Of Foreign Trade policy i have been engaged working for a Senior Member during the night do not remember any time in trade policy when the foundations if it is so challenged such a clean the slate to make a number of controversial proposals as well as renegotiating trade agreements and acting new tax policies and with the tpp would that monumental achievement with that Bilateral Agreements to have the destabilization in europe. But today ravenous start with formal Opening Statements to pose a few questions to respond to that he chooses from his own perspective. As they take shape water the directions so with those retaining participants would be more useful by the major trade and investment challenge . Do we cns strategic leadership would is the implication of the border tax and death of one outcome is the implosion of it could withstand the disruption should Congress Take go look to be invaded more robust to market incentives down the road. What is the impact with the weakening of the u. S. . That is the broad question to comment briefly as is appropriate in the discussion. Every panel is distinguished this panel is particularly distinguished at the institute of economics and each persons battery is in front of you. But we have known each other for that long from the Carter Administration is a resident scholar and also very well known around town and the managing partner to say i knew his father next is my friend the director of the European Center for International Political economy in brussels. And the ppi that is wellestablished hear the the chief intellectual to modernize politics. So i will begin with the leadoff question would europeans your opinions quick. Everybody negative is listening the first point is that this is a period of opportunities lost. With no trade and services agreement. They are opportunities lost with the benefits that could have been had but losing something you might have had and trump has cedar miss power as the enormous power and he has to go back to congress with that unilateral power. However clear with the judiciary idol see any Court Challenges that are sustained there are checks and balances in the system the first is congress with respect to negotiating this and the second check is the Financial Market he will use these powers in the most draconian ways and to be a financial repercussions and the Financial Advisers would tell him that. And his desk would be overflowing with individually they are fairly small i dont see that as a macro problem but the fifth point is there is a is a conflict between trumps desire and decrease the trade deficit. With tax reform and infrastructure in defense spending. All of those pushup the deficit meanwhile the notion you can reduce the notion with the Bilateral Agreement but he can say it was because of trade negotiation items see any big implosion will lot of sound and light. Key made my task easy i agree with everything he said. [laughter] there is a much American Enterprise institute agreed with american obama a data speak with the institute but in my case he started pretty poorly running with the most protectionist rhetoric in modern times but he turned around within two years but that was because of the diplomatic and security situation as has happened with most of the credit president s whenever that Democratic Party was going in relation to trade they have read advised clinton and carter read a predisposition. So obama turned around but i dont think we will see that with this administration. For the first time republican president coming in with a group of economic pfizers peddling economic nonsense in my view. I have no hope so basically my view is that the direction i will not go over them individually and sectors of the tepee p. But it seems it is unfortunate with uh diplomatic and security future. Finally what will be fascinating to watch his what are the politics of trade . In the summer of 2015 the House Republicans voted we lost 50. Where does that stand now plaques in the number of geographic areas has delayed from a traditional support for more liberal trade agreements it is hard to know how that will play out but looking at the Republican Leadership in the house i dont think it has changed so the political dynamic is how that will play out or that radical change from mr. Trump or his advisers. I will stay stop there for as a slightly different angle you have to cut below the statements the underlying concerns. The river essays significant part of the American Public who have perceived trade policy over the last 50 years and has not focused enough on the implications. One camlet kathy trump agenda to get back from the extreme rhetoric to say they are looking for a time out search of a day are against multilateral deals so that flows from their perception they do from others in developing there is any thing wrong with the objective as it was done back in the 90s and obviously the administration used tpp to use nafta recently in canada. There are things there. I agree that trade is to segments and congress has their own views and the republican tax proposal which is poorly aimed at tax rates as with then its opportunities to eliminate what is controversial to come from the president. Many perceive to that there has been the focus of the jobs lost from the Worlds Largest trade deficit of 750 billion. We can search the Commerce Department records federal giving a figure to tout how they are created from 1 million of imports. And the atlanta scored two touchdowns figure you out if you figure out if they win or lose. But there are positive opportunities that the administration presumably has and to agree with the rhetoric. I have basked to provide a couple of comments on europes reaction. Push the button. The Trump Presidency is highly disruptive for european policy. There is a reason for that. I would even argue to say most it has not sunk in and i am pretty sure they think it is a bad dream able wake up and Michelle Obama is president. [laughter] but we have to start what is the nature of the partnership in europe . And if you think with of partnership of territory or conflict of economic values . Primarily it has been about values. We are friendly competitors but in terms of territory you could argue that they no longer see russia as a problem. This is the reason the number one reaction is primarily about the concern that it scares the living daylights out of Eastern Europe as a security guarantee that they cannot provide themselves. This is yet to see ken from china or japan but actually want the opposite that the United States must remain in europe rica not afford our programs because we have to spend money on defense. Also in terms of trade we have to bear in mind not only the u. S. Mission ship was completed at the end you could even argue there is no european trade it still looks for a narrative and also very much to find defined by tepee p. M. Although we dont know the exact window if what will take its place it is very clear that all negotiations with the Asian Pacific countries will come to a halt simply because every betty is waiting for the United States or the Trump Administration to react. How this has had an impact on the european, reaction on trumps presidency not only trade policy but also migration issues. We have braced for the worst and in a sense you could even say that we are starting to react to the United States trade policy a little bit like north korea. Its perfectly rational to be irrational and we as a power cannot deal with that kind of transactional policy because we will be asked to do things that we are not prepared to do and we dont have the power to do. And this basically i think leads to the last concern which we have seen now in the press is that the Trump Administration is now offering free trade negotiation with individual eu Member States. Thats legally technically and also politically impossible. Its based on the assumption that europe its better to divide and conquer and for the eu not exist but its also based on speculation. To think that the European Commission in brussels is europe , it is not. What is happening latest crisis is all that power has come back to the Member States and that means basically that europe is still actually united between the Member States. Divide and conquer with china and russia. Brexit is an anomaly. I could talk more about that but i think my time is up. Extremely provocative. Thank you very much. He happened to be in new york and contacted me and i said get down here and he did. We are very glad to have that perspective. Before we go to will cannot have someone close the doors, those doors there. Okay, going out too well will. Thanks bob and marshall is good to be here at the Georgetown Center again. I want to step back. We have so many titans of trade policy here across the transatlantic world at this table. Im not an economist even though ppi have advocated trade policys for a long time. I want to put Donald Trumps approach to trade into context. In his inaugural speech i learned something which is his worldview can be described as a coherent world and i dont agree with that at a Large National economic 70 years of internationalism predicated on trade liberalization, International Economic cooperation as a pillar of American Security and economic interests in the world. As part of our leadership strategy. Thats now being directly challenged by President Trump and mr. Bannon in favor of this America First idea which by the way used to be until trump resurrected it was a discredited idea in American History because it was connected with Charles Lindbergh on the eve of world war ii and it had a bad aura around it. Now mr. Trump, what is being proposed not just a radical change in trade policy. Its a radical change to our leadership world over seven decades since Franklin Roosevelt so this is huge. Now im not opposed to radical change necessarily if its based on sound empirical diagnosis of what is wrong with our economy. This is based on a misdiagnosis of the impact of trade and what is essential economic challenge facing our country but its also based on a canard that mr. Trump uses all the time that there has been a bipartisan conspiracy basically to negotiate bad trade agreements. We have had nothing but incompetent trade negotiators on both both sides republican and democrat who are dedicated to selling out america. This sounds like a great Conspiracy Theory that this is what i hear our president now saying. The third reason that this radical change doesnt make a lot of sense to me is that it is grounded in widespread popular support. So i think the first is that all of us who care about these issues have to defend objective reality against the assault that its under. Trade has not destroyed millions of manufacturing jobs. This comes straight out of the realm of alternative fact and we have to say that over and over again. Read delong has a great analysis out the shows since 1950 only 5 or less of manufacturing job loss in the United States reflect the big trade agreements mr. Trump talks about or chinas entry into the wto. Nonetheless theres acute stress on the country as jerry pointed out thats driving this change since again the distress israel but it is not really because of trade. It has more to do with technological change and the broad structural transformation of the economy and its much easier though instead of talking about these forces its easier to scapegoat for an trade and immigrants coming into the country. I do think its important to go to the heart of the problem which is in many ways to think about quality and how many ways to capture that i will talk about this great divergence that is basically demarcated by education attainment rate americans with College Degrees now account for 50 of household income. Thats up from 37 in 1991. Those were just a High School Degree or less that count for only 5 National Income down from 12 so it has been a calamity for people who work with their hands. This transformation away from the manufacturing and industrial economy to a postproduction analogy economy is a seismically traumatic for a lot of americans is to shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy over a century ago. That shift triggered the first populist revolt in American History. This shift is triggering a second part of the revolt not only United States but all across europe. In both cases elites and people in government have done a lousy job of helping people hit the hardest by this transition to find a new role in a changing economy and that is the root of the problem but now we are offering folks hope. Somehow we will bring back the economy when the real discourse ought to be how to create a new social compact for the economy. Want to talk a little more later about the changing Political Landscape and about how we need to change the way we talk about it. I dont think the classic free trade arguments are going to happen for a couple of years the United States and we need to stand our ground on trade and globalization but we do need to change your language. That is very profound. I hesitate to turn the conversation to quote details like the future of nafta or our relationships with china. This is so global and a sentence overwhelming that we could stick with the overall big picture but maybe i should ask if anyone wants to respond to what anybody else has said in that regard. Okay im going to change the pattern and asked the audience if they have got any questions about any aspect of this and we can go into more detail. Yes maam please identify yourself. Colleen graduated from msp. Thank you very much. I guess my question is more about our elected officials particularly those in congress. 100 years ago the republicans have the north and the democrats had the south and the republicans were more antitrade and the democrats were more pro trade. You referenced losing 50 republicans. I am sort of curious about the democrats. We only have 28 to thats a voted for it although the Democratic Party across the country is increasingly pro trade. Millennials are pro trade, immigrants, latinos so im just wondering if you think there is a shift in that if the democrats on the hill will reflect the increasing the democrats across the country that are increasingly pro trade or if you see some sort of shift like that . Its a great question and one point i want to make at the outset is donald trump talked a lot about the people and what they are demanding in his inaugural address which is kind of scary. He only talked about some people who are now have turned hard against trade or have not benefited from the economic lit up will economy for the last 20 plus years that when you look at whats happening across the country picture is not so bad at what has changed is the republican view. There are really shocking numbers during his last campaign basic liaquat the divide is between the elites and the rankandfile and the elites in the dimmer radack party are against trade influenced by trade and other Interest Groups the rankandfile democrats are solid majority who continue to say that on balance they think trade is a good thing for the country even though they do worry about job effects and hillarys voters were more pro trade and anybody else in the campaign. The republican side were now you have the elites of the establishment have been strongly pro trade but they have turned against that. I want to say im not sure we can look republican voting anytime soon to put in effect to check on mr. Trumps ideas on trade because those members of the Republican Caucus and the house and senate are looking over their shoulders at strongly trump core voters. Theres an opportunity for democrats to make headway because mr. Trump is so strongly antitrade and some of my friends are rediscovering arguments in favor of trade and global integration they used to be on the other side of the dais. I dont want to exaggerate that as long as the Interest Groups that are so dominant in washington, its going to be hard to scare up votes for trade agreement not that its going to be a big issue. I agree with will and talking about democratic voters but the last point you made is key. You may know more in terms of the dimmer critics circles than i do certainly that i cant see any movement of the House Democrats and this is what we are really talking about. I think thats key in terms of trade, away from against new Free Trade Agreements. Its still tied very much to labor and environmental groups and i dont see much change in that. On th