DailyBriefs.info - Trumps Tariffs

DailyBriefs.info MP3 PODCAST MP3 OF TRADE WAR FALLING APART
Review of Topic: Trumps Tariffs TRANSCRIPT OF TRADE WAR FALLING APART
Trump's Trade Claims: A Brutal Economic Takedown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6y2oUC4ROg&t=671s

1 source

This audio excerpt features economists Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson critically analyzing the Trump administration's trade strategies, particularly its imposition of tariffs on China. Hudson argues that Trump's idea of a "balanced economy" misunderstands China's state-driven economic success, which mirrors historical industrialization models. He suggests China is prepared to counter U.S. tariffs by limiting exports of crucial materials, potentially disrupting American industries. Wolff concurs, labeling the U.S. approach as "desperation economics" lacking a coherent industrial policy and driven by a desire to maintain tax cuts for the wealthy. Both economists express skepticism about the long-term effectiveness and potential negative consequences of these trade policies, highlighting the risk of economic stagnation and international resentment. They suggest Trump's actions stem from a flawed understanding of economic history and a prioritization of his donor class's interests.

Hudson states that Trump's idea of a "balanced economy" seems to imply minimal government intervention and ideally no income tax, while China views its economy as a mixed public-private system with active government involvement, similar to historical industrializing nations.
China's strategy, according to Hudson, is a "rope a dope" approach, involving potentially halting exports of critical materials and requiring licenses for their acquisition. This gives China leverage as the U.S. economy relies on these imports for production.
Wolff emphasizes China's transformation from one of the poorest nations to a global economic powerhouse and highlights their becoming the manufacturing center of the world, along with their advanced infrastructure like bullet trains.
Wolff argues that the U.S. has been running a trade imbalance since the 1970s, funded by exporting dollars that return as debt, leading to a precarious financial situation and a declining American empire.
Wolff suggests that Trump's tariffs are seen globally as a sign of desperation and have given other world leaders an opportunity to blame their own economic problems on Trump, fostering international hostility towards the U.S.
Hudson contends that Trump's primary political aim behind the tariff policy is to generate enough revenue to justify and maintain the tax cuts enacted during his first administration, benefiting his wealthy donor base.
Hudson points out that while Trump admires the era of high tariffs in the late 19th century, he overlooks the crucial role of government nurturing and regulation in fostering industrial growth during that period, which contrasts with his current approach.
Prior to World War I, customs revenue from tariffs was the dominant form of U.S. government income. Hudson suggests Trump sees tariffs as a way to return to this model and finance further income tax cuts for the wealthy.
Wolff believes the U.S. donor class lives in a "fantasy world," failing to recognize the weakening economic, political, and ideological position of the United States in the face of rising global powers like China.
Both Wolff and Hudson reference the recent collapse of Liz Truss's economic plan in Britain due to the bond market's refusal to absorb more debt. This illustrates the potential for the U.S. bond market to react negatively to increased deficits caused by tax cuts and trade imbalances.

1. Lack of a Coherent US Trade Strategy:

Both Wolff and Hudson express bewilderment at the Trump administration's stated trade strategy, echoing reports of confusion even within the Republican party.
Quote (Hudson): "Well, when Bessant said that China had an unbalanced economy, what it meant was that it was successful and him for his idea a balanced economy is one without any government." This highlights Hudson's view that the US definition of "unbalanced" reflects an ideological opposition to government intervention rather than an objective economic assessment.
Quote (Wolff quoting GOP Senator Ron Johnson): "He said he has no idea what is the the strategy." This underscores the perceived lack of clarity and direction in the US approach.

2. China's Strategic Response and Economic Strengths:

Hudson argues that China understands its position as a key provider of raw materials and is adopting a "rope a dope" strategy, willing to withstand US pressure and potentially retaliate by limiting exports of critical goods.
Quote (Hudson): "China has the ability to stop to just uh interrupt America's production relations and assembly lines uh and just stop things." This emphasizes China's leverage due to its central role in global supply chains.
Both economists point to China's successful economic development over the past decades, contrasting it with the US's current challenges.
Quote (Wolff): "Why in the world would you want to call that not what it is? What Michael says success? Of course it's success. They've become the manufacturing center of the world in that period of time." Wolff highlights the undeniable economic achievements of China.
They emphasize China's state-led development model, including public infrastructure and a financial system geared towards industrial growth, as key factors in its success, a model the US once followed.

3. Tariffs as a Flawed and Misunderstood Tool:

Hudson argues that simply imposing tariffs is not an industrial policy and will only make imports more expensive, including essential components for US industries.
Quote (Hudson): "Simply imposing tariffs isn't industrial policy. It merely makes it more expensive. for companies to import from their affiliates uh automobile parts from Canada and Mexico..." This illustrates the potentially harmful impact of tariffs on existing supply chains and US businesses.
Wolff posits that Trump's primary motivation for tariffs is to generate revenue to offset and further expand tax cuts for the wealthy, drawing a parallel to pre-income tax era US history but ignoring the government's active role in nurturing industry during that time.
Quote (Wolff): "The whole idea of uh introducing tariffs is he said the more tariff revenues we can raise, the more income taxes we can cut." This reveals Wolff's interpretation of Trump's underlying fiscal agenda.

4. The Declining US Economic Position:

Wolff emphasizes the long-term trade imbalances and the accumulation of debt as indicators of a weakening US economic empire.
Quote (Wolff): "If for the last 40, 50 years you have run a trade imbalance... and you've paid for it by massive export of dollars that come back as debt. You're deepening a level of debt that will one day lead people to hesitate to absorb more debt." This highlights the inherent vulnerabilities in the US economic model.
He draws a parallel to the recent British financial crisis under Liz Truss, where the bond market reacted negatively to increased borrowing, suggesting a similar risk for the US.
Quote (Wolff): "They're in trouble here and the imposition of tariffs... This is desperation economics." Wolff characterizes the tariff policy as a sign of weakness rather than strength.

5. Misunderstanding of Historical US Industrialization:

Hudson and Wolff both point out the irony that Trump admires the late 19th century (the Gilded Age) while overlooking the crucial role of government intervention, infrastructure investment, and financial regulation that underpinned America's earlier industrial success.
Quote (Hudson): "The irony is that this model that has made China so successful is exactly the same model that the United States followed in the 19th century..." This underscores the historical amnesia regarding the role of the state in US economic development.
Wolff details how the Gilded Age was characterized by unregulated monopolies and wealth accumulation at the expense of the broader economy, leading to antitrust laws and the income tax, policies Trump seems to disregard.

6. Trump's Flexibility and the Impact of Uncertainty:

Trump's explanation for pausing some tariffs ("Sometimes you have to be able to go under the wall, around the wall, or over the wall. These guys know that better than anybody, right? You got to go around them. Sometimes you're not going to go through them. So, I I consider, you know, I I think in financial markets cuz they change. Look how much it changed today.") is characterized as a justification for inconsistent policy driven by market reactions.
Wolff highlights the damaging effects of this on-again, off-again approach, creating uncertainty for businesses and hindering investment decisions.
Quote (Wolff): "Nobody knows how to make an investment, where to make it. You won't know what the supply chains are because you don't know where the tariffs will or will not be or for how long they'll be or for what height. How do you make a decision? You don't. You wait." This illustrates the paralyzing effect of unpredictable trade policies.

7. Global Reaction and the Risk of Isolation:

Wolff argues that Trump's aggressive tariff policies are alienating allies and providing other world leaders with a convenient scapegoat for their own economic problems.
Quote (Wolff): "What he has given is a gift to every other leader of every other country who will now be able to point to the economic problems of his or her country and blame Mr. Trump." This suggests that Trump's actions could backfire on the US's global standing.
He posits that if other countries lower their prices to absorb the tariffs and maintain access to the US market, it will be a form of tribute paid to the US, fostering resentment and potentially leading to the US being perceived as a "rogue nation."

Conclusion:

Wolff and Hudson present a critical and pessimistic outlook on the Trump administration's trade policies towards China. They argue that these policies are based on flawed understandings of economics and history, driven by a desire for tax cuts for the wealthy rather than a genuine strategy for industrial revival. They foresee potential negative consequences for the US economy, including disrupted supply chains, increased costs for consumers and businesses, and a weakening of its global standing. Furthermore, they highlight China's strategic resilience and the vulnerabilities of the heavily indebted US economy in the face of this trade conflict.

Glossary of Key Terms

Industrial Policy: Government strategies and interventions aimed at supporting and shaping the growth and competitiveness of the domestic industrial sector.
Mercantilism: An economic theory prevalent in the 16th-18th centuries emphasizing national wealth through a positive balance of trade, often involving government intervention and protectionist measures.
Mixed Economy: An economic system that combines elements of both capitalism (private ownership and free markets) and socialism (government intervention and public ownership).
Public Infrastructure: Essential facilities and systems owned and operated by the government or public entities, such as transportation networks (railroads, roads), communication systems, and utilities (electricity, water).
Financialization: A process where financial markets, institutions, and motives gain increasing influence over economic policy and outcomes, often at the expense of industrial production.
Trade Imbalance: A situation where a country's value of imports exceeds or falls below the value of its exports over a specific period.
Tariffs: Taxes imposed by a government on imported goods, often used to protect domestic industries or generate revenue.
Industrial Takeoff: A rapid and sustained period of industrial growth that transforms a country's economy.
Donor Class: A group of wealthy individuals and organizations that contribute significantly to political campaigns and often exert influence on policy decisions.
Bond Market: A financial market where debt instruments (bonds) are bought and sold, reflecting investor confidence in the borrower's ability to repay.
Stagflation: An economic condition characterized by slow economic growth (stagnation) combined with high inflation.
Progressive Taxation: A tax system where higher-income earners pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes compared to lower-income earners.
Customs Revenue: Income generated by the government from taxes imposed on imported or exported goods.
Robber Barons: A negative term used to describe wealthy and powerful businessmen in the late 19th century who were often accused of using exploitative practices to amass their fortunes.
Antitrust Law: Legislation designed to prevent monopolies and promote competition in the marketplace (e.g., the Sherman Antitrust Act).
Gilded Age: A period in late 19th-century American history characterized by rapid economic growth and industrialization, but also significant social problems and inequalities.
Fiscal Deficit: The amount by which a government's expenditures exceed its revenues in a given period.

The Trump administration's trade strategy with China is unclear. Even GOP Senator Ron Johnson reportedly has no idea what the strategy is1 . This raises questions about the coherence and direction of the US approach to the economic conflict1 .

Trump's definition of a "balanced economy" is unconventional. According to Michael Hudson, for Trump, a balanced economy ideally means one without any government and without income tax1 . This perspective contrasts with China's view of a mixed public-private economy1 .

China views its economy as a mixed public-private system. China believes the government should play the same active role it did in the United States' industrial takeoff in the 19th century, as well as in Germany's and earlier British mercantilism1 . This model emphasizes government involvement in the economy1 .

China is a crucial global provider of raw materials. The sources indicate that China already is the central provider and refiner of many raw materials that the West needs1 . This gives China significant leverage in international trade1 .

China has stated it will not be bullied in trade negotiations. China's foreign minister has asserted that they are "not going to be bullied" and will not negotiate when someone threatens to harm them with tariffs1 . This signals a firm stance against unilateral pressure from the US1 .

China's retaliatory strategy involves halting critical exports to the US. If the US raises tariffs, China's potential response is to stop its exports of critical materials1 . This could severely disrupt American industry1 .

American industry relies on imports from China for essential goods. Without imports from China, American industry could face shortages of parts, pharmaceuticals, various chemicals, and raw materials, potentially leading to production halts1 . This highlights the interconnectedness of the two economies1 .

China can control the flow of critical materials through licensing. China has the ability to require licenses for the critical materials it produces1 . This control could be used to interrupt America's production relations and assembly lines1 .

Chinese policymakers believe the US is engaging in "economic suicide." Their view is not that China will lose in the conflict, but that the United States is committing economic suicide1 . This perspective suggests a lack of confidence in the US strategy1 .

10.

Simply imposing tariffs does not constitute an industrial policy. Michael Hudson argues that merely making imports more expensive for companies is not the same as having a strategic industrial policy1 . This critique suggests a fundamental flaw in the US approach1 .

11.

US tariffs can negatively impact trade with allies. Tariffs can make it more expensive for companies to import from affiliates in countries like Canada and Mexico1 . This demonstrates the broad impact of tariff policies beyond China1 .

12.

China's economic success is linked to its public ownership of key infrastructure. China has kept public infrastructure in the public domain and has not privatized it1 . This is seen as a key difference from Western countries like the US1 .

13.

China's financial system is designed to support industrial growth. Unlike the US, China doesn't have a domestic financial class that primarily profits from speculation and buying out companies to de-industrialize1 . Instead, finance in China is integrated with industrial development1 .

14.

China's economic model historically prioritized raising wages and subsidizing infrastructure. The aim in China has been to raise wages to increase productivity and to provide essential infrastructure at cost or subsidized rates1 . This reduces the burden on individual workers and industrial companies1 .

15.

Trump fails to recognize the reasons behind China's economic development. He simply observes that China is developing while America isn't and views this as a rivalry that needs to be stopped1 . He doesn't consider adopting China's successful model1 .

16.

China's current economic model mirrors the historical development of the US and Germany. The model that has made China successful is the same one that the United States followed in the 19th century for its industrial takeoff, as did Germany1 . This highlights a historical precedent for China's approach1 .

17.

Industrialization often involves a mixed economy and directed finance. The logic of industrialization involves a mixed economy where the banking system is used to finance industrial development, not just to create monopolies1 . This contrasts with the speculative tendencies in some Western economies1 .

18.

Trump lacks a recognized industrial policy to support his tariffs. Without an underlying industrial policy, the imposition of tariffs may not achieve its intended strategic goals1 . This absence is seen as a critical weakness1 .

19.

China is strategically assessing the trade relationship and who is more dependent. Chinese policymakers are analyzing who trades what and who needs what in this economic conflict1 . This suggests a calculated and informed response to US actions1 .

20.

Richard Wolff finds the US Treasury Secretary's statements about China embarrassing. He expresses being "beyond words almost" at what comes out of the Treasury Secretary's mouth2 . This reflects a strong disagreement with the administration's rhetoric2 .

21.

China has achieved remarkable economic growth in a short period. Seventy years ago, China was among the poorest countries, but over the last 75 years, it has become an economic powerhouse2 . This transformation is a significant global development2 .

22.

China has become the manufacturing center of the world. In the same period of dramatic growth, China has established itself as the manufacturing center of the world2 . This dominance in manufacturing gives it considerable economic influence2 .

23.

China's infrastructure development, such as bullet trains, surpasses the US. China has a complex network of super-fast bullet trains connecting the country, while the US has limited comparable infrastructure2 . This highlights a difference in national investment priorities2 .

24.

Historically, trains were a major breakthrough for US development. The trains in the 19th century unified the US and opened up the Midwest, transforming the country2 . This historical parallel underscores the importance of infrastructure2 .

25.

Earlier US administrations hoped that WTO membership would make China more like the US. There was an expectation that bringing China into the World Trade Organization would lead to a convergence of their economic systems2 . This expectation has not been fully realized2 .

26.

China has no inherent reason to emulate the US economic growth model. China doesn't necessarily want to have the slower economic growth experienced by the US2 . Their priorities and approach to development differ2 .

27.

The IMF projects higher economic growth for China than the US in 2024. According to the International Monetary Fund, US economic growth is projected at around 2.8%, while China's is around 5%2 . This suggests a continued divergence in growth rates2 .

28.

Concerns about the reliability of Chinese economic data are diminishing. While such concerns have persisted for decades, they are now "beginning to fade away" as the data appears to have been accurate2 . This lends more credibility to China's reported economic performance2 .

29.

The US government and capitalist system are facing significant challenges. Richard Wolff argues that it is the American government and empire that are declining, and the American capitalist system that has "dug itself into a hole"2 . This paints a pessimistic picture of the US economic situation2 .

30.

Persistent US trade imbalances have led to a massive accumulation of debt. Since the 1970s, the US has run a trade imbalance, paid for by the massive export of dollars that return as debt2 . This increasing debt level is a cause for concern2 .

31.

The bond market is showing signs of concern about US debt levels. The reaction in the bond market indicates a growing hesitation to absorb more US debt2 . This can have significant consequences for government borrowing costs2 .

32.

The experience of Liz Truss in Britain illustrates the risks of unsustainable debt. When she tried to push beyond acceptable levels of debt, the bond market reacted negatively, crippling the British economy2 . This serves as a cautionary tale for the US2 .

33.

Trump's imposition of tariffs constitutes an "economic war" on much of the world. By placing tariffs on almost every country, Trump has taken an unprecedented step in international trade relations2 . This has strained relationships with allies and adversaries alike2 .

34.

Trump's trade policies are characterized as "desperation economics." The nature of these policies, including their on-again, off-again implementation, suggests a sense of desperation rather than a calm, collected strategy2 . This raises questions about the stability and predictability of US trade policy2 .

35.

Uncertainty in US tariff policy hinders global investment decisions. The fluctuating nature of tariffs makes it difficult for businesses to make investment decisions and plan supply chains2 . This uncertainty can lead to economic stagnation2 .

36.

Stagflation, a combination of stagnation and inflation, is a potential outcome of Trump's policies. The holding back of investment due to uncertainty, coupled with inflation from tariffs, could lead to this damaging economic scenario2 . This is a significant economic risk associated with the policies2 .

37.

Trump's policies provide other world leaders with a scapegoat for their economic problems. By attacking the world for cheating, Trump inadvertently gives other leaders someone to blame for their own countries' economic issues2 . This could foster resentment towards the US2 .

38.

Trump may not fully understand the consequences of his trade actions. Richard Wolff suggests that Trump doesn't seem to grasp the full implications of his policies2 . This lack of understanding could lead to unintended negative outcomes2 .

39.

Trump's pauses and reversals of tariffs demonstrate policy flexibility or inconsistency. Donald Trump himself stated that "you have to have flexibility" in financial markets and trade3 . He used the analogy of going under, around, or over a wall to explain these changes3 .

40.

Trump's primary political aim is to cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy. Richard Wolff believes that the tariff issue is secondary to the Republican and Trump administration's goal of cutting taxes, especially progressive taxation4 . This suggests a domestic political motivation behind the trade policies4 .

41.

Historically, tariffs were a dominant source of US government revenue. From American independence until World War I, customs revenue from tariffs was the primary way the government financed itself4 . This historical context informs Trump's interest in tariffs4 .

42.

Trump believes tariffs can fund further tax cuts for the wealthiest. He seems to think that increased tariff revenues can allow the United States to maintain and even expand tax cuts for the highest income earners and personal wealth4 . This is a key driver of his tariff policy4 .

43.

The idea that tax cuts for the wealthy will automatically rebuild American industry is questioned. Richard Wolff finds it ironic that giving more wealth to financial managers, who have been involved in de-industrialization, is expected to spur industrial growth4 . This challenges the underlying logic of the tax-cut strategy4 .

44.

Historical US industrial success involved government nurturing in a mixed economy. Tariffs in the past were merely a precondition for the government actively shaping markets to support industry and minimize costs4 . This crucial element of government support seems to be missing in Trump's approach4 .

45.

Trump admires the "robber baron" era, overlooking its negative aspects. He is seen as admiring the super affluence of the robber baron class and seemingly identifies with it4 . However, he may not fully understand the lack of regulation and the societal costs of that era4 .

46.

The Gilded Age's wealth accumulation came at the expense of the broader economy due to unregulated monopolies. Great fortunes during that period were made possible by the failure to regulate monopolies and the failure to tax higher income4 . This historical context suggests that such wealth concentration can be detrimental4 .

47.

Antitrust laws and income tax were introduced to counter the problems of the Gilded Age. The Sherman Antitrust Law, Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting, and the introduction of income tax aimed to curb the excesses of the robber baron era4 . This demonstrates a historical shift away from the economic conditions Trump seems to admire4 .

48.

Trump's admiration of the late 19th century overlooks the policies that ultimately enriched America. He admires a period that preceded and was eventually countered by the very policies that fostered America's significant industrial growth in the 20th century4 . This highlights a potential misunderstanding of economic history4 .

49.

The US donor class operates under a delusion of continued US dominance. Richard Wolff characterizes the US donor class as living in a "fantasy world" where they believe the US can still act as it once did5 . This disconnect from reality could lead to flawed policy decisions5 .

50.

The US's global standing is weakening across multiple dimensions. The United States' economic, political, ideological, cultural, and military position is in decline5 . This weakening position limits the effectiveness of assertive policies like widespread tariffs5 .

51.

Military strategists believe time favors China in the current conflict. Experts suggest that in the ongoing US-China competition, time is on China's side, not the US's5 . This implies a need for a strategic shift in the US approach5 .

52.

A declining empire has fewer options than a rising one in international affairs. The US, as a potentially declining empire, does not possess the same range of options it had when it was ascendant5 . This limits the effectiveness of unilateral actions5 .

53.

The previous successful use of tariffs by the US occurred during a period of rising dominance. When the US last heavily relied on tariffs, it was a rising global power without a major economic competitor like China5 . The current context is significantly different5 .

54.

McKinley shifted away from tariffs due to opposition from the wealthy class. While initially supporting tariffs, President McKinley later turned against the policy due to difficulties arising from the very class Michael Hudson discusses5 . This shows historical precedent for wealthy interests influencing trade policy5 .

55.

A key driver of Trump's policies is to prevent the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts. The potential expiration of these tax cuts at the end of the year is a major concern for Trump and his donor class5 . This looming deadline influences current policy decisions5 .

56.

The expiration of the 2017 tax cuts would significantly increase taxes for the wealthy. Allowing the tax cuts to expire would result in an "enormous tax increase" for Trump's donor base5 . This financial implication motivates efforts to maintain or extend the cuts5 .

57.

Trump's promise of further tax cuts adds to concerns about the national deficit. Despite an already projected $2 trillion deficit, Trump has promised even more tax cuts5 . This raises serious questions about the sustainability of US fiscal policy5 .

58.

The risk of a bond market breakdown is increasing due to US debt levels. With a growing deficit and potential unwillingness of lenders to absorb more debt, the US faces an "unbelievable risk of a bond market breakdown"5 . This could have severe economic consequences5 .

59.

If foreign businesses absorb tariff costs, the US effectively extracts a "tribute." If companies abroad lower their prices to maintain access to the US market despite tariffs, they are essentially paying a tribute to the United States5 . However, this outcome is not guaranteed and faces resistance5 .

60.

Trump's trade policies risk making the US a "rogue nation" in global perception. Requiring other countries to pay a tribute through tariffs is likely to generate hostility and could lead to the US being viewed as a rogue nation by allies and enemies alike5 . This could damage international relationships and undermine US influence5 .

transcript

When it comes to the conflict right now, the economic conflict between the United States and China, many people are asking, what is the main strategy? What's your take, Michael? Let's start with you. What's your take on the way that the Trump administration is trying to talk about the strategy on their part? Even we've heard that CNN was reporting with talking with GOP Senator Ron Johnson. He said he has no idea what is the the strategy. What's taken that Michael?

Well, when Bessant said that China had an unbalanced economy, what it meant was that it was successful and him for his idea a balanced economy is one without any government. Uh and ideally for Trump without any income tax uh so uh but that's not how China looks at it. China believes it's a mixed public private economy uh with the government playing uh the same kind of active role that it played in the United States industrial takeoff in the 19th century and that it played in Germany's takeoff and earlier in British mercantalism. The uh China knows that it already is the central uh provider and refiner of many raw materials that the uh the west needs uh and that if it's if indeed It says, uh, we're not going to be bullied, which is what its foreign minister has said. Uh, we're not going to negotiate when somebody says, we're going to hurt you if you don't want what we say. We're we're going to raise tariffs and prevent you from trade. China's gone rope a dope. It says, "Okay, we're on with that. We're we stop uh you want to balance the trade more with this? Well, we're stopping uh our exports to you with critical materials. Uh we're we're stopped. We have a whole list of uh products that we're not going to uh send to you. These are the products that your industry needs without importing from China, American industry after a few months of depleting its reserves of uh parts, uh pharmaceuticals, uh various chemicals, uh raw materials. The American economy will have to stop producing and uh China has said well we're now going to need licenses to get uh the critical materials uh that we produce and uh the uh China has the ability to stop to just uh interrupt America's production relations and assembly lines uh and just stop things. So it says fine. Uh but I I talk often with uh Chinese policy makers and uh their their view is not that they will lose from the United States but they think the United States is committing economic suicide and mostly they think that America is going to end up the loser in this tariff war because uh it doesn't have an industrial policy. Simply imposing tariffs isn't industrial policy. It merely makes it more expensive. for companies to import from their affiliates uh automobile parts from Canada and Mexico as we've discussed in past program uh but al uh telephones and iPhones uh made by Amazon that are made there shoes uh from uh Vietnam that are imported by the big uh shoe shoe company uh screws all all sorts of things And uh China think sees above all that you know why why is America not recognizing why China has been so successful in developing what Americans call unbalanced and that is because China has kept uh public infrastructure in the public domain. It hasn't let it be been privatized and the most important uh public uh utility that it's kept that Neither America nor other western countries are kept in the public domain is money. China doesn't have a domestic financial class that makes money by speculating and buying out uh other companies uh buying out industry and de-industrializing or deciding let's uh find a cheaper way of doing this to lower uh the wage costs and make more profits. The whole aim of China is what used to be the aim of the United States, Germany and other countries. You raise wages in order to increase productivity and you provide basic infrastructure to uh provide basic needs, electricity, communications, you know, railroads uh at cost or at a subsidized rate so that the industrial companies don't have to pay their uh labor high enough wages to afford this. uh services that are monopolized in the United States. So uh China has made finance part of the industrial growth pattern and uh Trump uh and the United States is not and Trump doesn't realize why the China is developing but America isn't. He simply says they're developing and we're not. They're ahead of us and that makes them the rival. We have to stop them. He doesn't say why don't we're doing what China's doing. Why don't we follow their model that's made them so successful? And the irony is that this model that has made China so successful is exactly the same model that the United States followed in the 19th century uh to develop its industrial takeoff. It's a model that Germany followed in the 19th century to follow its takeoff. There's a certain logic of how do you indust industrialize and you industrialize with a mixed economy and you take uh the banking system and you use it to finance industrial development, not to create monopolies and uh create trusts and essentially try to make money at the expense of industry and the rest of the economy. There's no recognition of an industrial policy to back up industrial tariffs. So the result is that uh Uh Trump thinks that he'll win the war with China. And the Chinese say, "Well, we're looking at uh who's trading what and who needs what. Uh if he wants to do that, let's uh uh let him go right ahead and and uh do what he's doing and we'll see where the American economy stands in three months." Richard,

well, you know, just to piggyback off what Michael said, it's embarrassing. I I I I listen to that clip of our Treasury Secretary and it's embarrassing what comes out of that man's mouth. I mean I I'm beyond words almost in but but let me try. Why is it calling what the Chinese do somehow self-evident? They're technically smart people. He said that uh are aware that they shouldn't be doing this what they're doing. Uh let me remind everyone 70 years ago, China was among the poorest countries on this planet. It was a an exemplar of the depth of poverty. It was the place that Pearl Buck described in her book, The Good Earth, as almost beyond human suffering, the level of difficulty for their people. And over the last 75 years, and particularly over the last 30 or 35 years they have become one of the economic powerhouses of the modern world. Why in the world would you want to call that not what it is? What Michael says success? Of course it's success. They've become the manufacturing center of the world in that period of time. They are the I mean it it blows my mind. I recently saw a map of bullet trains in China. Their the the complex network of their super fast chain ch trains. The the only thing in the United States that comes close is the asella, the the train line that runs from Boston to Washington, which is only slightly faster than the convention. We basically have no bullet trains, and they've connected every place in China with bullet trains. By the way, Michael reminds us what was the big breakthrough of the 19th century. The trains which unified the country which opened up the Midwest to the rest of the world so it could become the the food producer, the grain producer, transforming everybody else. The Chinese are the success story of our time. You know, earlier government administrations in the United States wanted to take the Chinese uh change their regime, change their system. We justified bringing them into the World Trade Organization because that was going to make them like us. But there's no reason for them to be like us. They don't want to be have slow economic growth. In 2024, according to the IMF, US economic growth about 2.8% Chinese economic growth about 5%. And now I know there'll be the conventional nonsense about how you can't trust Chinese numbers. I have heard that story uninterrupted for 30 years. Now it's beginning to fade away since obviously it was nonsense all along and it's nonsense now. And by the way, those are IMF numbers, not numbers from China. So The the crucial reality here is that it's the American government that's in trouble. It's the American empire that's declining and it's the American capitalist system that has dug itself into a hole. If for the last 40, 50 years you have run a trade imbalance, which we basically have since the 1970s, and you've paid for it by massive export of dollars that come back as debt. You're deepening a level of debt that will one day lead people to hesitate to absorb more debt. That's what happened on Monday of this week. That's why the the bond market freaked them all out. Look, it it it destroyed a British government two or three prime ministers ago when she the woman Liz Truss when she tried to push beyond the level of debt that people will give London, crippling that economy still further. They're in trouble here and the imposition of tariffs. I mean, let me take another way of getting it. The president of the United States declared economic war on the whole rest of the world by a tariff on every country with a handful of exceptions. Nobody has ever done that before. What is this? This is not a sign of a calm, collected. This is desperation economics. And if you doubted it, the on again off again just shows you how desperate they are. Two days of something, Monday it has to be reversed because the bond market goes crazy. And then Wednesday it has to be reversed because our allies are going to hurt us back. The Chinese showing it. Even the Europeans, courageless as they so often nowadays are, are are thinking maybe to find some resource. But this is not the United States of the 20th century. This is the United States going down and flailing around with these gestural policies. On again, off again. Wow. This says, "And the whole world, one last point, the whole world is been given a gift. My old teacher Gayorg Vilhelm Friedri would have told me to expect this. Mr. Trump attacks the world for cheating and hopes it will get him by doing what he's doing. What he has given is a gift to every other leader of every other country who will now be able to point to the economic problems of his or her country and blame Mr. Trump. He has taught them and there'll be a grain of truth to it because the tariffs make a difference, hurt people in his country and they're going to yell in every country and their leaders are going to have to blame someone and Mr. Trump has shown them how to do that. blame him and there'll be more truth to their doing that than there was to Mr. Trump who initiated it. As Mr. Hegel would have said, his plan was to burden the rest of the world and make them pay for the problems he has. His result, they will blame him. The opposite is buried right in what he did. And he doesn't seem to understand any of that. And he keeps doing it 90 days were to wait. In other words, the uncertainty of the last few weeks will now be for the next 3 months. What May, June, July? Nobody knows how to make an investment, where to make it. You won't know what the supply chains are because you don't know where the tariffs will or will not be or for how long they'll be or for what height. How do you make a decision? You don't. You wait. And as Mr. Kanes told us, when the employer class waits, we all discover how capitalism makes the mass of us hostage to what the few of us do with their profits. If they don't roll them over and spend them, we're screwed. And suddenly, what are we looking at? Stagnation from the holding back, from the uncertainty, coupled with inflation from the tariffs. And we get that stagflation horror that comes back to haunt us. This is chaotic economic policy born of desperation whose likely outcome is going to be lot of trouble.

I don't think it's born of desperation at all. Trump is not desperate. Uh he uh is quite confident that he has a solution uh to the problem. Uh and I think if we take a step back. We realize that the uh this whole tariff issue isn't really about uh tariffs at all. Uh Trump and the Republicans have one political aim above all others and that's what behi is behind what he's doing. They want to cut taxes above all for the progressive taxation that falls mainly on the highest incomes uh and on personal wealth. Uh and it seems that at some point uh Trump must have asked some economists whether there was any alternative way for governments to finance themselves. He said, "How do we cut taxes? What can we do?" And somebody must have told him that uh actually from the time of American independence in 1776 all the way through the eve of World War I, by far the dominant form of government revenue was customs revenue from tariffs. So you can see the light bulb uh went off in Trump's brain. Tariffs don't fall on his own Bronteier class of real estate, financial and monopoly billionaires. Tariffs fall primarily on labor also on industry for imports of necessary raw materials and parts. But the whole idea of uh introducing tariffs is he said the more tariff revenues we can raise, the more income taxes we can cut. And right now before Congress uh uh uh the Republicans are and uh Trump are saying it's time to renew all of the uh vast tax cuts that Trump enacted in his first administration. That is what pushed the US u budget into deficit to begin with. Trump want Trump uh claims that tariffs can uh enable the United States to keep his tax cuts and uh replace uh the taxes. And he wants to cut taxes even more on the wealthiest classes. Uh as if somehow this is going to uh create an incentive for the wealthiest classes, the financial classes, the monopolists, the real estate people to uh rebuild American industry. It's as if giving more wealth to the financial managers, they're the ones who've de-industrialized the American economy, uh, giving them more money will simply repeat the industrial takeoff that was peaking in the 1890s under the president that Trump idealizes, uh, William McKenley. Well, what his narrative leaves out of account is that tariffs were merely the precondition for nurturing industry by the government in a mixed public private economy. Just like China has a a mixed uh public private economy, the government shaped markets in ways that were designed to minimize the cost of living and doing business. And that public nurturing is what gave uh the United States uh its competitive international advantage uh in industry. But given Trump's guiding economic aim to untax himself and his most influential uh political constituency. What appeals to him is simply the fact that government didn't have an income tax. It was able to finance itself through tariffs. He Why can't it do it uh uh today? Uh and it's as if all that uh enabled America's remarkable industrial takeoff to occur was cutting tariffs and uh uh also what appeals to Trump is the super affluence of a robber baron class in whose rank he can imagine he thinks of himself as joining the ranks of uh the robber barons and this self-indulgent class consciousness has a blind spot regarding how its own drives and predatory uh income and wealth destroy the economy uh around it. Uh it's as if the robber barons made money by organizing and driving industry. He Trump is unaware that the guilded age of the 1890s did not emerge as part of America's industrial strategy for success or that the great fortunes were made possible by the failure to regulate monopolies and the failure to uh tax rier income. If you read a book uh Gustavos Meyers history of the great American fortunes told the story of how railroad and real estate monopolists were carved out at the expense of the economy at large. And uh the the Democrats and Republicans alike in the 1990s said we've got to prevent this uh these Robert Bearing class. So they passed the Sherman antitrust law in 1890. Uh then came Teddy Roosevelt. the trustbuster uh stopping them and then came the finally an introduction of the American income tax in 1913. And what was so unique about this tax is that it only fell on 2% of the Americans. Uh you only the very rich had to file a tax return. And who were the very rich? They were the monopolists. Uh they were the real estate uh magnets. And most of all They were the the bankers uh and the financeers who were uh trying to turn the economy into a trust economy and who were trying to fight against government regulation against uh government uh policy to uh shape an industrial economy. And uh so what admire what Trump admires in the 1890s and the late 19th century is everything that ended this whole uh centurylong development of an industrial philosophy and policy to enrich America. So uh he's in he's admiring uh the dismantling of uh uh the dynamic of monopolization of financialization of uh uh anti-government legislation that is the opposite of what made America rich. That's what makes all of this so ironic.

Richard just Richard, here is what Donald Trump said about the why has he decided to to pause tariffs on some countries and we know that China is not one of them.

Like because you said that these tariffs would go in effect on Monday. You said no pause and today there is a pause. So um how can people Yeah, it's not a question of that. You have to have flexibility.

Uh I could say here's a wall and I'm going to go through that wall. I'm going to go through it no matter what and keep going and you can't go through the wall. Sometimes you have to be able to go under the wall, around the wall, or over the wall. These guys know that better than anybody, right? You got to go around them. Sometimes you're not going to go through them. So, I I consider, you know, I I think in financial markets cuz they change. Look how much it changed today. We went from uh, you know, pretty moderate today, but over the last few days it looked pretty glum to I guess they say it was the biggest day in financial history. That's a pretty big change. And I I think the word would be flexible. You have to be flexible like he's

Richard, how how do you characterize the US donor class as Michael was talking about and it its influence on policy?

Well, they seem to me to live in a fantasy world that they can do things that clearly they can't do anymore. It For me, the the overwhelmingly interesting thing is, as I keep saying, that they live in a world in which the United States's economic, political, ideological, cultural, and military position are weakening. That's why the military strategists keep saying time is on China's side, not ours in this conflict. But he doesn't want to face any of that. He's going to do this, that, and the other. the thing. No, he isn't. It isn't going to work for him. Uh, a declining empire does not have the options that a rising empire does. The last time we tried that with the tariffs was in a time of the rising US empire. That's gone. That's over. We didn't have a major competitor of the on the scale that the Chinese are today back then. And by the way, Mr. McKinley got the tariff through when he was a representative by the time he became a president, he turned against the policy of of tariffs because he got into too much difficulty from the very class that Michael is talking about. He Michael is right. There's no question that deep below all of the rest of this BS is a desire to avoid what for him is a catastrophe, which is the expiration of the tax cut that was passed in 2017. If that is allowed to expire and that legislation has a selfending uh I believe on the 31st of December of this year. So if he doesn't get that problem solved, his donor class will get an enormous tax increase comparable to the one day decrease that they got eight years ago. So he has to deal with that. And Michael is also right. He's promised more tax cuts on top of making sure that that other tax cut doesn't expire. And given that we're already projected to have almost a $2 trillion deficit, now he he's looking at unbelievable risks of a bond market breakdown because people won't lend to the United States anymore because it's too dangerous to do. It is what happened to Liz Truss in England not so long ago. She tried to come up with a budget that looked like, oh, we will borrow more. No, said the bond market. We're not going to lend you anymore. And and her proposal disappeared and she disappeared. She's gone out of political politics in out of politics in Britain. I I don't make predictions, but Mr. Trump, who has had in the long historical sweep of things a meteoric rise to the top, could very well now be on on the cusp of an equally meteoric rise down into oblivion because this doesn't work. There is an element here that people should understand to the degree that people and businesses around the world lower their prices in order to hold on to the American market despite the tariffs, then Mr. Trump will have achieve D at least a part of what he's after. He will have made the rest of the world pay a tribute to the United States because that's what it is. You want to do business here, you pay us. And the way you pay us is you lower the price of your exports here. That way the American people can keep buying them. The price will not go up and the revenues from the tariffs will be paid to the American government and it will be at the expense of the foreigners. They don't want it. They will be looking to every way to evade it. They will be likely to be successful. So the end result is that Mr. Trump will get a small portion of the fantasy he thinks is waiting there for him. That's for me what's going on. And again that only get it if the rest of the world pays tribute. And that is going to make every other leader receive the rage and the bitterness of all those other countries who are being required to pay that tribute. And that's a wellspring of hostility that makes the United States, not China, the world's rogue nation in everybody's mind. US allies and enemies alike. This is an extraordinarily risky ploy to undertake.

TRANSCRIPT OF Trump Trade War Is Falling Apart (You Won't Believe What China Did Now)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hanHNZYW0h8&t=319s

In a trade war between The US and China, China wins. China does not depend on The US market very much. It's about 12% of China's exports. China will do just fine. It's just dumb policy.

We are in one person rule in The United States. Our political system is in a state of collapse. Well, it's official. Donald Trump is accelerating the collapse of The US economy and dragging America's global standing down with it. Meanwhile, China's President is traveling around the world, securing new trade deals with the fastest growing economies and preparing his country for this intense next chapter in US China relations.

Tariffs are Trump's weapon of choice against China, but the on again, off again nature of these tariffs has created complete policy whiplash, confusing governments, rattling international markets, and making it nearly impossible to predict what's coming next. Even on this channel, it's been a challenge to bring you consistent updates as the goalposts are shifting every other day. But one thing hasn't changed. No matter how this ends, China is going to win this trade war. Unlike the chaos in Washington, Beijing is moving forward with discipline.

After being caught off guard during Trump's first administration, China has spent years planning 10 steps ahead. Every time The US makes a move, China hits back with a calculated counter strike, knowing exactly where to apply pressure. And now it's becoming painfully obvious. The Trump administration had no plan, no foresight, and not even an understanding of how tariffs actually work. Trump keeps repeating that tariffs will make other countries pay back The US, when in reality, the cost is being eaten by American businesses and passed straight to the American consumer.

In today's video, we're breaking down the current state of Trump's trade war, exposing the damage it's doing to the American economy and showing why. No matter what he does, China is walking away with the win. But make sure you stay tuned to the end as I'll show you a direct way that you can profit from this chaos. And it comes from one of the most vulnerable industries in the world in a sector of the economy in which China controls 90% of global production. And that is rare earth minerals.

Let's jump into it. Now, one of the biggest delusions driving this trade war is the Trump's administration's completely inflated view of the American economy and more specifically, the American consumer. If you listen to top US Officials, they'll tell you with a straight face that China has no choice but to cut a deal. Trump's team wants you to believe that Beijing is desperate for access to The US consumer market, and as a result, America holds all the cards. This is what happens when a country starts believing its own propaganda.

Take it straight from the mouth of billionaire secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick. The table with Donald Trump or they don't. But let's be clear. We are their biggest client by far, by far, by far. The American consumer buys everything from China.

They can't afford to be without us, and that's where we are today. Lutnick and Washington are stuck in the nineteen nineties. They think The US is the unchallenged center of the global economy and that everyone else is just trying to sell into it. But this outdated American exceptionalism has become a massive strategic blind spot. While The US consumer base is still significant, the days of it being the global engine are long gone.

The real growth is happening elsewhere, and China is now the top trading partner to the majority of the world's countries, a far cry from The US dominated world map some twenty five years ago. And that shift matters. While The US is stuck fantasizing about the golden era that no longer exists, China has spent the past decade building a real economic future. From Latin America to Africa to Southeast Asia, Beijing has been investing, trading, and forming relationships. Meanwhile, Americans are drowning under inflation, watching their rent skyrocket and their grocery bills pile up.

This is not a country of consumers with spare cash for new high-tech Chinese products, as 60% of Americans are just trying to survive paycheck to paycheck. So when US Officials claim that China needs access to the American market, they're completely detached from reality. Not only are they overestimating the American market, they are highly underestimating the Chinese market at the same time. Contrary to the outdated stereotypes, China's economy is no longer dependent on export. As this graph from the global economy illustrates, exports now make up just 19.7% of China's GDP, a far cry from the 36% peak in 02/2006, showing a rapidly decreasing reliance on exported goods and an increase in power from the domestic Chinese consumer.

To put that in perspective, the average percentage of a country's GDP coming from exports is over 45%. That means that China, at 19.75%, is actually much less reliant on exports than most countries. China has become its own best customer, with 80% of China's economic activity now coming from domestic consumption. And while American officials still picture China as a sweatshop churning out cheap goods for Walmart shelves, that version of China has moved elsewhere many years ago. China's number one export destination hasn't been The US for almost a decade.

The number one partner since 02/2016 is the Asian bloc, where trade has been steadily rising. At the same time, the percentage of Chinese exports to The US have fallen from 19% in 02/2018 to under 15% in 2024. Beijing planned for this shift. Washington hasn't. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is starting to wise up.

Countries that once played along with American leadership are now openly pushing back. Even some of Washington's closest allies are calling out the bullying. The US is saying is already an impossible task. The theory is already a mess, and there is no consistency whatsoever. However, if Japan were to negotiate about what they have been saying, well, to put it bluntly, it would be akin to a delinquent kid extorting someone.

That's a Japanese government representative going as far as comparing The US to a mafia style extortionist. And it's not just talk. Japan and South Korea have signed new trilateral trade agreements with China in direct response to Trump's tariffs, overcoming long standing strained relations. Meanwhile, Vietnam, another country with historically tense relationship with Beijing, welcomed Xi Jinping for a high profile visit and signed a record 45 new trade deals. We are seeing in real time that The United States is being isolated as the world is rearranging itself.

And Beijing? Well, quite frankly, they've stopped playing nice. In contrast to their more traditional, more passive reactions to America's actions, Chinese government officials have started posting notably defiant statements, standing their ground and calling out the weaponization of tariffs to coerce and bully other nations. China is fully prepared to fight to the very end because the world is big enough that The United States is not the totality of the market in the world. So if The United States wants to go in that direction of completely shutting itself out of the China market, be my guest.

Yeah. And China will lose The US market, which as I've said, is 15%. We can't We don't we don't care. China has been here for five thousand years. Most of the time, there was no United States, and we survived.

And if The United States wants to bully China, we will deal with the situation without The United States, and we expect to survive for another five thousand years. That's quite the bold statement from Victor Gao, the vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, who doesn't sugarcoat how Chinese people really feel about Trump's actions. I mean, you know, things are going crazy in US China relations when the Chinese embassy in Washington, DC, is sharing videos of Ronald Reagan to help Americans remember why tariffs never work. Over the past two hundred years, not only has the argument against tariffs and trade barriers won nearly universal agreement among economists, but it has also proven itself in the real world where we have seen free trading nations prosper while protectionist countries fall behind. America's most recent experiment with the protectionism was a disaster for the working men and women of this country.

When Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country. The same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression, The worst economic catastrophe in our history. One out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Yet today, protectionism is being used by some American politicians as a cheap form of nationalism.

We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends, weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world. Trump is now being forced to back down. He's granted wide ranging exceptions for Chinese products, especially tech like iPhones and computers. This is after industry leaders and CEOs like Tim Cook reportedly begged him to reverse course. Apple warned the Trump administration that iPhones alone would cost thousands, if not tens of thousands more dollars if they were produced domestically in The United States.

The US simply doesn't have the capacity to rebuild those supply chains anytime soon. In response to these exemptions, Beijing still hasn't lifted its tariffs. In fact, they've escalated, slapping export bans on heavy rare earths, which are critical to US defense manufacturing. But what happens next? I wanna highlight a story that goes deeper than just geopolitics because behind every trade war, every missile, and every high-tech system, there is a supply chain of rare earth minerals that is needed to power each of these industries.

And there is one metal in particular that could very well determine the outcome of future conflicts, and that is antimony. Now you might not have ever heard of antimony, but it's the backbone of modern defense systems. Without it, there are no armor piercing bullets, no missile guidance systems, no flame retardants for military gear, and even some semiconductors and nuclear tech stop functioning. It's literally that essential. But here's the problem.

The United States produces almost none of it. China and Russia dominate the global supply. And just recently, China banned antimony exports, sending prices soaring to over $60,000 per ton. That's not just market volatility. It's a national security risk.

The Pentagon knows this, so do NATO allies, and that's where the opportunity comes in. Enter Military Metals Corp, ticker MILI in Canada and MILIF in The United States. They're one of the only publicly traded companies laser focused on securing a Western controlled antimony supply, and their flagship project is located in Slovakia, right in the heart of Europe. This isn't some early stage exploration gamble. Their Slovakian asset contains over 60,000 tons of high grade antimony ore, originally estimated by Soviet era geologists, estimates that the company is now upgrading to modern standards.

At today's prices, that ore could be worth over $3,000,000,000 But here is where things get very interesting. The US government has already recognized this vulnerability. In 2022, it granted $1,830,000,000 to Perpetua Resources, another antimony developer in Idaho under the Defense Production Act. Perpetua trades under PPTA and now has a market cap of over $1,000,000,000 based largely on a strategic value of its antimony project. So let's connect the dots.

Perpetua has proven there's a billion dollar market cap waiting for companies that can help the West escape China's grip on critical natural resources. And right now, military metals is one of the very few companies in the world positioned to follow that same path. Military metals is still flying under the radar and represents an early stage opportunity in a sector that's about to go mainstream as the West scrambles to secure critical minerals. But military metals is not just relying on this project in Slovakia. In Canada, their West Gore mine, a former producer, still has ore piles from historical production that are ready for reprocessing.

This isn't about building from scratch. It's about reviving overlooked strategic assets at a time when global demand is exploding with NATO defense spending projected to hit 1,500,000,000,000.0 and US Military Planners pushing for domestic and allied supply chains. Military metals could be exactly the kind of company the market is about to reward. And for retail investors, especially those who follow defense, national security, or strategic metals, this is one of the very few pure play antimony opportunities that's publicly available right now. Let's make one thing clear.

The tariff war and trade battle between The United States and China isn't going to finish anytime soon. And with China processing over 90% of the world's rare earth minerals, it's the one sector The United States is most vulnerable in. Western governments need to reshore supply chains of critical minerals, and this is a company you want to have on your radar. And to help you out with that research, I'm going to include the company's stock tickers, website, and investor presentation down in the description below. Their website breaks down the Slovakian and Canadian projects in detail and shows exactly how they plan to scale.

Donald Trump launched this trade war believing he had the upper hand. But even America's legacy media companies can't hide the truth anymore. With The Wall Street Journal writing, China called Trump's bluff and seems to have won this round. All this chaos with trade policy flipping back and forth has done exactly what you'd expect. It's thrown the entire global market into disarray.

There is now so much uncertainty. Businesses can't plan more than a few months ahead, let alone make the kind of long term investments that manufacturing requires. China is the factory of the world, and if you're doing almost any kind of business today, odds are your supply chains run through China at some point. But these tariffs have smashed that foundation. Family run businesses all the way to massive multinational corporations are now caught between rising costs and no visibility into what happens next.

And so, here we are, caught in the crosshairs of one man's ego in a trade war that he doesn't even understand. Donald Trump promised to make America great again, but what he's delivered is chaos, skyrocketing prices, broken alliances, and an economic strategy so erratic it's chasing away investors, alienating partners, and driving The US economy straight off a cliff. All while China plays it cool, patient, and strategic, picking up influence, winning trade partnerships and locking its position as the backbone of the global economy. What we're watching right now isn't just a policy failure. It's the systematic unraveling of the American credibility on the world stage.

A president who promised strength has exposed weakness. A trade war meant to cripple China is instead speeding up the decline of the US dollar, the collapse of American soft power, and a global pivot toward a new economic center of gravity in the Far East. And the worst part, none of this had to happen. The US wasn't outmatched. It was simply outplayed by a country that studied its opponent, made its moves deliberately, and refused to blink.

So while Trump waits by the phone for a call from Xi Jinping that may never come, the rest of the world is already moving on. Everyone, once again, thank you for making it to this point of the video, and thank you to Military Metals for sponsoring today's important episode. I always say that we study geopolitics because it moves markets, And all of you who are investors know this firsthand on how volatile the stock market has been the past month. But I'm very bullish on gold and rare earth minerals because they will always be at the center of global trade and certainly going to move the markets in terms of economic chaos. But as always, make sure you do your own research before making any investments and make sure that you check out our sponsor's notes down in the description below.

As always, I wanna thank you all for your incredible support and look forward to seeing you all in our next video soon.