Why is U.S. imperialism not afraid of a trade war?

Since the start of the trade war, the great motherland has always emphasized that it is a lose-lose situation, criticizing the US imperialists for "harming others and not themselves." The strategy of the CPC Central Committee is obviously not to fight, to wait for the US imperialists to "recover to reason", and find that they are also injured in the trade war, and the two sides can reconcile and continue to do business as usual. However, over the past few years, the US imperialists have not only failed to "return to their senses", but have become more and more courageous and stepped up.

Why is the trade war like this, why is the US imperialist wanting to fight, but the great motherland does not want to fight? Is it because the motherland is "peace-loving" and not warlike? Not also. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs often says that "there are no winners in trade wars", the great motherland itself often initiates trade wars. The latest example is the boycott of Australia and the previous "Restriction to South Korea". After Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize that year, the motherland angered Norway, and once boycotted the country's salmon, which was not allowed to be imported. Such boycotts, although "teaching" foreign countries, have also suffered from the motherland itself. For example, not buying Australian coal has resulted in higher coal prices and even power shortages. So the real question should be, why is the motherland belligerent to other countries, but not to the US imperialists?

The above phenomenon can be analyzed with the help of the "Globalization Index". The so-called "globalization index" is to add the export volume to the import volume, and then divide it by the gross domestic product to obtain a value, usually expressed as a percentage, which can be used to measure how important international trade is to an economy. . The higher the index, the more important international trade is. (Please note that when calculating GDP, exports are positive and imports are negative, so the globalization index cannot be directly understood as the proportion of international trade in GDP)

Wikipedia has a list of globalization indices (2017 figures) for the major economies. Some of them are listed below:

Hong Kong: 375.1%
Singapore: 322.4%
Sweden: 86.4%
South Korea: 80.8%
Norway: 68.6%
Australia: 41.9%
China: 37.8%
Japan: 31.2%
United States: 26.6%

The globalization index of the US imperialists is only about 20%, almost at the bottom of the list. (The global average is 56.2%) It can be seen that international trade is not very important to the US economy. This is actually a commonplace saying that the US imperialist economy is mainly driven by internal demand. The media and politicians often make articles about the U.S. imperialist trade deficit, which are all exaggerations. For decades, many people have predicted that the U.S. empire will run a deficit every year and the economy will inevitably decline, but so far it has not come true. (However, those "experts" will always be behind the scenes and come up with some kind of US imperial hegemony, or that the US dollar hegemony comes from justifying it.)

The globalization index of the motherland is also very low, which seems a little strange. Isn't it said that the motherland is the "world's factory" and the world's largest exporter? This is because, generally speaking, large countries such as China and the United States, with vast land resources and large populations, can produce many things themselves without importing them. The domestic market is large enough, and companies do not necessarily need to do export business to make money. Therefore, the globalization index will be lower. On the other hand, small economies such as Hong Kong and Singapore cannot be self-sufficient, and the globalization index will be very high. (This is only true for advanced economies. If it is a poor country, no matter how big or small, the globalization index may be very low)

Comparing the globalization indices of China and the United States, we can see that international trade is more important to China and less important to the U.S. imperialists. This explains the different attitudes of the two countries towards the trade war. The globalization index of the motherland is lower than that of Sweden, South Korea and Norway, so it has the capital to force the other side to submit to the trade war. The globalization index of Kangaroo Country is similar to that of the motherland, so it is not necessary to sell the account of the motherland.

Taking the Xinjiang cotton incident as an example, the motherland boycotted Sweden's H&M, but dared not touch the US imperialist Nike. Because foreign trade is more important to Sweden, being boycotted hurts more. The US emperor cares less and will definitely retaliate.

However, this index alone is not comprehensive enough. When it comes to fighting a trade war, our great motherland does have some "institutional advantages". In countries such as Europe, the US, Japan and South Korea, when a trade war begins, those whose domestic interests are damaged will complain, which may generate political pressure and cause the government to change its policies. But our great motherland is different. Those who are damaged dare not speak up, otherwise they will be treated as traitors, criticized by little pinks, and even "improved" by Guoan. With this "advantage", the motherland can naturally let go of war. In fact, the past "records" of the motherland have indeed "brilliant" and can almost be said to be "invincible". Only the American Empire and the Kangaroo Country are more difficult to deal with.

With that said, the trade war seems to be a game of "who gets hurt more". But this can only explain why the US imperialists are less afraid of a trade war than China, but it cannot explain why the US imperialists are "harming others and not themselves." According to the motherland, the US imperialists are actually afraid of losing their global hegemony, so they want to prevent China's rise before launching a trade war. This also makes sense, but apparently only partly. Because not only the US imperialists, but also the European Union, Japan and Australia feel that China is a threat. The South Korean government was originally more pro-China, but firstly, its semiconductor industry was also subject to the US imperialists, and secondly, anti-China sentiment among the people was high, so it had to rely on the watermelon to join the US imperialist camp.

The US imperialists want to exclude China and build their own supply chain, which is to unite with the EU, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and does not have to produce all of them in-house. The motherland also has some friends in Asia, Africa and Latin America, but they do not have much productivity, and they cannot replace the European and American markets to consume Chinese products. The trade war will not help.

Today, the US imports Chinese goods, many of which are ready-to-wear and toys. It takes some time to transfer the production location. This is what the American Emperor means by strategic patience. The high-tech products that the US imperialists do not sell will not be able to be produced by the motherland in the future.

According to the above analysis, the motherland follows Sima Yi's example and hangs the card of freedom from war, hoping that the US imperialists will retreat with all their food and resources like Zhuge Liang, and I am afraid it will not succeed. Because in this battle, the first person who will run out of food should be China.