Trump Tariff Likes a Squid Game
On April 7, 2025, US President Trump threatened that if China does not revoke the 34% tariffs imposed on the US by April 8 or earlier, the US would impose an additional 50% tariff on China starting from Wednesday.
The Trump administration’s move to threaten China with additional tariffs under a “ultimatum” bears a striking resemblance to the underlying logic of the hit TV series “Squid Game”. In this “Squid Game” of the global economy, participants are forced to engage in a survival game under lethal rules, while the system designers are reaping benefits by creating structural contradictions.
I. The Compulsory Participation of Fatal Rules
The contestants of Squid Game were forced to enter the game due to debt crises, while Trump’s tariffs drew global enterprises into the battle through the “reciprocity principle”. The US, like the masked manipulator in the show, declared, “Those who don’t follow the rules are out.”
II. The Hierarchical Progression of Survival Competition
Similar to the escalating difficulty levels in the game, Trump’s tariffs adopt a “step-by-step escalation” strategy:
Round One: Psychological Deterrence
Create market panic through a 48-hour ultimatum.
- The second stage: Cost Shifting
Businesses are forced to incorporate the tariff costs into their pricing, and the price of an iPhone might soar from $1,599 to $3,800, much like a player being compelled to mortgage their organs to survive. - The third level: Supply Chain Restructuring
Apple moved the production line of AirPods to Mexico, where logistics costs devoured 30% of the profits, much like the players in the drama who abandon their moral bottom line to obtain food.
III. Zero-sum Game in Resource Allocation
Squid Game creates scarcity by having 456 people compete for one survival spot, while the tariff war is triggering a “supply chain depression trap” globally. Some countries, in order not to be at a disadvantage in tariff negotiations, have begun to suspect and slander each other.
IV. Psychological Manipulation and Expectation Management
In the play, mental oppression is carried out through pink soldiers and broadcast voices, while the Trump team uses the “tariff cliff effect” for behavioral manipulation.
- Anchoring tactic: Set the starting point of the negotiation at an 84% tax rate, making the subsequent “compromise” to 54% seem reasonable, similar to how game designers first show an electric shock punishment and then offer a “mild option”.
Information fog: 17 adjustments to the exemption list within three months have led to the failure of hedging strategies, leaving enterprises facing a situation akin to a randomly changing “popping candy pattern”.
Collective punishment: Threatening to impose a 25% joint tariff on countries that purchase Venezuelan oil, creating a sense of “guilt by association” fear.
Picture
V. The Inevitability of Systemic Violence
The ultimate cruelty revealed by Squid Game lies in the fact that what seems like a free choice is actually a preordained outcome of the system’s design. The current tariff war also exhibits structural oppression:
The destructive nature of the rules
The undermining of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has sent global trade back to the era of the law of the jungle.
- Digital Shackles
The United States demands that cross-border transaction data be connected to the customs system in real time, making enterprises feel like players wearing GPS ankle bracelets. - The Survivor’s Dilemma
Even after “clearing the level”, there is a price to pay: China’s domestic semiconductor production rate has risen from 15% to 35%, but it has been forced to endure the pain of a 240% increase in research and development investment.
Unlike the final winner in a drama receiving a prize, Trump’s tariff gamble is destroying the foundation of the global economy. Even if Trump relocates manufacturing production lines back to the United States, the country will still suffer from inflation due to the double blow of high labor costs and soaring production material prices caused by tariff barriers, putting it at a competitive disadvantage. This real-life game without a “sponsor” to back it up warns us that when state actors distort economic policies into survival games, the bottom line of civilization may collapse.
