Trump’s new “U.S.–U.K. trade deal” is less a diplomatic win than a staged cleanup of his own economic arson. Here’s what really happened—beyond the headlines.
One minor thing from a UK perspective. Not sure it's good optics (with the voters) post brexit to be doing deals with Trump's administration. Everyone will assume Trump will renege on it anyway.
And no UK politician wins by going along with a charade of caving to Trump. There will be screams of why not do a better, more reliable, deal with the EU.
Starmer gives the impression of trying to defeat Farage by doing things Farage calls for. Which,given the result so four recent local elections is a doom spiral. Labour did badly and immediately talked about being more Farage like.
From a trade perspective you're spot on. Our domestic politics, not sure.
The domestic spin for the British is a different problem to solve. One link at a time I’m guessing. You don’t have regular interval elections in Britain, so, there is plenty of time to defuse this event from a political friction perspective. Plus, as I observe it, Starmer has a fair amount of political capital so better to take the hit now, versus waiting.
Solving the foreign policy problem, however, was on a clock. So, that was the more pressing problem. Longer it drags out bigger issue. Moreover, with the State dinner coming up, best to calm Trump down so as to avoid a complete disaster. Although I think inviting him was a miscalculation.
We will have to see what comes next. Britain gave up little and maneuvered Trump to commit to a deal that limits now his ability to retariff without looking really stupid. I mean what’s he gonna say, the deal I made sucked?
So, there we are. I think the UK got the better end this round.
I agree in nearly every respect. Only thing I'n not sure about is Starmer having a lot of political capital.
Americans would probably consider our political system as daft as we consider yours. There are 600+ constituencies who elect MP's. Technically the King invites somebody to form a government, in practice this is the leader of the party that won most constituencies. In effect our Prime Minister is the same as your Leader of the House being automatically appointed President. No other branches relevant.
So Starmer .... he didn't win because people liked him, he won because people hated the existing tory government more.
Starmer's Labour party got fewer votes, and a lower proportion of the votes that Corbyn's Labour party at the previous election. 'Pundits declared that Corbyn's loss "proved: left wing policies were a vote loser - despite his policies all getting 60%+ approval in polls.
How on earth did this happen?
With a five party system you get weird outcomes. There was the very far right (Reform/Farage), the far right (Tories), right of centre Labour, Left of centre (Liberal Democrats) and left of centre (Green). Ignoring Scotland's governing party and wales.
The Tories were in government with a large majority ... but a) everyone thought they were useless, b) those of a Maga nature voted for Farage, and the moderate right wingers voted Liberal Democrat. This split canibalised the Tory vote so the number of constituencies won was small, despite the far right combination of Tory and Reform having a healthy proportion of voters.
Furthermore people chose to go all in on 'tactical voting'. Greens, LD's and even Labour voters ignored their own party and voted for whichever of the others would keep the Tories and reform out.
Hence Starmer didn't 'win' much political capital. He won a lot of MP's but at the same time a deciding number of voters.
His campaign was littered with promises to NOT do policies that his usual voter bases wanted. He didn't want to scare off the farm right. Hamstrung with this he is up to a point still doing the same. as a result he has collapsed in the polls compared to the election.
Traditional punditry says that his majority is so large it takes three election cycles to lose .... except they said the same about the Tories and they lost it in a landslide so the traditional view is suspect.
A significant majority in the polls want to get closer to the EU and rejoin if possible. Starmer repeatedly says he will not do this. (Which is why deals with Trump are a double edged sword domestically.)
Our papers continue to do a Trump by covering Farage at every possible juncture, and not asking him any hard questions. (Many are owned by the same kind of people as own your media.)
The Tories and Reform are chatting about merging to make a strong far right force. Reform did well in terms of changed seats in local elections (not that impressively in terms of actual numbers of seats) so the media narrative is Farage will be our next Prime Minister. In response Starmer's ministers are moving even further to the right ... despite the fact that the majority of voters are to the left of them - but split between parties.
I'd say time is already short for Starmer, especially given his current direction of travel and the media narratives.
As you say all of that is our problem, not America's. And it doesn't change the analysis of the trade deals. Whether trade deals can fill the gap in GDP from Brexit and so give any noticable improvement if cost of living, improvement in services (ie less scrapping of services) only time will tell. Starmer is gambling that they will, and/or fear of Farage will be enough to let him win the next election.
As America discovered, fear of Trump didn't turn out to be as potent as expected.
In summary I'm not sure a party labelled as left wing but implementing right wing policies is going to win against a re-invigorated right wing party. Unless trump illegally gets a third term. That might help us.
Ps I don't have the expertise that you have on the US, or trade, so treat the above as layman's thoughts. Just a different perspective for your readers.
Unfortunately you are correct on all counts. The damage he's done to the US in trade, scientific research, education, government medicine and every other thing he's touched will take generations to overcome if they can be overcome at all.
As the Scot points out, the comparisons to Chamberlain “negotiating” with Hitler will be another problem. But as for the big picture, what does it mean and what do we do now, right on.
All you can do is attempt to think through how to limit exposure to the chaos. You have to shift your mindset away basically from "things will be stable" to "what if they're not stable" because that's what is likely to happen under Trump.
Not because that's what everyone wants, but because Trump is fighting wars in his mind on facts that just don't exist. Everything is going to be ad hoc. Everything is going to be cuckoo bananas all the time.
We're used to stability-- of markets, of institutions, of law, etc. All that? Out the window.
Digital services are how the tech bros control the information space and with AI replacing conservative estimates of 40% of jobs, the UK is letting in a Trojan horse. As people get angry at falling living standards their Zuck provided 13 AI friends will focus that fury away from the real causes. The UK fucked themselves.
This is similar to the big “announcements” from companies about new American investments. Most were already in the works and if anything slowed down by the economic uncertainty. Good piece.
Trump has never actually won anything, but the ballgame with SCOTUS, that keeps his clown faced malodorous codpiece and heavily diapered, mendacious fat ass out of a oubliette!!
Playing Trumps game is giving in to his imagery of the new world order, and making a permanent fascist U.S. state more likely. Since the language of fascism is made out of symbols and manipulation, it's actually actively supporting it, playing by its rules. The arrogant and secret smiles of the participants, will soon fade into masks if horror.
Foreign Policy / Trade is not a major concern to the British political Class the worry is keeping up the political facade of the Special Relationship, The intermingle of the Anglo-American interest is as complicated as the US-Canadian one, mind you the biggest so call British Success story (NO NOT Rolls) is the BAE system, taken in account of its complexity it is so heavily stuck in with the US industrial base, if any leaders in Westminster would have a sane mind should feel rather wonkey. The fun about talking trade with the FCO is,….. they are good in hiding their technical objectives, Yanks don’t plot, they do what FOX news announce, in the light of the whole discussion, the best way to describe the whole “Talk” is right now we have a “concept of a (ever revolving) framework of a trade deal”. In new Labour talk we will say “equalization of trade policy through mutual respect of respective policy framework, and the conceptualization of a draft agreement on trade.” Cleese is here on this platform he would know how best to do a funny version of the new Labour Talk(which we both hated). Now Mr Finnegan, the current talk is entirely different when compare to the Brexit talk, I recall when Who Dares Davis walk into Brussels all thinking he was going to rescue Her Britannic from the Germans(turns out to be his old chum Mike Brainer….a Frenchman) Davis speaks the language and holiday in France frequently… As recall from a staffer.. in the tone of the old joke three XXX walk into a bar, WHO DARES DAVIS walk into the meeting with just half a slice of paper…. Ready for Lunch(Wine a lot of Wine) Brainer and team comes in with pens binders of paper, and an army of data specialists instead. It was a farce…… it was scary. I heard a lot of lads and lass in the FCO would need a glass or 2 pints after work …. Some say a fearless lady working on the EU trade integration asked for a PINT of gin and tonic … That was years ago, Lamy in all his faults and in experience (Joke) is a solid character, the current brass in the FCO are firmly in control, yes because of the SELF INDULGENCE of the special relationship His Britannic Majasties little ever shrinking island(we even lost the LAST BIT of AFRICA…..) but this time the technocrats are in gov and in sync. Someone has to talk to 47th and co, if it’s not the British who practically own the English language… who else would fit the bill? Lesotho ?? This whole talk of a talk feels like circus sending Smily to DC to gauge the pending absolute monarch occupying the big house in white. The starting gun of the talk has just began and if 47th and co talking to Vald is akins to Leither losing to le Chiffle on the table… Talking to the FCO and the EU-ETR METI is akin to ………… a young college grad fresh from the mid west who join the peace corp to see the world and date hot chicks…… talking to Villanelle……..
Is Trump stupid or impulsive? Or both? Or is it all performative for the sake of the MAGA cult? Does he know how he appears to other leaders, to us? I don't think I ever seen a public completely lacking self-awareness. He looks ridiculous in the Oval presses, never say never...Meanwhile, the GOP leadership has instructed committee members to not engage in the process. To stay silent. Congressional members buying stock before they change a policy.
Thanks again for another excellent piece. You wrote, "Because what this moment reveals is that the collapse isn’t coming—it’s here." I just finished reading, "Archeofuturism: The Secret Doctrine of the American Techno-Right", https://substack.com/home/post/p-163022325. I bit long, but seems to be inline with your text I quoted above. Curious to hear your thoughts on this piece.
Thanks for the question—I read the piece. And it’s got a strong vibe, but once you scratch beneath the surface, it collapses quickly. It wants to be treated like scholarship, but it’s not. It’s a dense collage of names, metaphors, and mythic language designed to look profound while dodging clarity and rigor.
The core premise—that elements of the American techno-Right have absorbed the logic of archeofuturism and are building infrastructure for post-democratic rule—isn’t wrong. That part deserves serious attention. But the execution is sloppy. The author piles up references—Faye, de Benoist, Strauss, Girard, Nietzsche, Levinas—without showing how these ideas connect or why they matter. It’s literary wallpaper. Not analysis—performance. And that probably works for his audience. The problem for him with me is: yeah, I’ve read all those people. I know their works. I know hermeneutics. I know what he’s trying to reverse-engineer. And I know when someone misses the mark.
He didn’t stick the triple lutz landing.
This is the trap of pseudo-academic writing: it mimics the gestures of theory—dense language, name-checks, moral urgency—but avoids the accountability of actual argument. The flow has no logic—just poetic gestures and mood swings. Step one: throw out grand claims and big names people “sort of” recognize. Step three: Q.E.D.—see, I was right all along.
Step two? Yeah. About that. There was no step two. LOL.
I suspect it works for his audience, and he probably wouldn’t love someone like me coming down on it like an anvil. But I found the piece to be drivel—exactly the kind of writing I called out earlier this week as the worst of what’s happening on Substack.
Worse than being weak, though, is how much credit it gives the Right. It treats opportunists, podcasters, billionaires, and meme accounts as if they’re executing a grand metaphysical strategy. They’re not. They’re improvising through the ruins with power, bandwidth, and vibes. Mythologizing the myth-makers doesn’t expose them—it ratifies their fantasy and calls it fact.
And that has consequences. It disempowers readers. It tells them the future is already decided, the die already cast. And in doing so, it drains the possibility of agency or resistance under the guise of insight.
Yes, something very real is happening: collapse is being aestheticized, tech is being weaponized, and myth is being used to sanctify control. But that’s exactly why we need clarity—not cosplay. Not moodboarding. This moment doesn’t need another poetic dirge about apocalypse. It needs tools. Precision. Real analysis.
Because if we don’t name what’s happening—clearly and cleanly—we hand the narrative over to those who thrive in the fog.
TL;DR version I guess: I didn’t like it much. LOL.
"Yes, something very real is happening: collapse is being aestheticized, tech is being weaponized, and myth is being used to sanctify control. But that’s exactly why we need clarity... Because if we don’t name what’s happening—clearly and cleanly—we hand the narrative over to those who thrive in the fog."
I agree, the challenge for John Q. Public is finding clear and clean analysis upon which to act or not act.
Some of it depends on your situation and what they are. Some of it depends on your objective. What I'm trying to make clear is that the "status quo" probably isn't the safest bet at the moment.
Most of my assets are in IRAs, which makes things trickier.
Starting in mid-February, I moved out of US equities, US corporate bonds, and mortgage backed securities. I haven't cut loose from US treasuries yet, but it's on my radar.
I've kept my foreign equities and increased my foreign bond exposure. I've also moved some assets to foreign currency funds - CD$, CHF and Euro as a hedge for a declining US$. In addition I took up small positions in gold, silver, and mining (both) ETFs. I followed Buffet's lead and have cash in the accounts in case something looks attractive.
Should I sell the house, that cash will go offshore directly.
An excellent analysis and right on the mark. It wasn’t initially clear who got played, but it is now. Still, Trump gets to proclaim a victory and a lot of people buy it.
Agree with your analysis.
One minor thing from a UK perspective. Not sure it's good optics (with the voters) post brexit to be doing deals with Trump's administration. Everyone will assume Trump will renege on it anyway.
And no UK politician wins by going along with a charade of caving to Trump. There will be screams of why not do a better, more reliable, deal with the EU.
Starmer gives the impression of trying to defeat Farage by doing things Farage calls for. Which,given the result so four recent local elections is a doom spiral. Labour did badly and immediately talked about being more Farage like.
From a trade perspective you're spot on. Our domestic politics, not sure.
The domestic spin for the British is a different problem to solve. One link at a time I’m guessing. You don’t have regular interval elections in Britain, so, there is plenty of time to defuse this event from a political friction perspective. Plus, as I observe it, Starmer has a fair amount of political capital so better to take the hit now, versus waiting.
Solving the foreign policy problem, however, was on a clock. So, that was the more pressing problem. Longer it drags out bigger issue. Moreover, with the State dinner coming up, best to calm Trump down so as to avoid a complete disaster. Although I think inviting him was a miscalculation.
We will have to see what comes next. Britain gave up little and maneuvered Trump to commit to a deal that limits now his ability to retariff without looking really stupid. I mean what’s he gonna say, the deal I made sucked?
So, there we are. I think the UK got the better end this round.
I agree in nearly every respect. Only thing I'n not sure about is Starmer having a lot of political capital.
Americans would probably consider our political system as daft as we consider yours. There are 600+ constituencies who elect MP's. Technically the King invites somebody to form a government, in practice this is the leader of the party that won most constituencies. In effect our Prime Minister is the same as your Leader of the House being automatically appointed President. No other branches relevant.
So Starmer .... he didn't win because people liked him, he won because people hated the existing tory government more.
Starmer's Labour party got fewer votes, and a lower proportion of the votes that Corbyn's Labour party at the previous election. 'Pundits declared that Corbyn's loss "proved: left wing policies were a vote loser - despite his policies all getting 60%+ approval in polls.
How on earth did this happen?
With a five party system you get weird outcomes. There was the very far right (Reform/Farage), the far right (Tories), right of centre Labour, Left of centre (Liberal Democrats) and left of centre (Green). Ignoring Scotland's governing party and wales.
The Tories were in government with a large majority ... but a) everyone thought they were useless, b) those of a Maga nature voted for Farage, and the moderate right wingers voted Liberal Democrat. This split canibalised the Tory vote so the number of constituencies won was small, despite the far right combination of Tory and Reform having a healthy proportion of voters.
Furthermore people chose to go all in on 'tactical voting'. Greens, LD's and even Labour voters ignored their own party and voted for whichever of the others would keep the Tories and reform out.
Hence Starmer didn't 'win' much political capital. He won a lot of MP's but at the same time a deciding number of voters.
His campaign was littered with promises to NOT do policies that his usual voter bases wanted. He didn't want to scare off the farm right. Hamstrung with this he is up to a point still doing the same. as a result he has collapsed in the polls compared to the election.
Traditional punditry says that his majority is so large it takes three election cycles to lose .... except they said the same about the Tories and they lost it in a landslide so the traditional view is suspect.
A significant majority in the polls want to get closer to the EU and rejoin if possible. Starmer repeatedly says he will not do this. (Which is why deals with Trump are a double edged sword domestically.)
Our papers continue to do a Trump by covering Farage at every possible juncture, and not asking him any hard questions. (Many are owned by the same kind of people as own your media.)
The Tories and Reform are chatting about merging to make a strong far right force. Reform did well in terms of changed seats in local elections (not that impressively in terms of actual numbers of seats) so the media narrative is Farage will be our next Prime Minister. In response Starmer's ministers are moving even further to the right ... despite the fact that the majority of voters are to the left of them - but split between parties.
I'd say time is already short for Starmer, especially given his current direction of travel and the media narratives.
As you say all of that is our problem, not America's. And it doesn't change the analysis of the trade deals. Whether trade deals can fill the gap in GDP from Brexit and so give any noticable improvement if cost of living, improvement in services (ie less scrapping of services) only time will tell. Starmer is gambling that they will, and/or fear of Farage will be enough to let him win the next election.
As America discovered, fear of Trump didn't turn out to be as potent as expected.
In summary I'm not sure a party labelled as left wing but implementing right wing policies is going to win against a re-invigorated right wing party. Unless trump illegally gets a third term. That might help us.
Ps I don't have the expertise that you have on the US, or trade, so treat the above as layman's thoughts. Just a different perspective for your readers.
He already did say his own deal tucked. Remember his USMCA? How proud he seemed to be? Didn't stop him "retarriffing" Canada and Mexico.
True... but there was also an intervening event in that case... "Sleepy Joe" who allegedly wrecked everything.
I'm not saying the guy isn't erratic and nutty as a fruitcake... he is.
But for now, I'm guessing the UK feels it put the pin back in the grenade.
Unfortunately you are correct on all counts. The damage he's done to the US in trade, scientific research, education, government medicine and every other thing he's touched will take generations to overcome if they can be overcome at all.
Another banger today. Yup.
As the Scot points out, the comparisons to Chamberlain “negotiating” with Hitler will be another problem. But as for the big picture, what does it mean and what do we do now, right on.
All you can do is attempt to think through how to limit exposure to the chaos. You have to shift your mindset away basically from "things will be stable" to "what if they're not stable" because that's what is likely to happen under Trump.
Not because that's what everyone wants, but because Trump is fighting wars in his mind on facts that just don't exist. Everything is going to be ad hoc. Everything is going to be cuckoo bananas all the time.
We're used to stability-- of markets, of institutions, of law, etc. All that? Out the window.
Digital services are how the tech bros control the information space and with AI replacing conservative estimates of 40% of jobs, the UK is letting in a Trojan horse. As people get angry at falling living standards their Zuck provided 13 AI friends will focus that fury away from the real causes. The UK fucked themselves.
Interesting point David!!
This is similar to the big “announcements” from companies about new American investments. Most were already in the works and if anything slowed down by the economic uncertainty. Good piece.
But at least Bentleys will be slightly more affordable.🙄
Trump has never actually won anything, but the ballgame with SCOTUS, that keeps his clown faced malodorous codpiece and heavily diapered, mendacious fat ass out of a oubliette!!
And how does one do this…..Start moving your assets, your options, your plans into systems that aren’t actively being dismantled in real time.
Just dropped one idea this morning… gold stacking… over at Borderless Living. Gold works as one element. It’s not the only thing but it’s one thing.
Playing Trumps game is giving in to his imagery of the new world order, and making a permanent fascist U.S. state more likely. Since the language of fascism is made out of symbols and manipulation, it's actually actively supporting it, playing by its rules. The arrogant and secret smiles of the participants, will soon fade into masks if horror.
Foreign Policy / Trade is not a major concern to the British political Class the worry is keeping up the political facade of the Special Relationship, The intermingle of the Anglo-American interest is as complicated as the US-Canadian one, mind you the biggest so call British Success story (NO NOT Rolls) is the BAE system, taken in account of its complexity it is so heavily stuck in with the US industrial base, if any leaders in Westminster would have a sane mind should feel rather wonkey. The fun about talking trade with the FCO is,….. they are good in hiding their technical objectives, Yanks don’t plot, they do what FOX news announce, in the light of the whole discussion, the best way to describe the whole “Talk” is right now we have a “concept of a (ever revolving) framework of a trade deal”. In new Labour talk we will say “equalization of trade policy through mutual respect of respective policy framework, and the conceptualization of a draft agreement on trade.” Cleese is here on this platform he would know how best to do a funny version of the new Labour Talk(which we both hated). Now Mr Finnegan, the current talk is entirely different when compare to the Brexit talk, I recall when Who Dares Davis walk into Brussels all thinking he was going to rescue Her Britannic from the Germans(turns out to be his old chum Mike Brainer….a Frenchman) Davis speaks the language and holiday in France frequently… As recall from a staffer.. in the tone of the old joke three XXX walk into a bar, WHO DARES DAVIS walk into the meeting with just half a slice of paper…. Ready for Lunch(Wine a lot of Wine) Brainer and team comes in with pens binders of paper, and an army of data specialists instead. It was a farce…… it was scary. I heard a lot of lads and lass in the FCO would need a glass or 2 pints after work …. Some say a fearless lady working on the EU trade integration asked for a PINT of gin and tonic … That was years ago, Lamy in all his faults and in experience (Joke) is a solid character, the current brass in the FCO are firmly in control, yes because of the SELF INDULGENCE of the special relationship His Britannic Majasties little ever shrinking island(we even lost the LAST BIT of AFRICA…..) but this time the technocrats are in gov and in sync. Someone has to talk to 47th and co, if it’s not the British who practically own the English language… who else would fit the bill? Lesotho ?? This whole talk of a talk feels like circus sending Smily to DC to gauge the pending absolute monarch occupying the big house in white. The starting gun of the talk has just began and if 47th and co talking to Vald is akins to Leither losing to le Chiffle on the table… Talking to the FCO and the EU-ETR METI is akin to ………… a young college grad fresh from the mid west who join the peace corp to see the world and date hot chicks…… talking to Villanelle……..
Thank you for the context and clarity.
Is Trump stupid or impulsive? Or both? Or is it all performative for the sake of the MAGA cult? Does he know how he appears to other leaders, to us? I don't think I ever seen a public completely lacking self-awareness. He looks ridiculous in the Oval presses, never say never...Meanwhile, the GOP leadership has instructed committee members to not engage in the process. To stay silent. Congressional members buying stock before they change a policy.
To understand why dictators are who they are... why governments function they way they do... this might help...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Thanks again for another excellent piece. You wrote, "Because what this moment reveals is that the collapse isn’t coming—it’s here." I just finished reading, "Archeofuturism: The Secret Doctrine of the American Techno-Right", https://substack.com/home/post/p-163022325. I bit long, but seems to be inline with your text I quoted above. Curious to hear your thoughts on this piece.
Thanks for the question—I read the piece. And it’s got a strong vibe, but once you scratch beneath the surface, it collapses quickly. It wants to be treated like scholarship, but it’s not. It’s a dense collage of names, metaphors, and mythic language designed to look profound while dodging clarity and rigor.
The core premise—that elements of the American techno-Right have absorbed the logic of archeofuturism and are building infrastructure for post-democratic rule—isn’t wrong. That part deserves serious attention. But the execution is sloppy. The author piles up references—Faye, de Benoist, Strauss, Girard, Nietzsche, Levinas—without showing how these ideas connect or why they matter. It’s literary wallpaper. Not analysis—performance. And that probably works for his audience. The problem for him with me is: yeah, I’ve read all those people. I know their works. I know hermeneutics. I know what he’s trying to reverse-engineer. And I know when someone misses the mark.
He didn’t stick the triple lutz landing.
This is the trap of pseudo-academic writing: it mimics the gestures of theory—dense language, name-checks, moral urgency—but avoids the accountability of actual argument. The flow has no logic—just poetic gestures and mood swings. Step one: throw out grand claims and big names people “sort of” recognize. Step three: Q.E.D.—see, I was right all along.
Step two? Yeah. About that. There was no step two. LOL.
I suspect it works for his audience, and he probably wouldn’t love someone like me coming down on it like an anvil. But I found the piece to be drivel—exactly the kind of writing I called out earlier this week as the worst of what’s happening on Substack.
Worse than being weak, though, is how much credit it gives the Right. It treats opportunists, podcasters, billionaires, and meme accounts as if they’re executing a grand metaphysical strategy. They’re not. They’re improvising through the ruins with power, bandwidth, and vibes. Mythologizing the myth-makers doesn’t expose them—it ratifies their fantasy and calls it fact.
And that has consequences. It disempowers readers. It tells them the future is already decided, the die already cast. And in doing so, it drains the possibility of agency or resistance under the guise of insight.
Yes, something very real is happening: collapse is being aestheticized, tech is being weaponized, and myth is being used to sanctify control. But that’s exactly why we need clarity—not cosplay. Not moodboarding. This moment doesn’t need another poetic dirge about apocalypse. It needs tools. Precision. Real analysis.
Because if we don’t name what’s happening—clearly and cleanly—we hand the narrative over to those who thrive in the fog.
TL;DR version I guess: I didn’t like it much. LOL.
"Yes, something very real is happening: collapse is being aestheticized, tech is being weaponized, and myth is being used to sanctify control. But that’s exactly why we need clarity... Because if we don’t name what’s happening—clearly and cleanly—we hand the narrative over to those who thrive in the fog."
I agree, the challenge for John Q. Public is finding clear and clean analysis upon which to act or not act.
Every move he makes, china gains
“Start moving your assets” Where and how?
That's a complicated question.
Some of it depends on your situation and what they are. Some of it depends on your objective. What I'm trying to make clear is that the "status quo" probably isn't the safest bet at the moment.
Most of my assets are in IRAs, which makes things trickier.
Starting in mid-February, I moved out of US equities, US corporate bonds, and mortgage backed securities. I haven't cut loose from US treasuries yet, but it's on my radar.
I've kept my foreign equities and increased my foreign bond exposure. I've also moved some assets to foreign currency funds - CD$, CHF and Euro as a hedge for a declining US$. In addition I took up small positions in gold, silver, and mining (both) ETFs. I followed Buffet's lead and have cash in the accounts in case something looks attractive.
Should I sell the house, that cash will go offshore directly.
An excellent analysis and right on the mark. It wasn’t initially clear who got played, but it is now. Still, Trump gets to proclaim a victory and a lot of people buy it.