It took about 4 hours, but about half of it was me perfecting this Studio Ghibli themed feature image: 

I’m not sure where I first heard it—my leading suspect is the Chris Hedges YouTube channel, but I could be wrong—but someone made the point that if ChatGPT had, as some suspected, written the White House’s trade policy, it would have done a better job.

That immediately rang true to me. When I told my wife, she informed me I was very late to the party—that this observation had been made by many, often accompanied by the suggestion that it was Elon’s off-brand AI, Grok, that should actually be blamed.

So I decided to experiment with the idea myself. I already had a vision for how trade policy could be used to help build a better world, based on free-trade between democracies. And with ChatGPT’s help, I was able to articulate that vision more clearly—hopefully taking a bit of the blame off this perfectly useful new technology for the White House’s sloppiness.

There were moments of profound frustration, mostly when I realised I would have to do the core schlepping work of matching up the World Bank GDP numbers and the Economist Intelligence Units country rankings manually. It was another example of how AI can write poetry but can’t wash the dishes. But at other stages I was very impressed, and overall this has strengthened my prior belief that people in government, (and media and the schools and elsewhere) should be using AI (along with accountability tools like Stone Transparency.) 

The Process:

The Product:

Policy Proposal: Building a Values-Based Trade Order Through a Trade Desirability Index (TDI)

A framework for ethical, sustainable, and democratic international commerce

---

Executive Summary

This proposal advocates for the establishment of a Trade Desirability Index (TDI) and a corresponding Value-Aligned Common Market, which would fundamentally reshape the international trading system. The TDI will use clear, measurable standards of democracy, human rights, labour protection, and environmental sustainability to determine market access and tariff rates. Crucially, this proposal is designed to function with or without U.S. participation, reflecting a shifting global order in which democracies must be prepared to act independently when necessary.

“The Australian government after May 3 will no doubt want to try to negotiate with the Trump administration about our 10 per cent tariff, but they might be better off to just work around it and move on.
The American age is coming to an end after 80 years and nine months and will be replaced by something that may be better.”
— Alan Kohler, ABC News (April 2025)
Source

---

1. Background and Rationale

The global trading system is in flux. Multilateralism is under threat, and unilateral protectionism—especially from powerful nations like the U.S.—has undermined trust and fairness in global trade. Democracies cannot afford to wait for leadership that may never come. Instead, they must lead, and do so together.

This policy recognises that economic power must be aligned with ethical legitimacy. We propose a mechanism that binds trade to democratic norms and sustainability, creating a new incentive structure for global governance.

---

2. The Trade Desirability Index (TDI): Overview

The TDI is a tool that:

• Defines a gold standard for democracy, human rights, labour law, and environmental protection.
  
• Measures countries against this standard through an independent, data-driven, and transparent methodology.
  
• Determines market access and tariff rates based on a country’s performance against these benchmarks.
  
• Applies the same tariff regime at all member borders, based on country of origin, removing the need for complex bilateral negotiations.
  

This creates a fair, transparent, and scalable system that rewards good governance and penalises exploitation—without relying on any one nation’s leadership.

---

3. Economic Feasibility: Democracies Can Lead Without the U.S.

According to 2023 global GDP figures:

Category	GDP (USD)
All Democracies	$72.7 trillion
United States	$27.7 trillion
All other democracies	$44.9 trillion
All Authoritarian/Hybrid Regimes	$61.4 trillion
China	$17.8 trillion
Non-Chinese Non-Democracies	$43.6 trillion

This breakdown proves two critical points:

1. With the U.S.: Democracies command the largest combined economic bloc on the planet—over $72 trillion in GDP.
   
2. Without the U.S.: A value-aligned bloc of democratic nations still holds $44.9 trillion, nearly matching the combined authoritarian bloc.
   

In other words, the democratic world can act decisively and effectively, even without initial U.S. participation. Waiting for Washington to regain multilateral instincts is a risk. Moving forward without it is a necessity.

---

4. Staged Implementation Strategy

Phase 1: Founding Bloc (Excluding the U.S.)

• Establish the TDI framework among democratic nations outside the United States.
  
• Create a functioning common market with harmonised tariffs based on TDI scores.
  
• Allow high-scoring non-democracies (e.g., transitional or hybrid regimes) to qualify under a “reform track” contingent on measurable progress.
  

Phase 2: Engagement with the U.S.

• Maintain diplomatic channels with the U.S. but hold firm on TDI principles.
  
• Offer a clear roadmap for U.S. integration when governance aligns with multilateral cooperation and values-based trade.
  

Phase 3: Full Expansion

• Invite all qualifying nations, democratic or reforming, to join once they meet the TDI thresholds.
  
• Provide economic assistance and policy support for countries willing to raise standards to join.
  

---

5. Strategic Implications

• Democracy as an economic advantage: The TDI flips the script on the “race to the bottom” by rewarding fair, just, and sustainable governance.
  
• Counterweight to authoritarian influence: Especially important in a multipolar world shaped by China’s rise and America’s retreat.
  
• Reinforces global standards without coercion—nations opt in through reform, not imposition.
  

---

6. Recommendations

1. Convene a coalition of willing democratic economies to finalise the TDI framework.
   
2. Establish an independent secretariat to manage scoring, enforcement, and dispute resolution.
   
3. Launch diplomatic and public campaigns to build awareness and support among civil society, businesses, and policymakers.
   
4. Offer “reform incentives” (e.g. technical assistance, trade benefits) to nations improving their TDI scores.

Scoring Fairness: How the Trade Desirability Index Would Work

At the heart of the Trade Desirability Index (TDI) is a simple but powerful idea: countries should be rewarded in trade agreements based on how fairly, freely, and sustainably they operate. But to make that meaningful—and enforceable—it has to be more than a vibe. It needs to be measurable.

So how would we actually score countries? Here’s a proposed framework.

I. Who Does the Scoring?

Ultimately, the goal is to establish an independent international bureau tasked with managing and administering the TDI on behalf of all participating countries. This agency—funded proportionally by member nations—would form the technical backbone of the Value Aligned Common Market. It would employ specialist staff with expertise in human rights law, labour standards, democratic governance, environmental science, and data auditing.

Their job would be to:

• Collect and verify country data
  
• Conduct site visits and stakeholder interviews
  
• Cross-check self-reported compliance
  
• Issue binding annual scores
  
• Recommend areas for improvement
  

This ensures transparency, accountability, and a consistent methodology that reflects the shared values of the alliance.

However, for this example—and to demonstrate how the framework might work—we’ll use existing international data sources like the ILO, Freedom House, and Transparency International. These organisations already maintain detailed, credible metrics, and can serve as an effective starting point before the new bureau is operational.

---

II. Structure of the Index

The TDI is based on four pillars, each contributing 25% of the overall score:

1. Democratic Governance
   
2. Human Rights & Civil Liberties
   
3. Labour Standards & Worker Protections
   
4. Environmental Sustainability
   

Countries would receive a composite score out of 100, which would then determine the tariff rates applied to their goods and services when entering the common market. Countries with strong scores would face minimal tariffs; those with serious deficiencies would face rates as high as 40%.

---

III. Scoring Methodology (Using External Benchmarks)

Each pillar includes a set of measurable indicators. In the prototype phase, these are drawn from well-regarded international data sources. In the operational phase, they will be administered by the TDI’s in-house bureau.

1. Democratic Governance (25%)

Indicator	Description	Source	Weight
Electoral Integrity	Free, fair, and competitive elections	Electoral Integrity Project	10%
Civil Society Freedom	Ability for NGOs, media, and advocacy groups to operate	CIVICUS Monitor	5%
Rule of Law	Judicial independence and limits on executive power	World Justice Project	5%
Corruption Control	Degree of public sector transparency	Transparency International CPI	5%

2. Human Rights & Civil Liberties (25%)

Indicator	Description	Source	Weight
Personal Freedoms	Press, religion, expression, assembly	Freedom House	10%
Protection of Minorities	Legal protections for ethnic, religious, gender & LGBTQ+ groups	Minority Rights Group / UN	5%
Legal Protections from Abuse	Anti-torture, unlawful detention, etc.	Amnesty / Human Rights Watch	5%
Refugee and Asylum Policy	Fair treatment and processing of asylum seekers	UNHCR / Global Detention Project	5%

3. Labour Standards & Worker Protections (25%)

Indicator	Description	Source	Weight
Right to Organise & Strike	Union protections and freedom of association	ITUC Global Rights Index	10%
Minimum Wage Adequacy	As a percentage of median income	OECD / ILO	5%
Workplace Safety	Fatality/injury rates and enforcement	ILO	5%
Child Labour & Forced Labour	Prevalence and enforcement	US Dept. of Labor / ILO	5%

4. Environmental Sustainability (25%)

Indicator	Description	Source	Weight
Carbon Emissions per Capita	Adjusted for development level	World Bank / Climate Watch	5%
Renewable Energy Share	% of energy from sustainable sources	IEA	5%
Environmental Regulation Enforcement	Legal strength and actual implementation	Yale EPI	10%
Biodiversity & Land Protection	Forest preservation, protected areas	UNEP / WRI	5%

---

IV. Score Bands and Tariff Brackets

TDI Score	Tariff Bracket	Notes
90–100	0–2%	Full access, zero or near-zero tariffs
75–89	5%	Strong performance, eligible for gradual reduction
60–74	10%	Middle tier, improvement needed
40–59	20%	Access with clear penalties
Below 40	40%	Maximum tariff rate; not eligible for cooperative status

---

V. Enforcement and Flexibility

• Annual Review Cycle: Scores updated yearly by the Value Aligned Common Market bureau.
  
• Improvement Pathway: Countries showing consistent reforms can apply for early reassessment.
  
• Sanctions for Falsification: Any manipulation of indicators results in the automatic maximum tariff (40%) until full audit compliance.
  

---

VI. Why This Matters

The TDI is more than a measurement tool—it’s a mechanism for making globalisation accountable. By attaching meaningful consequences to political repression, ecological harm, or exploitation of labour, it transforms trade from a race to the bottom into a race to the top.

With the right structure—an independent, well-resourced agency and clear, trusted criteria—the TDI can become the foundation of a truly fair international trade system.

How Countries Stack Up: TDI Scores and Tariff Outcomes

The table below shows how a selection of countries might score under the Trade Desirability Index (TDI), based on their current performance across four pillars: democratic governance, human rights, labour protections, and environmental sustainability. Each country is assigned a TDI score out of 100, with a corresponding tariff rate calculated using a hybrid model: countries scoring below 40 receive the maximum tariff of 40%, while others are assigned a progressively lower tariff, proportionate to their score. This snapshot offers a glimpse of how a value-based trade regime could reshape global incentives—rewarding nations that uphold fairness and justice, while nudging others toward reform.

Country	TDI Score	Tariff Rate (%)
Afghanistan	8	40
Albania	54	18
Algeria	37	40
Angola	60	16
Argentina	54	18
Armenia	62	15
Australia	85	6
Austria	100	0
Azerbaijan	44	22
Bahrain	35	40
Bangladesh	35	40
Belarus	3	40
Belgium	99	0
Benin	55	18
Bolivia	63	15
Bosnia and Herzegovina	54	18
Botswana	60	16
Brazil	48	21
Burkina Faso	42	23
Burundi	16	40
Cambodia	35	40
Cameroon	33	40
Canada	73	11
Central African Republic	36	40
Chad	45	22
Chile	93	3
China	10	40
Colombia	61	16
Comoros	26	40
Costa Rica	99	0
Croatia	94	2
Cuba	18	40
Cyprus	55	18
Czech Republic	91	4
Democratic Republic of the Congo	39	40
Denmark	93	3
Djibouti	41	24
Dominican Republic	44	22
Ecuador	65	14
Egypt	34	40
El Salvador	52	19
Equatorial Guinea	21	40
Eritrea	19	40
Estonia	70	12
Eswatini	48	21
Ethiopia	50	20
Fiji	83	7
Finland	98	1
France	78	9
Gabon	32	40
Gambia	53	19
Georgia	65	14
Germany	77	9
Ghana	56	18
Greece	68	13
Guatemala	59	16
Guinea	43	23
Guinea-Bissau	44	22
Guyana	58	17
Haiti	35	40
Honduras	46	22
Hong Kong	35	40
Hungary	85	6
Iceland	66	14
India	52	19
Indonesia	48	21
Iran	8	40
Iraq	40	24
Ireland	80	8
Israel	85	6
Italy	80	8
Jamaica	98	1
Japan	78	9
Jordan	43	23
Kazakhstan	31	40
Kenya	46	22
Kuwait	45	22
Kyrgyzstan	58	17
Laos	43	23
Latvia	91	4
Lebanon	57	17
Lesotho	56	18
Liberia	58	17
Libya	43	23
Lithuania	88	5
Luxembourg	95	2
Madagascar	39	40
Malawi	37	40
Malaysia	59	16
Mali	31	40
Malta	70	12
Mauritania	40	24
Mauritius	93	3
Mexico	60	16
Moldova	49	20
Mongolia	48	21
Montenegro	48	21
Morocco	50	20
Mozambique	33	40
Myanmar	7	40
Namibia	57	17
Nepal	50	20
Netherlands	77	9
New Zealand	70	12
Nicaragua	29	40
Niger	42	23
Nigeria	40	24
North Korea	13	40
North Macedonia	56	18
Norway	82	7
Oman	37	40
Pakistan	34	40
Panama	48	21
Papua New Guinea	37	40
Paraguay	51	20
Peru	48	21
Philippines	59	16
Poland	54	18
Portugal	71	12
Qatar	36	40
Republic of the Congo	33	40
Romania	87	5
Russia	19	40
Rwanda	27	40
Saudi Arabia	25	40
Senegal	57	17
Serbia	61	16
Sierra Leone	40	24
Singapore	98	1
Slovakia	75	10
Slovenia	92	3
South Africa	64	14
South Korea	85	6
Spain	81	8
Sri Lanka	51	20
Sudan	6	40
Suriname	38	40
Sweden	95	2
Switzerland	86	6
Syria	15	40
Tajikistan	45	22
Tanzania	45	22
Thailand	59	16
Tunisia	48	21
Turkey	41	24
Turkmenistan	18	40
Uganda	46	22
Ukraine	57	17
United Arab Emirates	35	40
United Kingdom	93	3
United States	79	8
Uruguay	80	8
Uzbekistan	45	22
Venezuela	9	40
Vietnam	44	22
Yemen	24	40
Zambia	49	20
Zimbabwe	5	40

More detail here.