by Health Ranger Report [5-13-2025 published].

(The above video and the following supporting evidence makes it clear that Trump's trade war with China isn't working. Even with the recent agreement of 10% tariffs, that is more than 3X the previous 3% tariff. What happens after 90 days? Pay close attention to "The China Academy" article at the end, which can lead to much more serious problems for the US over time. — RAD)

Mapped: Average Tariff Rates by Country

Watching the reaction of the Trump loyalist crowd over Trump's very bad "deal" with China (in which Trump largely reversed the punitive tariffs he himself initiated in April), I'm convinced that if Trump turned off the power grid and plunged America into chaos, the day he turned the very same grid back on would be declared "Victory Day" and everyone would cheer his 4D chess achievement. Folks, doing something ill-conceived and then reversing that very same thing is not a victory. It's a lesson. And the gap in the supply chain from China hasn't even hit U.S. shores yet, so there's supply chain chaos yet to come that will last for 1-2 months. Almost nobody is paying attention to that supply gap because they're too busy celebrating Trumps' "victory" which actually TRIPLED China's tariffs on U.S. goods, compared to the average 3% tariffs China had on U.S. imports up until April 2nd. I've got the full analysis in the above video:

- Trump's Trade Deal with China: Initial Reactions and Criticisms (0:03)

- Explanation of Tariff Rates Before and After April 2 (1:24)

- Critique of the New Trade Deal (5:30)

- Historical Context and Predictions (11:44)

- Impact on US Economy and Supply Chain (13:57)

- Proposed Solutions for US Manufacturing and Education (24:04)

- Energy Policy and Manufacturing Competitiveness (31:10)

- Critique of Trump's Announcements and Investments (41:17)

- Final Thoughts and Call to Action (41:53)

https://t.me/RealHealthRanger/6755 Summary Analysis of Above Video

ANALYSIS: Trump initiated the current trade war and hiked tariffs on April 2nd. These got raised to 145% on China-made goods within a few weeks. Today he capitulated and dropped tariffs on China back down to 10%-30%, even without any change in the trade deficit with China that he says needs to be fixed somehow. This is not a "victory." It's capitulation. If you beat yourself on the head with a hammer, and then one day you stop beating yourself, is that a victory? No, it's just a cessation of self-inflicted harm. China hasn't caved on anything, and China's exports to the USA will now ramp back up. The only thing that has actually taken place is that Trump caved on his tariffs and couldn't handle the domestic economic devastation that was in the making. So he reversed his tariffs on China (for 90 days) and is calling it a victory. Yet there isn't a single announcement of anything China has offered in a trade deal to justify this. Not one detail at all. The only rational way to interpret this action is that it was a 100% capitulation by Trump, backing off his original tariffs which were set to devastate the U.S. auto industry, retailers like Wal-Mart and resellers on Amazon, among others. In other words, TRUMP BLINKED, just as I predicted he would. Just watch: In 90 days, whatever is announced will NOT resolve the trade imbalance between the U.S. and China. It will just be window dressing for political theater. What the USA learned since April 2nd is that domestically, the USA flat-out cannot replace China's manufacturing might, and you can't pop up factories instantly, and the USA doesn't have a skilled workforce that even wants to work in the factories. This has been a costly lesson, and there are still weeks of supply chain chaos ahead because of the half-empty containers and sharply reduced ship traffic from China, as the entire China pipeline has been suppressed for about six weeks now.

China and the U.S. Reach a Deal — What’s Next?

by The China Academy [5-12-2025 published]

Both China and the U.S. see "derisking" as an inevitable path. While China carefully strategizes and executes, the U.S. remains stuck in lip service. This article has been edited and translated from the original Chinese version.

It is important to note that this China-U.S. meeting was a contact, not a negotiation. Within less than three months of Trump taking office, the China-U.S. economic and trade relationship was thrown into chaos. After this shocking and reckless performance, whether it is contact, talks, or negotiations between China and the U.S., the first step is to establish the most basic mutual trust, which, of course, is very difficult.

Trump’s decision-making circle has lost credibility on too many issues, increasing uncertainty. His decisions are impulsive and unstable. This style has already backfired, and Trump’s decision-making freedom is clearly limited. For example, despite his stubborn insistence that the U.S. economy and capital markets are doing well and blaming the Federal Reserve, in reality, he is cautious and does not dare to take things lightly.

Bessent said, “We don’t want decoupling,” and this is true in the short term. However, both China and the U.S. have been preparing for years, and decoupling is an inevitable long-term trend. The outcome will evolve such that it becomes increasingly easy for China to reduce its dependence on the U.S., while the U.S. will struggle to make significant progress in decoupling from China. As China-U.S. trade relations rapidly evolve, the world will need to decide how to maximize benefits and avoid risks. The situation will quickly shift in favor of China, as reflected in the rhythm of the contact, talks, and negotiations between both sides. Ultimately, this will evolve into a “trade counterattack” led by China against the U.S.

A de-escalation in the tariff war is widely anticipated, with both President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent making relevant statements. The current high-tariff situation is unsustainable. Goldman Sachs projected on May 8 that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods could soon be reduced by about 60%, with corresponding reductions on the Chinese side. Similar reports have circulated. However, such reductions fall far short and should only be viewed as the starting point for negotiations. The future path of de-escalation and dialogue will not be led by Washington; leadership is shifting. In dealing with such a United States, only credible deterrence works, political promises are unreliable. As a responsible major power, China has stepped up to resist bullying and must help establish new rules on behalf of the international community to curb reckless actions.

Tactically speaking, the U.S. wants to cool down the tariff war, and China agrees. Both sides believe decoupling is happening too fast . With nearly $700 billion in annual bilateral trade, a near-total disruption would be abrupt and damaging. Even if decoupling is the long-term trend, it shouldn’t proceed at such a “hard break” pace. In the medium to long term, both sides are adjusting to reduce mutual dependency, but their capabilities and results differ greatly. On this front, progress may exceed U.S. expectations. In fact, China appears to be seriously preparing for the possibility of decoupling. Ironically, while the U.S. has been the loudest about decoupling and de-risking, and China has consistently called for cooperation, it is China that is preparing more thoroughly behind the scenes.

From the perspective of Chinese exporters, the U.S. market is relatively easy to make money in. Once American buyers place orders, they tend to be large. But that doesn’t mean Chinese businesses are dependent on the U.S. If Americans no longer want to do business, Chinese firms will decisively seek alternative markets or pivot to domestic demand .

What many overlook is that China is actually the most competitive market economy in the world. In contrast, the U.S. market is highly monopolized, with numerous trade barriers and dominant players reaping excessive profits without regard for real market competition. Chinese companies are accustomed to operating in a high-risk environment where business ups and downs are common. If a venture fails, they shut it down and move on to a new sector. American scholars often observe that Chinese firms constantly complain, struggling with immense pressures, providing endless fodder for pessimists. Yet they also note that Chinese companies are fiercely competitive, often driving out foreign brands with ruthless efficiency.

There remains a systemic misunderstanding of China’s economy among global scholars. For example, the U.S. sanctions on Chinese high-tech sectors have now proven to be a remarkably foolish move—completely contrary to the principles of a market economy. These sanctions have handed China’s tech industries a once-in-a-generation market opportunity, essentially ceding one of the most valuable markets out of sheer short-sightedness.

Even if the tariff war now cools down, the damage has already been done. Chinese exporters no longer have lasting confidence in the U.S. market—who knows what might happen next? Another tariff war? U.S. buyers finding substitutes? For survival, Chinese firms must look to other global markets, as well as domestic demand. New markets may not offer the same large orders or fast payments as the U.S., but with sustained effort, they can yield long-term, stable returns.

China has been forced to decouple from the U.S., and the momentum behind supply chain de-Americanization is strong—with significant progress already made. After the new tariff round in April, China swiftly redirected orders for products like beef and soybeans to Brazil—something that would have been impossible without prior technological and logistical preparation. Efforts to reduce risks, diversify, and decouple from the U.S. export market were already underway; now, they will be accelerated. A high-level global economic system—independent of U.S. technology, finance, and markets—will inevitably emerge under China’s leadership.

Driven by U.S. pressure, Chinese companies are expected to turn to other markets, sparking a sweeping de-Americanization campaign globally. From supply chains to consumer markets, Chinese firms will stop relying on U.S. buyers—and find profits elsewhere. It may be more difficult than doing business with the U.S., but once the U.S. shuts the door, the choice becomes easier.

In contrast, while the U.S. talks constantly about decoupling from China—pushing supply chain “de-risking” and encouraging foreign firms to exit—the campaign lacks genuine support from businesses. From a market perspective, decoupling only works if it’s profitable. If separating from China means losing money, then companies will hesitate, no matter what Washington says.

There is little visible success in America’s decoupling campaign, and it’s unlikely that any major achievement will appear in the future. It simply runs counter to economic principles. Right now, countries continue to import components from China, mark them up, and resell them to the U.S., a direct result of market forces. Washington’s attempts to audit supply chains and crack down on rerouted exports are, frankly, hard to take seriously.

No matter how far Washington’s reach extends, it cannot possibly control the actions of so many countries around the world. Even if it somehow managed to enforce compliance, it would still face the underlying issue of how to actually produce goods. Running a business already demands immense effort. The U.S. government, with its limited personnel, cannot possibly micromanage the global operations of countless firms. It just doesn’t make sense from an economic standpoint. Most companies will play along and provide whatever paperwork is needed to keep up appearances. Some U.S. firms, with deep political connections, will always find workarounds. After all, there are plenty of “Commissioner Smith-types” profiting from the gray zones of bureaucracy.

In fact, the impact of the trade war itself hasn’t been that severe. Trump, realizing things weren’t going well, decided to scale back. With China and the U.S. easing tensions, the U.S. stock market stabilized, and everything seemed to return to normal.

However, the issue of decoupling won’t simply fade away. The U.S. may not take it seriously, but China certainly does. Preparing for a U.S.-China economic decoupling is a matter of survival, and China will take it seriously and act accordingly. This trade war has given China unprecedented global support, with a posture of leading the world in resisting U.S. bullying. Once the steps are taken, once it succeeds, China will gain valuable experience, and confidence from all sides will be strengthened. Not long from now, a global economic system, impervious to U.S. disruption, will begin to grow and thrive.

Editor: LQQ