How Good Is the Obama/Trump Economy? Consider Income Growth

This graph was copied from an article: https://qz.com/1342009/the-us-economy-grew-by-4-1-in-the-second-quarter-but-dont-celebrate-too-much/

It indicates that the recent continuous job growth period has been rather large compared to past times. I would be surprised if this doesn't result in good things since consumption is always a significant and large driver of the economy.

However, we have a long way to go. According to OECD study labor conditions confirms that US workers are getting ripped-off America has a huge inequality issue.

This comparison of nations inequality problem makes it clear.

What Will the Mid-Term Elections Be About?

Republicans, particularly those who listen to Steven Bannon and Donald Trump, will believe it's about their hatred of brown-skinned people, the border with Mexico, and the rest of their agenda. It shouldn't be. It's about something much bigger than that. It's about the Law and upholding the Law, so everyone in America can be better off. Our government isn't just for a few haters. It's to serve all of us. It's to protect people of color, gays, working poor, ultra wealthy billionaires who own a newspaper, families who need to stay together, everyone who needs lead-free water to drink, our soldiers who need to NOT be sent to stupid wars, Californians and others who face natural disasters & need government help, and many more things. We don't get to have all those things when our president and a majority of Congress are Hell-bent on serving a minority of Americans and their bizarre hatreds.

When the majority in the House and Senate won't even be seen in the same room with any Democrats, if they can avoid it, we have a problem. When our president says the press shouldn't be allowed to ask him questions or expect an answer, though those journalists pay taxes which fund the government. How can a government run by radicals serve us when they claim the majority are un-decorous for simply doing their jobs?

These mid-term elections aren't just about Donald Trump either. He's just one politician (albeit an important one) who is telling us to think about anything except his incompetence or criminality. The mid-terms are about how we got into this mess, where criminality abounds in the administration and the presidential campaign which preceded it, and how we get out of it by upholding the Law so that all of us can survive and do well.

We are stronger together.

Exoplanet Space Science and a Bit of Political Commentary

Hold onto your hats. This article is out of this world. These are short descriptions of some exoplanets. They are close to the size of Earth, give or take a few hundred percent and some may be inhabitable some day.

Welcome to Hell, planet Hell

This is probably how the Trump family feel about their world and where it's going.

The Mueller Inquiry equivalent ...

Trump may feel those gentle "raindrops of molten glass" coming down on him. All you and I see is a 'cool' blue planet.

Then there are the diamond worlds. We are hoping Rod Rosenstein can match them for durability in the coming months.

Here is a 'view' of the ones discovered up to 2012.

One webpage I see indicates there tend to be two kinds of exoplanets: those which are Earth-like and those which are Neptune-like.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/exoplanets-two-sizes-rocky-earths-mini-neptunes-04970.html

How many of these may we find habitable (where we could live)? Nobody knows for certain as there are factors we can't yet measure. But, this handy visual guide is a start.

http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/nasakeplerdiscoversnewpotentiallyhabitableexoplanets

Economics Report: Good Friday

I just read an  interesting article from Bloomberg. The monthly economic numbers are out and things are still looking good, except for the (now) perennial problem of the federal debt.

It had some (slightly) startling information which could be very important for policy-makers.


We know a faster growing economy during the Obama years led to corporate growth and profits (at a slow rate) with NO significant increased middle-class worker compensation until the unemployment rate decreased to about 4%. Now unemployment is finally down to the 3% range and worker compensation is increasing some. That's one good factor.

Large corporations have been saving and buying back their own stock, so executives can benefit from higher stock prices. They haven't been paying employees more or hiring a lot more. Before today I haven't seen any reports about small corporations or proprietorships which hire and sell only domestically.


Now, according to the news, the GDP growth rate is up a bit and Americans are saving MORE, but it is only among proprietors. Those are good second and third factors.

Workers still aren't particularly sharing in the GDP or profits growth. Still, this makes me wonder if there will be some point at which proprietors or small corporations would have sufficient savings (or padding if you like) to begin paying employees more. That remains to be seen.

However, if this were to happen, then a sustained growth rate of some percentage, along with a low unemployment rate, and good savings rate, might lead to a better 'trickle down' effect. If that can be established it would be better than more aggressive government measures to enforce higher pay for the middle-class. The poor working class will always require a regularly raised minimum wage as other business factors rarely influence their wages.

The next positive factor could be a better government program for infrastructure spending. While the usual kinds of spending are always going to be necessary, it may also be possible to use the development of North Korea as a model for a greater corporate backed corporate development plan. If that can be done it would put to work much more of the (more or less) idle reserve savings of large corporations or other investors. That would push the economy along at an even faster growth rate.

With all those positive factors aligned, it might lead to a strong virtuous cycle for the economy the first time in many years.

Legislative Ideas

Earlier today I was lucky to tune in C-SPAN and saw several quick speeches on legislative issues. I thought it was a very interesting exchange. There was Warren (D-MA), Durbin (D-IL), Tillis (R-NC), Heller (R-NV), and Cornyn (R-TX) and they were discussing opioids, student loans, and immigration.

The main interest of the Republicans seems to be a limited immigration bill the House could pass. Of major importance to Pres. Trump is to not support the Obama DACA program. The interests of the Democrats were opioids, student loans, and a lot more on immigration than the Republicans want to do. They seemed to be at a bit of an impasse, so I'll suggest a few things which may help them move forward.

1. Create more judges and legal counsel positions to solve the immigration backlog. Make sure that this number can be reduced later when the situation is under control. The judges should be non-partisan.

2. Immediately reunite as many of the families as can be done safely. For children not reunited it is critical that their whereabouts and identities and safety be identified and made certain.

3. Appoint a qualified non-partisan professional to run the opioid program and ensure it has sufficient budget to reach any areas in America where the statistics show there is a significant opioid addiction problem.

Elections are soon, so more may be done on these or other issues in a short time. But, these 3 points are short-term and relatively balanced between the interests of the two parties.

"Where" Should the Democrats "Be" for the Midterms

I've been listening and reading about how the Democrats should position themselves for the upcoming elections. Here are just a couple of articles in today's media.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-kuttner-democrats-midterms_us_5b54fdbee4b0de86f48e4926

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-byrd-democrats-radical-base-midterms_us_5b549c90e4b0de86f48e0387

I've also heard some people saying the Democrats need to "return" to the way they were long ago and "stand for the working man". I don't think that's really possible either.

The argument that Democrats need to move to the Left would mean losing a lot of centrists who simply don't fit as Republicans. It may be that they support Civil Rights or unions or a more sane foreign policy, but there are many people who view themselves as on the Left, but not Liberal or Socialist. Moving to the Left would lose some of those. In fact, during the early years of the Obama presidency we had several Conservative Democrat senators who kept irking the party by breaking off and not supporting the president's agenda at critical moments. Support for those senators dropped and they lost their seats. This cost the Democrats the majority in the senate and we have seen what that means in terms of judicial appointments and running the senate with normal order. Under Mitch McConnell (R-KY) it's been a disaster. If you prefer Democratic majority in the Senate you have to accept some centrist or Conservative Democrats.

There are several arguments about how the Democrats should position themselves regarding economics. There is the Black Caucus view where fairness is critical. There is the working man caucus where a strong economy with employment is critical. There is the Wall St. view which is that the economy should just go faster, so they can make more money. All of these are rational and important. From the 1980s when the Democrats sought new campaign funds and Wall St. responded and from the 1990s when Silicon Valley (near San Francisco) responded, our Congressional numbers are very strong with New Yorkers and Californians and our campaign coffers are doing well enough. We can largely thank Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer for those. But, where does that leave us on the economics? Generally, under both Clinton and Obama, we have run the economy fast, encouraged free and fair trade deals, and tried to get more fairness in the share of corporate profits each group gets. Republicans have favored the first two, but have stopped most efforts at the last. Under Pres. "Dubya" Bush there was a minimum wage increase which helped alleviate some of the problems of the first recession, but when Pres. Obama took office the Republican Senate refused even a minimum wage raise during the great recession of 2007-09. We still need to look at ways to make the economy work better for EVERYONE. That's a key Democratic goal.

In the 1960s & 70s the Democrats were the party of the working man and we supported unions 100%. Then Nixon invented the Southern Strategy and a lot of the racist working men went with Ford and Reagan and the unions began to take a beating. Democrats still support the unions, but the unions are a lot less powerful today. If the racists prefer Democratic policies to Reagan, Bush, and Trump policies, then vote for Democrats!

Generally, if you want support from the party you vote for the candidates and you give money to campaigns. It has worked in the past and will work in the future.

Economics and Taxes and Hidden Assets

Quarts.com published an interesting article: The mystery of Russia's missing wealth shows how Putin retains his power — Quartz

about Russia's wealth and how their nation's wealth has been distributed over the decades since 1900. I think it's enlightening because they face some of the same problems America has today. Of course, their economy under Communism had wealth and much of that was redistributed to the oligarchs when their quiet revolution (to Democracy) happened. But, their tax system and the hidden wealth and their lack of a strong reinvestment plan is not so different from the plan they had in Kansas a few years ago. It nearly bankrupted Kansas. Then they decided to incorporate a lot of that into the recent federal government tax law changes.

The way I see it we have a lot of money which is being used for corporate stock buybacks instead of being reinvested in the company and its workers and we have a lot of investment which needs to be done in America, North Korea, and in new technologies (wind, solar, medical tech, etc.). Isn't it time to marry the two and get to using the free-floating money in most productive ways?

Instead of a large government based bond program to raise money for infrastructure works (construction or maintenance), why not depend on all the corporations which are sitting on large bank accounts (Apple is one) to invest in safe long-term infrastructure programs. China, Russia, and many others want to invest in N. Korea. Why not put all that wealth to use instead of sitting on it where it doesn't earn any return?

How the rich get richer – money in the world economy | DW Documentary - YouTube 

Cuba is changing and now they have changed their constitution to allow private property. Isn't that what free market capitalists call a "clarion call"? Time to invest!

Cuba will recognize private property in its new constitution 

In America we have a new phenomenon: corporations (some are LLCs) where money from anywhere in the world can hide. Recently Treasurer Steve Mnuchin announced a new IRS rule to keep private the sources of the money in those.

https://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/treasury-dark-money- transparency_us_ 5b4dbd8be4b0fd5c73bebb3d 

The government is making it easier for "dark money" donors to go unnamed 

Rather than just hiding money, shouldn't people be putting it to use? It's time to invest in useful ways.

Fed Trump, Trump Fed

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-fed-tightening-hurts-china-eu-currency-manipulation-2018-7

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-labor-market-inflection-point-rosenberg-2018-7

I see these two articles side by side and I have to wonder if they're playing on the same team. Clearly the trade war is going to take a toll on the economy for some time. This is where the Fed has to stay flexible and keep interest rates low-ish to get us through the stormy weather.

Sasha Baron Cohen (is a Genius) -- Who is America?

Cohen recently made a movie for SHOTIME called Who is America? in which he discusses guns in the hands of childen with American politicians and some other important gun rights people. He portrays an Israeli and claims they have begun that kind of program in Israel. The people (he speaks to one at a time) open up and respond. It's jaw-dropping amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXeMoBPSDk

There have already been press stories about some of the politicians who are upset they were revealed. They claim they were pranked, but you can clearly see from the video that these politicians are just saying what they believe. Below are some links to news reports.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-who-is-america-review-20180714-story.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-who-is-america-tv-review-20180715-story.html

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/national-news/sarah-palin-claims-sacha-baron-cohen-duped-her-for-his-new-showtime-show-who-is-america-

http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/dick-cheney-signs-waterboard-kit-in-sacha-baron-cohen-clip.html

Here is a biography page about Sasha Baron Cohen:  https://www.biography.com/people/sacha-baron-cohen-297414

Trade update

The Chinese have been making deals, like a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for years with many nations in Asia. Recently they agreed to such a deal with Germany. These are more limited than an overall trade deal, but can be done without the strictures of the WTO. Perhaps Trump and Xie can arrange to make such a deal (or deals) on a variety of things which will ease the awful effects of a trade war. This would give everyone time to adjust WTO rules to enable the very best kinds of deals (zero-zero).

Trade Talk

I admire the people who think long-term. I really do. They set their goals, their course, and off they go. Nothing can stop them. But, in my experience, reality has a way of interfering with the best laid plans of men. General Ike Eisenhower said planning may not produce results, but it's still indispensable. General Napoleon Bonaparte said the best plans are destroyed after first contact with the enemy, but they are still necessary. Xie has a plan and I respect that. We have to given him an end goal (a zero-zero trade deal) he knows will be good. Now we have to give him a way to adapt to this new reality we're trying to create, a way which doesn't break his plan.


Today

The deal made between China and Germany indicates the Chinese want trade, but also to stay in the WTO. This might mean they would be willing to adjust WTO rules to make a new kind of deal. But, they don't want to do that immediately or quickly.

Pres. Trump wants a deal quickly or he will make us all suffer.


Next

I suggest that as soon as it is possible we work with the U.K. to make a deal along the zero-zero lines. PM May has already indicated she wants to make deals with many countries around the world, particularly because the financial industry has become a huge part of their economy.


Hopeful Consequences

Announcing that such a deal will be done or (once it has begun) that it is in the works would help to undermine Labour leader Corbyn and that might push the new Mexican leader (who is a friend of Corbyn) to allow a NAFTA deal along those lines. Given his political position an improvement in trade could be a useful achievement.

That done we could immediately turn to other individual nations or small trading blocs and they would have little choice, but to go along. In particular, the new TPP nations would be a thorn in China's side.

At the end of the day China (the reluctant) and Russia (the self-made outcast) would stand alone (or nearly so) and left to sip their beers and wonder where they went wrong with their long-term plan to take over the trade world.


To Woo China

We will welcome them to join this movement at any time and either whole or piece-meal. We would not seek to punish them except that the trade war with them might continue in some fashion and push many American companies to seek out other interlocutors, particularly those who have gone to a zero-zero type trade arrangement.

This is moving a mountain one cup-full at a time, though acting in parallel on several trade deals at once, we might move so much that it won't take long. The tipping point might be arrived at quicker than one would think possible in a sequential world.


The Underlying Story

I suspect China is being faithful to the Shanghai deal they made with Russia (they traded away some flexibility for Russian vodka). Their character won't allow them to walk away from that deal. If we can follow the China-Germany path to make side deals which don't infringe on WTO, then they may move toward zero-zero more quickly. They would prefer to not do that in a very publicized way. In that respect we must help them 'save face'.

I suggest sending Chairman Xie a raw opal, uncut and unpolished -- with the message that it is up to him to do some work to turn that into a better trade relationship with America and the zero-zero trade world. He won't mind a challenge which doesn't require him to do anything immediately or faster than he wants.

Questions for Conservatives (or anyone concerned about Corporations)

Is a corporation human?

Does a corporation have rights?

Can a corporation be a citizen?

Since corporations have owners, does this mean they are slaves?


If a corporation's employees quit or refuse to speak, what does a corporation say?


Why does a corporation have only one goal, to make money?

Does a corporation have ethics or morality or character?

If a corporation kills someone, why aren't they jailed, shut down, or put to death?


What is corporate bankruptcy and how does that differ from death?


Can a corporation bequeath assets or rights when it dies?


Why is it possible for someone to buy or merge with a corporation?

Could a person, a citizen, marry a corporation?


What prevents a corporate citizen from being elected to political office?

Can a corporation be aborted?

Why does it require money to 'birth' a corporation?

Must every corporation allow government regulation different from human citizens?

Are corporations free to move to another nation?

Are corporations free to become citizens of another nation?

What happens if another nation doesn't recognize a corporation as a human?

If a person 'kills' a corporation, are they guilty of murder?

Can a corporation sue someone for slander?

Why do Conservatives want corporations to have any rights or other similarities to humans or human citizens?


That's a start!

North Korea: How to Build a Nation -- Step 1

Sec. of State Pompeo has a big task on his hands and he will need the help of South Korean leadership. But, as this is a team effort and will take a while he should enlist a lot of help from America too.


First Steps First

The first thing I would do is have seminar/meetings (perhaps 10) at various sites around the world on the topic of building N.K. and invite all business leaders who would be interested having agricultural, manufacturing, or services divisions or production sites there. Note: This is not for the infrastructure builders. That's a bit later.

This may require several events as there could be quite a few participants. Each should have a representative of N. Korea to welcome their participation.

These meetings should be seminars in the sense that a plan of development could be laid out to let them know what they're in for and it's costs & benefits.


From the Ground Up


Once companies declare their interest they should be required to pay a fee to show their commitment to participating. It might be $10,000 to weed out the less serious small firms. That would go to the government of N.K. as an indication this project has begun.


Next would be to have meetings with those who have committed to determine the natural resources of N.K. they would need and the man-made infrastructure they would need. This could be electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, buildings, roads, mail service, banking, communications, etc.

Then is the time to invite infrastructure builders to a seminar/meeting similar to the first one. This one would describe to them their role at the beginning of this project, the infrastructure they would be required to build, and the N.K. resources which would be available to them. It would also explain their costs and benefits. They too should pay the participation fee to show their seriousness and to weed out others.


An Important Capitalization Step

The main financial step at this point would be to connect the infrastructure builders with the product-makers. There should be no dependence on N.K. for funding. This is, after all, a capitalist project and not a state-directed and funded project. Product-makers will plan to produce profits and they will use those to pay back the infrastructure-makers via bonds, stocks, etc. They may be required to put up investment funding for the infrastructure-makers to get them going, but it may be possible and better for the infrastructure-makers to simply offer bonds in the open market to raise any capital they need for this.


Role of the North Korean Government at the Start

For N.K. the task is to decide what land they want to invest in this project and which people they would be happy to contribute. They may be military people who are engineers or it may be private citizens who have other skills. The number of N. Koreans who might be used as simple laborers is entirely unknown at this time and would have to be worked out later, if they're needed at all. The land N.K. would want to use should be easily containable for security reasons. Industrial parks where clusters of foreign workers can be watched would probably suit their needs. This sort of thing has been done in other places with success.


A Bright Shining City

I suggest at least one area for development should be for a new city as far from the border with S. Korea as Seoul is from the border. They would be sister cities which would help engender a sense of unity and eventual union (perhaps a century or two down the road).


Summary

This beginning brings together product-makers, infrastructure-builders, investment from around the world, and the Korean governments (North and South). It shouldn't take more than six months to execute since the world knows what is happening and many have already been thinking about their potential role in it..

You may ask, when do we get to 'denuclearization' and the answer is that every step toward integration of N.K. into the world community is part of that process. If N.K. is involved in this peaceful development they won't want war and at some time in the future they will be comfortable as India or Pakistan or other nations which have nuclear weapons, but have no interest in using them or threatening people with them. And, like South Africa, they may feel comfortable enough to shrink their number or eliminate them altogether. In time.

Some U.S. Political History

Watch this short video created by the good people at Vox.com. It will explain a lot about the political parties and how we got to the Trump era.

ZERO - ZERO Trade -- Chancellor Merkel Considers It

Having finished her difficult negotiations on immigration, it appears Ms. Merkel has decided to consider Pres. Trump's war on tariffs.

The first thing of importance is that she doesn't understand why anyone would focus on ONLY automobiles or the manufacturing sector. Why not services also? That is an obvious and quite sensible response. Indeed, why not consider all kinds of trade items at once?

The suggestion I have made before is that every nation or trading bloc will have some trade items which it must protect, such as the U.K. defending their National Health Services or any nation wishing to protect its domestic food supply and national defense system. But, for all those items which are not to be protected, there can be a way to match them dollar-for-dollar or Euro-to-Euro or Yuan-to-Yuan and simply lower rates to ZERO-ZERO (both trade partners reducing their tariffs to zero). That would be done within the current WTO system. Then other protected items would be negotiated to create special arrangements (regarding tariff, subsidies or other trade barriers) and any necessary changes to the WTO to enable unbalanced tariffs on those items could be put in place. That may take a while (perhaps a year or two), so for the short-run the existing conditions would go forward for those items.

This is a more aggregate approach matching trade items not on a one for one basis with tariff percentages, but in the aggregate matching monetary units dollar-for-dollar or euro-for-euro, so for ALL in that category the tariffs can be reduced quickly to ZERO-ZERO.

This approach may be easier for trading blocs (groups of nations like the EU or NAFTA or the soon to be TPP of East Asia) to speak as one in negotiations vis-à-vis other individual nations or another bloc. Thus, America, Canada, or Mexico (of the NAFTA bloc) may trade with each other on current rules or they may readjust to ZERO-ZERO, but they may trade with a bloc such as the EU or TPP on other rules negotiated between blocs. Hopefully they would also be able achieve ZERO-ZERO in a short time.

There are a few nations, such as the U.K. or Russia or Israel (perhaps) which don't fit naturally in a regional trade bloc. Those could negotiate by themselves as a bloc with another bloc. Trade between the one such nation and the NAFTA nations would be one negotiation to establish rules for trade with four nations, while negotiation with the EU would be one negotiation which would enable trade with many nations.

More Trade Talk -- Special Arrangements

An Old English "Friend"

I read this today about the potential for a trade deal,

"We already know the American demands for a trade deal Total access to provide NHS services by American HMOs, the ability to import American growth hormone feed cattle and pigs plus chemically treated poultry. The Americans make no secret that these demands are non negotiable if the UK wants a deal with Trump."


My Response

That sentiment may be based on honest belief and hear-say, but I disagree that it has to be accepted that America will make such demands. I hope John Bolton isn't trying to coerce people. That is just plain awful and everyone should simply reject that. I hope he isn't working on behalf of some domestic interests aside from the president's agenda as that would be criminal.

The idea of a fair deal is that both sides get something they want and neither forces the other.


Moving Forward

If there are a thousand things you agree on and three things you don't, do you scuttle a deal because of the three or do you work out the special arrangements for those three?

It seems to me that it may be possible to go ahead with changing the tariffs on the one thousand, down to zero - zero, and then work on the other issues. Each nation can look at its own trade deals to see if that is a possibility. It seems to me this can be done within the WTO without further ado.

What will happen on those special arrangement issues? I don't know, but America has some things we consider special and which must remain protected, so it's to our benefit to discuss those without trying to force on someone else the very thing we want to prevent with regard to our own issues.

If we can agree to make changes rapidly while still within the WTO, then it will give everyone an economic boost and confidence to work out remaining issues.

Zero-Zero Beyond Manufactured Goods -- for ALL International Trade

I began the discussion of adjusting trade tariffs, subsidies and other barriers by only mentioning tariffs and only a small sector of trade. I did that to introduce the idea and to let discussions begin. Then there was a clear sign this was an appealing idea, so I added manufactured goods to see if anyone was still interested. I even suggested that when we begin to think in these larger terms it becomes easier to begin assuming zero-zero as the default and that only special items like food or national security items would be handled differently.

But now it seems there is some interest, perhaps among American businesses as much as from other nations, to simply look at ALL trade between America and another nation as defaulting to the zero-zero standard. Simplicity.

This would simplify the lives of a lot of trade representatives if nations decided to flip from negotiating every item (and there are rather a lot of narrowly specified items) to simply defaulting to zero-zero trade tariffs, subsidies, or barriers and then looking at the exceptions as the odd-balls which have to be negotiated.

I think there is also concern that the current World Trade Organization (the WTO) isn't perfectly suited to this new notion of how things should be handled. I admit I'm not as well-versed on international trade and the WTO as I would like for this discussion, but I know it's a tool the nations use to assist them. It isn't the thing we are to assist or an obstacle to work around. Thus, I would suspect it should be easy enough to work within the WTO or to modify it in some small ways to handle these new relationships.

The main thing I think the WTO could do, and it's something they already do -- adjudicate differences of opinion among nations on the value or existence of trade barriers and monetary values of lost trade. They can assist nations to find the proper tariffs on the 'special items' where one nation needs to protect trade or limit it altogether and the other nation does not. How do you estimate the value of the loss of trade for one nation and how do you ensure that most trade can continue at zero-zero with one or a few special items are handled separately? There has to be some kind of compensation and the WTO is probably well-suited to making those kinds of estimates. If one nation protects an item today, the WTO has to decide if that's true and the monetary value of it. They can continue to do that, but in this other context of assisting nations to make arrangements, rather than just to punish a nation after the fact.

Once a few such zero-zero arrangements are made, it may be easy for other nations to join this and arrange similar deals amongst each other. Perhaps blocs of nations could not only make an agreement with the U.S., but would say that all trade within the bloc would follow those same rules. It would certainly be easier for example, if within the EU bloc or an Asian bloc they would all trade with one another on the same terms.