After WWII, the U.S. used its naval dominance to guarantee global trade. In exchange for writing its allies' security policies, it allowed open access to its market. This economic "unfairness" was the strategic cost of building a global coalition against the Soviet Union, effectively bribing nations into an alliance.

Related Insights

Luckey argues that US foreign policy is shifting away from direct military intervention. The new, more effective strategy is to arm allies, turning them into "prickly porcupines" that are difficult to attack. This approach maintains US influence and economic benefits while avoiding the political and human cost of deploying troops.

Contrary to its goals, the U.S. trade war has resulted in self-isolation. Data shows the U.S. is the only country buying less from China, while U.S. allies and developing nations have increased their trade, leading to a record $1 trillion surplus for China. This highlights a strategic miscalculation in U.S. foreign trade policy.

While the US exports less to Canada by volume, its exports (electronics, pharma) have far higher margins and shareholder value multiples than Canadian exports (lumber, oil). Therefore, for every dollar of trade disrupted by tariffs, the US loses significantly more economic value, making the policy self-defeating.

In a world of aging, export-dependent economies like China and Korea, the U.S. is the only large, first-world nation that is a net consumer. This makes access to its market an incredibly powerful negotiating tactic, allowing the U.S. to leverage its consumer base as a tool of foreign policy.

The losers of WWII, Germany and Japan, paradoxically "won the peace." Their complete devastation forced a societal and industrial reset, funded by the US. This allowed hyper-modernization and rapid economic growth, while victorious but bankrupt Britain was stuck with aging infrastructure and financial burdens.

With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional leadership role, European countries are creating new, direct alliances to ensure their own security. A notable example is the emerging UK-Scandinavia-Baltic-Poland axis, which signals a fundamental shift in the continent's geopolitical architecture away from a singular reliance on Washington.

When trade policies force allies like Canada to find new partners, it's not a temporary shift. They build new infrastructure and relationships that won't be abandoned even if the political climate changes. The trust is broken, making the economic damage long-lasting and difficult to repair.

Geopolitical shifts mean a company's country of origin heavily influences its market access and tariff burdens. This "corporate nationality" creates an uneven playing field, where a business's location can instantly become a massive advantage or liability compared to competitors.

While the U.S. oscillates between trade policies with each new administration, China executes consistent long-term plans, like shifting to high-quality exports. This decisiveness has enabled China to find new global markets and achieve a record trade surplus, effectively outmaneuvering U.S. tactics.

A historical indicator of a superpower's decline is when its spending on debt servicing surpasses its military budget. The US crossed this threshold a few years ago, while China is massively increasing military spending. This economic framework offers a stark, quantitative lens through which to view the long-term power shift between the two nations.

America's Post-WWII Trade Deficit Was a Deliberate "Bribe" to Build Its Global Alliance | RiffOn