Jimmy Kimmel asked a 2nd grader to explain trade to Trump. She didn't disappoint.

Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

'Are trade deficits good or bad? They're both, Mr. President.'

Managing global economics isn't for everyone.

It takes levelheadedness, a knack for diplomacy, and a basic understanding of math.

Unfortunately, if the recent tweets by businessman-turned-President Donald Trump are any indication, he may be lacking in all three.

On April 4, Trump tweeted that "when you're already $500 billion DOWN, you can't lose!"

— (@)

The statement was in regards to the U.S. trade deficit. America's largest deficit, by country, is with China.

In recent weeks, Trump has escalated talks of a trade war with China, slapping a 25% tariff on several Chinese-made products on April 3. China retaliated by imposing its own tariffs on $50 billion-worth of American goods, including pork and soybeans.

Many economists say these moves will inevitably hurt workers in U.S. agricultural and manufacturing sectors — ironically, the same industries Trump vowed to protect.

The scary thing, as Jimmy Kimmel pointed out during the April 5 episode of his show, is that Trump doesn't seem to understand the complexities of trade.

“[Trump] seems to think that if one side has a deficit, that side is losing by $500 billion," Kimmel said, pointing to Trump's tweet. "That's not how trade deficits work."

So, on the off-chance Trump might be tuning in that night, the late night host asked a second-grader named Shiloh to explain the concept of trade deficits to the president.

It was funny, adorable — and actually really informative, too. Check it out (story continues below):

It's OK — if global trade isn't your forte, I'll break down Shiloh's lesson.

"What is a trade deficit?" she began the video. "It sounds like a bad thing. But really, it's just the difference between how much we buy from another country and how much we sell to that country. So, if we buy more stuff from China than we sell to them, that's a trade deficit."

[rebelmouse-image 19477017 dam="1" original_size="566x242" caption="All GIFs via "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"/YouTube." expand=1]All GIFs via "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"/YouTube.

"But don't freak out," she assured viewers. "We didn't actually lose anything, because we have all the stuff we bought."

Despite the scary name, deficits can actually be a good thing, she explained — it often indicates a strong national economy and means we have more money on hand to spend.

"But there are problems," as she pointed out.

Trump's more populist, protectionist ideas have some merit. She said, "Some American workers lose their jobs making stuff if we buy that stuff from other countries." Those abroad who end up with those jobs may work under dangerous working conditions and get paid less than U.S. workers would have.

The moral of Shiloh's story?

Trade deficits are complicated. They result in both pros and cons for us in the U.S. And the totality of their effects can't be adequately summed up in a 280-character tweet.

"So, are trade deficits good or bad? They're both, Mr. President," Shiloh concluded. "If you have any other questions, let me know. Good luck."

Cycle for Survival

How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”

Every year, Reid and his pack participate in Cycle for Survival to help raise money for the rare cancer research that’s helped him and so many others. You can too.

all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research

True

There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.

Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.

At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.

Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.

When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.

And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.

“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”

Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.

Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.

If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!

And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.

From Your Site Articles

best of humanity

Education

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographs Why so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

Even wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

From Your Site Articles

history

Climate Change

This glacier was featured on a postcard in 1900. A camera captured where it is today.

Whoa.

116 years ago, the Pasterze glacier in the Austria's Eastern Alps was postcard perfect:

Photo via Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons.

Snowy peaks. Windswept valleys. Ruddy-cheeked mountain children in lederhosen playing "Edelweiss" on the flugelhorn.

But a lot has changed since 1900.

Much of it has changed for the better! We've eradicated smallpox, Hitler is dead, and the song "Billie Jean" exists now.

On the downside, the Earth has gotten a lot hotter. A lot hotter.

The 15 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. July 2016 was the planet's hottest month — ever.

Unsurprisingly, man-made climate change has wreaked havoc on the planet's glaciers — including the Pasterze, which is Austria's largest.

Just how much havoc are we talking about? Well...