7 ms·

The big question I’ve been struggling with in regards to the free trade debate is this: Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? I increas

The big question I’ve been struggling with in regards to the free trade debate is this: Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? I increasingly don’t think that it is. Yes, we get products more cheaply. But those products are made in countries with fewer labor restrictions, often in places that are not democratic, where workers cannot vote for changing laws. We’re effectively saying we want democracy where we live, for our own white collar professions, but we don’t want to be shackled by those restrictions for how we get rich, or how we enjoy our wealth. We’re effectively telling local blue collar workers that we’re okay with their level of work being taken over by people with less rights than themselves. That increasingly doesn’t feel just. Comparative advantage makes sense for natural differences between countries, such as availability of natural resources or favorable weather for certain types of crops. But not for fundamental human rights.

beagle3 7y ago
Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). So you are damned if you don’t enjoy them, damned if you do (but a bit less). Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their labor stops being cheap.... but how can you do that?
- tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago
  > Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their labor stops being cheap.... but how can you do that? The big thing missing from this conversation is how the US/multi-national corporations use international organizations like the IMF and World Bank to force "structural adjustment" policies that end up degrading labor protections, forcing countries to privatize all gov't functions, etc. We have played a big role in the destruction of their "situation". Both historically through colonialism and still actively today with IOs and structural adjustment policies Not to mention all the fucking coups the US enacted and supported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). Maybe in some cases. However, you then have labor in those countries trying to struggle for the same protections and advances in wages that workers in the US struggled for, but they are struggling against a far more powerful corporate entity that has the backing of a more corrupt/disfunctional government while also having diversified options to break and weather strikes. Then you have to add to that all the non blue collar workers who have had their subsistence livelihoods destroyed through land seizures for resource extraction. Most of the benefits of globalization roll uphill (richer citizens, especially in richer countries extract most of the benefits) the trickle down is minuscule to non-existent.
  - davidw 7y ago
    > a more corrupt/disfunctional government You...sure about that?
  - cactus2093 7y ago
    Yes people still have challenges and problems. But at the end of day, there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      > , there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. And how much of that is due to globalization and how much of that is due to the growth of local economies? How much faster would those local economies have grown if wealth was not being siphoned out by multi-nationals? (These are not honest inquiries, not rhetorical questions.) > None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers. The people who were poor subsistence farm who had their lands given away are generally not those who have been lifted out of poverty.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Maybe a better way forward is for labor cost disparity to be just small enough to encourage jobs by being cost effective after shipping with a hint of extra profit rather than a make-several-one-trillion-dollar-companies cost disparity.
- methodover 7y ago
  I'm sympathetic to that idea, to some extent. Foreign workers would indeed be happy to get a marginal increase in their income, even if those wages and working conditions are well below developed-country standards. But, then, aren't we just making a trade at that point? I will fire 100 local blue collar workers, and hire 100 foreign workers who will do their job for less. I hurt 100 people, help 100 people, and along the way pocket some extra cash for myself. I think most moral systems would have a problem with this. It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. (Yes, things get complicated when you hurt N people to help more than N people, depending on the number of extra people helped and the kind of hurt. For example, sacrificing soldiers in order to save an entire country. Generally speaking though, most moral systems have a problem with hurting people against their will except in extraordinary situations involving very large numbers. Does this trade situation qualify as that? I'm skeptical that is does.) There has to be a better way. Some way where we aren't harming local blue collar workers, but are still helping foreign nations develop, while giving those foreign nations on the path of strong worker protections and wages that we have here.
  - harryh 7y ago
    It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. Not when it comes to buying things, which is what this situation is. Blue collar workers in the US (or other developed nations) don't have a moral demand on you to purchase their labor at the same rate forever. If someone across the street (or across an ocean) is selling the same product for less money it's perfectly fine to buy it from them instead. Do you think it's immoral when you, say, switch from Verizon to AT&T to get a cheaper rate on your cell phone plan?
    - methodover 7y ago
      Yeah, this is another aspect of the debate I find myself challenging: Labor is different. Our human lives are different than a cell phone plan.
      - harryh 7y ago
- noonespecial 7y ago
  You adjust the system, however obfuscated and difficult it seems, so that they work to better themselves instead of for you. Because at the very bottom layer, that's what's happening.
deogeo 7y ago
> We're saying, we want, we're okay By 'we', you mean the multinational corporations that write 'free-trade' treaties (that usually encompass much more than just tariff reductions). Because voters tend to not get much say (and sometimes not even senators!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secrecy_of_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secr...
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  As a consumer you are voting with those corporations by buying from them or using their services. It might not seem like it's a choice, because the plurality of consumers have made the choice to go along, so if you do otherwise you're in a small group. It's still a choice though. You either live the modern lifestyle, which includes (though reducing) consumption based on what could be classified in many cases slave labor. Or you choose a lifestyle that doesn't.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    How nice. First subvert democracy through lobbying so they can offshore production, so the only 'choice' consumers have is go along with it, or live in the stone age. Then when consumers don't all retreat to caves and huts in the woods, claim this means they agree with and 'voted' for this course. Buying is not voting, and deceiving people into believing this has been one of capitalism's greatest successes.
    - dominotw 7y ago
      > so the only 'choice' consumers have its not the only choice in USA atleast. ethically made products cost more.
      - benibela 7y ago
        But the opposite direction does not hold. More expensive products are not necessary more ethically. Often the cheap and expensive products are made by the same workers and just sold under different brands. So the customers cannot know which products are ethically or not. They would need to vet the entire supply chain of every product. That is a full time job just to check one product
Animats 7y ago
Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? That really is the big question. It worked out OK for the pre-China era of "Asian tigers". Japan, Korea, and Taiwan had a labor cost advantage and exported heavily to the US. Their standard of living went up, wages went up, and they lost the labor cost advantage. Then the next round - Bangladesh (world leader in T-shirt production), Vietnam, Thailand. Labor costs are still low, but the countries are not big enough to seriously hurt the US. But they were not as big as China. China is 3x the size of the US in population, close in GDP, and has industrialized very fast. The US can't absorb that shock. Eventually, China may lose the labor cost advantage; it's already declined quite a bit as wages go up. But for now, the US is taking a big hit on this.
- thereare5lights 7y ago
  China is more than 4x
- TMWNN 7y ago
  >Eventually, China may lose the labor cost advantage; it's already declined quite a bit as wages go up. According to Peter Zeihan's The Accidental Superpower (2014), manufacturing in China has gone from being one quarter as expensive as in Mexico to 25% more expensive. He expects that the US shale and natural gas boom will further reduce costs in Mexico and the US. Also see "Why China should follow Trump’s example and cut taxes" http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2056874/why-china-should-follow-trumps-example-and-cut-taxes http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2056874/why-ch... . Quote: "As far as manufacturing is concerned, according to Cao, everything is cheaper in America apart from manpower."
miles7 7y ago
I agree it's an important question. But one thing often left out of the possible answers is to go forward with using cheap labor overseas while also providing a very strong safety net and job retraining options to those who lose their jobs as a result. If this was done, then those workers might be able to benefit from the cheaper prices of products too while still having money in their pocket. Instead they've just been abandoned. Obviously this is oversimplifying things, but I'm just saying that on the one hand it's important for disruption to happen (Uber making it harder for taxis) for the sake of progress, but for the sake of justice and the social fabric we should protect those most affected by the disruption.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
The thing is, for those workers in "poor" countries, this is a step up. My wife can tell you what two months' work for $300 meant to subsistence farmers in Guatemala. They were happy to get it. You may say "Sure, they're poor and exploited, but that doesn't make it morally right for us to exploit them just a little less". I agree, up to a point. But insisting on first-world working conditions (including pay) mean that very few of them get hired. This leaves almost all of them poor and exploited, without even the option of "slightly less exploited". Who does that help?
- elliekelly 7y ago
  It's one thing to pay a lower wage for the same work - especially when the cost of living varies considerably. But I don't really think there's anything that justifies inhumane or unsafe working conditions.
- khrbrt 7y ago
  The CIA under Eisenhower overthrew the government of Guatemala when trade unionists were elected on the promise of eight hour workdays and better conditions for field workers. What do you think the country would be like today if we hadn't killed the union leaders and installed a dictator friendly towards US business?
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    For one thing there wouldn’t have been a decades-long civil war leading up to a genocidal military dictator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War > CIA under Eisenhower overthrew the government of Guatemala when trade unionists were elected on the promise of eight hour workdays and better conditions for field workers. This isn’t quite the whole story. A significant proportion of Guatemalan land was owned by the United Fruit Company (whose leadership/ownership included significant overlap with Eisenhower’s administration†), but the company was not using the land. The Guatemalan government wanted to buy the unused land back from the company at the price they declared it to be worth on their tax forms. The company went to the US government and whined that their private property was being expropriated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_900 † “John Foster Dulles, who represented United Fruit while he was a law partner at Sullivan & Cromwell – he negotiated that crucial United Fruit deal with Guatemalan officials in the 1930s – was Secretary of State under Eisenhower; his brother Allen, who did legal work for the company and sat on its board of directors, was head of the CIA under Eisenhower; Henry Cabot Lodge, who was America's ambassador to the UN, was a large owner of United Fruit stock; Ed Whitman, the United Fruit PR man, was married to Ann Whitman, Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary.”
csense 7y ago
> Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? No, it isn't. Living in the Rust Belt, I find it so obvious that globalization is a race to the bottom that I'm amazed any reasonable person could believe otherwise. All the jobs move to countries with the worst wages, environmental protection, safety, workers' rights, etc. In economists' language, through labor organization and the democratic process, relatively free countries' workforces created a de facto monopoly on labor, which was able to extract some monopolistic rent (i.e. workers' wages > what they "should" be). Standard economic theory says this has a redistributive effect (labor pulls money from everyone else) plus an inefficiency effect (there's some potential value lost by the artificially high wages). Standard economic theory says markets should always be free, to avoid the inefficiency effect. This is where I disagree with standard economic theory: When it comes to the labor market, I firmly believe the inefficiency effect is a cost worth paying for the redistributive effect. If you open up your trade to the rest of the world, fungible jobs all go to the poorest, most repressed people, who can be paid the lowest wages and exploited in the worst ways. It's great for lifting people out of extreme poverty, but as a side effect it slides every country toward moderate poverty while moving all the wealth to the 1%. That's a recipe for potentially dangerous levels of social and political instability. My solution? Every country with high standards in wages, environmental protection, safety, workers' rights, etc. needs to implement tariffs to level the playing field. If your country has high standards, other countries can still choose lower standards and trade with you, but the competitive benefits of those lower standards will be nullified by the tariffs. Which lets you keep your high standards without wrecking your economy (and as a side benefit raises revenue without taxing your people directly, and gives countries with low standards an economic incentive to improve themselves. Which is potentially a great humanitarian breakthrough, improving the lives of lots of ordinary people in countries whose rulers care only for their wallet). I think the Trump's tariffs are a move in the right direction, although I think he's made a mistake by making the policy more of a negotiation lever than a semi-permanent way to compensate for China's low wages and poor standards. I believe so strongly in the value of a tariff policy that I used to say that I thought Trump's willingness to implement tariffs more than balances all of his many negatives. Lately I'm not so sure about that, not because I've lost faith in tariffs, but because Trump's done a lot more negative things than I thought he would.

beagle3 7y ago

Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). So you are damned if you don’t enjoy them, damned if you do (but a bit less). Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their labor stops being cheap.... but how can you do that?

tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago
> Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their labor stops being cheap.... but how can you do that? The big thing missing from this conversation is how the US/multi-national corporations use international organizations like the IMF and World Bank to force "structural adjustment" policies that end up degrading labor protections, forcing countries to privatize all gov't functions, etc. We have played a big role in the destruction of their "situation". Both historically through colonialism and still actively today with IOs and structural adjustment policies Not to mention all the fucking coups the US enacted and supported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
shkkmo 7y ago
> Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). Maybe in some cases. However, you then have labor in those countries trying to struggle for the same protections and advances in wages that workers in the US struggled for, but they are struggling against a far more powerful corporate entity that has the backing of a more corrupt/disfunctional government while also having diversified options to break and weather strikes. Then you have to add to that all the non blue collar workers who have had their subsistence livelihoods destroyed through land seizures for resource extraction. Most of the benefits of globalization roll uphill (richer citizens, especially in richer countries extract most of the benefits) the trickle down is minuscule to non-existent.
- davidw 7y ago
  > a more corrupt/disfunctional government You...sure about that?
- cactus2093 7y ago
  Yes people still have challenges and problems. But at the end of day, there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > , there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. And how much of that is due to globalization and how much of that is due to the growth of local economies? How much faster would those local economies have grown if wealth was not being siphoned out by multi-nationals? (These are not honest inquiries, not rhetorical questions.) > None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers. The people who were poor subsistence farm who had their lands given away are generally not those who have been lifted out of poverty.
AWildC182 7y ago
Maybe a better way forward is for labor cost disparity to be just small enough to encourage jobs by being cost effective after shipping with a hint of extra profit rather than a make-several-one-trillion-dollar-companies cost disparity.
methodover 7y ago
I'm sympathetic to that idea, to some extent. Foreign workers would indeed be happy to get a marginal increase in their income, even if those wages and working conditions are well below developed-country standards. But, then, aren't we just making a trade at that point? I will fire 100 local blue collar workers, and hire 100 foreign workers who will do their job for less. I hurt 100 people, help 100 people, and along the way pocket some extra cash for myself. I think most moral systems would have a problem with this. It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. (Yes, things get complicated when you hurt N people to help more than N people, depending on the number of extra people helped and the kind of hurt. For example, sacrificing soldiers in order to save an entire country. Generally speaking though, most moral systems have a problem with hurting people against their will except in extraordinary situations involving very large numbers. Does this trade situation qualify as that? I'm skeptical that is does.) There has to be a better way. Some way where we aren't harming local blue collar workers, but are still helping foreign nations develop, while giving those foreign nations on the path of strong worker protections and wages that we have here.
- harryh 7y ago
  It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. Not when it comes to buying things, which is what this situation is. Blue collar workers in the US (or other developed nations) don't have a moral demand on you to purchase their labor at the same rate forever. If someone across the street (or across an ocean) is selling the same product for less money it's perfectly fine to buy it from them instead. Do you think it's immoral when you, say, switch from Verizon to AT&T to get a cheaper rate on your cell phone plan?
  - methodover 7y ago
    Yeah, this is another aspect of the debate I find myself challenging: Labor is different. Our human lives are different than a cell phone plan.
    - harryh 7y ago
noonespecial 7y ago
You adjust the system, however obfuscated and difficult it seems, so that they work to better themselves instead of for you. Because at the very bottom layer, that's what's happening.

deogeo 7y ago

> We're saying, we want, we're okay By 'we', you mean the multinational corporations that write 'free-trade' treaties (that usually encompass much more than just tariff reductions). Because voters tend to not get much say (and sometimes not even senators!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secrecy_of_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secr...

AndrewKemendo 7y ago
As a consumer you are voting with those corporations by buying from them or using their services. It might not seem like it's a choice, because the plurality of consumers have made the choice to go along, so if you do otherwise you're in a small group. It's still a choice though. You either live the modern lifestyle, which includes (though reducing) consumption based on what could be classified in many cases slave labor. Or you choose a lifestyle that doesn't.
- deogeo 7y ago
  How nice. First subvert democracy through lobbying so they can offshore production, so the only 'choice' consumers have is go along with it, or live in the stone age. Then when consumers don't all retreat to caves and huts in the woods, claim this means they agree with and 'voted' for this course. Buying is not voting, and deceiving people into believing this has been one of capitalism's greatest successes.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > so the only 'choice' consumers have its not the only choice in USA atleast. ethically made products cost more.
    - benibela 7y ago
      But the opposite direction does not hold. More expensive products are not necessary more ethically. Often the cheap and expensive products are made by the same workers and just sold under different brands. So the customers cannot know which products are ethically or not. They would need to vet the entire supply chain of every product. That is a full time job just to check one product

Animats 7y ago

Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? That really is the big question. It worked out OK for the pre-China era of "Asian tigers". Japan, Korea, and Taiwan had a labor cost advantage and exported heavily to the US. Their standard of living went up, wages went up, and they lost the labor cost advantage. Then the next round - Bangladesh (world leader in T-shirt production), Vietnam, Thailand. Labor costs are still low, but the countries are not big enough to seriously hurt the US. But they were not as big as China. China is 3x the size of the US in population, close in GDP, and has industrialized very fast. The US can't absorb that shock. Eventually, China may lose the labor cost advantage; it's already declined quite a bit as wages go up. But for now, the US is taking a big hit on this.

thereare5lights 7y ago
China is more than 4x
TMWNN 7y ago
>Eventually, China may lose the labor cost advantage; it's already declined quite a bit as wages go up. According to Peter Zeihan's The Accidental Superpower (2014), manufacturing in China has gone from being one quarter as expensive as in Mexico to 25% more expensive. He expects that the US shale and natural gas boom will further reduce costs in Mexico and the US. Also see "Why China should follow Trump’s example and cut taxes" http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2056874/why-china-should-follow-trumps-example-and-cut-taxes http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2056874/why-ch... . Quote: "As far as manufacturing is concerned, according to Cao, everything is cheaper in America apart from manpower."

miles7 7y ago

I agree it's an important question. But one thing often left out of the possible answers is to go forward with using cheap labor overseas while also providing a very strong safety net and job retraining options to those who lose their jobs as a result. If this was done, then those workers might be able to benefit from the cheaper prices of products too while still having money in their pocket. Instead they've just been abandoned. Obviously this is oversimplifying things, but I'm just saying that on the one hand it's important for disruption to happen (Uber making it harder for taxis) for the sake of progress, but for the sake of justice and the social fabric we should protect those most affected by the disruption.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

The thing is, for those workers in "poor" countries, this is a step up. My wife can tell you what two months' work for $300 meant to subsistence farmers in Guatemala. They were happy to get it. You may say "Sure, they're poor and exploited, but that doesn't make it morally right for us to exploit them just a little less". I agree, up to a point. But insisting on first-world working conditions (including pay) mean that very few of them get hired. This leaves almost all of them poor and exploited, without even the option of "slightly less exploited". Who does that help?

elliekelly 7y ago
It's one thing to pay a lower wage for the same work - especially when the cost of living varies considerably. But I don't really think there's anything that justifies inhumane or unsafe working conditions.
khrbrt 7y ago
The CIA under Eisenhower overthrew the government of Guatemala when trade unionists were elected on the promise of eight hour workdays and better conditions for field workers. What do you think the country would be like today if we hadn't killed the union leaders and installed a dictator friendly towards US business?
- jacobolus 7y ago
  For one thing there wouldn’t have been a decades-long civil war leading up to a genocidal military dictator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War > CIA under Eisenhower overthrew the government of Guatemala when trade unionists were elected on the promise of eight hour workdays and better conditions for field workers. This isn’t quite the whole story. A significant proportion of Guatemalan land was owned by the United Fruit Company (whose leadership/ownership included significant overlap with Eisenhower’s administration†), but the company was not using the land. The Guatemalan government wanted to buy the unused land back from the company at the price they declared it to be worth on their tax forms. The company went to the US government and whined that their private property was being expropriated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_900 † “John Foster Dulles, who represented United Fruit while he was a law partner at Sullivan & Cromwell – he negotiated that crucial United Fruit deal with Guatemalan officials in the 1930s – was Secretary of State under Eisenhower; his brother Allen, who did legal work for the company and sat on its board of directors, was head of the CIA under Eisenhower; Henry Cabot Lodge, who was America's ambassador to the UN, was a large owner of United Fruit stock; Ed Whitman, the United Fruit PR man, was married to Ann Whitman, Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary.”

csense 7y ago

> Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? No, it isn't. Living in the Rust Belt, I find it so obvious that globalization is a race to the bottom that I'm amazed any reasonable person could believe otherwise. All the jobs move to countries with the worst wages, environmental protection, safety, workers' rights, etc. In economists' language, through labor organization and the democratic process, relatively free countries' workforces created a de facto monopoly on labor, which was able to extract some monopolistic rent (i.e. workers' wages > what they "should" be). Standard economic theory says this has a redistributive effect (labor pulls money from everyone else) plus an inefficiency effect (there's some potential value lost by the artificially high wages). Standard economic theory says markets should always be free, to avoid the inefficiency effect. This is where I disagree with standard economic theory: When it comes to the labor market, I firmly believe the inefficiency effect is a cost worth paying for the redistributive effect. If you open up your trade to the rest of the world, fungible jobs all go to the poorest, most repressed people, who can be paid the lowest wages and exploited in the worst ways. It's great for lifting people out of extreme poverty, but as a side effect it slides every country toward moderate poverty while moving all the wealth to the 1%. That's a recipe for potentially dangerous levels of social and political instability. My solution? Every country with high standards in wages, environmental protection, safety, workers' rights, etc. needs to implement tariffs to level the playing field. If your country has high standards, other countries can still choose lower standards and trade with you, but the competitive benefits of those lower standards will be nullified by the tariffs. Which lets you keep your high standards without wrecking your economy (and as a side benefit raises revenue without taxing your people directly, and gives countries with low standards an economic incentive to improve themselves. Which is potentially a great humanitarian breakthrough, improving the lives of lots of ordinary people in countries whose rulers care only for their wallet). I think the Trump's tariffs are a move in the right direction, although I think he's made a mistake by making the policy more of a negotiation lever than a semi-permanent way to compensate for China's low wages and poor standards. I believe so strongly in the value of a tariff policy that I used to say that I thought Trump's willingness to implement tariffs more than balances all of his many negatives. Lately I'm not so sure about that, not because I've lost faith in tariffs, but because Trump's done a lot more negative things than I thought he would.