Category Archives: Opinion

It’s Too Easy to Cheat!

By Sam Jiang (ME ‘19)

The opinions in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of The Pioneer as a whole.

It’s a problem that finally caught the attention of administrators and faculty during the past wave of finals, but prevalence of cheating at The Cooper Union has long been a point of contention among “honest” students. It is especially heinous in certain curved classes, where undeserved high marks throw off the average, directly impacting everyone else’s grades. Only by understanding why and how cheating occurs can effective preventative measures be developed.

An inflated GPA is certainly appealing, but the real draw lies in how easy it is to get away with and how hard it is to prove. It’s not to say that nobody notices: with such a small student body, cheating is readily apparent and repeat offenders gain a certain notoriety. Even cheaters well-known among the other students aren’t at any direct risk of punishment, however: The ChE department’s recent letter to the students details how one might go about reporting academic dishonesty, but makes no mention of what, if any, actions would actually be taken in response to the report. The fact of the matter is, reputation just isn’t enough evidence. Notice how Snoop isn’t in jail despite being widely known as a botany enthusiast? Or, similarly, how Al Capone had to be arrested for tax evasion despite being an infamous mobster kingpin?

So, they’re safe as long as they’re discrete, right? As it turns out, even getting caught in the act is not enough: during last semester’s finals, one professor actually did catch several students cheating on the final, and even though the Dean was eventually called down, nothing came of it because verbal testimonies are meaningless: anything short of absolutely undeniable hard evidence runs the risk of turning into a game of he-said she-said.

In theory, it makes perfect sense for accusations of academic dishonesty to require rigorous proof; otherwise, a professor (or, indeed, another student) with a personal vendetta can easily get somebody expelled over a baseless accusation. But in practice, it means that the scary-sounding consequences of academic dishonesty are merely a vicious dog with no teeth. Only the most blatant, heavy-handed incidents actually result in punishment, with the vast majority of cheaters effectively granted amnesty. The risks are low, and the rewards are high; when personal integrity is the only thing at stake, it’s no surprise that cheating is such a widespread disease.

Knowing that it’s all but impossible to punish cheating after the fact, professors need to take a more proactive approach: by making it harder to cheat in the first place. The fact of the matter is that a lot of cheating occurs simply because of how easy it is. Much like how bike locks are primarily intended to “keep honest people honest”, there’s some surprisingly simple measures that can be taken to combat the most common forms of cheating, simply by making it a bit less convenient to do so.

Aside from the obvious phone-under-the-table trick, one popular ploy is “the Human Centipede”, a staple of Great Hall exams. A group of friends will sit together in a row, with the kid who actually studied passing their answers up from the front like a game of telephone. Multiple forms, even with the problem numbers scrambled, does nothing to deter this behavior as long as the questions themselves are repeated. As this method is entirely dependent on sitting among friends, it’s somewhat surprising that assigned seating isn’t the norm for large exams.
Another favorite is the “Better Late than Never”, usually used after short weekly quizzes, in which a group will share answers and correct their papers together before handing it in well after the time limit. This type of cheating could be curbed by more strictly enforcing time limits, as well as some basic attentiveness on the professor’s part. Then you have the old “Let’s Ask Yesterday’s Section Because They Took Literally the Same Quiz” trick, which… seriously, cheating should never be that easy. Invest some time into making multiple forms with different computations and this problem would basically go away.

The scale and extent of preventative measures varies widely from class to class, from professor to professor. As one student notes, “the school is pretty unbalanced with how it handles cheating. On one hand, based on the rules they have, it’s obvious that some professors clearly want to stop it, but there’s plenty of professors who do nothing.”
Some professors merely employed TA’s who hardly walked around the room, which isn’t much better than those professors who made no attempt at all. On the other end of the spectrum, during some exams, students were required to move their coats, bags and phones to the front to remove potential hiding spots for cheat sheets and notes, a trivial policy that at least appears to be effective.

The best were the classes whose exams came in several forms, in which equivalent questions were only conceptually similar; attempting to copy would be futile because two versions of the same question might have entirely different answers, depending on the wording and setup of the problem. Writing and grading such an exam takes much more effort than just having one set of questions in mixed order, but it goes to show that some professors are willing to put extra effort to prevent cheating. The Student Council has also provided additional suggestions in their recent letter to the engineering faculty. Hopefully, a better understanding of cheaters’ means and motivations will help students and professors work together to devise more effective techniques, preventing cheating before it ever happens. ◊

Let’s Talk About “Something We Don’t Talk About”

by Gabriela Godlewski (CE ’19)

The opinions in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of The Pioneer as a whole.

The article “Something We Don’t Talk About” set the ball rolling for the topic of mental health and how what we go through as Cooper students plays a role in our wellbeing. None of us are strangers to stress here. The expectations from professors and the mountains of work are sometimes enough to push people past a breaking point. As Cooper students, we are a unique group of people that are here because we deserve to be here. But we are all also unique in that stress, anxiety, and depression manifests within each of us differently. Not everyone goes through that amount of stress here, but enough of us do for us to bring it to light and talk about it candidly.

The numbers are increasing, more people are talking about it, and now the question is: how can we help?

And we have been talking about it more candidly and openly than before. Every one of us has ranted about their stress and other negative feelings to their friends and family at least a few times. More and more people are becoming more comfortable with the idea of talking about the depression, anxiety, and other illnesses they experience because the stigma surrounding mental health is lessening. This recognition about mental health could come in response to the increasing rates of depression.

According to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, depression currently affects 6.7% of people ages 18 and older living in the United States, while anxiety affects 18.1% of the same demographic. These numbers have nearly doubled since 1998. However, it is also possible that our openness to talking about mental health has led to the increase in these numbers, as more people are made aware of the importance of their mental health leading them to seeking diagnosis and help. No matter the cause, the numbers continue to grow. It is projected that depression will become one of the most prevalent medical conditions in the world, second only to heart disease.

The numbers are increasing, more people are talking about it, and now the question is: how can we help? Few of us are licensed therapists, so all we can really offer is a listening ear, emotional support, and love for those who need it. In some cases, that’s all it takes to help someone feel better. The article “Something We Don’t Talk About” was focused on the counseling sessions offered to students at Cooper and mentions that only 20% of the student body takes advantage of these sessions. I strongly recommend to anyone who feels the need to talk to someone to go to counseling! 

I took advantage of counseling the first moment I could. Before Cooper, I was a little stressed and I had days where I felt pretty down. Unfortunately, I had no resources to which I could reach out to help me when I needed it. When I came to Cooper, the stress I knew before developed into full-blown anxiety. In high school, I had friends that suffered from test anxiety and I never understood what they were going through until I sat down for my first chemistry exam at Cooper. The room spun and I felt a rising sense of helplessness for the duration of the test. The anxiety came back in different forms at different times throughout the course of my freshman year whether I was taking a test or not. It was a stranger in my head that wouldn’t go away. I had never felt anything like it and had no idea how to handle it myself, so I scheduled a counseling session with Nicole, one of the counselors, the first chance I had. That session I had with her not only let me familiarize myself with the counseling Cooper offers but also gave me the help I really needed to begin tackling the anxiety. Since then I have become familiar with both Nicole and Philip and have seen both counselors regularly with plans on returning.

The counseling program we have at the Cooper Union is currently expanding. Neither Nicole Struensee nor Philip Bockman are employed full-time at Cooper, so the school is hiring a full-time counselor to work with students. According to Dean Chris Chamberlin, “having a full time person here will provide a level of consistency and integration with Cooper as well as expand what we can do.” Although both Philip and Nicole are skilled at their jobs, having a full-time counselor at the Cooper Union would allow that person to develop a better understanding of the culture that Cooper students experience.  The person in this role will organize programs and workshops that proactively raise awareness about mental health in a meaningful way.

Schoolwork is important, but what’s more important is your well-being.

That’s not to say that Nicole or Philip do not have a good understanding of the Cooper culture; on the contrary, Dean Chamberlin says that response to counseling has been “overwhelmingly positive.” However, the school’s desire to hire a full-time counselor shows that the administration cares about students’ mental health and wants to help the students as much as possible.

We are all unique individuals, so stress manifests in us differently. Stress can be caused by various different things and affect us in very different ways, so there can be no one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that takes so many different forms. There have been people dissatisfied with their counseling experiences most likely because it just did not work for them the way it works for others. Fortunately, counseling isn’t the only thing available to us that works wonders on mental health. At Cooper, even the smallest adjustments can make a difference. When the stress becomes overwhelming, sometimes all you need to do is take a step back from all the work and focus on yourself — get some sleep, eat a good meal, talk to a trusted friend or family member. Schoolwork is important, but what’s more important is your well-being. ◊

Please Take This L

by Brandon Quinere (CE ’19)

Kylie Jenner was right: 2016 really is the year of realizing things. Perhaps it’s because of the current political climate or the never-ending social unrest in our country, but in any case, there is something about this particular year that has given me new perspective. Take for instance my role as a college student, a part of my daily life that I have never really thought about in grave detail up until this past school year.

How can you expect to succeed in the workplace,
where trust and responsibility are key,
if you have no foundation in academic integrity?

It hit me when I discussed post-college plans with my boss this past summer, only now the future that I’ve been planning for myself at a young age was not that far away anymore. Coming to terms with how close you are to your career really makes you appreciate the honor that comes with receiving a higher education. It truly is a gift to be given this great privilege, which is why I find it disgusting when others blatantly disrespect it. Cheating, in particular, has become somewhat of an epidemic at Cooper, with more and more students falling victim to this pathetic act.

We’re long past the years of storing a cheat sheet inside a hollow eraser. With the invention of the group chat and other means of quiet communication, classroom cheating has, unfortunately, become easier for students. It’s quite unfortunate to see students succumb to cheating in order to get by in school, yet the unapologetic demeanor with which they do so is certainly the most baffling. Besides, cheaters have good reason to be apologetic for their behavior, as there are severe consequences if they are caught.

According to the Code of Conduct, which can be found in the Course Catalog, cheating and similar “acts of fraud” are Category A offenses. Students guilty of such violations are subject to a number of different punishments, especially of the highest form. “For these categories of violation, the sanction will ordinarily be suspension or dismissal,” as explained in the Code of Conduct, clearly stressing the long-lasting effects of even a single stupid action. The Engineering Student Council plans on releasing a statement before finals to address actions needed to take place in order to combat cheating at Cooper.

It’s about time for everyone to start taking their education seriously. Cheating is unforgivable in all forms, but when you’re this close to the future you’ve spent all those years of schooling to prepare for, it’s downright idiotic. Think about it: how can you expect to succeed in the workplace, where trust and responsibility are key, if you have no foundation in academic integrity?

To professors who do not enforce penalties on students that cheat: you are negating the hard work of students who took the time to actively prepare themselves in your class. It’s true that we are old enough to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, but you’re entrusting us with too much responsibility here. There are unfortunately some students who could care less if they cheat; they even shamelessly do it to your face sometimes! You know that one student that asked to use the bathroom in the middle of an exam? Surprise—probably cheating!

And to all students: please understand why you volunteer yourself to be a student every morning. This is not just an extra thing you do on the side to keep yourself busy. If it hasn’t already settled in, college is where your education actually starts to have a purpose. To show disrespect to the very institution you worked so hard to get into by cheating is a hard slap in the face to so many who have helped you get to your privileged position. It’s okay to take that one L on your midterm; you’ll lose a lot more otherwise. ◊

In Order to Form a More Perfect Union

By Abdullah Siddiki (EE ‘18)

The opinions in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of The Pioneer as a whole.

On September 20, 2016, the Joint Student Council met in the Rose Auditorium to discuss and ratify a new JSC constitution. The meeting started with the authors of the new document, the Constitution Committee, going through the document point by point with the assembly for clarification. The actual content of the constitution was not up for contention until the document was entirely clear.

The rewritten constitution establishes several new principles by which the JSC will operate. Reading through the document you will see the framework for a body that operates on the principles of responsibility, accountability, and transparency. Most importantly though, the document redefines and states a clear goal: the purpose of Joint Student Council.

What does JSC do?
- “I don’t know”
- “Who cares?”
- “They don’t do anything”

Leading up to writing this article, I asked almost anyone and everyone I spoke to this week, “what does the Joint Student Council do?” The responses to this question were somewhat disheartening—a lot of “I don’t know” or “who cares” or my favorite one—“they don’t do anything.” I tried to prod them further to make sure they weren’t being dismissive, but most students truly don’t understand what the JSC is, what it does, and why it is important.

But whose fault is this? Is it the students’ for simply not caring? Is it the JSC’s for not making their purpose clear? Do members of the JSC even know what the body is for? Most likely the only time you heard about JSC in the past few years was when they passed a resolution to make the bathrooms gender neutral, or maybe when they pushed a petition to protest changes in the policy to charge for overloading credits. But these two courses of action seem so wildly different on the surface, so what is the purpose of the JSC? What do they do? Is it really nothing? It’s extremely important that we as a student body think about this and hold those representing us accountable to their responsibilities. One of the most important pillars of a successful and driven organization is a clear mission statement, and the JSC is no exception.

Printed below is the new mission statement outlined in the new JSC constitution. Read it carefully, pick apart every word, and ask questions. Make sure it is clear to you what it means to be represented as a student.

“The Joint Student Council maintains a platform for discussion and takes action in an effort to benefit the student body. In an attempt to manifest the will of the students, the Council hears divergent positions through deliberation, and consequently founds a coherent voice. The Council passes resolutions that pursue policy initiatives concerning the academic, social, and administrative interests of the students. Finally, the Council sustains clear dialogue with the community in the spirit of continued positive change to our institution.”

If you have never thought about it before, or thought about it and lost hope, no time is better than now to reconsider the importance of a representative body on campus. The refreshed mission statement makes it very clear that the JSC exists solely for our benefit as a student body. The JSC is a means for handling student issues and complaints, statements that need to be presented to the administration on behalf of the student body and school-wide changes that need to occur. Their role is to make you heard. It’s time to abandon this thought of “I’m just here to learn.” I’ve heard that a lot from people whom I try to tell that JSC is important—and every single one of them has several complaints about the school. You can’t be here just to learn because it is the very nature of Cooper to be much more than a school. The Cooper Union is a community. It is my community, your community, our community. Invest in it. Take ownership of it. Make it the community you want it to be.

Their role is to make you heard. It’s time to abandon this thought of “I’m just here to learn.”

This is the power of JSC: to represent your interests to the school. And I’ve used this word “represent” a couple of times now, so let’s talk about representation. If you read the article in a previous issue regarding the ratification of the constitution, you will know that perhaps the only heavily contended point was the representation—ten students from Engineering, five from Art, and five from Architecture. What this really means is that there will one be representative per fifty artists, one per fifty engineers, and one per twenty-five architects. The reason that I want to present the representation this way is because it forces you to think about what—or rather whom—the JSC will be representing. The contention at the meeting was whether or not the JSC should have the same number of representatives from each school or representation proportional to the number of students. That’s just the surface of the dispute—let’s look at the core of it.

Should the JSC represent the schools or the students? By choosing to ratify a constitution that mandates representation proportional to the number of students in each school, the JSC has made itself a body representing student interests at the most basic level—your interests as a person. Issues that affect you have never been limited by your major. Tuition hikes, bathroom policies, the presidential search, are all issues that affect you on a personal level. There are already bodies in place to represent your academic interests. The Architecture, Art, and Engineering Student Councils exist. The new mission statement and representation policy of the JSC steers it in a direction where it will become a body that aims chiefly to do its best to represent issues of each student as a human—one with emotions, stresses, ambitions, and not as a label. You are a person before you are an engineer, artist, or architect.

At the meeting there was so much concern about the engineers coming together to block quorum or the artists and architects coming together to block quorum. But consider this: how many issues have been voted on that are representative of contending interests between schools? Call me naïve, or idealistic, but maybe it’s time to stop looking at each other as artists and architects and engineers before we look at each other as our classmates, friends, and at the most fundamental level—humans. Let’s jump this mental hurdle of divisions between the schools. We are of course the Cooper Union. Let’s use this new JSC mentality as a launching point to eradicate whatever prejudices we have amongst the schools and do what another famous constitution did as well—form a more perfect union. ◊

The New Cold War

by Michael Pasternak (ME ’18)

We’re currently at a crossroads, so it’s
important that we stay aware of the situation.

Last week, I briefly described the overall goal of American foreign policy, which as a refresher, is to guarantee stability of our trade and alliances in order to maximize the security and economic prosperity of the United States. In modern times, that’s mostly been driven by an unprecedented global military presence, which has all but eliminated historical norms of piracy and international conflict with sheer force. The world is now our sphere of influence. We consider any disruption to business as usual—economic growth and military stability—as a direct threat to the US.

Meanwhile, Russia has other plans. The foreign policy goals of Russia appear to be to consolidate a buffer of former Soviet satellite states and to keep what is a crumbling domestic and economic situation together via an external enemy. Putin’s largely successful tactic has been two-pronged.

First, he shores up public support with comprehensive propaganda efforts, promoting nationalism and using state run media to spread stories of American involvement in the Russian sphere of influence. For example, it’s the common belief in Russia that America caused the Euromaidan coup which ultimately lead to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This allowed Putin to maintain a massive amount of popularity within Russia despite an abysmal economic outlook and performance.

The second part of his strategy is to create buffer zones from chunks of independent post-Soviet states, like Georgia and Ukraine, and expand Russia’s Middle Eastern influence from footholds in Syria and Iran. Putin has been mostly opportunistic, he waits for chaos to break out, then moves in with the excuse that he is restoring order—as with Assad’s regime in Syria—and protecting Russian people and interests—as in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. (It’s important to note that some of the Russian populations in Eastern Europe were artificially created by the USSR by forcibly relocating local populations further into Russia.)

America has, for nearly a full century, been containing Russia militarily, as it is realistically still the most dangerous power to face in a conventional or—god forbid—nuclear war. Russia has only recently been able to break that containment because America has been so mired in other military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Now the Cold War is creeping back into the geopolitical balance, and the US is faced with Russia as a real threat.

There are a number of schools of thought on exactly how to address the Russian threat. Hillary Clinton is in the war hawk group, who believes only a strongman, aggressive military response will succeed in scaring Russia back into its shell. She proposes a no-fly zone over Syria which would essentially call on Russia to either retreat from Syria as Assad’s air force or face confrontation with US forces. The potential issue is that if Putin calls the no-fly zone as a bluff and his planes are shot down, he has almost no choice but to start a real war against America for control of Syria, which could very well escalate to a nuclear conflict if both countries aren’t careful.

Trump appears to want to befriend Russia and work with them to “defeat ISIS.” The thing is, Russia isn’t fighting ISIS, they’re fighting American-backed anti-Assad rebels. Russia doesn’t care about ISIS; they are relatively unlikely to attack Russia and they are creating enough chaos for Russia to have breathing room globally. So, basically, Trump isn’t even aware of the problem, much less capable of proposing a cogent solution. He also appears to believe that no one in America is aware of the concept of a surprise attack—which is just wrong.

The third school is the one that wants to imitate the winning conditions of the Cold War. We could increase sanctions on Russia and by strong-arming our allies isolate Russia economically until Putin is forced out. That strategy would likely devastate Russia for years to come and economically hurt the world quite a bit but perhaps less than letting Russia off the leash.

We’re currently at a crossroads, so it’s important that we stay aware of the situation and support politicians who are aware of the threat and propose good solutions. For fellow liberals, that solution is likely the third. It will lead to minimal loss of life and an increase in American approval overseas—especially since Russia is one of the few countries more hated than America across the world. ◊

On Foreign Policy

by Anthony Passalacqua (CE ’18)

Mr. Trump’s plan on ISIL is relatively straight-forward,
it goes like this: “if you kill your enemies, they lose.”

I have written previously on nationalism and isolationism, and in that vein, I continue today with Trump’s planned foreign policy. A nationalistic foreign policy, in general, can be summed up as one which uses a country’s resources—especially militarily—for only the direct benefit of the country.

For the United States, this broadly means that we should no longer police the world. Americans have intervened abroad since the Second World War, in various wars and actions both justifiable and unjustifiable. From the perspective of a nationalist policy, the majority of those actions would have been unjustifiable were it not for the looming presence of an explicitly unfriendly nuclear power, the USSR. That power, if you’re behind on the news, is now known as the Russian Federation. We will return to Russia later—noting for now that what is important here is that we intervene when there is a state explicitly unfriendly towards us.

In today’s world, that entity would be the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. ISIL seeks to draw the West into an ‘apocalyptic’ holy war. While one normally wants to avoid giving their enemies what they want, it seems pragmatic in this case to give ISIL exactly what they want. Everyone agrees on that point on both sides of the isle; what differs is how to get it done.

Mr. Trump has been quoted as saying he would “bomb the hell out of ISIS.” Ultimately, this is the only military action he has ever called for during his campaign. In the past, he was famously against Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for Hillary Clinton, she wants to “establish a no fly zone” over Syria. We will quickly break down the implication of these two plans.

Mr. Trump’s plan on ISIL is relatively straight-forward, it goes like this: “if you kill your enemies, they lose.” Such a plan is likely to be very safe for any Americans involved, and offers us a chance to work with the aforementioned Russia.

Our relationship with Russia has suffered greatly in the last decade–and–a–half, both because of economic sanctions placed upon them, and our unwillingness to work with them on nuclear policy. In 2002, the United States pulled out of a nuclear treaty and began to work on previously banned missile defense systems telling Russia, “these aren’t for you, don’t worry.” In response, Russia began, due to their economic situation, to work on stronger offensive missile systems, which “aren’t for America, don’t worry.” It seems to follow that we would like to improve our relationship with a huge economic and military power like Russia.

`On the flip side, Hillary Clinton’s policy on Syria will actively deteriorate our situation with Russia. Russia is good friends with the current government of Syria, so establishing a no-fly zone over Syria would mean that we would have to be willing to keep Russian jets out of Syrian airspace. Effectively, this means that we would have to engage in combat with Russian military forces, were we to go down that path. It’s clear that this is an easy pathway to an open war with Russia—which is no more than a hop, skip, and a jump away from a nuclear exchange. This is by far the single most important foreign policy point that either candidate has publicly put forward. A Hillary Clinton presidency, perhaps, means war with Russia.

Putting that aside, the rest of the Mr. Trump’s foreign policy is very straightforward. For example, our allies have to pay their fair share into NATO, otherwise we have no reason to be part of NATO. Speaking of, one of the reasons that NATO is useful is because it provides a huge, extremely powerful bloc that no one can see themselves opposing. Donald Trump believes that the United States should be that type of bloc all on its own. Instead of spending our military budget on programs like the F-35 fighter jet, we can instead spend it on growing our strength in more concrete ways. It is the old peace–through–superior–firepower approach and seeks to gather more respect from both allies and enemies by being a titan of war.


By Anthony Passalacqua (CE’18)

To begin, the fact of the matter is that free trade is better from a global perspective than isolationism. By increasing market size and consumer base, it becomes easier and easier for companies to grow, as they have access to global resources and the best of the best in whatever they need to prosper. This, in the end, is good for your everyday man. Unfortunately, we do not live in the ideal world in which this would be the case. So today, I argue for isolationism, and, in general, nationalistic policies. I will use the two terms more or less interchangeably.

The isolationist policy with regard to trade is one based on the tariff, the—dare I say, time honored—practice of heavily taxing imports. In the modern era, tariffs have fallen to the wayside in the United States, as trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) guarantee there will be no tariffs between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. A similar deal, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), is currently on the table, and whether it is passed or vetoed depends on the results of the current presidential elections. Both candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, currently claim that they would not sign off on TPP, though Clinton has a history of supporting it.

This means that the US market is, to some
extent, subject to the will of foreign nations.

On the surface, free trade deals seem like a total good. The idea is that by opening up cheaper markets, prices will go down, and everyone will be able to use their comparative advantage more effectively. However, there is a more sinister underbelly to free trade deals. We put aside how large bodies like the World Trade Organization can cap tariffs, and the ramifications that such caps have on national sovereignty. Instead, we will focus on the fact that free trade is inherently unfair if not all parties in the deal are playing by the same rules. And in deals between the United States and most developing countries, the other guy is certainly not playing by the rules.

What does it mean to say that? The United States, in comparison to the countries like Mexico, China, and Pakistan, has extremely strict workers’ rights laws, on top of stronger environmental regulation, and a higher corporate tax rate. That makes it extremely appetizing for countries to move abroad when free trade deals are signed—as we saw when NAFTA was passed, and as we continue to see with Ford moving its small car division to Mexico.

Under a free trade deal, moving to another country only adds shipping onto the cost of a product, while greatly reducing manufacturing costs, almost always in notably immoral ways. Companies which move abroad can take advantage of the people of the country to which they move, in the same way large companies took advantage of Americans before labor rights laws were passed. These companies can also dodge the stricter environmental and health regulations of the United States, meaning that when they move abroad they can cut corners, at the cost only of their neighbors and the Earth.

In addition, free trade deals, in their own manner, reduce the independence of the United States’ market. Our manufacturing base is smaller, relatively, than it once was, and that means we rely more on imports to get access to the goods that the people want. This gives other nations a form of leverage over the United States, as they can always raise the taxes on their exports and drive up prices in the United States, without getting to the point that it is better for companies to outright return to the United States. This means that the US market is, to some extent, subject to the will of foreign nations.

Besides that, companies moving abroad strictly lowers the tax base of the United States, as the import tax (at its highest, 16%) is a good deal lower than the corporate tax rate of the United States (currently sitting at 35%). Isolationist thought suggests that these two rates should be reversed. Any imported goods, then, must be high enough quality for the people of the US to want to purchase them regardless of their increased price, while every day goods can come from the United States for a similar— or cheaper— price than they do now, owing to the greatly reduced corporate tax rate.

Imagine a scenario in which prices of goods do go up significantly. In that case, it’s all now within the family, so to speak. American workers have more access to jobs which had been gone for the past twenty years since the signing of NAFTA, the corporations are contributing more to the tax base directly, as they cannot as easily pass the price on to the consumer as they can when faced with a tariff, and additional revenue flows to the state in the form of a sales tax for products that are being sold at a higher price than they once were. All this money flowing around the economy contributes to the rate of GDP growth, which has recently been sorely lacking (hovering at around 1% for the last year, and not exceeding 5% in the last 5 years).

So to summarize, what does the nationalistic policy on trade bring us? It brings us prices which are not significantly higher than currently; it adds to the tax base of the United States; it returns jobs to the United States which had left; it subjects companies to stricter environmental, labor, and health regulations; and, importantly, it allows the United States to be more independent from foreign actors than we are currently, by making us less dependent on imports. ◊