I think that would be a component of what I am talking about, Bill. But it isn't good enough to just inspect the conditions of labor. It also has to include legislation that penalizes the things that we don't allow our employers to do. It is much more comprehensive than just inspecting for the conditions. It is providing disincentive for laws that don't protect the groundwater from dumping of chemicals, laws that don't protect against child labor, and laws that allow unsafe working conditions.

I have always said that our laws ought to be viewed as a reflection of our national sense of right and wrong, our national sense of morals, as it were. If we believe it is wrong to poison our groundwater, then it is wrong (according to our sense of national morality) for anyone to do it. It doesn't mean we don't trade with China. It does mean that as long as they choose to not have certain basic standards in a few critical areas, then they would pay a tariff based on that, that say, Canada would not. If Canada chooses to subsidize their lumber industry, and we do not, then they would pay a tariff based on that industry. But they would not on true free trade, and based on having laws that protect workers, make for safe workplaces, and good environmental standards. It could be done, and would encourage a truly competitive marketplace based on sound management practices, and not based on how many people they can cripple, how many kids they consign to a life of labor without education, or how badly they can screw up the environment.

We wouldn't be telling them how to run their country, as much as we are saying that we give a better deal to those that believe in the same types of things we do.

Mick