Trade Chess or Checkers? A Rant on Bessent’s Cold Shoulder to China
Hello everyone. Let’s gather around the warm and fuzzy campfire of “geopolitical realism” for today’s lesson in trade policy lunacy. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a move that likely made Wall Street choke on its soy lattes, has dismissed out of hand the very idea that Chinese investments in the US might be part of any forthcoming trade pact. His answer – for those hoping for nuanced diplomacy – was essentially the diplomatic equivalent of replying “nah” in a text message. Charming.
The “Sense Is No” Masterclass
Bessent’s exact words: his “sense is no” to the possibility of China doing a Japan, South Korea, or EU-style cash pledge. You know, the same strategy others have deployed as part of their bilateral agreements: throw a few billion at the US economy, get better trade terms, and everyone pretends they’re friends until the next election cycle. But no, not with China – apparently, flashing Beijing a “keep out” sign is the plan du jour.
It’s a fascinatingly odd stance, really. The US is no stranger to taking the NPC dialogue tree option of “refuse and continue quest,” but doing so while your tariff revenues are racking up at what can only be described as a high score worthy of an arcade cabinet feels… well… economically masochistic. But hey, maybe this is all part of a 4D chess plan in which the US slowly starves its own supply chain to own the dragon.
Tariffs and the Joy of Extraction
Speaking of high scores – July’s tariff revenue didn’t just break records; it obliterated them with the graceful subtlety of a battle tank in a florist shop. Customs duties totaled $28 billion for the month – that’s a 273% surge over last July’s numbers. In gamer terms, that’s like spawning in with a level 1 sword and ending the round with a mythical legendary drop that annihilates everything in a 3-mile radius. Sure, the loot is shiny, but you also just triggered the “collapse economy” side quest.
In practice, these tariffs are less of a “tactical economic strike” and more of a blunt-force trauma to both importers and consumers. If trade were a game of Monopoly, tariffs are the “luxury tax” space nobody likes to land on. It’s still good for the banker, terrible for everyone else, and yet somehow people keep rolling the dice as though expecting a different outcome.
The Conspiracy Angle – Because, Why Not?
Now, if one were to don their tinfoil hat (which, as a doctor, I don’t recommend for long periods because it’s a choking hazard… and possibly lead-laced if bought cheap), you might even suspect that this isn’t strictly about trade leverage. Maybe this is about optics. It’s easier to strut on the domestic political stage saying “we don’t need China’s money” while cashing in sweet, sweet tariff dollars than it is to strike an actually balanced deal. It plays to the home audience: tough guy politics, high-border-morale, and a hint of Cold War cosplay.
Or perhaps, much like a badly designed RPG quest, the objective isn’t even achievable. Saying “no” is easier than coding the interaction, so you just copy-paste the “refuse” script and call it a day. Less work for the policymakers, more drama for the commentators.
Final Diagnosis
If this were a patient, I’d diagnose the current US trade stance as suffering from acute “principle over pragmatism” syndrome, combined with severe “tariff addiction.” Sure, the tariff revenue looks great in the charts – your vitals are stable – but the underlying illness is chronic, and untreated it leads to reduced competitiveness, strained alliances, and political sugar highs that inevitably crash with bipartisan headaches.
Bessent might see rejecting Chinese investment as a bold strategic wall, but walls can also become cages when you forget to build doors. And when July’s 273% tariff surge is today’s victory banner, don’t be shocked if tomorrow’s patch notes include “consumer prices up” and “supply chain morale down.”
Verdict? The stance is politically convenient but economically short-sighted. Bravo to the theatrics, but minus points for failing the long game mechanics check.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is entirely my opinion.
Article source: Bessent Dismisses China Investing in US for a Trade Pact, https://finance.yahoo.com/video/bessent-dismisses-china-investing-us-052715697.html
