Financial services is integral to our everyday lives and integral to the modern economy. At least in the western world and developing world. Every modern economy relies on Financial Services. Its also in many respects a good kind of like the digital section that we dont often think about how it crosses borders. We just assume when we go to atms, we will take money out of the bank and assume we have that same service when were on vacation in other countries as well. There is a infrastructure in place that supports a very complicated global web of services, but its not one that we engage with in everyday discussions, but its a very important one. The Financial Services is incredibly important industry and not only because of everyday lives, but simply because of the size of goods and services that cross across natural borders. Its also one that i think in recent years, especial yet last decade, has become much more important to the Global Political discussion. How do you regulate this industry, whats the best way to do so, how do we make sure its gains are shared in by everyone and how dwo we make sure it contributes positivity towards the economies it resides . I think we have an excellent panel to discuss these topics. So monitoring this panel will be knack lass. He cofounded the brugles think tank and 2002 in brussels. His research is primarily about Financial Systems and Financial Services policies and he frequently briefs senior economic officials in europe, the United States and asia and has testified at parliamentary hearings in member states. Hes been a financial and here in the senate. Hes been a financial policy expert for the European Commission, european parliament, International Monetary fund and the world bank. So a lot of organizations trust his judgement. Next, we have robert, who i will start off by saying you cannot trust my judgement on because hes also my current professor. Bob kyle is a highly respected lawyer assisting clients with Public Policy in washingtonbased problems he previously served in senior positions in both the white house and congress. Hes skilled in challenges that involve the International Dimensions and substantive complexity of the Global Economy. He brings 15 years of private sector experience in helping clients solve difficult problems and widely seen as one of the most savvy and effective attorneys helping people in washington. Prior to joining he served in the Clinton White house, first as a special assistant to the president for International Trade and finance, the National Security council and the Economic Council and one as the project assistant developments of the office and management budget he oversaw a 300 billion budget overseeing most functions of the government. Hes focused his time on a variety of areas. Next we have frank, who is cochair of patten boggs International Trade progress. Trade policy, trade legislation and International Trade negotiations. He is chair of the India Practice Group and leader colombia desk Latin America Task force. He other executive branch trade agencies, the u. S. InterNational Trade commission, u. S. Custom services in the u. S. Congress. Hes represented foreign multinationals from all over. Again, someone who really does know the needs of both governments and corporations in respect to the Global Economy and trade. Next we have douglas midland, who works in the Financial Division within opecs structured finance and Insurance Department where she underwrites loans across a range of sectors and geographies. He spent tyke working with opecs for all deals in the structured finance and finance departments. He previously worked at Morgan Stanley new york, as a fellow member of the next Generation Council sr21. A Nonprofit Research group. And holds a masters in art and International Relations from john hopkins. Finally, walter is a senior Legal Counsel at the Legal Department of the inf. A Belgian National and holds degrees in both law and business administration. Prior to working for the imf, he worked for belgian and European Central banks. So with that, i will leave it to the people with much more impressive resumes than me and we can start the conversation. Thank you so much. That was, indeed, an impressive setting of the scene for this panel. Were going to talk about trade, but also about investment, about Financial Regulation. Thats the distinctive attribute of this panel. Going beyond the core trade stuff of exchanging goods. There is a lot of jargon in that area. There are lots of acronyms, lots of specialized knowledge. Inevitably so. So i encourage our panelists to go into the weeds but to explain. If you use an acronym, explain it and those kinds of things, but i think we shouldnt shy away from going into at least some of the technical stuff because otherwise its difficult to be relevant. So without further noise from me, lets go first to our panelists. Ill ask each of them to make relatively brief introductory statements and then ill take it from there. Bob . Thank you, nicholas. I wanted to begin by asking one very important question and my comments with center around that, and that is, where is the Global Economy heading . What path are we on . So are we on a path where there will be greater nationalistic trade policies, a decline in embrace of international institutions, a path that is more characterized by the policies of President Trump, Marine Le Pen and brexit, or are we on a path where for several years here we may be through that period, but we will then return to the postworld war ii path that evidenced greater globalism, gradual embrace of global institutions. Which paths are we on. Thats what id like to talk about. First, let me thank Michael Oberman and georgetown for putting this together. Michaels done a great job. Hes helps by another student in my coalesce. And a special shout out to lesl leslie lets go back to this question, which path are we on . All of us like to think we live in a bit of a special era and were at a big Inflection Point. Its not just a speed bump, its a true Inflection Point. Let me begin by giving the contrarian view and the position that maybe this isnt a particular Inflection Point going back to the 1800s and looked at 60 developed countries and examples of what happened politically in those countries after you had a financial crisis. And they found a very clear pattern. Four things happened. First of all, it takes about a years for a country to get out of the economic effects of a financial crisis. Those are the eight years weve just been about through with the election of President Trump. Two, you saw an increase in most countries of farright politics. Think populism as well. Three, you saw a distinct challenging of the traditional political parties. So think Bernie Sanders challenging the democratic Traditional Party and donald trump challenging the traditional republican party. And four, you saw an increase in confrontational politics. Have we seen weve seen that as well. Now, after that eightyear period is over, gradually those effects dissipate and things go back to a little bit more the way they were before the period. And so if you believe that pattern, then this is a speed bump. Weve changed things but we eventually return to that. Thats one point of view. The second way to look at it, though, is this isnt a speed bump, it is more an Inflection Point. And there are certainly unresolved tensions in the Global Economy that we need to think about. One is, what do we do about middle income workers in developed countries and their capacity to compete and have good livings, given lowwage workers in emerging markets and also the rise of automation . Thats an unresolved issue. Thats not going to resolve itself within the eightyear period. Second, what about immigration and the pressures that that causes in countries. Good and bad, but the problems that countries have absorbing greater immigrant populations. Again, not likely to be resolved in eight years. And, three, i would just throw out global architecture. Were changing into a world in which the Power Centers tend to be the United States and china. Yet we have a g20 that is still built a little bit, you get a sense its a derivative of the g7 and a world war ii structure. We have other structures that probably need to be aligned to the tend has a tendency to work out those problems and Inflection Points and difference of approaches. Which one of those are we in . Im not sure we know the exact answer to that, but it has enormous implications for the Financial Services area. Because Financial Services traditionally has not been something that is sort of most affected by trade negotiations, and, in fact, thats been handled by treasury departments and financial departments, its a bureaucratic thing, but more importantly, probably whats made the greater difference in investment, which is what im going to focus on, is more what i would call competitive reform, that emerging markets needed to reform and liberalize investment in order to get Foreign Investment and create jobs for their people. That probably had a much greater impact over the last decades than trade negotiations. If this construct of globalization and openness changes, what does it mean for that dynamic thats occurred and the democracies that have grown up in a number of those countries, including in latin america and elsewhere . So thats a big deal in this area. The second thing id point out is just what happens to the question of using and the intersection between National Security and Foreign Investment, you know . In this country we have cfius, the committee on Foreign Investment in the United States its the process our country uses to affect Foreign Investments into the country that could affect National Security negatively and block investments if that needs to be done. So forth. Many of you are probably familiar with it. The Trump Administration has been very difficult in terms of approving investments by Chinese Companies that might touch in these areas, and that is likely probably to continue for some period of time. Other countries are beginning to use this mechanism not only to block Foreign Investment, but maybe as a trade tool to block investments and block other countries from gaining power. To what extent do those mechanisms start to become a tool of trade and investment policy and not as much National Security policies or the two get blurred. Thats an issue thats out there and needs to be addressed. With that, just throwing those out. Maybe we can talk about that more in the q a, but i wanted to throw out those large ideas to kick this off. Terrific. Thank you, bob. Thank you for having me here. Bob really piqued my curiosity about the history of trade negotiations. Im readying a very interesting book now called clash over customers, which i think is the First Comprehensive history of u. S. Trade policy, going back to the founding of the country. And it strikes a couple of themes that bob touched on, maybe inadvertently, but the notion that trade policy and Monetary Policy are related is reflected in what has happened historically when the u. S. Economy has been threatened by International Developments that really have more to do with Exchange Rate fluctuations, they have to do with monetary and fiscal policy, the reaction many times by congress and then by the president or the administration is protectionist trade legislation, which really doesnt fix the underlying problem. So that sets the stage for where we are now, and addressing bobs question somebody is this a multilateral world or a unilateral world . I think we all share some concerns about where the u. S. Is heading now on trade policy. You may not know that every president is required to file essentially annual report on trade. Its a National Trade agenda. The latest one is due in less than three weeks on march 1st, but President Trump filed his report last year. He talked about a couple of things that probably shouldnt surprise you, but what struck me most was a discussion where he talked about National Sovereignty also takes precedence over trade policy. And to me that means that this is an administration that is going to look to implement policies on a unilateral basis and not on a multilateral basis. If you look at what happened last year, its very clear that the president likes to sign executive orders. There are lots of Photo Opportunities of him signing those executive orders, initiating studies, bringing complaints. That dont require an adjudication determination by an independent body, like the International Trade commission, but can we done by the president , those are the 232 investigations. To me it sets a troubling precedent because i worry that if the u. S. Were to lose a wto case, they have and they will, i can see this administration saying, we werent elected by International Bureaucrats in geneva, we were elected by the people of the United States and protecting their jobs. So if you say we violated the wto, do whatever you want, im not changing a thing. That can be the beginning of a very dangerous process in trade policy. So, let me briefly go over in the short time i have some of the developments on trade negotiations. Bob talked about nafta and some of the other agreements. First of all, you know the regulations from dodd frank from 2010 sort of set the framework and they talked about the need for some sort of regulatory harmonization. Bob is right. Financial services and Financial Regulations really arent the primary topic of trade negotiations, whether its nafta or tpp, theyre done separately through treasury and other agencies. But i will point out some things. Nafta, well, you know we are renegotiating that. The u. S. Has a big competitive advantage in Financial Services. 4. 3 billion surplus in Financial Services with canada, 1. 1 billion surplus with mexico. With respect to the tpp that youve heard about, we now have the tpp 11. President trump withdrew from that Transpacific Partnership agreement. When he withdrew, there had been a number of reservations that have been taken off the table because they were at the insistence of the United States. Very quickly on Financial Services, the text isnt public, theyre about to sign this agreement very soon, but there are commitments with respect to Financial Services regarding regulated Financial Institutions and investor and investment crossboard trade in services will also be addressed in the tpp. Finally, there is something called the ttip, which i think is still alive. The u. S. European trade agreement. Very quickly, one of the big issues for ttip and it may come back, regulatory coherence. Why dont we make standards and regulations the same between countries . In this case, between the eu and the United States. The big banks on wall street put together a big pool of money to launch a campaign that said this is a great idea. Were all in favor of regulatory coherence on Financial Services. What they really meant was here is our opportunity to water down dodd frank. We are going to have regulatory coherence with the europeans and there