Some new type of trade restrictions that are there. You need to think about services, data, and how you can sort of use the trade agreements itself to throw some friction into global trade policy in the sense that you really want an agreement here, which can at least for the future divert trade in the sense that you push countries like china, india, brazil and other large economies in the world to become far more favorable to more of a western type of model of these issues. So if you find that sort of combination, it is going to be a fairly good agreement but i dont think were going to have higher hopes for going beyond that. I alluded a little to the geopolitics which sean spoke of. Phil, what do you make of the geopolitical arguments for the agreement . How important is it relative to the economics which frederick just articulated about . Is it about security or is it about writing the rules of trade before china and india and brazil do and is that important . I think it is both, both the economics and the geopolitics. I think it im going to take the bait a little bit on the 29th. Because i think that links in with the geopolitics. I think one of the things that weve seen we saw this in tpp, that if you want to have sort of success in tackling the difficult drad agreement you can either make progress on very thorny issues or expands. Tpp was supposed to conclude in november of 2011 when the u. S. Was hosting aipac. It didnt. Bring in mexico, bring in canada, bring in japan. One of the major elections is what will the britsish decide their role in europe is to be. One way of strengthening is expand, get involved in something bigger. Not perhaps as far as bringing the United States in as a member but it looks that way. It is an expansion project, a tightening of ties. Brings its own complex inters. Now we have a few new difficult negotiating issues and thats what we have in ttip as well. Geopolitically it is important to have a strong europe. For a whole range of issues and challenges you want to have a strengthening and the thought is this is the kind of thing that can bolster. As frederick said, having some growth, having more jobs would cure many of europes ills. It would make everyone feel better about not just whatever agreement you reach but then the union itself so it can then serve as a sort of bolster in that way. But i think that was a lot of what was behind it because it was no shortage of venues for the u. S. And europe to address economic matters. Thats part of what the challenge of ttip is. Theyve been addressing these things haul along. You had eight rounds of negotiations. Transatlantic Economic Cooperation council where they were doing bilaterals. So if you wanted to tack it will chlorinated chicken, there were opportunities. Doing it in this way with a big agreement i think is largely to sort of reinforce not only is sort of europe intact but then this bond between the u. S. And europe which obviously shaken through a number of events over the last decade or two that they sort of advertised that thats stronger. Which is great so long as it works. I think were missing the point a little bit here in that there is not that much room to grow through a traditional trade agreement. Through all the rounds of gat, the fact that the u. S. And eu have pretty low barriers, whether it is tariffs or regulatory barriers. If the purpose of the ttip is grow out of youausterity and gr out of the Great Recession because were going to get rid of chlorinated chicken or hormone beef, thats just not borne out in the data. Data shows in the very best Case Scenario the growth that youre going to achieve is a little more than a rounding error. That doesnt appear to us to be enough of an advantage of the ttip to really live with a lot of these other things that working people are pretty concerned about. With the ttip agreement it is not really, oh, were going to move to london because that is a greatoff shoring ptform to get back to the United States but it is a lot hf questions about who is going to have the final say over regulations, how were going to structure our economy. I think working people are very concerned that theres going to be even more Corporate Power in the new form of globalism because it was really not advantage advantageous ouou oo working people. Doesnt it depend on what the rules are and where we liberalize what the terms are . Ive spoken ive questioned Global Governance agreements. Is there a good agreement . Can great savings for business be spawned and passed on in the form of new investment to create jobs and lower prices and things like that . Absolutely. There are too many questions there. One is the transparency with which it is negotiated. If working people and other members of Civil Society are locked out of the room, but everyone knows the big corporate lobbyists are maybe not in the room but have the best access to the negotiators and the most influence over the rules that are written, those rules are not going to be written in a way that favors workers. Secondly, businesses achieving more efficiencies is terrific in a vacuum but it cannot be argued based on current economic models, that thats automatically going to be shared with workers. What we see and not just in the United States but in the uk, in germany, in mexico, in south korea is that workers are getting a smaller and smaller share of national income. Particularly as productivity goes up, workers that hes in not rising. If workers can prosper as the companies prosper, you will see continuing skepticism and doubt is a the ttip as you saw in germany on saturday. Followup. You envisioned work erers locke out of the room. I know from time to time the Obama Administration speaks with organized labor. Do you feel that theres not useful communication that the current model doesnt work to give workers a say . Its not really about communication so much as about influence and balance of power. Certainly there are labors of amongst the 600 or so advicers. About 30 of them represent labor. Just numerically you dont have a fair representation in regards tots number of workers in america versus the number of businesses in america. But more important than the numerical representation is the impact, the influence and the effect. Certainly the Obama Administration has a very opendoor policy. We present issues. We have meetings. They take our phone calls. But in terms of our proposals translating into whats put down on the negotiating table and at least trying for the things were asking for, we dont see it. Let me just sort of contest that idea a little bit. Globalization trade deals deliver benefits for the economy when they expose economies to more competition. Thats the main driver of gains from global trade and trade agreements. Problem weve had for the past 25 years is that we havent seen any sort of trade agreement thats been able to push that competition much which is buy in the 1990 in america and europe when productivity growth was actually accelerated going, more investment went into the economy where you had sort of a big boost in trade volumes. At that point you saw takehome pay for workerers. Doesnt matter where they worked and how they worked. Salaries were going up. Ever since then weve been on a declining trend for productivity as a consequence pay hasnt increased that much. But the functional Income Distribution between labor and capital has been flat for 30, 40 years. It is not that labor itself is taking a hit and that capital is sort of feasting on the caucuses of what we are seeing is growing income inequality because skills are rewarded more than other types of skills in the modern economy which means that bluecollar workers have not seen pay go up so as much as in the past. But in order to shift into a different type of economy that can expose economies of different type of globalization, that expose more economies to more competition and to transmit new technology and innovation at a faster pace, then we need to begin to return to trade agreements again and to design trade agreements that have the capacity to achieve that. Celeste, do you want to offer sure. The data were looking at does say labor income is down in comparison to the past so we perhaps are looking at different data. You talked about the standard economic models for trade agreements. Not accounting for everything. Part of what theyre not accounting for is the movement of capital. So it is not just that u. S. Producers are being outcompeted by an import sector. It is that whole factories are shutting down and moving and companies are deciding were going to produce overseas where it is cheaper and export back to the United States. Thats quite different than the traditional model that were both making wine and whoevers better at it should be the one that exports it. Not only that, but weve already seen a concentration of capital since this era of trade agreements. More mergers, more acquisitions, less competition. So if were talking about becoming more efficient and having more competition, weve got to look at the effect of trade agreements on that concentration and what that does not only to consumers but to workers who are trying to sell their labor in the marketplace. Susan wants to the chime in. Then id like to ask marjorie about business perspective. It seems like were talking about three Different Things that are clearly related. One issue is whats happened to the share of labor in terms of globalization and are trade agreements the proper place to address that problem given labors declining influence. So thats one. I dont know where we all stand on that. It would be interesting to see. The second thing is does labor have influence. I would actually argue, labor has tons of its seen its certainly heard, if you look at the labor rights provisions since theyve evolved over time, certainly congress has to some extent tried to meet them as have various administrations. The question is why is that not working to help labor. Then the third issue is process, right . How do we negotiate a trade agreement. Whos in the room. Is the process considered transparent and accountable, which seems to me an issue we should talk about at another time. But clearly is i think a very important issue because it is an issue about trusting governance. And if governance agreements, as i call them, are becoming ever more influential and ever larger with more countries and more sectors, how we do it is important as what we include in there. Ill shut up now. Marjorie, id like to you how focus is the chamber and business on the ttip and what types of it problems can it resolve for u. S. Business here as exporters and u. S. Multinationals in europe . Thanks, dan, very much. Thanks to cato for organizing this. I did rib down a little bit about the fact that were having this very interesting conference on a federal holiday but clearly enough people are interested in the topicic that the room is nearly full. Kudos to you for bucking the trend and going ahead and having us all here first thing in the morning. Let me start by asking how many people in the room start from the premise that ttip is or can be a good thing . Show of hands. Cool. How many of you start from the premise that under no possible circumstances could it be a good thing . All right. Golly, where to begin. Chamber has been a long time first off, lets back up and realize that the chamber, yes, it represents a lot of big businesses but we also, 95 of our members actually are small and medium sized enterprises. So the notion for starters that the chamber is only about representing big business is a bit disconnected from the reality of our membership. Business is painted as i dont want to say the devil , bt business is painted negatively in the application of ttip. Why are we negotiating trade agreements . Were talking about trying to liberalize the free flow to have trade in goods and services and investment flows and agriculture, wherever we can. By definition, business has a stake and a fundamental role in why these negotiations are happening. Workers have a fundamental role in them as well because they are employed by business. So this notion somehow that there is a dichotomy between what business wants and what is in the interest of workers and consumers, it strikes me as it is an unfortunate dichotomy. I think, frankly, what you see happening in europe right now in terms of the massive demonstrations, it wasnt just in berlin this weekend but in amsterdam as well. I was in the hague last week and dutch officials are growing increasingly concerned about the trends in their country as well. I think that the debate that you see ill come back to your question in just a second. The debate that you see going on in europe is much larger than what may or may not be included in this particular negotiation. It is a much more fundamental conversation about the role of business in society. And frankly, it is a much more intensive dialogue thats happening in europe right now. I think that in some respects at some point well get around to having that conversation. I think now that tpps negotiations have concluded, we will pea start to see more of that conversation. The chamber has been an advocate for these negotiations even before the negotiations were negotiations. We began in i think 2010, 2011 with our friends at some of t the some of the think tanks in europe to look at the potential benefits deriving from a comprehensive agreement, initially just looking at benefits of tariff reduction. From there the conversation grew to one about what could be the benefits extending beyond tariff reductions. The notion being, quite frankly, that in the absence of or the relative posity of monitoring fiscal options to promote jobs and growth, that trade liberalization should in fact be part of the solution. So we have been advocating for this for a long time because we do see the opportunity for greater growth in trade and in investment flows. Practical reality is, as many of you know, because were talking about in many instances mult multinational corporations, much of the trade that goes on between the u. S. And europe is intracompany trade. Something like 40 of the trade that goes on across the atlantic is intracompany trade which means the companies are paying duties twice for goods flowing back and forth. Im sorry, but that just creates unnecessary costs in the economy. I do think when it comes to regulatory cooperation, people talk about coherence. Im talking about cooperation and coherence. Our members do see something opportunities there. You have to stop and ask yourself why if european and american air satisfy the agencies can deem airworthy an airbus in europe and allow that to be flown here in the u. S. , and have a boeing aircraft deemed airworthy by the f p. A. A and therefore flown without being retested in europe, why is it, if we can do that, we have to have why is it that i dont know if it is mattel i think it is mattel forgive me if im wrong why do they have to make two different versions of a baby rattle . Because the standard in europe and the u. S. Is different on the level of decibels that the rattle can make next to the babys ear. Can i interrupt . This issue is a big issue. It is identified as the source of the greatest gains and the european left likes to talk about it as a race to the bottom to u. S. Standards. And the u. S. Right likes to talk about Global Governance and exceeding to these ridiculously economic squashing standards. Clearly there is a middle ground. You identified rattles. It just seems to me all along that business should do a better job of getting out in front and coming up with example after example after example of products where two sets of standards or regulatory schemes need to be complied with that achieve the exand the same safety or environmental or labor protection goal, whatever it is. Are you guys compiling a list . Well, in fact we are. Its interesting that you ask that question. Look, there is no doubt about it, especially in europe, business hasnt done enough to articulate the benefits of these negotiations. In the u. S. , i would say were doing a better job but were doing it in an environment where nobodys really listening yet. Lets face it. The level the Attention Span of the American Public is fairly limited. And to the extent people are thinking about trade right now, if theyre thinking about it at all, theyre thinking about tpp. And i think that the conversations that were going to be having about trade over the next number of months, as it relates as we saw over the summer with tpa, being in effect a referendum on tpp and that we will now have Going Forward with tpp is a different set of circumstances because the relationship between the u. S. And the Asian Countries with whom tpp has been negotiated is fundamentally different than the relationship between the u. S. And europe. Should the Business Community be doing a better job here . You bet. Do we need to get more information out there . You bet. Im not spending enough of my day and in fact this is my day job trying to make the case for why improvements in regulatory cooperation, whether it is sectoral or whether it is in terms of a broad grframework for dialogue is important. I need to do a better job explaining why you do need an effective state investor dispute settlement mechanism where there is an i in the middle of these situations and where investments plays such a significant role in the bilateral relationship. Yes, there is more business should be doing, but i also think it is more difficult in some respects to make the argument, if you will, sort of straightforward business argument for why this agreement is needed when tyoure faced wih what i would describe as more fundamentally emotional arguments. It is easier to raise peoples concerns about things like im sorry, i have to come back to it chlorinated chicken or race to the bottom on regulation or lack of transparency. A number of very fundamental concerns that derive i think from something that extends far beyond really what is the ttip negotiation, has much more to do with the basic role of business in society. Thanks, marjorie. You touched upon one of the hotbutton issues, shawn mentioned ifds. Thats an issue that we at cato and the chamber dont really see eye to eye on. Axel has written quite a bit on it. Would you share with everybody why it is problematic, share your thoughts. I think a lot of people here have thoughts about that so this could be a good debate. Sure. Yeah. Thanks very much for the invitation. Its a great conference. Now investor state dispute settlement. Thats the topic if i look at it from a german perspective,