Speaker 1: You're listening to Taking Stock with Kathleen Hays and Pim
Speaker 1: Box on Bloomberg Radio. No TPP has been a popular
Speaker 1: slogan in chants and printed signs at the Democratic National
Speaker 1: Convention because of broad opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership
Speaker 1: trade deal. It is heavily favored by President Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: but it is also heavily opposed by primary loser, Senator
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. Here to tell us more, Irene Vanelle Hanigman,
Speaker 1: adjunct Professor of International Affairs at Columbia University, and she
Speaker 1: joins us now, Irene, thank you very much for being
Speaker 1: with us. UM. How is the Democratic Party going to
Speaker 1: reconcile the opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership inasmuch as
Speaker 1: President Obama is so heavily in favor of it, UM,
Speaker 1: I think this is going to be actually a major problem.
Speaker 1: Having been in the Clinton administrations in the nineties nineties,
Speaker 1: I feel like we were living battles of NAFTA twenty
Speaker 1: three years later with a lot of residual bitterness. Perhaps
Speaker 1: we never paid attention to what the actual impact was
Speaker 1: of NAFTA on particularly a small and rural areas across
Speaker 1: America over these decades. The problem is that Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: in many ways is now caught in a bind because
Speaker 1: she originally called it the gold standard. A Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: she promoted it. It is very much part of what
Speaker 1: Obama would like to see as his legacy. However, because
Speaker 1: of the Sanders campaign, and what to me is even
Speaker 1: very odd is this is a time where both Democrats
Speaker 1: on the left and Republicans have voiced very strong disapproval
Speaker 1: of this deal, so she now appears to be completely
Speaker 1: against it. However, the question is how in fact will
Speaker 1: she be able to perhaps have to calibrate or recalibrate
Speaker 1: the biggest problem she faces if she cannot appear to
Speaker 1: be fudging on this issue, uh as she could risk
Speaker 1: totally losing the Sanders supporters that she does. She definitely
Speaker 1: needs um. I think the problem to me is that
Speaker 1: this is a code word, and it almost seems like
Speaker 1: t p P is not really understood for what it is.
Speaker 1: A tremendously complex trade agreement which in fact as supposed
Speaker 1: to promote exports and help particularly small and medium businesses,
Speaker 1: but in fact has simply now been equated with losing
Speaker 1: American jobs. And this is sort of the cry on
Speaker 1: both the right and the left. UM not at all
Speaker 1: clear how she will proceed, but I certainly do not
Speaker 1: see this as a topic that's going to go away.
Speaker 1: We just saw it explode and almost explode. Uh just
Speaker 1: two days ago when Terry mccauliff suddenly stated that she
Speaker 1: may want to rethink her position, and he was immediately
Speaker 1: put down by Camp Pine chair John poggested that will
Speaker 1: not be the case, so clearly ongoing problems. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, economists, the consensus view, of course is that
Speaker 1: trade is good for the economy, and I think that
Speaker 1: the more complicated question then is he yes, is it
Speaker 1: good for big corporations who who benefit? Is it good
Speaker 1: for American workers who might lose their jobs because some
Speaker 1: of these jobs go to the countries, and that's what
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has been exploiting. It also seems that since um,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama now is going to go on the road
Speaker 1: apparently for the next three months and try to help
Speaker 1: Hillary and other Democrats running for office. This is something
Speaker 1: he pushed for on his watch. So it's very tough
Speaker 1: for Hillary now, I think, for to shift her position.
Speaker 1: And where does that leave Barack Obama won't there be
Speaker 1: a lot of questions on the trail about this. Well,
Speaker 1: I am quite concerned about that. And the question is
Speaker 1: are they going to be able to deflect it uh
Speaker 1: and simply to turn it around to more mediate issues?
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, in a way, will Donald Trump
Speaker 1: continue giving them gifts of very strange, outrageous tweets Uh
Speaker 1: that sort of distracts them? But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, yes, she is finally going to have to
Speaker 1: explain much more clearly why she is now specifically against it,
Speaker 1: uh and in a way try to square that with
Speaker 1: the president's position. I'm not sure how she is going
Speaker 1: to manage to do this. Uh. The other problem, of course,
Speaker 1: is that both labor unions and environmental groups that are
Speaker 1: a core part of the Democratic constituency have come out
Speaker 1: very strongly against it. Uh. So this is going to
Speaker 1: make the the issue even even more complex. As the
Speaker 1: co author of International Banking for a New Century, what
Speaker 1: does a Glass Stiegel Act for the twenty one century
Speaker 1: look like? Um? I was, you know, both amused of
Speaker 1: a little bit stunned when Senator Sanders made that claim
Speaker 1: that that should definitely be part of the platform. Again,
Speaker 1: I think there is an oversimplification, and this was in
Speaker 1: part one of the problems that Senator Senders had when
Speaker 1: he came to New York during the primaries and spoke
Speaker 1: about breaking up big banks. Uh, it is very unclear
Speaker 1: whether you can go further than what is already now
Speaker 1: in place, which is the Vocal rule, like in the UK,
Speaker 1: the Vickers Rule, which clearly separates basic banking from trading
Speaker 1: functions in the most basic terms. Uh, is it now
Speaker 1: possible to actually bring American banks back to the type
Speaker 1: of structure and methodology they had in the nine nineties.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think there's too much interconnectivity
Speaker 1: between US banks and foreign banks. Would this put US
Speaker 1: banks in a position of losing competitiveness? Where does this
Speaker 1: put foreign banks with major presence in the US. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to leave it there. Irene Vlhana would thank
Speaker 1: you so very much for joining us from Columbia University.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg