Because it's not a barter economy and you would not naturally have equal dollar quantities of goods to buy from and sell to each trading partner individually.

One country may be on the other side of the world, far poorer and mostly exporting say minerals or basic textile goods where their cheap labor gives them an advantage. What goods/services are they going to buy from the US that they cannot get from more local trading partners cheaper? They can import grains more cheaply from nearby neighbors. Southeast Asia is not going to start buying Teslas & Fods, they are driving around in Suzukis and whatever China makes.

You spend $5/week at your baker, does your baker buy $5/week of software from you?

Is Japan's trade deficit with Australia a good or bad thing? Is Australia ripping off Japan?

The trade deficit is a good thing for Japan because Japan lacks the natural resources it needs as inputs into its industry. It happens to buy those resources from Australia due to comparative advantage.

If Japanese policymakers tried to create a trade surplus with Australia via tariffs, they would make Japan significantly poorer and weaker.

The premise of the formula is flawed. There is nothing inherently unfair about a trade deficit between two countries. There's not necessarily anything nefarious going on if the United States doesn't buy the same amount of goods from Botswana as they might purchase from the United States within any particular year.

> The formula simply reflects the premise that, in a fair system, trade deficits would average out to zero.

I don't see why you would expect that.

Consider a rich country that mostly exports expensive manufactured technological things. It imports one of the natural resources it needs for this from some poor country that is mostly poor farmers and the poor laborers who extract that natural resource they export.

Its hard to see a way for the rich country to not have a trade deficit with the poor county. Even with what the poor country makes from exporting their natural resources they are unlikely to be able to afford the items the rich country makes.

Or consider two countries that are both rich and have about the same population but have different tastes. Say in country X 90% of the population likes big SUVs and trucks and only 10% like small cars. In country Y it is 90% who like small cars and only 10% like the big ones.

A car maker that has factories in both countries could find it more efficient to have an SUV/truck factory in X that makes the trucks for both countries and a small car factory in Y that makes the small cars for both countries than to have both an SUV/truck and a car factory in each country.

But since the big SUVs and trucks cost more than the small cars Y is going to have a trade deficit in cars with X.

Why would free trade eliminate trade deficits? The United States is incredibly wealthy and its citizens and companies can buy more than poorer countries. Not to mention all the other factors that exist in global trade. The belief that trade deficits are bad baffles me.

With Canada, there's a deficit because they are willing to do things like send oil in exchange for promises, and then they use the promises to do things like buy capital that is located in America.

I guess you can decide that's unfair.

Because America has the "exorbitant privilege" of being a global reserve currency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege (it's a Wikipedia page about monetary policy).

There's nothing about fairness in trade and trade deficits/surplus. Trade is a competition after all. Free trade was what gave the German States an enormous boost and the Zollverein was a key element towards unification even though that was not the intention[0].

Have I missed the news cycle where Trump complained about the CCP committing genocide on the Tibetans and Uyghurs? How they force them into slave labor. Btw, the reading through the Wikipedia article on Penal labor in the United States make me wonder whether where the USA stands...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...

Conversely, it must take a truly wild level of indifference towards American politics to watch globalism go up in flames and cheer. Regardless of where you stand on the aisle or how old you are, surely you can't feel much hope for America's economy watching the Apple supply chain capsize. The economy isn't scripted by Seth McFarlane, America's automotive business and manufacturing bases aren't going to start hiring again overnight.

America has supported perpetual war in Palestine for decades and will continue to do so regardless of how globalism fares. There is not an informed citizen in America that will take this rhetoric seriously, we treat Tel Aviv like they're fighting WWIII but can't spare Maxar access to Ukraine during an active conflict.

You want to associate globalism with conflict so badly, but you just can't deny that America will wage war regardless. It's tragic.

Accusing someone of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a rhetorical technique to pathologize dissent -- to call dissent a sickness, an irrationality. You did all but use the term. You're presupposing my anger at disastrous policy decisions as irrational to ignore addressing the critique directly. You're putting words in my mouth about Reagan, free trade, or perpetual war. I don't support "free" trade or "free" markets. I believe regulation is necessary, regulation, meaning to control the speed or flow of. Trade or Market's can't be free, only people can be free, and I believe in regulating markets and trade to promote freedom for people.

I don't support war, but I also don't support neutrality. Justice requires taking a side in conflicts. Without solidarity, taking a side in disputes and being willing to sacrifice for the benefit of others, justice cannot prevail.

You know you are literally supporting the policy of someone who is threatening Greenland, Canada, and Panama while also arguing against perpetual war right? Smashing trade relations is a prelude to performing actions our trading partners would disapprove of.

Why limit it to national security or anti-dumping? Tariffs should be expansive enough to take things like cheap labor in foreign countries or lax environmental laws out of the equation.

> Why is globalism such a bad idea

Having grown up in the Rust Belt, it's a bit baffling to me that there are intelligent people out there who don't understand why it's a bad idea.

It's a race to the bottom. The jobs all go to countries where people are paid almost nothing to work 90-hour workweeks, safety and environmental concerns are not existent, and they have totalitarian political systems where anybody who complains about any of the above will be shot.

Said other countries have stronger economies which lifts their geopolitical influence and military power. You definitely don't want to give that to governments with those kinds of terrible value systems.

Part of our society's narrative is that anyone can join the middle class: "If you just work hard, you can get a good job, support a family and live a nice lifestyle." The companies formerly supporting that narrative moved their operations out of our country; those opportunities were never replaced. A narrative that binds our society together -- a fundamental part of the American soul -- is getting destroyed. Which is a big factor causing the terrible current political climate.

From the 1990's to today, a lot of Rust Belt places went from union blue to purple and then turned deep red in an instant in 2016 because somebody was finally acknowledging the problem.

> You can't protect American businesses if they can't compete on their own merits.

The problem is that “free trade” math defines lowered standards as “comparative advantage.” So any first world country that maintains first world standards is automatically unable to “compete in their own merits.” Globalism creates a race to the bottom.