This reduces trade policy to GDP math and “big countries produce more” logic, completely missing the point.
The issue isn’t whether Vietnam or China can buy as much from us as we buy from them. Of course they can’t. They’re poorer. That’s exactly the problem: we’ve offshored critical supply chains to countries that either exploit slave la…
This reduces trade policy to GDP math and “big countries produce more” logic, completely missing the point.
The issue isn’t whether Vietnam or China can buy as much from us as we buy from them. Of course they can’t. They’re poorer. That’s exactly the problem: we’ve offshored critical supply chains to countries that either exploit slave labor (China) or can’t afford to buy what we make (Vietnam), creating permanent dependency and strategic vulnerability.
This isn’t about efficiency anymore—it’s about sovereignty. It’s about whether the U.S. can build what it needs in a crisis, without begging our rivals for the parts. It’s about national security, industrial resilience, and moral clarity.
If your trade framework doesn’t account for any of that, then you’re not serious. You’re just rearranging numbers on a spreadsheet while the country gets hollowed out.
This is a different topic than what I was writing about, but there can be justification for trade policy that includes tariffs and targeted barriers for national security.
But what we're seeing is definitely not that. Good policy isn't this blunt and crude and improvised; broad-based tariffs on everyone based on nonsensical math and assumptions about trade deficits, huge supply chain disruptions popping up rapidly and unpredictably, changing daily and weekly, removing any predictability necessary to conduct business and invest. It's pushing away every ally and making it harder and more expensive to manufacture in the US at the same time. Counterproductive.
What we're seeing is hurting that objective of a stronger country with more robust sovereignty.
You’re still framing this through the old lens—like we’re living in a stable, rules-based global system where predictability matters more than sovereignty. We’re not. That world is gone. You don’t get to critique today’s policies using yesterday’s assumptions.
In times where national security is on the line, yes—things move fast, lines blur, and disruption happens. That’s not failure. That’s what transition looks like when you’re unwinding decades of dependency on adversaries and slave labor.
You’re asking for clean and quiet change in a world that no longer allows it. That’s the part you’re not seeing—and you’re not getting back the system you think you’re defending.
This reduces trade policy to GDP math and “big countries produce more” logic, completely missing the point.
The issue isn’t whether Vietnam or China can buy as much from us as we buy from them. Of course they can’t. They’re poorer. That’s exactly the problem: we’ve offshored critical supply chains to countries that either exploit slave labor (China) or can’t afford to buy what we make (Vietnam), creating permanent dependency and strategic vulnerability.
This isn’t about efficiency anymore—it’s about sovereignty. It’s about whether the U.S. can build what it needs in a crisis, without begging our rivals for the parts. It’s about national security, industrial resilience, and moral clarity.
If your trade framework doesn’t account for any of that, then you’re not serious. You’re just rearranging numbers on a spreadsheet while the country gets hollowed out.
This is a different topic than what I was writing about, but there can be justification for trade policy that includes tariffs and targeted barriers for national security.
But what we're seeing is definitely not that. Good policy isn't this blunt and crude and improvised; broad-based tariffs on everyone based on nonsensical math and assumptions about trade deficits, huge supply chain disruptions popping up rapidly and unpredictably, changing daily and weekly, removing any predictability necessary to conduct business and invest. It's pushing away every ally and making it harder and more expensive to manufacture in the US at the same time. Counterproductive.
What we're seeing is hurting that objective of a stronger country with more robust sovereignty.
You’re still framing this through the old lens—like we’re living in a stable, rules-based global system where predictability matters more than sovereignty. We’re not. That world is gone. You don’t get to critique today’s policies using yesterday’s assumptions.
In times where national security is on the line, yes—things move fast, lines blur, and disruption happens. That’s not failure. That’s what transition looks like when you’re unwinding decades of dependency on adversaries and slave labor.
You’re asking for clean and quiet change in a world that no longer allows it. That’s the part you’re not seeing—and you’re not getting back the system you think you’re defending.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think even with your framing, the way this is approached is counter-productive and hurts these objectives.
I guess we'll see what happens either way.
Well, JP is definitely right that we’re not living in a “stable, rules-based global system” anymore 😂😂.
That part is definitely correct 💯