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

[Puma]

Trump is kind of a known risk taker so the TACO thing really makes no sense.

Hi John G,

Even the Cs have told us in the past that Trump first and foremost is a businessman, who hates waste. Geopolitician Alfredo Jalife recently mentioned that the US is broke and that what Trump is doing is the only solution. One can only imagine the pressure that a businessman of his characteristics is under, but he cannot be a one-man band nor can he do it alone, it is a titanic task.

Big investors have no homeland, no loyalty and I am not talking about those who have their pension funds and savings. I am talking about people like George Soros who see their globalist interests harmed and put their media machine to work. The TACO moniker was a great strategy of theirs and it really struck a nerve with Trump.

When asked about this by a reporter at a White House press conference, Trump reacted angrily, calling the question "disgusting" and saying, "Don't ever say what you said. It's a disgusting question." He defended his approach as a negotiating strategy, stating that setting high tariffs initially allows him to negotiate better deals, and denied "chickening out."



If they wanted Trump to make a mistake they succeeded because once again the trade war with China was set in motion, one that he cannot win in the short term. (and possibly not in 4 years) It happened like that situation in Back to the Future when Biff calls Marty "chicken."



Being called "chicken" touches a sensitive nerve in Marty, as he perceives it as a challenge to his courage and self-esteem. His impulsive reaction to this word gets him into trouble, such as when he accepts races or dangerous challenges just to prove he's not a coward.

Towards the end of the trilogy, Marty learns to control this reaction, showing personal growth by ignoring provocations and avoiding a future accident that would have ruined his career as a musician.

Come to think of it, in this day and age, Trump more than an American Messiah, he is a reflection of society, all strengths and weaknesses. If you have read, Joni Patry's predictions for example, she mentions that there are a lot of people angry and fighting with each other. Laura's conversation with Grok mentions that social media is pitting us against each other in order to maximize the 4D STS feed.

Now he has been forced to make another decision he may not have foreseen. We are left to observe what happens next.

​

 

[irjO]

It's just a bit of humor on my part. I'm sorry if I caused you any feelings by being politically incorrect.

Didn’t cause me any feelings and did not come across as humor, I know the majority did not see it that way either. You tend to be a bit passive aggressive and an emotional reaction machine, like when in the Latam group we discussed “Día de la Raza” (Columbus Day) and you started a tantrum.

If we are pointing out something to you, it’s about your programs, not your core self. The way you answer others messages makes you look immature and as if everyone’s opinion is nonsense.

irjO this sounds more like a cult than a reality to me, forgive me for not sharing the ideas. And yes, I have also mentioned on other occasions that Trump is being manipulated or as Lavrov said is not being fully briefed.

You are missing totally the point about our perspectives/view of Trump, did we have higher hopes when it comes to him at first? Maybe. But we also known that, Trump tends to be a clown and unfortunately is the best that the US can possibly have for a president. Also Narcissist? Sure, egocentric? That too, but he does wants to make things better, and he knows that war and killing is a terrible thing, that alone makes him way better than the majority of politicians. Also the fact the he points our very straightforward the fake media agenda.

And I think a really good example to give you about trying to see his actions in a more “balanced” way is myself, I’m an immigrant in the US and I can be affected by his immigration policies really bad, but I know the reasoning behind his measures, that the immigration bills could have been worked better? Of course, but at the end of the day, I understand what he tries to accomplish and the intention behind it, which is to make the US safer.

You have a really black and white way of thinking and is really obvious when you want to impose your views in a subtle way.
Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this “conversation”. I would just suggest to hold back for a period of time on posting things related to Trump but up to you.

 

[genero81]

What's wrong with Puma's posting about Trump? We don't all have to have the same opinion. It seems to me that the interplay between those who lean in favor of whatever Trump is doing, and those who lean towards being critical of Trump is a good thing, no?

Keep in mind that we're all dealing with this through a lot of speculation. We're not in Trump's head. We're not privy to what's happening behind the scenes. Opposing sides of speculation might broaden our perspectives.

Unless other moderators have a different take, I say carry on Puma.

 

[Puma]

Unless other moderators have a different take, I say carry on Puma.

Yes, I agree, thank you. We got to the point where it went off topic for this thread, I for one, abide by the decision of the moderators, I just ask that review of the posts I have made be in an objective manner.

 

[irjO]

What's wrong with Puma's posting about Trump? We don't all have to have the same opinion. It seems to me that the interplay between those who lean in favor of whatever Trump is doing, and those who lean towards being critical of Trump is a good thing, no?

It is a good thing, but not the core point, is not that his opinion are always “against” Trump, which they are not, as well as other’s opinions are not always in favor of Trump, is the emotional reaction, specially when someone comments on his post or looking to clarify or get a clarification on one of his takes/views. Puma could have answered this 10 post back like he did to me after my post and that’s it, but ignored or was sarcastic about it.

The suggestion to hold back wasn’t because his views are “wrong and ours were correct”, but actually when we stop engaging on a subject for a short period of time, our minds might alleviate our thinking in a way that can makes us see a little bit why others asked this or that, like it’s written in the book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. If after that short time one’s maintains the same view/position then that’s fine, but at least the reaction could be different when others interact with you. Since this is not the first thread this happened with Puma if I recall correctly. But like I mentioned, is up to him, if he takes a bit of time, that’s fine, if he doesn’t, that’s fine too.

 

[iamthatis]

I’m actually really surprised the way Puma ignore the comments towards him, laugh at the observation of others and carry on with his views on Trump.

The reason why he has a distorted view of Trump is because he has a distorted view of himself. Same is true for all of us, with all our distortions. From Collingwood:

MAN, who desires to know everything, desires to know himself. Nor is he only one (even if, to himself, perhaps the most interesting) among the things he desires to know. Without some knowledge of himself, his knowledge of other things is imperfect: for to know something without knowing that one knows it is only a half-knowing, and to know that one knows is to know oneself. Self-knowledge is desirable and important to man, not only for its own sake, but as a condition without which no other knowledge can be critically justified and securely based.

So yeah, his childish responses are pretty normal. But I agree that it is somewhat surprising that someone so involved in this forum would be willing to accept low-FRV normalcy, and even defend it, not question it.

 

[Puma]

We were drinking calmly, we were having a good time.

The European Union expressed strong rejection of the US announcement to increase aluminum tariffs from 25% to 50%. According to a European Commission spokesperson, quoted by Reuters, the EU "deeply regrets" this decision, arguing that it "adds uncertainty to the global economy and increases costs for consumers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic." In addition, it was noted that this tariff increase "undermines ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated solution" in the transatlantic trade talks. The EU said it was prepared to impose countermeasures if necessary in response to this new tariff, which came into force on June 4, 2025.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1928783856661836137

Will the trade war come to arms ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1928626675912184055

​

 

[mabar]

They insist on breaking BRICS but also on breaking Trump and de facto all Americans. The US cannot stop short depending on China today, That is why US-China reached an agreement after the back-and-forth tariffs from last April.

Wouldn't the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine fall apart? Perhaps is their purpose as well.

Bunch of idiots, that's all I can say for now.

The US plans to blackmail the entire world with tariffs if they trade with RussiaLindsey Graham and Blumenthal announced 500% tariff on everyone who is going to buy oil from RussiaEspecially China and India.Multiple US media outlets have already reported that the Senate has a majority for this plan and that Trump cannot stop it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1928779529813897427

 

[daddycat]

irjO this sounds more like a cult than a reality to me

Who you calling a cult?

What's wrong with Puma's posting about Trump?

He called for Trump's assassination 8647.

 

[Miracle]

They insist on breaking BRICS but also on breaking Trump and de facto all Americans. The US cannot stop short depending on China today, That is why US-China reached an agreement after the back-and-forth tariffs from last April.

Wouldn't the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine fall apart? Perhaps is their purpose as well.

Bunch of idiots, that's all I can say for now.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1928779529813897427

Pretty crazy that the Graham and Blumenthal would unilaterally make a press statement declaring an outrageous "500% tariff on all of [Chinese] products coming into the United States" if "[China] continues to fund Putin's war machine" which is supported by, "82 Senators" without informing Trump prior:

US President Donald Trump said he has not yet reviewed the bill proposed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal regarding sanctions against Russia.

In response to a reporter's question about whether he supports the Graham-Blumenthal bill, Trump said, "I don't know. I'll have to see it. We'll look at it."

The US President indicated that he needs to review the bill before taking any position, saying, "I don't know yet if I'll support it. I'll have to see it first."

So we have 82 senators willing to cripple Trump's diplomatic progress in reconciling normal relations with Russia? This is obviously a publicity stunt as surely Graham & Blumenthal are aware the the war has long been lost, Trump can veto the bill, and even if it passes it won't have the intended affect of destroying the Russian economy as we've seen with all the past waves of sanctions.

The most likely explanation for this publicity stunt is to try and secure the legislative branch as the arbiter of regulating international commerce instead of the executive branch while Trump's tariff's are in the court of appeals.

 

[A Jay]

If you want to make yourself visible to even get your pass to the private forum possibly confrontation is not a good idea. You are in the forum for 18 years. So bye, I am well within my rights to ignore you (there is even an ignore button on the forum, use it)​

Seeing as Bobo08 is already on the private board, I'm guessing this was intended for axj.

With that cleared up, I would have liked to have seen you consider what was actually in Bobo08's post.

What's wrong with Puma's posting about Trump? We don't all have to have the same opinion. It seems to me that the interplay between those who lean in favor of whatever Trump is doing, and those who lean towards being critical of Trump is a good thing, no?

Keep in mind that we're all dealing with this through a lot of speculation. We're not in Trump's head. We're not privy to what's happening behind the scenes. Opposing sides of speculation might broaden our perspectives.

Unless other moderators have a different take, I say carry on Puma.

The difference, as I see it, is that Puma seems to be indulging in Trump smearing for its own sake and not because he's actually trying to figure things out, keep track of what's happening, critiquing policies, and so on. In other words, I'm not seeing higher order thinking.

I posted before about how Puma's Trump related posts changed a while back and there was no change after pointing it out to him.

He's also been prickly with any non-mods who point this out to him and he's ignored suggestions to start a thread to get to the bottom of it.

The issue isn't criticizing Trump. The issue is that this seems personal for him and it's influencing his posts.

Yes, I agree, thank you. We got to the point where it went off topic for this thread, I for one, abide by the decision of the moderators, I just ask that review of the posts I have made be in an objective manner.

We have quite a number of people who have pointed out to you that there's something off regarding your Trump posts.

However, it's up to you whether or not you take advantage of the opportunity to explore why that could be and what could be going on.

It's just that if you don't and you carry on as you have, whatever's going on may cause more problems down the road.

 

[Puma]

It's just that if you don't and you carry on as you have, whatever's going on may cause more problems down the road.

As I have said, I am at the disposal of the moderators and if necessary, to follow any indication such as stop posting here or in other threads indicated for the good of the community.

In fact, as a token of my good faith, I am ending my participation in this thread and look forward to the comments of the moderator(s) should there be any now or in my future participations.

Thank you.

​

 

[zak]

What Trump is doing now has some similarities to Nixon's shock move in 1971.

The ‘Nixon shock’ might help us make sense of the Trump one​

The author is vice-chair at Oliver Wyman and former global head of banks and diversified financials research at Morgan Stanley

What will the longer-term financial consequences of Trump’s tariffs be? We may be in a 90-day pause but the question remains urgent. A look back at Richard Nixon’s experience in 1971 could help investors understand what might happen next.

Certainly recent events share some hallmarks with the “Nixon shock”, which occurred when the then president took the dollar off the gold standard, implemented a 10 per cent import tariff and introduced temporary price controls. This de-anchoring of the regime resulted in a period of global economic instability and uncertainty. It not only caused a loss in business confidence but led to stagflation. Nixon’s price and wage controls spectacularly backfired, triggering product shortages and helping to fuel a wage-price spiral. The whole episode was a pivotal contributor to the huge inflation of the ’70s.

As with Trump’s tariffs, Nixon’s were introduced to cudgel countries into changing the terms of trade to help reduce the US trade deficit. His biggest concerns were Japan and Germany. “My philosophy, Mr President, is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first,” Treasury secretary John Connally had said to him.

In today’s hyperfinancialised world, we have already seen that bond markets can force the hands of politicians far more quickly. It took four months in 1971 before Nixon’s tariffs were removed via the Smithsonian agreement. But the shock had already done enough to catalyse extraordinary changes in finance, leading to the creation of new instruments to bet on the direction of interest rates and hedge currency risk, including FX futures and options.

The pain of stagflation in the banking system prompted a huge change in financial behaviour and financial regulation. Investors shifted asset allocation to gold and real assets to preserve value. Meanwhile corporates and depositors increasingly moved their activities from banks to bond markets. Bank lending as a share of total borrowing in the economy has been falling ever since. In short, modern finance was forged in the early 1970s.

There are parallels as well for countries outside the US currently worrying about tariffs. Back in 1971 there was also shoddy treatment for the US’s closest allies. Nixon hit Canada with tariffs despite its currency already floating. Like Prime Minister Mark Carney today, Canadians didn’t back down and eventually the tariffs were removed. It could have been even worse: Connally had also wanted the US to withdraw from a long-standing pact with Canada on cars and auto parts. But Paul Volcker fixed that, according to his memoirs, by cheekily encouraging a State Department official to tear off the last page of every press release which mentioned it.

Ultimately, the need to stabilise international relations with allies helped tip the balance away from the tariffs. Henry Kissinger, then the national security adviser, “grew concerned about the unsettling impact of a prolonged confrontation on allied relationships”.

Nixon also put huge pressure on the Fed for expansionary monetary policy to offset the shock. William Safire, Nixon’s speechwriter, recounts how the administration kept up a steady stream of anonymous leaks to pressure Fed chair Arthur Burns, including floating one proposal to expand the size of the Federal Reserve, so that Nixon could pack the committee with supportive new members.

At the end of it all, Nixon’s four-month tax may have helped facilitate dollar revaluation, but it fell short of the desired goals and had no discernible impact on imports. The move’s economic shockwaves, however, rippled through the decades. Even the creation of the euro stems from it. Might a digital euro or deeper European capital markets be next? It’s not yet clear but history suggests the fallout from this latest shock will be felt for years to come.

The ‘Nixon shock’ might help us make sense of the Trump one

At the time, it was a political victory for Nixon, but not an economic one.

 

[Bobo08]

As I have said, I am at the disposal of the moderators and if necessary, to follow any indication such as stop posting here or in other threads indicated for the good of the community.

In fact, as a token of my good faith, I am ending my participation in this thread and look forward to the comments of the moderator(s) should there be any now or in my future participations.

Thank you.

​

What about your thoughts on the feedback?

The last few posts of yours in this thread show how you are deferential to the moderators, prickly with non-mod members and contemptuous towards members who are not in the private board. What's up with that reactive, authoritarian follower style?

 

[Ruth]

Who you calling a cult?


He called for Trump's assassination 8647.

I believe that was James Comey, lawyer and former director of the FBI? His daughter is now (the prosecutor?) for the P Diddy case and also was involved in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

https://rumble.com/v6tgklt-tulsi-gabbard-stuns-host-with-plan-to-jail-james-comey-after-his-threat-to-.html