So… trade war?

Most people probably hear globalization and think back to those various talking heads on the magic audiovisual rectangle. But I must wonder how many of you know what exactly it means. 

In a nutshell, it means how integrated the globe is as a single economy, rather than numerous smaller ones. Over the last century, it has become essentially one massive global economy, pardoning the occasional rogue nation that closes its borders and has a ballot with a single name on it. As a result, individual nations no longer really control what economic activity occurs, unless they use various methods of restricting international trade in order to make it a more cost effective measure for growth to occur within that country.

However, there is a reason for globalization that isn’t actually to screw over individual nations; it’s more efficient for corporations. The most cost-effective method to produce a product is to have as low a production cost as possible and to have as high a consumer cost as possible, with the price versus quantity equation being kept in mind. Something is cheap, expensive or somewhere on that spectrum because of the fine dance between how cheaply it can be brought to us and how much we are willing to spend on it. 

Which is why, from a consumer point of view, 125% tariffs on the largest manufacturer in the world is going to drive prices beyond skyrocketing. 

I wish that it did not have to be said, but China is perhaps the only country in the world that could sustain a trade war with the United States by sheer bulk of the economy. I’m grateful that I took a political science class last semester rather than this spring, as I would guess half of that department has had a rough time following the inauguration. As we sit here, tariff changes go shooting out every few hours, and the stock market looks like my heart rate when I tripped on the staircase. I can’t even provide accurate information, due to the inherent nature of the two-day delay between when I write this and when it will be beautiful ink upon this lovely newspaper. Two days ago, we didn’t expect the explosion of orders from the White House that seemed to be attempting to make the U.S. a closed economy for imports, hearkening back to the old economic theory of mercantilism by looking to eliminate our trade deficit. 

In two days, I have no idea what will happen, and that is the core issue at hand. The world as a whole can only react so quickly to what’s happening, and with the continued centralization of power in the executive branch of the U.S., this erratic behavior comes with increasingly dire consequences for not only the future of the country but also the future of the U.S.’s global position. As we alienate our allies and justify our enemies, it seems more and more as if we have none of either, as if the world as a whole is made up of various businesses constantly plotting to cut each other’s throats to gain that leg up. Our administration has forgotten that nations are for people, and companies are for profit.

And as this drags on longer and longer, Americans will pay exponentially more for a majority of manufactured goods, when eggs are still over $1.30 each in some parts of the country. Let’s assume that if this tariff remains in place, every manufactured good from China will be at least twice as expensive. It won’t be the small things that hurt so much— that $1 soda becomes $2. But when toilet paper begins to cost upwards of $30? Maybe bidets will finally catch on in the U.S.

Yet, even China’s growth is slowing down, due to the nature of wages and the development of their country into a superpower. As the world economy develops as a single, undulating entity, so will each country in turn, until eventually perhaps the world as a whole will become more developed. 

I suppose at this point in our history, our question should be if we want the development of humanity as a species or the development of our individual nation at the expense of the people of the world. What is best, you may ask? Well, if we knew that, then there wouldn’t be much in the way of a debate, now would there? 

My opinion is that humans should start thinking less as nations and more as a species. As the curse of knowledge takes greater hold, having mapped out the entirety of the planet via complex machines that we fired into space to spin around it, we know exactly who and what we deal with across the entirety of our species. And with that knowledge should perhaps come a greater sense of responsibility. We now know that humanity is unified under the common banner of common knowledge. We still divide ourselves into nations to preserve national heritage and identity and legislations, yet are we so different from the people across the world? Different in superficial matters no doubt— and all cultures will diverge somewhat on contested issues. But are we so very unbelievably different that another culture can be considered truly lesser? 

The world is beyond massive, granted. But especially in this age of connectivity with the hivemind that is the internet, humanity is becoming more unified in its identity. We have developed translation tools that can turn a paragraph in another language into one in our own. The technology is far from perfect, of course, but for a program only two years older than I am, can you truly expect more of it? So long as humanity continues to move into the future and not recess back into the annals of history, the world will become more homogenous. That is a simple fact of our times.