tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 27, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
ithgrte j tftn e sty t. f efit ilg k. ? weilbrg k. [alae] a w wl ten ag oan bth igcotrs. wl ve n picfoa ng te. it hn'be ts y. caedmeca. ppus ndf cpa wts fi tirorrsndea t ste ba o anheta f ath uny tn iphe n pruc racin o cotrthuga roorr t w,he dth. th c me e odt d in iin f nhi. u w atd tharer ndior. goy rrr. eyer gat
weavthsas ppl i yolo aitro a fil dpnto ll he gr rimainna d he nyf osth ppin tt,ifwa tdo a gngo po 3ax onho pdus cin oucotr andoouwh eyont ve autdaltrp lkg adinlama weantoal tyoth moinabt e suof ad ueio o tde en gd r era? e onsre20 7480ourean (2) 8-emra. 027480ndennt hiye, on to u ts se eson arth geran itas fu.asy ndt ot a
inrniol e f t ecom picinite. e o tm ren dat ba a fof e rkim. tas sin-- co aimt rtf e itteecom 9's,ra rrent ssha10 toy,he icl t 30 am eorelor u.dsbrd anve ativ u. nsermo ois. linha aigr sts cae adafrd orgos. th w fm e ba t rortco ithweng lu banisie bsang atveheasea, adannvtmt alha inead e tdeefitnd stmeca tirob e entoll cna toheor tde gazaon l tde
s.t linad llns mewhe,henid at aladfas tre fit o cntes ithpros trspif ptnsh. lo js e sthe thic the a bad aeconhe ecom heoe otoay tt h paicar hrks tht cle drewh ma u mhatwthdsf e s.ab fce th gwt obiziowhh s en raag bmo tn - des. anerngilonofol omowndide-co woertohonhe iranthe t0. %. osrehewocomis swinth qstn o tren bngoofo amics. rngn e shgtshi
sivefft u. ow maurs co me ite,ueor efcitupy ai. teeifre teshe onaf. wt hr urhoht th mni oth bad eson- r adagemts rc, odor? caerooorng ha aueioabt e nstuonitofomhi ats ryelmisss, d atshenvtoste spe stl pce wch we fei cpoti atck cn'esc laakg we? r ame,he lmang we tt lo iones orgnonesbe the wsretaarfo whevldosth mey, anale stra pce , t pce f psi adagemt orciui core.
d hae blk ectohe ecivrah gofan giatwhknshafo foiginres. e addeci a o ntl,haisy vis b se wi cnainarcur. o aspatg dendcyacic pafich cnobe mel setorec muftu inpeen a erg inpeen f niol cutyeans : y kw ptt we. ato u ? a tid ftre giern iaon ho: h d y s tse ad iac t iusy u rkg? caer ith19'the s aem tmo aigte
op b. pruc ssshola, g clk,e tm mey d ey sd t gds on tane vese lls,haarth go em vltn no th ce cko isoury at cat js amic fr tdes odr ad isoo a tdes od ho:efe u . t' autheoban ov u.anacri seor a t cce aut wh tre tgrmes e dngo e s. nuctin sto a imrtt p t dcuio hiy'leio i llhoouhicht thuns.ctin its e inthe. 14-16 fm e gn ntahrgh01heed
nehereil sto nuctintrdi dd tandg wa. acishaloen nuctinison weavlo me bso bo th wha tina sth ri. thfath muftung anth itr. on ulraerav dey rot i a a bon di tici tdearerwi nobrg isac ho:e llalt e toti iues wl th moinr hepalshi jo iupex icafoia go mni. caer gg. naa. i rk f acotr ani llot she ne cae eyidrodence
it o wh llthuyhaus take alea bteeshead aarti j a h soomleidake r vaagoft. t meeoe't. ste pria t cl. leitfr t n yo tesebeeten ffy ho a rersct ts eson tde reen. wthisfo s. s jfr, e rm u. earyffiaana ll atheetso itite pceherohato y reen ad r hean ds't mn at fmsakadnte suerinead d oer ou tple wke fm cuenjo bheal crteanewobn ea whera coetiv adnte.
inth wdswh y me bs aoaisecseouan crseouroty ipng e odtsacere keawuranacri u' csemo umpymt. antovetrto cpe wh dyhooe'ha a fml, u veos e giin iea t dfenc bwe trwi lawan cotrtht ihabu e rgt dd cssn e rl y he chcedoou nt cnth a ndl rh op a tn e jotyf e cnth th inogo f bins. s t odorheax its jate e arg rsvedo haisoubi
ufbavehe trell uase seurob anitsee obt onreutowt o dein d onis a bins ads d r veme i gerane tke imi urusme. e so anthwath he enoi th, ok aouomno hoslis -toe,e a ath tfmpdi. cahath puui eyheoi. evytngro aunanfr th. anifouetouof anyosh ibrimy cae u e cr yr le at d enripritba he eecngev shnkg dd csso ve
oaha,ya go mni. : qstn ys whdon'amic gornnto aadndta woin oheiv stewi thnavemeca a me so tdegrmes rervio tpuouow peleo rk whev hped me amic y to seatnsou ba od actoui se tse mafaurg citi? wl, t nbeon suecisovty fit a. co o a d'li amic js avg is uny. ne o a, a wki t geouenie meyouprt fit ait .r t wt hari tth boer
arfn ine pos d0% mic ior. ialngbolang itoe'chgerat i prtis. weil bjoin autll osisesnd wt aad r t ig um niraonhrghur ogm daov t nt 2 hos. orus ts rspa o prra t qn t erth tde reen a gd r e' dia,uiisaing go m. caergo mni. bk li tsa tt th9's,urobtaed avg dia. heedt faorhe ha medhijo fm t ste ia. t teaim
us tbe b iy. anyowi s aot me spicin i t a wnhe awe sohaisbo a iav delyo't inaltre reen a fr. o mmt liit sto u inits e veme'ro, o o thera aeent siedtout i blis o do f ara ausen or rrainprra toelpeut h du m bimct? tt meinth geren shlde in ors setngha-- adheenilry atenabt osal nedo a tn e caed atndai wt t s thwe gngo p mey f rtrni ahis, i ven rul ean st rgia a i d'kn wt u ulreaisoonhe fo ftoeso ac
apreovi sto ec dheerceecr ve pa amu auftung d pal dury threthere were all kinds of reld industries involved. the trucking industry and buttons and trimming and all of these the were lost when the clintons pushed through nafta. they had to bribe congress to get it through. it was a bill that bush was not able to get through, because he had a democratic congress. but clinton, they pushed it through. that is why i'm so glad that hillary clinton lost the election. trump, hopefully will restore some industry to the united states. payice sector jobs do not as much as a textile industry or the fashion industry. and we know it. suffered as a result. that is why our employment rate
has increased. 5.1%, it's not. there are millions of people who do not declare that they are unemployed or who have gone on unemployment. and we have the clintons to thank for this. good riddance. host: can i ask, obviously not a clinton supporter. were you a bernie sanders supporter? caller: yes, i would have liked bernie sanders to have won. should haveton stepped aside. she had too much baggage to carry. she shouldn't have allowed bernie sanders -- she should have allowed bernie sanders to take the lead but he lost because he couldn't get the democratic vote because he was not a democrat. -- democrats were not all to vote in that primary. and that is why he lost. but he would have been much better than trump on this issue.
-- er: host: talking about the north american free trade agreement. let's go over some of the stats on it to explain what it is that we will be talking about a lot today. the trade agreement between canada, mexico and the united states. under president clinton in 1994, although the framework was drafted under president reagan in 1987. it eliminated almost all tariffs among the three nations. today, goods can cross the u.s.-mexico border daily. we will be talking about that this morning on the washington journal. talking about what donald trump can and can't do to renegotiate nafta. jason is an washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? i believe that donald trump will have an uphill battle because of
the american public. the economists that he probably wants to use for his argument will research market strengths. whether we purchase things from america or abroad. we haveamerican public, a passion to complain but not a passion to change. i believe that we do have the power in our dollar to buy american. the countries by that actually produce american goods, and you have to realize that because we haven't bought american for so long, some of those american companies who still make goods here, they are not as good as some of the competitors overseas. the cousin don't have the same labor laws. so we have a challenge in ourselves to be vigilant and to be vigilant and seek out these companies, especially when it comes to car buying. everybody on the street is driving a foreign vehicle. and this is why we have the issue with the trade agreement.
host: steve, good morning. caller: good morning. i got in late so i'm sorry if this has already been discussed, the colors have been right in. the one who saw this nafta thing be passed into law, and it does ruback to reagan and the chief engineer was george bush with carlos seely nosed epa. and the prime minister of canada. and then it was signed into law under clinton. in fairness -- i am an independent that in fairness to the south carolina folks in the senate, everybody voted against it except for one republican who voted for it. do you remember 1992? when ross perot said -- you know the giant sucking sound you hear, it is jobs going south. he was right. and nobody listened. we have a major problem here because of nafta.
we have a wonderful tobacco and textile industry but it was decimated. right to the corridor of shame and that is -- territory and he voted against it. he knew what was going to happen. let me name you two counties. marlboro county and chesterfield county. they are cigarettes. it hurt us. and what people forget, it is more than just about the jobs and factories. every spin job, even the guy who might change the light bulbs in warehouses. it is more than just the people working on the line. host: what do you do? caller: i work for a government contractor. i retired and i was picked up by a contractor. host: do you have a family who worked in manufacturing? or those jobs?
caller: no. but i have several friends and relatives in south carolina who have the textile industry. in marion and chesterfield county. i know people up in that area and that is where the tobacco industry was decimated. host: thank you for the call. here is another view on nafta. earlier this month at the washington international trade association for the forum on trade policy in the trump administration. kenneth raymo's, he is the head of trade at the nafta office at the mexican embassy in washington, d.c., here he is talking about the jobs in the u.s. that are dependent on trade with canada and mexico. talk that isthe out there in terms of the impact of a trade agreement on jobs, if you look at the fact that 5 million jobs in the u.s. depend on trade with mexico and another nine for the trade with canada.
so millions of jobs are related to trade. number one and number two customers in the world. is a very particular element of north american integration that has to be taken into consideration. so there is the employment aspect of companies in the u.s. exporting to the nafta partners. the case of mexico. over the last 15 years, we have almost $15 billion of accumulated -- from mexican countries into the united states which create over one at 25,000 jobs. so in sending the message out there to, what are the benefits of nafta, we must delve deeper into the numbers. not just a at the level we have heard a lot but talk about how mexican companies, a steel manufacturer, is supporting 700 jobs in ohio and missouri by
investing in plants that produce construction materials, nuts and bolts and nails that utilize mexican steel and better able to become more competitive vis-a-vis other companies that do not have that with mexico. so we have many examples of that. mining companies in arizona, supporting 800 jobs in hayden, arizona. watch theou want to full event from the international trade association or any of the events that we are shown clips from this morning on this issue of trade, they are all available online at c-span.org. that is the place to go check it out. we are with you for the next 15 minutes on just this question -- our trade agreements good for america? good morning in chicago, illinois. caller: good morning. i had to get in on the topic. i worked for many years in chicago on the front line.
and i remember back in the 1990's, real people, hundreds of people, because of downsizing and outsourcing, they were losing their income. they had to be reach reigned. some of these people had worked 20 or 30 years at one job. these are people in the late 40's and early 50's. they still had years to go before they retired. so it happened. this trade, most of these trade deals, it might have been free-trade that wasn't fair. the other point i would like to make, nobody has mentioned unions. workersnited the rural and those in urban areas. and rural areas, some areas where i had friends that worked in rural areas, they would see the same thing.
-- oneng might have industry might have employed the whole town. caterpillar tractor or whatever. being shipped overseas. , some ofion workers the employees, they were giving back benefits and pay more for their insurance or other things with their benefits, and then wages started dropping. and a lot of the so-called venture capitalists that that the jobs would stay open made the confession. so overall, these trade agreements haven't been really good. especially in the community that i have worked with. host: how do you think unions will fair under a trump administration? have noi don't
confidence in that, at all. i think trump has signaled by the appointments in his cabinet billionaires,e two or three times over. whathave no sense of affects the everyday common black,-- and i mean white, brown, yellow. they don't have a clue. tromp, he's not giving any interviews. he's saying he wants to keep basically everything a secret. about donald talk trump's cabinet picks in some of the upcoming panels this morning on the washington journal, including wilbur ross who donald trump has nominated to be his congress secretary. -- his commerce secretary. we'll tackle a what he said on trade coming up this morning. but it want to get more of your
calls in on the question about whether trade agreements are good for america. on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you. this has been a topic that is important to hear in arkansas. thet of the companies left union states to places like arkansas. we lost those jobs to mexico out of our own home community. the one of the things about that is that you can be to the labor standards but there are still other standards that companies are forced to meet to make these products. of course, we have minimum wage. but the thing that i have noticed most of all, mexico and canada sued us through nafta saying that knowing the origin of our meat products discriminated and was unfair to mexico and canada.
,nd our local state congressman crawford, westermann, cotton and rich heel they banded together and got the repeal of country of origin labels. we hadof the best things going, we can at least go to the store and see the name of the company. and if i see china, i do everything i can. but at least, we deserve to know the origin of our products. that is the big push. so donald trump supporters, if you show me want to care about our country, at least give us back country of origin labels. originn the country of issue. you say you do everything you can. are you willing to pay more for a product to ensure it does not come from china? be shoes or socks or
clothing or electronics? more, are you willing to pony up the extra dollar to make sure it doesn't come from china? caller: we are meeting the same standards. they passed the 2014 electrical code. and you must look at this code. putting breakers on your refrigerators. so i am all for getting some of the regulations released. but we have to have environmental standards. in china, they wear masks on their face. the smog is so bad they can't read because the production is gotten out of hand. we went through this and california is cleaned now but you couldn't breathe in california a few years ago. so the standards are important but me to get rid of the ridiculous ones. but in the meantime, when we leave the standards in place, those countries should make the
same standard. there is something wrong about requiring someone to pay a minimum wage and they go to another country and build back for $.20 an hour and then bring it back. because it isn't the product that's important. it is the process. host: that was robert in arkansas. 10 minutes left in this segment of the washington journal. talking about trade policy in the incoming trade -- incoming donald trump administration. 24 days to go into the inauguration. today, president obama is at pearl harbor. several papers with the story, noting the historic meeting that will take place today. more than 75 years after the attack on pearl harbor, japan's prime minister makes his first formal visit by japanese leader to the site or the world changed forever. the two men are visiting role barbara today. prime minister shinzo abe and president obama will speak at a
commemoration of the japanese air attack in 1941. abel landed yesterday. make and a plan to remarks. we will be carrying those remarks this morning on c-span. i'm sorry, this is happening later today on c-span. 8:00 eastern time. story about the incoming president trump. president-elect trump said he would dissolve his charitable foundation. a step he was taking to avoid even the appearance of any conflict when he takes office next month. that is a statement from donald trump's transition team over the weekend says that he told his legal counsel to effectively dissolute the donald trump foundation but didn't specify what would happen to the foundation's assets or how his team would go about shutting it down.
donald trump on twitter defended his foundation and the work that his foundation has done over the years. a few tweets from donald trump. this is yesterday. he said "i gave millions of dollars to the donald jowett foundation, race or receive millions more, all of which is given to charity and media won't report." the donald trump foundation never paid fees or salaries or expenses. the foundation will not dissolve. according to the transition team, over the weekend. time for a few more calls if you want to get in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. we will talk about trade all morning so if you don't get in on this segment, stick around. carolina, an north
independent. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i am listening to all of this and i'm listening to american.""buy the cadillac has been made in mexico for years. we think of it as an american car but it has been made here for years. , the carsn companies are made here. they are assembled here. the problem with all trade -- the founding fathers were a lot smarter than people think they were. theree of a villa 1900s, was no income tax. the federal government was entirely funded by terrorists. and tariffs were put on so that they could make the items as cheap -- cheaper than they could import items. and that protected american
jobs. and until you go back to that, you will never see any change. maryland, dust we go to stephen in florida. good morning. caller: i know it isn't your job to fact check. but earlier, you had a lady who assailed the democrats for the nafta vote, and particularly clinton. it is true that clinton was the dealmaker. you would show the vote on the actual nafta vote. because you can google it and find out that more republicans voted for that bill. if was push by republicans to begin with. and more democrats voted against the bill and for it. it is very simple to do that, fact check that. and it seems like on this program, that would have been an easy thing for you to hold up.
just to show what the facts are. let me say something else. about free trade. problem, and i called on the independent line because i used to be a democrat. to the democrat sold out unions for years. and that has been a big problem in america. there is no one to carry the banner forward for the working man. and the other thing that is hurting americans and wages is the right to work law. the right to work laws are nothing more than the right to work for the cheapest labor possible. when you have one states competing against another state, saying, come on down. we are going to give you a tax break and we will build this and we willhere have all of our workers working for cheaper and cheaper wages, that started off when they were taking jobs away from michigan.
but what this does, it starts a chain reaction. and jobs go to where the lowest wages are. to me, this is basic elementary math. and i really don't understand why we blame immigrants so much as we do in this country. because what is happening is that this is our chasing the cheapest labor. and if we don't allow the immigrants to come in, then we simply ship the jon stewart the cheap labor is. wes isn't going to end until can get the states to agree that we need to set some minimum standards. and stop the states from competing against one another. business loves this. it is a win-win for them and a lose lose for america labor. thatt really ticks me off there is no one in the united
states congress that represents americans anymore. my producer in our control arm was able to pull up the vote north american free trade, from 1994, 234 democrats and 200 republicans, that implementation act getting support on both sides. as we said, the framework negotiated as far back as the , signed bynistration president clinton. kathy is in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. a democrat. the morning. caller: good morning. i am calling because i guess my confusion comes with i do not , butto call a crybabying i'm 43, lived in pennsylvania
most of my life. when my husband and i started family, he worked for serta manufacturing plant to make decent money. it took him 20 years to get back to where he came from. all business has a cyclical nature, whether technological, hiring people in other countries, there will always be factors that make the business you are in on top or on its way out. i guess i want to say's we have to be more active in the revolution. i cannot believe how many people -- i have lived in western pennsylvania my whole life, and i hear people cry about steelworker jobs. i don't even remember steel being made here and why have we not moved on? my husband started his own business, he had three jobs at the time when he lost his job. i don't understand why we don't focus on the evolution of the business cycle and not so much
blame and worry about what happened to the jobs. host: thank you from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. in ours the last caller first segment, but we will talk about trade all morning on a program. first, we are joined by bloomberg u.s. economy reporter michelle jamrisko about how the incoming congress and trump administration could change current trade laws and how nafta could be renegotiated. later, a roundtable discussion with two different points of view on trade policy and the effect of globalization on u.s. jobs. we will speak to the codirector of the center codirector policy research and the peterson institute for international economics. that is coming up this morning on "the washington journal." ♪
>> join us on tuesday for live coverage of the opening day of the new congress. watch the official swearing-in that they knew and reelected members of the house and senate, and the election of the speaker of the house. live coverage from capitol hill begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and www.c-span.org, or you can listen on the free c-span radio app. on c-span on prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, president obama and shins of all the visit -- prime minister of japan visit the naval base, the first sitting japanese leader to visit the side of the attack that launched u.s. involvement in world war ii. wednesday that beginning at 8:00, a review of house and senate hearings from 2016, including the flint michigan
water crisis and the wells fargo unauthorized account scandal. >> seriously? you found that one of your divisions have created 2 million pick accounts, had fired thousands of employees for improper behavior and had cheated thousands of your own customers, and you did not even once considered hiring her ahead retirement? > thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we remember political figures that passed away in 2016, including former first lady nancy reagan and antonin scalia. inday night at 8:00, are memoriam program continues with shimon peres, mohammed ali, and former senator and astronaut john glenn. this week in prime time on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's ande television companies
is brought to today by a cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues. host: michelle jamrisko joins discussingcontinue trade policy in the incoming trump administration. i want to start by amending our viewers -- fight reminding viewers of the key players with trade issues, starting with president-elect trump's nominee for commerce secretary. guest: wilbur ross has been selected [indiscernible] the top trade guy in the administration, someone the transition team has said believed trade policy. commerce department, the u.s. trade representative office within the commerce department, is typically given power but there has been some talk about that would be less emphasized, whereas wilbur ross will take the reins. host: what is his background? guest: he is a businessman.
he has a lot of history with trade, so he really does know the manufacturing base well and people trust him to kind of make decisions that trump are in line with the campaign message -- that are in line with the trump campaign message. host: how did he come into the -- when did he join this team or become a supporter of donald trump? guest: he has been a member of the campaign for quite a while. he has been an economic advisor for some time and lead a lot of the economic analyses throughout howcampaign, as far as proposals would come about and how they would affect the economy, and really benefit the american jobs. that explain the job wilbur ross is going to be doing in the top that peter navarro will be doing and what they will be in the trump administration. guest: there are a lot of questions because peter navarro's job is a new job in a new office, so president-elect
trump has created a trade council within the white house, led by peter navarro. a little unclear on how much personnel be dedicated to that, task -- the been a council has been passed with the initiative of bringing back american manufacturing, renegotiating trade deals, and being an advisor to the president on how to do that. he will fill a different role than wilbur ross at commerce, which is more traditional as a cabinet position. host: did those tasks used to be under the commerce department? is this a transfer of power or responsibilities? guest: i would say some of the things we talk about around the new trade council, yes, usually would fall under commerce and within commerce, but it remains to be seen how much this will be expanded. trade was a big message for the trump campaign, so to form a new whate is quite unclear
that will mean logistically and practically, but symbolically, we know it means a lot in terms of showing that he wants to dedicate -- president-elect trump wants to dedicate more resources toward the issue. what let's talk about president-elect trump has promised with trade. he suggested pulling out of the world trade organization, designed to help dissolve trade disputes, talked about leaving nafta's mexico this and agree to negotiate the pact, not signing the transpacific partnership, the 12 nation deal, imposing imports,n chinese execute and imports, and perhaps other imports and declare china currency manipulator if it does not change trade practices. a lot on his plate and what this he plan on making number one? what will happen in the first days?
guest: he said he would like to scrap certain deals on day one. it is unclear if he will pull through with that. some advisors when they speak on his behalf, it has been different on how they approach things. steel by doingr and chief executive officer of nucor industry company. he would say a few months ago defensive terrorists, when he called them, would be the first step to put trading pressure on china and mexico. now we hear the top advisor talk about how president-elect wants to start with terrorists -- tarriffs. it remains to be seen what order and how they will play out. we are in uncharted waters. host: we talked about nafta this morning. trump -- ken donald trump leave nafta and how would that work? guest: when we talk about things
that have not been done before, this is the subject of many debates. we do know there is a general consensus the president has wide latitude to do that. the president has been given trade negotiation authority, so he has the ability to negotiate agreements and then have them send them to the house or senate for an up or down vote. thewhen he wants to leave agreements, people are in agreement that he could do that and not have any need for congressional approval terry -- approval. host: michelle jamrisko is our guest for the next 45 minutes. if you have questions, republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents (202)-748-8002. covers tradeisko policy. how long have you been covering this? within the u.s.
economic portfolio and trade becomes a part of it, so a few years and under a range of issues. host: and covers them for bloomberg news. check out her work at bloomberg.com and at twitter. bobby instion from spanish fork, alabama, independent. good morning. good morning. great guest. i would like to call people's attention and hear your guests thoughts and opinions and insights on the following topic, which i think is one of the most positive things that donald trump has done so far, and that is to appoint dr. peter navarro, professor at harvard, phd, with traits with china. when i lived in asia, it was a laughingstock among the asian people up how badly the united states has been beaten in a huge for the of trade deals last several decades. i have fred navarro's books. i encourage everyone to read
them. the guy is phenomenal. with a balanced weight less professional economist, he goes case-by-case with listing the specifics on the real dangers to america's national security because of china getting the upper hand on this. i would love to hear her thoughts. guest: by conversations with peter navarro, you have reflected some of whatguest: hed about. he essentially made a career out of trying to show how china has eaten the lunch with u.s. and trade. he essentially, we should back up and talk about his background, phd economist at uc irvine, a rarity in trumps circle, where there are a lot of assessment you're taking the reins. he comes from an academic background. his main gripes about china, he says he believes in the early 19th century free-trade idea for trade can be beneficial
all, but right now, it is not working because china is seeding on four fronts, they have a exports, lacks environmental and worker standards, and they have that istual property deemed violation comes of his main message is that he wants to target these things and china is a big target. host: let's talk about reception he has received. here's a story from "the associated press" and "the l.a. times." the chinese newspaper criticizing peter navarro, calling the traded kaiser and "anti-china alarmist," and warned both sides would suffer if commerce is disrupted. what about your washington, d.c.? guest: it is mixed. he is a little bit new and only came on the campaign several months ago and has a limited background of president-elect trump. navarro's he read
worked many years ago and appreciated them but they didn't have much personal contact info this campaign. reaction is next. people who are against the message that the trump campaign manager promoting transition promoting, would say that maybe there are violations of international trade, but it isn't as much as navarro and his team are talking about. the other part being what he will do about it. protectionist measures are not popular among the washington crowd, so the idea that something the u.s. does will provoke retaliation certainly makes a lot of people here and in new york and economic circles nervous. host: what is the last trade with the u.s. was in? guest: [laughter] tough question. a lot of people go back to reagan to talk about -- especially when i mentioned defensive tearriffs.
they look back to reagan did to count to a japan was doing at the time, and this was something trunk in the 1980's, you can find old clips from oprah winfrey, where he talks about the potential for running for president and says, i just want to make things fair for american tokers and he just changed append to china and it is today's message all over again. iffs goingtarr on and eventually, thing settled. we will see what happens. host: there are talks about donald trump only nodded the world trade organization, renegotiating nafta, some of the arriffs, are these things you have heard peter navarro say? have been, they pretty consistent on what can be done in the plan.
it is unclear what the sequence of events is. he has also talked about rriffs on,lapping ta but they will talk about how they think others will react in the best negotiation. host: lee is on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: earlier this morning on tv news, they said that iran negotiated with boeing for $14 billion for planes. now, iran says they will only billion instead of $14 billion and i'm wondering whether this has come about because donald trump has told boeing you are charging too much for future presidential planes and this has put going in a precarious position? guest: i have to apologize. i have not seen that news this morning. and i can say is that trump
his statements about different companies, including boeing, have really been a source of intrigue, especially when he has made a lot of these statements via twitter and that full speech mode. it remains to be seen. that is one thing from the wall street side that companies are gauging how to react to certain statements he makes and whether it is reflection of the policy move or a one off criticism. happenhen the tweets from donald trump any cause out the southern company, are we seeing a market reaction that oft hours or days, or some the companies have had weeks of problems when they come out? guest: it depends. i'd have to look at theguest: specific cases, and we did have boeing and others, but initially, it is a very short-term shock, but it is hard to rebound from some because you have someone with an enormous following, the president-elect,
and enormous uncertainty under what he would do to follow up the statements. springs, in conway north carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. to change he is going out the trade deals, well, the republicans in congress were the ones that passed all the trade deals. how are they going to deal with that? guest: fair and interesting question. i think it will be very interesting to take a look at how congress feels about this. he has a tremendous amount of goodwill in his own party right now. he scored an election victory for the republicans in the house and senate, so some are coming into his administration with a sense of cooperation. a lot of them do not share his view of you pending the international trade system, so we'll have to see who becomes the allies and it there are enough to win over on things that need congressional approval.
host: i want to get your reading on this clip from earlier, congressman kevin brady, the chairman of the house clean committee, talking about donald trump's cloud to negotiate nafta. i went to know what you hear. [video clip] congressman brady: i have not spoke to him or his team about where enacted they would want to improve. he talks about these issues and really talks about not so much with drawing but going back and trying to make it a bigger win for the united states. we have a manufacturing surplus with nafta countries. these relationships helped us, worldwideove through recessions better than other countries, as will perry look. i would encourage the president parts andlook at the after that looked right in the 1990's but can be modernized today.
if you're going to renegotiate an agreement, make it more free trade, be bolder about reducing tariffs in all directions, give us more economic freedom to sell what we're making in america, by the products that consumers want to buy, so the approach is going istake in nafta or tpp's to go bolder, opened up more to the american business services, that would be welcome. host: that seems a far cry away from donald trump calling this the worst trade deal in history. guest: right. a few things that congressman brady says that are interesting. one, he uses the word modernized, something that neto haspresident said, too. our neighbor to the norse, prime minister trudeau, said he wants to talk about renegotiating and
says he could modernize. what he is saying is, let's look at blacks worker and environmental standards, the criticism navarro has a china, and let's modernize those standards in a way that twentysomething years later, we can keep up-to-date. about the opening up of the borders a little bit more and renegotiation. it seems counterintuitive to the message trump promotes, but it gets back to what people forget that even in free trade agreements, these agreements can be quite thick. some scholars joke that if it really is free trade, would it be one page? host: no tariffs>? no guest: tariffs, but essentially come you have to have them in all of this. how do we change the tariffs in place and maybe institute more or less and get rid of some? we will see how that plays out and what specific industries will be targeted. host: on the caller's concern
about the boeing deal -- here's the story of what was discussing. playingo sell 6.6 dollars with an aircraft to iran, may be worth only half of that, according to cnn. they put done on 45737 airplanes iran0 777s and the deputy transport administrators said the amount will be near $8 billion, so some news coming out today. and late yesterday. taken, ohio. what can. good morning. caller: good morning. i have you on speakerphone. my left arm is not working right now. this is a quick question. 1996, i am a smoker, dumbass,now makes me a
but i have been smoking for 40 years. i was buying cigarettes in america for $40 carton. when it the internet went worldwide and you could trade and everything, and i found a website where i could go call the company in ukraine and buy cigarettes from them for $12 made in the usa, and they would ship them to my ande, united states postal, i was turning around and selling cigarettes to my coworkers and other people are $20 carton. i just want to know how is that possible that the product made in the united states can be packaged, shipped over the ocean
20%then sent back to me at to 25% of the cost was getting it here? host: michelle jamrisko, globalization one cigarette time. guest: [laughter] it can get complicated economic question but it gets at one thing that has come up in the nafta agreement discussions, which is companies are making decisions, not just around where cheap wages and labor are, but around where they can get the most bang for the buck, so to speak very to answer in a different way, they look at where can they employ people that will be most effective? when you -- must reductive? when you adjust -- most productive? some areou adjust, more efficient for companies to send jobs there than the u.s. and china, so you see a lot of
different decisions forming this calculus around where to put your resources and where to produce the products that end up eating cheaper sometimes. host: a tweet says we have been trade this discussion -- agreements can be good for certain americans but not necessarily american workers, like if it is not america first. and another on twitter asks, despite higher trade deficits, hasn't nafta resulted in more u.s. exports, therefore, or jobs? a lot of discussion on what nafta has and has not done and a lot of disagreement on the fact. guest: it can be a dangerous thing to wholesale blame or credits to nafta for certain things, but i think we can point certain nonpartisan outlets like the congressional research service, and a lot of these independent looks at nafta in a different trade agreement was said that their modest effects but in the end, their modest positives with the u.s. economy,
so not too much on the whole to benefit the u.s. economy but really what this agreement is about this year is how do compensate those who do inevitably lose from these trade deals? host: in new york, eric is a democrat, good morning. caller: thank you. engaging discussion. you are, i am pleased the guest. i hope by giving -- michelle, i am pleased you are at the guest. i hope a giving an example, if we could take the auto industry with cars and trucks, whether they be foreign cars made in mexico, japan, kia, toyota, volkswagen, and we change things and do these new tariffs and they are in effect, who in the end will put the bill and be paid? is it the end consumer, the car manufacturer, the country, is
this all shared? can you explain if this goes through by using all these many cars, foreign cars and trucks made abroad and then are sold in the united states, how would this all work in the end? is it the consumer, manufacture? can you give an example? host: michelle jamrisko, we'll let you get that. guest: those are all great questions and things being debated and passed by companies, scholars and politicians. to your point about how this affects the end consumer, a lot of people who are rebutting the trump message say that you forget the people who have lost out and others who do not necessarily lose out from nafta or other trade deals and how they are enjoying cheaper prices, cheaper import prices from certain countries and different products, so in the end, that is the benefit to the
consumer. however, it will depend on how these industries are targeted and as the caller mentioned, the different parts may be made in different places. if you take -- to use the example of the car, certain parts may be made in mexico, china, vietnam, and the whole supply chain concept that has gotten so complicated over the through globalization is hard to disentangle, so one company with many parts, yes, maybe if trade deals are renegotiated somewhat, that part needs to find the new home, maybe america, but the whole product is affected in a different way then it used to be, or the product was maybe made in one place or smaller products in one place. host: in new jersey, curtis is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys? host: doing well. caller: doing well as well.
a few things to read about nafta, donald trump and myself, really quick. do.a is a must now we are on to the asian theater, the asian treaty. donald suggest should these things the knowing, they have been in air force one for years, they know what they are doing. i am a defense contractor in the united states of america and ran for president in 2016 that was taken away illegally, sick and youe me up and elmer if want more information. i do really care too much on that, but nafta, we need mexico, the border between texas, and the one in canada, that keeps us secure. donald speaks before he thinks. he is too loud and core religions and populations of people is ridiculous, and i thank you very much. i think your news station c-span is first-class, first-rate and thank you. host: curtis, question on nafta,
if donald trump does renegotiate nafta, what role will congress play? did they have to approve and the negotiation? -- a renegotiation? guest: we haven't really done this before, but the consensus is he would be doing that with canada and mexico and would send the package to congress for an up or down votes in the house or senate, so it would have to go through as another trade deal, but it remains to be seen. he made try it another way and we would have to see how the reality plays out. host: as we try to guess at what will happen, lots of concerns about the mexico portion of nafta. are there specific concerns u.s. canada and manufacturers moving to canada? guest: that has been lessguest:
of the concern, especially concerned -- in comparison to mexico. you china's specific industries and with other manufacturing in mexico. mexico is concern for the impact on agriculture and different parts of the agriculture economy , so everybody has their pet industry, and mexico has not been that much in the conversation of the need to renegotiate as mexico has. att: you can follow us c-span wj. joe is in miami, florida, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the oil trade from 2000-2008 crisis, to $1000 -- from $13
plus barrels of oil, was caused to an agreement of opec to reduce production so that the price of oil would go up. the effect was devastating in 2008, just because we slowed down. one of the things happening again here is that opec is agreeing to reduce production again, and has raised the price a little bit more. -- before we cannot compete because we had legislation that we cannot an international market and now we can. i don't see that move being taken advantage of and i believe god is regulations, so once regulations cannot, what will -- i believe god is regulations, so it's regulations, out, what will be competing? guest: there is a lot around the oil markets that is interesting and not so much a part of the
trade disagreement we are talking about in discussion. what we have seen is that the u.s. -- officially u.s. shale producers have survived the downturn in prices worldwide. adding morem are breaks, coming back, getting production back in business, so that is part of this story. he also got up deregulation situation. we have seen since president-elect trump's victory, a lot of small businesses, and other businesses or sentiment surveys, expressing great optimism about easing the regulatory board in on tax reform, so it remains to be seen if those policy initiatives are pushed through, we could see higher sentiment leading into action by companies that we have not seen, which is lackluster business investment over the years. host: colleen in florida, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. just for your information, the
thing about the cigarettes, that was a tax paying, not a trade -- game,ing, not the trade and the taxes were still due to the state the person lived in. as far as trade goes, we have we are pickinge winners and losers. 5, allhey had the g8, g those conferences around the world, there were protests, all highly secret negotiations. the tpp -- are congress had to go to a room where they cannot take a pencil and paper to read them. they have shipped away at our civil rights, which is more important than our financial rights. when you talk about these economic things going on between countries, people are making a fortune. i mean, the money is the whole problem with it. when we gave up
tariffs, we cannot level the this whyield, and that we closed our steel industry and why we have had the financial situation that we have had, and the investment opportunities that send our stock market crazy, again, that is our regulations were gone, and it harmed the population, the working population of the country. did notalization protect anybody, it did not protect china. all the people in china now have all the environments of problems you cannot have before. host: michelle jamrisko? that areo points interesting, one, thank you for pointing out the tax issue, a very salient point and something we will see play out and put donald trump would really like to institute wholesale tax reforms and there is an appetite in congress are that carried you may see that play out in the
trade conversation, with the big effect on the end product price trade she talked about globalization. i thought it was interesting how she put it because it is important to remember how this happened in the campaign and how it affected the final vote. a lot of people forget maybe did not know that hillary clinton, among voters who said the economy was the top priority, she won. it is not totally story of people saying that my economic circumstances are terrible, i will vote for trump. it is much more complex. something that trump pushed on three different friends at the same time with an economic agenda surrounding trade, security, immigration. he talked about all these three things together and appeal to people who had a fear, not only of losing their jobs or having higher wages, but of immigration kind of having an effect negatively and security. he played on all of these and
talked about how closing the borders are cutting off open borders with help. host: before we leave colleen's call, she talked about the negotiating process for trade deals and what congress could and could not do when it came to dealing the trade associations. in the first segment of our program wanted to know more about the fast tracking, fast-track process and why congress would want to take themselves out of that process. can you explain? guest: it is one of those things are you look and say, congress wants to proceed in power in a way -- [laughter] ofwas recognition that some the politics and processes have gotten out of hand, so before tpa and fast-track authority, congress, any congress member could amend or filibuster in the senate a certain process and effectively killed the trade deal. there is such -- at least in congress, there is much more of a broad bipartisan. resolve the nafta vote earlier
on hopper down two decades ago, but there is still popular sentiment on how free trade is good, so they wanted -- on both sides, they wanted to help move the process along and about the chance that it would not be tripped up by any one person's amendment or filibuster and allow the authority to give an up and down clean vote trade agreement. host: greg in virginia, independent. the morning. caller: good morning. when i was in high school, we learned about mercantilism and the key was to have a favorable balance of trade, and it seemed like her problem is we have not had their trade policies over the last 20 or 30 years, especially with countries like china, japan, and i like to know how donald trump will handle that, especially with china. policies need to be fair, we need to be able to
export and import from them. you see going to be able to get those things done without having an all-out trade war with asia?ast guest: i think the two friends that president-elect will have to look at, a number of callers mentioned that free trade is not necessarily fair trade, and that is a big point in the discussion. i think president-elect trump has to look to mystically, inward at what we do to compensate workers who inevitably lose out in trade deals. the caller mentioned haskell trade, and i am thinking back to my own high school professor thatng about how they used advantaged and produced a trade system in which everybody wins. if you have traditional affects taken care of, being the workers who lose their jobs or whose wages are driven down because the company is putting resources
elsewhere, then there was all of that to consider on the domestic side, how do you compensate workers or find something different and how do expand worker training, that's what of but versus high you negotiate with these countries, the question of the day, or you find common ground and so everyone is happy in the end? signed into law over 20 years ago, do we still pay money for trade adjustment assistance? guest: the program is still in existence. it does seem a little outdated to people, so the effects of taa have not exactly been what we .anted that is another area they look at in terms of institute and tout there are hard negotiating mines, which i am sure we will be doing host: something for
certain workers. in the cold. in the transpacific partnership negotiations, how much money was congress being asked to set aside for trade adjustment assistance? put a i hesitate to specific amount. allen say that it was not enough for some people. i would say that donald trump and bernie sanders and hillary clinton between this line about how there was not enough trade protection for workers, and that is the reason all three decided to work for it. host: dorothy in virginia, democrat. we have 30 minutes left. good morning. caller: good morning. for you, i would like to clarify for me and the american public what to presidents negotiated nafta, walker bush, and who signed it, bill clinton or george bush before he left office in december?
rallying around waving flags and talking about is going toe nafta be for the american people -- was that not newt gingrich? would you explain that to the american people. host: a little political history. guest: a fair point. this was all started under president reagan, at least initially drafted, carried through under the two are still be bush administration and ratified under the clinton administration, so you do see a bipartisan picture. answer showed earlier in the previous hour, it was bipartisan, so to think of that era, it is almost like a different time, where globalization as we know it was catching on and a lot of people were enthusiastic about the promises of free trade. host: i should clarify on that vote total we showed, it passed 234 to 200 would support of 102
democrats and 132 republicans or 156 democrats who voted against it and 43 republicans. that was the implementation act passed on november 17, 1993. john is in new hampshire, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention, i think it was the 1960's, we used to have rca making tvs and radios and then the japanese dumped their product on us, and it seemed the government was reactive and never proactive and looks at we go through it all the time. how come and why don't they learn from that from the japanese dumping their products? guest: interesting question and one a lot of people ask this year. what can be done, and why hasn't the government done more? this goes back to the question we askcture and when
what the president can do without congressional approval , theen we look at tariffs president generally has the ability and the executive branch has the ability to institute very narrow tariffs and short-term tariffs, but not long-term tariffs without congressional approval, so that is the best way to sum it up, but they today, you mentioned japanese dumping with a negative effect. day today, the commerce department can [indiscernible] especially in response to certain company complaints, but that is much more host: smaller in scope and more narrowly focused. when we talk about presidential powers on trade, we will talk about that in our next hour and our next hour, the senior fellow at the pearson institute for international economics and dean baker will be with us, cofounder of the center for economic and policy research, so that is
coming up in 15 minutes. if you have questions for michelle jamrisko, republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. she will be with us for another 15 minutes, so get your calls now. gary, chester, west virginia. go ahead. caller: yes, i signed up when i became a republican, but i bodes -- always try to vote american, not party. that is something that people in government forget. they are american first and democrat and republican second. should be dones in congress on this 95% are in the room, congressional meeting room. i see too many times that there is 1, 2 or three people, and ory are presenting bills whatever to the congress and there's nobody there to listen to them.
that is wrong. they should only represent anything to congress on the entire congress is in the room. host: would you be ok there are other members of congress watching from their offices? caller: no, they belong in that room. they belonged in the congressional meeting room. host: you think that will keep commission getting much work done, if any 5% of the members have to be there for work to get done? caller: we have got so many laws on the book right now, they are just wasting time thinking of other ways to do it host:. go ahead, another point? caller: yes, no foreigner, anything,of of besides embassies, like one on and ist and west coast, voted for obama when he first ran for office. , have no qualms about that
although i am a republican, i thought it would be good to have not in their, but i did vote for him the second time. within two years, and in his first term, i knew he was the wrong thing at this country. i do not the democrat or american. american, and that is what people in the united states forget. host: american first, party second or last. all right, gary in chester, west virginia, bringing a president obama. but while his legacy beyond the issue of trade? is a little incomplete. i think his administration with his commerce chief, they try to put certain things in place to move u.s. manufacturing to another level, and they talked about advanced manufacturing jobs, so if you look at the evolution of economy, this turned out in the agricultural
economy and then into services, as the most advanced economy in the world, we are primarily services, so a lot of the bravado around the negotiating trade agreements and bringing manufacturing jobs that is people saying they really don't want all the manufacturing jobs back. what we do best is advanced manufacturing and services. manufacturinga's type to move back to the steel industry or bringing back card manufacturing jobs and saying, those may be best funded by others and maybe we can benefit but would be cheaper and labor can be more efficient if we focus labor on something else host:. it's good to allen in missouri. come on. caller: good morning. i have a comment and then crushed. i grew up in the 70's -- 1970's, and i remember the hubbub about
by american, buy american, and return that around. now, my question is, how do these companies get away with not putting "made in america" on the products? instead, they are putting distributed, and it is always distributed in the united states, but that doesn't mean it is made in the united states. i kind of wanted to know how to get around that. americane buy provisions that have come up in the trade discussion to not really restrict [indiscernible] obviously, not every product has to be made in america, and the by america scope has been on large procurement projects, and which i'm glad this caller and gary brought up earlier because
it has been an interesting point that some have made in terms of wanto you balance what you from say mexico and canada pushes what you will offer? some have suggested -- and i don't think it is a track president-elect trump will take same, but given the amount of infrastructure he wants to get done and given the support for the program, a be loosen up the buy american restrictions and have point entities compete for those projects, which you will need a lot of resources to do, trump has said we have had enough unemployed people and we could fill those jobs at americans, but it remains to be seen. there is a lot needed for the type of scale infrastructure projects that he is talking about. host: not the first caller to bring a product labeling. has donald trump said anything about product labeling? guest: it would be dangerous to say no, but i'm hard-pressed to think of a specific time.
host: bruce in new jersey, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i wanted to go over everybody talking about trade deals, but actually, it is about the patent office in washington. a log thatt we have states all products be in the patent office are not made in the united states? why wouldn't they want that? want capital rules, they the cheapest product anywhere they can have it made, so i wanted to address the patent office. we should stop it right host: there. your thoughts on that proposal? heard theave not patent office come up too much. there has been backlog for several years and it has eased more recently.
i don't know. again, one of the four chief concerns that peter navarro has, particularly with china, is intellectual product stuff, so we are seeing a lot of issues on how do you protect the intellectual property around producing any number of products that might be going throughout supply chains in different countries? host: have you met peter navarro personally? guest: not in person but the phone, so hopefully sometime soon. host: tell us about his time as a professor. guest: he can be kind of feisty. he has a bone to pick on this, and he understands people disagree with them. he is in california, which is funny. you talk about a left-leaning atmosphere at here in academia, and he is waging this fight that is found not in line with what the typical liberal right now is taking and what university professors -- so he talks with a
bit of a chip on his shoulder about how he is getting criticism from others in his field, but he knows the theory just like the best of them and teaches that to his students and is trying to promote this message that ricardian theory should work but the caveats are so strong right now that the international trade system is broken. he is passionate about what he believes but very focused on china. host: what about the national trade council? will that be in the white house or how much access does he have? guest: i think at this still uncertain, but as far as access, he will be in a high post. it is one where the could very by administration. people under obama and previous presidents that had titles that were fairly new or than theyrently
usually with her been in the past. it is unclear. we do know that trump thinks navarro's strategy and message is an important piece of his economic agenda. host: suggestion from dd fredericks on twitter, make america great again should be transferred to made in america, again. harry, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: good. caller: i am from an area in garrett county, where years ago, we had a plant that employed and marylandple, is not the most employer-friendly state, and a number of other things, jobs getting much got shipped to ireland and mexico and took a big hunk out of our middle class. at the same time, if you look into allegheny county down the potomac river, most industries that use to be there or not there. there is a paper mill that has
, employed since 1888 about 2500 people years ago and now is down to 600 to 700 people. they are struggling and the biggest problem they had between agencies thather harassed them all the time, you -- china operates these paper mills, and because they are government operated, they don't have to compete. they pick certain industries and they try to drive them out of business. there has got to be something there because these people that they employed, not all are college-educated but good people and they needed these jobs. gothe same area, you obama's war on the coal industry, i mean, pretty soon, there will not be jobs. except maybe would you like more fries, sir? host: we will be talking about
energy and environmental policy tomorrow, taking up that topic for our three-hour program. michelle jamrisko, i'll give you a chance to respond to harry. guest: three different challenges connected to a ,onvention, one is tax reform which we mentioned sporadically, but a big part of company decisions to locate. to notes it is important quickly target a trade deal as a trade deal as the reason for companies moving jobs or resources. often, it is the cheaper tax rates abroad, which is another thing from has talked about. he also mentioned china having an easier time of taking control of certain industries, picking winners and losers, and that is something un-american. watch whatit is to they do, americans are reminded that we have a different system and if we don't pick winners and
losers typically, so he let the free market decide, so there is a debate and. around how we allow those markets to play out. we have not spoken a lot about this today, but automation, a lot of the plants he is talking about, it was not just taxes or trade deals that sent the jobs away but automation, or some form of it that companies are finding ways to become economically efficient and that means no humans, so we will see how that plays out. host: comments on twitter -- it seems risky to allow america to lose vitalt -- to manufacturing capability, especially to a potential adversary like china. host: good morning. seeing i feel we avoid what is going on in other countries. for example, germany, everyone has a four-week vacation.
ae two main questions i have, fellow wrote a fellow wrote the book a few years ago, don't remember his name, but the mentioned all the modern things you do in industry, we have less people [indiscernible] to 20 have to get down hours a week roughly, i don't remember exactly, but people should make the same income with lower hours required. the other thing that bothers me, i feel a lot of people are not being treated adequately in poor situations, but you look at other countries and there are people way worse. can our society and economy get compared withs of the whole world? do people deserve to be making more, and eventually, or that make society go downhill? i have been in germany and have seen some good things, but
[indiscernible] i would like to hear your answer. the second point is interesting and important in terms of what do we actually want. when people talk about wages and jobs going overseas, it is shortsighted because they don't think into context the whole quality of life metrics that may be playing out in that country that received the jobs. yes, they may have jobs but they may have jobs but there may be much cheaper and are not good for those people there, but also, there are jobs for those people they -- that may not have jobs otherwise. mentioning productivity, productivity in the u.s. is in a potential [indiscernible] greenspan isn obsessed with, and a lot of economies are figuring out why .e cannot get that going
we will save that for another day. left only about one minute weightlifting for can get to michigan, independent. david, can you make it quick? caller: yes, i heard you said service economy is this bill of goods. host: michelle jamrisko, can you respond? uest: what i meant to say, talking about evolution of economy. manufacturing of services. we have 12% of gdp is manufacturing, not a lot, but enough to say this is not just a services economy. you want a mix, in general, we ave one, between services and agriculture.
host: michelle jamrisko with bloomberg news. appreciate your time on "washington journal." it.t: thank you, appreciate host: up next, more on possible trade policy and trump administration, round-table discussion with two differing points of view on of e and effects globalization. dean baker, co-founder of the center for economic and policy gary hufbauer, senior fellow at peterson institute for international in just a oming up minute on the "washington journal."
>> the c-span video library is an easy way to search and view to help ograms and through use is dr. robert browning, executive director of archives. >> go to c-span.org, the main site. look on the front page. the e left side are all the presidential events of that day and political events.n then, right underneath that on the left side is a link that says "recent events," and they appear in the order they were on the network. search for a person's name, every person, 117,000 people pages that contain all their video and on that page is link, a search box and you put in a word, so let's say you want
"sheila jackson lee," you put in a word, say they talk about "climate change." > members of the congressional black caucus will receive sxth public statements of those fully ng this body support president obama's clean power plan. have ted poe speaking on the floor, talking about iraq, and that willords get you to particular small paragraphs t like where they made remarks. members of ers were the third battalion regiment, econd brig aid combat team of the first calfary division. american soldiers were protectrs that swore to the united states. >> across the top, we have a are video clips you can find all the clips people make are available for people to look for. first, obama or assad?
>> i hope it is assad. i don't think so. >> there is another tab that says mentions and mentions are are valuable. > what a bizarre decision by president of mexico to invite donald trump down there. the far left side, there are breakdowns, much other u find on any shopping website, you can say, i want to see a particular person's name. i want to see a particular for a committee or a tag policy. to the left side is very narrowing down. search, click and play on the c-span video library at c-span.org. >> follow the transition of government on c-span. as president-elect donald trump cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, events as you to key
they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. c-span.org, and at or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. wrap up our program today on the "washington journal" with a roundtable policy.on on trade we're joined by dean baker, he's co-founder of the center for andomic and policy research gary hufbauer, senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics. hufbauer, we've been talking about nafta this morning. onald trump vowed to it up if e nafta, rip he can't get a better deal. as an authority on presidential trade power, can he do that? guest: yes, he can. nafta itself has an article, 2205, which is the termination article. giving six r of months notice to the other mexico and he
withdrawing. he has that power. who 's some legal scholars nafta gued that since agreement itself is not u.s. law, it's the nafta implementing act passed by congress, which is u.s. law and because of that, should, or must, consult with congress. i disagree with that legal can pretation, i think he do it by himself. nafta, then minate the question is what happens to trade restrictions with canada and mexico. host: i guess that is the it, in n, should he do your opinion? guest: oh, no, i think that is a very bad idea, terrible idea. i don't think he will do it, but e will use it as a threat to gain concessions from actually three parties. mexico. two, to a lesser extent, canada. nd three, to a very large
extent, u.s. companies, as we've seen with carrier. with u.s. at way company? guest: he'll tell them, you better open a plant in the better keep , you the jobs in the united states, which ll do something, will make your life more difficult by way of trade with canada.r host: mr. baker, should donald trump renegotiate it and if he it t get a better deal, rip up? guest: i'm be more agnostic on a clear idea ve what renegotiation with donald trump and the white house would look like. aspects would be great to change. the dispute mechanism under which the united states is being sued for canceling the keystone pipeline. this is something done for i never ntal reasons, hold anyone ever say it is a company, we're being sued on that, that is absolutely nafta. because of getting rid of the special treatment that investors have in good thing.e a
it would have been great when they negotiated nafta, labor improved ements largely, some people talking the europe an union, you have to guarantee to weeks vacation a year your workers, not necessarily in nafta, but an example. labor rights. if unions were victimized, they mexico or ize in canada, they were actions you could take within nafta. additions,d be great my guess is that is not donald agenda. host: what do you think his agenda is? guest: i don't know, he may be mark in terms of threatening companies. again, watching the carrier, we hand, good the one to see president-elect go to bat workers. on the other hand, the idea we ill do trade policy, case by case, president threatens a company, not a good way to do things. a shift radical between one administration,
outgoing administration and is this administration when we come to trade policy between the obama administration nd incoming trump administration, anything you can compare it to in past transitions? guest: we haven't seen anything this in our lifetime. now maybe there is some very viewers here who remember the great depression. you'd have to be well into your i suppose, to do that. hooverwas a protectionist and signed the holly tariff act, brought ariffs to amazing level and made the great depression great. when roosevelt came in, he but t immediately reverse, within a few year, he persuaded congress, we were in a great had to do things ifferently, to pass the reciprocal trade agreement act, which led to negotiations one by countries, that is the
biggest reversal in what i would call somewhat modern times, back to the 19th century or the early 20th if i can throw in a little more history. trader wilson was a free and one -- his republican redecessor were protectionists and so he helped reverse the law at that time. going more in the century back with the underwood tariff. onst: i think the difference the, not particularly defend the tariff, there has been research that, the economic historian at university of california and ley have done research i think everyone agrees, bad policy, but the idea that was ajor contributor of the great depression is questionable. didn't help, but i don't think story had we the not had that, the depression would be over in two or three ears, i don't think that makes sense. host: invite callers in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.
independents, 202-748-8002. dean baker is with the center for economic and policy research that aren't familiar, what is that? guest: an independent think been around since 1989, last of the internet start-ups to think. host: and mr. hufbauer, the peterson institute? founded in 1980. it is, you know, going on more and it is a now center of the road, but on the the agenda.side of host: the two gentleman will be end the 45 minutes to program this morning on the "washington journal." first, glen is in pennsylvania, independent, go ahead, we're talking about the future of trade policy. question?ur caller: my question to the two gentlemen is that when president was in the white house, out the chinese
economy, that was $8 billion. out the economy. he bail out singapore and he out japan and canada. now and of these country pay money yet? i don't know if american people now this about what president clinton did. these two gentleman might know, like knowledgeable gentlemen. the american people clintson bail out the chinese, mexico economy, singapore. glen. got your point, guest: one country, mexico, we nafta ans to them, after came into effect, we made loans back.were paid the big story, not sure if this referringe caller was to. the east asian financial crisis, we did through the international bail out those countries.
we helped the country, the of the bail out were owner us, we saw after 1997, a their tradeshift in policy. so in 19nech, if we look at korea, s like south had trade they deficit. they were importing more than exporting from the u.s., europe, rich countries, that switched following 1997, i think big problem, when the trade deficit began to explode. i think that was a very poor decision, the nature of the bailout. wasn't we gave anything to the ountry, quite the opposite tochlt my view, the correct policy would have been we have written down large amounts of you could have normal pattern, developing countries are borrowing from countries, rather than the reverse. host: mr. hoffman, why did trade deficits matter and is there such thing as a good trade deficit? guest: yes. to give you the
to-handed economist. reflect justficits consumption binges. o it is kind of like a household, which spends far more than it earns and finally goes into bankruptcy. is one extreme. the other extreme is trade deficit, which reflects investment. boom. a two-investment boom and money is put to productive se, for example, in this country, railways in the 19th recent but other more examples, what is wrong with that, the investment will pay can pay off you he interest, as well as principle on the debt. there is a third deficit, which categories andwo that is the u.s. case today. we are the research currency of world. that is the dollar is the research currency of the world. the nies want dollars, for
reasons dean said after the asian financial crisis they got hard shellacking from the international monetary fund and own ries wanted their reserve necessary large amounts against to self-insure the next crisis. where did they get the reserve? dollars. how did they get reserve, exporting more than they a peculiar at is situation with the u.s. as eserve currency, we tend to have a system trade deficit about his year will be $500 billion. host: mr. baker, some viewers currency ght about manipulation, can you explain what that is and why donald focused on it?so uest: i prefer management, manipulation implys they are doing something in the dark. in chien athey are most visible, the biggest country and the largest trade deficit. the idea, they target the value the currency against the
dollar. i'm saying management, it is not have to not like we catch them. are you targeting the value of currency? they are trying to keep currency below the market value and the complaint is that result of having a lower valued currency, our exports to expensive.re they need more dollars, if you are live nothing china, thinking buy some part in america, the currency is more them. more expensive for flip side for us, the currency has low value, import is cheaper the united states. that would be the argument as to why we don't like it, contribute tac large trade deficit. host: does donald trump right to concern body this guest: i argue he is n. china, they have been trying to keep of currency up, rather than down. that was history. havew paul crudeman, who i a lot of respect for, i think he's mistaken on this, the say that, you can look
at the flows and currently they are selling reserves, trying to up.p the currency they are sitting on $3 trillion trillion and 1.5 solid wealth fund. a country you would expect half that lion, one trillion, keeps the value of currency down. and the analogy i like to make, reserve board just raised interest rates earlier in the month, they want to see rates. interest i don't know any economist in the country who would say the actions t the feds today isn't to hold interest rates down, the reason is the 3.5 holds somewhere around trillion of assets. saidu snap your finger and no feds, the assets go on the market, that will drive interest rates up. same story with china. host: mr. hoffman, your take on level of ell, and concern from the trump administration on this issue. manipulation.rency trump said he will declare day 1.y manipulator on
i think in fact, wait for -- to confirmed as treasury secretary and lynchen will do it after he takes office. won't happen day 1, but it will very quickly. the label currency manipulator not carry an immediate penalty. or like we put up a tariff anything like that. it is a slap in the face to china. they regard this as quite an affront and they will be i think he'll then use it as a bargaining chip. to emphasize what dean said, but going further, i don't you can call china currency manipulator on any test. yes, they did in the past, they are not now. might in the future, let's wait ntil the future when they do it. i think the only country which you might conceivably call manipulator is possibly
korea, which is going through the ical transition at moment. so currency manipulation at the not a big deal except it is a big deal politically. host: back to the phone. robert, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. if i understand ricardo's trade premise that ic nations should produce goods and ervices in which they have comparative advantage. i would to know what industries or the united sectors states has comparative advantage in now. it seems like it is all services now and how that keep all these folks can't compete in those sectors, employed? there was a book titled some is over," "average
well, it is not over. there are a lot of average do they t there, where work? host: i'll let you start. guest: couple things, people sectors, you find in a lot of high-tech, we're share to china and all countries, the idea the smart people are in the u.s., no, plenty of smart people in china and india. you go to silicon valley, a lot of people are born in china and india. not clear where comparative advantage will be. you know, one point about the ricardo, you are referring to theory, one key point, it assumes fully employed economy. withmists felt comfortable that assumption, we are close to that, i always was skeptical of story. i think in the wake of the great recession, clearly we talked economists, many prominent conomists, the former chief economist of the monetary fund talked about secular stagnation, period where the economy
operates below full employment. problem.s a that is contributing to lack of demand below full employment. concerned about trade deficits, in terms of comparative advantage, ki give a you know, y about, our pat not policy and other that,s, maybe we'll get to it is not clear, i don't feel comfortable saying here is a comparative advantage. host: do you want to jump in? guest: we have a comparative dvantage in a lot of industries. medical equipment, high-tech so rials, ceramics and forth. boeing and caterpillar and the true, es mentioned, it is we have a strong comparative advantage in financial services. comparative a huge advantage in entertainment, huge omparative advantage in education, how does that show snup a lot of foreigners come to paying universities, money, full tuition to do it. so we are strong in a great many
industries, that isn't to say concerned about the trade deficit, i don't want the out from my mouth that the u.s. is a nation of it's not. host: schoolcraft, michigan, charles is waiting. charles.nt, go ahead, caller: three things real quick. one, corporations with money of the country, once it going ght back, are they to buy stock, pay more dividends with it, are they going to buy companies with it? as far as nafta, after mexico capitalized, why didn't they south?ing further these companies and corporations, why didn't they go turningsouth instead of to china? china, they ing is, left because of the labor, now several millionaires,
probably as many as the united states now. obviously that means their labor is increased, as far as pay. why aren't american companies deciding to say, okay, we're to make america again and start shipping over there. to a is fwing to be able afford these products. host: charles, before the panel answers, would you prefer companies to have continue to look to mexico for the placement china?ory necessary is that what you are saying? guest: no, i'm trying to say after they develop in mexico, country guess further south, where there was ample bakerdown there, like mr. was saying in these other countries down south. baker start. guest: i think the story there, one was that the labor in china, to 2000, after china got into the 2001, i should say, trade organization, labor
in china was probably just about as cheap as anywhere in the world. that was one factor. china had a well developed set up ucture, you were to companies could move there and count on not having confiscated, stable work environment, some things we may not like. they didn't have union or free unions. china offered them very stable low-cost place to operate. one point i should make on china, this is a really good start, impressive start, china made incredible progress in raising living standard of typical workers. report three or four years ago that showed real 2000 in china tripled from to 2012, and there is a lot of here, say t issues they are off by 20 or 30%, that is enormous increase in living a short period of time. for that, i think that is a great story. try to start with the corporations with money right, on the viewer is
there is about 2.5 billion dollars held by u.s. corporations abroad. comes to taxi think laws and here is an area where i happen to be in agreement with trump eral trust of what is saying. we have a system whereby firms money back, get hit with extra tax, why bring it back? we have the highest tax rate for corporations in the world, practically in the entire world, why invest? i think here, if we here are two ills in the system, we might get coming back and u.s. investment is very low. 15%, gross domestic product in investment, research development and hard capital plant and equipment. so there is a lot that can be one of this could be trump's big success areas. on why riefly comment
not go further south. every company faces this issue it looks to loretta lynch:ing any place. of is the productivity improve nd how can we that and what is cost of workers? go further south, oftentimes you find absence of infrastructure which dean just mentioned, it doesn't compare with china atul. work habits which may china, very ame as dedicated work force. you have corruption, which is you have chinar, which tends to be one stop shop latin ruption in many american countries, you don't will end up paying. these have all been weaknesses of the further south countries that you mention. i think that explains as well as has dean said why china been a favorite destination. host: go ahead. we largelytax story,
agree on this, i qualify a ittle bit, i'm less concerned about the tax rate. almost no one pays it. average corporate tax in the other wealthy o countries, france germany, we in the middle of the back or the middle. it is a good idea. everything will be in details. one aspect of tax reform, enormous amount of money spent gaining the system. incredible waste. a lot of people are devoting themselves to figure out how to it so general electric doesn't pay taxes, that is and major waste source of inequality. private equity industry to a large extent are tax avoidance industry. have a lot of rich people in private equity partners, fine if you can make that by being innovative and turning around companies. to get rich people by evading taxes. host: one thing the caller nafta.up is if donald trump goes through ith the plan to renegotiate or to tear up nafta, can mexico and
if so, what court does that happen in? hat is the recourse for those country? guest: if he founds provisions within the agreement, six notice, they have no recourse within nafta. he has talked about punitive 35%, that will be wto violation f. we pull out of we're still in the wto, f he were to violate wto rules they account go to the wto appellate process and would lose i don't like companies going to mexico. nafta f. nafta goes away, that goes with it. back to calls. tom in washington, d.c., democrat. morning.
caller: yes, good morning. i love your show. i would like to start off by saying i drove by the old post office, the new hotel, all mexican workers. you know trump is a liar on that one. you look at all "washington post" reporter stated that trump office, he couldn't find anything made in america there. he said the only thing that was made in morning. caller: yes, good morning. i love your show. i would like to start off by america were the mints, chocolate mints. look at overseas. i think trump, he is the messenger and he will be the leader. look at his supply line of else.s and everything it's the whole thing is a sham. you know, i mean this guy is the leader of the free world and talk about ringing jobs back and it is just not going to happen. you know, the guy is a liar. tom, do you have a question for the panel? caller: basically, if this guy of the free world and he's talking about bringing jobs back, you know, and tariffs, he doesn't live by what he's saying. lived by it.
his whole career, the thing has been a lie and now all of a worried about trade. host: that is tom in washington, d.c. mr. hufbauer, anything you want to add? pretty e slammed trump good. giving trump his money's worth this morning. guess i would elaborate a little bit on what you said is that trump himself is a multi national corporation located many hotel or hotels aroundmany the world and does it for the ame reason that many companies locate their facilities abroad, access. get market it is to get market access. there n the to produce and sell here, it is to spread trump.t and go back to trump spent a lot of money in creating this brand, you know, image and also all the
facilities and so forth. he spent that once and he can tokyo, china, any place else. all the y applies to companies that he's slamming, so yes, a certain lack of consistency in his approach. guest: trump is trying to maximize profits, that is what businesses to do. look, we're staying in america, is know, sometimes it because they want to help american workers, sometimes it is a marketing pitch. corporations in general go wherever they can make the most profit, that means produce the ng china rather than u.s., that is what trump did. host: chance to comment on onald trump's trade team, start, mr. baker. guest: unusual group and they standard economics in the sense they have been talking about protectionist measures. navarro and charles -- they are whether we like that
or not, that is the story. what is their agenda? heard trump i've go on, as well as peter nava rro china.complaints against my view, i look at that, okay, china, negotiate with the first thing to publicly threaten them with tariff, i i'm not a negotiator, i don't know. a can't fw to china with laundry list, their economy is bigger than the u.s. economy. ou can go there and say, we have a priority, for me that is currency, whether that is true with him, no idea. currency, you're not respecting microsoft's copyright windows, you don't respect pfizer patent on drugs, not to the financial industry, you can get one of maybe, give something, too, you aren't going to get all of those. host: what is an example of us to give?ey want guest: i'm not that sure. they have issues on market things, so i e
you what would be their priorities, but again, i'm sure plenty of things when we sit down, not we, we will not be there, the u.s. sits there, there are things they -- host: we could host the program from there. the viewers would like to join in. mr. hufbauer, a chance to comment on the team he's putting together. guest: i think dean hit it right on, it is an you what would be their priorities, but again, i'm sure plenty of things when we group, the ot we, we will not b billionaire wilbur ross who has china.usiness in we have robert white, speculated representative. very experienced lawyer, very experienced. ut his practice is entirely been on the trade remedy side, united imports in the states and then peter navarro writ dramatic titles like "death by china," and so forth. the trade flavor of team. what i would like to impress this, trump also
has a financial team, wall don't oriented and i think these people subscribe to "death of china" or go out and hit them hard, monday, tuesday and wednesday, so who people?se peep -- munchen and hudlow, who may be of economic l advisors. i think they are going to put a further i think trump has higher priorities in war with ig trade obamacare, action reform as she see its and infrastructure. the trade team is going to jump out of the box on 21st and terminate nafta tariff on china, i think they will be somewhat slower and more restrained. one irony since trump won
the election is that the dollar up a lot in value. we see long-term interest rates rise, the expectation, no one, we're read nothing ideas about what the market expects, the will ation is that trump spend more money while tax cut something on infrastructure, who knows what exactly, that will to more inflationary environment, higher long-term raised values that of dollar substantially. that goes long way if you are deficit.ody trade host: diane in douglasville, georgia. waiting, go for ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. inin ining -- going to saying. what i'm ask questions during that time, view.d like to hear their the first thing that i notice administration policy and i am at a loss as to what it is. believe c-span should really
get in there and say to us, here would maybe fwif p more insight, i don't know what it is, what they are, right? person who just spoke, thebaker, please don't jump gun, okay. we don't know what the economy time.do in a month's we do not know if president barack obama is still president, in and told -- now it is 0,000, give him -- he has been much, much better. they are talking about that we'dnt, promised hear about technology affect americans you know, technology, people don't serve gas anymore, you serve new elf, you go to stores, york price check, we don't know how many employers are out of a that.ause of
look at the garbage collector, 'm talking about the small man that we see everyday. hey do not have two anymore, they have automated, take up the and it goes in there. host: diane, you bring up a lot. let the panel talk through some of what you brought up. you some things donald trump has talked about on trade that might perhaps address your first question. e suggested pulling out of the world trade organization. he's talked about leaving nafta if mexico doesn't agree to re the pac, talked about not signing the ranspacific partnership agreement imposing tariffs up to mexico, ina, 35% on declaring china currency if it doesn't change
trade practices. mr. hoffman, start. guest: i would like to agree with the caller that trump isn't entirely consistent and right of he's xhupting to the rest us through tweets, which are very short. there are issues on which he's or modifiedposition his position both during the course of the campaign and since being elected. she's quite right, i think there more uncertainty with respect and there presidency as been with other recent presidents. i think there is a lot of uncertainty, i'm in total agreement with that. up on the to pick point made about technology and tie it in with trade. a very important point. that e entirely correct cause of is the main loss of or change of jobs and jobs.f manufacturing we are tremendously innovative productive nation, but that
means many people had a job and now the arned price check at cv s, or any replaced that job with a scanner. you can go to the whole list and i just want to throw out one statistic, not to be too boring. was a kid, about a third of the work force was in that was back in the '50s. 10%, about 9%.er and most of that, by far the majority of that is because of technology. we produce more manufactured by far, but we do it with ar fewer people and that same technology ripples to the service industries, which you mentioned. thank you very much. host: mr. baker, respond as we showing chart manufacturing jobs in the u.s. rom 1994 through 2016, 1994,
the implementation of nafta. the blue line is manufacturing. have dippedhow they jobs.0, under 12 million the red line is retail. to t: i wish you went back 1970, i agree in some part with mr. hoffman. employ manufacturing frment 1970 to 1997, it was very downs.change, ups and during upturn, we have more, uring the downturn, we have less. roughly 17.5 million as of 1997. sharply over the next decade. that wasn't technology, deficit, fromtrade 1% of the economy, $180 billion 6%, close economy to to $900 billion in today's economy. amount of huge construction jobs, disruption in that was ennsylvania, trade, that wasn't technology. of the story.part
the other point i was going to make, a lot of confusion on technology. technology as bad. the point i would make, for talk ofgy to -- for all robots and artificial ntelligence, relatively weak productivity growth. that is what automation is, that lowed to a crawl over the last decade, 1% a year over the last decade, compared to 3% a year in as golden age o -- 1947 to 1993. unemployment in the late '60s, good wage fwroeth up ladder.n the income technology doesn't have to be the enemy of workers. it, but make sure workers share in the gain. the policy of pursuit over the few decades led most gains from technology from productivity growth to go to top end. trade is part of the story. host: under 20 minutes left in the program.
bill, a democrat in georgia, go ahead, bill. had r: gentlemen, glad you that format today. a lot of people call in talking epa, getting rid of the energy department, education department. what effect will that have on trade? lot of companies have us billing their company and just sewers that loc at citizens have to pay for. thank you. host: mr. hufbauer, do you want start? guest: you are right. a lot of people want to get rid of these departments. the designated secretary of the energy department was famous, perry, for saying that was one of three departments he anted to get rid of when running for president. he forgot that one. it was very much in his mind and he will be secretary and epa is not one ow, that of the favorite departments. one comment on
education. the federal government is not a in education system n this country in the localitys. i know they want things to be done and every person wants education. in maybe trump will change the education system dramatically, historically, it's a state and local matter. lot of think there is a resistance, including in the including the y, republican party. think, you know, cutting back, reducing the scope of these departments, which you have mentioned, agencies and so it is not nd something trump can do, not one f his presidential powers, it requires congress. i just don't think it is going to happen. host: one story on front page of washington times, dean baker, and then respond. epa is looked at in
this story in the washington sets up role pa reversal in climate battle. talking regulatory agenda in courts, focusing on energy and we ronmental issues when take up those issues in this week, discussing policy matters the trump administration, today we're talking about trade. yesterday national security. tomorrow energy and environmental issues mrchlt baker. guest: glad have you it tomorrow, that is huge. will do deal with that here. epa, second, not dealing with specifically.sue we hear talk about cost of regulation. most of them have some cost. otherwise, businesses would do it already. they have benefits and remember 1990, the clean air act limited partick lutes power plants could emit when they burned coal. did studies on the benefit, health effects and found ratio to cost of 100 to 1.
trillions of dollars of benefit people y terms of fewer dying, fewer people getting, laces like west virginia, the idea that somehow it would be boom time. want eminded, we don't regulation. in west virginia, coal miners that weren't nes properly regulated and waste pilled in west virginia and people weren't able to use their water. regulations have a purpose. find one, two,an three problems regulations are excessive. excessive defend regulations, but getting rid of blanche, jeopardizing lives. host: how big priority negotiating tpp, to bring up environmental standards in other country? is that getting lip service or was it part of this? that, we may differ on definitely in the lip service story n. nafta, it is always a side agreement. investor rights,
special tribunal, their own good enough, we will try to do this and that, better than nothing. selling point to certain constituency trying to move trade deals. environmental groups haven't generally been buyers. uest: back to the transpacific partnership which trump rejected and not going to be ratified. good as a very environmental chapter, by far the best. is that it requires countries respect the multi environmental agreements which they sign on to and then tpp would have enforcement echanism between countries to pull up the socks of countries n their exception to environmental agreements. it has further encouragement for countrys to sign on to the range of multi lateral environmental 20 or so , like
around. we haven't had anything like that before. is very different than the side agreement in nafta, which i we've ith, dean, and written, was basically clinton's fw getting nafta through congress. lot, it t do a whole does commission studies, but this is a much stronger one. is possible if trump, nafta, hisenegotiates team discovers what is in the know, bring y, you that chapter in to nafta. and i would say actually the labor, but i won't take up more time. left if ut 10 minutes you want to get your call in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. wait nothing newtown, pennsylvania, independent. ahead.o
caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have to comment on lack of of your callers this morning. the caller from washington, who the post ove past office that trump hotel in washington and saw nothing, but workers. guess what, the companies that bid on the hotel, they are the one, whoever won the bid are hiring mexican workers. why? because obama administration is not enforcing e-verify, that simple. trump's hotel, house tlt keeping services, you think he hires each individual person? no. that is outsourced. idded like ara services and companies like that, bid on housekeeping jobs. they are not using e-verify. if i could comment, the department of energy and the epa, guess what. started the department of wasgy, the goal and mission to become energy independent, after how many decades, how is that working out?
the reason it is not working out, everything the department epa ergy wants to do, the comes out with, that is why we eed to drain the swamp in washington and you people aren't getting it yet. concentrate on facts and don't go off on tangent like you do. thank you for taking my call. host: we don't know how that knew it was all mexican workers when he was driving by. hufbauer, if you want to start on this response? guest: sure. in part.ith the caller e-verify, employers checking on employees, is the right way to immigration, not a wall, .ut on the employment side have not e note, we had net immigration from mexico,
mexicans do come and go back, but not much net immigration in years.t five persons in illegal the united states is about 11 million and has been and mostly mexican mexican. independents, i was in the and r administration remember that episode quite well. caller is right, the energy department has not brought energy independence, but guess what fracking is doing it and we are, net imports of oil are way down and it is conceivable that another five or ten years we will be energy independent. doesn't mean independent of world prices, but it does mean we may not have much in the way imports of oil. guest: i would like to agree on both points.
with immigration, it is unfortunate, close to bipartisan agreement, the second president bush was in the white house, setting up path to you know, on, citizenship for people here ndocumented and wanted to stay here. only humane thing to do. also having the system e-verify employers would be responsible to make sure people were here going to they were hire them and be held accountable for not doing that, wasteside.y the i hope whether donald trump is repared to go that direction, doesn't seem that way, that i think is the path. independence, i don't see that as a good argument. i remember richard nixon talking but that aside, the idea of being energy independent makes no more sense than producing or whatever. security we can't get the oppositead, in
direction, we want to have oil in the ground fwe drill it out today. go, we don't want to import it from saudi arabia, let's 15, 20 somewhere 10, years ago, for oil. strategic reserve? guest: that will last a few months. if we're talking about long the worst thing we could do is drill it out. think we will 't be in that situation, but if that is our concern, we're fwing the wrong way. donna in chicago, illinois, republican, go ahead. you r: good morning, how doing, everybody. everybody's comments are great. this is the situation, they're paying attention to what is going on on these jobs. too many mexicans in key positions stopping american white and lack and all other ethnic groups from getting hired. had to ride e who to the company and get a white resumeual to look at her
to see she was qualified to do the job because they would not at the desk cause the hispanic human resource her that there was no jobs. host: donna, so i'm clear, illegal immigrants taking jobs? jobs in llegals taking key positions because people hiring them in and doing paper to give them the job. we need to wake up. not only that, they are stealing the american companies. -- you go to ng ndiana and look at what that walmart was 10 years ago, it is not anymore. happened.ople what they were stealing so much out of the stores hiring their own of their own kind. host: all right. donna in chicago, illinois. immigration discussion we're having today. anything you want to pick up on? a st: yeah, there has been
lot of research on impact of immigration on wages, most find effect, much find no effect. less educated workers, workers without a high school degree, there has been negative effect. i don't think that is the major of workers not getting jobs or seeing pay increases. normalize thet to process, e-verify, a good see immigration having disaster for the country. hufbauer, victoria, a democrat. please bearntlemen, with me. i have a couple questions. donald trump wanted to put a 45% tariff on 25% on mexico. consumers, wouldn't prices fw up for us? also, wouldn't it be beneficial, you asked the gentleman, maybe calls ago, would you
rather have jobs sent to mexico china?sed to mexico say, send them to because i think maybe if you sent them there, they have cheap maybe we wouldn't have so many immigrants crossing the border. thank you and i'll listen. host: mr. hufbauer. victoria. guest: thanks for that question. first of all, i don't think the tariffs, the really high tariffs on mexico and china are good idea. they would cause prices in a lot people buy in walmart, other things in, you know, vegetables and so pretty sharply. i think once it happened, there around a big turn tlt in opinion. ut in addition to that, these
countries are not going to sit by. hey have political leaders, have to respond because that is what the political system does. by they will respond retaliating and they will target retaliation in places where they think it hurts politically in the united states, which be some red y states and maybe some of the ground states.e we've done work on this at the peterson institute and the disruption is eally substantial when you're talking tariffs at high levels 45%.5 and now, i believe in the free market. in companies competing with each other and kind of may best company or country win. but on your point of china mexico. it is true, that every mexican mexican imports in
the united states have a 40% content. in other words, tremendous we send to mponents mexico, textile, electronic the united back to states that m back to the united stat states. with china.true probably the comparable figure 7%.china is about that might make one feel better. host: mr. baker. on tariffs, i t want to make the point, if we et closer to balance trade, imports cost more sdchlt that mean people are hurt by that? some will. some won't. the analogy, we have protection people like people, those sitting around the table. you can't be a doctor in the play a tates unless you u.s. residency program. much as arn twice as doctors in other countries, $100 y, canada, cost
billion in higher medical cost. suppose we snap our fingers and healthcare for g lower prices. tell doctors, good news, you are aying less for healthcare, which they could. they are net losers in the story. we could have a story with import prices, large segment of the work force, up facturing workers end better off. host: mary anne has been working. democrat. go ahead. talking aboutd in comparative advantage. i may have missed part, i think americans part most don't understand, not the advantage piece of the in piece of the ts other countries, but the the ive opportunity within opportunity cost within a country, at least 40 years ago economics, and so this country never come to grips be sure thattem to the opportunity costs are some t here that we have
mechanism for dealing with it to areas where trade is a huge benefit, so that those benefit is not a huge can also share and it is based not comprehending what comparative advantage, the role of comparative advantage and why here is an advantage to the world in international trade. host: mr. hufbauer, our last give you first 30 seconds. what you earned is through today on comparative advantage, cost within a country, not cost countrys; you are there then you're third point agree with grip, i that 120%.
country that says to guest: comparative advantage assumes full employment so people can go elsewhere. we are in a totally different world we're not talking about 100 million. we are off by orders of there is in host: plenty more to read about by these men on their websites. thanks a much for joining us this morning. that's going to do it for our program today. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. in the meantime, have a great tuesday.