Have been trying to digest what the 47th is trying to achieve...

Have been trying to digest what the 47th is trying to achieve and apologise for posting within this channel.

As a businessman and developer, there would have been times during his "career" that he would have needed to enter into joint ventures (JVs) to complete a deal. My thoughts are that he views the international trade agreements as joint ventures although with time, the JV partners have turned and now are literally taking advantage of the major partner. I don't suggest that this has been by design, although with the gradual & almost imperceptible movement of IP to other countries, the JV has slipped into deficit to the major's detriment with little chance of ever reaching an equitable position.

So, without having to negotiate new JV deals with every country (can't begin to image the difficulty), the easiest & swiftest approach would be to introduce tariffs as a balancing mechanism.

Anyway, I decided to test this concept and posed the metaphorical argument that Trade Agreements and Globalisation are a form of JV between countries" and this is what ChatGPT provided as a response .....................may help understanding the 47th's actions ...........



Could globalisation be viewed as a "joint venture" between nations and when a particular country's balance of trade slips into deficit, it could be viewed that the other party is taking advantage?

"That's a really insightful way to frame it—and yes, globalisation can be metaphorically viewed as a kind of “joint venture” between nations, though with some important caveats.

Globalisation as a Joint Venture

In a broad sense, globalisation involves countries engaging in mutual trade, investment, labour movement, and information exchange, which are hallmarks of joint ventures between companies. Just like in a corporate joint venture, the idea is that by pooling resources and opening up markets, all parties can gain more than they could alone.

• Countries "contribute" differently—some offer capital, others cheap labour, raw materials, or innovation.

• Expectations of mutual benefit are there, just like in a JV.

• There’s often shared governance, via institutions like the WTO, IMF, and various trade agreements.

When Trade Deficits Enter the Picture

Here’s where the analogy gets more complicated.

When a country runs a persistent trade deficit, it's importing more than it exports. In the JV analogy, this might look like one partner constantly "buying" more from the other than they're selling—raising concerns about whether the arrangement is equitable.

Some interpretations:

• "Taking advantage": Yes, it could be viewed that way, especially if:

  • The deficit country is deindustrialising.

  • There's heavy job loss in key sectors.

  • The surplus country is engaging in unfair practices (e.g., currency manipulation, subsidies, or trade barriers).

• Alternative view: The deficit might reflect consumer choice, investment flows, or a strong currency—not necessarily exploitation. For example, the U.S. runs trade deficits but attracts massive capital inflows, suggesting global trust in its economy.

Power Imbalance in the "JV"

Just like a business JV can become lopsided if one partner grows dominant, globalisation can lead to asymmetries:

• Developing countries often have less bargaining power.

• Economic dependencies can form.

• Global supply chains may favour wealthier or more technologically advanced countries.

Conclusion

So yes—your framing has a lot of merit. Globalisation can resemble a joint venture ideally, but in practice, it’s often an asymmetric partnership where trade imbalances can signal that the JV is tilting in favour of one partner. Whether that’s “taking advantage” or just a reflection of comparative advantage depends on deeper structural and policy contexts."
I then asked ChatGPT to analyse the US-China JV and this is what upfolded ........

Perfect—let’s stick with the joint venture (JV) metaphor as we explore a real-world case. Let’s take the U.S.–China economic relationship, which is often used to illustrate globalisation’s complexity.

U.S.–China: A Metaphorical JV Between Nations

The Initial Agreement (JV Setup)

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the U.S. and China entered what could be viewed as a metaphorical joint venture:

• China brought: a vast, low-cost labor force, rapid industrial capacity, and a willingness to open up its economy.

• The U.S. brought: capital investment, advanced technologies, and access to its massive consumer market.

Like a business JV, both parties expected mutual benefits:

• The U.S. would gain cheaper goods and access to a vast new market.

• China would attract foreign investment, create jobs, and modernise.

Shifting Contributions and Imbalances

Over time, the JV started to look imbalanced:

• China ran persistent trade surpluses, exporting far more than it imported from the U.S.

• The U.S. had rising trade deficits and deindustrialisation in certain sectors (e.g. manufacturing, steel).

• Many in the U.S. saw this as China “taking more than it gave,” or not playing by the original spirit of the venture.

This is where your point fits in perfectly: when one party's “returns” dwindle (e.g., trade deficits, job losses), it may feel like the other is exploiting the JV.

Disputes Within the JV

In a business JV, if one partner:

• Controls the IP unfairly,

• Restricts decision-making,

• Or benefits disproportionately,

…there’s going to be conflict. That’s exactly what happened:

• The U.S. accused China of IP theft, forced tech transfers, and currency manipulation.

• China saw protectionism and hypocrisy in U.S. trade policy, especially since the U.S. benefited early on.

These tensions led to the trade war (2018–2020), where tariffs were used like renegotiation tactics in a struggling JV.