Comes December 2016, and for the average American citizen who believes in the original American dream – hard work can take anyone to the top – the worry would be not that who, Trump or Hillary, becomes the next US President, but that regardless of who gets elected he or she may undo some of the best things to happen to the USA over the last eight years. First, being the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Apart from being a trade agreement that somehow goes on to touch nearly 95 percent of global consumers the TPP in fact also goes to provide huge success to the United States (US) in the foreign policy arena; polls show US popularity in the signatory countries is highest since 1970, and quite frankly if TPP falls apart, China wins. Non-ratification would signal hat Beijing gets to dictate policy in the region, and the attempt to comprehensively integrate quite a few developing countries in the TPP (such as Vietnam & Peru) into a west-influenced rules-based international economic system would fail. Obama’s decision to spend so much time recently in Vietnam and Japan is an indication of the importance he attaches to this corner-stone of his so-called Asia “pivot”. The agreement – with countries accounting for close to 40 percent of the global economy – anchors the US as a pacific power and reinforces its critical offsetting role in Asia as China rises. Long-term, what America is publicizing is that transformations through TPP will lift hundreds of millions of Asians out of poverty. The TPP trade agreement, like all such agreements, of course has some flaws and there are certain issues that it does not properly address. For example, currency manipulation remains a concern; patent enforcement can have undesirable effect on prices of currently affordable medicines; for the US some manufacturing and low skilled jobs could be lost, but overall as per a 2016 report issued by The Peterson Institute for International Economics, the accord will in reality stimulate jobs for all stakeholders, will not negatively affect employment in the US, and will deliver significant gains in real incomes and annual exports of the US. While a particular segment in developed economies does hold this viewpoint that free trade hurts them more than it gives in return, but the truth is that world as a whole has enjoyed growing prosperity over decades because of continuously reduced trade barriers. Ironically, both Trump and Hillary Clinton are opposed to the TPP and have promised to do away with it, if elected to power!

Second, is about Obama’s war on inequality. We all know he managed to get the Dodd-Frank bill – a financial reform bill and structuring of taxes to target top 1% - passed during Democrats’ brief window of congressional control and recently he successfully implemented another major policy change achieved through executive action: where the Obama administration has issued new guidelines on overtime pay, which will benefit an estimated 12.5 million American workers. What both these moves tell us is that the Obama administration has done much more than most people realize to fight extreme economic inequality in the US. Now many may question that what can simple policies do to limit inequality? The answer is: a legislated policy can operate on two fronts.

It can engage in redistribution, taxing high incomes and aiding families with lower incomes. It can also engage in what is sometimes called ”pre-distribution”, strengthening the bargaining power of lower-paid workers and limiting the opportunities for a handful of people to make giant sums. In practice, governments that succeed in limiting inequality generally do both. Again, the trouble going forward is that this fight against inequality will surely come to an abrupt halt if Mr. Trump gets elected, as he has already openly declared to do away with the Dodd-Frank Bill, but again the real irony is that even if Ms. Clinton comes to the office, this effort is still likely to falter as her views tend to be more close to the centre than the traditional liberal left, which was once regarded as the true hallmark of the democratic party principles.

Third is Obamacare. Between the extra Obamacare taxes and the expiration of the high-end Bush tax cuts made possible by Obama’s re-election, the average federal tax rate in the US today on the top 1 percent has risen quite a lot. In fact, it is roughly back to what it was in 1979, pre-Ronald Reagan, something most tend to ignore. And as for the pre-distribution, why are the likes of Trump so eager to repeal financial reform? Because despite what one may hear about its ineffectuality, Dodd-Frank actually has put a substantial limitation on the ability of Wall Street to make money hand over fist. Sure it does not go far enough, but it is significant enough to have bankers howling, which in itself is a good sign for the average American. Also, while the move on overtime comes late in the game, it is a pretty big deal, and could be the beginning of much broader action. What Mr. Obama has done will perhaps not put more than a modest dent in American inequality, but rest assure that his actions aren’t trivial either. The disappointing note however is that even if Ms. Clinton wins the Presidency, money talks on both sides of the aisle. As quite visible from the influence of big donors who have been driving her campaign it is more than likely that upon assuming power she may not be eager to push this Obama reform drive on inequality. Meaning, even with democrats retaining the office, we still may see these reforms suddenly take a back seat. And it is in this and also so much else on inequality that it matters hugely to the American voters in not only who they choose as their new President, but also that they find a way to maintain the kind of pressure to ensure that America returns to its liberal, entrepreneurial, and equal-opportunity glory days of the 60s & 70s.