Are anyone fighting in this commercial war?

William Clayton, a businessman who served successive US presidents and became one of the main architects of the Marshall Plan, was not a fan of tariffs. He described the barriers erected during the great depression as one of the great crimes of the century. It is difficult to imagine that Clayton, who believed that free trade was as important for prosperity as the guarantees of US help and security, would remotely approve Donald Trump's efforts to remodel trade.

This White White House agitation, which pushed tariffs at invisible levels from the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Law, will be expensive, even if the full price is not apparent immediately. The global economy has not suffered some of the most direct consequences that were predicted in April. The demand for US assets has been maintained, despite the superficial charm of the “Sell America” narrative. The International Monetary Fund doubts that growth will suddenly become the crater, and inflation has not taken off. Has a bullet been dodged or the shock is delaying pain?

It is remarkable that countries do not align exactly to shoot again. With the exception of China, which has intensified and retired to coincide with the rhythms of the White House, there has been little through reprisals. “It is not a war when only one side fights,” said JPMorgan Chase & Co. economists in a recent note. “The main drag of the War Commercial will come from the US tariff walks, but we also seek wide retaliation by US commercial partners.” The counterattack “has not materialized; in fact, barriers to US exports have been reduced,” they wrote.

In no way the company anticipates zero damage. Business trust is low but does not collapse. Capital expenditure will be limited. And although the chances of recession remain high, a better result remains very plausible.

This type of protected optimism, or qualified pessimism, is a break of dark warnings. Christine Lagarde, director of the European Central Bank, told the leaders to prepare for the worst case in which an American antagonistic drags the world to the destructive economic conflict. The Prime Minister of Singapore, a city-state that prospered during the apogee of free trade, could not hide his dismay: tariffs are not the actions of friends, said Lawrence Wong. His Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, declared that relations with the United States would change forever. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has matched American movements, but also mitigated his rhetoric and actions when appropriate. Washington and Beijing this week extended a pause on higher rates for 90 days, the last of a series of suspensions.

India, which has been the subject of some uprisers as China's economy has slowed, is one of the few imports of importance that has not reached an agreement with Trump. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not been measured either or has shown a desire to be even with US companies. Yes, there has been indignity and injured feelings. The governor of the Bank of the Reserve of India dismissed Trump's claim that the trade was dead there. He averaged India's contribution to global growth, around 18% compared to around 11% for the United States, and insisted that the local economy was going well. This is in the stadium, based on IMF projections. It also loses the point that in pure size, Indian dwarf America.

Brazil, a corner that fights to fulfill its potential, also refuses to bend. President Luiz Inacio Da Silva detests the dependence of the United States and wants to be treated as an equal. But Trump does not like a judicial case against Lula's predecessor for allegedly consigning a coup d'etat. Brazil is trying to develop an alternative to the dollar and place an excellent store in commercial ties with the BRICS group of emerging economies. Many of those nations, and the candidates for members of the block, have made agreements with Trump, or they are likely to do so. Brazil will come to some arrangement.

So Trump has come out with his? His assistants calculated that access to the US market is too lucrative to let it happen, and they may have been right. It would also be naive to conclude that there will be no cost. The global economy has slowed, but it has not crashed, foreigners still buy treasure bonds from the United States and is a safe bet that the backback will be in the center of the financial system for years.

But humiliated nations will not forget this experience. Asia's economies will only become larger and Sirena's call for greater integration with China will become stronger. Trump's efforts to destroy the existing order can still be their own objective. Just not this year.

Clayton, who became the main economic official of the State Department, believed that robust trade among the destroyed nations of Western Europe was as important as physical reconstruction. The economic dislocation made by the conflagration had been underestimated; Capitalism could relive the continent and prevent the political implosion of key countries. According to Benn Steil's book, The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Fría, Clayton insisted that the United States “should direct this show.”

The Trump team boasts of reconfiguring the system that grew from the ideals of the postwar era. Arrogance can be out of place.