The Theory That (Might) Explain Trump's Trade War

All these theories are academic. The real reason is that Trump and his advisers fear that China's progress has to be slowed down because their intentions are not just economic progress and good life but to rule over the world. Their are making huge investments to improve their military might to become the most powerful in the world. Once they feel USA can not stop them anymore, their first conquest is going to be Taiwan without a doubt. The Road and Belt initiative is nothing but a smokescreen. Real reason for that they want to build infrastructure to move their military fast to overtake regions in central Asia and more. World will realize all these only when it is too late.

Another possibility is that this Administration prefers a view of the world as made up of 3 super powers - USA, China and Europe - and working hard to make USA the strongest in some sense. This is contrasted with another view of the world in which sovereign nations are respected (whatever their size and strength) and free trade is encouraged as a potential source of increased welfare unilaterally, bilaterally and multilaterally.

During the 20th century many countries benefited from more open trade especially after WW2 and later as command type strategies did not work as well as market type strategies. Russia diminished in significance but the other two powers emerged much more strongly. In passing its fair to note that most developed countries including the USA (when they were 'great') achieved higher productivity growth and also the captured many of the welfare gains of more free trade. New Zealand for example is a developed country but agriculturally based and those sectors were not generally freed up.

So size matters and if we are to deal to global problems it is dangerous to adopt a super power model to guide policies. You may believe that China and/or Europe have clandestine designs on US power and this is the rationale for US paranoia. I'm not sure but if either is true then free trade is the least of our issues. In a sense the USA is responsible through showing Europe and China how being a super power permits you to push other nations around and get good trade deals (not free trade I might add).

Neither was USA particularly great, more that other big countries were so dumb that relatively speaking USA looked great. And now that other countries are turning away from being dumb the USA is being forced to deal with a new reality e.g. Huawei, push back from Europe on trade, and a general fuzziness around US foreign policy and creaky politics at home.

One outcome (as the Rubicon comes into view), is that USA will have a Julius Caesar scenario (USA tries to lead the world against the other 2 nasty super powers). Another scenario is that the rest of the world moves on without the USA and uses free trade as a basis for a peaceful co-existence of nations of every size and strength. Odds seem to be between these two as a central view emerging. Which one? I'm watching, always watching.

You could be correct but I doubt it. The 20th century is a century Chinese people want to forget. Living standards are accelerating at a fast pace (say, 8%pa for the last 20 odd years) and with access to modern technologies and travel and education. It would hard to put the (your) Genie back into the bottle. Why would China risk sacrificing all that it has gained just to save the Communist Party? But I'm sure some Chinese would write your piece but with USA as the subject.

IMHO, the reason Trump favored bilateral trade agreements and was against multilateral bargaining was because that would mean the USA would be the 600 pound gorilla in each negotiation and they could force whatever concessions they wanted. In a multilateral negotiation, if the USA took an unfair stance the other parties would gang up on them and make them back down.

The article makes an interesting point about bilateral talks being a catalyst to reduce the influence of special interests within each country but in practice it would never work. In all instances except perhaps China, the USA would force whatever terms it wanted and their own special interests would remain intact. In the case of China, a centrally managed and authoritarian regime would be less swayed by special interests within their own borders, so the premise of the article would probably not apply.