Dan Anthony on Tariffs and Small Businesses

Scott Miller

I'm Scott.

Bill Reinsch

I'm Bill and we're the Trade Guys.

Dan Anthony

You're listening to the Trade Guys, a podcast produced by CSIS where we talk about trade in terms that everyone can understand.

Bill Reinsch

I'm Alex Kisling and I'm here with

Dan Anthony

Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch, the CSIS Trade Guys.

Scott Miller

This is Trade Guy Scott. Thanks for listening to the Trade Guys. This week we host Dan Anthony. Dan is the president of Trade Partnership Worldwide and has recently done some important research with small business importers and exporters to better understand the effect of tariffs on their business environment and their outlook. We'll talk about this issue with Dan and more on this issue of the Trade Guys.

Bill Reinsch

Well, hello everybody. It's Trade Guy Bill back with you today along with Trade Guy Scott and a special guest whose name is Dan Anthony. Some of you may have heard of him. He is president of Trade Partnership Worldwide, which is an economic research firm in Washington. He's particularly interested in quantifying and explaining the local impacts of trade, which is what we're going to talk about today, whether exports by congressional districts, state level tariff costs or company specific experiences. And I think you'll have some examples of that today. Since 2013 he served as executive director of the Coalition for GSP Wonks. Know what that is, those of you that are not wonks? It's the Generalized System of Preferences, which was a program now expired, which is what we'll be discussing, that basically provided duty free treatment to developing countries, not all of them and not without a lot of conditions which we can also talk about. But the program expired at the end of 2020 and we've been waiting for it to be renewed ever since. And so Dan will have the latest for us on that. And in addition, last year he launched the We Pay The Tariffs Coalition WPTC, which has grown 1200 companies, mostly small businesses, which are very hard to identify and very hard to organize. So one of the things I hope Dan will talk to us about is the degree of success he's had. Not exactly herding cats, but finding people that are too small, who can't afford lawyers and consultants and compliance staff that the big guys can afford but suffer the same problems, in particular in this case tariffs. And so Dan's going to talk to us about that as well. There is no refund report today. I believe the customs authorities are meeting with the judge this week, but we don't have any news about that. So we'll save the refund report for the next time. So Scott, you want to lead off with the first question.

Scott Miller

Sure. And Dan, thanks so much for joining the program. We're delighted to have a chance to talk to you. I'm particularly interested in what you're learning about small businesses and tariffs. You're sort of at the coal face here. You're really talking to individual buyers and sellers and trying to get a sense of what's going on. So what have you learned recently?

Dan Anthony

First off, thanks for having me. I think everyone understands that intuitively small businesses are different. But one of the things we've tried to really tease out is getting away from that concept of trade is good or imports aren't bad into what are the real nuances here that people need to consider. And so Bill mentioned that we've got a report that should be coming out next week that's based on a survey of about 250 small businesses about their experiences over the last year and how they've managed to deal with tariffs, what actions they've had to take. And I think the big focus of it is is really going to be on letting them speak in their own words. And so just sort of quotes and profiles and anecdotes from several dozen companies about this. And I think the thing that really comes out is they feel like they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They don't have the ability to really negotiate with suppliers for lower prices. They also don't have the power to pass along those costs to customers in the way that a larger company would, and they don't have the means to finance those tariffs. And so more than half of the company responded, said they had to take on additional debt or tap into personal savings. One company talked about liquidating a hundred thousand dollars out of their 401k to cover tariff costs. And so it's these types of steps that individuals need to take just to stay afloat that we really don't think about. When we think, oh, the tariff is imposed, that'll have some foreign implication. No, it's mom and pop shops in the US who are sort of going to great measures just to keep this up and running.

Scott Miller

Now, are these individual importers or they importers, resellers. How would you characterize the typical business?

Dan Anthony

Yeah, so for this survey, the typical company size is seven employees. We asked a lot of different questions about, you know, their company size, what industry they're in. It's. They could classify themselves in multiple ways, but about a third report being manufacturers, a third retailers, about 50% are wholesalers. Some flagged other niche roles. They are in multiple points where they're importing some finished goods, but also producing. But the typical companies paid about $150,000. So if you think seven people, $150,000 in cost, that is a really big number for a small business.

Bill Reinsch

Is that the tariff number? They're paying 150,000?

Dan Anthony

Yeah. So the typical company going back from february last year to, you know, this spring to early summer, about 150,000 for the typical company. Some are in the millions. You know, there's some that are 3, 4, 10 million, which is a whole different ballpark. Some people, I think one person said it was $9,134. You know, some people are really tracking this down to the dollar and set, and you realize what that means to them in terms of business operations.

Scott Miller

Well, look, pricing is a really tough thing to put your finger on. It's complicated, somewhat idiosyncratic. It varies by the category. I have a great example of pricing today when I. I'm the proud owner of a iPhone 14, and my wireless company, which I remain nameless but starts with att, is offered me a new iPhone 17 for the price of $0. Now, clearly, they're selling me a services package, and somewhere in there is the cost of that new phone, a differential between the phone I have now and then what they want me to use, and there's all kinds of complicated arrangements that make for that offer. But I have no idea who paid the tariff on a phone that sells to me for zero. So how have you sorted this out? And more importantly, how do the small business people sort through this?

Dan Anthony

So it's something that does come up. Some people say, look, we're not the direct importer, so we know our supplier is paying this tariff. Some of them are explicit, and they say, this is what the tariff costs, and if we get that money back, we'll give it back to you. Others are several steps down the line in terms of sales, and they say, we know somebody paid the tariff. We know this is how much our costs went up. We don't know how much of that was labor versus tariffs, and so we're not anticipating any refunds. In terms of this individual survey, most of them are the importer of record, so they have that insight into what those direct costs were. About 75% said that they are exclusively their importer of record. Another 12% said that they are sometimes the importer of record and sometimes buying through someone else. So at least for this group, they've got that insight. But, you know, the point you raise on cell phones Is a really great one. And it's an area where there is that possibility that tariffs trickle into things like services, inflation. So you're not going to pay that tariff. Somebody paid it on that phone, depending on which country it was coming from. But that might show up in service plans and spread out across a large number of people. So when your monthly phone bill goes up, it could be that tariffs are a part of that. No one's going to look at cell phone service plans and the inflation data and say, oh, I bet that's tariffs. But that doesn't mean it's not contributing. And this same thing can happen in, you know, auto insurance, home insurance. If you've got insurance on your house to rebuild in the event of fire or some other accident. Well, if your lumber's up and your countertops are up and your nails are up, that all gets factored into what you're paying as a monthly premium, that rebuild price. So there's a lot of these little ways that tariffs can influence the economy where you're not necessarily looking for it. And that spillover from goods to services, I think, is a really good example of that.

Bill Reinsch

Talk a little bit more, if you will, about the people you pulled, how they're responding to the increased cost. In particular, you. We had one statistic there, but elaborate a little bit how many of them are raising prices to their customers, and how many of them are just eating the tariff themselves and going into debt or making less money?

Dan Anthony

So it tends to be in all of the above for a lot of these issues. And so the number one response for how you responded to the tariffs was reducing margins. 86% of the respondents said that they reduced their own margin. So there's a little bit less money left over after each sale. Very close to that, 83% raised their prices. Again, you get that squeeze where they might say, oh, the tariff was 10%. We were able to raise our prices by 3%. We were able to cut some costs somewhere else, and then our margin took a hit. And that's, you know, it's some sort of composite. A lot of companies reduce their inventory, so they just bought less. A lot of that was due to uncertainty. I'm not going to order product that may arrive and cost twice what I thought it was going to when I bought it. It's just too risky. So they pull back. And we heard this a lot around the holidays last year. Small businesses being out of stock on their top sellers because they were just too worried about making a big purchase last summer and having it arrive for the holidays at a rate that was unaffordable. So about 30% of them laid off workers. Again, if you have to cut costs, it's got to come from somewhere. And so that is, unfortunately, fortunately, it's not as high as those things like absorbing or passing along price increases, but it certainly happens. You know, we did ask about hiring lawyers or lobbyists, and it was 12%. So it was one of the areas that if you were doing an opposite survey of nothing but Fortune 500 companies, you'd probably get a very different response in terms of how many, you know, increased the number of lobbyists or lawyers they have working on this.

Bill Reinsch

Did you pick up any noticeable increase in domestic sourcing as a result of all this?

Dan Anthony

No. And that was another question that we asked was about shifting supply chains. And only 3% of the respondents said they were able to find the US Supplier who could meet their specs and their prices. So it's not an area where we've seen that boom, you know, and part of that is not from this survey, but from past conversations with multiple companies in multiple industries. We often heard about, you know, U.S. production being seven, eight, nine times higher. You know, we're not talking percentage points here. A product that retails for $125 might have to sell for $1,000 if you were making it in the US and so the option is pay the tariffs or just don't bring in that product at all and don't sell that product at all. So that is really, unfortunately not an area where we see growth. If that's the intent, it's not working.

Scott Miller

Well, the administration, very proud of the tariffs, and they seem to think somebody else pays them. They're pretty insistent on the. On that. And of course, I think one characteristic of the president as a businessman, he likes getting other people to pay for stuff. So it's part of his record and his approach to things. But once you get beyond the money, let's say a foreign. Foreign entity has to pay the tariffs, the only way they can get the money to pay the tariffs is to sell more goods to us, you know, and does that defeat the purpose? And I mean, I'm looking at this and say, well, in that situation, imports are rising, exports are falling, and that would worsen the trade deficit, and that's stipulating that they're right about who pays the tariff. It's like, is that what you really wanted? It turns out it's not what they wanted. So how do we square this?

Dan Anthony

It's a hard one. Because the administration's priorities seem to shift. And so when you point out domestic manufacturing jobs are down, that it's, oh, well, we're going to shrink the trade deficit, you say, well, trade deficit's not really falling. And it goes back to, well, we think there'll be more manufacturing. And, well, we just talked that that wasn't it. So it's a moving target. It makes it very hard to argue. But you know, there was a company that I had worked with a while back and they're a great example of that. Imposing tariffs can sort of shrink the import side but can also hurt the export side. And so they were bringing in aerospace products, tariffs went up, they were manufacturing in the US they were selling to producers in Europe, tariffs went up, and their supplier who was overseas just started selling directly to Europe and cut the US manufacturing piece out of it. So, yes, we bought less, we imported less, but then we lost the value added manufacturing and we lost the exports. And so, you know, at the end of the day there, your trade deficit's actually a little bit worse because what was coming in was a low price commodity. What was leaving was a value added aerospace product. And I think that's the real risk. It's very easy to shut off the US Market. It's very easy to impose tariffs. You know, you impose it on a metal and then the people who use metal complain, and so you impose it on the things made out of metal. But if ultimately we are trying to export those products to Europe or Asia or Africa and we're competing against producers who don't have to pay those inflated metal prices, it's really hard to stay competitive globally. And so you've got this, this is a little more academic and esoteric, but you have a captive U.S. or North American market that is smaller and less dynamic than it could be or it should be in the name of reducing imports.

Bill Reinsch

This is a problem that we've talked about in the past. I'm terrible with numbers, but the one statistic that always struck me is that currently I think 96% of the world's consumers are outside our borders. So. So we are a mature, slow growth economy. We are an economy also where the population is on the verge of decline rather than growth, thanks largely to our immigration policy, but also declining birth rate. I think it's been clear for a long time that if you want to grow, particularly if you want to grow big, you have to engage internationally. You know, you have to export and you also have to import ultimately. And there's a mountain of data dating back 40 years of companies that do engage internationally, whether they're exporting or importing or both, do better. Their profits are larger, they grow faster, they provide better benefits to their workers, they hire more people. Just a better situation to be in. But we do seem to be heading in the direction of a fortress America. Let me pursue the metals issue for a minute, because one of the impressions I've got is that the most impactful tariffs, if you will, have been the metals tariffs, which are the 232 tariffs, actually, not the IPA ones. So steel, aluminum, I guess, now copper, as well as now downstream derivative products made out of those materials. Is that true for your polling base, or do a lot of the people you poll engage in work that involves metals? And is that like the biggest issue that they face?

Dan Anthony

It's not the biggest issue. It's certainly an issue for a number of them. And we hear a little bit more from them now because they've stayed in place, you know, and so that lamenting that there aren't going to be potential refunds for the metal tariffs, I'm just looking through. We did ask about this. Overwhelmingly, it's IEPA in Section 122 that people flagged, but about 20% said they're importing something that is subject to either steel or aluminum, 6% copper. So it's there. I think the lack of legal challenges and legal questions around those makes people a little bit more resigned to them staying in place and perhaps a little bit less likely to engage through a group like us than the, the China tariffs that went to 145%, which for a lot of the companies that we heard from, that was just, it was existential. You know, there is no way to stay in business if your main product line has 145% tariff. So I think the folks who have sort of reached out to us and gotten involved through us, it's a lot more practical. You know, is this something that may actually change? So we, we've heard less on the, the metals, even though I would have guessed a much lower number of the companies were impacted. But at least among the people were responding, it was higher than I thought.

Bill Reinsch

Most of them that import, import from China.

Dan Anthony

China was the number one market, but most of them are importing from multiple markets. And so, you know, the kind of irony here with the global tariffs is it reduced a lot of those incentives. If you just look at today versus 2018 and 2019, when we first started imposing tariffs on China under section 301, it's a very different dynamic and a lot of these things all tie together. So we had the Generalized System of Preferences program in place ago was in place, Haiti was in place. You had a lot of low tariff or no tariff options for the products that were newly subject to tariffs on China. And you saw a lot of movement by companies to rapidly shift their supply chains into Southeast Asia or into South America because there was a relief valve. And you know, I did a lot of work on backpacks and just looking at backpacks and luggage and products like that. And it went from China being, you know, 70, 80% of all U.S. imports to the GSP program being on par with China, really a one to one and then products coming from other places too. And this was in the span of 18 months or so. It was a very rapid shift.

Scott Miller

That's fascinating.

Dan Anthony

Yeah, but the global tariffs reduces that.

Scott Miller

Right?

Dan Anthony

There's no place to escape, there's nowhere to go to.

Scott Miller

Basically. I remember the early days of the 301 tariffs on China only was very difficult to find any price increases in any of the average cost of an average import remained the same or actually declined a little bit over the period. And really what you're suggesting is part of that was there were places to go to to avoid the high tariffs. Now those places have the global tariff and so we've made the whole thing worse for the consumer and worse for

Dan Anthony

the sourcing and even a step beyond that. So you know, put yourself in a situation where you and I are both trying to sell a product. If I get all of my product from China and you get it all from Vietnam, I can't raise my price because I'm worried that he's just going to stop buying from me altogether and only buy from you. So that ability to sort of play, for lack of a better term, to play those countries against each other. If you're a Chinese supplier in that scenario, you're more likely to drop your prices because you don't want to lose the business. But if it's a 19% tariff on Thailand and a 19% tariff on Indonesia and a 20% tariff on Vietnam, you're not going to leave one of those countries for the other due to tariff advantages. And the countries know it, the suppliers in the countries know it and they're just, you know, they're less inclined to say, oh, I better try to eat some of this myself, I better reduce my costs to keep you in business because you got nowhere else to go. And so I think there's a lot of these little dynamics also in Play that don't get the headlines because they're much harder to quantify. It's. It's not an actual tariff pain, but it's those business dynamics of is your supplier willing to go the extra mile to keep you. You got nowhere else to go.

Bill Reinsch

We followed this a lot last year during the various negotiations on tariffs. And the big issue, it turned out, was exactly what you said, which was the regional one. How do I make sure that my tariff level is not worse than my regional competitors? So for the Japanese and the Koreans, it was, let's make sure that we get the same. Maybe each would like to do better, but worst case is unequal, and one of them turns out to take a big hit because theirs is 20 and the others is 15. Same in Southeast Asia. It was very important to Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, that they all be roughly the same so they don't lose out compared to their regional competitors. The Indians have made this point frequently. They wanted to make sure, in their case, they wanted to make sure that they were better off than some of these other countries. I mean, they haven't gotten there yet, but that's been their goal. So it's really a game of relativity. Are we better than the people we're competing with? Not are we absolutely in good shape?

Dan Anthony

Yeah, it's the old, I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than the other guy.

Bill Reinsch

You also submitted some Comments on the 301 investigations, I think said last week or the week before that one of the things that's been interesting about this episode is that the USTR is being fairly meticulous about process, which is unusual for a Trump administration, which usually ignores process and then gets caught up in losing court decisions. In this case, you know, they've had the hearings, they've had the comment period. They're doing all the steps that the statute requires. What has been your contribution to that process, both Brazil and the other ones? And how do you see it playing out? What are we going to get here? The same IPA tariffs in disguise or something different, or some of these countries going to be innocent?

Dan Anthony

I think ultimately we're going to get something that looks very much like the IPA tariffs. We submitted comments in both the Brazil and the forced labor reviews. I testified at both of the hearings. You know, one of my most basic points was that we are, at the end of the day, threatening to tax American small businesses out of business if the Brazilians or other governments don't do what we want. And I think It's a misguided approach in the sense that, you know, if you're talking about Brazil in payment systems, some seven person company in Kentucky can't control what the Brazilian government is going to do in terms of choices on things like digital payments. And so where you threaten the pain, which is on the US side is not the person whose actions you're actually trying to change. And I think from a purely incentives based perspective, it's mostly destined to fail. And this is what I said in response to one of those questions was like, I'm a decent pool player. You know, I can put the cue ball into the pocket if it's a direct shot, nice and easy. That is akin to the US government saying do what we want or we will take away this government aid, we will take away this military contract supply. You know, it is a direct government to government. You have full control over that outcome. It is a credible threat. When you talk about we are going to impose tariffs, and particularly when they're going to fall on small businesses who in theory will pressure their supplier, who in theory will pressure their larger supplier or regional government, who will pressure their national government. It's like trying to hit that cue ball off four or five sides before sinking it. It's just infinitely more complex. You lose a little bit of that effectiveness with each bank. And I feel like a lot of these tariff threats are not really designed to succeed. They are designed to impose tariffs. And you know, on the forced labor, what really jumped out to me is Department of Labor puts out by law a report on countries suspected of forced labor violations in specific products and industries where it is deemed to be problematic. The last report was issued in the fall of 2004. There were 44 countries named. Less than half of them are covered by the forced labor review. So we've got a forced labor review. We're really upset about global forced labor. We're going to ignore most of the countries where there are forced labor concerns and we're instead going to slap a tariff on Australian wine. The solution doesn't address the problem and in this case, holy glosses over it, and I think that's my contribution, and it may not be heeded, is hopefully just to shine a light on some of these things that, you know, if you want to go after forced labor, there's ways to do it. Going after countries that have never been accused of forced labor concerns and saying we're going to put a tariff on everything doesn't seem like an effective way to address this situation.

Bill Reinsch

Just to clarify, I Think. You said that the Labor Department report was issued in 2004. Did you mean 2024?

Dan Anthony

Oh, yes, sorry. 2024.

Bill Reinsch

Okay. I was going to say if it was in 04, it's probably out of date. But 2024 is different.

Scott Miller

You are right, Dan. We have been tracking this for a long time. I mean, prison labor, imports of items made with prison labor was banned as far back as the McKinley tariffs of what, 1896. So it's been part of U.S. law for a long time now. We applaud your courage of attending these hearing 301 hearings. Bill described them last week as the parade of complainants. There was certainly a parade. But what do you think's going to happen and how will it affect both the 301 applications and other programs that may or may not have a future here?

Dan Anthony

Yeah, and I think the trade dynamic or the trade debate has really morphed. And the decision to lead off with iipa, I think a lot of people viewed that as legally suspect and so ripe for court challenge. And obviously it ultimately got struck down. And the fact that it was struck down I don't think was particularly surprising to people who follow trade law. Section 122. You could say the same thing. We maybe are going down that path. It's time limited. It's not as high of rates and less discretionary. But 301 is obviously on stronger legal ground. It stood up to challenges in the past. Section 232 is on stronger legal ground. I'm less certain. Caveat. I'm not a lawyer, but I think with something like the forced labor case, it does seem more ripe to a legal challenge if people will show up and point out things like, well, you're not actually proposing tariffs on countries with forced labor issues. It seems that the courts are a little bit less deferential this go round because the stated goals are stated rather bluntly and they're not necessarily in line with what the statutes say. And there's been that willingness from the courts to push back a little bit. And so part of our thinking in testifying was, let's show up. Let's state some of the really obvious things. If you want to go after forced labor, let's actually look at countries with forced labor issues, not just the ones with the biggest trade values, because that's where the money is. And so we'll see how it plays out.

Bill Reinsch

Well, saying they're missing the targets I think is an important argument. I think the other one that I thought will stand up in some cases, but perhaps not all of them. So if the lawsuits, which are inevitable, we'll have to have a careful choice of plaintiffs and a careful choice of countries. But if you look at the report, they don't really prove much of anything. You know, for virtually every country, it's simply maybe they have no law, which is one thing you can say with, I guess, a degree of certainty. But for those where the question is, well, you're not adequately enforcing your law, they don't really provide any evidence, they just make an assertion. And it wouldn't surprise me if you get the right judge, the judge is going to say that the conditions of the statute, which means you have to find an action, an act, policy or practice that is unjustifiable, unreasonable or discriminatory and which is a burden or restriction on US Commerce, that that test hasn't been met in many of these cases, or at least the administration has not provided evidence that it has been met. And so I'm not a lawyer either. But it seems to me that it's already clear that lawsuits are being prepared, waiting for what ultimately happens, because you need to wait for the ax to fall before you can do something. A better analogy would probably be wait for the shoe to drop before you do something. But I think that some of those lawsuits may be winners. 232, I agree with you is a different case, but we're getting near the end here.

Dan Anthony

If I could just say I did have the pleasure. Most of the 301 comment seemed to be, please exempt the products I buy, but please raise the tariffs on the things I sell. I had the good fortune of being on a panel with Ed Gresser, though, from Progressive Policy Institute, and he really leaned hard into those arguments that you were just making about. You know, the report did not lay out examples or efforts to quantify the things that would really be the defensible parts of a 301 legal defense from the administration about no, look, here are 17 examples where it hurt US commerce. It was more, we think it may be an issue and therefore it could disadvantage us. And Ed's point was that early isn't legal ground to slap $100 billion in annual tariffs on hypotheticals. And so I did want to have it. I didn't find all of the comments to be all that constructive, but I thought his were. And so it's an important point.

Bill Reinsch

It's the old Russell long story about tax law, which is don't tax me, don't tax the, tax the fellow behind the tree. And so that's what a lot of them were talking about. Let's finish off where I promised we would begin with gsp. So is it time for a funeral? Should we just surrender? It's now been six and a half years since this was in existence. Do you see it coming back? Do you have any hope?

Dan Anthony

I mean, hope springs eternal. It's got to. I think when you look at the really big picture, the American public has been very upset with high prices. So since five or six years ago, we have gone on a spree, intentional acts that raise prices on almost anything you can think to buy. And I think you've seen a lot more public awareness of the impacts of tariffs and you've seen a lot more political engagement on the Democratic side about tariffs harming affordability. And I think that's, you know, it's not a near term solution, but there's few ways that you can truly lower prices as Congress or the president that don't crash the economy. You know, you don't want all of your prices to fall. That's also bad. Tariffs are one of those few levers that you could actually legislate on and see nearly immediate impacts. And so, you know, when we talk to members of Congress, Republicans or Democrats alike, none of them have said, oh, we no longer support gsp. The political environment is not conducive to restarting this. But at the same time, you know, the GSP program, it has a ton of the issues that are really hot topics right now. If you look at the Brazil 301 and you want to talk about market access for ethanol, there were criteria in GSP that could have been used to do that. If you're talking about deforestation, there was bipartisan legislation to add environmental proofs to GSP that could have been used. There's a lot of these things that are in GSP. Forced labor's been in there since 1984. I think it's fallen out of favor to think in terms of carrots and sticks. Seems to be all sticks these days. But I think that a much more conducive approach tries to balance these things. And so one of these days someone's going to figure out that if we just lower prices, voters will be happy with us.

Scott Miller

What an idea.

Dan Anthony

I don't know which party it'll be.

Scott Miller

What a breakthrough idea.

Dan Anthony

I, I'm not a political strategist either, but it seems pretty clear cut to me.

Scott Miller

It's just crazy enough it just might work. So, Dan, thanks so much for coming on the program. We really enjoyed talking to you. And I think it's very important that there are people like you who are actually talking to businesses that are facing these problems and who have to deal with the issues and preserve their customers and maintain good relations with their suppliers. It's not easy running a small business and making it harder is not one of the things we like the government to do. But thanks for what you do to call attention to this and to find solutions. We really delighted you took the time to join the program.

Bill Reinsch

I recommend our listeners read the report. It's going to be public, right?

Dan Anthony

Yes, it's going to be public and we're going to try to send it to everyone. Everyone and their mother who might read it.

Scott Miller

When you're ready to release it, let us know. We'll put it in the show notes and allow people to link and find it themselves because I think it's a very important piece of work. So thank you for that.

Dan Anthony

Yeah, thanks so much. This was fun. I don't get to have many fun trade conversations these days, so thanks for having me.

Scott Miller

We'll do our best to keep it that way. Thank you. Dan,

Dan Anthony

You've been listening to the Trade Guys, a CSIS podcast. For more audio content, visit csis.orgpodcasts thanks for tuning in.