0
0
1: One Must Destroy to Create
These words echo a mantra I’d repeat countless times. Let me be clear: I am not condemning or justifying The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s actions. This is simply another food for thought. It’s another literary billboard. Think climate change (for instance). Some actions that destroy the environment are in the attempt to produce other commodities that benefit some people. To create those products, they destroy the climate. President Trump’s DOGE initiative is supposed to be a sweeping reform to eliminate systemic waste or corruption. It has become Elon Musk’s brainchild, eroding a part of his legacy. Elon probably saw DOGE as a necessary demolition, clearing the way for a fairer, more equitable system.
The faces of the protesters Elon sees are etched with despair because their livelihoods have been shattered. Now that’s haunting. The adage, “One woman’s treasure is another woman’s trash,” rings with sickening accuracy. Some believe in the righteousness of DOGE’s mission, closing loopholes and dismantling entrenched corruption. They’d swallowed the whole rhetoric, convincing themselves that the collateral damage (the ruined businesses and families thrown into poverty) is a regrettable but necessary price. That these beneficiaries of the supposed corruption weren’t American allies. They were… parasites of Joe Biden’s trillion-dollar gravy train who were part of a different kind of trade, but a trade nonetheless.
Despite the allegations, the tear-stained faces and hollow eyes of residents from America’s small, dusty towns are beginning to undermine the justifications carefully crafted by President Trump and Elon Musk. The supposed beneficiaries of these alleged schemes are not faceless entities; they are individuals with years of investment, families based on the now-vanished gimmicks, and dreams disintegrating before us. We observe the architects of this devastation and recognize that they see themselves as creators. Will Elon Musk mourn his multi-billion dollar losses at the hands of President Trump’s celebrity? A Trump-branded Tesla Model may indeed boost sales. However, the appeal of electric vehicle ownership can fade.
Worries about digital tracking (such as the detailed monitoring by ever-present smartphones of one’s wife, daughter, or mistress) could push the most fervent Tesla user to forsake their beloved car for an ordinary bicycle. I’m just suggesting that one might strive to regain privacy in an overly digital age. I own an iPhone alongside a Tesla. Recently, I downloaded an app for bus tickets because I grew weary of forgetting to disable my location on my smartphone. When my daughter learns to use Spotify, she might unexpectedly switch that Styles P track to a nursery rhyme while I’m caught up in an extra-curricular activity. That situation does not concern President Trump’s trade war or Elon Musk’s triumph with DOGE.
Trump’s initial conviction, his belief in the greater good, could be fractured. The weight of these people’s ruined lives pressed down on him, a heavy, suffocating blanket. He’d chosen efficiency, precision, and a clean sweep. He’d prioritized the abstract ideal of a better future over the tangible suffering of the present. As I gripped my desk’s edge, the reports showed DOGE had been remarkably successful. The numbers were staggering. The jobs eradicated were in the thousands. Yet, I feel the chilling emptiness of a victory bought at an unbearable cost. A moral compromise was made to maintain the facade of DOGE. President Trump is winning, but at what cost? And is it a victory at all? Will history remember this as a policy or a personal failure? Is it a moral bankruptcy that the president could ever atone? Or maybe I’ve missed the point.
2: Every Western Nation Offers the Same Products
This realization sparked a revelation, contrasting sharply with the romanticized images in my history books. I remember the stories about Hawaii’s annexation, particularly the queen who aspired to dominate the banana market using her island’s superior variety of the fruit. However, ruthless American corporations shattered that dream. Now, everyone has this banana. The West has over-prevailed globally. Today, lacking new territories to colonize, they compete for market share by selling identical goods to one another. Perhaps I’m exaggerating, but I perceive a reality regarding the inequities of the Western market (It’s cut throat). Events like the silk trade and the opium wars aren’t historical occurrences.
The West’s reputation with developing countries is blemishes on humanity’s conscience that continue to resonate. Reflecting on my research and analysis, the stakeholders in this U.S. trade war once operated within a system structured for exploitation. The uniqueness of products stemmed from their specific origins: Italian leather shoes, Swiss watches, Canadian ginger ale, Caribbean spices, Chinese silk, Middle Eastern oil, Persian rugs, American blue jeans, British Land Rover, African natural resources, and more. The haunting memories of the harsh salt mines in the Sahara and the human toll of the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade linger in my mind. But back then, that was one of the few sources of cooking salt.
After years spent developing my career around these financial systems, this knowledge now feels like a burden. This U. S. trade war reminds me that each rare commodity symbolizes a legacy of violence and oppression. Ironically, no Western country can dominate today’s market, as everyone sells the same products. New Zealand’s cheese export challenge was my last straw. My research revealed the modern market’s efficiency and capacity to undermine the most distinctive regional products. This trade situation in the US highlights that the West is at a pivotal turn. It has the option to keep recycling, importing, exporting, commercial junk, and selling them another, but how long can that translate into real wealth?
A thorough evaluation of this trade war indicates that the actual price of success is often the absence of conscience. This may explain why we witness “allies” imposing tariffs on each other’s goods. The conflict seems unavoidable; the lowest price ultimately prevails, with everyone selling the same items. China, with its competitive pricing, faces numerous ethical challenges. It presents a dilemma between moral integrity and survival. This trade war involves far more than mere economics. Here’s a surprise: I reside in Germany. I have never roamed the grocery store in search of New Zealand cheese. However, I would gladly flip for West African smoked fish and American collard greens. And don’t get me started on steel.
The US has steel for sale, Canada has steel, and China has steel. Recently, I saw a steelworker in the Netherlands who appeared to be in a steel utopia, bemoaning that no one wants to purchase their steel. Everyone. They offer eggs, milk, vegetables, cotton goods, leather goods, water, cheese, oil, soft drinks, energy supply, alcohol, and tobacco. As I observed the tariffs Western countries impose on one another, I saw that there’s nowhere for them to sell their goods. That’s when I grasped why President Trump is so focused on rare earth materials. Greenland is one option that still seems original. The new world demands natural resources from unique geographical locations, excluding steel, iron ore, and coal.
It also struck me that Africa, as one of the developing regions globally, possesses a high birth rate and a significant population of young adults. Thus, the African market might soon witness a new influx of Western merchants as Westerners rush to offload their products. The international Import and export business has become deadlier.
