Interview Analysis In the interview given by the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to the Washington Post , the nominee for president and the magazine’s journalist Jim Tankersley discussed possible and planned economic policies and changes that Hillary Clinton would implement if she had become the president of the USA. In the interview, precise attention was given to the labor market, the taxation of the wealthiest, international trade, globalization, as well as education and skills’ connection to an economic boost. This paper aims to address some of the statements made by Hillary Clinton to critically evaluate the accuracy of her thoughts and suggestions from an economic point of view. Taxation of the Wealthiest Discussing the taxation of the wealthiest and how the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the Americans from the working class has increased, Hillary Clinton suggests that the former need to pay their “fair share” and stresses the importance of the Buffet Rule. The Buffet Rule was proposed as a solution to the unfairness of the tax distribution: while workers with median income consistently pay their taxes, the wealthiest Americans have more advantages to avoid the taxes or even pay less than an average worker (The National Economic Council 5). Therefore, Clinton assumes that a 30% tax on the wealthiest Americans could help the minimum, low, and median-wage workers and provide the budget with more revenues that could be spent on the infrastructure change that Clinton suggests. According to Mankiw, taxing the richest citizens might indeed help to narrow the gap because the living conditions of the poor would be improved, while the wealthiest citizens would live in a society with a lower level of poverty (230). International Trade When the interviewer and the presidential candidate discussed the international trade and its possible impacts on the USA, Clinton approached the problem from the opposing sides. On the one hand, she points out, trade deals would be possible if they are capable of raising wages and enhancing the national security of the country (Tankersley par. 20). On the other hand, shutting borders for other countries is unreasonable because the USA needs to understand how to sell its products to the world, how to compete and win, and not choose isolationism (Tankersley par. 21). The issue of international trade and its impact on the country is complicated. It can increase the variety of goods, realize economies of scale (low-cost products produced in large quantities), avoid monopoly, and meet new ideas provided from foreign markets (Mankiw 188). However, as Clinton points out, the government’s responsibility is to support employment that might be influenced by international trade and ensure that national security would not come to harm as well. The domestic industries should not be too dependent on foreign trade as in case of any major conflict or other complexities, the country will not be able to produce all the needed products by its own means (Mankiw 190). Nevertheless, such an approach might be advantageous to corporations as they can “exaggerate their role in national defense to obtain protection from foreign competition” (Mankiw 190). Therefore, internati