Is it fair to use trade as a weapon?

It has been said that Americans perfected, if not invented, the concept of guerrilla warfare. During the War for American Independence in the 1770s and 1780s, Americans who wanted to be free of British rule were outgunned, outmanned and had no professional standing army, so they did what they could. They attacked the British any way possible. While the British played by the rules of war and civilized conduct, the American patriots used hidden snipers to pick off unsuspecting Redcoats and they blew up British outposts with homemade bombs.

Today we call that asymmetrical warfare but it is the same thing. A big, strong entity being harassed and worn down by a small, nimble and dedicated force to the point where the big, strong entity either attacks with all they have or they just give up and go home.

What does this have to do with trade?

We hear politicians and commentators from both sides of the aisle saying that trade should not be used as a weapon. Really? Should our judicial system be weaponized? Should our newspapers and TV stations be used as the propaganda arm of the opposition party? Who decided that it is OK to use the judiciary and the public airwaves as weapons in a political war, but it is not OK to use trade to fight back against international injustices?

If you look at how the US has managed our trade policies since the end of WWII, you will note that we have been totally docile and we have practically invited the world to take advantage of our nation. Is it because of guilt that we may have felt for having won World War II? For being such an industrial powerhouse in the 1950s? Were the latter day trade policies negotiated to allow smaller countries (many of which are run by dictatorships or at least run by a close circle of bureaucrats and oligarchs) to skim a little "off the top"?

Donald Trump, the "lawless and reckless" US President seems to be actually following the law as he sees it written. The fact that "this has never been done before" is irrelevant. The fact that no one else did it should have no sway in what he does. No one else had flown like the Wright brothers before Kitty Hawk. No one had created a usable digital music library before Steve Jobs introduce the iPod. Does the fact that no one had done it before nullify these innovations? Should we just remove anything that is "different"? Question for my liberal friends: If doing things differently is so reckless and bad, how does that square with your relentless desire for diversity?

Trump is engaging in guerrilla warfare techniques against nations who have been in a low grade, undeclared war against the United States. China has been coddled since Nixon made his trip to Beijing in the early 70s. We have looked the other way for decades as they sought to influence the Clinton administration with illicit donations, as they stole our technology, as they sent millions of their youth to our colleges and universities to learn what we know and to get involved in our technologies and our companies. China is not OUR enemy. We are THEIR enemy. We are not competitors. Competitors do not commit crimes against each other. Chevrolet may be a competitor with BMW or Volkswagen but they do not commit state-sponsored espionage against each other to purloin trade secrets. Same with Japan. Even in the hot 1980s with the US railing against "Japan Inc." neither side got into the mud. Heck, we were, and still are, military allies and great friends.

We have tried to be friends with China. We have given them everything, including the benefit of the doubt in most transgressions. Have they reciprocated? Does China allow export of raw materials like the US does? Does China allow the import of American finished good without a substantial tariff attached? What has China done for us except sell us cheaper goods while hollowing out our industrial base? (We cannot just blame the US industrialists for this. Many tried to resist the shift to cheaper labor. US consumers are just as culpable for purchasing cheap goods as the manufacturers are for putting their factories there. Ask yourself, if that 60" flat screen TV had cost you $4995 instead of $499 would you have two of them in your home?)

Does Mexico see the US as a friend or as a patsy? As a sort of dottering, doofus rich uncle? Do Mexicans enjoy having their country run by, or at least greatly influenced by, cartels and narco-criminals? Do they feel safe? If Mexico was a true friend, wouldn't their leadership want to help their own people not need to escape to the north to leech money back into their economy?

So, Trump... the enemy of the people, is bringing symmetry to an asymmetrical war. He is fighting back with unconventional methods and not mollycoddling China, North Korea, Mexico and other transgressors. He is not blowing shit up. He is not jailing his enemies. And, as far as we know, he has not unleashed the intelligence community upon his political enemies. He has not looked the other way as the IRS slow-walked his unfriendly detractors' efforts to organize. He has not fired anyone in the Deep State, nor has he called them out by name.

Trump is using public opinion and economic leverage to get what he wants. I truly believe that the reason most folks with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) despise him so greatly is that he is besting them at their own game. Nothing angers someone more than having their own weapons turned against themselves. In this war, Trump is definitely winning.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How To Change a Commercial Door Lock in 9 Easy Steps

Veeam reinstallation problem - VeeamBackup

Replacing the headlamp in your 2009 Toyota Highlander Hybrid