it's hard enough to do that durs rehearsed, controlled tests, but many believe that standard will never be met in real lifeflight emergencies, especially with less space to move. he's fighting for safety and transparency. he says the cost of all the extras should be clear before you buy a ticket. he thinks more space on board will mean safer flights. >> i'd love to see a rule saying there should be a minimum of 31 or 32 inches of pitch. that gives you an idea how much legroom you have. even that is not really a very specific number, but it gives us something a little bit better. >> that's our show for today. i'm ali velshi. thank you for joining us.

different ideas. >> if you wondered if et cetera right? trump and trade. it's the inside story. welcome to inside story. the gaat, the wto, nafta, cafta. the tpp.

the united states has had leaders from both parties who told the people of this country that free trade creates american jobs, that yes, there would be some job losses overtime but those were jobs that were going to be lost anyway in an increasingly competitive global marketplace and those who lost jobs would gets new ones. >> fast forward almost 25 years from the nafta negotiations, for example, and today, the leading republican candidate for president, donald trump, is insisting to loud and sustained applause that american workers got snookerred. and in the democratic party, the surging campaign of bernie sanders also casts doubt on the free trade creed that set the tone for american economic policies since ronald reagan. when candidates claim that free trade has been a defendant net loser for the american worker, can they do, do this make the case? did the reassurances give an anxious workers in pennsylvania,

ohio, indiana, wisconsin, the manufacturing jobs lost to mexico, to china, to malacia, would return in the form of other jobs making new things thanks to increased demands ever come true? and if the united states decided to turn away from that theory from the rest of the world, could it work? the country is home to one of the largest markets of high-income consumers in the world, but could we make an iphone here, a prius here? trump and trade this time on the program. joining me for that k, scott linsicum is an adjunct scholar, and the ceo of blue star strategi strategies. she helped shape trade policy for the clinton administration and was white house deputy chief of staff. peter mauricie from the university of maryland. how should we do the math as

campaign wears on? >> the candidates have increasingly made trade a center of their argument about what the united states should be do going forward. how should we understand the arrangements we have made for doing business? >> there is no doubt that trade is not an all up or downside. netting out the benefits, we are a major economy in a global economy and the benefits outweigh the harm done to a cadre of workers. i think the real problem is we haven't made the public policy choices that we need to make to help those workers that are hurting. and i think we have done that in a very erratic and episodic fashion but as a government, both the executive and legislative branch haven't taken

serious lee those workers who have been harmed, really harmed and decided here are the public policy choices we are going to make to help them to help them transition rapidly back to a changing labor market. i think the argument that mr. trump has made to shut down all trade or to institute barriers and tariffs and fines and fees is not a wise choice because there is -- there are jobs, millions of jobs that result because of international trade. they tend to be higher-paying jobs, on average, 18% higher paying jobs, and when you shape those public policy choices, you have to keep in mind that there are winners as a result of international trade. workers do win as a result of international trade, but there are workers who are harmed. so, the public policy has to be a

balanced approach. >> professor? >> well, first of all, i earned my tenure writing about trade agreements. trade. i still remain one but we don't have free trade right now. it's very easy to cheat on trade agreements, and you really need to have a certain amount of good will among countries not to have that happen. for example, the chinese have under valued their currency. they have propped up losing enterprises with subsidies and erect rather massive barriers to our exports. as a consequence, you know, we get more imports and we lose jobs that way. >> we get more exports but not nearly enough. we really haven't had a trade agreement that's created jobs. if you lose more jobs because you import more but you don't export nearly as much more, then you have a net loss and economic growth slows down. we had, through most of our history of negotiating trade

agreements programs and policies to help workers move from importing industries so they lost their jobs to other aspects of the economy or to exporting industries. but for that to happen, for that to happen, you have to have a robust economy and with a trade did he have sys of $500,000,000,000 a year, that's an enormous drain. so much of what americans spend leaves the country but doesn't come back to buy american products, instead comes back to buy american companies. that's why, for example, we see right now the chinese basically on a shopping spree, buying up american assets. i estimate that the trade deficit costs us about 4 million jobs a year. when you consider -- or now, million jobs. when you consider we have 7 million men between the ages of 25 and 54, too old for college and too young to retire on the dole, neither looking for work

or employed. not even counted as unemployed. i would suggest to you we could put them all back to work. what's more, there are dynamic effects. the manufacturing industries, which is where we have lost most of this employment, are the big spenders on r & d. if our trade were merely balanced, then we would have a lot more research and development and be growing a lot more. in reagan's time at the same point in economic recovery coming out of a recession that was just as deep, the economic growth rate was more than twice what it is now. you know, with that kind of dynamic growth, we would be in great shape. do i want to shut down trade? no. but i think trump is right as is charles schummer who recommended the same thing and mitt romney when he was running to use some sort of leafer with china to get them to open i hope their market >> when you look at the same landscape as our two previous guests, where do you come down? has this worked out for the american worker, the american consumer,

the american citizen? >> yeah. i mean i think overall it has worked out for the american worker and particularly the american consumer. you know, that's one thing we haven't even heard about so far is just the immense consumer benefits that international trade provides us. studies show that about 90% of all consumers benefit that are poor and middle class americans. these are the folks who shop at target and wal-mart and who can stretch their family budgets because of international trade. i don't argue that, you know, the idea that we are going to see this grand ren answer is of manufacturing jobs is simply belied by the data. we have been losing the american manufacturing jobs as a share of the total workforce since the 1940s, in shear numbers since 1979 long before we had a nafta, long before china was in the world trade organization. the fact is if you look at the vast majority studies on these issues, we see that the decline in manufacturing jobs is not a

result of unfair trade. it's the result of productivity. and, in fact, manufacturing output is still setting records. the united states also is the number one global destination for foreign direct investment. now, peter talked about that, foreign companies buying american companies. i see that as investment and jobs and output, all things that we typically welcome in the united states and certainly wouldn't want to turn our back on it simply because donald trump's idea of what is fair trade or unfair trade. last, on that monday, i just add that we have fair trade laws in place. we have over 300 anti-dumping and counter veiling duty orders in place against supposedly unfair product. those things already exist, and they are already being enforced and many studies show that they are quite heavily biased toward the domestic industries already. so, the idea that we are

operating in this lawless international trade marketplace is simply belied by the law that a lot of the trump campaign is predicated on the idea that we have these deals with the rest of the world. they haven't worked out for americans and he intends to do something about it. but what? what can you do? trump and trade. stay with us. it's quad notiinside >> images matter. >> innovative filmmaker, spike lee - on his controversial new movie. >> the southwest side of chicago is a war zone. >> taking on the critics. >> and another thing... a lot of the people have not seen the film. >> and spurring change through his art. >> we want this film to save lives. >> i lived that character. >> we will be able to see change. story."

"donald trump claims in his words, america doesn't win anymore. he is prompting to make the country great again and has repeatedly said: we'll start winning at everything ifessy elected president. one area he repeatedly focuses is on free-trade deals. i am speak with scott linsicum and peter maurice. when donald trump says in front of an audience: we are not going to let carrier air conditioners back into the united states that are made by mexican workers because carrier should down its american plant. under nafta -- i am sitting on my couch in my living room thinking: can he do that? can he do that? >> no. not without violating the agreement and some of the things donald trump says are absolutely silly ybut i would point out tht his basic premises, his basic

premises has been embraced by econmichts on the left. paul krugman recommended it about 5 years'. mitt romney wanted to use the dumping laws that you referred to, to essentially enforce donald trump's 45% tariff. i have written about it extensively. i am the former chief economists of the united states trade commission which enforces the dumping and subsidy laws. >> do they work? >> well, the administration doesn't permit firms to count, for example, the consequences of china's under valued currency. you know, it is true -- i want to point this out. it is true when you go to the wal-mart products are cheaper because of china and low income people do get products for less money. but because we are growing at 2% because instead of 4, there is a consequence of this deficit, their encloses are much lower. i would suggest to you if i could give you a toyota camry

for 15 of the,$000 instead of 25 but your neighbor would lose his job, would you think that would be a good deal for america? >> precisely the

offering americans one job is lost per import is simply silly. over 50% of everything we import are industrial capital goods and machinery and so forth used by other american manufacturers to produce globally competitive products. so a lot of our imports are actually creating other american

or supporting other american manufacturing jobs. second, those imports save americans money in allowing them to spend their hard-earned dollars on other american services, american goods. is it doesn't simply mean that that money goes poof and disappears, that 25,000 dollar camry, you can safe $10,000 on that, you are going to be able $10,000. that's the great myth that surrounded this trade did he have sit obsession. the fact is -- >> aren't a lot of the things you buy with the $10,000 you saved also imported? >> they don't have to be. >> as a practical matter, when you go into a store and try to buy stuff to fill up your basket too. >> that's a fantastic point. that's one of the reasons why there are so many misconceptions about u.s. trade policies. when you go into wal-mart and you see "made in china," you think, oh, everything is made in

china. the reality is american consumption, only about 5%, under 5% of total american consumption is actually chinese stuff. at the same time, american manufacturers make a lot of things we don't see on a daily basis. satellites, aircraft. again, american manufacturing output is at a record high. the vast majority of the american economy is services. these are a lot of things that aren't tradeable. these are things like going to the economy or paying for a plumber. this is money that we save on imported chinese goods. you can spend on american services, american workers, and that is getting reinvested into the american economy. >> let me -- >> so, you know, i mean we've got a trade cedeficit argument and i agree with what's been said. we can't say because we are exporting less than we are importing, then therefore, we've got job loss. that's -- that is not the, you

know, the structure here right? >> i am the one that's burdened with a degree in economics. >> let her finish. >> i am not questioning your degree in economics. what i am questioning here is the philogism if you will. there are certain facts here one, as a result of international trade, we do have job growth. two, as a result of international trade, we have job losses. job losses are not more than job growth as a result of international trade. >> i guess i disagree with that. simply if you start out in a steady state -- hold on. if you start out -- you don't. those aren't the facts? >> yes, they are. i am not making them up. >> by the time, i have to go to a commercial. >> okay. >> let me say this: stay with us. we wi we will be back. >> [chanting] yes we can! >> an historic election. >> you and i, we're going

to change this county, and we will change the world. >> monumental decisions. >> mr. president, there's a one and three chance of a second great depression. >> first-hand accounts from the people who were there. >> their opinion was shocking. >> the challenges. >> he said, "i am president of the united states and i can't make anything happen." >> the realities. >> he stood up and said, "that's it, i'm finished."

welcome back to "inside story." he talks about international trade agreements like they are the focal part of his foreign policy. donald trump is vowing to usher in a new era of economics. scott

lincecum, play forward donald trump's plans. what would happen if he put the barriers, the tariffs, the punitive costs on certain kinds of imported goods into the american economy? >> well, first, the assumption he actually could understand u.s. law. that's pretty unlikely. the fact is in order to raise tariffs, you are going to need congress to go along. congress wouldn't even pass a rather protectionist bill to impose counter veiling duties due to currency manipulation but assuming somehow that president trump could get away with his grand plan to impose massive tariffs on chinese and mentixican imports. it would be pretty devastating. >> what would happen? >> in terms of the econoactual e economics would be pretty straightforward.

we would see a law pass that would raise tariffs on all goods from china 30 to 45% or at least up by 45 percentage points. the result of that would for the only be higher costs and so forth. it would be instant litigation at the world trade organization because it violates our wto commitment. china would go to the wto. mexico would go to either the wto or a nafta panel and would win the right quite easily to retain 80 against american exporters of goods and services in a similar amount, a back of the napkin calculation shows china would be able to compete against hundreds of billions of dollars of goods, services and intellectual property effectively shutting down the chinese market. >> let me stop you there? >> hold on one sec. combine that with consumer costs and you have talk talking being a devastating effect as various

economic analyses have thshown r the u.s. economy. >> if president trump were able to do that, one thing he says in his speeches is that with domestic demand stimulated, these things would start to be made here would they start to be made here? >> no. i mean that's just not, you know, just because he says its so doesn't make it so. the reason why some workers are hurting, you know, it sounds very

appealing. >> policy that deals with winners and losers in the economy. and that's what we should have. we should have a focus on how do we, you know, how do we attract more jobs in high-paying industries, high-paying services? right now, when you look at trade, it supports about 2 million jobs, 2 million jobs inning a cut tour. are we just going to throw that out the window? it's another four to 5 million jobs in services. are we just going to throw that out the window? he mean this is not a one-size-fits-all. these are complicated issues and they require balanced, robust public policy, thoughtful public policy solutions and that's what mr. trump is providing. >> what we have heard, peter, is that if president trump were to move as he said he wants to, it would neither spur domestic production, nor would it help us

with the rest of the world. we would be en tangled with endless lawsuits. what happens. >> i think it depends upon how you do it. if you did it through the counter veiling laws, it would be easier to defend because you would counterveil an export subsidy. the most important thing is china's exports are 3 to 4 times larger than our exports to china. in any i situation where we put on a 40% duty and they put on a 40% duty, they have much more to lose. china has much higher trade barriers than we do. it has a tefsh on automobiles of about 25% or, you know, in the single digits if you use it as a lever to bring them to the table because they have much more to lose than we do, then then i think you can be successful with this strategy. >> that's the strategy that has been proposed by krugin, by

sdhum ner, by romney, by many. unfortunately, this whole discussion becomes very distorted by people with entrenched interests representing organizations that have to advocate against any action against china and the fact that, let's face it, the vessel donald trump comes with such e motive language that even though he explained the same thing as president obama, people would react negatively. unfortunately, there has been an inability to separate the proposal and its history from the man, and that is one of the reasons we don't have an intelligent discussion about that other than here? >> i was trying to do it today. >> i congrat late you? >> i want to thank my guests. scott is an adjunct professor at the cato and a ceo of blue star strategies, a consulting company, also former white house deputy of staff and at the university of maryland, that's the inside story.

join us tomorrow for a look at america's role in the 1976 role in the coup in agentine a. we will discuss some documents set to be re-classified by the administration. i am ray suarez. have a good night.