Author: s.zerpa

The bond traders on Wall Street have given careful consideration to Trump and what his future presidency will be like and they have arrived at a conclusions.  According to them, Americans can stop protesting and get back to their lives. Essentially the bond traders are the police officers at the scene of a crime or accident waving off the public while stating “nothing to see folks, keep it moving.” Bond traders have made the conclusion that Trump will not significantly break anything major and will not upset trade or enter into any trade wars.

“It has taken markets just four days to price in four years of President Donald Trump. The verdict of investors isn’t just clear, but comes with a remarkable degree of certainty: more inflation, a little more growth, and no nasties such as a damaging trade war or a diplomatic disaster.”

The belief is that Trump will not “drain the swamp” as he promised, but will instead take a dip himself. The bond markets are betting on his administration to continue to bring Washington insiders despite his promises to clean house.

“The boost from a market-friendly president-elect may run a while yet if Mr. Trump fills out his transition team with mainstream Republicans, to follow the weekend appointment as chief of staff of Reince Priebus.”

However, these bets maybe too optimistic on the foreign affairs side. With Russia and China looking to expand their spheres of influence and Trump giving serious consideration to the not so recently unhinged Rudy Giuliani as his Secretary of State, the future may not be as smooth as the optimistic bond market is betting on.

Once all the tears, finger pointing, and clamoring for the reinvention of the wheel (i.e. Democratic party) have subsided will anyone care about actual policy? While the left self destructs trying to make sense of the senseless, the rest of the world is moving ahead trying influence Trump’s policies. China’s state media is already warning Trump to maintain the status quo or risk potential damage to relations and the American economy should they become isolationist and begin trade wars.

“U.S. isolationist policies had ‘accelerated the country’s economic crisis’ during the Great Depression, warned a commentary by China’s official Xinhua News Agency, though it added that ‘election talk is just election talk'”.

The rest of the world is hoping that through international pressure, Trump will avoid trade wars and broken trade deals. Instead of eating their young, democrats should take the time to start building alliances at home and overseas to shape and temper Trump policies.

As America plays politics with its’ economic future, Vietnam and China press forward with securing their place in the world. The truth is that America is by far the world’s most powerful nation. However, with that in mind, America cannot afford to stop and admire itself in the mirror. With China working towards peeling off American allies like the Philippines, and Vietnam already working on its own free trade agreements; America risks losing ground in a region of the world it cannot afford to lose an inch. While it does sound like an alarmist position because America’s role in the world is secure, for now, it is important to understand that agreements take years to negotiate and once a topic is politically toxic it is virtually impossible to revive it with any kind quickness.

Is Putin crazy like one? When we finally finish fumbling around in the dark looking for our glasses, what will we see?  With the hacking of  Clinton campaign and DNC emails, and with the attacks on various state election systems, could Russia really be trying to alter the results of the U.S. presidential elections? If indeed it turns out to be Russia, are they really that crude and unsophisticated in their tactics? With individual states and counties having their own independent voting systems, is it realistic for Russia to undermine the election results? Or perhaps they’ve already succeeded in finishing what the Republican party began almost a decade ago, which is undermining the confidence in our political institutions. Recently released hacked emails purported to belong to Vladislav Surkov, a top aide to Putin, point to a concerted effort between him the Kremlin to undermine Ukrainian elections. The U.S. is a much bigger and sophisticated nation than the Ukraine so altering the direct results would be very complicated. However, by undermining confidence in the institutions and their leaders, they can achieve a similar result. It may sound narcissistic, but nonetheless, the world, just like U.S. citizens, hold American institutions in high regard. America derives much of its global authority from the fact that we are a Democracy and that we have institutions of power that are transparent and trustworthy. It would benefit Russia to see a decline in that power and in seeing the U.S. retreat from the world stage and global commerce. Over the last few presidencies, Russia has witnessed America expand its power and influence closer to its own borders. A Trump presidency would mean a retreat from that stage and perhaps from America’s commitment to NATO. Failure of the TPP would be comforting to a country that has witnessed itself commercially being frozen out of regions by American free trade agreements. A weaker America is good news for a Russian government that grows increasingly distrustful of American intentions in their sphere of influence.

Free trade agreements (FTAs), when done fairly, distribute progress in an equitable manner. It is much easier to achieve these type of results when the nations involved have similar economic conditions. FTAs have the ability to generate economic opportunities, and  bonds of cooperation and interdependence which many nations seek. That is why 54 African nations are currently negotiating the Continental Free Trade Area agreement. It would include every nation on the continent and create the largest free trade zone in the world. This zone would bring together a population of 1 billion people that is estimated to reach 2 billion by 2050. The west should see this as an opportunity to help the continent without direct “meddling.” Western nations can offer their expertise in the development of infrastructure and capacity. As Western Europe understands all too well, a crisis in Africa can create mass migration which in turn destabilize its local political landscape. It is make sense to assist underdeveloped nations in pooling their resources and strengths to create free trade zones that will result in stronger bonds of cooperation.  The potential stability can help ease some of the strain that western nations face in coping with the absorption of large numbers of economic, political and conflict refugees.

Tonight was the third and final debate of the 2016 presidential race and it was arguably the best one in terms of substance. The debate had a few shining moments, however, none were better than when Hillary defended a woman’s right to choose on the question of abortion. Her response was imbued with a moral clarity and conviction usually espoused by the religious right in its opposition to a woman’s right to control her own body. It was by far the best response on the issue I have ever witnessed during a debate by any politician. Her response struck such a chord of sincerity and personal connection to the topic that it can only be characterized as her most “human” moment of the campaign.

This, however, was soon followed by, in my own opinion, one of her worst responses of the night. That moment came when the moderator, Mr. Wallace, said “…we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. ‘My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.’ So that’s the question… Is that your dream, open borders?” Rather than taking  advantage of the opportunity by promoting the idea of fair and free trade between us and our neighbors, she fall back to a bland and uninspiring reply having to do with energy. She had the opportunity to have a brief but substantive conversation with the American people on how free moving commerce between nations can a be a tool used to improve both the strategic and economic interests of our nation. Regardless, this was not what she did. As a result she missed the opportunity to make her case for current and future free trade agreements. For me, that was the low point of the debate.

For many former employees of the manufacturing sector who now toil away at minimum wage service jobs, there is not bigger issue than jobs. They’re told by the news media that the economy is rebounding, but to them it’s all a tale told by those not living in the real world. They don’t pine for the days when America was “great”, but for the days they felt like they were a part of it. To this group of citizens, our next president should have no greater priority than to address the issue of jobs. Unfortunately, it will not be the only issue faced by the next president. The reality is that a presidents first priority is always to secure the nation. A newer recognized reality is that the best way to secure foreign cooperation and friendships is through commerce. That is why our next president may view the strategic value or free trade agreements and the resulting relationships with a much higher regard than the hard issue of jobs. The new U.S. president will not be alone in feeling a sense of urgency and concern when it comes to free trade agreements. China’s surging military aspirations along with its hostile actions in the China Sea have other neighboring countries concerned and looking to move ahead with ratification of the TPP. They feel that a closer friendship and economic ties with the U.S. will help deter Chinese expansion in the area. Vietnam and Japan have made it clear that China is a concern that makes them want to move forward with the signing of the TPP>

It has been a rough year in the newspaper headlines for the U.S. and President Obama in terms foreign policy. Cooperation between the U.S. and Russian to reach peace in Syria has fallen apart to the point that Russia has now installed anti-aircraft missile defense systems in order to threaten U.S. aircraft. There are also allegations by the U.S. government that Russia is meddling in the U.S. Presidential election. In the Middle East, Turkey has increased its criticism of the U.S. as a result of a coup attempt and has proceeded to bomb U.S. Kurdish allies engaged in fighting with ISIS. Iran has increased its support of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria in clear defiance of American and Western wishes. In East Asia, China has escalated the level of militarization of the disputed artificial islands in the South China Sea. North Korea has resumed nuclear weapons testing and repeatedly threatened the use of force in response to U.S. and South Korean actions. President Duarte of the Philippines has openly criticized and insulted both the U.S., and President Obama and his officials publicly while simultaneously announcing his intent to break the long standing friendship between the two nations.

All of that is happening as China, Russia, North Korea, Turkey and the Philippines have begun to talk about stronger military ties. Whomever ends up as president of the U.S. will face a much more hostile world than his predecessor. Despite its military and technological advantage, America should consider wielding its economic muscle in a much more aggressive manor. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown the limits of military power and have probably emboldened foreign nations to challenge a battle weary America openly. This is why economic ties to entire regions are important. Having the ability to affect a nations ability wage war and finance proxy wars is an essential tool in avoiding first hand conflict. Free trade agreements are of concern to aspiring world powers. When news that the TPP agreement had been concluded, many in China grew concerned. Many Chinese saw it as a move aimed to push China to play nicer with the international community. It felt the pressure. Russia is currently hurting economically due to oil prices and economic sanctions from the West. The Philippines receive both military and economic aid from the U.S.; America could use that along with it’s economic influence in the region to help cool the rhetoric coming from their president.

Many have grown heavily critical of President Obama’s “passive” nature and foreign policy. They believe that he should have used military intervention in Libya sooner and other areas. Perhaps Obama saw no endgame to such actions, but instead saw ways to influence foreign powers through a stronger economic presence throughout the world. That by leveraging economic ties and influence with large regional powers, it can wield foreign policy by proxy. Putting economic pressure on regional powers to wield their own influence create stability in the world. It’s time the U.S. take a more aggressive economic stand against Russia.

The popular belief is that free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, are either economically evil or good. The truth is that there is no clear consensus on the effects that NAFTA has had on the American economy. Economist have had a hard time sorting out the true affects of the agreement. Unable to discern between the effects of technology, national economic trends, and China’s admission into the WTO, many economist have been unable to provide a ‘net effect’ or ‘net sum’ of FTAs impact on the American economy. Which begs the question, why pursue them so vigorously?

The Obama administration seems to view these FTAs as a way to solidify relationships with foreign nations. The administration seems to believe that once the relationships and economies become deeply intertwined, it becomes imperative for all nations involved to maintain good relations as we’ve seen with Mexico and their anxiety over Trump and the Presidential election. With the Philippines recent moves to establish closer ties to China and Russia at the expense of the long friendship with the U.S., the President seems more determined now than ever to make sure the U.S. ratifies the agreement before he leaves office.  Judging by the brash talk coming from Russian official lately, it maybe time for the public to think of the FTAs in different terms.

The second presidential debate is in the books and the most shocking thing of all is not that emails were hacked, or that a political candidate has dual positions on issues, or discussions of sexual assault were normalized under a catchy and benign slogan which resonates with most people allowing them to save face in accepting the characterization; it is that a presidential candidate has taken the side of a foreign power whose officials have threatened  our country militarily and have backed those threats with military moves.

In hacked emails it was revealed that a moderate Democratic candidate has a moderate stance on trade and hemispheric relations with its neighbors. She reveals that she hopes that one day things will work so well that the movement of goods and people will be seamless between America and its neighbors. In a shocking revelation, it was also exposed that she is aware that in order to get policy passed and implemented, politicians sometimes need a ‘public and a private position’ in order to get things accomplished. While her answer during the debate might have come across as ridiculous, the statement in itself is no less true. For those that have read or are reading Team of Rivals, a book about President Lincoln, they will find a lot of truth in her comments.

All of this leads me to believe that I may not be entirely wrong in believing she will end up supporting the TPP; which in light of Russia’s and China’s recent aggressive moves, may be more important now than it was a 10 months ago when all the backlash against free trade seemed to cement itself. Let’s hope the election is over sooner than later so we can begin to piece together a new strategy to handle the growing ambitions of China and insecurities of a diminutive “strongman.”