It suddenly struck me - America's tariff games no longer carry real weight

This is an excerpt from an article by 'Jiubian', a prominent Chinese commentator with millions of followers. His perspective on China's tariff situation may represent the views of many Chinese citizens. I've translated it into English to share with friends abroad - perhaps it will offer some different food for thought.

Everyone is aware of the recent tariff hike. First and foremost, this is obviously a major negative development—it’s detrimental to everyone involved, and all stakeholders will have to bear the cost. It’s only a matter of time.

Thinking about how we got here, it actually seems inevitable. Since the British Empire, true global hegemons have always taken the lead in completely opening their markets and offering zero tariffs to all trade partners. Though the U.S. economy remains strong, it's clearly no longer the uncontested hegemon. Its tax policies have regressed to 19th-century standards. So this move was bound to happen; the rise of Trump just accelerated it.

We discussed this a few years ago—whenever a country is strong, it supports free trade; when it’s weak, it resorts to protectionism. The U.S. is no longer the strongest, so its behavior now is quite natural.

But this year, I believe these external issues are no longer the most important. The biggest challenge ahead is for each country to resolve its own internal affairs. No one should expect help from others.

What’s the most critical issue now?

Is it worrying about a U.S. military attack?

Anyone with a bit of historical knowledge would know that’s almost impossible. Even during the Korean War in 1951, the U.S. was reluctant to provoke China. Most related documents have been declassified, and at the time, orders from the top U.S. leadership to frontline troops were to retreat immediately if they encountered Chinese forces. Back then, the U.S. was far stronger than China and still avoided conflict—let alone now.

After the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, our northern border became largely secure. Southeast Asia doesn’t want, and wouldn’t dare, to provoke China. In the long run, India may pose a challenge, but for now, it’s no immediate concern. India is currently emulating China’s 1980s strategy: maintaining peace with neighbors, promoting internal stability, and leveraging its large market to attract foreign investment.

The U.S. is also clearly trying to address its internal problems—structural industrial imbalances, inflation, and excessive national debt. These are unavoidable and must be dealt with.

In the past, the U.S. relied heavily on China: using cheap Chinese goods to control inflation and depending on China to purchase its national debt. But in recent years, they’ve realized this “win-win” system benefited China too much, so they want to exclude China. From now on, they’ll have to rely on themselves.

So what’s China’s biggest problem?

It’s obvious: weak consumption, an aging population, and local government debt.

These are extremely difficult issues to solve for both sides, and there’s no way around them.

China’s weak consumption reflects a lack of confidence in the future. People keep talking about “stimulating consumption.” But everyone knows consumption doesn’t need to be stimulated—it’s instinctive. Even four- or five-year-olds want to go shopping, proving consumption desire is natural.

Weak consumption stems from uncertainty about the future, which links to concerns about retirement, unemployment, and a persistently sluggish real estate market. It’s understandable—if people are uncertain about jobs or pensions, they’ll naturally save more. Falling housing prices hurt consumption even more.

Aging is an even trickier issue. Right now, six working adults support one elderly person. In ten years, it’ll be five to one; in twenty years, three to one.

According to the UN, by 2040, China’s population over 60 will exceed the combined total of the U.S., Japan, and Europe (480 million vs. 430 million). Overall, we have ten years to prepare for the largest aging population in human history.

I no longer focus on tariffs. In the grand scheme of history, trade wars have never directly toppled a major power.

If there’s any real risk, it’s the potential acceleration of internal conflicts—like Japan’s 1980s bubble crisis. Japan's unresolved structural issues piled up and were eventually triggered by the trade war.

Now, the China-U.S. dynamic increasingly resembles a stalemate—neither side can defeat the other. If one falters, it’ll likely be due to internal issues.

The next stage isn’t about great power rivalry—it’s about how well each manages its internal challenges. For instance, if people have confidence in their future and a sense of security, they’ll be more willing to consume, start businesses, and create wealth—and keep it in the country. With determination and persistence, and a long-term view, success is inevitable.

I’m starting to believe that while foreign trade is important, letting go of our obsession with it might actually benefit China’s long-term development.

That’s not to say foreign trade doesn’t matter—it will remain a critical pillar for years to come. But overemphasis on it hasn’t been entirely beneficial; in fact, it’s delayed progress in other areas.

For example, we should have foreseen this current situation long ago and prepared by boosting domestic demand and unlocking our own consumption potential. That would require adhering to labor laws and increasing the consumption share of GDP, giving people more time and income to spend. But doing so would weaken the competitiveness of our industrial exports.

If foreign trade is considered paramount, then the strategy becomes “squeeze” at all costs—suppress wages, extend working hours, even refund taxes. But clearly, this model is flawed. It might have worked in early development stages, but now, it’s unsustainable.

What truly benefits long-term growth is maximizing domestic demand, improving internal conditions, and unleashing the potential of 1.4 billion people.

There are two directions to stimulate domestic demand:

1. Unlock creativity and imagination—this requires more leisure time.

2. Stimulate purchasing power—which requires higher incomes.

See the contradiction? Increasing free time and wages runs counter to foreign trade priorities. This is why we’ve been stuck in a state of hesitation about domestic demand. Because “supporting foreign trade” seemed like a clear path, we became path-dependent and neglected internal demand—leading to today’s issues.

Now that Trump has slashed that path, we’re finally forced to act on what we’ve long delayed.

It’s like a college graduate juggling an internship and preparing for the civil service exam. After setbacks at work, he comforts himself by focusing on the exam. But after struggles in exam prep, he consoles himself with the job. After years of this, he hasn’t succeeded in either. Sometimes, the best thing is to tell him: “You’re too old to take the exam. Focus on work.” That might actually help.

In this sense, the tariff hike forces us to face reality: internal demand is now the only viable long-term solution—and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Over the past two years, I’ve traveled extensively and observed a pervasive sense of 'stagnation' worldwide—except for our country. Economies are frozen, ideas stagnant, and critically, most governments and citizens abroad seem to have stopped even trying to solve problems. It feels like an aging world, weary and motionless.

By contrast, our nation remains in its thirties—vigorous and ascendant. The last wave of globalization is clearly receding. We were fortunate to emerge as its greatest beneficiary, but the coming era of weakened offshoring by developed nations will test us. While this poses challenges for us, it’s even more detrimental to other developing countries, effectively blocking their paths to catch-up growth.

Yet in the long run, crises breed opportunities. Let’s return to common sense and pragmatism: safeguard livelihoods, strengthen social safety nets, and unleash the creativity and consumption power of our 1.4 billion people. Even amid global turbulence, we can seize the initiative in reshaping the world order.