The current situation is that an unpredictable leader has done some things that were already anticipated, but the way it was done is indiscriminate and unprecedented, and the scope and depth of the impact have exceeded everyone's expectations.
Who really loses and who benefits in global trade?
In global trade economic activities, the distribution of interests between countries is not simply about 'gaining advantages' or 'suffering losses', but is influenced by multiple factors such as resource endowments, industrial divisions of labor, technological levels, and institutional designs. The following is an analysis based on different dimensions:
I. Apparent 'Winners': Trade surplus countries and technology-dominant countries
China
Advantages: With the full industrial chain advantage of manufacturing, it has maintained a huge trade surplus for a long time (reaching $876 billion in 2023). By exporting electronic products, machinery, and textiles, it has accumulated foreign exchange reserves.
Hidden Dangers: Over-reliance on external demand, facing technology blockades (such as chip restrictions) and pressures of industrial chain relocation (some production capacity has shifted to Vietnam and Mexico).
Germany
Advantages: High-end manufacturing (automobiles, precision instruments) occupies the top of the global value chain, consistently achieving the largest trade surplus in the EU (surplus of €289 billion in 2023).
Hidden Dangers: Rising energy costs (reducing dependence on Russian energy) and aging threats to long-term competitiveness.
Resource-exporting countries (like Saudi Arabia and Australia)
Advantages: High revenues from exporting bulk commodities like oil and iron ore (Saudi Arabia's oil revenue accounted for 60% of GDP in 2023).
Hidden Dangers: A single economic structure is vulnerable to price fluctuations (for example, the 2020 oil price collapse led to a fiscal deficit of $79 billion in Saudi Arabia).
II. Implicit 'Winners': Rule makers and capital flow leaders
United States
Advantages:
Dollar Hegemony: The dollar accounts for 58% of global trade settlements, passing on inflation pressure through bond issuance and money printing.
Technical Monopoly: Semiconductors (the US holds a 70% share of the global chip design market), internet platforms (Google, Meta) harvest global data dividends.
Costs: Hollowing out of manufacturing, stagnation of middle-class income, and a continuous expansion of trade deficits (deficit of $948 billion in 2023).
Multinational Corporations
Profit Transfer: Companies like Apple and Nike transfer profits through 'tax havens' (like Ireland and the Cayman Islands), resulting in a loss of tax base for developing countries (the UN estimates an annual loss of $240 billion).
Technical Barriers: Patent fees and intellectual property restrictions keep developing countries locked in low-value-added segments for a long time.
III. Structural 'Losers': Countries locked in low-end divisions of labor
Southeast Asian manufacturing receiving countries (like Vietnam and Bangladesh)
Dilemma:
Dependent on low-profit industries such as clothing and electronic assembly (Vietnamese workers have an average monthly salary of only $280).
High environmental costs (Bangladesh's textile industry accounts for 70% of the country's industrial pollution).
Opportunities: Gradually upgrading to mid-end manufacturing (for example, Vietnam attracting Samsung semiconductor investment).
Latin American resource-dependent countries (like Brazil and Argentina)
Resource Curse: High proportion of soybean and copper exports, lagging industrial development (Brazil's manufacturing accounts for only 11% of GDP).
Debt Trap: Currency depreciation during the dollar interest rate hike cycle (the Argentine peso depreciated by 90% in 2023), increasing the risk of external debt defaults.
African countries (like Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Colonial Legacy: Exporting raw materials like crude oil and cobalt, while importing manufactured goods (the Democratic Republic of the Congo's cobalt accounts for 70% of the global supply, but the processing stages are controlled by China and the EU).
Technological Gap: Outdated digital infrastructure makes it difficult to participate in the global value chain (Africa's internet penetration rate is only 40%).
IV. Dynamic Game: Who is truly dominating the game rules?
Technical Standard Makers (US, EU, China)
The competition in 5G (Huawei vs Qualcomm), AI ethics (EU (AI Act)), and digital currencies (digital RMB vs US dollar CBDC) will determine future trade discourse power.
Regional Trade Grouping
RCEP: China-led integration of the Asia-Pacific supply chain reduces reliance on the US and EU markets.
USMCA: The US promotes 'nearshoring', squeezing Chinese manufacturing share.
A new balance under 'de-globalization'
Countries are accelerating the construction of local supply chains (like the US subsidizing $52.7 billion for the Chip Act), but efficiency losses may push up global inflation.
Conclusion: There are no absolute winners, only dynamic trade-offs.
Short-term gains may come with long-term costs (such as environmental damage in resource countries and pressures for domestic industry upgrades in surplus countries).
Losers may also reverse the situation through technological leaps or policy reforms (for example, India leveraging digital infrastructure to rise in service exports).
The real 'players' are the countries and capital groups that control core technology standards, monetary hegemony, and rule-making power, while most countries remain pawns on the chessboard.
The essence of global trade is a 'non-zero-sum game'—only through technological innovation, fair rules, and sustainable cooperation can multiple wins be achieved.
However, when the fighters become bloodthirsty, outsiders cannot stop them. To take a step back, can China exist without the US? Of course. Can the US exist without China? Of course! The trade war is just the beginning; perhaps we will witness the third world war in our lifetime.
What American citizens can do is rush to Apple stores to grab phones since prices will quickly double. Chinese citizens can just endure difficult times; what's there to fear? They've been through it before.