delete what we found neutral. the one that we found to be not trade liberalizing with the investment chapter because it has this trade provision in it. i share your concerns in theory, but in reality, this has been blown out of proportion, and if corporations avail themselves of democratico suppress processes, to try to run the mysticver accountability -- things like that, it will be turned back. -- domestic accountability, things like that, it will be turned back. we too much has been made of that, and lori has something to do with making a lot of this issue. ato.org to see the scorn you are talking about. did you want to respond? guest: the reason it is a big issue is because the u.s. has avoided being sued. we dodged a bullet because we have not had agreements with countries that have a lot of corporations that are foreign investors. so, we, basically, have not had liability. overnight, where the tpp implemented, over 10,000 new companies, more than double the companies already that have this right, would bring us these tribunals, and these of the comment of companies that would -- kind of companies that would. japanese conglomerates have the wherewithal to pursue these cases. tpp for us -- the corporate tribunals are not a hypothetical problem. a bunch of these companies have domestically used our courts and not been successful attacking important laws on which our families rely, and i now have this new tool. for folks that think this is really serious, i recommend a --k at this buzz feed series a four-part investigative series. an investigative journalist spent 18 months extracting from government officials the off the record back story of what happened. it is a real glimpse. people should look. host: bill. tennessee. a hillary clinton supporter. good morning. we lost bill. catherine in ohio. also a hillary clinton supporter. go ahead. caller: good morning, and thank you for the show. here is my question -- if the trade deals worked, it would be good for americans, but when we bigw -- but when we allow multinational companies and some american companies to offshore profits without paying taxes in the united states, we, the american public, get cheated. this should all be forced back here. they should pay the taxes that are due, when they are due, and you can never renegotiate for less. if they would do this, everybody would benefit. as long as the super-dupre rich get off without paying taxes, like donald trump, that is what happens. bottom,people at the which i am working poor -- i am retired now -- we get holding the bag -- caught holding the bag time and time again. may corporations, multinationals, pay all their taxes. it is that simple. host: daniel ikenson, will start with you. guest: i would agree to some extent with the caller's sentiment, but i am sure that is a trade issue so much. it is an international tax issue. we have seen tim cook the rated the numbers of congress for keeping apple's profits offshore in ireland. i think there are $2 trillion as an estimate of corporate profits caps off sure that could be repatriated in the united states, invested, productive in factories, service centers, research facilities, but it is not the fault of the apple ceo or any ceo. it is a consequence of our convoluted tax system. under the american system, we tax the profits of u.s. corporations at home, and when they repatriated their dollars. we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. this suggests we need to overhaul the text system. that will encourage companies to bring -- tax system. that will encourage companies to bring investment back. there are a lot of foreign shop in theing up u.s.. 6.2 million americans work for foreign compasses -- copies. if we will focus on offshore go we need to focus on ensuring, which is beneficial to the country. guest: one of things catherine wants to look at -- she has a good point, but something that will make her boil -- there is a chapter in the tpp called procurement, and that chapter creates incentives to offshore tax dollars even more, which is to say when the government goes into the market to buy things -- trucks, computers for government offices, right now, since the roosevelt era, they have had to give preference to bind stuff that is made in america. ohio has buy ohio, etc. p under to tpp, we are forbidden give those preferences. we have to waive the by local -- the buy local preferences, and any tpp companies, including chinese state-owned companies in the amount, have equal rights to get tax dollars on government contracts. in addition to what she is mad about, there is a whole chapter in tpp that makes the u.s. government sent tax dollars offshore. host: let's go to florida where stephen is waiting on the line for undecided voters. stephen, good morning. caller: good morning. what i would like to do is amplify some details about the isds provision. the investor state dispute settlement provision. if you have not heard of this before, just, kind of, hold on to your seat. this is kind of like going through the looking glass in alice in wonderland. first of all, the bottom line -- there is an awful lot of detail here. obviously, i will not be able to get through all of it, but the bottom line is the way it is being implemented in this particular treaty, the tpp, the same isds provision that has been mentioned has been used in previous treaties, but not like this. --is a threat to democracy democrat -- democratic decision-making at all levels of government for the first time -- local, state, and national. the way this works is if you pass a law at any of these levels, or it could even be a inadvertentlyen costs a multinational corporation profit, it is essentially a legal -- i am quotes to do this any longer. in previous trade treaties, there are only a certain number of ways a corporation -- any corporation could lose profit. one by one each one of these has been "rendered legal. there is only one that hasn't been so far, and it came very close to being made illegal. the decision is not made in the national court. it is made in a court -- a tribunal that has been referred to. host: stephen, both of our guests are expressing concern about this provision. daniel ikenson, do you want to expand on what the caller was amplifying there in those concerns? guest: yes, he is right. we do not need these provisions in the grievance. it sullies them. in fact, i have written a paper a couple of years ago saying if we expect to ratify trade agreements going forward, we should get rid of the isds provision because it for months benefits -- trade only benefits corporations, and in fact trade benefits individuals and lower-income americans more than any -- anything else, except for that provision. my colleague, simon lester, has become a leading expert in writing about this. we would like to see it totally jettisoned, but at the same time concern,share lori's we are about to get into trade agreements that involve large companies, companies like japan and europe, that are more litigious, and the united states is more likely to lose cases -- we need to be concerned about that. i also think it is no reason to oppose a trade-liberalizing deal like the tpp. it is something to be concerned about. if it gets out of control, we revisit it, but holding of trade liberalization, which benefits so many millions of people, does not make a lot of sense. get: lori wallach, you james in texas, a hillary clinton supporter. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a sociologist, and i am retired, but i look at this as an effect on the american society. trade cannot be looked at alone. it is a three legged stool. the three legs are trying -- tax policy and labor policy pretty you will notice the tax on collective bargaining -- trade agreements which highly favor the management and investment class -- if taxpayers knew exactly how many quarter of $1 million conference tables, golf memberships, company cars, and wife's personal transportation are really written off as a cost of doing business, and taxpayers are on the hook for it. what they have done is created a worldwide standard for labor, but not for management. we have the highest-paid executive class in the world, and wages in america has gone down, and they are eating the seed corn because they have destroyed the tax base. the reason the government is broke, the $26 an hour taxpayers are now paying eight dollars an hour, and the corporate tax rates -- after loopholes, they are paying the lowest in the industrialized world. host: james, are these trade agreements the place where we these agreements in your mind? it all has to be addressed, and trade policy, which is antiunion, anti-worker, anti-benefit, and a wage policy, which is part of that -- and on top of that, you have the tax codes that are written to look on paper to look like the big guys are paying all the taxes, pays0% pace nothing -- nothing, and the 90% are picking up the tab for the wide scar -- wife's car. guest: the potential benefits are really limited and part of that is because we have free trade agreements that he got rid of the tariffs with the six countries that are 80% of the 40% that dan talked about how much of the world economy is covered. 80% of the 40%, we skis the trick -- squeezed the trade benefit out. tariffs are kind of low, relatively speaking, compared to 40 years ago. even for japan, the average applied tariff is 2.5%. there is not a lot of their tradeto get to liberalization. that is why the study on the tpp said the benefits were relatively modest for trade gains, growth. it is not even relatively modest after 2030.5% it is like a rounding error. you would be as rich on february , as you30 without tpp would on january 1 with tpp. then you have the downside -- the corporate attacks. this gets back to what stephen was talking about -- if folks want to see a list of how real this is, there is a website corporateattacks .org, because right now in companies using naphtha to demand $15 million from pipeline over the xl cancellation. that canadian company is in u.s. federal court, and that would be the right of a u.s. company if they had a project can some of the government, but at the same time they are going around the side saying we spent $5 billion on this, but you have to pass 15 balian because that is that $15 -- pay's $15se billion because that is what we could have made in the future. host: daniel ikenson, you said if isds becomes a problem, we revisit it later -- how hard is that to do after a trade agreement has been passed. how much tinkering can we do after the fact we find this a problem? would be aink it consensus around the world, or the united states would find partners in wanted to revisit this if -- right now the biggest selling point of the pro-isds crowd is the u.s. has never lost a case. to me that suggests they are you the wrong statistics. once the united states starts to lose cases, there is going to be upheaval. i think, yes, it is difficult to revisit treaties and take parts out of them, but it will be done. there is no question in my mind. guest: but the key provision here legally is you cannot change a comma without the consensus of all the countries. even one little country, the sultan of brunei says we do not think so -- for whatever reason, or big corporate interests say block this, don't let them change this. and unlike domestic legislation, datepp has no expiration per you could have political revolution, a new president, congress, but you are locked into those rules. the final piece is all of this is going to come down to congress deciding right after the election. everyone -- wherever you think up,t this, wherever you end you have to get your kindness to take a position before the election. host: daniel ikenson. guest: we should not make the provision.he isds there are concerns, but it is small relative to the upside. lori quoted studies done by the peterson is a dude and the u.s. international trade commission that shows relatively small gains -- institute and the u.s. international trade commission that shows relatively small gains, but that does not take into account korea, indonesia, the philippines, other countries. this is likely to grow, and maybe become multilateral life and become a trade deal, and the beneficiaries -- we're talking my getting rid of tariffs -- almost every tariff in 10 years. right now, it is one of the most regressive taxes in our system. tariffs of about 2%. we have tariff peaks on clothing, food, shelter -- components of housing. it is a regressive tax. spend acome americans larger percentage of their budget on these items. let's get rid of the tax paid if you are bernie sanders, a progressive, you should be in favor of the tpp. host: let's go to california. allen is waiting. an undecided voter. caller: good morning to you all. the tpp and after our big items for me, and the tpp is the most horrible agreement. the people who wrote this are the corporate lawyers, the corporate lawyers for the big are not payingat any taxes in the u.s., but they call themselves international corporations -- not based in the u.s., but they are u.s. corporations. wto.ruled that through the the debbie toa is the tribunal that oversees naphtha. there is an example i will give you for where we need to get out of naphtha. earlier this year, the tribunals, the debut tl, -- the ,to -- we have been arguing canada, and later mexico joined, but there was a dispute over beef labeling between canada and the u.s.. cows grown in the u.s. would be hauled across the border to canada for feeding or fattening, and then they would be sent back to the u.s. for processing, or vice versa. canada won it to change the they didon that, so not have to label what was done in canada or the u.s.. they won through a tribunal and were sued. just like the xl pipeline thing. the other thing that happened, voted intribunal canada's favor against the u.s. -- i do not remember the numbers -- i do not have time to look it up -- they were going to sue us for billions of dollars in lost income because they had to label this. that was settled. then, all of a sudden, mexico joined in because they want to put the paltry exported -- poultry exported to the u.s. -- they want this covered with no labeling for the country of origin. ow in you could not label anything genetically modified. that is not necessarily apply to , but it can.eat you cannot have that country of origin, and it passed our congress in one day on a vote because we were so afraid of being sued by these two foreign countries. alan in california and a lot of issues she brings up there. in california, and a lot of issues she brings up. guest: good questions, good concerns. the derbynceptions -- teel does not oversee nafta. they are committed to trade liberalization, and it recognizes right -- companies and organizations are going to pass laws and regulations that could have trade-diverting or protectionist effects. when copies want to be in cases to the wto to challenge u.s. laws or the u.s. wants to bring cases to challenge other countries laws, the wto will rule on it, and it says we find the country of origin labeling law to be contrary to the u.s. obligations under this or that provision, and we recommend the united states bring his law into conformity. it is not really dictating anything. in this particular case, the wtot tl found it was -- the more thanlabeling was a circuit it was imposing costs on mexican and canadian ranchers that were unnecessary. it is not seen the medassets cannot adopt country of origin -- not saying the united states cannot adopt country of origin labeling. it has to be less onerous. we benefited from that rule overwhelmingly around the world and we were the biggest complaint and at the wto and we prevail about 90% of the time. host: a tweet in defense of nafta from arizona carpetbagger -- the treatment has benefited arizona greatly. canada helped to pull us out of the housing slump after 2008 is what she writes. alexis is in wilmington, north carolina. a third-party voter. caller: good morning. i see what people say thank you for c-span because i never and it is this tpp, beming very clear, and i am against it. today ismy question for the gentleman -- i just want to what your background is, who you are tied to, because i am very interested in knowing whether you have a dog in the fight, because it doesn't seem to be in line with the general -- it does at least not sound like it. i'm mean, you explain the wto, and -- oh, yeah -- you said something about the upside was -- excuseat, and this me, i am not sure the acronym, id -- something, is very smallish, but it seems to have all the -- well, the only thing i can think of is the antithesis of minutia. it is very substantive. host: i will go through the back roads. -- i will have them go through their background so you can understand. guest: i'm a trade policy catosis -- analyst at the institute, a libertarian think tank, committed to the ideas of free markets, limited government. i had up the trade department at our mission is to inform the public and policymakers about the benefits of free trade and the cost of protectionism. we are pro-market. we are pro--- we are not pro-business. we call them as we see them. we write papers, books, testify before congress and federal agencies. we engage in discussions like this. we are for freedom. free trade is what we are advocating. free trade agreements are not free trade. host: what did you do before you worked at cato question -- cato? i have a masters degree in economics. i worked with disputes. i have been at cato for 16 years. host: lori wallach, do you want to talk -- work for public citizen question -- public citizen. i work for public citizen, which was founded by ralph nader. i am a recovering attorney because i do not litigate any more peter i did go to law school. i spent the last 20-some years working on trade issues. i worked as a public interest lawyer doing appellate work and housing and family law for indigent women. host: both of our guests are kind enough to share their expertise with us, working on some of these panels in the past as we discuss trade policy on "washington journal." we have about 10 minutes left in the segment. karl is in hannover, maryland. a hillary clinton supporter. good morning. caller: good morning to everybody in c-span land. economics,gree in and also in human resources management. i have been- reading a lot about the constitution, and a lot of people do not seem to realize that trade agreements -- the average person has little to do with it. they are done in secrecy. -- or not get a chance most of congress does not get a chance to read the whole thing, and, actually, trade agreements .re treaties treaties become part of the constitution if you become -- if you read the constitution. so, they should not be done in secret. everybody should know what is happening with the trade agreement, and what limitations and changes it makes on the general public, because if -- once we agree to it, we change our constitution. host: lori wallach, do you want to start? guest: well, carl has a good point in that the agree with negative -- agreement was negotiated under secrecy, and 500 u.s. trade advisers were representing corporate address. there is a great "washington post" info graphic that shows where they came from. if you google "washington post" advisory, and tpp, you can see the details. we got a lopsided agreement because of that process. this is not a treaty -- and it is a fishy topic, what is a treaty and what is not, the way it is voted on it is called an international executive agreement with congressional approval. agreement.pecies of it will go to the house of representatives and the senate. because congress delegated a bunch of its constitutional trade authority last year, it is going to go simple majority vote in the house and the senate -- not the normal senate filibuster process. the real fight in season -- on tpp is in the house. whether you love or hate it, if you want to make a difference, ask a member of your house of representatives before the election to tell you to your face if they will be for it or against it. it does not change the constitution, but once adopted, it will become federal law, and becausea big deal, domestically it would preempt state and local law that is inconsistent. also, we have international law obligations to change existing laws to meet the rules in the tpp. guest: i appreciate the desire for the civic lesson and sharing the civic lesson. it is important. lori mentioned the fast-track procedure, trade promotion authority. lasted there was a debate because under the constitution congress has the authority to regulate foreign commerce, and the president has the authority to enter into treaties with the consent of the house in the senate, but since 1984 we have not entered into these congressional agreements where congress lays out the parameters and says we recognize it is difficult to negotiate trade agreements and trade reduction negotiators, so we will delegate that authority to you provided that you hit all of these objectives. last year's trade promotion wererity bill -- there 130, 150 objectives, and that means the president has to come back with an agreement that meets all of those criteria, and if it does, congress agrees to shortn a ornate within a or nay in a-- ye a orna short timeframe. this will be voted on under these procedures, presumably, if not in the linda, next year. there is nothing unusual about it. all trade negotiations have been negotiated like this. the fact is the text has been available to the public since november of last year. go to ustr.gov, and you can see summaries and the text itself. show the viewers the graphic you are referring to from the "washington post" the industry voices on the trade advisory system. the network of official trade advisers when it came to negotiating the tpp. you can see advisers coming from various industries, capital goods, fruits, grains -- you can go through the graphics to see where the advisers came from. jimmy is waiting in your he, pennsylvania. a hillary -- erie, pennsylvania, a hillary clinton supporter. guest: good morning. -- caller: good morning. i would like to address lori wallach -- is she there question mark guest: -- is she there? guest: yes, i am. caller: bill clinton gets the nafta, but ihoring was told someone and the reagan bush administration drew that up. and who is the author of tpp? guest: thank you, judy. it has been a bipartisan agreement -- it has been a bipartisan summit. started nafta, and bush the second started the tpp negotiations, but the obama administration took this up and finished it. they did not change much of the course of the direction. president obama signed it last year. now, if, in fact, the public's will rebels and the thing cannot be passed in the lame-duck, it'll be dumped back on clinton. it is this game of free agreement ping-pong. now, what is interesting is secretary clinton has gone farther and farther out against the tpp in a way that is, actually, kind of surprising, but not totally, though. while she has supported some pass trade agreements, she has always this like the investor state tribunal system. if you look at her book from three years ago, you have a whole book on why corporations should not be given the special rights, and yesterday, or monday on the trail, she talked about how we could not have those kind of rules were that kind of trade agreement. i would suspect -- though certainly i am not in her head -- when she says she is not going to pick up this tpp impasse, she is been straight up about that. i think she would pick up another trade agreement, but the things that the investment -- investor state, patent extensions -- i think that kind of stuff is not going to be agreeable to her. host: running out of time in this segment. cy has been waiting. like to ask how free trade benefits the american worker. if jobs go overseas, and you stated that was a good thing more withw we can do less because technology can displace workers, so it's ok if chinese or vietnamese can work for $.50 or a dollar an hour, how does this benefit the american worker? it's ok that they can be retrained for what jobs? we have 2 million people with that choice degrees who don't have jobs. how would mr. akerson feel if his jobless replace by an algorithm? thank you. guest: their question. this responsible is -- this is responsible for more job loss and creation than anything in this administration. trade is disruptive. trade has one goal, to grow the economic pot and getting wooden barriers between countries and we are able to specialize more. we all specialize on a daily basis. i work at a think tank. i don't know how to hunt or grow my own food, make my own clothing but i consume all my necessities by focusing on what i do best, to be a public policy analyst. my output is monetized and i get to enjoy all of these products. trades job is to grow the pot. it has succeeded. it is not the responsibility of marketo overcome labor that exist because of the u.s. regulatory state or u.s. attack system or infrastructure. it is policymakers that need to make it easier for people to make transitions from one job to the next. if you double your output, that is a good thing. fordon't blame the machine we employing these five people. those people need to be able to reemerge or reintegrate themselves within an economy that doesn't have all of these frictions in place. the responsibility is on policymakers to do a better job of making the overall economy and to make states more competitive. host: jenny beth martin will join us to discuss the tea party, the endorsement for donald trump for president, and how incumbents and challengers are faring in the campaign. and president of the national education association will be on talking about education policy in the presidential campaign. challenging donald trump. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. campaign 2016 bus is traveling throughout virginia this week, asking voters which candidate do you support in this election and why? student here at hampton sydney. and this year, i am voting for gary johnson. i am doing this because of morals. i feel like america has gone to a point where it is polarized in the politics, and gary seems to be in between as libertarian. he is fiscally conservative but democratic.u know, i just feel as if i were to be in his place, you know, we would match. >> i am john earl, kansas city college. and i support donald trump because of the immigration issues. and we need to be stricter on that. >> hi, i am brandon briscoe. and i support hillary clinton as president of the united states. although she has had her fair share of controversy, her career she has putservant, in years of work and i believe she is dedicated to this country. and she would do the best job when it comes to november on election day. >> i am a freshman at hampden sydney. and i support gary johnson because i believe he can bring to the party -- >> my name is connor francis. tot of team trump, we need have a conservative president to appoint conservative justices that will last the test of time. and a support of the second amendment right, and as a supporter of patrick henry, i know what a patriot is. thank you, mr. trump. announcer: voices from the road on c-span. >> at a town hall meeting in new hampshire, donald trump offer support for those affected by hurricane matthew and took questions from supporters. moderated the hour-long event. [laughter] [applause] howie: are you ready? to see the next president of the united states, donald j. trump. we got some good news in the polls today. as you know, the boston globe is choking j..[applause] but donald trump is tied in the granite state of new hampshire. [applause] anyway, he is ahead in the rasmussen poll. ahead in the l.a. times poll. things are looking good. there is a big debate coming up on sunday night. we will have some questions. i have all of them here. but first, donald trump want to say a few words to you. donald trump, welcome to new hampshire. [applause] mr. trump: now, i hear we are winning by one, tied at two another one. so, i just want to thank everybody. these just came out. won, ir, whenever we like to talk about polls. if we are doing badly -- i don't know about polls. [laughter] when we are doing well, i know about polls. chris christie is here. where is chris? [laughter] [applause] he was a tough competitor. is that we used to drive me crazy. i wasalk about polls, number one. if i was number two, we would not be talking. first of all, thank you very new hampshire was very had a big win. we went on to lots of other places, lots of other places.

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Brazil , China , Nairobi , Nairobi Area , Kenya , California , United States , Syria , New Mexico , Zambia , Russia , Mexico , Arizona , India , Nigeria , Brunei , Hampden Sydney , Virginia , Ireland , Senegal , Greece , Jakarta , Jakarta Raya , Indonesia , South Africa , Haiti , Canada , Japan , Tokyo , Philippines , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Germany , Texas , Argentina , Washington , Florida , Boston , Massachusetts , Town Hall , Lebanon , Pakistan , Jordan , United Kingdom , Hampton , Tennessee , Sweden , Pennsylvania , Maryland , Ohio , Hannover , Venezuela , Americans , America , Swedish , Canadian , Chinese , Mexican , Russian , Vietnamese , Greek , British , German , Syrian , Japanese , American , Zambian , Connor Francis , Pena Nieto , Ralph Nader , Ron Paul , Larry Elliott , Patrick Henry , Jim Yong Kim , Gary Johnson , Brandon Briscoe , Tim Cook , Jenny Beth Martin , Chris Christie , John Earl , Reagan Bush , Howie Carr , Simon Lester , Lori Wallach , Hillary Clinton , Bernie Sanders ,