Good piece, though I generally reject expressions like “winning the trade war” or “having the upper hand in the trade war.” A trade war is destructive to other countries and to oneself. So “winning the trade war” really means “We are cutting off fewer of our fingers than you are cutting off of yours.
I think it’s a great point that reducing imports from China also reduces market demand for domestic parts manufacturers who export components to China for assembly—only to have the finished goods re-imported back into the U.S.
In my view, government policies and regulations often achieve their greatest impact not through their intended goals, but through their unintended consequences. When we examine complex issues like tariffs through a simplistic lens—treating “tariff” as a keyword rather than a dynamic policy tool—we risk forming expectations that overlook what should have been predictable from a broader economic perspective.
Reflecting on the 90-day ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and China, I see something encouraging: while Trump’s rhetoric may strike some as abrasive, he has shown that he is not an inflexible ideologue. His willingness to adjust policies as new information emerges—even at the cost of political optics—demonstrates a valuable quality: the ability to course-correct in real time.
I believe short-term tariffs serve a strategic purpose. They can recalibrate market perceptions and act as a reset button for renegotiating outdated treaties. Yet often, we fail to even ask whether a given tariff policy is meant to be temporary or permanent before forming an opinion—despite the fact that the implications of each approach are fundamentally different.
Tariffs are frequently misunderstood, even among tax professionals. That’s because understanding the full scope of their effects requires a generalist’s perspective—someone who can see the chain reactions across supply chains, international trade relationships, and domestic industries.
If you’re interested in a deeper exploration of this topic, I’ve written more about it here:
Tariffs, Taxes, and Truth: Rebuilding America’s Economic Foundation
Problem is that no one *wins* a trade war. It is always, everywhere, and anywhere simply a matter of who loses less. Trade wars are nothing more than competition among self-harming adolescents. There are few things about which I speak in uncertain terms, but there are effectively no cases in world history where a country has benefited from a trade war. Any examples people try to cite (e.g., 19th century U.S.) are laden with so many qualifiers and confounders and alternative causalities as to be rendered moot.
In that case, touché. Interesting take! I will suggest that WWII might be the exception. I’d say we won and they lost. WWI, on the other hand, was very much like a trade war. Thanks.
Most people (myself included) would agree with you that “winning” aptly describes how the US ended WWII. “Losing less” is probably better for the USSR and maybe also France, Britain, and Poland.
I believe your observation is spot on. The CCP’s structural flaw lies in its ideological DNA—deeply incompatible with the rule-based order required to lead the global economy. Its founding principles and historical burdens make it fundamental and irreconcilable difference to the objective of WTO compliance. In this light, the so-called “China Growth Miracle” has been less a path to sustainable development and more a prolonged “Great Leap Forward”—marked by grand infrastructure and manufacturing spectacles designed to impress the world, not to foster real progress.
We have a Chinese saying: “鉴古明今” — to understand the present by studying the patterns of the past. That’s exactly what I’m working on: building a knowledge base, piece by piece.
If this resonates with you, I invite you to explore my article, where I examine the CCP not as a monolithic party, but as a factional ecosystem that mirroring aspects of a two-party system—split between Hardliners and Globalists/Populists, insiders and reformers. Beneath that surface lies a far more intricate power dynamic.
Say what one will about those vacant apartment towers, Chinese cities aren't overrun by squalid encampments -- and they'll never be, since an authoritarian government can order them filled by those who might otherwise be homeless.
(Maybe Trump should make a deal!) ;-)
You're assuming that an ideological Marxist regime gives two hoots about the paperwork. What happens in a "rules-based" order depends upon whoever's making the rules.
I probably still have some language barriers in attracting an American audience, but I believe this is something the American people need to know in order to make more informed judgments about which policies are good or bad for this country. I found myself resonating deeply with this article and have explored similar themes in my own writing as well.
The Death of Chinese Model: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s Terminally Defective DNA
Good piece, though I generally reject expressions like “winning the trade war” or “having the upper hand in the trade war.” A trade war is destructive to other countries and to oneself. So “winning the trade war” really means “We are cutting off fewer of our fingers than you are cutting off of yours.
I think it’s a great point that reducing imports from China also reduces market demand for domestic parts manufacturers who export components to China for assembly—only to have the finished goods re-imported back into the U.S.
In my view, government policies and regulations often achieve their greatest impact not through their intended goals, but through their unintended consequences. When we examine complex issues like tariffs through a simplistic lens—treating “tariff” as a keyword rather than a dynamic policy tool—we risk forming expectations that overlook what should have been predictable from a broader economic perspective.
Reflecting on the 90-day ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and China, I see something encouraging: while Trump’s rhetoric may strike some as abrasive, he has shown that he is not an inflexible ideologue. His willingness to adjust policies as new information emerges—even at the cost of political optics—demonstrates a valuable quality: the ability to course-correct in real time.
I believe short-term tariffs serve a strategic purpose. They can recalibrate market perceptions and act as a reset button for renegotiating outdated treaties. Yet often, we fail to even ask whether a given tariff policy is meant to be temporary or permanent before forming an opinion—despite the fact that the implications of each approach are fundamentally different.
Tariffs are frequently misunderstood, even among tax professionals. That’s because understanding the full scope of their effects requires a generalist’s perspective—someone who can see the chain reactions across supply chains, international trade relationships, and domestic industries.
If you’re interested in a deeper exploration of this topic, I’ve written more about it here:
Tariffs, Taxes, and Truth: Rebuilding America’s Economic Foundation
https://open.substack.com/pub/taxestechcpa/p/tariffs-taxes-and-truth-rebuilding?r=k687f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Thanks! I’ll give your piece a read!
I dunno. I think winning a trade war is about the same as winning a military war.
Problem is that no one *wins* a trade war. It is always, everywhere, and anywhere simply a matter of who loses less. Trade wars are nothing more than competition among self-harming adolescents. There are few things about which I speak in uncertain terms, but there are effectively no cases in world history where a country has benefited from a trade war. Any examples people try to cite (e.g., 19th century U.S.) are laden with so many qualifiers and confounders and alternative causalities as to be rendered moot.
My point is that wars are very rarely won, either. As in trade wars, one side just loses less.
In that case, touché. Interesting take! I will suggest that WWII might be the exception. I’d say we won and they lost. WWI, on the other hand, was very much like a trade war. Thanks.
Most people (myself included) would agree with you that “winning” aptly describes how the US ended WWII. “Losing less” is probably better for the USSR and maybe also France, Britain, and Poland.
Yup
Jay, I agree with you that we are indeed in war. But our $800 billion defense budget was not designed to fight such kind of war.
https://open.substack.com/pub/taxestechcpa/p/the-us-has-fallen-to-the-ccps-unconstrained?r=k687f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I believe your observation is spot on. The CCP’s structural flaw lies in its ideological DNA—deeply incompatible with the rule-based order required to lead the global economy. Its founding principles and historical burdens make it fundamental and irreconcilable difference to the objective of WTO compliance. In this light, the so-called “China Growth Miracle” has been less a path to sustainable development and more a prolonged “Great Leap Forward”—marked by grand infrastructure and manufacturing spectacles designed to impress the world, not to foster real progress.
We have a Chinese saying: “鉴古明今” — to understand the present by studying the patterns of the past. That’s exactly what I’m working on: building a knowledge base, piece by piece.
If this resonates with you, I invite you to explore my article, where I examine the CCP not as a monolithic party, but as a factional ecosystem that mirroring aspects of a two-party system—split between Hardliners and Globalists/Populists, insiders and reformers. Beneath that surface lies a far more intricate power dynamic.
https://open.substack.com/pub/taxestechcpa/p/ccps-impossible-dream-harmony-peace?r=k687f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Yes and no.
Say what one will about those vacant apartment towers, Chinese cities aren't overrun by squalid encampments -- and they'll never be, since an authoritarian government can order them filled by those who might otherwise be homeless.
(Maybe Trump should make a deal!) ;-)
You're assuming that an ideological Marxist regime gives two hoots about the paperwork. What happens in a "rules-based" order depends upon whoever's making the rules.
Dysfunctional economic policy with a ruthlessly effective bureaucracy is still dysfunctional economic policy.
I probably still have some language barriers in attracting an American audience, but I believe this is something the American people need to know in order to make more informed judgments about which policies are good or bad for this country. I found myself resonating deeply with this article and have explored similar themes in my own writing as well.
The Death of Chinese Model: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s Terminally Defective DNA
https://open.substack.com/pub/taxestechcpa/p/the-chinese-models-cause-of-death?r=k687f&utm_medium=ios