I mean - theoretically you could, if you wanted to. It's not impossible. It would be a horrible, wrenching experience for both the U.S. and the rest of the world.

If by "horrible, wrenching" you mean "the rest of the world's economy takes a massive hit" then sure.

But taking your point, that's exactly why the logic behind the tariffs doesn't really work. Trump's position is summed up in his statement that "they need us more than we need them" - but that's not exactly true. We can't remove the U.S. from trading with "them" - the rest of the world - so in a very real sense we need them just as much as they need us. Which is why other countries are calling us up to find out if there's any realistic space for negotiation here, and then finding out that there isn't - so they're just hanging back to see how we handle the consequences.

1. You're making a lot assumptions above. Why are you saying "there isn't realistic space for negotiations"? That's not true, not at all. I linked a piece describing what Italian Prime Minister Meloni and Trump talked about...you should read it. It basically confirms everything I've said about some of the aims of the tariffs.

2. Tariffs are a negotiating tool. Nothing more.

3. One more time - the country with the negative trade balance has more influence than you think. I think the problem here is you're conflating discretionary with critical goods and assuming everything is critical for our survival. It's not. No one starves if, say, cheap gym equipment sourced from China isn't as cheap anymore.

Most of our major trading partners have made it clear they're in no hurry to cut a deal - or in China's case, even to begin talks.

The Chinese already blinked on a few things. I linked this the other day also. The time window on this is 90 days, then we'll know more.