By Michael Every of Rabobank
Fake it till Trump makes it
Markets were thrilled this week as Bloomberg reported US Treasury Secretary Bessent saying 145% US tariffs on China were “unsustainable” and a trade deal would be done soon; yet people *in the room* say that didn’t capture his real message - that China would see *it* needed to move first. Markets were just as excited by President Trump saying those tariffs would come down “substantially” but missed the context that this was *after a deal*, not as a unilateral US step.
The Wall Street Journal caused another market surge in reporting ‘White House Considers Slashing China Tariffs to De-Escalate Trade War: Levies could be cut by more than half in some cases although Trump hasn’t yet made final decision’. Within hours, one of the authors tweeted: “UPDATE: Admin official said Trump wouldn’t act unilaterally and would need to see action from China. People close to admin said Trump has plenty of room to cut tariffs without changing overall picture. “It would be kind of a pressure valve release without actually doing anything.”” The original headline was still up at time of writing over 12 hours later.
The Financial Times claims Trump’s “latest retreat” is on auto tariffs. An hour later, the president denied it. Again, the story was still up unchanged at time of writing.
Bloomberg this morning has the top headline “New Rate – Trump: China May Get New Tariff Rate Soon.” If you listen to what he said, he’s negotiating with 90 countries, and those that strike deals in the next 2-3 weeks will get a lower rate, while those that don’t will get one imposed… and China could be in either camp, the implication being it depends on what *it* does.
Moreover, not being reported prominently at all in the financial press, Bessent gave a speech at the IIF yesterday in which he stated, “Everywhere we look across the international system today, we see imbalance… My goal… is to outline a blueprint to restore equilibrium to the global financial system and the institutions designed to uphold it.” While he stressed, “America First does not mean America alone”, he made clear the US seeks “expanded leadership in international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank… to restore fairness to the international economic system [which faces] the stark reality of large and persistent US deficits as a result of an unfair trading system,” a status quo which is, “not sustainable for the US, and ultimately,… not sustainable for other economies.”
He said the US is eager to work with the IMF and World Bank, “so long as they can stay true to their missions. And under the status quo, they are falling short… We must make the IMF the IMF again… [It] must be a brutal truth-teller and not just to some members. Today, the IMF has been whistling past the graveyard. Its 2024 external sector report was entitled, “Imbalances Receding.” This Pollyannaish outlook is symptomatic of an institution more dedicated to preserving the status quo than answering the hard questions. Here in the US, we know we need to get our fiscal house in order… but we will not abide the IMF failing to critique the countries that most need it, principally surplus countries… the IMF needs to call out countries like China that have pursued globally distorted policies and opaque currency practices for many decades.”
Bessent also said the World Bank “should no longer expect blank cheques for vapid, buzzword-centric marketing accompanied by half-hearted commitments to reform… Treating China, the second-largest economy in the world, as a developing country is absurd.”
In Q&A, he underlined the US wants to work with China to help it shift to consumption as it moves back to manufacturing: but if China won’t … join, or decouple, the dots. He welcomed European defence spending but laughed at the Euro being a global reserve currency, wishing them well with the consequences that would come with it on top of the appreciation just seen. He also stressed, “I think Wall Street can continue doing well. But I think it’s Main Street’s turn to share in the prosperity,” implying he wants more lending by smaller banks to make the latter happen.
Elsewhere, Secretary of State Rubio was singing the same tune, the Defence Secretary from his, as the US Trade Representative has just done too, hammering home the US point from all sides.
In short, as central bank “Think of the asset prices!” control of markets is replaced by economic statecraft “Think of the national security!” control of the economy, we are seeing normative financial journalism determined to fake-it-till-Trump-makes-it what they want it to be - “because markets again.”
Yes, the White House worries about markets. If things get ugly enough, they offer a verbal carrot. No, Trump is not faking it, and he did not just fold. The US grand macro strategy is not changing. As wiser heads at the Wall Street Journal note, ‘Markets Think They Hold All the Cards Over Trump’, before adding, “The plunge in stocks, bonds, and the dollar matter to Trump. But there’s no assurance that he will be ruled by them.”
Yet with a de facto US-China trade embargo in place, the US economy could see shortages on shelves within weeks and/or of price rises; and even if there is a tariff U-turn, logistics would then be overwhelmed, true even if the Fed’s Beige Book overnight was typically beige in capturing those emergent risks. That’s as fake-it-till-Trump-makes-it MAGA thinking that a stronger US dollar would provide offset to any tariffs falls far short of reality. That might see some movement.
However, even a 60% tariff for China would mean the maximalist US position previously seen as unthinkable would be celebrated with relief. Moreover, those sneering at US assets as ‘uninvestable’ don’t see that these scarring experiences also mean real economy firms are scrambling to set up new supply chains in the US or outside China and will continue to do so even if tariffs go to 60% - when markets will be rallying while missing the longer-term big picture. Nobody in manufacturing assumes this goes away via a debunked Bloomberg, WSJ, or Financial Times headline. Where supply chains sit 3 to 5 years from now is open to question. Wheeling and dealing is thus underway:
- 12 US states have sued Trump, saying tariffs have "brought chaos to the American economy.” They may bring chaos to a US constitution that only exists due to unity over the need for tariffs.
- As allegations of China’s support for Russia emerge, the European Parliament is in the ‘final stages’ of talks with China to remove sanctions on it: apparently “free trade” trumps all for some. Good luck with that, as Bessent would likely say with a smile.
- The US has made a final peace offer to Ukraine --which gets security guarantees from Europe only, and the potential ability to join the EU, not NATO-- and to Russia --which gets to keep most of what it’s taken for sanctions relief and US energy cooperation-- or it will walk away. Ukraine, supposedly to sign a minerals deal today again, has perhaps has already rejected it.
- The US is reportedly telling Iran it will process nuclear fuel for it under a new deal, again bringing it in from the cold on sanctions. If it doesn’t agree, does the US opt for JCPOA 2.0, and then expanded Abraham Accords and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, or war?
- In response to a terror attack in Kashmir, India has cancelled visas for all Pakistanis; closed the border crossing; suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, which Pakistan has in the past stated could amount to an act of war; and rumours fly of possible Indian military action.
- The ex-head of the WEF allegedly fiddled with the organisation’s Global Competitiveness Index ratings -- the data were faked by Schwab while the WEF were making it -- as well as engaging in financial and moral impropriety; and
- The UK has decided to approve attempts to dim the sun to control climate change within weeks: it’s called British summer. Really – on both fronts.
What a year 2025 is proving to be.
