You play dirty, I play dirtier.

Recently, the (international) macro situation has been quite turbulent, with Trump firing on all cylinders. In contrast, it's been quiet for us, which, compared to the strong anti-China rhetoric of his aides, makes him seem like the least anti-China figure in the entire administration.

Someone raised an idea: Given that China has been fully preparing and responding in recent years, coupled with the inflationary pressure in the U.S., is there a possibility that if they try to confront the East (China) with tariffs again, it might shift from the previous "kill 1,000 enemies, lose 800 of your own" to "kill 800 enemies, lose 1,000 or even 2,000 of your own"? If so, could this lead to some actual compromises—"raise high, but land softly"?

I don’t think that’s likely.

First, there’s no evidence to support this. Right now, it seems more like they haven’t gotten around to it yet—they’re picking the soft targets first, but that doesn’t mean they won’t go after the hard ones later.

Second, Trump rode the wave of right-wing populism to power, opening Pandora’s box. Even if he genuinely wants to close it, it won’t be easy. Everyone’s watching, expecting to keep riding the wave for political gain. The boss may be the boss, but the underlings also want to climb the ladder. If the boss moves up but blocks the path for others, don’t be surprised if they retaliate—"you do it first, I’ll do it later."

This reminds me of Japan during World War I and II, which repeatedly gambled on national destiny and won. After occupying Northeast China, the top brass said, "We’ve done enough, let’s stabilize and consolidate before moving forward." But the junior officers disagreed: "You rose to power by defying orders and making bold moves, but now you’re cutting off our path. Don’t blame us if we follow your example."

$Krne Csi China Internet(KWEB.US) Q$Invesco QQQ Trust(QQQ.US)