whether for charles murray or bret weinstein, or carolyn rouse, i say, take me first. when they come for the pentacostal bakers, for the mormons, for the jews, for the catholics, for the atheists, i say, take me first. when they come for you, my friends, if i am still here to say it, i will say take me first that is the answer of james madison, of the first amendment, and only worthwhile answer of the free spirit. thank you. [applause]

>> we're leaving this program here to take you back to the conference on free trade and prosperity with forum perspectives on trades and regulations. the last discussion of the day on free trade and agriculture, all of it available later on c-span.organization. >> without further adieu we're excited to welcome our two extremely impressive speakers, experts on the topic of trade. ultimately trade is an activity between countries. it may be carried out by individual people, and businesses working in the global economy, but this conversation would be incomplete without the international perspective on this topic. that is why the mccourt school is excited to welcome these two participants who will speak on the panel, foreign perspectives

on trade. first off, we have nancy mclaren, president and ceo of the organization for international investment an association representing the unique interests of u.s. subsidiaries of global companies, or insourcing companies. nancy's advocacy efforts focus on educating legislators on the important role u.s. subsidiaries play in the american economy and policy issues that would make the u.s. a more competitive location for foreign direct investment and job creation. her expertise on cross-border investment trend and related legislative initiatives are often thought and cited by the media including nbc news, cnbc, abc news, "the new york times," and "the wall street journal," financial fumes, and "washington post." she was recently recognized by "the hill" newspaper as one of washington's top lobbyists among

socialsed. she hold as masters of economics from george mason university where she received a fellowship from the ludwig institute and bachelor's of economics from virginia polytechnic institute and state university. next we have european union ambassador david o'sullivan. mr. o'sullivan has had a long and distinguished career that spanses five decades. he served in number of senior official posts in the european public service. prior to his appointment as eu ambassador to the u.s., he was chief operating officer of the european external action service and responsible for establishing this new eu diplomatic service. the service is one of the largest diplomatic networks 140 delegations across the globe. am bass o'sullivan's career includes number of notable and senior positions within the european commission. head of commission president cabinet, secretary-general of the european commission,

director general for trade and chief negotiator for the doha development round. he was responsible for overseeing the launch of a number of free-trade agreements and concluded eu's agreement with south korea. before joining the commission he started his career with the irish department of foreign affairs and trade. mr. o'sullivan graduated from trinity college dublin with a degree in micks and sociology and completed postgraduate studies at college of europe. while at trinity he was auditor and debating gold medalist of the college historical society and winner of the irish times debating competition. he holds an honorary doctorate from the dublin institute of technology and was awarded a second honorary doctorate from his alma mater, trinity college. he also has been a visiting professor at the european college of parma. welcome me in joining the panel on foreign perspectives of

trade. [applause] >> good afternoon. it is wonderful to be here. i'm nance my mcclaren, ceo of organization of internext investment. i have a pleasure of representing over 200 companies. these are all foreign firms that have made a deliberate decision to invest in the united states and employ americans here. across the country, almost 7 million americans get a paycheck from foreign-owned companies. companies like japan-based toyota, german-based siemens, switzerland-based nestle, and canada-based burger king. these companies probably have a lot to do with your day-to-day existence from the trains you

take to work in the morning or cars that you drive, the buses your kids get on in the morning and even your after dinner drinks as well. there is foreign investment in some parts of the u.s. economy and supports a lot of the u.s. workforce and i think that we're almost to the point where it is really, really difficult to tell whether a company is a u.s. firm or a foreign firm. thank you to the mccourt school. honor to be here today with ambassador sullivan, and to be able to have a conversation about trade policy. you all heard the very distinguished career and i know that he has a lot of to offer, you have a lot to get into it. so mr. ambassador, it's conference send titled does trade still matter? as a former trade negotiator and director general for trade i have a feeling as to where you might be on that question, but let's go ahead and, can you set the stage and talk about this

and highlight the magnitude and importance of the u.s.-ue relationship. >> well, thank you very much, nancy, thank you for the invitation from the mccourt school and glad to have this conversation. does trade matter? yes. trade is the ultimate driver of wealth creation and productivity and efficiency increases. i studied economics and i'm not sure that it is a science. if it is it is a pretty dismal science as we know but there is one bit of economics that i learned early on which actually is a law and that is the law of comparative advantage which states very simply, even if a country could produce everything it needs it actually makes more sense to focus on those things you produce most efficiently and trade the rest. your country does better out of that and other countries to do, and wealth increases and economic activity continues to increase. i think is a, there is no

country. there is no country in history that has grown prosperous and better way of life to its citizens without trading. so trade is absolutely indispensable part of our economic life. the transatlantic corridor, talking about eu-u.s. relation is the single most important economic corridor in the world bar none. we have two out of the three largest economies in the world. when i first arrived here, actually the eu economy was slightly bigger. i could say america and china were battling for second and third place. the exchange rates moved things around a bit. so i have to be less hubris but i will say we're two of the three largest economies in the world. we represent 50% of gdp and we represent 30% of world trade. we trade 1.7 billion euros

across the atlantic daily. 70%, we own collectively 78% of foreign direct investment stock globally, and 80% to your point earlier, of foreign direct investment in the united states comes from the european union. so this is, a massively important economic relationship, both in terms of trade, in goods and services but also, perhaps more especially in terms of investment. >> thanks. could you talk a little bit, so we've got the numbers and even beyond the numbers of the importance of the relationship between the u.s. and the eu but can you actually talk a little bit more how sort of citizens of the world, outside of those regions benefit from the strong relationship between the u.s. and the eu? >> well, i think, you know, you have indicated the ways in which there is significant european investment here in the united states. we estimate that roughly about

15 million jobs are created across the atlantic between the eu and u.s., roughly divided between us. european investment here created about 7 million jobs, roughly the same number in europe. and, you know, makes a huge difference. but the, the other regions also benefit. i have often expressed regret at the american decision to withdraw from tpp. some people said oh, this is opportunity for europe. for us the success of the trans-pacific partnership would be beneficial to europe. we're also negotiating in the asian-pacific region, but, when you increase economic activity, you suck in through the supply chain, you create new opportunities, you create new wealth, consumers are buying other products, they are not just boeing to buy them. americans are not going to buy from europe. we'll not just buy products from the united states. when you createticsal economic activity, it spreads beyond the two partners in the trade

relationship. >> so i, i helped form my organization in 1990. so there have been involved in the sort of foreign direct investment issue area for almost 30 years now. but from 1990, until i think about 2015, we saw a general upward trajectory of support for globalization. there is a couple hiccups here and there, but around the world i think we were seeing more and more, sort of want to embrace globalization and figure out a way in which to play in the kind of game of that. over the last couple of years, i think we've seen a heightened skepticism towards global connections. and i would like to get your view on where do you think we're seeing that in the u.s., in europe. talk a little bit about that. what do you think could be implications if we start kind of moving away from more and more connectivity between countries?

>> i think you're right. there has been a growing criticism of globalization. i mean it seems from,. >> almost a bad word now. >> yes. i must admit i still use it in a positive sense but you're right. i mean i think there are a number of reasons for that. probably single biggest driver of equality. we have to acknowledge for all benefits that our market economy system has brought, if you look at the numbers, they are quite frightening in terms of the rise of inequality and the goop between the richest -- gap between the richest people in our sights and least well-off. i don't think it is because of globalization but more of public policy and what kind of company and flanking policies you have to accompany trade. i'm a big fan of trade. you need accompanying policies where trade is disruptor. places where new jobs are

created often not the same places they will be lost whether geographically or sectorly. you need to in order to have the political acceptability but in terms of social justice you need accompanying policy, regional education and training, investments in regions which are badly affected to help them through the transition. perhaps we have done slightly better in europe an the united states. the backlash in europe in my view is slightly less than here. the other element with globalization though it has nothing really do to with trade, of course linked to it, the issue of immigration and a sense of cultural identity which in my view tend to get mixed up, the issue of economics and cultural identity. it is absolutely clear in answer to your first question it would be an act of enormous self-harm if our societies seek to close borders, do less trade, all reasons of i've indicated.

trade is driver of increased prosperity for our countries and our regions and for the rest of the world. we should not forget the position of least-developed countries who desperately need trade opportunities in order to continue ton their path from, from low level of development to improved prosperity and welfare for their citizens. >> so, how do, i think it is incumbent upon us, those of us who support and benefits that open borders can bring. how do we deal with some of the issues or help, you know, answer some of the underlying concerns that those that oppose trade have in order to keep moving in a positive direction on globalization? certainly income inequality is part of it but as we know that is not all driven by globalization, right? and maybe, even less than some people might think,

technological developments, really causing a lot of disruption as well. if we only focus on globalization as the possible cause for inequality, then the so-called solutions won't really solve some of these problems? >> well, i agree with you that stopping trade or trade barriers are kind of a false panacea to the problem. i do think, but then we get into political territory, i mean i'm probably more certainly in american terms a left liberal. i think actually there is strong role for government in public policy counteracting some of the market deficiencies or some of the effects of a free market. in europe we like to talk about the social market economy, not just the free market economy. i think that is hugely important. you need public intervention to correct some of the distortions or some of the the equalities

flow from unbridled play of market forces. but that of course, brings you into tricky politics, very often people who are defending the global approach are also people who would defend a rather laissez-faire, small government policy at home the i don't think that actually works. i think if you want to promote globalization, open borders, free trade, you need to address the consequences, not so much consequences issues which arise out of that, inequality, unemployment in certain regions which will be certain sectors who will fine themselves affected. i think we need much more imaginative thinking, the traditional left-wing response of state ownership or these things are failed. they are busted flushes. we need much more creativity how we address those issues. if we don't, in my view we'll see on both sides of the atlantic a growing disenchantment with the economic and political process and people

will end up voting for people who may have very bad alternative solutions. >> can you compare the u.s. and e.u. a little bit in terms of how they are viewing globalization? >> here in the states we have seen a rise of economic national system. better way to put it. skepticism around multilateral trade agreements. . .

>> wouldn't want to say we invented trade because maybe parts of the arab or the asian world would say they invented trade. we've been traders going babb as long as our history -- back as long as our history recalls. and i think in europe there is a recognition that trade is fundamental, even starting between us. 28 countries and member states in the european union. you cannot drive more than a couple of hours in any direction without crossing a frontier and without understanding if you want to put barriers up between us, we're going to be less well off. i think we did go through a bumpy period a couple of years ago on the trade front, but i think we've come through that. we just concluded a very comprehensive agreement with cab da, we're upgrading -- canada, we're upgrading our free trade agreement with mexico, we will sign a very comprehensive agreement with japan in the summer. this will be the biggest free trade agreement ever

representing nearly 30% of global gdp. we've already concluded with singapore, with vietnam, and we are actively engaging with chile, and we will open negotiations with australia and new zealand very shortly. so i think the mow men tear hiccup of -- momentary hiccup of people saying trade dealers -- deals are the way forward has turned around many europe. when she finishes her mandate in november of 2019, europe -- if all goes well -- will be at the center of the largest free trading network the world has ever seen. so i think that's the trajectory we're on. now, it can go wrong, it can be derailed, there canning be political problems here and there. all of this requires an enormous amount of work to continue to persuade people of the benefits

and the advantages of this kind of trade opening. we, i think, are still supporters of the mull fewty lateral system, but -- multilateral system, but we have to admit that the negotiating arm of the wto is going through a difficult period, and we'll have to see how we can address that. finally, your point about how our company's perceived, i mean, american foreign direct investment, japanese foreign direct investment is always welcome because they bring jobs, they bring opportunities. and i have the sense here, i must say i've been traveling around this country quite a lot. i was down in south carolina recently where there's, you know, huge european investment. there's a big bmw, massive bmw investment there. you go to the point of charleston, you can see them exporting bmws to germany by the container. there's a very big italian investment in making cables.

i've been to mobile, alabama, where there's an airbus factory. i sense these companies are all welcomed by hour communities, they -- their communities. so i think on both sides of the atlantic people at the end of the day just want the same thing, they want a decent job, they want an opportunity, they want a chance to earn a decent living and look after their families. and 230r7b direct investment is an important part of providing that on both sides of the atlantic. >> let's talk a little bit about innovation and how you see merging technologies -- emerging technologies impacting cross-border trade. >> well, you touched on it a moment ago. i mean, i think the big thing coming at us all is the impact of technology on employment and on societal issues. i mean, you just take the single example of autonomous vehicles. i'm told, i don't know if the numbers are perfectly accurate, that there are roughly seven million people in america who

earn their living driving vehicles. the day we go to autonomous vehicles, what's going to happen to those seven million people? and that's just one example. i mean, i am a huge fan of technology. i mean, i think we need this innovation, we need this progress, but we have to -- again, it will require accompaniment with other measures, or there will be a sort of luddite pushback against it. obviously, data flows are hugely important, and we in europe are putting in place fairly rigorous legislation to insure the complete free flow of data within the european union. and we also want in our trade deals to encourage, to prevent block arages -- blockages, geographical blocking of day a flows. but, and this is the important but, there are issues of privacy, data privacy, there are issues of data security, and

these are going to have to be addressed. in europe we address them not through trade deals, but through other means as we have with the united states. for example, the safe harbor agreement which guarantees personal information of here when it's exported from europe. and we're going to have to find creative ways of managing these in order to allow the technology, the benefits of the technology to be unleashed. because if we don't look after those aspects, which are legitimate concerns, then there will be a pushback from people saying they don't want to see this development. >> so we talked about trade agreements, and we did talk about foreign direct investment. i think trade agreements, any country that has a robust trade agenda to pursue more agreements whether they be bilateral or multilateral become more competitive for cross-border investment, right? global companies want to be in countries that are globally connected because there are supply chains that go all across

the world. and i think that when, i to think, obviously, working in this field for a long time that when a foreign company looks outside their home market and makes this very deliberate decision to invest in your market, it's a great sign of competitive strength. and shouldn't be seen as a vulnerability, but competitive strength. the u.s. has actually lost its share of cross-border investment. many 2000 the u.s. attracted 37% of the world's cross-border investment, and by 2016 we're at about 24%. europe has actually stayed pretty consistent. i don't know if the u.s. will ever get back to 37% as the world has grown, but we had dipped down to in 2011, i think, we had dipped down to about 15%, and we've been able to get some of that back. one of the things that i've heard from my members that impede u.s. competitiveness for

cross-border investment is, has been a lack of a robust trade policy, right? because, again, you know, you were talking about all the different agreements that europe is pursuing, and that is likely to have a pretty big impact on europe's ability to attract companies from outside of the market. why do you think -- europe is, you know, the countries in europe are among the u.s.' top investing countries. so why do you think european companies invest here? >> well, first and foremost, because you're a large market. you're 350 million people, and you're one of the wealthiest markets in the world after europe. we're probably the wealthiest, we're 500 million people, you're 350. so people want to be close to the market. that's the basic law of investment. it makes more sense to invest here and create stuff here.

i mean, i just noticed -- i mean, numbers can mean anything, but affiliate sales here in europe of our companies amount to about 2.4 trillion which is many multiples what we actually export to the united states. and same is true, by the way, for your companies. your affiliate sales in europe are nearly $3.3 trillion which, again -- 31 trillion which, again, is bigger of all of your exports to the rest of the world. so i do think that ours is very much an investment relationship even more than a trade relationship. it's also a trade relationship, it's also an investment relationship. and i think notwithstanding some of sort of the noise that's in the system, this remains a very profitable place for companies to invest and do business in, and i new you will certainly see -- i think you will certainly see european companies to come here. you're a big market, it's a

dynamic market, it's creative, and you have certain advantages over europe in terms of the dynamism of this economy and some of the rigidities that we have for social reasons are some of your strengths of not having them, even if that may also cost you politically. but in the swings and round abouts, we all make these choices. i still think this country will remain a very attractive place for doing business. your economy is booming. maybe it's booming a bit too much, but -- so i think, i don't get the impression talking to european companies that there's any sense of not wishing to continue to invest here. >> is that a thing, booming too much? >> well -- [laughter] >> i mean, that's my, that's my sort of academic economist -- yeah, i think you can overeat an economy, yes, you can, as you know. we've certainly done it -- we've all done it. i mean, we all tend to have, you know, emphasize the cycles too much. we'd love to smooth them out, but the nature is you have a boom, then you have a downturn. you try to make sure that the boom isn't too big so that the

bust isn't too deep, and that's the challenge of economic policy. i think it's been remarkably well managed in this country for the last, since the crisis basically, and you're getting the benefit of that now. rightly so. >> absolutely. you know, the size of our market definitely, from my perspective, definitely drives investment. but as you were just giving a, you know, an example before, bmws are being exported from the u.s. to germany. right? so, actually, americans at international companies in the united states produce close to a quarter of all of our u.s. exports. and i think that's very counterintuitive. and, you know, one of the things that we're urging in this environment of skepticism on global connections is as you view the relationship between the u.s. and other countries, not to view it only narrowly from a trade perspective whether there's a deficit or a surplus, because there's so many

factors -- foreign direct investment is certainly part of that and all the numbers that you just with talked about before fall into that, right? that, you know, so while there are, while there is a lot of, i think, acceptance and support for greenfielding investment in the united states, we do see still concerns about cross-border m&a and some of the concerns that happen within cross-border m&a come up in the trade space, in the m&a space in terms of rules that sort of look at acquisitions as well as also in the tax space, right? so in any market, the predominant vehicle for cross-border investment is through m&a rather than greenfield investment. so wonder if you could speak, speak to any of that. >> well, if i could just go back to a point you kind of touched on, but i would like to underline it.

i mean, i think looking at trade relations in terms of deficits and surpluses can be extremely misleading. a but of you may have heard me tell my only trade joke which is of the trade minister who is sent to geneva and asked to make a toast, and he stands up and say i'd like to make a toast to the moment when we all have trade surpluses. nobody's laughing. there aren't any economists. [laughter] everyone's saying, what's wrong with that? we'd all have to be trading with mars. but i think these deficits and surpluses are more not the result of macroeconomic factors than trade factors, now -- >> you explain that a little bit? >> of course . if there are, you know, if you are buying a lot from a country and you can't sell to them, hen you can say, well, that's -- the deficit is the result of unfair trading practices. and i think we can think of countries with whom we all trade a lot where some of the

practices are not fair trade practices. and i think we actually share some of the criticisms made by this administration about china, and we are willing and interested in working with this administration on trying to the get china to address some of those issues. but in general, it's reciprocity of opportunity, not reciprocity of outcome. and you don't, if you look at your trading relationship with a country purely in terms of deficits and surplus, you're probably missing the picture. it fends what they export. -- depends what they export. we have a massive deficit with saudi arabia because they sell oil which we can't produce, and so on and so forth. it's also a function of if you have a high propensity to consume in your economy, which you do in the united states, then you are inevitably going to suck in imports. and that's probably going to be one of the results of the tax reform, is actually to increase imbolters because you're putting more money into people's pockets, and they tend to consume. in germany people tend to save a

higher portion of their disposable income, and that's just their way of doing it. on the issue of mergers and acquisitions and so forth, i agree with you. i think, i think we -- this is an important way in which our companies can expand and invest in our respective jurisdictions. we have certain rules, we have competition rules which can be an issue. i think we're all concerned about inequality of opportunity in chinese investment. it is not as easy at all for european or american companies to invest in china as it is for chinese companies to invest in europe or in the united states. by the way, i don't think we should be, i mean, i think we should welcome that investment, but it should be a two-way street. and i think that's one of the things we would certainly want to address in talking to our

chinese friends about how to make it a more level playing field for reciprocal investment. >> yeah. couldn't agree with you, couldn't agree with you more. you know, i recently had the opportunity to visit a l'oreal facility in arkansas, and that facility there started as a maybelline factory, and l'oreal acquired it, and now it is the largest manufacturing, cosmetic manufacturing facility in the world in arkansas, owned by a french company, right? and that acquisition was not a vulnerability. l'oreal pumped a lot of money into it, and now it's serving not just the u.s. economy -- although we do love our cosmetics -- but it's serving the world as well. and it was just a great, a really great factory to go and take a look through. one of the things that people think about when they think about foreign investment is the, you know, the correct jobs. i talked -- the direct jobs.

i talked earlier how close to seven million americans work for foreign-owned companies. but sometimes this is not as much understood about the other things other than capital and direct jobs that they bring. one time i visited a number of congress who's the largest employer in his district. it was a japanese-owned company. he said we love the jobs, but they just don't do anything for the community. they're there just for the short term. and i called this company, and they sent me ten pages of what they do in the community not just in terms of general sort of csr type of work, but also work force development. can you, can you speak to any of the sort of programs, cutting edge programs that some european companies have brought to the u.s. in terms of work force training? because i think it's pretty counterintuitive for a foreign company to come here to the u.s. and train the u.s. work force for jobs for tomorrow. >> well, you're absolutely right. i mean, i think -- i must say, i was, i lived in japan for four

years the beginning of the '80s, so some of the discussions we're having with china now, we were having with japan back then, and people were very worried that japan would take over the world. unfortunately, now we regret they didn't. [laughter] but one of the things was japanese investment. and it was japanese investment in the auto industry that actually saved the european auto industry. not only did they come over and build their cars -- and, by the way with, with the suppliers and the supply chain to improve techniques which back in the '80s were little herald -- heard of, quality control of the suppliers which then became a benefit to the european car manufacturers, but also the european car manufacturers kind of looked over their shoulder and saw this is how the japanese are doing it and upped their game. now it's a very healthy industry in europe, and we benefiteddedded from that japanese investment. the two examples i would cite are the two i've already mentioned, the airbus facility

in mobile which, i mean, invested heavily -- i was down there a year ago to watch them, jetblue to take delivery of the first u.s.-built airbus. by the way, with which a large proportion of airbus is even built in europe or made with american parts, which is something people forget. just as a hot of boeings produced here are made with european parts. they're both global companies, but that's maybe for another day. but the airbus people trained completely all the work force because they had none of the skills needed there to work with this. i talked to the two engineers who were there and who had basically worked in generating this, and there was the whole parts and suppliers network that they built up around it. and then some of the people who worked in airbus were then going to go and work in the parts suppliers or even set up their own facilities to supply parts to airbus or to supply services.

so there's a whole kind of out of this single facility of just building, assembling an airplane there's now a whole kind of tissue of economic activity in that area including on the skills side. the same is true of bmw in south carolina. their facility,s which is one of the biggest, but the german kind of apprenticeship, training scheme, this has had an impact on working with the local schools and local technical facilities, technical teaching facilities, and they are a very, you know, welcomed part of the community giving -- of course, they're making money. let's be honest, that's what companies do. i mean, they're not, they're not social, they're not-for-property organizations. they're also spreading a lot of new skills, new knowledge and other, generating other economic activity in the region which is hugely beneficial. >> i'm so glad that you mentioned apprenticeship programs. i see with a lot of our

european-based companies as well as other companies from around the world bringing that model to the united states, and it's not just happening in the advanced manufacturing space. although it's certainly, it certainly dominates in that industry. zurich insurance, actually, has been in the u.s. for more than a hundred years, has an apprenticeship program, you know, a white collar ea prenticeship program providing opportunities whether it's a mom who has stayed home for several years with her kids or folks that didn't go to full four-year college to get into the insurance space. and they've had great success out in illinois with that program. and i've also seen that in other service sectors as well. so we think of apprenticeships mostly in advanced manufacturing, but there's a lot in services as well. and we have just sort of the trading relationship, we've focused a lot of the trade of goods. can you speak a little bit about the importance of the trade of

services between the u.s. and e.u.? >> yeah. i mean, services is, you know, it accounts more about, i think, 75% of our economic activity. europe is a hugely services-driven can economy. of course, it's, i mean, we have trade in services. it's a complicated issue. i mean, having negotiated this in trade deals, putting the services chapter in a trade deal is always the most difficult. because we're very good at dealing with goods because it's tariffs or even some regulatory issues because you can kind of fix it. services takes you into more complex territory. and we're still looking in geneva at the trade and services agreement which could be a plural-lateral negotiated deal. it is all linked, actually, because there's a big link between investment and services and trade in services.

there's also a link between trade and goods and services because they frequently, one sort of pulls the other along. and i think services is certainly one of those things where we can do a lot more together, but it's very much for me also linked to the investment agenda, because very often that's the best way in which you can actually export a service. >> i think it's important. and, again, in trade we're always focused on goods. we're not thinking about the cross-border investment or the trade of services which really, i think, is very helpful to provide that much more fuller picture about the relationship certainly between the u.s. and e.u. let's talk a little bit about tax, okay? so last year i think you know that the u.s., the administration and congress passed really historic tax legislation. significantly lowered the rate from 35 to 21% but also had

major changes in the international area. and i think a lot of people are wondering how will this impact multi-national companies? will it disrupt cross-border investment? will companies start to sort of change around some of their supply chains? what sort of impact do you see or have you heard, because we haven't seen a lot of it yet, right? but just as companies begin to get their arms around these sort of changes, how do you see the new law impacting? >> well, it's a bit like the answer about the french revolution, isn't it? it's too soon to tell. i think we need -- we are actually, firstly, we followed this whole debate. i think it's not a secret that we had some concerns about certain aspects of this new tax measure which we felt could be discriminatory or affect

negatively foreign companies or our relationship. some questions even about wto compatibility. but first and foremost, we want to understand what's happening. firstly, we want to understand how this legislation's actually going to work. as we were discussing earlier, nancy, in your wonderful legislative system here in the united states -- [laughter] you kind of start with a big picture, and then you work down to what you call technical correction, and then treasury have to kind of interpret it also. i don't know that we can today say with precision how this is actually going to impact companies, and one of the things we will be doing is talking to european companies over the next few weeks to find out in real terms what this means for them, because that's the most important thing. there is, of course, a conceptual wto compatibility issue which we will necessarily look at as is our obligation, but i think our first thing is how is this going to work, is it going to have adverse effects or unfair effects on european companies who are invested here. and when we have that information, we will then

certainly engage in a dialogue with treasury. we'll see if there are problems these can be ironed out. so, yes, we have some concerns, but we are sort of waiting to see how our companies interpret this, how it impacts on them, and then we will see if there are ways of addressing problems without turning this into a confrontation, because we don't want -- we understand how important this legislation is to the administration and to congress. but we, we're keeping a very close eye on it. >> yeah. you know, one of the things that i've been a little bit concerned about over the last couple of years is this sort of tit for tat between the u.s. and europe in terms of tax treatment of non-home grown companies, right? so i think we saw a little bit of that back and forth over the last year or so. from our organization's perspective, at the end of the day we came out in support of the legislation. we feel there were enough changes made over that very fast

52-day sprint. but as you said, wait and she see how everything sort of shapes up once we have more certainty around a lot of the issues that are still ambiguous right now that treasury's going to look at. >> i mean, i think we -- going back to your very earlier point about globalization, i think one of the things that, i mean, i don't know how much people in sort of bars and cafés of europe sort of, you know, actively discuss the basel ii or, you know, all that stuff, but i do think people get that a lot of companies are making a lot of money and not paying tax anywhere. and this doesn't seem fair. and so i think we, collectively -- the u.s., the e.u., the oecd world -- we have an important debate about that, about how we, the sort of aggressive tax planning of certain multi-national companies who seem to be able to benefit from a sort of playing us all off one against the other and to

end up basically paying very little tax anywhere. this fuels the debate about inequality, about the injustice of the system and the fact that globalization benefits only the wealth and does not trickle down to ordinary people. so i think that's a conversation we're having. we don't always agree, but i think it's an important conversation because i think global tax reform and working together to avoid the worst aspects of aggressive tax evasion or avoidance by our multi-national companies is a shared problem. >> well, one thing for sure is that there's more transparency in this space than ever -- >> yes. >> and understanding, you know, where and how these companies are paying taxes and having the public, you know, respond rather than just immediately, you know, governments weighing in sometimes can have an impact on the company's behavior. and i think that, certainly, the

first is just transparency. so i'm getting the high sign that maybe we have, need to open it up right now. i could actually sit here and talk to you for a long time. [laughter] this has been really very interesting. open it up for questions to the audience. and do we have a mic that'll. >> yeah. so we'll take some questions off twitter first. >> okay, great. >> those who might be live streaming in from c-span. >> great. >> so the first question off twitter is in terms of messaging, how do you think professionals should reframe globalization so that it is again viewed as a positive concept? >> i don't, i mean, i don't see any alternative to simply trying to explain how it works to debunk some of the myths, you know, which are that -- i mean, the myth is that, you know, people are stealing our jobs or

that this is all unfair, we're losers from this situation. i think we've just been explaining the mutual benefits to the u.s. and to the e.u. of our cross investment and trading relationship, but it's also true with the developed, with the developing country as well. i mean, 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty in china. one can comment on the political system or the human rights in china, but those people are now consumers. i mean, and they are purchasing. so i think the critical point is that we have to explain to people that there is no way with forward that does not involve creating more wealth and sharing it more equally across the world. how we as individual countries respond to the challenges which that throws up -- and it does throw up challenges, we should not hide that it throws up challenges -- but that's a national policy response. ..

universal access to education, healthcare, these underpin our system. i think it's the best system for us but you have a different model, but i think the key point is to drive home that actually we are benefiting from this globalized exchanges and it gives us greater margin of maneuver to make policy choices at home than would otherwise be the case. >> i don't know how many people watched the super bowl, i'm guessing a good portion of the crowd. i was really pleased to see so many, i know my members, i looked at anheuser in depth showing commercials that

teased out their impact on the u.s., not just in terms of jobs but in terms of their corporate social responsibility and how they really are part of the communities in which they sustainably operate. the jobs in the economic statistics, you and i can talk about and a certain number of people will get that, but i was really pleased, again over the past 30 years of working with these companies have they been more forthcoming in sharing what they are doing in communities of people have a better understanding so perhaps a i won't have the same conversation with the congressman that doesn't know the ten pages of work that the company is doing in their community that goes beyond just the. economics. >> we will take one more on twitter. in order to protect free trade between the u.s. and the eu, do you think governments or corporations should take on

read trading efforts for those affected by global trade. >> yes, i think the skills debate, i used to deal with this stuff in the early '90s when i was responsible for creating the program in europe that ensures all our students been one year in another country at university. the program about university cooperation, back then in the early '90s it was all about skills. it's still all about skills. we have so many job vacancies and we cannot find the people to fill them. we have not found the way of training people and educating people to do the jobs that industry actually needs him to do and where those jobs are to be found. we are unfortunately still producing people who don't have the necessary skill and

that's one of the reason that drives immigration because you to get the skills from elsewhere so the education, training skills challenge is still the greatest challenge facing us in europe and facing you here in the u.s. and will become more acute with the impact of technology and the huge changes in the way of work and the nature of work that will be coming out at us with technological changes in the next few years for this is still the critical issue. as a european you absolutely need that to be addressed by public policy and government. americans mor may put more emphasis in the private sector but you actually need both. >> i think you touched on, ambassador, a lot of companies are already doing it. they are trying to reach out to high schools or community colleges, i know in south carolina, bmw and michelin are reaching to the elementary school level to get kids interested in the jobs they know they will need in the

future. i do think companies are already engaged but more needs to be done in that critical partnership between the private sector and government just can't be understated. >> now open it up to the audience in case someone physically present would like to ask questions of the ambassador. if you do, please research and i will pass the microphone too. >> i wanted to return here earlier discussion about free trade in less developed countries. how can the eu ensure that everyone within the union benefit equally from trade? >> i don't think everyone does benefit equally from trade. i think we should, i think if you start say that, it's already setting people with a falsehood. the fact is, we will

collectively all benefit from trade but there are redistribution issues if you want to deal with the consequences because some people will be negatively impacted by trade and we should not refuse to recognize that there will be some companies will be put out of business by free trade deals because they will not be competitive and you can argue that maintaining those companies in existence through protectionist measures is not viable in the long term which would be my argument, but the fact is you have to address what happens to that company in that region and those people. that for me is why i think the intervention of public policy is absolutely indispensable to accompany, the inevitable churning even if it is globally positive in terms of the net creation of wealth, you mentioned least developed countries, it's not the point of your question but i remind

people, it is vitally important, trade is a huge way of allowing least developed countries to become more developed and build a better country. if we don't give them access to our markets they will not be able to do that and that will become a cause of instability and insecurity and create all kinds of other problems that we have to understand that trade is also a response to the need for the developing are emerging countries of the world to follow their own path of greater prosperity and greater well-being for their citizens and that's also a public good for us because without that we will suffer. europe, with our demography, sitting on top of africa, the middle east, if these countries are not able to develop their own economies and create jobs and a better prospect of life for their people, we know what happens next. they start walking towards europe and that will be a bigger problem than letting in some of their goods.

>> i just have a question, we talked about trades of goods and services, but can you talk about the non- legal barriers to foreign takeovers, for instance in germany you have the supervisory management system, so a foreign takeover would almost be impossible and you talk about the benefits of airbus including jobs. if it wasn't for that we'd still have lockheed, so free trade and foreign takeovers is really not talked about. you talk about china national security but for instance this brand was allowed to by bell labs and that was done by gnocchi but i don't think paris would allow an american

company to take over such a significant french company. thank you. >> i just think you're wrong with respect. you say the subsidies of airbus, what about subsidies of boeing. we know we both got our cases, right, they are too subsidized their companies because frankly you actually can't build big aircraft without some form of a state subsidy and boeing is no exception. don't do that was to the detriment of other players and i think, i'm not going to comment on specific cases because they don't necessarily have the facts at my disposal but i think american companies do invest in europe, do purchase companies in europe and there are takeovers so i think it's something of a myth to say it's no problem for the europeans have to take over

european companies but it's very difficult for european companies to take over american companies but i just don't think that's true, objectively. >> i would just add, if i could, also respectfully that if there are bad policies around the world as the u.s., i don't want to emulate them. so setting aside whether something is true or not, if another country is putting up barriers, that is not something we want to emulate. i just gave sort of an off-the-cuff example of l'oreal's acquisition of maybelline which many people would think was a cultural icon and they've done a fantastic job over there. that's in a variety of different spaces. acquisitions can bring so much, not just infusion of capital, but the things that we talked about before, they can bring in new technologies, new management system, a way to not just save a failing company but to even put new juice in a company that is doing well so an acquisition should not be seen as a vulnerability. i just offer that up. >> i think we will have time for two more questions so i'll take that one in the front row.

>> investor, thank you for coming. this is a little bit out of what we've been talking about today, what are your thoughts about brexit. is it too late for the uk. [laughter] >> look, i'm a european civil service and i'm also europe irish so i look at brexit with great sadness because i think it's a pity that the united kingdom would decide to leave and i also think it's a mistake for them, but that's not for me too say, it's for them to judge. they've made their choice. i think it's sad for the european union. i think the european union would be somewhat diminished, we will move on will still be 27 countries and the three

largest economies in the world, but i think we lose something by the departure of the night kingdom. in your question, i think when you say is it too late in some respect the second referendum or reversal of the decision, i have no idea. there is a very domestic difficult debate anything there trying to figure out what brexit means to be very frank, i think many people who voted for the leave side had no clear idea of the implications and the complexity of what that would mean, this is now emerging a most every day, the growing complexity of extricating the united kingdom from 45 years of deep involvement with the tissue and fabric of the european union and the business cycle and commercial and other links that are there and unraveling this is a drug entrant task and i think people are waking up to the

complexity of that. will it lead to rethink? i have no idea. this is a domestic british debate. i wish them well. personally i'll be delighted if they change your mind but i'm not holding my breath. >> thank you for being here today. i just have a brief question we all know u.s. president dropped from the tpb last year and it speculation now that u.s. might be withdrawing from nafta. i just wonder what that means for the eu economy. >> i think i said earlier that we thought the conclusion was a positive, we wish to well we hoped that it would enter it's force, it's a shame that the u.s. is not going to be a party to that, i'm delighted that the 11 are going head

because that will be to our benefit and were also negotiating with a most all the countries in tbp, we are actually negotiating agreements of our own so i think all of this will add to the economic activity to the benefit of the region and to the benefit certainly of europe. my nafta, to go back to the point we were discussing earlier and in response to the question from twitter, as an economist and a trade specialist and someone who just looks from the outside, to me, for the u.s., nafta has been a success. i may be the only person in america willing to say this because everyone else seems to feel obliged to say it has been a bad thing but to me it has been a success. it has certainly brought problems and there are probably challenges within the existing arrangements of nafta that could be revisited, it's an old agreement at this point, but to me it's been a benefit. i personally can't understand why anyone the canadians and mexicans of americans would want to withdraw from that. maybe you improve it, you address some problems which

are there, but i mean, that is my view in my view counts for nothing in this so, you see, i come back to my point that it has almost gone into the sort of commonplace language that we all can agree yes, these trade deals have all been very bad when actually they haven't. they been pretty good and they have brought huge benefits to us all and they have improved our economies and given us more money to tax and have better public services so the starting point in the debate about trade is to stop, i will not accept the argument that by and large trade deals have been negative. they have been hugely positive. they are not always been as positive as we'd hoped and sometimes there's problems and you need to correct that and there are consequences which need to be addressed through public policy or through tax policy or investment policy or training policy all that is needed but the net results of these trade deals is actually

to increase economic welfare and not just of the 1%, but for all of us. that is my view of nafta but you have to have that to be here and the negotiations are ongoing and i sincerely hope that the negotiations can unsuccessfully and you can have an upgrade of nafta and it can continue to bring the benefits to the three north american countries, economies which i believe it has until now. >> on that note, unless you want to interject. >> ditto. >> i think that's an excellent note to end on. i really don't want to take up any more time of the investor i really appreciate they took the time out of their busy days to share their expertise on the field. i personally really enjoyed this discussion citing they deserve next line round of applause.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] flawed, one, one.

[inaudible conversations]

, one. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> this conference on free trade and prosperity taking a break, resuming at about 2:00 p.m. eastern. second panel coming up on financial regulations and free trade, the final step the afternoon will be on free trade and agriculture, all of today's conference will be available later at cspan.org. we will resume her live coverage when they return here on c-span2. until then, part of today's washington drawl. >> back at our table, marco who writes the upshot column for new york times, healthcare correspondent, thank you for being here. >> let's talk about your recent headline, can amazon and friends handle