...The Trump administration is embarking on an economic equivalent of the Vietnam War—a war of choice that will soon result in a quagmire, undermining faith at home and abroad in both the trustworthiness and the competence of the United States—and we all know how that turned out...
Trade Wars Are Easy to Lose
Beijing Has Escalation Dominance in the U.S.-China Tariff Fight
Adam S. Posen
Foreign Affairs, April 9, 2025
ADAM S. POSEN is President of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with,” U.S. President Donald Trump famously tweeted in 2018, “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” This week, when the Trump administration imposed tariffs of more than 100 percent on U.S. imports from China, setting off a new and even more dangerous trade war, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered a similar justification: “I think it was a big mistake, this Chinese escalation, because they’re playing with a pair of twos. What do we lose by the Chinese raising tariffs on us? We export one-fifth to them of what they export to us, so that is a losing hand for them.”
In short, the Trump administration believes it has what game theorists call escalation dominance over China and any other economy with which it has a bilateral trade deficit. Escalation dominance, in the words of a report by the RAND Corporation, means that “a combatant has the ability to escalate a conflict in ways that will be disadvantageous or costly to the adversary while the adversary cannot do the same in return.” If the administration’s logic is correct, then China, Canada, and any other country that retaliates against U.S. tariffs is indeed playing a losing hand.
But this logic is wrong: it is China that has escalation dominance in this trade war. The United States gets vital goods from China that cannot be replaced any time soon or made at home at anything less than prohibitive cost. Reducing such dependence on China may be a reason for action, but fighting the current war before doing so is a recipe for almost certain defeat, at enormous cost. Or to put it in Bessent’s terms: Washington, not Beijing, is betting all in on a losing hand.
SHOW YOUR HAND
The administration’s claims are off base on two counts. For one thing, both sides get hurt in a trade war, because both lose access to things their economies want and need and that their people and companies are willing to pay for. Like launching an actual war, a trade war is an act of destruction that puts the attacker’s own forces and home front at risk, as well: if the defending side did not believe it could retaliate in a way that would harm the attacker, it would surrender.
Bessent’s poker analogy is misleading because poker is a zero-sum game: I win only if you lose; you win only if I lose. Trade, by contrast, is positive-sum: in most situations, the better you do, the better I do, and vice versa. In poker, you get nothing back for what you put in the pot unless you win; in trade, you get it back immediately, in the form of the goods and services you buy.
The Trump administration believes that the more you import, the less you have at stake—that because the United States has a trade deficit with China, importing more Chinese goods and services than China does U.S. goods and services, it is less vulnerable. This is factually wrong, not a matter of opinion. Blocking trade reduces a nation’s real income and purchasing power; countries export in order to earn the money to buy things they do not have or are too expensive to make at home.
What’s more, even if you focus solely on the bilateral trade balance, as the Trump administration does, it bodes poorly for the United States in a trade war with China. In 2024, U.S. exports of goods and services to China were $199.2 billion, and imports from China were $462.5 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $263.3 billion. To the degree that the bilateral trade balance predicts which side will “win” in a trade war, the advantage lies with the surplus economy, not the deficit one. China, the surplus country, is giving up sales, which is solely money; the United States, the deficit country, is giving up goods and services it does not produce competitively or at all at home. Money is fungible: if you lose income, you can cut back spending, find sales elsewhere, spread the burden across the country, or draw down savings (say, by doing fiscal stimulus). China, like most countries with overall trade surpluses, saves more than it invests—meaning that it, in a sense, has too much savings. The adjustment would be relatively easy. There would be no critical shortages, and it could replace much of what it normally sold to the United States with sales domestically or to others.
Countries with overall trade deficits, like the United States, spend more than they save. In trade wars, they give up or reduce the supply of things they need (since the tariffs make them cost more), and these are not nearly as fungible or easily substituted for as money. Consequently, the impact is felt in specific industries, locations, or households that face shortages, sometimes of necessary items, some of whichare irreplaceable in the short term. Deficit countries also import capital—which makes the United States more vulnerable to shifts in sentiment about the reliability of its government and about its attractiveness as a place to do business. When the Trump administration makes capricious decisions to impose an enormous tax increase and great uncertainty on manufacturers’ supply chains, the result will be reduced investment into the United States, raising interest rates on its debt.
OF DEFICITS AND DOMINANCE
In short, the U.S. economy will suffer enormously in a large-scale trade war with China, which the current levels of Trump-imposed tariffs, at more than 100 percent, surely constitute if left in place. In fact, the U.S. economy will suffer more than the Chinese economy will, and the suffering will only increase if the United States escalates. The Trump administration may think it’s acting tough, but it’s in fact putting the U.S. economy at the mercy of Chinese escalation.
The United States will face shortages of critical inputs ranging from basic ingredients of most pharmaceuticals to inexpensive semiconductors used in cars and home appliances to critical minerals for industrial processes including weapons production. The supply shock from drastically reducing or zeroing out imports from China, as Trump purports to want to achieve, would mean stagflation, the macroeconomic nightmare seen in the 1970s and during the COVID pandemic, when the economy shrank and inflation rose simultaneously. In such a situation, which may be closer at hand than many think, the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers are left with only terrible options and little chance of staving off unemployment except by further raising inflation.
When it comes to real war, if you have reason to be afraid of being invaded, it would be suicidal to provoke your adversary before you’ve armed yourself. That is essentially what Trump’s economic attack risks: given that the U.S. economy is entirely dependent on Chinese sources for vital goods (pharmaceutical stocks, cheap electronic chips, critical minerals), it is wildly reckless not to ensure alternate suppliers or adequate domestic production before cutting off trade. By doing it the other way around, the administration is inviting exactly the kind of damage it says it wants to prevent.
This could all be intended as just a negotiating tactic, Trump’s and Bessent’s repeated statements and actions notwithstanding. But even on those terms, the strategy will do more harm than good. As I warned in Foreign Affairs last October, the fundamental problem with Trump’s economic approach is that it would need to carry out enough self-harming threats to be credible, which means that markets and households would expect ongoing uncertainty. Americans and foreigners alike would invest less rather than more in the U.S. economy, and they would no longer trust the U.S. government to live up to any deal, making a negotiated settlement or agreement to deescalate difficult to achieve. As a result, U.S. productive capacity would decline rather than improve, which would only increase the leverage that China and others have over the United States.
The Trump administration is embarking on an economic equivalent of the Vietnam War—a war of choice that will soon result in a quagmire, undermining faith at home and abroad in both the trustworthiness and the competence of the United States—and we all know how that turned out.
TOKYO – In April 1925, a hundred years ago this month, Winston Churchill, in his capacity as chancellor of the exchequer, took the fateful decision to return pound sterling to the gold standard at the prewar rate of exchange.
Churchill then, not unlike US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent now, was torn between two objectives. On one hand, he wanted to maintain sterling’s position as the key currency around which the international monetary system revolved, and preserve London’s status as the leading international financial center. On the other hand, he, or at least influential voices around him, saw merit in a more competitive – read “devalued” – exchange rate that might boost British manufacturing and exports.
Why Churchill chose the first course is uncertain. The weight of history – British economic preeminence under the gold standard prior to World War I – pointed to restoring the monetary status quo ante. The City of London, meaning the financial sector, lobbied for a return to the prewar exchange rate against gold and the dollar. The most articulate opponent, John Maynard Keynes, had an off night when given an opportunity to make his case to the chancellor.
The effects were much as predicted. Sterling regained its position as a key international currency, and the City its position as a financial center. Now, however, they had to contend with New York and the dollar, which had gained importance, owing to disruptions to Europe from the war and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System to backstop US financial markets.
Also as predicted, British exports stagnated. At current prices, they were lower in 1928-29 than in 1924-25, when the decision to stabilize the exchange rate was taken.
Here, clearly, a strong pound and the high interest rates required to defend its exchange rate were unhelpful. But to attribute the British economy’s poor performance entirely to the exchange rate is to jump to conclusions.
For one thing, the export industries on which Britain traditionally relied – textiles, steel, and shipbuilding – were now subject to intense competition from later industrializers with more modern facilities, including the United States and Japan. The situation was not unlike the competition currently felt by US manufacturing from China and other emerging markets. Then as now, it is not clear that a weaker exchange rate would have made much difference, given the emergence of these rising powers. Nor did the tariffs the United Kingdom imposed in the 1930s revive its old industries.
Moreover, Britain had difficulty developing the new industries that constituted the technological frontier – electrical engineering, motor vehicles, and household consumer durables – even after devaluing the pound in 1931. The US and other countries were quicker to adopt new technologies and production methods, such as the assembly line. Union militancy discouraged investment. Workers with the relevant skills and work ethic were in short supply. Again, these are not unlike complaints heard today from the operators of TSMC’s new semiconductor fab in Arizona or Samsung’s chipmaking plants in Texas.
And, of course, it did not help that the 1930s were marked by trade wars and a decade-long depression.
Notwithstanding these problems, sterling’s position as an international currency survived the 1930s. In fact, the pound regained some of the ground as a reserve and payments currency that it lost to the dollar in the preceding decades. Whereas Britain was broadly successful in maintaining banking and financial stability, the US suffered three debilitating banking and financial crises. The UK maintained stable trade relations with its Commonwealth and Empire under a system of imperial preference that negated the effects of otherwise restrictive tariffs. And it remained on good terms with trade partners and political allies beyond the Commonwealth and Empire, including in Scandinavia, the Middle East, and the Baltics, where monetary authorities continued to peg their countries’ currencies to sterling.
The lessons for those seeking to preserve the dollar’s status as a global currency are clear. Avoid financial instability, which in the current context means not allowing problems in the crypto sphere to spill over to the rest of the banking and financial system. Limit recourse to tariffs, since the dollar’s wide international use derives in substantial part from America’s trade relations with the rest of the world. And preserve the country’s geopolitical alliances, since it is America’s alliance partners who are most likely to see the US as a reliable steward of their foreign assets and hold its currency as a show of good faith.
The US, to all appearances, is going down the opposite path, risking financial stability, imposing tariffs willy-nilly, and antagonizing its alliance partners. What was achieved over a long period could be demolished in the blink of an eye – or with the stroke of a president’s pen. Churchill was aware of the risks. As he put it, “To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.”
Barry Eichengreen, Professor of Economics and Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, is a former senior policy adviser at the International Monetary Fund. He is the author of many books, including In Defense of Public Debt (Oxford University Press, 2021).
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-ignores-three-lessons-from-britain-for-preserving-dollar-supremacy-by-barry-eichengreen-2025-04?utm_source=Project+Syndicate+Newsletter&utm_campaign=701558b881-ECON-NEWSLETTER_2025-10-04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-e4393264df-107714082&mc_cid=701558b881&mc_eid=55033487ab