Group 1 - The core issue identified in the Milan Report is the long-term overvaluation of the US dollar, which negatively impacts US export competitiveness and manufacturing development [2][4] - The report suggests that the high valuation of the dollar is a result of past US government policies aimed at maintaining a strong dollar, rather than actions taken by other countries [2][3] - The report's proposed solutions, such as currency devaluation of exporting countries to offset tariff-induced price increases, contradict its own premise and may exacerbate the dollar's overvaluation [2][6] Group 2 - The report's notion that bringing manufacturing back to the US aligns with the desires of the American workforce is flawed, as younger generations are less inclined to pursue factory jobs [3][4] - The historical context of US industrialization is tied to excessive financialization, which has led to a lack of innovation and competitiveness in the manufacturing sector [4][5] - The report acknowledges the issue of deindustrialization but fails to provide a viable path for reindustrialization that addresses the underlying economic challenges [4][6] Group 3 - The proposed "three-step" approach in the report includes using tariffs to create initial shocks, forming alliances similar to the Plaza Accord, and implementing systematic containment of strategic rivals [6][7] - The reliance on tariffs as a negotiation tool risks escalating global trade tensions, reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which had severe economic repercussions [6][7] - The report's strategy of linking security guarantees with trade and finance may lead to coercive alliances, undermining the credibility of the US in international trade agreements [6][7]