Group 1 - The recent punitive tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Chinese electric vehicles, batteries, photovoltaics, and semiconductors have reached a high of 245%, but their impact is limited compared to the initial tariffs introduced in 2018 [3][6] - The U.S. has lost its ability to control China's trajectory, as China has become less reliant on the U.S. market and is now focusing on "re-globalization" [3][6] - The tariffs, initially intended to disrupt supply chains and increase manufacturing costs, have turned into a political show for the U.S., resulting in limited effectiveness and self-harm [3][5] Group 2 - The U.S. has not successfully brought manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt states; instead, inflation has increased, consumer costs have risen, and corporate investments have slowed down [5][9] - Chinese companies have proactively diversified their markets, targeting Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa, with no U.S. presence among the top five export destinations for Chinese electric vehicles [5][10] - The U.S. strategy of "decoupling" has failed, as it underestimated China's resilience and overestimated the willingness of allies to comply with U.S. directives [6][12] Group 3 - The essence of the tariff war is a struggle for control and dominance, with the U.S. attempting to exclude China from its technology, trade, and financial systems [6][9] - As the U.S. attempts to decouple, China is enhancing its internal circulation and innovation, developing self-reliant technologies in semiconductors and batteries [7][9] - The U.S. has transitioned from being a "rule-maker" to a "rule-disruptor," undermining the global systems it once established, while China continues to expand its influence within these systems [15][16] Group 4 - The recent tariffs are more of a political signal than a strategic tool, indicating a loss of control by the U.S. over its policies and objectives [13][16] - The competition between the U.S. and China is evolving from a simple power struggle to a contest of institutional resilience, economic endurance, and industrial strategy [15][18] - The U.S. has reached a point where its actions no longer dictate China's future, and the transfer of dominance is occurring subtly through repeated tariff increases [18]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the evolution of globalization from 1.0 to 3.0, highlighting the impact of MAGAism and the rise of protectionism, leading to a potential collapse of the current global trade system and the emergence of a new, more inclusive globalization model driven by digital technology and emerging economies [1][2][3]. Group 1: Globalization 1.0 - Globalization 1.0 was established post-World War II, primarily led by the United States, focusing on rebuilding economies through international cooperation and the establishment of organizations like the IMF and World Bank [7][8]. - The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed in 1947, leading to a significant reduction in global tariff levels, with an average annual trade growth rate of 7.8% from 1950 to 1973 [7][8]. - The period was characterized by a division between capitalist and socialist blocs, resulting in a structured but not fully globalized trade system [9]. Group 2: Globalization 2.0 - Globalization 2.0 began after the Cold War, marked by the establishment of the WTO in 1995, which facilitated a true global economic integration, particularly between the U.S. and China [11][12]. - The period saw rapid trade liberalization, with global tariffs dropping from 6.2% in 1991 to 3.2% in 2006, and significant growth in international investment [12][13]. - The rise of emerging economies, particularly China and India, began to reshape the global economic landscape, contributing to a multi-polar world [15]. Group 3: MAGAism and Its Impact - MAGAism has led to a rise in protectionist policies in the U.S., which may provide short-term benefits to certain industries but could disrupt global supply chains and increase consumer costs in the long run [20][21]. - The political polarization in the U.S. has intensified, with MAGAism exacerbating divisions between different social and economic groups, impacting political stability and governance [21][22]. - The global implications of MAGAism include a decline in U.S. leadership in international affairs and a shift towards a more fragmented global trade environment [22][23]. Group 4: Transition to Globalization 3.0 - The article posits that the world is transitioning towards Globalization 3.0, characterized by a more inclusive and technology-driven economic model, despite the challenges posed by de-globalization and protectionism [26][27]. - Emerging economies are advocating for a more open and cooperative global economic system, as seen in initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and RCEP [26]. - The future of globalization is seen as an inevitable trend, with the potential for a new economic order that is less dominated by major powers and more reliant on digital technologies [27].