What if the tariffs we’re all complaining about aren’t the real issue? What if, instead, the bigger problem is the way we’ve been doing business for decades—and how history is repeating itself in the worst way possible?
Let’s face it, tariffs are inconvenient, disruptive, and—if you’re in certain industries—downright painful. But what if I told you that the tariffs themselves are not the root cause of the problem? Could it be that we, as businesses, have been so focused on short-term solutions that we’ve lost sight of the deeper, long-term picture? What if, instead of just fighting against tariffs, we looked at them as an opportunity to reassess the very foundations of our global business strategies?
History has a funny way of repeating itself, and if we look back at how China has engaged with the global marketplace over the years, we might find some uncomfortable truths that could reshape how we view the modern-day tariff debate.
Let’s take a step back and consider what we can learn from the past—not just about tariffs, but about global consumerism, intellectual property, and what it truly means to build a resilient business model.
China, as a global economic powerhouse, has built its reputation on being the world’s factory floor. But behind this manufacturing might lies a history of consumerism that has operated in ways that frequently disregard international norms, fairness, and intellectual property protections. To understand how we got to this point, it’s important to look at the history of how China’s approach to consumerism has shaped its role in the global economy.
To truly understand the foundation of China’s modern-day economic model, we must travel back to the 19th century. During the Opium Wars, China attempted to block the opium trade that Britain had been using to balance its own trade deficits. In retaliation, Britain used military force, which forced China to open its ports and cede Hong Kong. This moment marked the beginning of China’s tumultuous relationship with global trade.
After this, China found itself at the mercy of foreign powers, unable to control its economic future. This forced opening laid the groundwork for China’s approach to manufacturing and consumerism—one that often ignored the legal and ethical standards that other global powers adhered to.
Fast forward to the mid-20th century, and China took an internal turn with the Communist Party’s leadership under Mao Zedong. The goal was self-reliance, and the country’s attempt to move away from Western influence meant focusing on internal economic development. This era was characterized by policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution—both of which emphasized self-sufficiency over global consumerism.
However, in the 1980s, under Deng Xiaoping, China began to open its doors once again—but this time, it would do so on its own terms. China’s shift to a more market-driven approach enabled the country to scale its manufacturing operations, producing goods at a lower cost than most other countries. Unfortunately, this came at a price: intellectual property laws and consumer protections were often sidelined in favor of economic expansion.
China’s approach to intellectual property has been one of the most disruptive elements of its global rise. The rampant counterfeiting and disregard for intellectual property rights have allowed Chinese manufacturers to flood global markets with cheaper alternatives, often undermining companies that follow the rules.
This lack of protection has caused significant strain on businesses, especially those in Western countries. They face the constant threat of their products being copied and undercut in ways that have destabilized entire industries. The resulting economic instability has been a major contributor to the trade wars and tariffs we see today.
Now, let’s bring this history back to the present-day tariff situation. If you’ve been following the tariff debate, you’ve likely heard all the complaints: rising costs, disrupted supply chains, and the immediate pain of increased prices for goods. But what if the solution isn’t just about easing the tariff burden? What if, instead, we need to ask ourselves a deeper question: How did we get here, and what can we learn from the past to avoid this in the future?
The reality is that tariffs are just a symptom of a much larger issue. The business world has long been operating on a model of reactive, short-term decision-making, often ignoring the long-term consequences. In the face of tariffs, businesses often focus on quick fixes—cutting corners, finding new suppliers, or moving to countries with lower production costs. But in doing so, they ignore the deeper structural problems that lead to these issues in the first place.
Tariffs are typically meant to shield domestic industries, but history has a sense of humor. Case in point: the great U.S.–Japan auto skirmish of the late 1970s and early ’80s. Back then, American carmakers were riding high on gas-guzzling muscle cars – until a spike in gas prices left them stalled and wheezing npr.org. Enter the Japanese automakers with their unsexy but efficient little cars that “get you to work” without breaking the bank npr.org. By 1980, brands like Toyota, Honda and Datsun (Nissan) had surged to over 20% of the U.S. market city-journal.org, and Detroit’s Big Three were not amused (losing billions has a way of souring the mood city-journal.org).
Washington’s reflex was predictably blunt: threaten Japan with tariffs or quotas to curb the “invasion” of foreign cars. But here’s where the plot twists. Instead of simply eating the tariff costs or withdrawing, the Japanese automakers pulled a strategic judo move. They began opening manufacturing facilities in the United States – building the very cars Americans were clamoring for on American soil npr.org. Honda opened a plant in Ohio in 1982, Toyota in Kentucky in 1988, and other Japanese brands like Mazda and Mitsubishi soon followed suit, often in partnership with U.S. firms or as joint ventures. By localizing production, they neatly sidestepped import quotas and tariffs and slashed shipping costs. It also didn’t hurt that plopping factories into states like Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois won them political brownie points for “creating jobs for American workers” in hard-hit communities.
This clever workaround paid off. The Reagan Administration’s saber-rattling led to a so-called “Voluntary Export Restraint” – essentially a quota – but Japanese companies had already found a loophole: make it in America, sell it in America. The result was tens of thousands of new U.S. manufacturing jobs courtesy of Japanese, German, and later Korean automakers npr.org. U.S. consumers, meanwhile, still got their reliable Honda Civics and fuel-sipping Toyota Corollas, now with a proud (if ironic) sticker that they were made in the USA. In other words, the intended targets of the tariffs became benefactors for American workers and consumers npr.orgcity-journal.org. Detroit’s executives might not have been celebrating, but the American workers on those Japanese company payrolls certainly were. Protectionism, 0 – Adaptability, 1.
The lesson from this chapter of history? If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em – or at least build a factory next door. Japanese automakers demonstrated that long-term thinking (invest in local production) could outmaneuver short-term trade barriers. They avoided the tariff costs and kept access to the lucrative U.S. market, while American communities reaped new jobs and investment. It was a brilliant end-run around the problem: rather than fight the tariff head-on, change the game being played.
Fast-forward to today, and the echoes of this strategy are everywhere. When new tariffs or trade restrictions loom, smart companies ask: How can we innovate around this? Maybe it’s by finding new supply bases, developing alternative products, or as Toyota did, by setting up shop on the other side of the tariff wall. History is pretty clear that those who think ahead get ahead, while those who cling to business-as-usual end up as case studies in what not to do.
It’s not just industrial giants that can learn from history – small businesses and cottage industries are getting in on the action too. Take the U.S. fabric and textile sector, a field that many had left for dead after decades of offshoring. For years, “Made in America” clothing was about as scarce as a unicorn in a Walmart. Global consumerism had sent apparel production racing to the lowest-cost corners of the earth, leading to $5 T-shirts and an endless churn of throwaway fashion. But lately, a countermovement has been threading its way back: independent brands and local producers reviving textile manufacturing on American soil, often powered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) business models and a good dose of anti-fast-fashion fervor.
Here’s the lay of the land: Doing manufacturing in the U.S. is expensive – labor costs, environmental regulations, you name it. Yet, a new wave of savvy upstarts is making it work by cutting out the middleman and selling straight to consumers online. By going DTC, these niche textile and apparel companies save on retailer markups and can invest more into quality production at home. Sure, they pay higher wages to American workers, but they also produce higher-quality goods and can command premium prices from customers who are sick of flimsy fast-fashion fastcompany.com. In short, they’re offsetting the traditional cost disadvantage of U.S. manufacturing by creating products that people will pay more for – and by keeping the full retail margin for themselves. Can a cottage industry hoodie compete with a $8 Shein hoodie on price? Nope. But on craftsmanship, longevity, and ethos? Absolutely, and there’s a segment of consumers willing to pony up for that difference.
Concrete examples of this trend are popping up across the country. In Pennsylvania, a century-old knitting mill that was on the brink of shutting down got a second life when it was bought by Buck Mason, a modern DTC menswear brand fastcompany.com. The new owners fired up the vintage sewing machines and rehired laid-off workers, turning Mohnton Knitting Mills into an engine for their own clothing line. Down in North Carolina, American Giant – a startup famed for its “greatest hoodie ever made” – purchased a failing apparel factory in 2018 and brought it back from bankruptcy; today that factory employs around 80–150 people and makes nearly half of American Giant’s products fastcompany.com. These are not isolated feel-good stories, but part of a larger renaissance. As one report notes, several DTC brands (from apparel labels to even a boutique fire pit maker) have been “breathing new life into dying American factories” by acquiring production facilities and running them efficiently for niche markets fastcompany.com. It’s a 21st-century twist on vertical integration, fueled by online retail and a dash of patriotic entrepreneurship.
Importantly, this textile revival isn’t happening in a vacuum – it’s riding alongside a cultural backlash against the excesses of fast fashion. Global consumerism has birthed giants like Shein, the Chinese ultra-fast-fashion retailer that’s taken the world (and TikTok) by storm, selling insanely cheap clothes delivered directly to your door. But Shein has also become the poster child for everything wrong with the fashion industry: environmental waste, allegations of labor abuses, and a “disposable” view of clothes. The backlash has been swift and loud. A growing number of shoppers – especially Gen Z and millennials – are voicing disgust at the idea of yet another haul of cheap tops destined for the landfill npr.org . In 2023, activists in the U.S. even launched a “Shut Down Shein” campaign to call out the company’s alleged use of forced labor and its ties to China’s controversial cotton supply business-humanrights.org. Across the pond in France, protesters kicked off a “Stop Shein” movement with similar grievances business-humanrights.org. And who could forget the PR fiasco when Shein flew influencers to tour its model factory in China – a stunt that backfired spectacularly as those influencers were accused of being shills for whitewashing the company’s image npr.org. The writing on the wall is clear: ultra-cheap, exploitative fashion is facing a reckoning in the court of public opinion.
All of this spells an opportunity for the little guys doing things differently. The renewed interest in quality over quantity – “buy less, buy better” as the mantra goes – plays right into the hands of the cottage-core textile entrepreneurs. Their marketing practically writes itself: locally made, ethically produced, built to last. It’s the anti-Shein value proposition. And while these small American manufacturers will never match the scale of a global behemoth, they don’t need to. By cultivating a loyal customer base that cares about where their clothes come from (and will put their money where their mouth is), they’ve carved out a profitable niche that defies the race-to-the-bottom logic of global consumerism. Think of it as tariff circumvention’s cool younger cousin: instead of chasing ever-cheaper labor abroad, chase the consumers who are fed up with that model and give them an alternative.
What do these stories – from Toyota’s 1980s U.S. factories to today’s indie textile renaissance – have in common? They’re all illustrations of businesses playing the long game in response to short-term pressures. Tariffs and viral consumer trends can upend markets overnight. But the firms that navigate these storms best are those that learn from the past and adapt creatively. Sometimes that means investing in a foreign land to dodge a trade barrier; other times it means reinventing a legacy industry on a smaller, more ethical scale to meet a changing consumer ethos.
The irony is rich: a tariff meant to protect American carmakers ends up empowering Japanese companies to hire American workers npr.org, or a global fast-fashion frenzy triggers a revival of local fashion production. History doesn’t repeat exactly, but it rhymes. The common thread is strategic foresight. Companies that reacted with fear or stubbornness often faded, while those that thought two steps ahead turned threats into opportunities.
As we look forward, businesses face a world where protectionist policies and consumer consciousness are both on the rise. The knee-jerk reaction to tariffs might be to retreat or lobby for exemptions; the lazy response to fast-fashion demand might be to cut corners even more. But the smarter move – as history’s teachable moments suggest – is to innovate around these challenges. Build closer to your customer. Align your practices with the values of the new generation of consumers (who, believe it or not, do care how and where products are made). In a marketplace that’s as global as it is fickle, resilience comes from thinking beyond the next quarter’s profits and positioning yourself for the next decade’s reality.
So, whether you’re a multinational juggling import duties or a startup trying to pry customers away from the Sheins of the world, remember the companies that have danced this dance before. Invest in the future, adapt to the present, and don’t be afraid to rewrite the rules. Today’s tariff is tomorrow’s footnote; today’s consumer craze is tomorrow’s nostalgia. But long-term vision – that never goes out of style.
It’s not just politicians who influence tariffs—it’s the businesses themselves. In fact, it was the voices of businesses that forced the government to pause some of the most aggressive tariffs. This shows just how much power the business community has in shaping economic policy and trade relationships. But with this power comes responsibility. As business leaders, we must think beyond the immediate pain and look to long-term, sustainable growth.
This is where businesses have a chance to break free from the chaos. By focusing on creating more equitable relationships with suppliers, whether domestically or abroad, businesses can avoid the instability that tariffs and trade wars cause. But this won’t happen if we continue to chase the quick fixes that have been so ingrained in our decision-making processes.
How I see it, tariffs aren’t just a political issue—they’re a business issue. And as business leaders, we have the power to take control. The choice is ours. Do we react in fear, focusing solely on short-term relief? Or do we step back, look at the bigger picture, and make decisions that will build a more sustainable, ethical, and profitable future for our businesses?
By learning from history, we can position ourselves for success in a global marketplace that demands fairness, sustainability, and integrity. Let’s not fall victim to the chaos; let’s lead from it.
Sources: Historical auto trade insights from NPR and City Journal; contemporary textile industry trends from Fast Company; fast-fashion and consumer backlash reports from NPR and Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
References: