Yanwen’s blog

Trump correctly identifies many of the challenges the nation faces, but his proposed solutions are debatable—one of which is raising tariffs.

During his first term, President Trump imposed tariffs on roughly $370 billion worth of Chinese imports, with rates reaching up to 25%.

Despite these tariffs, the trade imbalance with China remained largely unchanged. Bloomberg just reports that "China’s trade surplus is on track to hit nearly $1 trillion in 2024, setting a record high despite ongoing global economic and political tensions."

The impact of tariffs on the U.S. economy has been mixed: on the positive side, while tariffs boosted the U.S. government revenue which was used for his tax cut, and provided leverage in trade negotiations, they also temporarily shielded some domestic industries from foreign competition, potentially leading to job growth in certain sectors.

However, the subsequent tit-for-tat escalations have made American goods more expensive abroad, decreasing demand for U.S. exports, leading to job loss in some areas. The higher prices of import goods are passed to the consumers, leading to domestic inflation. Major American industries—including agriculture, technology, and manufacturing—lost market share and trade partners, and saw declining revenues.

Export-dependent industries and their supply chains were hit especially hard, facing increased risks of job losses. 

Retaliatory tariffs disrupted international supply networks, raising costs for companies that depend on imported parts and materials. This impact was felt not only by American consumers and businesses but also by global corporations with operations in the U.S., as many rely on cross-border production networks.

Moreover, the unpredictability of ongoing trade conflicts has created a climate of uncertainty, leading companies to delay investments and expansion plans.

Finally, countries affected by U.S. tariffs have increasingly sought new trade partners, forming alliances that bypass the U.S. market. This shift could weaken America’s long-term trade relationships and business opportunities, making America isolated in the global trend for cooperation, especially if other nations come to view the U.S. as an unreliable or unpredictable partner.

According to analyses by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Council on Foreign Relations, the overall effects of these tariffs remain complex. In reality, U.S. businesses have faced increased costs and market disruptions, which have contributed to inflationary pressures and raised questions about the long-term effectiveness and cost of using tariffs as a trade policy tool.

A Chinese saying goes, "杀敌一千，自损八百" (shā dí yī qiān, zì sǔn bā bǎi), which means, "You kill one thousand enemy troops, but at the cost of losing 800 yourself." This expression captures the heavy cost of inflicting harm on another. 

While Trump 1.0 tariffs aimed to weaken China’s economic position, they ultimately backfired, creating comparable setbacks for American businesses and consumers, and harming U.S. interests in the long run.

Last weekend we went apple picking again with the children. What we talked most was the election.  I explained to them two simple terms describing Trump's hardened supporters and their opponents: 川粉 (Chuān-fěn), their opponents: 白左 (Bái-zuǒ). They were truly impressed by the way Chinese simplified the expression, two syllables expressing so much.

A few days ago, a friend shared an article about Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as a model of successful reshoring to the United States.

TSMC’s decision to expand its manufacturing facilities in the U.S. has been largely driven by geopolitical factors and bolstered by significant support from the CHIPS Act.

The CHIPS Act (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors), enacted by the U.S. government in 2022 amid rising tensions with China, aims to secure American semiconductor production. With around $52 billion allocated for funding and tax incentives for domestic chip plants, the Act is a cornerstone of the U.S.’s strategy to boost competitiveness in semiconductor technology.

For TSMC’s Arizona project, the U.S. government has committed up to $6.6 billion in direct support under the CHIPS Act, along with up to $5 billion in loans and tax credits. This extensive backing aligns with the U.S.’s broader goals of strengthening domestic semiconductor production, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers, and enhancing national security. TSMC’s Arizona facilities are expected to generate roughly 26,000 jobs.

TSMC’s expansion reflects the complex dynamics of U.S.-China relations. The new Arizona plants are part of a broader reshoring or “friend-shoring” trend, as semiconductor companies reduce geopolitical risks by aligning production with supportive government policies.

While TSMC could feasibly continue its operation without further U.S. funding, recently, TSMC founder Morris Chang discussed some hurdles, noting how escalating geopolitical tensions and free-trade restrictions have increased competition over chip production. As a key supplier to companies like Apple and Nvidia, TSMC now finds itself at the center of major powers striving to secure chip access as tensions with China rise. The company has also navigated U.S. restrictions limiting its supply of advanced chips to Chinese firms, including Huawei.

Finally, could we replicate TSMC's move and have more factories moving back? With the right amount of money, absolutely yes. The Chinese saying "有钱能使鬼推磨" (yǒu qián néng shǐ guǐ tuī mò) — “With money, you can make the devil turn the millstone”— captures this idea perfectly. It suggests that with sufficient financial backing, even the toughest challenges become surmountable.

There has been extensive post-mortem analysis of Kamala Harris's loss in the 2024 presidential race. Some blame Biden for staying in the race too long, leaving Harris little time to establish herself. Others criticize his "garbage" remark about Trump supporters or point to Harris's VP choice as a factor.

Initially, I thought Harris’s identity as both Black and female posed a challenge in a country not yet ready for such a leader. 

However, the epiphany came when a friend reminded me of Bill Clinton’s famous slogan: "It’s the economy, stupid." That insight redirected my focus to the issue most affecting voters: the economy.

I have noticed how inflation has made even Walmart's prices feel less like a discount store. Walmart remains essential for many, but it no longer feels like the reliable low-cost option as it once was. This reflects broader inflationary pressures that have affected the average American’s wallet, especially under Biden’s administration.

Voters prioritize economic stability, and Biden’s economic policies, which have contributed to inflation, likely played a central role in Harris’s defeat.

In Chinese, the phrase 搬起石头砸自己的脚 (bān qǐ shí tóu zá zì jǐ de jiǎo) means "lifting a stone to smash your own foot," similar to "shooting oneself in the foot." Biden’s reputation in foreign affairs led him to prioritize overseas projects, pouring billions abroad while neglecting domestic issues. His decision to keep Trump-era tariffs, while intending to hurt China, ended up shooting in the foot of American consumers.

Biden's focus on overseas engagements, including maintaining trade tensions with China, has contributed to record-high inflation domestically. It’s no exaggeration to say that his failed economic strategy may have unintentionally paved an easier path for Trump’s return in 2024.

Ultimately, Harris’s loss finalizes Biden's legacy —a vivid example of "lifting a stone to smash his own foot."

On October 29, an article titled "TikTok’s Founder Is Now China’s Richest Person" caught my attention. The extraordinary popularity of TikTok has propelled Zhang Yiming, the 41-year-old cofounder of ByteDance, to the top of China’s wealth list. I wrote down some thought on the news that day.

For the first time, Zhang has claimed the title of China’s wealthiest person, with a reported net worth of $49.3 billion, according to the Hurun China Rich List 2024 by the Hurun Research Institute.

Zhang’s wealth surge is largely driven by TikTok's global success and ByteDance’s extensive portfolio, which includes platforms like Toutiao and Douyin. With 150 million active users in the U.S. and over a billion worldwide, TikTok’s influence has substantially boosted ByteDance’s valuation, placing it among the world’s most valuable tech companies. Remarkably, TikTok’s popularity remains strong despite looming threats of a U.S. ban.

There’s a Chinese saying, “树大招风” (shù dà zhāo fēng), meaning “big trees catch strong winds.” This proverb suggests that those in high positions often attract attention, criticism, or challenges. Just as a large tree is more susceptible to strong winds, prominent figures or organizations frequently face scrutiny or envy, encountering greater risks or opposition than those who stay out of the spotlight. It serves as a reminder of the potential pitfalls of sticking out—a caution to keep a low profile.

With the new US administration next year, for Zhang, being China’s wealthiest person and the founder of ByteDance and TikTok may mean as many unexpected challenges as it does prestige.

Whether TikTok will be banned in the U.S. remains uncertain, but various factors make it a possibility, especially given the shifting political climate. Future regulations might range from a complete ban to operational restrictions on TikTok within the U.S. There’s also a chance that the Trump administration could negotiate a compromise.

Ultimately, TikTok’s fate will likely hinge on the next U.S. administration’s stance, ByteDance’s lobbying efforts, and potential concessions. Amid this uncertainty, however, its 150 million active American users remain without a voice in the debate.

On election morning, I went to the YMCA. In the pool, I typically see more women than men, but that day, it was all women—I figured the men might be out voting. Later, as I passed by the NY homeless shelter, I noticed, as usual, only men outside and no women. It made me wonder why. Driving home, I reminded myself to look up data to see if these patterns I observed at the pool and shelter were supported by any trends.

Reading journalism books, I learned the value of a first-person eyewitness account. But I’m beginning to question the limits of this approach. Without relevant data, historical context, and multiple perspectives, a first-person narrative alone feels inadequate for truly understanding what one observes.

Now, days after the election, we know who will be the next occupant of the White House. America's policy toward China is likely to remain one of its most strategically significant areas of foreign policy, with far-reaching implications for global security and trade.

This story began during Trump’s first term, when he labeled China a "strategic competitor" and imposed tariffs on Chinese imports, sparking retaliatory tariffs from Beijing on U.S. goods. Also always remember China Initiative and Chinese Virus. Biden retained many of these Trump-era tariffs, which some believe has contributed to inflation in the U.S. and potentially impacted his VP in her White House bid.

There is a bipartisan consensus on getting tough with China, largely to appeal to American voters. Politicians find it easy to frame the loss of American jobs as a result of competition with China. However, many of these job losses in traditional industries, like steel, can be attributed more to automation and technology advances than to global competition alone. Unfortunately the average Americans do not dwell deep on this.

With Trump returning to the White House, we could see a significant shift in approach. While Biden has focused on building security alliances with other regional powers to contain China, Trump may favor direct, unilateral actions that could intensify the rivalry between the two nations. Keep in mind Trump’s unpredictability and anything is possible. A Chinese scientist could lose his job instantly under a new wave of Red Scare.

A Chinese saying goes, 山雨欲来风满楼 (shān yǔ yù lái fēng mǎn lóu), meaning "As the mountain rain looms near, the winds sweep through every corner of the building." The saying implies a brewing storm—a situation filled with mounting tension and anticipation of dramatic events. It reflects the sense of unease and the inevitability of coming shifts in U.S.-China relations with a new administration.