The major damage from the current “United States of America ” (USA) administration is its distraction from our currently by far greatest (security) threat to humanity – global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity.
Based on that and since there is significant noise & irritation, I want to clarify the root cause for trade deficits – it is a weakness within the competition on the global market for the best products and services.
The sustainable cure for that weakness is to strengthen the competitiveness of a country and produce the best products and services for the global market and people & companies will invest and buy these products and services.
Strengthening the competitiveness of a country does not mean to tax foreign products (eg. with tariffs).
Strengthening the competitiveness of a country (cf. eg. Adam Smith, 1791: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, or Michael E. Porter, 1998: The Competitive Advantage of Nations) means first of all investment into (sustainable) innovation. To make something great again is the very opposite of innovation. It is looking back. It is in its very fundamental thinking pattern reactionary.
Strengthening the competitiveness of a country means i.a. to invest into products and services, which are sustainable successful in the future and will thus deliver competitive advantages and thus a trade surplus.
it is about losing within a competition
There are basically two ways to cope with losing within a competition (e.g. like the competition of global trade).
- You acknowledge the strength of the winner, improve, become better and try to win the next time or
- you blame the winner for cheating and try to change the rules, so that you will be the “winner” (eg. tariffs within global trade).
The (1) first “coping strategy” will bring sustainable growth and prosperity but is very difficult, because innovation is a kind of art and demands a strong vision for the future, inspirational & brave leadership, vivid creativity, and world-class skills & know-how.
The (2) second “coping strategy” is easy and brings a lot of conflict, noise, destruction and attempts to protect the current, outdated products and services (eg. oil production) and is based on the very sad concept of “disruption” and “blame”. “Disruption” and “blame” are “most irritating” concepts within a relationship, within business, and/or a society.
disruption and blame are most irritating for coping with losing in a competition
“Disruption” means to destroy something without any plan for something new. It is the very opposite from the concept of “innovation”.
“Blame” shows a significant weakness with character & self-esteem and the very weakness of not being able to lose and taking the needed consequences and actions for improvement.
The administration of the country, who invented the concept of a global market based on global competition, the “United States of America” (USA) is now blaming the others, that they are winning within this competition and now wants to change the rules of this competition.
we need more, not less global competition
In our view, what we actually need, especially to get out of the major global crisis – global warming, climate change, and loss of biodiversity – is more global competition within global markets (eg. global market for “greenhouse gas” emissions, global tax system) based on strong & sustainable global rules (eg. minimum global health & social standards) for this global competition (global social market economy). This has to be powered & governed by strong global & (direct) democratically legitimised institutions.
Nationalism has not the potential to solve our current global challenges & crises. We did the “economic globalisation” over the past centuries and now we need to do the “political globalisation” with global democracy to develop a healthy & thus sustainable global society.