you know three decades or so just talk about sort of three aspects of it and then talk about how the t p affects those three aspects so three aspects i want to talk first the composition of trade what are we trading how does that affect the labor market secondly the volume of trade specific the trade deficit that's a very big issue doesn't get anywhere near the amount of attention it should say a little bit i'll try and restrain myself and go on to great length about that and then the third point the regulatory structure and to my view this is really what we're talking about the t p because you know what the point i'll make when we get to talking about the t p itself we already have huge amounts of trade with these countries you know we have nafta you know so you hear about all the countries that are in the tepee we have a trade deal with with with mexico with canada this doesn't change trade very much it's not something oh my god will be able to trade with mexico and i guess what we're already doing now so the real story here at least the argument i'm making is about the regulatory structure and to my view most that's very very bad ok so start with just generically talking about trade the story that we've seen a lot of people have this view you know we have donald trump out there yelling about it you know with his nationalistic often race racist terms but you know there is a basic truth here that you know we've lost a lot of good middle class jobs over the last three decades to the developing world because guess what people work for a lot less money in mexico a lot less money in china and you know in manufacturing workers here in  own steel and other industries that used to get a decent wage benefits and they have a very difficult time competing with someone working for a buck an hour in these countries and we've lost a lot of those jobs because of that this is not an accident that's straight there that is what you're supposed to happen we put those industries in direct competition with people workers in low paying countries and we lose a lot of jobs puts downward pressure on wages of a large segment of the workforce that was something that you know in the ninety's was controversial number paul krugman being totally dismissive and saying this is someone who really respects and hugely values what paul krugman writes but in the one nine hundred ninety s totally dismissive that argument but today there's enough day out now for search many of the by very well regarded mainstream economists david autor and i t labor economists has done some of the very best work on this showing that our trade patterns our parents are trying to put at a substantial impact pushing down wages of large segments of the workforce so i'm not to say do has an answer to that but it is understandable lot of people seen trade put it very net have a very negative impact on their labor market outcomes and i'll add just one more and then stop on this and we'll move to the next issue that it isn't an accident we decided to have our manufacturing workers compete with manufacturing workers in china and mexico people often talk about globalization like oh that just happened you know sort of like the weather came in from you know the pacific you know we designed it that way and you know just to give you a contrast i says the when they look at me like i'm straight we could have written trade pacts and said you know there's a lot of really smart people in india and mexico and china they would love to come to the united states as work and doctors as lawyers as other professionals the united states and we could pay them much less than the people that grow up here and work as doctors and lawyers they'd be very happy in many cases with a half a third according to pay and you know you would be zach same store benefits from trait the exact same story all of our consumers w less for health care would pay less for legal fees we could have done that we did it and we didn't because well guess what doctors and lawyers are much more powerful than auto workers and steel workers ok but those designed ok so that's been an important aspect of trade over the last three decades yes and to my view largely negative i can feel good about seeing a man happy to see people in china get wealthy or that's a really really good story but i can't be happy about you know millions of auto workers and other manufacturing workers losing their jobs and that puts downward pressure on the wages of other workers so it's not just that you know we look at the work of g m loss of jobs but downward pressure on wages of wired segments of the workforce ok second aspect the trade deficit we currently have a trade deficit over five hundred billion a year about three percent p this creates a really big demand gap the basic story here you know if you're for it we have a trade deficit you know five hundred billion that's money that's creating demand in mexico in europe in china japan whatever countries  might be it's not creating demand here and people are determined secular stagnation you know much people reading that paul krugman but you know but you know among a lot of economists predict a progressive account of spending a lot mainstream economists they have this idea that you know we're we're suffering from a situation we don't have enough demand in the economy and for economist for the mainstream of economics profession it's really a radical idea so if you go back to the eighty's and ninety's the idea that we would face a shortfall in demand not just for you know six months or year they recognize have recessions not enough demand but the general view was when we never have to worry about them and there's enough the mantle we have to do with things to increase supply well the idea secular stagnation is that we actually face an ongoing shortage of demand and if we don't have enough demand in the economy so we could answer that we could have more demand by have the government spend more money you know when we have the government spend another three hundred billion dollars proving the infrastructure improving health care education with a long list of things we can all put them down so a lot of things you can spend money  it won't happen the year after you know so you go ok how do you fill the demand gap well if we had a smaller trade deficit we would have a much smaller demand in fact if we had no trade deficit we do have no demand yet and that's been a really big issue it should point out we've had trade deficits people go trade deficits no big thing had trade deficits ever since you know the seventy's are pretty consistently run a trade deficit i think pretty much every year since i'd have to go back to check like seventy four seventy five the opec price increases and you know some people want remember those but but in any case we've run trade deficits pretty much every year for the last forty plus years big difference than most of those were about one percent g d p so if you look back you know the seventy's you know the lady eighty's or early ninety's trade deficit was around one way half percent p say today it's about three percent so the difference between one want to half percent three percent that's about three hundred billion four hundred billion a year that's the equivalent in terms of demand if we have the government spending another three or four hundred billion dollars and a condiment that's a secular stagnation it's not terribly mysterious it's the trade deficit ok so second aspect of trade trade deficit volumes trade good the third point the regulatory question and again our argue this is really front and center with with the we've had we've been instituting rules you know we have our rules in the u s and we've been instituting these in trade deals that in effect in shrine them for our trading partners and ourselves ok and what that means to fall in the one hand we're imposing rules or trading partners have to follow these rules and on for size patents and copyrights or come back to that minute talking about the t p but we're imposing rules on these countries that they have to follow a lot of them have to do with investments a lot of them are about you know we you know general electric sets up a plant in mexico where the rules say mexico can't just expropriate their plant they can't limit their ability to repatriate their profits back to the united states so there's all sorts of rules on investment ok but a lot of pat copyrights other issues like that  other issue of course is those apply the u s as well ok so so you have rules that you know again we're imposing them in other countries they can also be imposed on us ok so those are the three main aspects or as i would put it with trade and you know that are relevant as i say to trade in general but also discuss you know kind of quickly because i want to go on forever but talking about the t p ok the first one you know are we going to be exposing our workers to cheap labor in t t p countries displacing our workers this is gun play i have to say in reality that it's not that big a deal for the simple reason we've already done that ok so you look at the t p p countries one of the things that you know when when its proponents hear president obama other people but but most of the countries who have talked countries isn't twelve other countries a t p seven we already have trade pacts with you know we have it with canada we have it with mexico we have it all struggle you know with chile with through most the countries in there we already have trade deals with  which we don't i don't think trades going to explode you know so that's so so it's not that's not going to be a big part of the story so the classic story gains from trade you know we're going to have a larger market doesn't really apply here i mean the one country major country we don't have to deal with is japan but already our tariffs are very very low with japan huge amount i have to tell you i mean sure many people your own japanese cars you know we have a lot of trade with japan already so the idea we're going to be opening up vast new markets it's really just silly and i women sweaters will be another you know cashmere children sweater will be you know this is how i would literally a lot of it like incredibly narrow casting but the other point is that allows are coming down any happy you know because they're coming down and you know the after least probably still or phasing in some of the berries from because you know the reduction of some of the berries it takes a long time so we're not going to see a big issue there i mean the what the countries you could point to vietnam of course in the pack very low low wage country have some very marginal impact we already are trading with vietnam so you know the fact that you make it somewhat easier to trade in vietnam that's not going to have a big impact on labor here so no one have a big impact for looking for a positive impact you know they're saying oh there's great labor standards you know i'm sorry to say there's not much by way of labor standards there i mean you know there's probably more there than in nafta but the problem and i'll come back to this in talking about the investment the regulation issue more generally the problem when you look to labor goes for environmental as well you don't have the same sort of ability for third for say civil society for unions you know to act and directly initiate case it has to come from the administration itself so i won't count on the obama administration pursue in the case against you know vietnam if they don't have proper labor standards and you know there really are some serious issues malaysia there are still issues of literally slavery you know slave you know people in fishing boats that are basically held as slaves in this on exaggeration they cannot leave you know they were they're threatened details here we can questions but basically i just say as you know there's a nice wording on labor standards that might have a modest positive fact you know is always fun to be said for shining a flashlight on abuses and sometimes that can be helpful but in terms you know do we think this is going to have huge impact on labor standards  vietnam or malaysia or some of the other countries there particularly you know bad labor conditions it's unrealistic to imagine they'll have much ok the second point and you know the volumes of trade so i was mentioning the trade deficit you know can we do anything about that well one of the reasons we have a very large trade deficit in fact it's in the main reason we have a very large trade deficit is the world system the world's exchange rate system is not worth as it is supposed to and i mean the way dean baker says it's supposed to i mean the way you know the textbook we're supposed to systems are freely floating exchange rates ok so we went off the you know fixed exchange rate system back in one thousand nine hundred eighty three that system freely floating exchange rates so the way that's supposed to work when you have a country that has a large deficit like the united states the value of its currency is supposed to fall dollar falls that what that means is all the stuff that we might want to buy from other countries from canada from china or whatever might be that cost us more money so buy less on the other hand when the dollar falls all the stuff we want to sell to you know europe asia wherever might be that's that's cheaper for them so we're going to export more so that's the way you're supposed to address you know trade deficits you know that we would expect countries like united states of large trade deficit he declined to use their currency and countries that have large surpluses germany and germany china would see rises in the value their currency you know so the opposite story works there pushes them towards more towards slower lower surpluses ok we've not seen that because we've seen a pattern where you have many countries that have had a policy of too liberally cumulating large amounts of reserves people always point to china they're the biggest you know they've certainly done the most they have run three trillion dollars in reserves i know  falling recently but they're still sitting on three trillion dollars in reserves most of those dollars most of them in dollars and you know you can point to other countries korea a number of other countries around the world they've accumulated vast amounts of foreign exchange mostly u s dollars for the purpose of keeping down the value their currency against the dollar so they want to keep running large trade surpluses it's been hell for china in terms of its development it's been hell for many other countries it's very deaf or the united states and since that leaves us with a very large trade deficit now how do you address that well in principle you want all these countries that they can't keep doing that you know that they have to do something to they have to allow their currency to rise in value law the dollar to fall in value and allow our trade deficit to get to a more manageable level in principle there's already steps we could take we don't take them you know when people first said oh there should be wording on currency that people use the term manipulate i hate that because implies it's like we're catching them in the middle of the night i prefer the term currency man i'm saying management because it's quite open i mean china announced it's we don't have to catch them they have a they have an official exchange rate of their currency against the dollars that's not what we have to catch them we know you know and we know they have you know three trillion give or take you know a few hundred billion in  foreign exchanges or so there's nothing really secret here they're quite open about it they keep their currency down at a level that's below where it would be the market you know run its course and as a result of that we have a very large trade deficit with china and some of these other countries ok so seriously which i certainly do because you know we have a lot of people that are unemployed or underemployed because we don't the left enough demand in the economy questions where you going to do it and we couldn't have done it in the tepee they all say oh they would never agree to it you just gotta let people serious here so you're telling me that if we're sitting down with them i mean just think of you know these are negotiations so we're sitting down you know with all these countries you know australia and new zealand and japan and vietnam and malaysia and we said you know we want to have wording in cur y we want to have rules that you know and they just go ok we're going to talk to you i mean that doesn't make sense you have give and take we're asking for lots of things that they don't want to give up and they don't just walk away so what this really means is if we said we want rules on currency that say ok but we are going to give you when they give us their list of things that they are going to give us ok the reason we don't have rules on currency is because the people who want rules on currency particularly unions are pushed on this they don't carry  ok that's the basic stuff we're here and i should point out it's not sort of a us verse you know vietnam or us for you know these other countries it's very much divisions within the u s so you know u s workers might like to say let's get a lower trade deficit that means a lower value of the dollar well guess what wal mart really isn't anxious to pay twenty percent more for all the goods imported from china ok general electric that's outsourced much of his operations to you know developing countries they are anxious to something have to pay twenty percent more for all the parts of their importing from these developing countries so it's not you know the u s we have to beat up china it's we have to beat up general electric we have to beat up wal mart and that's very hard to do and be much easier for just beating of china so so basic story here m t p p it doesn't make things worse except in this misses a great opportunity make things better and if we do envision a story where you know somewhere we're going to do something i curren that's you know a very very big negative because we really should be talking about addressing the trade deficit basically because we don't have another good story for how we deal with you know this from secular stagnation you know so that's a real you know lost opportunity ok the third point which i'd say is really fronts are why are we doing this why is it important for the obama administration to have this field well if you look at how they crafted it i think there were sixteen different working groups they were basically industry groups so you had an industry group for the entertainment industry you're an industry group for software you had an inner industry group for the pharmaceuticals so you know all these different industry groups they went there with their wishlist and they said ok what sort of things will we get here you know what can we do that will you know make make the world better for us you know i mean what should be absurd i mean you want pfizer says someone to be on the working group you know soon they don't go thinking how can we screw the rest of the country but they're thinking first and foremost how can we do make things better for funds or you know and  that to a very large extent is what this is about and it's actually down picking a fight or two i think really one of the things that's front and center and you know again this isn't you know dean baker conspiracy is reported widely in the business press one things that front and center is making stronger and longer patent protection for prescription drugs and this is really a huge issue i mean it's a huge issue not only because it's people's health which obviously is something we should take seriously as very very important so huge amount of money you know in sort of a maze because i raise a sometimes and you know with econom know should if they know nothing else know about money you know and eat at their data completely oblivious to how large a share of the u s economy this is so we often have big debates in washington over some tax provision that's you know six billion dollars over the next decade six hundred six hundred million a year big debates over goes it's good policy or bad you know and sometimes it's important i'm not saying always dismiss that but we spent over four hundred billion a year of prescription drugs ok about two point two percent of g d p goes to prescription drugs and one of the things that's really striking you know for me in talking about the economic context if we didn't have patent and pet related protections we probably spend about a tenth that ok it's very rare that drugs are actually expensive to produce so they're going to last stories you know surviving the hepatitis c drugs been in the news eighty four thousand dollars for a treatment and you know that i know in washington is when all these people you know wringing their hands you notice well should we pay for it for everyone is it you know is that right you know if someone is you know eighty years old we're in a hole in the live you know is it makes sense to pay four thousand dollars and you know and some of the people that have hepatitis c they're drug abusers you brought on themselves you know should we really pay for well you know ok what does it actually cost to produce hepatitis c i know we have development costs but that that's paid so what does it actually cost to you know physically produce the drugs somebody you know to treat appetite to see what we actually have the answer to that is are generic manufacturers in india that are they're not charitable operations they're making money they sell it for three or four hundred dollars a treatment ok no matter that we could all get somebody for three or four hundred dollars a treatment i don't think we really have to spend too much time you know well as persons eighty years old you know there you know you become a no brainer you would have to spend time well we have a lot of drugs that are like that the new generation of cancer drugs many of them cost over one hundred thousand a year for treatment and again you know you're talking about drugs if they were available without patent protection they might be five six seven hundred dollars you know so you're creating these enormous problems you know that are really unnecessary it's totally due to the way we support biomedical research drug development that we could do other ways know this is all relevant to t p p because a really big part of this is imposing u s style patent protection on these countries phone must all of which have much much weaker protections much more slice of drug friendly protections than the united states so i'll just mention a few categories where this came up and then i'll go on because i could get buried in this forever one of the things the united states is very liberal about allowing patents to be issued there's someone find any case with drugs we have a policy you know you could have a combination drug patented many many of the new drugs that again facts are body that's actually a combination drug if you look at other countries for example india they're much stricter in order for a drug to get patented you know it did there's a criteria that it has to be innovative today and their standard of innovation is it has to be new chemical compound ok so there's a lot of drugs there pat in the united states would not be patentable in india and not be panadol lot of other countries we require that we have very lax standards those deco's into law so so that goes into the t p other countries are required to have the same rules so that means combination drugs could be pa another issue second use drugs could be patented so oftentimes you find you know here's a drug that's been used for years for you know treating all sorts guess what it turns out it's also could be used for treating well coma there was a drug it wasn't also a drug in forgetting what it was but it turns out it's used for  well it had been off patent so in principle be very very cheap well in the u s they would all be able to get a second used then you know this is now a patent for being used as a treatment for about comma well in the t p p all the countries that t p d have to use last second these patents a very big deal the third point on drugs deborah and marketing exclusivity we have a large category drugs most new drugs fall in the category of biotech not biotech drugs that you know they're bioengineered and there's an issue there about you know how do you extend a patent because you're extending a patent to you know something isn't that well defined you know it's a biological life form well the way they get around that the way they get the protection is by having data exclusivity they show that this particular substance is effective for treating you know heart disease or whatever it might be and you know it's approved by the f d a well dead exclusivity means no one else can tests now it's kind of stupid because you know we already know it's effective you know so we have a drug that's treating people and it's effect of why do duplicate tests why subject people to that it's wasteful money and it's not really fair to the patients but you know if that means you can get something much much cheaper we were doing market exclusively means no you know you're required it doesn't matter you go and do that we don't give a damn you still this you know pfizer merck whoever might be they have exclusive rights to sell the drug for you know at least five years and it's likely again we're putting pressure on them they get to pick their years we're putting a lot of pressure on to make that eight years ok so that's going to be a really really big deal a few other areas and i'll just run through this quickly a few other areas copyrights they all have to extend happy right protection at least seventy five years after the publishing of the war or the death of the author on the us it's ninety five names countries is considered considerably shorter so it's raised the price put a lot of things extend copyright protection a lot of things have been public domain and there's a lot of rules on copyright in force meant somebody might hurt stop online piracy act that was you know defeated here actually quite a grassroots effort i mean eventually got google and some of the big tech companies also came on board which obviously helped push the case but in any case what that did was would have made the makes intermediaries responsible for copyright in force meant they didn't get wording that was quite as strong as in sopa but they do have greater responsibility for intermediaries if this sounds like the sauce for first issue we have a website many people of organisations i'm sure of website people post stuff you know someone write something and you know i have a blog so someone write something baker you stupid idiot and then they you know take you know five pages from something or other that might happen well i'm responsible for getting rid of that ok i now think of putting up but it's copyrighted work so i'm responsible for getting rid of that so they have wording to that effect ok so they are much stronger copyright regulation internet regulation variety of other areas again i won't go in great detail partly because you know the list is forever long and i can't say i'm an expert on all the different areas but the point here is that they're imposing basically very corporate friendly roles in a wide variety of areas and th what's really key here is you have this in force mechanism the investor state dispute settlement mechanism that is this extra judicial process that is basically unchecked so you know yes things stand now you know if it turns out that you know  state of washington passes some some law some regulation that a foreign company sony decides say this is really unfair to us you're ripping us off well they see in court you know the take in washing state court of u s national federal court and you know they'll make their case and maybe they'll win maybe they'll lose all of this is out in the open you know it's they have to make their case in public and you know if washing state loses and you think it was unfair you lost your pill to next level and you know prince will go to the supreme court may deal here maybe they won't in third person and so k so they start out one of three for sure on their side and you know we'll know about the third person presumably generally genuinely neutral but who they'll knows but then on top of that all of this is secret ok so they're going to make these arguments can't be disclosed and there's no appeal for you know maybe you know make maybe to pay off on the judges you know i'm not saying will happen but it could happen you know there's no appeal ok so that's it that's our final ruling they're also not bound by precedent so suppose that you know there are ten cases we can point to ten other states they do the same things or maybe other countries they did the exact same thing you know we just did what these other ten countries did how could that be a violation doesn't matter they're not bound by precedent ok so this is kind of you know to my view a very exotic maneuver we're also have i won't go into this but you know we have the transatlantic trade investment pact where again similar arrangements and you know when i was discussing this with some people from europe the implication is that you can't count on the home countries courts to be fair so that there are course very fenders are saying you saying we can't count on german courts to be fair to u s businesses i mean the face of sounds pretty absurd now i don't know vietnam might be arbitrary you know i'm not going to offend i don't know anything about their legal system but you know i can totally believe that you know maybe you won't get a fair deal and in vietnam that may be true i don't know that but it's let's say it's possible maybe it's from malaysia but the u australia canada the idea that we're going to basically throw out our legal system and trust these three panels are three judge panel you know because foreign investors might not be able to trust our legal system you know to my mind it seems kind of a really big jump and you know if you had something very important that we stood to gain for it then go k fine you know i guess we have to do it but to my view you're very very hard pressed to see you know what is the big gain we stand to get from you know basically creating this extra judicial process actions that basically is an extra judicial process pretty much by definition that could cause them to question you know pretty much any of our laws and you know i've had arguments with people washington very dismissive some of you may see n the company that was going to build the x l pipeline they are suing the obama administration for you know their lost you know their their though their lost profits now maybe they'll lose i have no idea but the point is they're able to do that because of a provision after that allows for this sort of you know this sort of process so you'll have that with many many other categories of you know potential damages with many other countries as a result of the t p p all right so i'll just say a couple more things and shut up some basic story i'll just say here is that what we might have hoped possibly to come out of a trade agreement you know we will we might hold you know maybe some genuinely good laws on labor standards good laws on environmental protection good laws on currency management those are not there and in terms of you know what we might hear from trade agreement i think there's a lot so my view is you know a lot of us thought when the fastrack legislation passed earlier in the year or i guess last year now it's a done deal it doesn't look that way there's a lot of opposition it's bipartisan and it's one of these things that's really quirky and we have a lot of right wing republicans that you know they're burning the constitution and we can't do this you know some truth to what they're saying a lot of it's totally loony but the point is you know in politics you don't pick your allies there you side find you know it's not impossible to send gets gets defeated so to my view would something worth working on and it would make a big difference for could be defeated you yes so the question is you know how is currency manipulation to find is there a problem if we have restrictions on currency manipulation that the federal reserve board jan yellen won't be able to take the steps she needs to manage the economy she saw best i'm sort of dumbfounded i have a lot of respect for genuine i like to think i played some role in helping her to get that job rather than larry summers you know you know i'm glad she's there but i really don't in what she said here and you know to put simply you know one of the people i turn to is a real good resource in the simon johnson was a former chief economist at the international monetary fund and you assess just because those guys worked in the area and he has some standing and he just has this really isn't a difficult issue because the issue what janet yellen is talking about is buying her own currency she's buying u s government bonds the issue that we're talking about with currency management is buying other countries bonds this is a pretty clear distinction so which isn't to say you could never ever find something where it's ambiguous but that's really true just about everything in the world so what we're talking about china sitting there three trillion dollars of u s bonds that's not the same thing as you know the federal reserve board buys three trillion dollars bonds that's our own currency so again i can't say that will never ever be somewhere where there's ambiguity but for the most part we don't really care about the ambiguous cases we care about the cases where it's pretty much a slam dunk and that's what we're talking about here so i just you know again i know a lot of people yelling you know someone i do have a lot of respect for saying this a lot of people some of us respect or also make that argument i just don't think it's serious argument i just yeah i think it's kind of nonstarter in the united states already under current currency so they could already do that but they make a decision not to you know which again drives home the point that you know if they're responding to pressures obviously china would be happy if they did that but you know again you have powerful domestic interests you know the  of the manufacturers operations overseas they're not anxious to pay more money so we do already have the power but they don't do it and when you pass fast track what that means is you're it does does not have to go through the normal legislative process or merely you know if this no do you support or do you know the reason that they argue for doing this with trade agreements is that exactly they don't want you know serve this industry to scoop this is their argument and there are some agendas here that you know suppose there's something in there that the tobacco industry really doesn't like actually say about them second they might use their power to try to have that removed you know and then there might be something else that you know the drug industry really doesn't like and i use their power to have that removed then they have to go back to negotiate and you know try and see if they can get that deal and it might be very very hard to do so the argument as it should be an all or nothing you know that would be the story that say so so that would be their fishel rationale now in terms of you know why i think they're doing this i really do think you know  saying before that you know you know all these industry groups i think this really is about getting campaign contributions from these industry groups you know so you have the retailers you have the you know the electronics manufacturers you have all these different industry groups and what  look the democrats can do things for you you know the republicans are in that situation because they're all going to cut their taxes and they know that you know obama least isn't going on whoever replaces him as a democrat you know whoever gets the nomination they're not going to promise to cut taxes for corporations so or rich people so you know what can they do for them will you give them a trade deal that you know gives them very beneficial rules in your malaysia in japan in these other countries so that's what they can do for them you know so  that's what i would say i think that's really the only thing that makes sense because part of it is i hear these people saying things you're talking about the benefits you know i know the economic models and you know there's there's a organization peterson institute for international economics very very pro trade they did a model they calculated what the benefits would be seven hundreds of one percent of g d p that's pretty small now then they read it and they said well if you take this into account that into account that into we get thirty seven hundreds of one percent the guy said and we'd sit back and forth i'm going where do you get this and they were pointed to the study i go your study says over you know of humility of over a twelve year period we're talking about thirty seven hundreds of a percent that's not the same as three tenths of a percent a year you know anyone be saying that if he thought thirty seven hundreds of a percent over ten years or twelve years was a lot he knows it isn't so you know and i also point out when they do these calculations they never sume any loss due to the leads to gains this and that they go well it's the exact same story when you talk about lowering a drug price accept you're talking about lowering the drug price from eighty four thousand to eight hundred so it's a tear from ten thousand percent and the market doesn't care that you call a patent it's the same thing but just to throw one more thing in there and again this is you know straight from the economics textbook when you can sell a drug for eighty four thousand that your kid profitably produce for you know five six seven hundred dollars you have an enormous incentive to lie just to put as simply as possible to lie about the safety and effectiveness of that drug and companies do it all the time so not only are we paying way more than we should for the drug in creating all these problems you know maybe a few your family members  had some was had to buy on the expensive drugs even if you have insurance that covers it guess what the insurance company is anxious to pay four thousand dollars so you go low can you get a second opinion can get a third opinion what about this drug what about that you know so even even in those cases you have to go through all this rigamarole which is not something you want to do when your son is really sick and that's why you need the drug you know so so that's incredibly backward but then on top of that the drug companies obviously have an enormous incentive to mislead the public about the safety that in fact in this of the drug so it's it's a horrible horrible system and you know stiglitz you know it is exactly right and there's other ways you could fund as well by the way but but let me just say one of the thing before taking a question i was mentioning tobacco and you know one of the issues here was can you can you the tobacco companies sue because this has been an issue in other trade deals australia got sued in the trade deals because they were requiring that the tobacco industry only sell their their cigarettes in plain paper you know so in other words they can't have you know like you know a tract of couple or show streams or something you know just plain paper you want the cigarettes go get them but you know you can't you can't try to make it look really attractive to people they got sued on that they end up winning so that was that was good but and in any case you health groups that went to the that the company's going to be able to sue these countries you know if they try to regulate cigarettes so they said ok we'll make that optional and a friend of mine who really knows the ins and outs the stuff i was at that doesn't guarantee it will be optional so in other words  what's going on right now is that tobacco companies are run around to these governments they're trying to get them to make commitments saying that they will allow the tobacco industry to sue them whether see it succeed or not i don't know but we should not assume bush administration many people course want change because we pay way more for drugs anywhere else in the world so even if we didn't talk about changing the way we finance the research courses we could pay you know what they pay in france the pain cannabis typically about half what they pay here well under the t p p that would be the sort of thing that we could be sued under the investor state dispute settlement mechanism because they'd say the drug company said we had to support it would make these profits now you're not letting us do it ok so that's that's a huge issue another aspect of this they have a transparency chapter some very pernicious wording in that they could easily miss i mr richardson point out to me that where you have you know in sales straw you they have a very good drug buying system they you know they say will pay for this drug so much money because that's how good it is and you know we don't care if you are so so and the drug company says we're not going to sell it to you that go will go to help well they're able to to contest any decision so they say we don't you know we think that  you're saying this drug is worth eighty thousand we would think it's worth ten dollars so they can contest that they think that's not a big deal well they own scientists and i'm sorry to be printed you know his people working for money but they do so they own scientists they will write paper after paper after paper saying no this drug is really worth a thousand dollars and you know i'm using australia which is a relatively wealthy country that you might have a you know civil servant that's prepared to say no that's not true here's you know the one paper because there are can be you know it's not big money and the other side and that papers right you might have that i'd be less confident you know in malaysia i'd be less confident in vietnam and frankly i'd even be less confident australia because it takes  brave civil servant to stand up to these people and say you know i don't care that you have ten studies they're all crap you know so so that's a really pretty sure thing so basically what that does is at least run the risk of exporting our system of ridiculous and you know they're going to have put pressure on them which will be true whether or not we have the t p p you know so it's really just kind of silly now the reality is they hope to bring china it's the p p you know they say that i mean it's not like a secret and i give you a you know they say that they have to bring china it's a t p p so it's not you know this isn't service zero one proposition basically china is trying to get you know more you know it's rules that are friendly to ed we're trying to get rules that are friendly to our u s corporations and that goes on with or without the t p and it's not you know it's not obvious to me that this is necessarily big in our favor so you know where we have areas that were in dispute of course prescription drugs bigger in dispute so is malaysia now more friendly to the us that we're making them pay a lot for prescription drugs i can't doubt it you know so so if you're really trying to sit down what will make these countries more friendly to us rather than china a lot of things in c p p don't fit that bill so i just i think that's kind of you know the they probably set down when i said ok tell us all the arguments we can make china yeah with china i would say it's about china you know i think there's nothing there ok so question is you know do do the democrats really need the corporate money why are they so fixed on that because you know after all bernie sanders raised you know quite a lot of money not appealing corporations quite explicitly tagging them i guess it's a couple things one is first off these people are very few exceptions are there because they got money from rich people so it's kind of like you know what's the base your success keep doing it you know so so i think it's you know the idea and of them may say young that's great standards you know maybe i'll try that next time you know some maybe will see some people do that but this is you know a bomb i was very happy to see him win the elections but you know he did do it with a lot of corporate money la my from rich people and you know so if you ask him to do something  very very different than what they what they have done the the other point is you know we are talking about playing out exactly level playing field so in addition to the money that you gain from the campaigns we do also have highly covered in the media and you know i can tell you i know  reporters they really think that you know this is a great think you know yes free trade and on the times of it i can search some of victory have a blog beat the press and that's criticizing economic reporting and you know major outlets and i try to find some small put on paper somewhere you know it's like in new york times national public radio wall street journal you know question post they treat this like the bible and they talk about free trade you got support it's free trade if you don't support the you're not the scraping the end of all and one of the points i've been making is no pence copyrights are not free trade they're monopolies are completely at odds with free trade i considered some of the victory that many of the articles no longer talk about as being a free trade agreement you know so that's kind of a victory but they still think it's really important we really really need it and you know i think most of politicians know ok if they are there to get out there and say you know this is a bad deal they're going to encounter opposition not much not just from the corporate funded candidates but the media is going to beat up on them and everyone's seen that i've been back and forth again i know these people i have these discussions and to my mind they're very strange because they're not stupid people you just go so white he keeps sameness you know in some of the things just to give you one of things that's come up a lot and she'll come up again many people share brown has been dumped on the washington post as a fact checker and they give people you know pinocchio's for when they say things that aren't true in the game for pinocchio's for saying that you know because of our trade deficit we're loss at losing you know x million jobs to trade deficit and the reason he got have it doesn't seem controversial is that he was relying on a study from the commerce department that said ok a billion dollars of exports translates in so many jobs and he was applying that to imports and the commerce department said well you can't apply directly to imports because they're not the same thing you know they're not exactly the same things but they're pretty damn close and in fact all exports aren't the same so it's like what do you say these are cracks i'm a shoe in this is the way the world works and i actually looked around do it and they you know that they come up with like you know the closest thing they have to a passing argument is well there's some some goods that we don't make here so we don't know many jobs they correspond to so you know let's for the moment assume that they all make cashmere sweaters the united states so we're importing you know hundred million dollars a cashmere sweater so we don't make them so in our major you know come on we're not stupid we know how to work on a miss what we would do is we'd find things that are like cashmere sweaters and maybe take an average of two industries we know how to do that so the fact that they don't do that all you can say is it's dishonest because they don't want people insured brown to be able to say ok i just used this number we lost x million jobs so you have to go up against that this is it so it's not just the campaign contributions you have a whole system that hugely rigged towards letting these guys have these trade deals and you know for a politician you know even someone of my joy only be good progress a politician you're asking take on a lot stand up to what the consequences if it ends up being the case that t p s stuff and you know you can hear all these stories that oh my god the world trade system on ravel and you know it's you really people say the stuff you know and it's kind of like you know they said the same thing people remember the doha round of the w o member the year was negotiated for it was initiated two thousand and one ok so so the argument was well if we don't go through with another round you know then you know things will go backwards and you know pretty soon of you know real high tariff barriers and we'll trade will go into a whole well it hasn't happened and you know so this is just kind of silliness that they'll be saying you know what would happen if you know t p you know well they won't have to go for a vote if they don't have the votes will never be voted down but if it you know ends up being the case that they can't get the votes this year and then we have the election they can't get the votes next year they'll go back negotiate more trade deals you know so so they're going to paint this picture that something really does dire will happen the world trade system will collapse and it's really just silliness you know the deal still being negotiated so they started to have a finished deal but the argument even though you have the fast track that's going to be straight up or down can the deal still be negotiated or still be changes before it's actually got to congress and the answer is yes and the reason is that fast track says once president obama you know whoever succeeds in the white house and a trade deal the congress at that point congress has to vote on it up or down but in principle they could still change this you know so this spent however many years negotiating this and they came to what they were the times it was a final deal but there are still things that are being hashed out there work working out exact wording in a few areas so they could change this and you know of your view reference the pharmaceutical industry you know that one of the big points  dispute at the end was this point about data exclusivity marking screw seventy would it be in there how long would it be the pharmaceutical industry want twelve years that's what they have in the u s they want to apply to all the countries they end up with this five to eight so what would five take means is that it's a bare minimum of five they're running around to these countries right now saying you want eight you want eight you want eight now the pharmaceutical industry would love to have been twelve you know and they've been saying oh we're unhappy with this orrin hatch's you know their one their main you know spokespeople in congress the center from utah has been saying of the you know i don't know if i could support this i think it's like ninety nine percent for show because they have no reason to go out they're going a this is great for us i mean that they be forced to do that it makes it less likely passes and they may be able to get better you know so so they're certainly you know they're certainly pushing you know can we get more can we get more but to my view i would be shocked if you know this is where i actually put up for a vote and you can see orrin hatch and all the other people across the industry voting in favor of it where would what you would run into if you could write anything to well i would you know i was making this point earlier about we could have opened up the high paying professions i would put in rules saying you know how do we standardize you know licensing for doctors you know for dentists for high paying professions so i would have that so that we actually could you know on the one hand have legitimate standards you know ensuring that you know anyone comes here to practice in medicine or these other professions meet the standards that we set but on the other hand make it is easy possible for people from you know these other countries to train to those standards and come here you know be enormous gains from that so i actually would do that second thing you know the point on currency that would be that you would have clear rules and currency you know we know how to write those you have clear rules on currency to be enforceable in terms of environmental standards labor standards i'd have to think that through but it would be great to have something that you know could be enforceable where it didn't count on state state you know because again this is the big issue here that you know as things stand now you know if we bring the case the w t o it's a state you know u s government or another government they bring it to the dove e t l what this deal does is it says private investors could do it you know and i think that's interesting but i would rather not have it just be private investors lots a lot of labor unions let's allow environmental groups again not frivolous you know you want to serious legal mechanism but you know if we're going to do these trade deals to say we want standards why should it have to depend on you know getting you know we have the obama straight in there maybe we think they do it maybe they want for jeb bush or you know donald trump a mistress i don't think we have a lot and then forcing labor and environmental standards you have these countries that will be paying higher drug prices what are the benefits they'll get  a few things one you know they many of them you are not the ones that already have trade deals with the u s but many of them will you vietnam will have some increased access to the u s market but the other thing that i would it would say is that you know just as i was saying here we obviously have different interests in the united states so general electric is very happy about being able to produce a low cost in china means a large trade deficit or displaced people's jobs but they're able to produce a low cost that's good for their profits same thing with these countries so you know you have countries you companies in these countries they're gone it's been great for exports they'll pay their drug prices i don't care you know so so i think it's the same story you know it's the way politics works to john saying that this is about moving money away from workers to corporations you know pretty much in every country i guess i'd be a little more generous than that and saying that you know just as you know workers obviously have some voices you know in states you know that's true in many if not most countries in australia the labor movement you have other voices so i'm not to say it's exclusively you know for the benefits of you know the corporations into the countries but you know just as corporations have outsized influence in the u s that's true most of them and they clearly are overrepresented at the table here so it's not as though no one else is there but i would say you know the corporations and mechanisms in effect take away sovereignty take away the authority from people in countries and sub national governments and yeah i mean i think you know to my view you should need a really really good reason for doing something like that and you know it's it's very hard to seen again having talked to some of the people who are supporters of it you know they you know one variably say well really well maer for the u s because we have good law and you know it's not like you know we're going to see cases brought up there that you know would have a different outcome if they're born to us course that may be true we don't know but you go why would you do this that and be argument as well some of the other countries well australia we presume we think is pretty good law canada's pretty good law i'm saying pretty good law can think of treat people really reasonably so we're supposed to set up this extrajudicial mechanism in the united states as other countries so that we could give our investors insurance in vietnam and malaysia you know it just seems to me a very strange trade off you know you might just say you know they're already doing business there so it's not as though they think all things are so happy as if i can't do business there but if they were you can say well that's unfortunate let's encourage malaysia to have good luck let's encourage vietnam to have good law why do we have to set up this whole separate mechanism that applies to all these countries just because we have you know some countries that don't have good luck good legal systems so i think i'm sort of very hard pressed to see this is something that makes sense given you know the potential losses so the question is you know  corporations really gotten out of line you know i think their attitude isn't you know we got away with what we got away with and why not push for more you know so i think it's like why not you know what's the downside you know or in any of them going to you know get whacked and you know