By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a shift from his previous position, President Trump announced plans to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, softening his stance on trade. Trump stated that a 100% tariff on Chinese goods was likely unworkable while blaming China for the trade talks’ standstill. He also threatened new export controls on critical software starting November 1, preceding the expiration of existing tariff increases. This action continues a pattern of fluctuating tariff deadlines since the beginning of his presidency.
Read the original article here
Trump confirms Xi meeting, retreats on 100% tariffs: ‘not sustainable.’ Okay, so it seems like we’re back in the familiar territory of trade, tariffs, and the ever-present question of whether it’s all just a clever (or not so clever) game. This time around, the headlines are screaming about a potential meeting between Trump and Xi, which, on its own, would be significant. But what’s really catching everyone’s attention is the backing down – the retreat – from those proposed 100% tariffs. Apparently, that extreme stance wasn’t deemed “sustainable.” Hmmm, interesting.
This whole scenario certainly has a pattern to it, doesn’t it? The rhetoric starts strong, the threats are big, and the market, predictably, reacts. Then, as quickly as they appear, the proposed tariffs are toned down, revised, or simply dropped altogether. It’s a dance, a well-choreographed dance, and the question is: who is really leading and who’s being led? Is it strategic negotiation, or is something else at play? The comments certainly suggest other, less-savory motives are at work.
The word “TACO” seems to be the operative term, which seems to imply this has been labeled a pump-and-dump scheme. The critics are not shy. They suggest the initial tariff talk is designed to create a market reaction, allowing insiders to profit handsomely before the inevitable retreat. They’re asking the very important question of how this isn’t market manipulation, plain and simple.
The criticism gets even sharper when they point out the potential financial repercussions for the average American. They emphasize the potential impact on consumer costs, the possibility of healthcare programs being slashed, and the fact that instead of benefiting the country as a whole, it appears to be benefiting those close to the decision-makers. The sentiment is that this goes way beyond simple negotiation tactics.
The talk about a constant stream of “TACO” days also brings up an interesting point. The constant shifting, the lack of consistency, the uncertainty – is this a sign of weakness, incompetence, or something else entirely? A lack of credibility is definitely being pointed out.
And then there’s the speculation about insider trading. The suggestion that certain individuals might be profiting from the market fluctuations created by these announcements is a serious one. The comments make it very clear that this is seen as one of the most blatant cases of insider trading the commenter has ever witnessed. If true, it raises serious questions about the ethics and legality of the whole process.
The phrase “Trump’s flip-flopping brand of chaos economics” really cuts to the heart of it. They seem to suggest that the whole situation is damaging the very foundations of the US economy. The fear is that the constant uncertainty will eventually lead to a collapse, a domino effect where one thing pushes another over the edge, causing everything to come crashing down.
The comment that says “So how is this not a pump and dump scheme with his crypto?” adds another layer to the discussion. Is this a case of a familiar pattern extended into other markets? The argument is that the announcements are timed to create market fluctuations that benefit the insiders.
The retreat from the 100% tariffs is seen as more than just a change in strategy; it’s a revelation of the plan’s true nature. The underlying implication is that the initial threats were never intended to be carried out. The initial threats were only there to cause fear and manipulate the market for the benefit of a few, while the American people are left with the fallout.
Ultimately, the comments point to a conclusion that’s both critical and cynical. Whether you agree with them or not, they raise some very important questions about what’s really going on behind the scenes. This situation doesn’t seem to be a sign of strength or decisive leadership. Instead, it looks like a sign of the way things might go from here on out.