Trump's 'Liberation Day': US govt imposes tariffs to 'reset' global trade, 'MAGA', 'defeat' China - Will it work?

It is interesting to look at this tariff list story from an interpersonal level. The US regime could impose tariffs, say it's to revive its internal economy, and let other countries do whatever they want. The problem with the tariffs lists, is that there is a list, and it's called reciprocal. First of all the US presents itself as a victim of poor countries (poor America boohoo). Some idi.. people will cheer as "yeah, it's a revenge for taking advantage of the US", while it is US companies that went to these countries, exploited them, and caused unemployment in the US after a period of free money and free energy. Not very smart and not very manly. Have you been bullied by penguins?
And secondly these tariffs are not only for the self, but also against others. By comparison, other countries, like China, engage in bilateral negotiations: "here how you can profit, and here is how we profit". The US mentality appears to be "we win, you loose" as in a zero-sum game.
Also, announcing tariffs on Myanmar a few days after a devastating earthquake is obscene. Servility to Israel doesn't help either.
 
An analyse of the situation explaining the world wild commerce deal witch was in place and so what can happen now.
Summary by ChatGPT 4o (might by easier to just read the article though😁):

Main Argument:


Ricardo Hausmann warns that Donald Trump's tariff-driven trade strategy is misguided and dangerous. While Trump focuses on reducing the U.S. goods trade deficit, he neglects the much larger and more important advantages the U.S. holds in services, intellectual property, and foreign investment. This narrow focus may provoke retaliation that undermines America's real economic strengths.

Key Points & Supporting Arguments:


1. Historical Parallels and Strategic Hubris

  • Hausmann compares Trump's trade war posture to Europe's naive enthusiasm at the start of WWI, referencing Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August.
  • Like past leaders overconfident in early victories, Trump seems certain that the U.S. will win a trade war due to its economic size and trade imbalance.
  • He ignores Field Marshal Moltke’s maxim: “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

2. Trump’s Focus on the Goods Trade Deficit

  • Trump highlights the $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit (2024) as proof that the U.S. is being treated unfairly.
  • His solution: impose tariffs on imports (especially from China, Canada, and Mexico) to pressure foreign companies to relocate production to the U.S.
  • He believes America's large domestic market gives it the upper hand in these disputes.

3. Misunderstanding of Economic Influence

  • Trade is not warfare—success in one area (like goods) doesn’t translate into dominance elsewhere.
  • Trump’s strategy ignores the U.S.'s huge advantages in services, intellectual property, and foreign investment.
  • This narrow focus opens the U.S. to economic retaliation targeting its real strengths.

4. America’s Hidden Strength: Services and IP

  • In 2023, the U.S. posted a $278 billion services trade surplus, particularly in finance, digital services, telecoms, and licensing IP.
  • Much of the U.S.'s economic activity abroad is done via foreign subsidiaries; profits from these totaled $632 billion in 2024.
  • Combined, these “invisible” income flows (services + investment income) amount to nearly $1 trillion, offsetting the goods trade deficit.

5. Vulnerability of U.S. Tech & IP-Based Businesses

  • U.S. companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, and others use innovation to extract global rents.
  • These firms can't pass costs to consumers if hit with IP-targeted retaliation—if they could charge more, they already would.
  • This makes them especially vulnerable to foreign policy backlash.

6. Foreign Investment as a Retaliation Target

  • Based on price/earnings ratios, U.S. foreign corporate assets are valued at $16.4 trillion.
  • Foreign companies operating in the U.S. earned just $347 billion in 2024.
  • This disparity makes U.S. overseas earnings a much juicier target for retaliation than American exports.

7. The TRIPS Agreement and Its Fragile Balance


  • The U.S.'s tech and IP dominance stems from post-WWII economic frameworks—especially TRIPS (1994), which enforces IP protections globally.
  • Developing countries accepted TRIPS, despite the costs, in exchange for access to rich-world markets.
  • But if the U.S. undermines its side of the deal (i.e., market access), why should others continue to honor theirs?
  • If TRIPS is challenged or abandoned, whole U.S. sectors—technology, pharma, entertainment—could suffer greatly.

Conclusion:

Trump’s tariff war misunderstands the structure of modern global trade. By focusing on the visible goods deficit and ignoring the massive invisible surplus in services and foreign investment, the U.S. risks provoking retaliation that hits where it’s actually strongest. This could unravel decades of strategic economic advantage built on trust, rules, and global cooperation, especially in the intellectual property regime. In trying to win a short-term political fight, Trump may be sacrificing long-term U.S. dominance.
 
Definitely agree that challenges are necessary, but I think that working less does not mean that there will be less challenges overall. Interpersonal relationships will still remain the main source of challenges. And it also seems that our Higher Self always brings the necessary amount of challenges into our lives.

As to "too much happiness rots the Soul", I don't think that is true. True happiness comes from building a strong conscious connection to one's soul or Higher Self. That does not "rot the soul", quite the opposite. You can also consider what life would be like in an STO world - certainly a lot more happiness there, but also various challenges.

Moravieff seems to be saying that it is a natural part of human evolution to become more or less free from the struggle of earning the daily bread. That it will be "the most important turning point in human history" and that new societal systems may become necessary.

Building the connection to the higher self is not the pursuit of happiness, but the pursuit of knowledge and truth. And that Work requires suffering to turn on latent DNA potential. Happiness may result, but is not the focus per se. Too much happiness, or a focus only on happiness, is what Gurdjieff called the disease of self-calming. It's a point that resonates through the ages, with Paul, with the Stoics, as well as more recently with psychologists like Dabrowski, Peterson, as well as the C's.

Like all things, balance is good IMO. I like the tree metaphor. As the 3D Soul reaches its branches up into the Light, it also reaches its roots down into the Darkness. Maybe there's a tipping point where it's all Light, but I know I sure haven't got there yet.
 
Building the connection to the higher self is not the pursuit of happiness, but the pursuit of knowledge and truth. And that Work requires suffering to turn on latent DNA potential. Happiness may result, but is not the focus per se. Too much happiness, or a focus only on happiness, is what Gurdjieff called the disease of self-calming. It's a point that resonates through the ages, with Paul, with the Stoics, as well as more recently with psychologists like Dabrowski, Peterson, as well as the C's.

Like all things, balance is good IMO. I like the tree metaphor. As the 3D Soul reaches its branches up into the Light, it also reaches its roots down into the Darkness. Maybe there's a tipping point where it's all Light, but I know I sure haven't got there yet.
The thing is that "too much happiness" seems to be impossible anyway. Trying to focus only on happiness while avoiding the necessary suffering does not work and results in even more suffering. Self-calming cannot give too much happiness or any happiness at all really.

True and lasting 'happiness' (love, peace, fulfillment, etc.) seems to be indeed a by-product of the Work. This builds the connection to all aspects of the Higher Self, including the higher emotional center and its 'higher order' of divine feelings.

I suppose that we need to distinguish between people who are in the process of building a magnetic center and those who are not at that point yet. For the latter, self-calming may indeed "work" to a larger degree.
 
I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove here. I live in Russia (and I see the real picture), but you don't.
We are comparing the current situation in Russia to other countries, so it is not just about Russia. Russian is in fact my first language and I know many people who recently moved from Russia and hear their reports of what it is like. These are people who are among the most critical since they made the choice to leave Russia. I also lived in several countries on different continents and can compare.

How well can you compare the situation in Russia to that of other countries? Quite a few Russians I know still have the idea that life in Western countries is what it used to be 20-30 years ago and measure life in Russia against that - unaware that by now life in Russia may in fact be better overall than in much of the West.

And what do we see in the current reality? Trump is "breaking" his own economy over his knee, fighting with the rest of the world.
Whether Trump is "breaking his own economy" is far from certain. We will have to wait and see how it turns out. The US used to rely basically only on tariffs for its income and there used to be no income taxes. That model seemed to work pretty well.
 
. It's a point that resonates through the ages, with Paul, with the Stoics, ...
Since there are many interpertations of those it surely doesn't apply everywhere, but in general Stoics seem to be against mindless pleasures, while conscious suffering is more of a concept taken from the Gurdjieff, Dabrowski, and Peterson. Controlling desires that are ephemeral but acknowledging contentment in the present or rejoicing in Joy seem more stoic to me. And isn't stoics' beloved Joy the same as happiness? Is happiness joy, pleasure, or both? And then what is joy? Can we only define joy in its absence?

A quote from Homer is apt: A man who has been through bitter experiences and traveled far enjoys even his sufferings after a time.

I'm reminded of the C's' recent quote that they want the least amount of suffering for people necessary. Wanting the least suffering is probably rooted in compassion, knowing others, a sort of happiness. But at the same time the likes of Gurdjieff or Peterson would emphasize the growth that comes from suffering, or knowing the world, which also leads to happiness. In 5D, maybe there's enough empathy to live through an experience distantly, though I find myself wondering if pure boredom results in the "fall" into physical existence.

In applying this to myself I often wonder if I asked for some sufferings out of boredom. The knowledge I've gained about people or about the world is now not something I could ever do without or else I could never "be happy," but if I read it in a book (and somehow believed it) I imagine I'd "feel better." At the same time, I wish I could still feel little sufferings instead of the big sufferings: like mindless jealousies, or whatever. Little sufferings might be enough of a motivation, and too much knowledge could theoretically lead to stagnation (as in "what could possibly be done now anyway?"). Secondly, why should larger sufferings matter, and shouldn't any suffering do? On the other hand, worrying about the petty sufferings may mean too much focus on trivialities, preventing any prospect of happiness.
 
It seemed like a normal day until Trump opened his mouth




China is not Vietnam

"If the U.S. disregards the interests of the two countries and the international community and insists on fighting a tariff war and a trade war, China will be with it to the end," foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on Tuesday, China's Observer Net reported.

Remember the TSYS

Screenshot_20250408-013724_X.jpg
And also rare earths


 
Jeffrey Sachs, apart from being one of the most sensible voices out there, is also a professor in Economy. In this video with The Duran, he gives the best explanation I've seen so far as to why Trump's tariffs war is such a bad idea:

AI summary
In a recent discussion, Professor Jeffrey Sachs elaborated on the implications of the ongoing tariff wars initiated by the Trump administration, emphasizing that these tariffs are unlikely to resolve trade deficits and may harm the U.S. economy. He argues that the root causes of trade imbalances are deeper than mere tariffs and that the current approach could lead to economic instability and geopolitical tensions.
In a recent live discussion featuring Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the complexities surrounding the ongoing tariff wars and their implications for global trade were explored. The conversation, hosted by Alexander Mercurus, delved into the motivations behind the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and the potential economic consequences.

The Context of Tariff Wars​

As the discussion began, Mercurus noted that Sachs was joining from New Delhi, India, where he was likely caught in traffic. The conversation quickly shifted to the topic of tariffs, particularly those affecting countries like China and Vietnam. Mercurus pointed out that Vietnam had attempted to negotiate zero tariffs on American goods, but the U.S. response indicated that such offers were insufficient due to non-tariff barriers that still existed.

Sachs emphasized that the current tariff policies are not merely tactical maneuvers but could signify a fundamental shift in the U.S. trade system. He expressed concern that these tariffs, if sustained, would not yield the desired economic outcomes for the United States.

Misguided Economic Policies​

Sachs articulated that the rationale behind the tariffs, which is often framed as a response to other countries "ripping off" the U.S., is fundamentally flawed. He explained that trade deficits are not necessarily indicative of unfair trade practices but rather reflect a country's spending habits.

Understanding Trade Deficits​

According to Sachs, a trade deficit occurs when a country spends more than it earns. This imbalance can arise from various factors, including government spending and investment patterns, rather than the trade policies of other nations. He noted that the U.S. has been running chronic budget deficits, which contribute to its trade deficits.

Sachs criticized the simplistic view that imposing tariffs would rectify these imbalances, arguing that such measures ignore the broader economic dynamics at play. He stated, "A current account deficit means that a country is spending more than it is earning," and that tariffs would not address the underlying issues.

The Economic Consequences of Tariffs​

Sachs warned that the imposition of tariffs could lead to several adverse effects:

  • Retaliation from Other Countries: Countries affected by U.S. tariffs, particularly China, are likely to retaliate, which could further diminish U.S. exports.
  • Increased Prices for Consumers: Tariffs on imported goods would raise prices for American consumers, potentially lowering living standards rather than improving them.
  • Disruption of Supply Chains: The U.S. economy relies on global supply chains, and tariffs could disrupt these networks, leading to inefficiencies and increased costs.
He argued that the tariffs would not only fail to reduce the trade deficit but could also lead to a recession in the U.S. economy, as higher prices and reduced exports take their toll.

The Geopolitical Landscape​

The conversation also touched on the geopolitical implications of the tariff wars. Sachs noted that the U.S. seems to be positioning itself against China, viewing its rise as a threat to American dominance. This perspective could lead to a more fragmented global economy, with countries forming economic blocs in response to U.S. policies.

Sachs referenced historical precedents, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which exacerbated the Great Depression by stifling international trade. He cautioned that the current trajectory could similarly destabilize the global economy.

Conclusion: A Call for Thoughtful Trade Policies​

In conclusion, Professor Sachs urged for a reevaluation of the current tariff policies, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of trade dynamics. He emphasized that trade should be viewed as mutually beneficial, where both sides can gain from economic exchanges. The ongoing tariff wars, he argued, risk not only economic harm but also the potential for increased geopolitical tensions.

As the discussion wrapped up, it became clear that the path forward requires careful consideration of the economic and political ramifications of trade policies. The insights shared by Sachs serve as a critical reminder of the complexities involved in international trade and the need for cooperative approaches rather than confrontational ones.

 
Interesting take on how tariff's (%) are calculated even though it was labeled as 'reciprocal'.
  • It is not calculated with reciprocal %'s. It is calculated based on trade deficit balancing aim. So even if one country has 10% traffic, tariff is as high as 34%. In this calculation, what US gets in the form of tourism and services are ignored.
  • Trump is using his real estate business model which works when the interest rates are low. But currently interest rates are high. He wants to create conditions to reduce interest rates.
  • approach may be painful initially , but may provide conditions doe his aim of bringing some manufacturing back, though uncertain.
Yeah, this tariffs regime is based on a lie - that they're "reciprocal," when in fact they're based on the US trade deficit with other countries/regions (and even then, ONLY on goods! The US, for example, has a trade SURPLUS with the EU wrt services...)

If we go with the average tariffs (before "Liberation Day") outlined in the above explainer posted by seek10, the US imposed on average 2.5% tariffs on most other countries, while they in turn imposed on average 7.5% tariffs on US goods, then yes, global trade appears to have been structurally unfair to the US.

But there's a whole other 'hidden' cost for every other country that Trump's "unfair" complaint overlooks: the "exorbitant privilege" of the US dollar being the world's "reserve currency." Every other country effectively subsidizes (or 'pays a tithe to') the US, and has done since at least the 1970s, because it costs the US govt little to borrow money, and ad infinitum, whereas everyone else must operate within budget constraints.

I'll be amazed if Trump's plan works. Remember, the USD MUST remain world reserve currency in the 'new tariffs regime', or the US is completely hosed!
 
Another plausible theory for Trump's trade tariffs:


Schasfoort pieces together comments (and articles/papers) by those advisors closest to Trump (Bessent & Miran).

The theory is that the current 'tariffs chaos' is a means of creating negotiating leverage with which to attract 'most-favored nations' into a 'new club' in which they agree to pegging their currency to the dollar in return for US military protection.

This, the US hopes, will ensure that the USD remains, de facto, global reserve currency. This end-goal would also formally define all participating countries as tribute-paying vassals of the US.

So, same dynamic as before under the 'neo-liberal order', just henceforth 'explicitly locked-in'. Or, "you're either with us, or you're with China!"
 
Another plausible theory for Trump's trade tariffs:


Schasfoort pieces together comments (and articles/papers) by those advisors closest to Trump (Bessent & Miran).

The theory is that the current 'tariffs chaos' is a means of creating negotiating leverage with which to attract 'most-favored nations' into a 'new club' in which they agree to pegging their currency to the dollar in return for US military protection.

This, the US hopes, will ensure that the USD remains, de facto, global reserve currency. This end-goal would also formally define all participating countries as tribute-paying vassals of the US.

So, same dynamic as before under the 'neo-liberal order', just henceforth 'explicitly locked-in'. Or, "you're either with us, or you're with China!"
I doubt that will work so well. Who wants to be locked into a system that has literally sanctioned anyone that disagrees with them, that is if they don't bomb them first? Only the weakest of weak and captured nations would sign up to such a Faustian bargain this time around. Good luck getting ANY of the BRICS nations, the ones that represent more of the real world economy, to go along with that. People might not like the Chi-coms, and I don't either, but I cannot recall the last country they bombed to smithereens or sanctioned into oblivion. China is much more responsible in its international relations than the US the last 30 or so years. They are probably doing some of the shady economic stuff the US was doing (see Confessions of an Economic Hitman, get a nation indebted to them, and then they are screwed) in terms of the belt and road initiative, but the US does that, plus bombs, plus stealing your money. Not to mention acting like children when it comes to foreign affairs (only to be exceeded by the Europeans). And it is much easier for a nation like China to replace the US with INTERNAL CONSUMPTION (raise wages, etc.) than for the US to literally rebuild all the factories it has willingly offshored for decades. That is why the US would have been smart to do an orderly change in the trade policy, rather than the shock and awe tactics, that is unless Trump was planning to go to LITERAL WAR with China very shortly, which increasingly looks like the end game.
 
Jeffrey Sachs, apart from being one of the most sensible voices out there, is also a professor in Economy. In this video with The Duran, he gives the best explanation I've seen so far as to why Trump's tariffs war is such a bad idea:
I think what Sachs is missing is that the tariffs are merely a negotiation ploy. It's not meant to be the best plan. It's meant to bring other countries to the table. See: South Korea and Japan sending a trade team to the White House

 
I think what Sachs is missing is that the tariffs are merely a negotiation ploy. It's not meant to be the best plan. It's meant to bring other countries to the table. See: South Korea and Japan sending a trade team to the White House
I am curious as to who will end up not meeting at the WH with Trump over the tariffs, it's like Trump is pulling a global Art of the Deal.

I did run into an interesting article from Global Times that I felt was worth sharing here, mostly to see China's stance over this whole thing. Trump might be negotiating, but there's always the risk of someone calling his bluff.

In recent days, the fallout from the US so-called "reciprocal tariff" policy has continued to intensify: The global financial market has fluctuated, panic buying and hoarding have taken hold among American consumers, and the international community has voiced strong condemnation. All of this once again underscores the unpopularity of unilateralism and protectionism. On April 5, China's government issued its position on opposing the US abuse of tariffs, stating, "Economic bullying that shifts risks onto others will ultimately backfire," and "the world will not, and should not, return to mutual isolation or fragmentation." These are not only righteous calls for fairness over hegemony, but also powerful statements in line with the tide of the times and the direction of global development.

Economic globalization is an inevitable path for human progress, and open cooperation is an irreversible trend of history. Today's web of trade arrangements around the globe is not dictated by any single country; rather, it is a natural outcome of developing productive forces and deepening interdependence among nations.

Trade serves as a key engine of economic growth and represents the most fundamental form of globalization. The expansion of global trade has driven global economic growth and prosperity, while strengthening the interconnectedness of the world economy.

Since the founding of the World Trade Organization 30 years ago, global trade volume has grown from about $5 trillion in 1994 to $33 trillion in 2024 - more than a fivefold increase. Economic globalization has facilitated the flow of goods and capital, advanced technology and civilization, deepened exchanges among peoples, improved livelihoods, and brought about an unprecedented level of global prosperity.

As the world's largest economy, the US has long accounted for over 25 percent of global GDP, and the US dollar, as the dominant international reserve currency, constitutes around 60 percent of global foreign exchange reserves. With these advantages, the US has reaped enormous benefits from economic globalization and the dollar-based hegemonic system, making it undeniably the biggest beneficiary of free trade and the current international economic order. Yet in recent years, the US has refused to acknowledge the gains it has made from free trade, instead portraying itself as a victim of an unfair global trading system. It no longer promotes economic globalization; on the contrary, it has increasingly become a disruptor of it.

As some scholars have pointed out, the reasons can be boiled down to three main points: first, to use the trade war as a threat to gain greater benefits; second, to shift the focus away from domestic problems; and third, to maintain its status as an economic hegemon while containing the development of other countries.

Despite Washington's meticulous calculations, its actions run counter to both historical lessons and the tide of the times. In the 1930s, the US also imposed tariffs of over 50 percent on nearly 2,000 categories of imported foreign goods under the banner of "protecting American industries." But the result was quite the opposite: Not only did the US fall into the Great Depression, it also brought great disaster to the world.

In 2018, under the slogan of "bringing manufacturing back," the US imposed tariffs on approximately $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. This later proved to be "the most expensive policy experiment of the 21st century." The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that American consumers pay about $57 billion more each year due to tariffs, resulting in a significant increase in the cost of living. It can be said that the US government, when facing difficulties, frequently resorts to protectionism in an attempt to solve internal problems through external means - but such efforts are always wishful thinking that harms both others and itself.

The US currently accounts for only 13 percent of global goods imports, a significant drop from nearly 20 percent two decades ago. This means that it is even more difficult for the US to reverse economic globalization on its own. A thought experiment by Simon Evenett, professor at the IMD Business School, shows that if the US cut off all goods imports, 70 of its trading partners would fully make up their lost sales to the US within one year, and 115 would do so within five years. The UK's Financial Times even bluntly stated that the importance of the US to global trade can be overstated. If the US positions itself against the majority of countries that uphold free trade and maintain a multilateral trading system, the ultimate outcome will not be "economic de-globalization," but rather the "de-Americanization of the world."

In recent years, economic globalization has faced some "backward currents," but the forward momentum cannot be stopped by anyone. In the face of the tide of protectionism, the forces that uphold and promote economic globalization are also accelerating their convergence. The deepening of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the advancement of the African Continental Free Trade Area, and the enlargement of the BRICS all indicate that the forces for and against economic globalization are in a tug-of-war, but the driving forces still outweigh the resistance. The common aspiration of countries around the world today is not to completely deny and discard globalization, but to call for a more universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization. In this context, it is neither possible nor in line with the historical trend to artificially sever the flows of capital, technology, products, industries, and people among countries, or to force the vast ocean of the world economy back into isolated small lakes and rivers.

The world economy has long been deeply interconnected and it is impossible to return to a fragmented, self-contained "Robinson Crusoe economy." Any attempt to block economic laws with high walls will ultimately be swept away by the tide of globalization.

In an era where the global economy is deeply interconnected, opportunities for development can only be nurtured by "tearing down walls" rather than "building walls," and through "handshakes" rather than "fists." Promoting the development of economic globalization in a more open, inclusive, universally beneficial, and balanced direction is a shared responsibility of the international community.
 
Back
Top Bottom