Tariffs Herald Great Reset Or War

Don't doubt what's at stake

Apr 07, 2025

∙ Paid

Trump's tariffs could raise $300-600 billion
Almost balance the budget and help reduce interest payments
But tariff war is a real war, and targets will retaliate

(3,000 words or about a quarter hour of your company).

The image used by French channel France 24

Apr 7, 2025

The tariffs are no less than a war. The legacy media is not telling you for whom the bell tolls.

How does this fit into world conflict? The enemies are not disclosed.

The question is not who is right or wrong, better or worse, but who serves whose interest.

The economics is always more complicated than estimating the size of rival armies.

That's why you're here.

A stock market plunge is a tactic long expected from the City of London and Chatham House and its doppelgänger the Council on Foreign Relations who expressed their opposition to a second Trump presidency.

"Trump Is Fighting a Trade War He Can’t Win. The Stock Market Is the Loser," blares the financial journal Barron's.

The Economist says "Trump's Tariffs Have Exposed America's Leading Corporations To Retaliation."

President of France Emmanuel Macron calls for Europe to halt investment into the U.S. which of course fits neatly with the plan to militarize the European economy.

The European press is openly calling Trump crazy, while rolling out flame-throwing biographer Michael Wolff.

It almost sounds like they want a crisis.

Synchronisation

Tellingly, the globalist response to tariffs is synchronised with their policies on pollution and migration.

Western countries require health and safety regulations that raise the cost of doing business, so it's good to place your factory in a developing country that employs labour in slave conditions.

Western countries require carbon taxes and energy rationing, and shutting down uninterruptable energy sources, but invest in developing countries that use oil, coal and nuclear.

For those jobs which the owners cannot move abroad work that must be done at home — the answer has been to bring the cheap labour to the West through open borders.

In each case the investor class has decided it can make more money if it does not have to share the profits with the native population; so it shifts production to an emerging market and its cheap labour, that live with lower environmental and safety standards.

But shifting production abroad means the Western countries must have low tariffs so that the relocated factories can funnel that outsourced product back to a West now hollowed out, starved of energy, and dependent on credit.

As the economist Bob Lighthizer explains the fact that the U.S. has a large trade deficit, for a long period of time, is evidence of the problem.

Statism

The U.S. has transferred $20 trillion of wealth, and the future income that such wealth could have produced, in return for present consumption, according to the international investment position of a country.

Competitor countries have an industrial policy that is not based on lifting their citizens' standard of living but statism: to acquire technology, and enrich and empower the state.

To put that in plain language, for the 19th and 20th centuries the U.S. became increasingly rich because it owned more abroad than foreigners owned of America. [1]

As Tucker Carlson ventures, it seems that this has not been an accident; it has been guided, by calculation and ideology. Equally it may have been directed by shareholder value, the fiduciary duty to maximise profits, as opposed to optimising profits and consumption, the logic of Henry Ford.

Perspective

Using the tool of historical perspective, Britain's owners invested their excess capital in the Americas and found that Carnegie replaced their own dark Satanic mills.

Germany so far has avoided that fate by maintaining high tariffs and undervaluing its currency through the creation of the European Union and the euro.

The U.S. tolerated EU tariffs because of the latter's claim to virtue, that the EU exists to ensure the continent never again goes to war. The U.S. for decades rode the advantage of the world's biggest consumer market and the purchasing power of the world's reserve currency.

But like compound interest, the debt eventually becomes unsupportable. The goods that you buy at unbelievably low prices, that you can't find on main street or the high street, are unbelievably low for a reason: the sticker price was not the only price you paid.

Just as Trump's first term revealed the deep state, the interconnection of corporate power with the permanent bureaucracy, his second administration began during the election campaign, when the dockworkers or longshoremen attended his rallies, complaining of the rigging of the economic system.

Most professional economists will not agree; but in the U.S. most burnish their resume with a stint at the Federal Reserve and thus reflect the opinion of the money power. The legacy media will not agree, but it is owned by five or six corporations.

A Greek chorus of academic and media propagandists pushed free trade, that was not at all liberated. Like the Rules Based International Order, it means whatever the stronger party and their lawyers, benefiting from the system, want it to mean.

Regardless of your view on Trump, the message the consumer hears is simply berating Trump. Without saying which reality on balance is good or bad, it creates a lot of uncertainty. See George Gammon's commentary, Will Trump's Tariffs Cause A Recession, [2]

That's why you're here.

Anyone who claims to know what will happen is a fool. Let's scope it out.

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.