<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Mike Segar/Reuters</span></p></div><p></p></div></div>On Thursday, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reportedly-considering-5-tariff-on-imports-2016-12">CNN reported that President-elect Donald Trump's administration</a> is considering imposing a 5% tariff on all imports into the United States.</p><p>While the decision is not final, sources told CNN the tariff <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reportedly-considering-5-tariff-on-imports-2016-12">could be implemented through an executive order</a> in the early days of the Trump presidency.</p><p>The move is not surprising given that Trump made free trade one of the central topics of his campaign after criticizing China, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-trade-idUSKCN0WQ0WG">Mexico</a>, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/international/unease-after-trump-depicts-tokyo-as-an-economic-rival.html">Japan</a>.</p><p>He suggested putting a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-45-tariff-chinese-imports-china-2016-1">45% tariff</a> on Chinese imports, said he would declare China <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/trump-to-brand-china-currency-manipulator-treasury-veteran-says">a currency manipulator</a> on his first day in office, proposed taxing imports from Mexico, argued in favor of "<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/271723-trump-vows-to-rip-up-all-trade-agreements">ripping up</a>" trade deals, and called the T<span>rans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, <span>"</span><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-channels-brexit-in-anti-trade-speech-at-pennsylvania-factory">a rape of our country</a>.<span>"</span></span></p><p><span><span>After the election, Trump <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-war-enemy-2016-12">has said in victory rallies that</a> for trade "you have to look at it almost as a war," asking "w<span>ho the hell cares if there's a trade war?" </span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span>Specifically for China, Trump said the country is committing "<span>the greatest jobs theft in the history of the world."</span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span>W<span>illem Buiter, chief economist at Citi, wrote in a note to clients before report of the new tariff that</span></span></span> protectionist trade policies might spark a global trade war, "<span>which could easily trigger a global recession."</span></p><p><span>Deutsche Bank has also addressed the negative risks of the Trump trade agenda. A </span>team from the firm wrote in a note on Friday that "the biggest threat to growth is a possible protectionist turn, which could depress global trade and even trigger trade wars."</p><p>In addition to the tariff talk, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-peter-navarro-china-national-trade-council-2016-12">Trump also appointed Peter Navarro</a> as head of the new National Trade Council on Wednesday. Navarro has been a long-time critic of China, writing a book entitled "Death By China."</p><p><span>While these moves </span>do not signal a coming collapse in international trade, they do suggest that Trump's more protectionist tendencies will come out during his time in office.</p><p>Additionally, a tariff of any kind is likely to spark a reaction from major US trading partners such as China. <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-weighs-response-to-new-u-s-trade-foe-1482401351">Chinese officials are reportedly weighing options</a> on how to respond to hostile trade moves by Trump.</p><p>Given the moves by Trump, we've broken down just how a protectionist trade scenario could impact the US economy and the geopolitical order.</p><h2><span>A macroeconomic drag</span></h2><p><span>A 5% tariff may cause some impacts to the US economy - higher costs, a slight drag to GDP growth - but economists are worried about what it signals going forward.</span></p><p><span>Michael Gapen, a chief US economist at Barclays, has estimated the economic drag from tariffs on imports from China and Mexico may have on US GDP growth.</span></p><p><span>Assuming a 15% tariff on Chinese imports and a 7% tariff on Mexican imports - modestly above their current levels of 2-10% depending on the good - Gapen estimated that the US would see a 0.5% reduction in annual GDP growth in just the next year. </span></p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Stringer/Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">Workers process laptop accessories at a factory in Dazu, Chongqing Municipality, April 22, 2014.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p><span>Meanwhile, Buiter said that Citi estimates trade and other policy uncertainties could be a 1% drag on US GDP over the next year.</span></p><p>And should the president-elect eventually decide to follow through with any of these policies, the US risks retaliatory measures from other countries.</p><p>"If tariffs are more punitive and lead to a public trade spat with China, markets will get nervous, especially if a sharp, retaliatory, [Chinese yuan] depreciation looks like a realistic response," Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays, said. </p><p>If this pattern is followed by other countries, it could lead to a downward spiral, or litigation at the World Trade Organization.</p><p>"Depending on the specific measures, retaliatory action from elsewhere could be expected, while the risk of trade and currency wars could grow," said Janet Henry, chief global economist at HSBC.</p><h2><span>Making it more expensive for consumers</span></h2><p><span>As for how this affects individual Americans, an increase in tariffs could be passed through by companies in the form of higher prices. </span></p><p><span>Parts for consumer items are made abroad. And so, increasing tariffs could make it <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/inflation-pressures-under-president-trump-2016-11">more expensive to import</a> these parts for goods. In order to protect corporate profits and margins, companies could hike prices - which is not ideal for consumers.</span></p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p><span><span>A crucial thing to consider here is that this type of price increase is not caused by the virtuous wage and price increase cycle, but rather an exogenous shock to prices without a boost to the labor market. </span></span><span><span>In plain English, that means</span><span> that while parts manufactured in China instantly becomes more expensive for Americans under tariffs, wages do not necessarily go up the corresponding amount to offset this cost increase.</span></span></p><p><span>Theoretically, companies could avoid tariffs by producing more in the US. The problem here is, however, that labor is more expensive in America, so even if companies bring production to the US, the increased labor costs could push up prices, too.</span></p><h2><span>A 'nail in the coffin' of the post-WWII economic order </span></h2><div title="Page 6"><p><span>Not only could Trump's moves impact everyday consumers in the US, but they could upend macroeconomic polices that have been in place for more than half a century. As Buiter notes, these policies have increased worldwide prosperity and been positive developments for the US. </span></p><p><span>From the Citi economist's note (emphasis added):</span></p><p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span>"We stress the potential multipliers of changes in the US position on international trade: the US has been the champion of free trade and open borders for decades. A retreat from globalization by the US would likely lead to reciprocal actions from other countries, and reinforce the latest shift towards de- globalization and <strong>could be another nail in the coffin of the liberal global economic world order that has supported prosperity since 1948.</strong>"</span></p><p>Taking it a step further, now that Trump has been elected president, <span>the possibility of passing the<span> TPP, the landmark free-trade agreement that aims to slash tariffs and promote economic growth among 12 nations in the Pacific Rim excluding China,</span> has effectively dropped to nil.</span></p><p><span>(President <span>Obama's administration <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-suspends-efforts-to-win-approval-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-2016-11">has already suspended its efforts</a> to win congressional approval for the deal before Trump takes office, saying that its fate is up to the president-elect and Republican lawmakers.)</span></span></p><p><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon</span></p><p class="caption">Japan's Shinzo Abe and China's Xi Jinping.</p></div><p></p></div></div> </span></p><p><span>And that could have major implications for the future of the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/tpp-deal-is-probably-dead-after-trump-victory-in-presidential-election-2016-11">economic and geopolitical order in Asia Pacific</a>, given that the deal is <span>arguably more about the </span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/will-tpp-pass-shinzo-abe-obama-2016-9">United States' long-term position in Asia</a><span> than about the near-term financial advantages.</span></span></p><h2>Americans want jobs</h2><p>Mainstream economists generally <a href="http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m">agree</a> that free trade is "<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EffectOfTariff.svg">good</a><span>" for an economy in the long-run (even though within an economy there will be some people who benefit less, particularly in the short-term), while trade-restrictive measures <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp?layout=infini&amp;v=5B&amp;orig=1&amp;adtest=5B">hurt</a> consumers.</span></p><p><span><span><span><span>However, voters across developed economies believe that free trade actually hurts their countries, which is likely a reflection of their personal experiences. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span>In the US, 89% of Americans think that the loss of US jobs to China is a somewhat or very serious issue, a</span><span>ccording to Pew Research statistics <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/protectionism-near-term-economic-problems-2016-5">previously cited by</a> Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Ethan S. Harris and Lisa C. Berlin. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span>Moreover, only 46% of Americans think NAFTA was good for the economy. </span></span></span></span><span>But it's not just Americans dreaming of a manufacturing comeback; for example, </span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fi-japan-tpp-20160705-snap-htmlstory.html">Japanese farmers</a><span> have been staunchly against the TPP deal.</span></p><p><span><span><span><span><span>There actually is some empirical evidence to back up those grievances. Back in January, </span><a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906">labor economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson published a paper</a><span> showing that increased trade with China did cause some big problems for US workers.</span></span></span></span></span></p><p>From the paper's meaty abstract (emphasis ours):</p><p style="padding-left: 60px;">"China's emergence as a great economic power has induced an epochal shift in patterns of world trade. Simultaneously, it has challenged much of the received empirical wisdom about how labor markets adjust to trade shocks. Alongside the heralded consumer benefits of expanded trade are substantial adjustment costs and distributional consequences. ... <strong>Adjustment in local labor markets is remarkably slow, with wages and labor-force participation rates remaining depressed and unemployment rates remaining elevated for at least a full decade after the China trade shock commences.</strong> Exposed workers experience greater job churning and reduced lifetime income. At the national level, <strong>employment has fallen in U.S. industries more exposed to import competition, as expected, but offsetting employment gains in other industries have yet to materialize."</strong></p><p>Moreover, most of the economic gains from globalization have been for the middle class in emerging markets - not the middle class in developed markets, such as the US.</p><p>Below is o<span>ne of the more popular charts illustrating this, from economist Branko Milanovic, via Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Ajay Singh Kapur and Ritesh Samadhiya back in June.</span></p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>BAML</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>Although both Trump and Hillary Clinton zeroed in on workers' anxieties over job losses during their campaigns, it's important to note that at least some of America's job losses are not due to trade, but rather due to automation. And crucially, automation not only hits manufacturing, but also affects jobs that require advanced degrees, such as neuroradiology.</p><p><span><span>"From a political perspective, I don't think the focus on trade is misplaced. It's effective. Because it has an 'other,'" Alexander Kazan, strategist at Eurasia Group, <a href="https://twitter.com/EGFound/status/777878805348245504">said in a video for the Eurasia Group Foundation</a>. "When you talk about technology, it's much more amorphous. It's this sense that we all lose. So I think politically it's less effective."</span></span></p><h2>Depends on how much is done</h2></div><p><span>Ultimately, a lot will depend on how much protectionist policy Trump is able to pass when he steps into the Oval Office.</span></p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Thomson Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">U.S. President-elect Trump meets with Speaker of the House Ryan on Capitol Hill in Washington</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p><span>Some observers say its unclear how much of the anti-trade rhetoric Trump genuinely intends to carry out. Additionally, there is a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-trade-tpp-nafta-2016-7">strong contingent</a> within Trump's own party that is supportive of free trade.</span></p><p><span></span><span>The possible tariff and appointment of Navarro, however, are signs that protectionist trade could play a major factor in the Trump policy agenda.</span></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fed-federal-reserve-raised-rates-janet-yellen-explain-why-2016-12">Watch Yellen explain why the Federal Reserve decides to raise rates</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="9iN245ODE6FzNRBdC0_U12Pgj2-fdpNL" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

Trump's new tariff proposal could put the economy on a path to 'global recession'

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</span></p><p class="caption">President-elect Donald Trump</p></div><p></p></div></div>In the days following the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, Wall Street analysts and economists are attempting to parse out his impact on the global economy.</p><p>A large chunk of the analyses of Trump's domestic economic policies has focused on positive developments for corporations such as tax reform or deregulation.</p><p>There is one of Trump's economic policies, however, that seems to be viewed as a negative: his protectionist agenda when it comes to trade.</p><p>Trump made the free trade debate one of the central topics of his campaign after criticizing China, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-trade-idUSKCN0WQ0WG">Mexico</a>, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/international/unease-after-trump-depicts-tokyo-as-an-economic-rival.html">Japan</a>. He suggested putting a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-45-tariff-chinese-imports-china-2016-1">45% tariff</a> on Chinese imports, said he would declare China <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/trump-to-brand-china-currency-manipulator-treasury-veteran-says">a currency manipulator</a> on his first day in office, proposed taxing imports from Mexico, argued in favor of "<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/271723-trump-vows-to-rip-up-all-trade-agreements">ripping up</a>" trade deals, and called the T<span>rans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, <span>"</span><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-channels-brexit-in-anti-trade-speech-at-pennsylvania-factory">a rape of our country</a>.<span>"</span></span></p><p><span><span>If Trump were to pursue these policies, W<span>illem Buiter, chief economist at Citi, wrote in a note to clients that</span></span></span> it might spark a global trade war, "<span>which could easily trigger a global recession."</span></p><p><span>The Deutsche Bank research house view also addressed the negative risks of the Trump trade agenda. A </span>team from the firm wrote in a note on Friday that "the biggest threat to growth is a possible protectionist turn, which could depress global trade and even trigger trade wars."</p><p><span>Though the extent of Trump's anti-trade agenda are unknown, if he chooses to pursue it, there would likely be significant consequences.</span></p><h2><span>A macroeconomic drag</span></h2><p><span>Most analysts have interpreted Trump's statements on "winning" trade deals and taxes on imports to mean that he would increase tariffs from countries like China and Mexico.</span></p><p><span>In a note to clients, Michael Gapen, a chief US economist at Barclays, laid out just how much the economic drag from even slightly increased tariffs on imports from those two countries have on US GDP growth.</span></p><p><span>Assuming a 15% tariff on Chinese imports and a 7% tariff on Mexican imports - modestly above their current levels of 2-10% depending on the good - Gapen estimated that the US would see a haircut of 0.5% from annual GDP growth in just the next year. </span></p><p><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/China Daily</span></p><p class="caption">A worker operates a machine to cut a pipeline at a factory in Qingdao, Shandong province November 29, 2013.</p></div><p></p></div></div></span></p><p><span>Meanwhile, Buiter said that Citi estimates trade and other policy uncertainties could be a 1% drag on US GDP over the next year.</span></p><p>And should the president-elect eventually decide to follow through with any of these policies, the US risks retaliatory measures from other countries.</p><p>"If tariffs are more punitive and lead to a public trade spat with China, markets will get nervous, especially if a sharp, retaliatory, [Chinese yuan] depreciation looks like a realistic response," according to Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research. (For what it's worth, the People's Bank of China fixed the yuan at its lowest level in six years on Thursday amid worries Trump could name China as a currency manipulator, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/yuan-falls-to-six-year-low-amid-concern-trump-will-target-china">according to Bloomberg</a>.)</p><p>If this pattern is followed by other countries, it could lead to a spiral or litigation at the World Trade Organization, further offering downside risk.</p><p>"Depending on the specific measures, retaliatory action from elsewhere could be expected, while the risk of trade and currency wars could grow," said Janet Henry, chief global economist at HSBC.</p><h2><span>Making it more expensive for consumers</span></h2><p><span>As for how this affects individual Americans, an increase in tariffs could be passed through by companies in the form of higher prices. </span></p><p><span>Parts for consumer items are made abroad. And so, increasing tariffs could make it <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/inflation-pressures-under-president-trump-2016-11">more expensive to import</a> these parts for goods. In order to protect corporate profits and margins, companies could hike prices - which is not ideal for consumers.</span></p><p><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/ Kevork Djansezian</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></span></p><p><span><span>A crucial thing to consider here is that this type of price increase is not caused by the virtuous wage and price increase cycle, but rather an exogenous shock to prices without a boost to the labor market. </span></span><span><span>In English, that means</span><span> that while parts manufactured in China instantly becomes more expensive for Americans under tariffs, wages do not necessarily go up the corresponding amount to offset this cost increase.</span></span></p><p><span>Theoretically, companies could avoid tariffs by producing more in the US. The problem here is, however, that labor is more expensive in America, so even if companies bring production to the US, the increased labor costs could push up prices, too.</span></p><h2><span>A 'nail in the coffin' of the post-WWII economic order </span></h2><div title="Page 6"><p><span>Not only could Trump's moves impact everyday consumers in the US, but it could upend the trend in macroeconomic polices that have been in place for more than half a century. As Buiter notes, these policies have increased worldwide prosperity and positive developments for the US. </span></p><p><span>From the Citi economist's note (emphasis added):</span></p><p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span>"We stress the potential multipliers of changes in the US position on international trade: the US has been the champion of free trade and open borders for decades. A retreat from globalization by the US would likely lead to reciprocal actions from other countries, and reinforce the latest shift towards de- globalization and <strong>could be another nail in the coffin of the liberal global economic world order that has supported prosperity since 1948.</strong>"</span></p><p>Taking it a step further, now that Trump has been elected president, <span>the possibility of the<span> TPP, the landmark free-trade agreement that aims to slash tariffs and promote economic growth among 12 nations in the Pacific Rim - excluding China,</span> passing has effectively dropped to nil.</span></p><p><span>(On Friday, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-suspends-efforts-to-win-approval-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-2016-11">Reuters reported</a> that <span>Obama's administration suspended its efforts to win congressional approval for the deal before Trump takes office, adding that its fate was up to the president-elect and Republican lawmakers.)</span></span></p><p><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon</span></p><p class="caption">Japan's Shinzo Abe and China's Xi Jinping.</p></div><p></p></div></div> </span></p><p><span>And that could have major implications for the future of the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/tpp-deal-is-probably-dead-after-trump-victory-in-presidential-election-2016-11">economic and geopolitical order in the Asia Pacific</a> given that the deal is <span>arguably more about the </span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/will-tpp-pass-shinzo-abe-obama-2016-9">United States' long-term position in Asia</a><span> than about the near-term financial advantages.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Notably, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called Trump on Wednesday evening (or Thursday morning in Japan) to arrange a meeting for the upcoming week. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/asia/japan-donald-trump-shinzo-abe.html?smid=tw-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur">The New York Times reports</a> that Abe will be "<span>seeking to gauge the sincerity of Mr. Trump's campaign rhetoric on Japan" and <span>will also likely want to address the TPP - which is now closer to ratification in Japan after being approved by the lower house of Parliament.</span></span></span></span></p><h2>Americans want jobs</h2><p>Mainstream economists virtually all <a href="http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m">agree</a> that free trade is "<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EffectOfTariff.svg">good</a><span>" for an economy in the long-run (even though within an economy there will be some people who benefit less, particularly in the short-term), while trade-restrictive measures <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp?layout=infini&amp;v=5B&amp;orig=1&amp;adtest=5B">hurt</a> consumers.</span></p><p><span><span><span><span>However, voters across developed economies believe that free trade actually hurts their countries, which is likely a reflection of their personal experiences. </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>Stateside, 89% of Americans think that the loss of US jobs to China is a somewhat or very serious issue, a</span><span>ccording to Pew Research statistics <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/protectionism-near-term-economic-problems-2016-5">previously cited by</a> Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Ethan S. Harris and Lisa C. Berlin. Moreover, only 46% of Americans think NAFTA was good for the economy. </span></span></span></span><span>But it's not just Americans dreaming of a manufacturing comeback; for example, </span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fi-japan-tpp-20160705-snap-htmlstory.html">Japanese farmers</a><span> have been staunchly against the TPP deal.</span></p><p><span><span><span><span><span>There actually is some empirical evidence to back up those grievances. Back in January, </span><a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906">labor economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson published a paper</a><span> showing that increased trade with China actually caused some big problems for US workers.</span></span></span></span></span></p><p>From the paper's meaty abstract (emphasis ours):</p><p style="padding-left: 60px;">"China's emergence as a great economic power has induced an epochal shift in patterns of world trade. Simultaneously, it has challenged much of the received empirical wisdom about how labor markets adjust to trade shocks. Alongside the heralded consumer benefits of expanded trade are substantial adjustment costs and distributional consequences. ... <strong>Adjustment in local labor markets is remarkably slow, with wages and labor-force participation rates remaining depressed and unemployment rates remaining elevated for at least a full decade after the China trade shock commences.</strong> Exposed workers experience greater job churning and reduced lifetime income. At the national level, <strong>employment has fallen in U.S. industries more exposed to import competition, as expected, but offsetting employment gains in other industries have yet to materialize."</strong></p><p>Moreover, most of the economic gains from globalization have been for the middle class in emerging markets - not the middle class in developed markets, such as the US. Below is o<span>ne of the more popular charts illustrating this, from economist Branko Milanovic, via Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Ajay Singh Kapur and Ritesh Samadhiya back in June.</span></p><p><span><span>And so, </span></span><span><span>Trump's policy proposals look attractive to some voters. </span></span></p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>BAML</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>However, although both Trump and Hillary Clinton zeroed in on workers' anxieties over job losses during their campaigns, it's important to note that at least some of America's job losses are not due to trade, but rather due to automation. And crucially, automation has not only hits manufacturing, but also affects jobs that require advanced degrees, such as neuroradiology.</p><p><span><span>"From a political perspective, I don't think the focus on trade is misplaced. It's effective. Because it has an 'other,'" Alexander Kazan, strategist at Eurasia Group, <a href="https://twitter.com/EGFound/status/777878805348245504">said in a video for the Eurasia Group Foundation</a>. "When you talk about technology, it's much more amorphous. It's this sense that we all lose. So I think politically it's less effective."</span></span></p><h2>Depends on how much is done</h2></div><p><span>Ultimately, a lot will depend on how much Trump can and will actually try to pass when he steps into the Oval Office.</span></p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Thomson Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">U.S. President-elect Trump meets with Speaker of the House Ryan on Capitol Hill in Washington</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p><span>Due to his lack of policy experience, some observers say its unclear how much of the anti-trade rhetoric Trump genuinely intends to carry out. Additionally, there is a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-trade-tpp-nafta-2016-7">strong contingent</a> within Trump's own party that is supportive of free trade, as they recognize the economic benefits; the more moderate factions of the Republican and Democratic parties can slow down Trump's proposed agenda.</span></p><p><span>Gapen and Barclays, however, wrote that some aspects such as modestly raising tariffs or directing the Treasury to label a country a currency manipulator fall under executive privilege.</span></p><p><span>As an end note, for what it's worth, </span>a Trump policy adviser <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/10/a-trump-policy-adviser-is-already-walking-back-tough-talk-on-trade/">appeared</a> to walk back some of Trump's more assertive anti-trade rhetoric after he was elected.</p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/xiaomi-new-mi-mix-better-than-iphone-2016-10">The 'Apple of China' just unveiled a phone that's more powerful and better looking than the iPhone</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="5tamMwNzE6XQnLV5ixV8UUd-PSbdYX4A" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

One of Trump's major economic polices could lead to a 'global recession'

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Chris Wattie/Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau .</p></div><p></p></div></div>One of the most important trade deals in the world is back on.</p><p>But that doesn't mean that anti-globalization sentiment is going anywhere, anytime soon.</p><p>CETA, the historic free-trade agreement between the European Union and Canada, is close to completion after an agreement between the Belgian government and the Wallonian Parliament was reached on Thursday, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/eu-canada-ceta-summit-cancelled-belgium-wallonia-brexit-2016-10">as Business Insider's Adam Payne reported</a> earlier.</p><p>After seven years of negotiations, it looked like the deal was about to fall through last week after Wallonia, a French-speaking region in Belgium with a population of 3.6 million, and two other regional legislatures <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37758475">vetoed</a> the deal at zero hour and later rejected an ultimatum to reverse course.</p><p>However, the revised deal now looks like it could be finalized by the weekend, if the national parliaments of every EU member state to agree to the updated trade deal by midnight Friday. But the difficulties in getting the deal done show that skepticism about globalization is still a big global trend.</p><h2> </h2><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><h2>Benefits and costs</h2><p>Mainstream economists virtually all <a href="http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m">agree</a> that free trade is "<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EffectOfTariff.svg">good</a><span>" for an economy in the long-run (even though within an economy there will be some people who benefit less, particularly in the short-term), while trade-restrictive measures </span><a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp?layout=infini&amp;v=5B&amp;orig=1&amp;adtest=5B">hurt</a> <span>consumers.</span></p><p>However, some argue that the CETA deal in particular won't be a slam dunk economically speaking. Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note that tariffs are already pretty low, which suggests that the long-run GDP bump for Canada would be just 0.3%. "Furthermore, that is a pre-Brexit estimate," he continued. "Nearly half of Canada's exports to the European Union go to the UK. So the boost from this deal post-Brexit would be so small that it would barely cover the cost of negotiating it over so many years."</p><p>Against this backdrop, voters across various developed economies believe that free trade actually hurts their countries, which could be a reflection of their personal experiences. Stateside, 89% of Americans think that the loss of US jobs to China is a somewhat or very serious issue, a<span>ccording to Pew Research statistics <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/protectionism-near-term-economic-problems-2016-5">previously cited by</a> Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Ethan S. Harris and Lisa C. Berlin. Moreover, only 46% of Americans think NAFTA was good for the economy.</span></p><p>And there actually is some empirical evidence to back up those grievances. Back in January, <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906">labor economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson published a paper</a> showing that increased trade with China actually caused some big problems for US workers.</p><p>From the paper's meaty abstract (emphasis ours):</p><p style="padding-left: 60px;">"China's emergence as a great economic power has induced an epochal shift in patterns of world trade. Simultaneously, it has challenged much of the received empirical wisdom about how labor markets adjust to trade shocks. Alongside the heralded consumer benefits of expanded trade are substantial adjustment costs and distributional consequences. ... <strong>Adjustment in local labor markets is remarkably slow, with wages and labor-force participation rates remaining depressed and unemployment rates remaining elevated for at least a full decade after the China trade shock commences.</strong> Exposed workers experience greater job churning and reduced lifetime income. At the national level, <strong>employment has fallen in U.S. industries more exposed to import competition, as expected, but offsetting employment gains in other industries have yet to materialize."</strong></p><p>But in other cases, voters skeptical about globalization might not necessarily acting in their own best interests: A <a href="https://twitter.com/FT/status/746275255354818561">chart created by the Financial Times</a> the day after the Brexit vote showed that the regions with the highest share of votes for "Leave" were also the most economically dependent on the EU.</p><p>Plus, it's worth remembering that globalization has lifted many out of poverty in emerging market economies. One of the more popular charts illustrating this is the following from economist Branko Milanovic, via Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Ajay Singh Kapur and Ritesh Samadhiya back in June:</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image on-image"><a title_source="BAML" title_caption="" class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/581241c0362ca41c258b5224-960/screen_shot_2016-10-27_at_1.58.53_pm.png"><span class="sprites click-to-enlarge-icon" title="Click to enlarge"></span></a><p class="source"><span>BAML</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><h2>We've already done a lot of globalization</h2><p>In any case, it's inaccurate to say that free trade is never good. Regarding why CETA might not add a huge direct economic boost, it's worth keeping in mind that we <em>already</em> live in a world where tariffs between developed markets have been sharply reduced over the last 30-something years. In other words, any additional gains are less than they would have been when the world was first opening up because we <em>already</em> have many of those benefits.</p><p>Plus, there are benefits for individuals: It's definitely easier on consumers' wallets to not pay 45% tariffs. To put it into a real-world perspective, a $300 microwave would set you back $435 with such a tariff. Not awesome.</p><p>And finally, given that China's opening up was such a huge shock, one could argue that 15 years hasn't been enough for the global and US economies to adjust to it.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Issei Kato/Reuters</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><h2>TPP and the US election</h2><p>The bulk of the discussion among voters regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP), which would lower tariffs for 12 countries around the Pacific excluding China, has centered on the growing populist movement and the rising backlash against trade. And it's not just Americans dreaming of a manufacturing comeback - for example, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fi-japan-tpp-20160705-snap-htmlstory.html">Japanese farmers</a> have been staunchly against TPP.</p><p>Ashford noted that skepticism about these agreements is on the rise in the developed world, writing that "...the near failure [of CETA] is another illustration, coming alongside the imminent collapse of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and the reopening of the softwood lumber dispute with the US, that globalization is now deeply unpopular with voters in most developed countries."</p><p>Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/protectionism-near-term-economic-problems-2016-5">said they oppose the TPP deal</a>, zeroing in on workers' anxieties as they vie for the White House (even though Clinton had previously called it the "<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clintons-quotes-favoring-pacific-trade-pact-now-opposes/">gold standard</a><span>" of trade agreements.) Trump once called the deal "<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-channels-brexit-in-anti-trade-speech-at-pennsylvania-factory">a rape of our country</a>," and named NAFTA as "the worst trade deal in the history of our country." But the Obama administration has kept pushing for TPP, and the president aims to get it through Congress during the lame-duck period after the election, providing a cushion for Clinton to publicly maintain her opposition to the deal, should she win the election.</span></p><p>"The upshot is that even if Donald Trump doesn't win the US presidential election, the backlash against free trade, prompted by the resulting rise in income inequality in advanced countries, means that the chances of even already negotiated deals being implemented are quite slim," argued Ashworth. "Countries have almost no incentive to start negotiations on new deals."</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>David Gray/Reuters</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><h2>It's about <keyword id="6358883" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Politics">politics</keyword></h2><p>Despite the voters' concerns, it's worth pointing out that these deals are about more than economics.<span> T</span>he TPP deal, for example, is arguably more about the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/will-tpp-pass-shinzo-abe-obama-2016-9">United States' position in Asia</a> than about the near-term economic advantages <span>as China continues to grow </span><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-applies-to-join-aiib-1472642406">economically on the global stage</a><span> and militarily in Asia.</span></p><p>In fact, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe furiously promoted the TTP deal at various media and investor events <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/will-tpp-pass-shinzo-abe-obama-2016-9">back in September</a> when major world leaders congregated in New York for the UN General Assembly.</p><p>During one event attended by the prime minister that week, an investment seminar hosted by the Japan External Trade Organization and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry at the Pierre Hotel, Dr. Ziad Haider, special representative for commercial and business affairs at the US Department of State said, "Secretary Kerry ... likes to say that foreign policy is economic policy, and in saying that he's referring to that interplay between foreign policy, foreign affairs, economic issues, and it's certainly true with bilateral diplomatic relations, as well."</p><p>"A lot depends on TPP," Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-asia-trip-2016-9">previously told Business Insider</a><span>.</span> "If it doesn't get done, China will become the fall-back leader for Asian economic architecture. And US relations with many countries in the region will slip."</p><p>And so it's interesting to think about the split between what politicians and economists argue is "good" long-run for countries versus what everyday voters perceived as "good" for themselves - and how this issue will be addressed going forward.</p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/liz-ann-sonders-markets-reaction-election-economy-trump-clinton-2016-10">LIZ ANN SONDERS: The most unsettling outcome for the markets would be a surprise Trump win</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="czY2RrNjE6g23Q0yzCUBNysuCleRsdVF" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

One of the most important trade deals in the world lives - but so does anti-globalization sentiment

<ul><li>Disney+ <keyword id="2739840" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Hotstar">Hotstar</keyword> has launched a campaign featuring veteran actor <keyword id="17594" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="shakti-kapoor">Shakti Kapoor</keyword> who returns in the much-loved <keyword id="2179947" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Crime-Master-Gogo">Crime Master Gogo</keyword> avatar.</li><li>Actors <keyword id="89958" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Shraddha-Kapoor">Shraddha Kapoor</keyword> and Karisma Kapoor also feature as a part of the campaign highlighting the movie offerings available under Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex.</li></ul>Disney+ Hotstar has launched a campaign featuring one of the most timeless Bollywood characters, Crime Master Gogo. <br /><br />The film features actor Shakti Kapoor, returning after more than 25 years as the timeless . This is also the first time that the actor shared the screen with his daughter and actor Shraddha Kapoor. Also welcoming him back is actor Karisma Kapoor from the classic film ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ produced by Vinay Sinha (copyright: Vinay Pictures).<br /><br />Conceptualized by <keyword id="259349" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="DDB-Mudra">DDB Mudra</keyword>, the film shows Shakti Kapoor as Crime Master Gogo turned salesman who is selling the Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex proposition to people. However, on learning that the audiences are already enjoying the latest movies on Disney+ Hotstar, Crime Master Gogo causes mayhem in town staying true to his famed dialogue “Aya hoon, kuch toh lootkar jaunga!”.<br /><br />  <div type="Youtube" id="PCIypZIDs5Y" title="Crime Master Gogo | DisneyPlusHotstarMultiplex" thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PCIypZIDs5Y/mqdefault.jpg"></div><br /><br />“Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex has built a library of both blockbuster and highly acclaimed films that have garnered a spectacular response from India’s movie-loving audiences, said <keyword id="6853511" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sidharth-Shakdher">Sidharth Shakdher</keyword>, Executive Vice President , Disney+ Hotstar. “Through our new marketing campaign, we are celebrating the success of our exclusive, made-for-the-big-screen movie releases on Multiplex, and announcing the upcoming blockbusters. The campaign aims to entertain with the evergreen Shakti Kapoor reprising his iconic character, Crime Master Gogo, and the hilarity that ensues when Gogo takes on the role of a salesperson for Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex.” he added.<br /><br />The campaign underlines the platform’s continued commitment to delivering the biggest and most-anticipated movies of India’s mega-stars, like the upcoming Ajay Devgn-starrer Bhuj: The Pride of India, <keyword id="7388127" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="bhoot-police">Bhoot Police</keyword> starring Saif Ali Khan, Arjun Kapoor, Jacqueline Fernandez, and Yami Gautam, and Hungama 2 starring Shilpa Shetty, Meezaan Jaffrey and <keyword id="6357914" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Paresh-Rawal">Paresh Rawal</keyword> - all releasing under the Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex banner within a three-month window.<br /><div type="javascript" title="Instagram" contenttype="Video"><cdata><![CDATA[ ]]></cdata></div><br /><div type="javascript" title="Instagram" contenttype="Video"><cdata><![CDATA[ ]]></cdata></div><br /><br />Actor Shakti Kapoor said, “Love and appreciation from audiences have kept my characters alive even after all these years, and I am so happy to have recreated the Crime Master Gogo look for Disney+ Hotstar. Reliving those moments again was made even more special because it was the first time that I got to share the screen with my daughter Shraddha. Back in the day, we could have never imagined that movies could be accessible to people at all times with just the touch of a button. But Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex has ensured that the latest movies reach audiences at home.”<br /><br />Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex ushers in a re-imagined ‘first-day-first-show’ for fans by releasing the most anticipated movies directly to digital, featuring some of the biggest and most loved actors. These include upcoming titles Bhuj: The Pride of India, Hungama 2, and Bhoot Police and already released Laxmii starring Akshay Kumar, late Sushant Singh Rajput in Dil Bechara, Sanjay Dutt, Alia Bhatt, Aditya Roy Kapur, and <keyword id="6370368" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="pooja-bhatt">Pooja Bhatt</keyword> in Sadak 2, Abhishek Bachchan in The Big Bull, Vidyut Jammwal in Khuda Haafiz, Jimmy Sheirgill in Collar Bomb, Kirti Kulhari in Shaadisthan, Kunal Khemu and Rasika Dugal in Lootcase, amongst others. Fans can also enjoy regional language movies including Mookuthi Amman, Bhoomi, Teddy, and Paramapadham Vilayuttu released under the Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex banner which has received a positive response from the audience across the country. To access Disney+ Hotstar Multiplex and enjoy the magic of blockbuster mvies, users need an active subscription to Disney+ Hotstar.<br />

You Searched For "ajay kapur" and got 4 results

Trump's new tariff proposal could put the economy on a path to 'global recession'

Bob Bryan,Elena Holodny

One of Trump's major economic polices could lead to a 'global recession'

Bob Bryan,Elena Holodny

One of the most important trade deals in the world lives - but so does anti-globalization sentiment

Elena Holodny

Crime Master Gogo is back, this time for a Disney+ Hotstar campaign

BI India Partner