This week, the two major parties’ presidential candidates each made speeches that were meant to show all the good they could do for the country’s economy. But despite the hours Trump and Clinton spent speaking—and making clever criticisms of each other— in the end, there wasn’t all that much clarity on how, exactly, the myriad parts of each candidate’s economic plans would work together, and if they’d help, or hurt, the American economy in the long run.

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton used her visit to Michigan to promote her economic platform and to criticize Trump’s plans for the economy as an updated version of trickle-down economics. In general, rather than providing new details, Clinton emphasized her existing policy plans, which include an additional tax surcharge to be levied on wealthy households, setting aside $10 billion for strengthening the manufacturing sector, and more than $200 billion of infrastructure spending.

Perhaps the most interesting part of her speech was her strong and certain affirmation that she would reject the Trans Pacific Partnership deal if elected—a stance opposite the one she took while serving as secretary of state. “I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the TPP,” she said during her speech. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it as president.”And Clinton acknowledged that her rebuke of the deal sounds pretty similar to Trump’s position—he opposes TPP, along with most modern trade deals, including NAFTA. But she said that her rejection of TPP, or any other deal that she deems not up to her standards, is rooted in the belief that America should remain competitive in the global marketplace, while insisting that Trump’s stance borders on isolationism and is rooted in a fear that the U.S. can no longer compete with foreign producers.