your last sentence and generally with your theme that started this string. As bad as the rhetoric is at this moment a la Trump et al, we remain a beacon on the world when it comes to issues like overall freedom, rule of law, government transparency and lack of institutional corruption. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The world may feel a little more unstable in general today and I think it fair to criticize our role in this or at least what we could be doing better. We're far from perfect ourselves and I think it is both fair and healthy rhetoric to point out that we COULD be moving in a better direction on any number of fronts -- things that come to mind include taxes and a government reach into many areas that seems like it going too far. We've been a leader in global trade and still are overall today. However, it doesn't mean that things don't change and we need to be very wary of today's sentiment -- which I think is one of the main points you are making.

I happen to think things aren't quite as absolutely bleak and horrible as you suggest in China in particular. For example, while I absolutely agree that we don't "see it all", I think we see much more than you suggest. I also don't think China has quite the "absolute government control" over essentially every market within their borders. They may wish they had this kind of control and I do think they have more or less on a case-by-case basis for sure. However, overall -- I can attest firsthand that plenty of companies across different sectors operate in markets that move around in some fairly fluid ways. Yes, the government come in and shut somebody down or step in to suddenly provide some kind of market-affecting force through big subsidies or other action. However, to varying degrees -- this can happen in countries anywhere and there are some very sector-specific things that can happen here in much the same way. Again, I'm not saying we're just like China and none of this speaks to things like other human rights concerns and things like the lack of freedom of speech in all public ways. Only that it certainly way more open and fluid that it was even a few generations ago, hopefully moving in the right direction even if in fits and starts, and often with more free market forces in effect than most seem to believe.

On the trade/kickback thing -- I'm holding pretty firmly on this one and not really understanding the comments. Absolutely, trade negotiations involve the biggest money in the world. In general, trade negotiators know literally zero about the industries over which they are taking some major actions. If they are lifers in these jobs, they learn some over time but still -- few have really worked in most of these sectors firsthand or if so, in a very small slice and at a very different time. They are also trying to juggle knowledge across an extraordinarily number of areas. I not only accept but I would encourage companies to be as deeply involved as they can get in all aspects of these things. IMO, a "kickback" or "corruption" is directly saying that negotiators are favoring one company or business or key stakeholder over another based essentially on a direct payoff. While a government official can be as humanly corrupt as any person in the private sector, I don't think this has been remotely true based on any evidence of what is happening in any trade negotiation. This just seems like an argument that is very out of place.