China & US still in trade talks despite challenges - Reuters

China and the United States are still in frequent discussion about a bilateral trade pact, despite a challenging global trade environment, a Chinese commerce official said on Thursday. 

China is keen to maintain open markets for its goods as its economy grows at its slowest pace in 25 years, but it faces rising trade tensions as its imports deteriorate faster than exports, setting it up for another record trade surplus. 

Last year, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $336.2 billion, according to the U.S. Trade Representative's office. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump threatened on Wednesday to slap tariffs on Chinese products to show Beijing the United States is "not playing games anymore".

The United States - China's second-largest trade partner after the European Union - has imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Chinese products and also brought cases against China at the World Trade Organization. 

"The global economy has not emerged from its difficulties, which has led a lot of countries to adopt trade protectionist policies," China's Ministry of Commerce spokesman Shen Danyang said in a rare conversation with reporters over coffee in a Starbucks cafe near Tiananmen Square. 

Chinese steel exports have surged this year even as global growth remains weak, prompting complaints that China was dumping excess capacity. 

"There is no evidence China is dumping steel products. Growth in exports is due to greater competitiveness of Chinese firms, as costs have fallen," Shen said.

In response to claims by the head of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) Chairman Fred Hochberg that China gave its exporters 10 times more financing than the United States did in 2015, Shen said there are disagreements on what constitutes subsidies. 

If there are disputes, the two sides can take it to the WTO, he said. 

Shen did not offer any details on plans announced on Tuesday to open more sectors to foreign investment, but said foreign companies are not investing in China as much as before because competition from Chinese companies is increasing. 

ALSO IN BUSINESS NEWS

• Asia stocks wary, dollar slips before Fed Chair Yellen's speech
• Schooled in the short run, central banks struggle with a long-term role
• Fed officials tell activists rate hikes won't derail economy
• British economy escapes Brexit 'bomb', for now

China is not part of the U.S.-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) accord involving 12 Pacific Rim countries. TPP members have said the pact is not meant to target China, which does not feel it is targeted. Beijing is separately pursuing a regional framework with its trade partners that omits the United States. 

The biggest challenge facing China's economy is the need to effectively implement supply-side reform to improve the structure of the economy, he said. 

"There is demand for quality products, but that has to be met with effective supply. It requires innovation, which is difficult," Shen said. 

"In the past, when facing slowing growth, we would stimulate demand - loosen monetary policy, use fiscal measures. Now we are focusing primarily on using structural supply-side reform. This is the right direction, but it's not easy."

(Reporting by Elias Glenn; Editing by Jacqueline Wong)

US voters have right to know presidential candidates's health - Forbes

The American public has a right to know about the health of anyone who wants to be president of our great nation. It’s foolish for us to expect any candidate to be in perfect health, but it is equally foolish for us to assume that a candidate’s health is irrelevant. That is why both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trumpshould immediately release their full and unaltered medical records.

In my opinion as a doctor, it is especially important that we see Mrs. Clinton’s medical records. The media has speculated about her health in recent weeks, for a variety of reasons. The general consensus has been: We don’t know enough to draw any conclusions.

can’t make educated guesses based on the evidence we already have. After all, that’s my job, and my medical specialty deals directly with the issues that we already know Mrs. Clinton has.

Let’s start with what we know for sure–the limited information provided by the Clinton camp. Mrs. Clinton has a right transverse venous sinus thrombosis–otherwise known as a blood clot–in her brain.  This is a serious problem that was unrelated to the head injury that caused her concussion several years ago. It turns out that Mrs. Clinton is predisposed to such clots–she already had two prior spontaneous blood clots in her legs.

All blood clots are serious, but especially so with the brain one. If the leg clots end up blocking a vein, there are other veins that can generally pick up the slack. Not so with the brain clot. There are no alternative veins large enough to bypass it. The result is the accumulation of extra fluid in the skull, which in turn puts pressure on the brain and the nerves coming from it.  The pressure inside the skull–intracranial pressure, as it is known–increases.

To be clear: The clot does not dissolve or disappear as the Clinton camp has inferred. About half of patients will continue to have a blocked vein, and half will have partial reopening of the vein, but either way, there will always be some insufficiency in drainage for someone in this position. It is not a question of whether the intracranial pressure increases. It is a question of how severe and how bad are the symptoms that follow. Among several symptoms that follow, the most common are headaches, visual problems and dizziness/balance problems.

I have treated numerous patients for this very issue, and the consequences can lead to significant disability. I have helped NASA research for the identification of increased intracranial pressure, leading to the use of a non-invasive means of measuring intracranial pressure on the International Space Station. This is of special interest to NASA since increased intracranial pressure is one of the biggest health threats for our astronauts.  Of the approximately 80 astronauts who have traveled to the space station, half have demonstrated visual changes and a couple have permanent visual loss due to this.

This bears directly on Mrs. Clinton. Given the medical history that we know, we can know for a fact that increased intracranial pressure is a problem that she will have to deal with for the rest of her life. We also know that she has exactly the same symptoms that accompany intracranial pressure. She has had headaches, vision and balance problems on numerous occasions. From my perspective as a physician, this is more than correlation; it strongly indicates causation.

This leads me to ask a simple question: If the effects of increased intracranial pressure can be so profound in a group of young astronauts who have been highly vetted for medical problems, what do you think the effects are in a 68-year-old woman who is not nearly as healthy?

I have seen patients with similar problems and similar symptoms all too often, and it deeply concerns me that one of the two leading presidential candidates may have such serious health issues. I sincerely hope that this isn’t the case. But the only way to be sure is for Hillary to give the American people the fullest possible picture of her health by releasing her full and unaltered medical records.

Donald Trump should do the same thing, for that matter. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he has had no public diagnoses, so I cannot provide my expert opinion on the state of his health. It is certainly possible that he has medical issues of his own–issues that the public has a right to know about.

At the end of the day, the American people deserve to know the health of the man and the woman who want to be President of the United States.

Dr. Gianoli is also a clinical associate professor at Tulane University School of Medicine.

Is the Clinton foundation the same thing as the Clinton Global Initiative? - CNN

Washington (CNN)The Clinton Foundation is under intensifying scrutiny as Republicans accuse it of being a corrupt and opaque institution.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/index.html?sr=twCNN082416clinton-foundation-explainer/1115AMStoryLink&linkId=27996095

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the foundation and charged Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton engaged in "criminality" for connections between the family organization's donors and her actions as secretary of state. On Tuesday, he seized on an Associated Press report on the high number of foundation contributors she received in meetings at Foggy Bottom.

The sprawling, complex structure of the foundation, its history of contributions from foreign power brokers and its attractiveness as a Republican line of attack mean it's likely to stay in the spotlight.

But the glare of public attention hasn't always been so enlightening about the nature of the foundation and its activities. Here's a closer look.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, vice-chair of the Clinton Global Initiative Chelsea Clinton and founder of the Clinton Global Initiative Bill Clinton onstage during the fourth day of the Clinton Global Initiative's 10th Annual Meeting at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers on September 24, 2014 in New York City. 

Bill Clinton set up the public charity after he wrapped up his presidency in 2001 with the idea of bringing government, businesses and social groups together to tackle big problems. It was kind of a new idea at the time. On Monday, Clinton wrote in a post on Medium that the foundation is about "creating opportunities and solving problems faster, better, at lower cost so that more people are empowered to build better futures for themselves, their families and their communities." 

Trump, RNC seize on new report to attack Clinton Foundation

But ... what is it?

The foundation is made up of 11 non-profit groups that work on four major issues: global health and wellness, climate change, economic development and improving opportunities for girls and women. 

How does it work?

It's what philanthropists call an operating foundation, which means it doesn't give much money to outside groups to fulfill its mission. In 2014, the foundation gave less than 3% of revenue to other non-profits. Instead, the foundation does its own work, with staff and partners around the world.

What kind of work? 

Health is a big focus. In more than 70 countries, according to the foundation, it helps 11.5 million people, including 800,000 children, with HIV/AIDS get their medication at 90% lower cost -- more than half the adults and three-quarters of the children getting treatment in the world today. 

But it does all kinds of other work as well. For instance, it helps East African farmers get better seeds and fertilizers. It supported Nepal's reconstruction after the 2015 earthquakes. And it has connected more than 500,000 Latin Americans to job training and entrepreneurship opportunities.

Okay. So it's an international do-good group?

Yes. And no. The Clinton Foundation does tons of work in the US, too. Some examples: It has a school program that operates in every state, affecting more than 31,000 schools and 18 million students by its count. That program is to improve physical education, child nutrition, health education and staff wellness programs. They also work on prescription drug addiction. The foundation wants to halve the number of opioid overdoses -- right now those drugs kill more Americans than car accidents.

Foundation becomes campaign issue

Is the foundation the same thing as the Clinton Global Initiative?

The Clinton Global Initiative is part of the foundation. Bill Clinton started CGI in 2005. In contrast to other parts of the organization, it doesn't fund or manage projects, or handle any of the money involved. Instead, it's like the OKCupid of the charity world, matching funders with good causes. They do this at events throughout the year, including a big annual meeting in New York every September that's a who's who of global movers-and-shakers. (Bono? Check.) 

So ... lots of charity hook-ups? 

Since the first annual meeting in 2005, CGI says it has helped make more than 3,500 pledges, or "commitments," between funders and projects. In real-life terms, that means more than 430 million people in more than 180 countries have had their lives touched. 

Carville: People will die if the Clinton Foundation is shut down

More than 46 million children have gotten access to a better education, the foundation calculates. CGI says it has raised more than $313 million to research and develop new vaccines, medicines and diagnostics. And it has helped more than 27 million people have better access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

If the Clinton Foundation is doing all this good, why the suspicion?

Because of concerns about transparency and -- especially after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state -- concerns that some donors, especially foreign governments, may have been trying to buy influence.

Meet Huma Abedin: Hillary Clinton's right-hand woman

The AP reported Tuesday that during her time as secretary, more than half of Clinton's meetings with people outside government were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. These included executives at Estee Lauder, which was working with the State Department on a gender violence project in South Africa, and the founder of a non-profit bank who was asking for help because the government of Bangladesh pressured him to resign.

What did the State Department have to say about that? 

The deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, said in a statement Tuesday that "individuals, including those who have donated to political campaigns, non-profits, or foundations -- including the Clinton Foundation -- may contact or have meetings with officials in the administration. A wide range of outside individuals and organizations contact the State Department. Meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels both formal and informal." 

What's the issue with transparency? 

Who the foundation was getting money from, basically. When Clinton took the State Department job in 2008, she promised President Barack Obama that the foundation would publish all its donors every year. And ... that didn't happen.

State Department ordered to review 15,999 new Clinton emails

Reuters discovered that from 2010 to 2013, the foundation's health arm wasn't disclosing all of its donors -- leaving out countries like Switzerland and lumping together individuals as one big group. And the foundation didn't tell the State Department that countries such as Australia and the UK doubled and tripled their donations between 2009 and 2012 while Clinton was secretary.

What do Clinton's opponents have to say about all this, you ask?

No surprise, Trump has been hitting this theme hard, trying to use the foundation to undermine Clinton. This week in Akron, Ohio, he reeled off accusations without offering proof, saying that, "No issue better illustrates how corrupt my opponent is than her pay-for-play scandals as secretary of state." 

He's calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the foundation. 

Is it only Republicans who rap the foundation?

No. There's been a lot of media coverage of possible "pay-for-play" deals while Clinton was at state. So far, though, there are no smoking guns. The Wall Street Journal has said that the foundation has benefitted Clinton friends. And Fox News raised questions about the State Department's consideration of a Nigerian land purchase in March 2013 from two Lebanese-Nigerian brothers who donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013, and the real estate deal never took place.

Any Democratic critics?

In a June interview with CNN's Jake Tapper during primary season, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's only remaining Democratic challenger, said that foundation donors like Saudi Arabia created the appearance of a conflict of interest. "Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state ... collects millions of dollars from foreign governments ... dictatorships," Sanders said. "Do I have a problem with that? Yeah, I do."

Is it weird that the Clinton Foundation has foreign donors?

It turns out that foreign donations to US foundations and charities are common.

"Like other nonprofits, the Clinton Foundation is chasing after grant money from the real foundations that have it, like Gates and Rockefeller, as well as foreign governments, most of which also donate to other major nonprofits," Inside Philanthropy's editor in chief David Callahan has written.

What do the Clintons say in response to all these accusations? 

The foundation has always rejected the "pay-for-play" accusations. The health arm of the foundation said there were various reasons for not disclosing all its donors. Bill Clinton said The Wall Street Journal story about the foundation benefitting his friends wasn't accurate. And foundation spokesman Craig Minassian has said that Clinton's friends are involved in CGI commitments because they also care about making a positive impact. 

So what happens if Clinton becomes the next president? 

"The process of determining the Clinton Foundation's future if Hillary becomes President has not been easy," Bill Clinton wrote in his Monday Medium post. "It's an unprecedented situation, so there's no blueprint to follow."

If Clinton wins, foundation says it won't take foreign money

That said, he laid out some steps the foundation will take if his wife wins. It will only accept donations from US citizens, legal residents and US-based independent foundations, he wrote. Bill Clinton will step down from the board and stop fundraising. 

Because a lot of the international work the foundation does is partially funded by foreign governments' aid programs, they'll move those programs to other organizations so they can continue. And, Clinton added, this September will mark the last annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative.

How does the philanthropic world see the Clinton Foundation?

They're rock stars. There are watchdog groups that judge charities on how they're run, how transparent they are and how much they spend on programs -- some charities raise a ton of money, but spend a large percentage on salaries and bonuses instead of their actual cause. 

Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundation an A grade, while GuideStar gave it a platinum rating.

Daniel Borochoff of Charity Watch noted that in 2014, 87.2% of the foundation's funding went to its programs, "which is really high." The foundation, he said, does "really important, valuable work that saves lives of lots of people."

For a while, another group called Charity Navigator had the Clinton Foundation on a watch list because of media reports about possible conflicts of interest. It didn't judge the merit of the reports but wanted to flag for donors that others were raising questions. 

How does the charity world see the political brouhaha over the foundation?

"It's unfortunate that it's become this punching bag, this political punching bag," Borochoff said. "There's a lot of things that are said that are false. If Hillary Clinton wasn't running for president, the Clinton Foundation would be seen as one of the great humanitarian charities of our generation."

Who owns most of US national debt ? - CNN Money

Donald Trump says he can "make a deal" on America's debt.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/economy/us-debt-ownership/index.html?iid=EL

Last week, he implied that he could negotiate with America's creditors to get them to accept a lower rate of repayment, such as 85 cents for every dollar. 

It sounds shrewd, until you think about who would get hurt under this scenario. Who exactly owns the $19 trillion-plus of U.S. debt? 

There's been a lot of attention in recent years over China rising to become one of the largest holders of U.S. debt. China's share of the debt is sizable -- about 7% -- but it's hardly the largest holder of U.S. government bonds. 

The top holder by far is U.S. citizens and American entities, such as state and local governments, pension funds, mutual funds, and the Federal Reserve. Together they own the vast majority -- 67.5% -- of the debt. 

Foreign nations only hold 32.5% of the total.

Trump's proposal stunned the financial world. The U.S. government is the world's safety net. Lenders expect the U.S. Treasury to always make good on its payments. 

"The global financial system is built on the notion that U.S. Treasuries are absolutely safe assets," economist Doug Holtz-Eakin told CNN's Jake Tapper Monday. "If he were to put a crack in that foundation, the global financial system would crater and we would have a global economic recession." 

Renegotiating debt terms is a common practice among companies in financial trouble. Creditors are willing to accept lower payments because that's preferable to getting nothing. However, the U.S. government isn't a "junk bond" company.

Powered by SmartAsset.com

ASSET ALLOCATION BY 

Trump walked back his debt deal making comments when he appeared on CNN's "New Day" show Monday morning as the outrage grew. 

Related: Foreign governments dump U.S. debt at record rate

What's important to remember is that any debt negotiation is really a deal with U.S. citizens. 

For years, grandmas and grandpas gave their children and grandchildren U.S. bonds to encourage them to save and grow their money. Retirees buy bonds because they are safer than stocks and provide more stable monthly income. Investors of all ages hold U.S. bonds to make their retirement and investment portfolios less risky. 

"A lot of people who own the debt are in the U.S. Why would I want to get paid less on my debt than when I bought it?" says Maya MacGuineas, an expert on government debt and budgets. She is president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 

Of the $12.9 trillion chunk of debt owned by Americans, $5.3 trillion is held by government trust funds such as Social Security, $5.1 trillion is held by individuals, pension funds and state and local governments and the remaining $2.5 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. 

Outside the U.S., China is the largest foreign holder of the debt, with $1.25 trillion. It is followed closely by Japan, which holds $1.13 trillion.

Giant pearl – biggest in the world worth $100m (£76m) found in Philippines - Independent

A giant pearl – believed to be the biggest in the world and possibly worth over $100m (£76m) – has been discovered in the Philippines after a fisherman’s family handed it in to authorities.

The huge pearl is confirmed to have come from a giant clam. It measures at 30.5cm in width and 2.2ft in length, and weighs a staggering 34kg.

It was discovered nearly a decade ago by the local fisherman but was kept hidden under his bed as a good luck charm until recently.

Puerto Princesa City Tourism Officer Aileen Amurao said the gigantic pearl was handed in by a relative of the fisherman.

“We were amazed when he brought it to us,” Palawan tourism official Aileen Amurao told local media, the BBC reports.

•  

Ms Amurao put out a plea on Facebook for gemologists to visit Puerto Princesa and help certify the pearl’s authenticity and officials are currently waiting on confirmation of the gem’s status as the largest pearl in the world.

Prior to this discovery, the world’s largest pearl was known to be the Pearl of Lao Tzu, also found in the Philippines, and weighing 6.4kg. 

China cyber spies may be watching you - CNN

(CNN)About a year ago, China and the United States formally agreed not to conduct or knowingly support the cyber theft of each other's intellectual property.

So, how is that agreement working out? 

Not great, said Adm. Mike Rogers, head of US Cyber Command.

"Cyber operations from China are still targeting and exploiting US government, defense industry, academic and private computer networks," Rogers said last April during testimony before a US Senate committee. 

Cyber theft of US trade secrets can easily ruin American businesses and result in higher prices for consumers. Even more worrisome, stolen American military secrets could put US servicemen and women at risk during combat.

Related story: US, China swear off cyber theft 

"Russia and China are growing more assertive and sophisticated in their cyber operations," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters last July.  

China's cyber tactics may be getting "more assertive," but the number of China-based hacking instances against the US government and American companies has declined in the past two years, according to US cyber security firm FireEye. 

Despite all the fingers pointed in its direction, Beijing has long denied any responsibility for hacks and attacks — instead blaming internal "criminals" and rogues.

Related story: Chinese cyber spying decreasing, report says

In 2004, an FBI probe nabbed an American engineer named Chi Mak who was convicted of trying to send digital information about secret US Navy technology to the Chinese government. The investigation is detailed in CNN's Original Series "Declassified."

How cyber spies operate 

Sometimes cyber-spy targets might surprise you. A June New York Times reportdescribed how Chinese hackers took over a "dusty old computer" at a small welding company in Belleville, Wisconsin, to stage global assaults.

"We were totally freaked out," co-owner Lori Cate told The Times. "We had no idea we could be used as an infiltration unit for Chinese attacks." 

CBS News reported on how China-based spies use malware and spear phishing to allow hackers to watch you at your desk without your knowledge. Spear phishing is harmful email disguised to look like it's from a familiar business or someone you know. 

The bad guys want you to open the email, click on an attachment and boom — your computer is now working for the spies. 

Related story: China denounces US hacking charges

Countries like China are turning "to proxies (to) do their bidding in order to provide plausible deniability," said Frank J. Cilluffo the director of the Center for Cyber & Homeland Security, during testimony last February before a US House committee. 

Hacker groups known by names like Deep Panda, C0d0so0 (aka Codoso) have been blamed for raiding computer systems at law firms, banks and Forbes. 

One group which has been "attributed to China" has been dubbed "Mofang," reports Wired. 

"Mofang has targeted government agencies in the US, military agencies in India and Myanmar, critical infrastructure in Singapore, research and development departments of automotive companies in Germany, and the weapons industry in India," Wired reported in June.

Not only could stolen data be used to copy new American products and secret military technology, Cilluffo warned it could be used as a weapon "to blackmail and recruit Americans" — potentially to be forced to act as Chinese agents.

Sometimes the espionage is about defending against an enemy. 

"Beijing also selectively uses cyber attacks against targets it believes threaten Chinese domestic stability or regime legitimacy," said James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, during congressional testimony last February. 

What cyber spies want

"China's aggressive collection efforts appear to be intended to amass data and secrets (military, commercial/proprietary, etc.) that will support and further the country's economic growth, scientific and technological capacities, military power, etc. — all with an eye to securing strategic advantage," Cilluffo said. 

Sometimes the spying may be about getting the inside track. 

Cyber spying malware has been linked to China in arbitration over islands in the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines but occupied by China, according to a report in The Hill. 

An antivirus firm called F-Secure found malware linked to China on computers in the Philippines' justice department, a law firm representing a party in the dispute and members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit, The Hill reported. 

Sometimes it's simply about copying hardware. 

Countries can save untold money and time by stealing information that will help them duplicate rival products and weapons, instead of developing them legitimately. Last March, a 50-year-old Chinese citizen named Su Bin pleaded guilty to conspiring to hack into the computer networks of top US military contractors to pilfer sensitive information to send to China.

data for China about Boeing's C-17 military transport. 

He worked with two unidentified people for more than five years to target military data, including information about Boeing's C-17 transport plane and certain fighter jets, the Justice Department said.

Related story: Chinese man admits spying on Boeing

Clapper: Cyber intrusions blur war and peace

Overall, China has been successful in using cyber espionage against the US government, its allies and American companies, said Clapper.

He predicts China will continue to challenge the US at "lower levels of competition," including "cyber intrusions, proxies and other indirect applications of military power — that intentionally blur the distinction between peace and wartime operations."

In other words, get used to looking over your shoulder, because it's likely that the threat of cyber espionage blamed on China will be with us for a long, long time. 

CNNMoney's Sophia Yan contributed to this report.

4 to 1 margin economists bet Clinton is better than Trump in managing economy - Forbes

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump has pledged to put “America first,” suggesting that the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants should be deported and flatly rejecting the concept of globalism. But because of the potential economic consequences of these stances, a group of business economists is now flatly rejecting him.

A policy survey of National Association for Business Economics (NABE) members released Monday shows that 55% of business economists feel that former Secretary of State Hillary Clintonwould do the best job as president of managing the U.S. economy. The candidate with the next-largest percentage of the vote was Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: 15% of NABE members said he’d do the best job managing the economy. Another 15% or respondents said they didn’t know who would be best or that they didn’t have an opinion.

Just 14% chose Donald Trump.

The survey results are remarkable because NABE members aren’t your average ivory tower-dwelling, left-leaning egg heads. They work for businesses, trade associations and government agencies across the country. As NABE director and survey chair LaVaughn Henry put it, these are people who have skin in the game.

“You’re speaking of people who advise business leaders on day-to-day and long term issues where the outcome has to be one way or the other, it can’t just be, ‘let’s study it or research it forever,’” he told FORBES in a recent interview. “These are people who are actually helping to make decisions of do we produce here, or do we produce oversees; do we consume more, consume less.”

Henry posited that one of the reasons a group of conservative-to-moderate business economists overwhelmingly chose Clinton over Trump is that “a definitive plan has been out there for months to stew over and study and make decisions about. It’s one thing to say, ‘this is my plan, A-B-C-D,’ versus, ‘just trust me.

It’s not just Trump the candidate that failed to gain traction with the 414 members NABE polled; it’s many of his ideas. On immigration, just 8% of respondents said they favor deportation of all undocumented immigrants (a keystone Trump policy); 80%, meanwhile, said they believe the government should expand visa programs, like the H-1B program, for high-skilled workers, and 64% said they favored a legalization process for undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. When asked broadly how the next administration and Congress should be towards immigration, 61% of NABE members said the government should be more relaxed as to allow for increased immigration.

On issues of trade, 65% of NABE members say the next presidential administration should be more open and free; Trump, meanwhile, has offered a more protectionist vision for the future. Forty-seven percent of business economists said the U.S. should approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement in its current form and other 30% said the U.S. should seek more favorable terms first and then adopt the pact; Trump has called the TPP “a horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble.”

Henry said that NABE members fundamentally disagree with that view. “Business economists recognize value of trade to the economy,” he said. “The Pacific Asian theatre is so growth-oriented and will be for decades that we shouldn’t cut off our hand before we put it in the pot.” That said, he understands why the TPP has become such a big issue this election cycle. “When you don’t have a job because of trade, unemployment to you is 100%,” he said.

The August 2016 survey marks the first time since 1992 that NABE directly asked its members about their presidential preferences. Back then, 59.5% said that then-president George H.W. Bush’s policies would be better for maintaining stable growth – but they also (correctly) predicted that Bill Clintonwould win the election. 

By NABE’s own estimation, the only other two times presidential politics factored into an economic outlook survey was 2004 (when members said they wouldn’t change their economic forecasts whether George Bush or John Kerry were elected) and 2008, when respondents similarly said that the election’s victor would not materially affect GDP growth over the coming two years. 

The August 2016 economic policy study is not the first time Trump and Clinton’s economic plans have come under economists’ scrutiny. A pair of analyses from Moody’s recently found that Trump’s proposals could potentially raise the deficit and hurt GDP growth, while Clinton’s had the potential to spur economic growth and lower unemployment.

Whether or not Trump is elected, the damage might already be done: 62% of NABE respondents said that uncertainty about the presidential election is holding back economic growth somewhat or significantly.

“Any introduction of increased risk, increased uncertainty, questions of ‘will I have a job next year, or will I not?’ really does factor into people’s buying decisions. You see these broad groups pulling back, saying ‘let’s just wait to spend, let’s see where things go,’” Henry said. “Our survey didn’t say it, but others have said, if one of the candidates wins, we may be in for a recession. I won’t say who, I won’t name names, but people are saying. Many people are saying.”