Trade is often described as a win-win situation: the buyer gets much-needed goods and the seller get much-needed cash.

So what’s there not to like, right? The two parties are benefiting each other, hence the term trade partner.

That’s how traditional economics, and often the establishment, views trade. But it’s a rather simplistic view, and as President Trump as pointed out, the benefits are rather lop-sided more often than not.

There are more parties at stake than buyers and sellers, which are the ones that traditional economics and the establishment leaves out. For example, US companies manufacturing overseas, or hiring illegal immigrants, is often seen as a win for sellers since they can produce cheaply, and a win for buyers since they can make purchases at a good price. But what about the neglected hard-working American workers, the third party?

Yes, in that common scenario above, the individual buyer and seller is benefiting, but at the detriment to the rest of the nation. If enough of those transactions happen, and they have been, its going to ruin America. Not everyone wins in a win-win situation; no one thinks about the third party.

That’s why the term trade partner is inaccurate. Companies and foreign nations are trading for purely their own benefit, not America’s, even when America is the buyer.

When Google and social media platforms censor conservative views, it a win-win for them and their liberal users, but at the rest of the nation’s expense due to the loss of freedom.

When European subsidizes Airbus at the expense of Boeing, it’s a win-win for Airbus and the airlines that buy from them, but at the expense of America and fair trade.

When large economies, most notably China, India, and Japan, use unfair trade practices, it benefits themselves, but at the expense of America and fair trade.

Thus, the companies and foreign nations can’t be considered our trade partners if they continuously disregard the effects it has on our nation.

The more accurate term will be trade rival. China, India, and Japan aspire to the richest economy in the world, meaning that it will have to dethrone America sitting at the number one spot.

Sure they trade with us, but do they sound more like partners or rivals now?

Trade partners trade equally to the point tariffs are not needed and, if the occasion happens, understand why tariffs are used. Trade rivals lash out at Americans trying to defend their economic sovereignty by responding with their own tariffs, embargoes, and other threats.

That’s why we should use the term trade rivals instead of trade partners.

Do globalists really believe that trade rivals will continue to trade with us if it’s done at the rivals’ own expense and not ours? Are they that naive?

Sure, our trade “partners” and the establishment will lash out at the new term since it hurts relations about the world. But in terms of cooling relations, our tariffs were already doing that, America wasn’t benefiting too much from existing trade ties, and self-defense will always look belligerent to aggressors.

They need to understand that trade isn’t about making friends, it’s about defending ourselves. And in a dog-eat-dog world, America has gotten bitten too much already.

And it’s not about political correctness, it’s about confronting the truth with accuracy and it can’t be done without dumping the sugar-coating language.

As the politically correct likes to say, “words matter”. Yes, of course, it matters since American voters, politicians, and media can’t deal with the correct policies using the wrong words. So let’s use the correct term everywhere are go, whether it’s online or in-person, which is trade rivals.