On Monday, the US dollar index fell, losing the 99 mark at the end of trading, ultimately closing down.
The three major US stock indices had mixed results, with the Dow Jones rising by 0.28%, the S&P 500 up by 0.06%, and the Nasdaq down by 0.1%.
Bitcoin rose by 0.83%, while Ethereum fell by 0.61%.
What seems like a brief period of calm actually hides complexities, as the market is brewing a global tariff storm initiated by the US, specifically targeting China and launching a 90-day tariff suspension as a means to coerce other countries into economic cooperation with China, plunging the global economy into difficulty. As the US-China trade war deepens, there has been no substantial progress in the major power game.
Although Trump has postponed the highest equivalent tariffs for most countries until July, the trade war he initiated has already led to a decline in cargo volumes at US ports, increasing the risk of a global economic recession, while inflation expectations among most Americans have surged. With a significant drop in container shipping volume between the US and China, concerns about supply shortages have once again become a focal point. Some believe that, in the long run, the trade war has damaged the financial markets, reducing the attractiveness of US assets such as the dollar and stocks to investors.
Recently, at a press conference held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a foreign media reporter questioned whether China has a responsibility to first ease the situation in response to US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's statement that "China should de-escalate the tariff war." Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang responded that the tariff war was initiated by the US and that there are no winners; if the US wants to negotiate a resolution, it must stop exerting pressure and engage in dialogue on the basis of equality, respect, and reciprocity.
In other words, the tariff challenge initiated by the US aims to resolve its own fiscal issues through increased tariffs and enhance its own strength, only to find that the outcome is mutually harmful and unsatisfactory.
China is the first not to bear the burden; the US also wants to coerce other countries into suppressing those who are the first to say no. After encountering hard resistance, the attitude gradually softened, wanting China to make the first concession while applying pressure, which is purely about saving face and wanting both sides—this is a bit greedy. It resembles the foolish son of a landlord, who is more likely to fail than succeed.
The one who tied the bell on the tiger must untie it; he must bear the consequences of his own actions and cannot expect others to foot the bill for his mistakes.
