WEBVTT - Columbia's Finel-Honigman on the DNC, Election Outlook (Audio)

0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:03.760
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Taking Stock with Kathleen Hays and Pim

0:00:03.840 --> 0:00:09.480
<v Speaker 1>Box on Bloomberg Radio. No TPP has been a popular

0:00:09.560 --> 0:00:13.039
<v Speaker 1>slogan in chants and printed signs at the Democratic National

0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:17.480
<v Speaker 1>Convention because of broad opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership

0:00:17.480 --> 0:00:21.000
<v Speaker 1>trade deal. It is heavily favored by President Barack Obama,

0:00:21.239 --> 0:00:24.720
<v Speaker 1>but it is also heavily opposed by primary loser, Senator

0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:29.120
<v Speaker 1>Bernie Sanders. Here to tell us more, Irene Vanelle Hanigman,

0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:34.120
<v Speaker 1>adjunct Professor of International Affairs at Columbia University, and she

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:37.120
<v Speaker 1>joins us now, Irene, thank you very much for being

0:00:37.240 --> 0:00:40.879
<v Speaker 1>with us. UM. How is the Democratic Party going to

0:00:40.960 --> 0:00:45.879
<v Speaker 1>reconcile the opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership inasmuch as

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:50.200
<v Speaker 1>President Obama is so heavily in favor of it, UM,

0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:53.880
<v Speaker 1>I think this is going to be actually a major problem.

0:00:54.240 --> 0:00:58.080
<v Speaker 1>Having been in the Clinton administrations in the nineties nineties,

0:00:58.200 --> 0:01:01.520
<v Speaker 1>I feel like we were living battles of NAFTA twenty

0:01:01.680 --> 0:01:06.200
<v Speaker 1>three years later with a lot of residual bitterness. Perhaps

0:01:06.280 --> 0:01:09.400
<v Speaker 1>we never paid attention to what the actual impact was

0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:14.720
<v Speaker 1>of NAFTA on particularly a small and rural areas across

0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 1>America over these decades. The problem is that Hillary Clinton,

0:01:19.959 --> 0:01:22.639
<v Speaker 1>in many ways is now caught in a bind because

0:01:22.680 --> 0:01:25.839
<v Speaker 1>she originally called it the gold standard. A Secretary of State,

0:01:25.920 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 1>she promoted it. It is very much part of what

0:01:28.600 --> 0:01:33.000
<v Speaker 1>Obama would like to see as his legacy. However, because

0:01:33.120 --> 0:01:36.640
<v Speaker 1>of the Sanders campaign, and what to me is even

0:01:36.800 --> 0:01:40.240
<v Speaker 1>very odd is this is a time where both Democrats

0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:45.959
<v Speaker 1>on the left and Republicans have voiced very strong disapproval

0:01:46.080 --> 0:01:50.200
<v Speaker 1>of this deal, so she now appears to be completely

0:01:50.360 --> 0:01:55.480
<v Speaker 1>against it. However, the question is how in fact will

0:01:55.560 --> 0:01:59.520
<v Speaker 1>she be able to perhaps have to calibrate or recalibrate

0:01:59.800 --> 0:02:03.480
<v Speaker 1>the biggest problem she faces if she cannot appear to

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:07.240
<v Speaker 1>be fudging on this issue, uh as she could risk

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:11.120
<v Speaker 1>totally losing the Sanders supporters that she does. She definitely

0:02:11.160 --> 0:02:15.960
<v Speaker 1>needs um. I think the problem to me is that

0:02:16.040 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 1>this is a code word, and it almost seems like

0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:22.040
<v Speaker 1>t p P is not really understood for what it is.

0:02:22.320 --> 0:02:26.800
<v Speaker 1>A tremendously complex trade agreement which in fact as supposed

0:02:26.800 --> 0:02:31.360
<v Speaker 1>to promote exports and help particularly small and medium businesses,

0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>but in fact has simply now been equated with losing

0:02:35.639 --> 0:02:38.600
<v Speaker 1>American jobs. And this is sort of the cry on

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:42.280
<v Speaker 1>both the right and the left. UM not at all

0:02:42.360 --> 0:02:46.040
<v Speaker 1>clear how she will proceed, but I certainly do not

0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 1>see this as a topic that's going to go away.

0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:51.920
<v Speaker 1>We just saw it explode and almost explode. Uh just

0:02:52.000 --> 0:02:55.480
<v Speaker 1>two days ago when Terry mccauliff suddenly stated that she

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:58.960
<v Speaker 1>may want to rethink her position, and he was immediately

0:02:59.000 --> 0:03:02.400
<v Speaker 1>put down by Camp Pine chair John poggested that will

0:03:02.480 --> 0:03:05.400
<v Speaker 1>not be the case, so clearly ongoing problems. Well, I mean,

0:03:05.480 --> 0:03:09.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, economists, the consensus view, of course is that

0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:12.040
<v Speaker 1>trade is good for the economy, and I think that

0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:15.280
<v Speaker 1>the more complicated question then is he yes, is it

0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:18.799
<v Speaker 1>good for big corporations who who benefit? Is it good

0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:21.800
<v Speaker 1>for American workers who might lose their jobs because some

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>of these jobs go to the countries, and that's what

0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:28.040
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump has been exploiting. It also seems that since um,

0:03:28.240 --> 0:03:31.359
<v Speaker 1>Barack Obama now is going to go on the road

0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:34.280
<v Speaker 1>apparently for the next three months and try to help

0:03:34.400 --> 0:03:39.080
<v Speaker 1>Hillary and other Democrats running for office. This is something

0:03:39.120 --> 0:03:41.400
<v Speaker 1>he pushed for on his watch. So it's very tough

0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 1>for Hillary now, I think, for to shift her position.

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 1>And where does that leave Barack Obama won't there be

0:03:47.640 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot of questions on the trail about this. Well,

0:03:51.400 --> 0:03:54.320
<v Speaker 1>I am quite concerned about that. And the question is

0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:57.920
<v Speaker 1>are they going to be able to deflect it uh

0:03:57.960 --> 0:04:01.560
<v Speaker 1>and simply to turn it around to more mediate issues?

0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:05.000
<v Speaker 1>And uh, you know, in a way, will Donald Trump

0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:09.440
<v Speaker 1>continue giving them gifts of very strange, outrageous tweets Uh

0:04:09.560 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 1>that sort of distracts them? But at the end of

0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:15.280
<v Speaker 1>the day, yes, she is finally going to have to

0:04:15.440 --> 0:04:20.880
<v Speaker 1>explain much more clearly why she is now specifically against it,

0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.919
<v Speaker 1>uh and in a way try to square that with

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.400
<v Speaker 1>the president's position. I'm not sure how she is going

0:04:28.480 --> 0:04:31.919
<v Speaker 1>to manage to do this. Uh. The other problem, of course,

0:04:32.000 --> 0:04:35.800
<v Speaker 1>is that both labor unions and environmental groups that are

0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:39.280
<v Speaker 1>a core part of the Democratic constituency have come out

0:04:39.400 --> 0:04:42.560
<v Speaker 1>very strongly against it. Uh. So this is going to

0:04:42.680 --> 0:04:46.000
<v Speaker 1>make the the issue even even more complex. As the

0:04:46.080 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>co author of International Banking for a New Century, what

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:53.760
<v Speaker 1>does a Glass Stiegel Act for the twenty one century

0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:59.800
<v Speaker 1>look like? Um? I was, you know, both amused of

0:04:59.880 --> 0:05:04.640
<v Speaker 1>a little bit stunned when Senator Sanders made that claim

0:05:05.240 --> 0:05:09.640
<v Speaker 1>that that should definitely be part of the platform. Again,

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:13.520
<v Speaker 1>I think there is an oversimplification, and this was in

0:05:13.680 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 1>part one of the problems that Senator Senders had when

0:05:16.560 --> 0:05:19.479
<v Speaker 1>he came to New York during the primaries and spoke

0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:24.240
<v Speaker 1>about breaking up big banks. Uh, it is very unclear

0:05:24.279 --> 0:05:27.520
<v Speaker 1>whether you can go further than what is already now

0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:30.920
<v Speaker 1>in place, which is the Vocal rule, like in the UK,

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:36.800
<v Speaker 1>the Vickers Rule, which clearly separates basic banking from trading

0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:40.800
<v Speaker 1>functions in the most basic terms. Uh, is it now

0:05:40.960 --> 0:05:45.640
<v Speaker 1>possible to actually bring American banks back to the type

0:05:45.640 --> 0:05:48.920
<v Speaker 1>of structure and methodology they had in the nine nineties.

0:05:49.000 --> 0:05:52.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so. I think there's too much interconnectivity

0:05:52.720 --> 0:05:57.159
<v Speaker 1>between US banks and foreign banks. Would this put US

0:05:57.240 --> 0:06:01.359
<v Speaker 1>banks in a position of losing competitiveness? Where does this

0:06:01.480 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 1>put foreign banks with major presence in the US. I'm

0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:08.360
<v Speaker 1>gonna have to leave it there. Irene Vlhana would thank

0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:12.440
<v Speaker 1>you so very much for joining us from Columbia University.

0:06:12.800 --> 0:06:13.680
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg