The Yuan Trap – A Speculative Detour Through the Fog of Global Trade

“Regulators and bankers were using the wrong tools and the wrong metrics. Unfortunately, they still are.”

–Jim Rickards, Currency Wars

May 13, 2025 — Hypothesis for the day: Sometimes the answers you get matter less than asking the right questions. Let’s give that a whirl with a few “what ifs…”:

What if the real trade barrier with China wasn’t cheap labor, clever supply chains, or state-owned factories churning out widgets at half the cost?

What if the real barrier — the one no one dares to name in polite diplomatic company — was the yuan itself?

That’s the suspicion lurking in the minds of those who’ve been around long enough to see economic history rhyme, if not repeat.

And it’s a suspicion Jamieson Greer — former chief trade negotiator under Trump and longtime advocate for tougher trade terms — appears ready to drag into the daylight. Greer insists any future deal with China must tackle non-tariff barriers.

But what exactly are we talking about?

First, let’s demystify the term. Non-tariff barriers aren’t tariffs. They’re stealthier. Trickier. More… Chinese.

They include arbitrary food safety rules, tech transfer demands, opaque licensing procedures, outright bans on foreign firms for “national security” reasons — and, yes, currency manipulation.

That last one is the dragon in the room.

Imagine, for a moment, that all the talk of trade deficits and factory closures in Ohio were downstream effects not of wage arbitrage or environmental shortcuts, but a central bank in Beijing intentionally weakening its currency to juice exports and hoard dollar-denominated assets. A grand illusion. A monetary matador’s cape.

Every time you buy a $14 toaster, you’re playing your part in the performance.

Currency manipulation is rarely called out in public, because the implications are too profound. It means the entire framework of “fair trade” is a fantasy. It means all those tariffs and retaliatory duties are just Band-Aids on a broken bone.

Greer knows this. That’s why he’s pushing for something bigger than tariffs. Something comprehensive. Something real.

Because if China’s real advantage is not cheap labor, but artificially cheap currency, then we’re not competing with a country — we’re competing with a monetary mirage.

And it gets worse.

What if the yuan’s next devaluation isn’t just a tweak to boost exports, but a desperate attempt to manage capital flight, mask domestic weakness, or retaliate against U.S. tech sanctions?

In 2015, a minor yuan devaluation sent shockwaves through global markets. Today, with fragile liquidity, bloated debt, and a Federal Reserve still nursing a post-COVID balance sheet hangover, the next one could detonate a global chain reaction.

And markets? They won’t wait for the policy papers. They’ll react — as they always do — to the headline, the rumor, the innuendo. A whisper in the Financial Times. A speech misinterpreted in Shanghai. A Twitter post from someone with a flag avatar and too much time on their hands.

In this climate, even Greer’s quiet insistence that we deal with non-tariff barriers might as well be a klaxon.

So here’s the “what if” – the Grey Swan event – no one wants to entertain out loud:

What if the entire post-WTO global trade regime has been predicated on a silent agreement to look the other way while China juiced its currency, flooded markets with artificially cheap goods, and quietly bought up Treasurys like Monopoly money?

What if the world’s faith in globalization wasn’t ever rooted in comparative advantage, but in mutual monetary gaslighting?

And what happens when that faith runs out?

~ Addison Wiggin

P.S. Greer’s whisper may be the canary in the yuan mine. Meanwhile, gold is inching up, possibly to soar much, much higher, bitcoin is challenging the fiat system anew, and the BRICS are circling the petrodollar, and platforms like Glintpay are doing what Washington won’t — giving you an off-ramp. It’s not the headlines you need to watch. It’s the questions behind them.

“Regulators and bankers were using the wrong tools and the wrong metrics. Unfortunately, they still are.”

–Jim Rickards, Currency Wars

May 13, 2025 — Hypothesis for the day: Sometimes the answers you get matter less than asking the right questions. Let’s give that a whirl with a few “what ifs…”:

What if the real trade barrier with China wasn’t cheap labor, clever supply chains, or state-owned factories churning out widgets at half the cost?

What if the real barrier — the one no one dares to name in polite diplomatic company — was the yuan itself?

That’s the suspicion lurking in the minds of those who’ve been around long enough to see economic history rhyme, if not repeat.

But what exactly are we talking about?

First, let’s demystify the term. Non-tariff barriers aren’t tariffs. They’re stealthier. Trickier. More… Chinese.

They include arbitrary food safety rules, tech transfer demands, opaque licensing procedures, outright bans on foreign firms for “national security” reasons — and, yes, currency manipulation.

That last one is the dragon in the room.

Every time you buy a $14 toaster, you’re playing your part in the performance.

Greer knows this. That’s why he’s pushing for something bigger than tariffs. Something comprehensive. Something real.

Because if China’s real advantage is not cheap labor, but artificially cheap currency, then we’re not competing with a country — we’re competing with a monetary mirage.

And it gets worse.

What if the yuan’s next devaluation isn’t just a tweak to boost exports, but a desperate attempt to manage capital flight, mask domestic weakness, or retaliate against U.S. tech sanctions?

In this climate, even Greer’s quiet insistence that we deal with non-tariff barriers might as well be a klaxon.

So here’s the “what if” – the Grey Swan event – no one wants to entertain out loud:

What if the world’s faith in globalization wasn’t ever rooted in comparative advantage, but in mutual monetary gaslighting?

And what happens when that faith runs out?

~ Addison Wiggin

Mining stocks amplify everything. First Majestic went from losing money to 45% margins without building anything new. They just held the line on costs while silver did the heavy lifting.

That cuts both ways. If silver drops hard, margins compress just as fast. Same leverage, opposite direction.

The miners with the lowest costs and cleanest balance sheets will hold up best in a pullback and capture the most upside if the deficit keeps grinding.

Economists at Goldman Sachs said this morning they expect core inflation to finish the year around 2% even while GDP rises at a “surprisingly strong” 2.5% clip.

In our view, their inflation forecast is optimistic. Their GDP call? Modest.

The last time we pumped this much liquidity into the system — 2020 through 2022—the result was a manic asset bubble, runaway inflation, and an epic hangover at the Fed.

Goldman’s optimism has triggered a fresh round of bullish bets: cyclical stocks are rallying, “dispersion” in the S&P 500 is spiking, and the Fed is expected to cut interest rates twice before Jerome Powell gets kicked out of Washington at the end of his term on May 15.

Anecdotally, we’re hearing stories of warehouses full of GPUs sitting unused for lack of energy to power them. It’s a natural feature of the heavy capital investment in new machines. The grid has to catch up!

While Trump’s great reset rolls on in 2026, keep an eye on modular nuclear reactors and increased demand for uranium, natural gas and related resources.

These PM producers are literally printing the most ‘hard money’ that they ever have at these metals prices and record margins here at the midway point in Q4.

If there ever was a time for this sector to get overheated and frothy, this would be it… only that isn’t what we’ve seen playing out.

PM producers are still insanely profitable at even at current metals prices and should be far more valuable based on their margins, revenue generating potential, and their resources still in the ground.