Good Faith Amid Divergent Faiths
Word’s should age like fine wine.
Particularly on a call.
Does it take 90 days to close to determine how you close a deficit? No.
Does it take 90 days to make FDI in the United States? No.
This is not deal making. There is no need to make ‘deals’.
This is not about TikTok - the fact that TikTok is gathering more data in this 90 days is a national security risk.
You have now lost more than half a year with only 1.X years till midterms.
You have given the opposition 90 days to scheme and plot against you.
The only thing you did right was read China right.
You will turn most of ‘these’ countries you make ‘deals’ with into mini Iran’s and North Koreas.
Because of these deals for ‘arms’ and ‘weapons’.
They fundamentally don’t believe in open markets, that is why they kept their nations poor.
“In God We Trust” is boldly printed on U.S. legal tender.
Let this trade war serve as a case study in identifying who you really can—and cannot—do business with.
What was the easiest trade deal to sign? The United Kingdom.
It should come as no surprise. One can reasonably expect the rest of the Commonwealth nations to follow a similarly cooperative path, largely due to shared legal frameworks, language, and geopolitical alignment.
But shift your gaze eastward, and the pattern changes.
It becomes increasingly difficult to determine whether negotiations are truly happening in “good faith.” Yes, the European Union can be a tough negotiating partner—but the friction typically lies in conflicting principles, not in hidden motives. The variables are at least visible, quantifiable, and governed by transparent institutions.
Move into Asia, however, and negotiations become opaque. You find yourself second-guessing not just the terms—but the very premise—of the discussion. Why? Because the systems you’re engaging with are often closed, state-directed, or riddled with informal structures that make accountability elusive.
Trade only works when it flows through open markets. Every serious, peer-reviewed academic study on international trade—unfiltered by political interests—agrees on this basic consensus. But here’s the rub: not only are you dealing with closed markets in much of Asia, you’re also negotiating with entities that do not even share the same foundational beliefs.
Take the phrase “In God We Trust.” That isn’t just a motto—it’s a framework of values. And values shape institutions. When you sit across the table from a country that doesn’t even share your foundational concept of faith, trust, or governance, the concept of “good faith” becomes a cultural mismatch.
This isn’t a critique of any single culture—it’s a reality of how values, systems, and markets intersect. Trade negotiation success rates bear this out.
Now consider the data: The U.S. had a $383 billion trade deficit with China in 2022. With Vietnam, the deficit surged past $116 billion in 2023. These aren’t level playing fields—they’re pre-loaded concessions, and any negotiation starts not at zero, but from a structurally unfair baseline.
This weekend offered a glimpse into what some are calling a “Liberation Day 2.0.” The 90-day negotiation windows—especially with nations in Asia—have yielded minimal tangible progress. Why?
Because without pressure, there is no leverage.
Take the case of China again: Had tariffs not been raised to over 140% on targeted goods, the Chinese leadership may never have even come to the table. While a comprehensive deal remains elusive, the pressure of aggressive tariffs worked. It forced engagement.
So the real question becomes:
Why didn’t we apply the same approach to all countries with whom we have persistent trade deficits with?