I agree with your general premise but would caution against using a $400 billion trade deficit figure based solely or mainly on trade in goods. The US has long had gigantic trade surpluses with China in services and intellectual property which cuts the products deficit by as much as 50 percent, if not more. For example, even though Chinese enrollment in US postsecondary and secondary schools has shrunk since Covid it still generates a surplus of about $US 20 billion even without the additional dollars spent by Chinese parents who visit their parent student sons and daughters. Chinese real estate investments in the US swamp US real investments in China. Trade numbers should reflect all trade, not merely goods.
I also suspect the New York Times editorial board is taking an olive branch approach to China because many of its investors and advertisers who are heavily invested there are terrified of the billions they will lose in a trade war, even though the US as a country will win much more economically than it loses if there is one. I for one don't favor a China trade war because as a student and teacher of history, trade wars and tit-for-tat tariffs helped cause the global depression and World War II when Germany and Japan responded with military action. Tough trade approaches are another matter altogether.
The deficit I cited is for goods and services. U.S. services trade surpluses are not actually nearly as large as are our goods deficits.
I agree with your general premise but would caution against using a $400 billion trade deficit figure based solely or mainly on trade in goods. The US has long had gigantic trade surpluses with China in services and intellectual property which cuts the products deficit by as much as 50 percent, if not more. For example, even though Chinese enrollment in US postsecondary and secondary schools has shrunk since Covid it still generates a surplus of about $US 20 billion even without the additional dollars spent by Chinese parents who visit their parent student sons and daughters. Chinese real estate investments in the US swamp US real investments in China. Trade numbers should reflect all trade, not merely goods.
I also suspect the New York Times editorial board is taking an olive branch approach to China because many of its investors and advertisers who are heavily invested there are terrified of the billions they will lose in a trade war, even though the US as a country will win much more economically than it loses if there is one. I for one don't favor a China trade war because as a student and teacher of history, trade wars and tit-for-tat tariffs helped cause the global depression and World War II when Germany and Japan responded with military action. Tough trade approaches are another matter altogether.