LyrArc Article Gist
The new Australian budget is designed to generate a slight surplus from the A$44 billion deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30. This prepares the Australian government of Julia Gillard for elections in 2013. The budget depends on the mining boom to generate the tax revenues for planned economic growth of over 3% in 2012-2013. This is based on the large number of projects planned for investments in oil, gas and other energy projects, valued at US$456 billion. GE as supplier of turbines and other products to the Chevron-Total gas project and other projects in Australia, has sales in Australia match its sales level in China in 2012-2013. This gives an idea of the extent of the boom in the mining and energy sector. Even the widening trade deficit to A$1.59 in March 2012 reflects large imports for the mining sector. The weakness of this approach is that too much is dependent on the mining and offshore gas boom. Retail spending is weak and Australia is increasingly looking like a two tier economy, subject to the boom and bust cycles that its mining companies have experienced in the past. A bubble in Australia's housing markets and uncertainties in the global economy pose other risks....

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an interview with Columbia University economic historian Adam Tooze about the international trade and economic issues brought about by globalization. The rapid emergence of China in manufacturing and overcapacity in steel has led to action on steel tariffs by president Trump. Tooze is typical of opinion that sees action by Trump not as limited action to level the playing field  as proposed by Trade Representative for the U.S., Robert Lighthizer, but as reckless move on trade.  Lyrarc.com shows articles from the WSJ and NYT showing how opinion got to this point in the U.S., on Robert Lighthizer's views that the U.S. was not facing a level playing field, and  on how trade has hurt communities across the U.S. a long distance away from Silicon Valley. President Trump's views reflect a different perspective that says the U.S. has to balance the favorable situation obtained by China and the European Union through moves of its own to protect U.S. interests. Political commentary that the U.S. was starting a trade war is not supported by the facts showing China's response as muted and a willingness by China to negotiate a balanced trading relationship as its trade surplus with the U.S. continues to grow. The trade surplus is so large that the Trump moves do not tell the real story. They are likely to be overshadowed by the increasing value of the U.S. dollar leading to a continued favorable situation for Chinese exports and a larger trade surplus in 2018, regardless of Mr. Trump's action.  Trump's moves are more significant in other areas- limiting China's access to advanced technologies, with the European Union also taking the same action. This is now the new field of competition for the major world economies. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....

LyrArc Article Gist
An export rebound is not matching the growth in imports. Imports went up 31% since May 2009, while exports went up 27%. The result is that the trade deficit is growing, primarily because of imports from China and imports of costlier oil. The trade deficit is expected to reach $40 billion in December 2010, compared to $25 billion in May 2009.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein points to the need for the structural changes in the U.S., Europe and China to address the serious imbalances that are at the root of the problem. This process will be painful and mean a short term drag on the economy even if the right actions are taken. The process of unwinding the imbalances will take time. Lower growth in China will be good for the bubble in real estate markets and the reduction in the trade surplus, even though this will reduce imports of European and U.S. machinery. Higher savings in the U.S. and reduction of consumer debt will slow retail sales but this is healthy for longer term growth. The same is true for savings in deficit reduction that will result in more layoffs at the local level. The government needs to have similiar action take place at the banks to end their "extend and pretend" practices and finally write off bad loans in residential and commercial real estate. There is no easy way out, no solutions that can be made without a sharing of the pain. Policy makers around the world have tried to look for painless solutions for years and this may be the end of the road. There is some action that the governments and central banks can take. Pearlstein suggests that the European Central Bank buy up some of the sovereign bonds being dumped on the market even if it means printing money. The Fed, the Bank of Japan and the central bank of China can also swap some of the Treasuries they own for European sovereign bonds. This would give time for the EU leaders to give the European Financial Stability Facility the resources and powers to replace the sovereign bonds with more reliable European bonds. The Fed can take this opportunity to sell some of its huge pile of Treasury bills into the market so that it has more room for action in future years. The U.S. government can move up the spending for infrastructure in years 8, 9, and 10 to the next 2-3 years to give some support to the economy as these changes take place. The spending decisions should be left to an independent Infrastructure Bank. See the related article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post, August 5, 2011, which provides a companion policy prescription for U.S. deficit reduction based on the work done by the Bowles-Simpson Commission and by preserving efficiency and fairness....

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's Economy minister Zypries warned that Germany would take legal action by taking the case to the World Trade Organization if president Trump imposes tariffs above that allowed by WTO rules. She said this before a meeting at the White House between president Trump and Chancellor Merkel. The U.S. is Germany's largest export market with 107 billion in imports and the U.S. exports 58 billion euros of products to the U.S. Zypries accepted that the large trade surplus of Germany was "a problem," but that America "needs our machines and industrial plants" for the time being. Germany has insisted that it does not provide unfair advantages to its companies, and that German companies were simply more competitive. Trump has focussed largely on China for anti-competitive practices, though he mentioned BMW by name during the campaign. In the last 2 years the euro has depreciated significantly against the dollar giving German companies competitive advantage, largely as a result of the ECB- in opposition to German economic policy- trying to stimulate the economy of other southern eurozone countries such as Spain, Italy and France. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor Merkel meets President Trump in a key summit in March 2017. The two leaders have different styles, one flamboyant the other reserved. Chancellor Merkel tells the German media "it is better to talk with each other than about each other." Trump called Merkel's refugee policy "catastrophic," Merkel has said that the Geneva convention requires countries to do this on humanitarian grounds. On trade German's Economy minister Brigitte Zypries says Germany would file a suit on any hike in import duties at the World Trade Organization, that WTO rules restrict import taxes to 2.5% on autos. Germany's BMW plant in the U.S. exports more autos than GM and Ford put together, and Merkel is likely to emphasize large German investment in the U.S.. The heads of BMW and Siemens and other industry executives are accompanying Merkel to the U.S. as trade will be a key topic.

LyrArc Article Gist
Gordon Brown, former prime minister of Britain from 2007 to 2010, chaired the April 2009 G-20 meeting that came up with ways to tackle the global financial crisis. Brown also led the way by recapitalizing British banks, a step the U.S. followed. He comments on the volatility in financial markets in August 2007 following the S&P credit downgrade of the U.S.. Brown gives an incomplete grade to the tasks the 2009 G-20 set out to accomplish. He points to three goals the G-20 had set in the middle of the financial crisis in April 2009. The first was to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. The other two were to establish a financial stability regime, and a compact for growth. These two became paper promises says Brown. Brown sees the best approach to prevent a lost decade is for U.S. and Europe trading their way out of a downturn as the Asian market absorbs more industrial goods from Europe and the U.S. This includes policies that would keep commodity prices low and ways of coping with currency shocks. Analysts have pointed to an export led recovery as one of the solutions the U.S. was hoping to achieve with a lower value of the dollar. This has had only limited success because of deep structural problems- high consumer indebtedness, bad debt at the banks, weak housing sector following the mortgage crisis, and a rising U.S. deficit- which will take some time to clear. Brown does not come to grips with these underlying imbalances built up during the boom years of the last decade, both in Britain and in the U.S., during which he was the finance minister of Britain....

LyrArc Article Gist
Geithner in written testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, stated that "President Obama - backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists- believes that China is manipulating its currency." What is noteworthy is that experts are generally in agreement that something should be done about this in cooperative fashion, from Obama's economic team, Obama's own views on this, The National Association of Maufacturers, Labor and so on. The trade deficit with China has continued at high levels even with the current economic slowdown, so this issue remains as one that the Bush administration never really addressed. Simon Johnson, a MIT Professor, and former IMF Chief economist says that even the IMF has not addressed it, and that the Obama administration needs to call China to account. He says this could lead to a spat with China, and if the US does not back down to a row. The concern has been that China would not buy up Treasury debt the way it has in the past, at the same time the question is whether there is some point where the deficit is so large and the US so dependent on foreign buyers of Treasury debt, that it needs to be addressed on a number of levels. Including addressing currency and fair trade issues, a more rational balanced consumption of everything from oil to goods from lowcost Asian countries, to reduce the toll on the overextended American consumer and on the extent of US borrowing needed. From China's perspective there may also be the same concern about export led growth, which may come to be seen as undependable anyway, because with or without some currency advantage the overextended US consumer is not buying anyway, holding off on purchases of everying from cars to flatscreen televisions. With growth at 6.8% in 4th quarter 2008, according to the Chinese Government Statistics Bureau, and expected to drop to 5% in 2009, the export growth model is no longer the panacea for China's unemployed as it once was at 12-13% growth rates in 2006-2007. In fact it may now look to be a better wiser policy if China had increased the value of its currency even more than its slow gradual approach to slow the growth rate from 12-13% to a more sustainable 9-10%, and lower American imports and lower the American trade deficit. Part of the problem in China was the difficulty of applying any sort of brakes once the local governments were set free to expand as much as they could, and prevented any controls from being effective. Steel production continued to grow even after there was evidence of large overcapacity, and government direction failed. Buy some time to shift to domestic consumption based recovery, is what the Chinese policy may be now. Indications of this are evident with its grappling at the issues it has not tackled like giving ownership of land to farmers in rural areas, and to building a healthcare system for the country, both of which are part of a host of issues to shift to domestic consumption based recovery. So unlike the way the media and some experts portray it its not a tough line that the US is taking against Chinese unwillingness. China may want to cooperate.That may be true if China was missing out on 10-13% growth rates, but these were unsustainable anyway and bad policy. At growth rates below 5% as projected by analysts China may want to jettison the export model of growth and build an alternative one. In that case as China shifts to domestic consumption, currency adjustments may be seen quite differently than they were in the past....

LyrArc Article Gist
Reaganomics, trickle down economics, it is clear don't work. James Mackintosh says in WSJ, the latest version of Reaganomics, in the form of the LIz Truss budget in September 2022 with cuts in corporate taxes, no relief for vulnerable populations in the cost of living crisis as in all other major European countries and in the US, is already getting a bad reception in financial markets with the tumbling of the British pound.Times have changed there is nothing to be gained in its approach as there are no trade unions strangling growth as in Thatcher's time that need to be restrained, and not that much red tape to increase business flexibility. Most of the privatization has already been done and some of the state run companies are operating much better today than privatized companies handling water and other services.   Instead the problem is one of much needed investment in infrastructure and public services, and social protections after the pandemic. Businesses are not being crippled by high corporate taxes. Instead the opposite is the case, with windfall profits, so that the opposite approach taken by president Biden to use the higher tax on profits of Tech, oil and other companies to finance social protections and a huge climate energy initiative made more sense, leading to the passage of the $369 climate bill  and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.  The WSJ makes these points- Britain has a higher current account deficit and higher debt at over 100% of GDP compared to the period of Thatcher in the 1980's when debt was only 40% of GDP. Most important is what the WSJ says about what has happened since the 2009 financial crisis and the austerity policies pursued after that crisis that were worsened by the pandemic so that public services in Britain are actually crumbling. Politically this lacks popular support and little backing at a time of a recession in the British economy, because such policies require public support to go through a tough period . And taking this trickle down economics today when Britain faces a cost of living crisis may be an unwise act of taking an approach that is no longer relevant or shown to be working at the worst possible time, says the WSJ. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The appreciation of the U.S. dollar and depreciating currencies in Africa in 2015 makes it costlier to import manufactured goods to African countries. Quality Supermarkets in Kampala, Uganda, struggles to fill its shelves with imported packaged foods and manufactured goods. The lack of financing for $30 million in crude supplies leads to the closure of a refinery in Lusaka, Zambia, and long lines at gas stations. The Zambian currency kwacha has depreciated by 17% against the U.S. dollar in 2015. Uganda's currency the shilling, Angola's currency the kwanza, and Nigeria's currency the Naira, all depreciated in 2015. This means larger trade deficits to finance consumer imports or upgrade infrastructure. In Uganda this means delays in upgrades to power lines and transformers. In oil producing countries such as Angola and Nigeria, and oil producers at the early stage such as Uganda and Ghana, there is a double whammy with lower oil prices leading to lower revenues to finance costlier imports. This is likely to slow growth in Africa from about 5% in recent years to 3.7%, according to Capital Economics forecast. Countries in Africa that import oil will see lower import bill for oil, but that benefit eroded by a depreciating currency. South Africa sees benefit of lower oil prices offset by lower revenues from commodity exports of iron ore, and the higher cost of imports with a depreciating currency. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China had a trade deficit of $7.3 billion in February 2011. Experts say February is not a typical month because of the Chinese New Year.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ looks at Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All plan that marks a major shift for the U.S. economy.  Households would see their costs go down by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. Because income and wealth was highly skewed in the past three decades in one direction, the spending capacity of lower and middle income households was pushed down. This and other similar plans would help restore a higher level of spending and with it an essential element of inflation of 2-3% to the U.S. economy which was missing in the last decade. This sets the tone for the kind of broad based recovery that happened after 1950 that strengthened America's middle class and made it the core of the economy, the core of the post World War II recovery in America and Europe. The plan would be paid for by higher taxes on corporations, tax rate of 21% for corporations going back up to 35%, and reverse depreciation schedules in the 2017 Republican tax law. The argument that this would reduce business investment does not hold that much says the WSJ because amid new trade tensions business investment has declined over the last 2 quarters, and has been sluggish overall. The other source for the estimated $13 to $20 trillion cost of Medicare for All plan of Elizabeth Warren is a 6% annual wealth tax on billionaires, in an attempt to have all pay their fair share and reduce wide disparities in wealth. Mark Zandl, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, says his sense is at the end of the day from a macroeconomic view- because $11 trillion in the hands of 80% of households who could boost spending after lagging behind in the last decade- the negative effect on business investment will be cancelled out by the higher consumer spending. The overall effect and today's context is infused in this analysis. Private insurance, premiums for insurance, and out of pocket cost that the public pays would disappear in this new system where all health payments pass through the government. Health insurance premiums paid by employers would convert into a new employer Medicare contribution to the government starting at an amount employers pay now and adjusting gradually toward national averages over time. Smallest businesses are exempted. Mr. Zandl says the most important aspect of this now is that Mrs Warren has shown that her plan's revenue sources match the cost so that the plan would not lead to deficits increasing and pushing interest rates higher, leading to negative effects on the economy. Republicans under Mr. Trump have paid little attention to expanded deficits caused by their tax law, and economists across the landscape have also shown less concern. Still attacks are made if the plans don't add up. For this reason a sound assessment in today's context of depressed consumers and an overall impact becomes essential. The WSJ quotes from a pre- assessment of Warren's plan by Simon Johnson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who co-wrote it with Mr. Zandl and Betsey Stevenson of the University of Michigan. What they point out is that putting cash in the pockets of the lower and middle class for spending makes a lot of sense today, and taking money out of the pockets at the way upper wealthy end,  does not contract the economy at all. Other effects they say are constructive by letting all workers get health coverage from the government instead of employers, this makes it easier to change jobs increasing labor mobility and productivity. A worker getting a better job and better utilization of skills could then shift without looking at the employer health care plan. Warren says there would be a five year transition so that workers in health care insurance industry can work in other insurance fields and in Medicare, no one would be left behind. The important thing being to build America's middle class again. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
More flexiblity from Secretary Paulson as Senate leaders on a bipartisan basis get restless about the lack of Chinese action on their currency to help reduce the US trade deficit and protect US jobs and manufacturing. One of the arguments they will manufacture elsewhere samer goods imported from Chia may not hold because places like India and Vietnasm have weak infrastructure and are just now getting started so its difficult for them to replace Chinese goods in the very near term. The other point mentioned here is that the strengthening of the euro has significantly helped the US trade deficit.

LyrArc Article Gist
The US trade deficit at about $10 billion in 1995 reached a high of about $65 billion by 2007. Now the figures are expected by economists to drop in March from $62 billion to $61 billion as exports increase and the US imports less. The trade deficit is finally moving in the other direction. But the strength of this trend depends a lot on how strong the rest of the world economy remains to draw in US exports. It also depends on the dollar, and the dollar strengthened by about 4% against the euro in the first two weeks of May.

LyrArc Article Gist
Weymouth interviews Colombian President, Juan Manuel Santos. Santos was finance minister, foreign trade minister, and defense minister under former president Alvaro Uribe. The U.S. is negotiating a free trade agreement with Colombia. Santos has improved relations with neighboring Venezuela, which under Uribe were strained upto the breaking point. He is also improving relations with Ecuador, and working to strengthen the Andean Development Council. Santos says Colombia has a smaller drug problem after defeating the major cartels, though mini-cartels still operate in the country. On fiscal responsibility Colombia has introduced a rule in the constitution to limit deficits to 1% of GDP. Santos expects 5% growth in 2011. He hopes to protect Colombia's growth in a global financial crisis by strengthening regional reserve funds, multilateral cooperation of Andean countries, and central bank monetary policies. Santos plans to abolish the DAS intelligence agency in 3-4 months. He plans to create a new intelligence agency and transfer functions such as immigration that were under DAS to other agencies. He has also launched investigations and action against corruption in the government and against public officials working with local mafias. To do this he is working with the attorney general, prosecutor general, the controller general, and police. This has led to criticism from Uribe who sees the changes in policy pointing to deficiencies in the Uribe administration. Colombia is a country with a population of 46 million and plays a significant role in the northern part of Latin America. Santos assumed office in 2010 and was the choice of Alvaro Uribe. His policies have won him a 71% approval rating....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Journal's Jeff Bennett talks with Rodney O'Neal, the CEO of Delphi Automotive. O'Neal says Delphi's success depends on focussing on advanced technologies where emerging market producers are less able to compete. He has focussed on 33 product lines which are 'green,' safe' and connected.' If it doen't create value then revenue and cost numbers are wrong, is O'Neal's lesson from the bankruptcy filing. He likes the chaotic discussion coming form strong debate, where views are expressed with passion and counterpoints made, and he takes this debate seriously, because as he sees it choosing the right course is a significant task in itself, which takes much time to correct if wrong. There are major improvements in emission and fuel economy ahead and a high tech future for the automobile industry. He see America's future in high-tech where America can do better than emerging market producers, and ensuring that the steady flow of exceptional American talent continues to be channelled properly....

LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Paul Krugman points out the risks of a trade war in the tariffs announced for steel and aluminium by president Trump. Yet he accepts that he advocated stronger action on China's currency in 2009-2010 when the U.S. economy was weaker. In the past on the TPP agreement proposed by president Obama, Krugman said that it would have an insignificant impact as most of the gains on trade were already made. Here Krugman is critical of the language used by president Trump about trade wars being "easy."  This is taken out of context though as president Trump is saying that it is easy in the context of a country enjoying a $100 billion surplus with the U.S., because that country is going to have incentives to maintain a good trading relationship with the U.S. Essentially this means that the steel industry in the U.S. benefits. China also benefits as it closes many of the older steel plants that led to overproduction. This would reduce overcapacity in China's steel industry, a problem China's economic planners see as a priority. China already is making the shift to higher technology products and this process will be accelerated, as it puts less emphasis on steel and metals as it did in its earlier stage of development. As a result contrary to textbook economics this has the potential to be a win-win solution for the U.S. and China in the long run. So little was done under the Bush and Obama administrations to manage trading relationships with other countries so that the interests of small communities across the U.S. were protected from unfair trade- that Reagan administration trade expert Robert Lighthizer took up the cause of the U.S.,workers in these communities. Surveys showed U.S. public opinion also had shifted among educated, professionals and middle class on this issue by 2015, against unfair trade that hurt U.S. interests. Robert Lighthizer is now the Trade Representative for the U.S. in the Trump administration. Reports in the WSJ about the discussion within the Trump economic council, show Gary Cohn favored not imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Lighthizer advocated the tariffs and was able to convince the president.  For Trump this presents a win-win situation, as a mild response by China -and other trading nations that have enjoyed a favorable situation in the past -with its huge surplus and favorable trading relationship with the U.S. would present a win for the president. Economist Krugman accepts this when he says tariffs in the current context of the trading field- that is more favorable to other countries- are not such a big deal, only the use of such policy that is likely to endanger world trade.  As in much of the debate that takes place this adds to the headlines today yet provides delayed and limited relief to communities across the U.S. devastated by world trade as documented by experts who studied trade patterns and their effect on regions across the U.S.  As the WSJ points out in one report the trade deficit itself may continue to grow under president Trump because of other factors. The U.S. dollar surged 8% during the last 2 years of the Obama administration with the economic recovery underway. With Trump's election win the dollar surged another 3%. This may play a bigger role in the direction of the trade deficit than the new steel tariffs announced by president Trump. Workers and unions matter. As TPP pushed by Democratic party president Obama was opposed by the unions, and by the auto industry (workers and auto companies) in the midwestern states which suffered a hollowing out in the last decade. A WSJ survey after the election showed Clinton received 56% support from union workers in 2018 compared to 65% for president Obama in the 2012 election. Some of that erosion in support may come from Obama's TPP stand fervently opposed by the unions and workers in the auto industry. A similar situation took place in Ontario with hollowing out of the auto industry in this large industrial state in Canada and led to the rejection of the Conservative government and election of the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau. This lesson is so far lost in the Democratic Party's debate.     ...