Reddit Posts
WBUY and MLGO: Exhibits #1,001 and #1,002 on why you stay away from shitty Asian small cap IPOs
Mentions
Just PR control to trick other countries into not reacting to trade imbalances. China is not going to do that in any meaningful way, as it needs the trade surplus more than ever. China just set the lowest GDP growth target in decades. After decades signing the WTO deals, China is still infringing most of the rules for unfair trade advantages, from capital control, currency fixing to ridiculous levels of subsidy and IP thief.
Energy security alone doesn't explain the massive level of overcapacity and huge incentives given to coal, as in China shaped their energy market to the point that building lots of coal now is still profitable. Even India realised you can't subsidise coal forever and went all in on renewable manufacturing to the point that China drags India to WTO court due to supposed discriminating policy.
I'm going to sum this up for everyone because a lot of the discussion here is missing the bigger picture. First: the logic behind a lot of current policy **does make sense if you assume a zero-sum worldview**. I personally think that worldview is terrible and historically destructive — the idea that the economic pie can't grow is basically brain-dead economics — but that’s the ideological framework driving a lot of decisions right now. Good reading on this concept: [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/09/the-zero-sum-idea-trap.html](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/09/the-zero-sum-idea-trap.html) Also relevant: [https://archive.ph/DhazW](https://archive.ph/DhazW) Financial Times summarized 2025 labor data showing **native-born unemployment increased while immigrant unemployment stayed stable**, noting that native and foreign workers tend to be **complements rather than substitutes**. When firms can't hire immigrant labor, they often **scale back operations entirely**, which can actually reduce demand for native workers. But I digress. Also worth separating **Trump from the broader U.S. strategic apparatus**. The U.S. intelligence community has massive resources and long-term strategic planning that spans administrations. This isn’t giving Trump credit — it’s just acknowledging the institutional capability that exists. Okay, here we go. --- ### Quick timeline of the U.S.–China trade conflict **Pre-2018:** U.S.–China trade mostly operated under **WTO rules and MFN tariff rates**. Tariffs existed but were limited and there was **no large-scale tariff war**. **2018 – Trade war begins:** The U.S. imposed **Section 301 tariffs** over Chinese tech transfer and intellectual property practices. China retaliated with tariffs targeting **U.S. agriculture (especially soybeans)** and **automobiles**. **2020 – Phase One deal:** Before the agreement, Chinese tariffs averaged **~21%** and covered **~58% of U.S. exports to China**. The deal cooled tensions somewhat, but **most tariffs remained in place**. **2025 – Major escalation:** During Trump's second term things escalated dramatically. * U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods jumped to **125–145%** * Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods reached **125–147%** China also retaliated with: * bans on some **U.S. agricultural imports** * **10% tariffs on crude oil** * **15% tariffs on LNG and coal** **Non-tariff pressure from China:** Tariffs were only part of the story. China also leveraged structural advantages. * Export controls on **gallium, germanium, antimony, graphite, and heavy rare earths** * Blacklisting U.S. firms via the **Unreliable Entity List** * Regulatory pressure like **antitrust and anti-dumping investigations** These materials are critical to **semiconductors, electronics, and defense manufacturing**, which gives China leverage far beyond tariffs. **2025–2026 energy conflict:** Energy became another pressure point. * China imposed tariffs on U.S. oil, LNG, and coal. * U.S. crude exports to China **fell about 72% by 2026**. * China also threatened retaliation after U.S. sanctions on smaller Chinese refineries processing sanctioned oil. Late 2025 brought a partial truce: * **U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods dropped to ~23–24%** * **Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods dropped to ~10%** But tensions remain high and both sides have continued investigating each other's industrial policies. --- ### The part people are missing The trade war isn't just about tariffs anymore. It's about **energy supply chains** and **who controls them**. China has been able to keep costs down partly because its refiners can buy **discounted crude from sanctioned producers** — mainly **Russia and Iran**. At the same time: * **Ukraine has been hitting Russian oil infrastructure**, disrupting exports. * The U.S. has sanctioned Chinese refineries processing **Iranian crude**. * Pressure is increasing on oil flows connected to **Iran and Venezuela**, which are major sanctioned suppliers feeding the same discounted oil ecosystem. And this matters a lot more than people realize because of China's energy demand. China currently needs roughly **11 million barrels of imported oil per day**. Despite what people often say, China is **still a massive net oil importer**, and it's still in the middle of heavy industrialization. About **50% of those imports move through the Strait of Hormuz**, and a significant share of the rest comes from **Russia**. That means disruptions in: * **Iran** * **Venezuela** * **Russian exports** * or shipping through **Hormuz** all hit China’s energy system directly. So when you fast-forward to today's conflicts around **Iran or Venezuela**, they aren't just isolated geopolitical disputes. They are **choke points in the global oil system that China relies on for discounted supply**. Disrupt those flows and you **raise China's input costs**, weaken its refinery advantage, and apply pressure in the broader economic standoff. Which leads to the real strategic question right now: **Does China step in?** Because the reality is that the current disruptions are **arguably hurting China more than anyone else**, despite a lot of public narratives saying otherwise. In other words: This isn't primarily an **Iran issue**. It's part of a broader **strategic pressure campaign aimed at China's energy access and industrial cost structure**.
Sure, I'll take a quick break from writing the abstract for my report on Kurdish Nationalism. We live in what is referred to as the "thickest" era of globalism the world has ever known, with the majority of that thickening having occurred in the last 30 years. That isn't to say we haven't been heavily globalized since the neoliberal ventures of the 1950s onwards, but that we have not experienced a regional war with a nation as technologically sophisticated as Iran at the center in the years since the advent of the internet and AI. Why is AI important? It's military applications aside, the insane amount of our economy invested in the industry has created a bubble that, even if it were to deliver on what proposing, would still need the massive amounts of money dumped into UAE and Saudi Arabia to seem like secure investments. So, now we have an Iranian regime that is ideologically dug in, in an existential threat, seemingly still capable of fighting a week after regime decapitation and successfully constraining up to 20% of the world's crude oil in an increasingly resource-scarce world. In short, everyone's money is everywhere. This means everyone has interests in everything. Rogue actors have come in tossed the rule-based game out the window after spending. the last decade deriding, degrading, and even (most recently) supplanting the post-Bretton Woods institutions (UN, World Bank, GATT/WTO) that were established to keep this sort of thing from ever happening again. This is probably one of the biggest quagmires that presidents have been tiptoeing around for a generation, and we just had somebody come up and stomp on it without any real plan to sort out the consequences, so... So, yeah, man... I'd say this has an uncomfortably high potential over becoming a more regional conflict at the very least. Now, that you've read everything I just wrote, as I am absolutely 100% sure you have because you requested it.... Why don't you give me your logic on why nothing ever happens?
Yes, the US is infact a founding member of WTO, that however doesn't mean that it has agreed to follow the rules. The WTO is currently neutered due to an Obama era policy. The US has consistently, beginning with Obama and continued through Trump1 and Biden.\ The WTO judges has terms, when the term is up, candidates are selected for consideration. The Policy entails persistent veto's against all candidates, a practice that has now left WTO without a court. No court, no arbitration, no verdicts. The US doesn't accept any outside influence intruding on their "sovereignty". That attitude has only grown worse under Trump. The current administration has been teetering on demanding that EU stops collecting VAT from US corporations doing business with the bloc. The same goes for demanding that corporations follows the same laws and regulations as everyone else in EU.\ That he hates and before relations begin to sour we let some things slide. I ask again. Who will enforce a claim against Trump, or a Trump corporation/partner? Currently the administration is bound to repay some $175B in tariffs revenue. It's not hard, all information needed is already in Customs data banks. There are 900 claims from **US** businesses in the courts right now, trying to get their refund. With both Nutlick and Hasset vociferously adding their support for the inane tariff strategy, it will only be harder to get any refunds. If Trump doesn't respect the authority of his own courts when it comes to domestic companies, why the ever loving _fuck_ do you think he will respect foreign ones?
The US has never joined the ICJ or WTO even though the helped found them.\ WTO is crippled, Trump _and_ Biden together has blocked all candidates for judges to WTO. They have no court, no way to regain it thus no way to pass any verdicts. International law is a myth. Who is going to enforce a claim on the US even if Trump signs contract to insure the entire worlds merchant navy?
You're conflating international treaties with commercial contracts. When the US government provides marine insurance they are issuing a standard, legally binding commercial policy. If a claim gets denied, the shipping company doesn't go crying to the UN or the International Court of Justice. They sue the US government directly in US Federal Court for breach of contract, typically under the Suits in Admiralty Act. Foreign corporations sue the US in its own domestic courts all the time and win when the math backs them up. Also, the US is literally a founding member of the WTO, so that claim is entirely completely off base. What makes you think a standard financial insurance contract would be governed by international treaties rather than domestic admiralty law?
You have very little understanding of geopolitics and how it affects geofinance. Notice that I did _not_ mention international law. There is no process for a foreign entity to force a claim from any government. International law is a gentleman's agreement at best. And the US has never signed any ICJ or WTO agreements anyway, something about those "threatening" their sovereignty. They just didn't want to be obligated to adhere to those courts.
Are you sure it wasn't you who just booted up a Robinhood account? You can analyze trends that could lead to underperformance over the next decade, such as China's impending demographic crisis vs. when they joined the WTO in 2001.
He has no choice? OK so is the plan to save our economy. Because it sounds like these are retaliatory and as if he is negotiating with the suppliers to a cleaning business. If you don't sell me bleach at a loss I will sue your business. If you don't give me free advertising I will let all my friends know not to use your services. If you don't accept lower than set labor rates I will bring litigation against you entire enterprise. Just wondering if you have any details on how this will save the country? If that is the angle then why hasn't leadership just come out and said something cohesive. Something like- "Congress and I have met and agreed to a new framework for tariffs that are clear and legal and align to WTO"
there was a surge in alcoholism among the blue collar types after China was added to the WTO in 2000. it's reasonable to believe the same will to white collars, though the beverage may be a little different and blue collar people, who are somewhat insulated from ai, will keep drinking market & margin expansion seems likely
If only the regards of this sub, especially you, could read. The Supreme Court only shut down the ability to impose tariffs using IEEPA. All other legal methods a president can impose tariffs are still in effect and not affected by the court ruling. Bessent already confirmed that the total tariff income across the board will be virtually unchanged as they will be imposed using other legal methods. You fucking moron, learn to read. **Section 338 — Tariff Act of 1930** Era: Great Depression Purpose: Retaliate against discriminatory treatment of U.S. exports Authority granted: • President could impose up to 50% additional tariffs • Triggered if a country discriminated against U.S. goods Key characteristics: • Focused specifically on trade discrimination • Retaliatory in nature • Rarely used • Reflected the protectionist environment of 1930 Limitations: • Narrower legal framework • Pre-WTO, pre-modern trade system • Eventually overshadowed by later trade laws ⸻ **Section 301 — Trade Act of 1974** Era: Post-Bretton Woods, modern trade system Purpose: Enforce U.S. trade rights & combat unfair practices Authority granted: • Allows the President (via USTR) to impose tariffs or other restrictions • Triggered by unfair trade practices, including: • IP theft • Forced technology transfer • WTO violations • Unreasonable or discriminatory practices Key characteristics: • Broader than Section 338 • Formal investigation process via USTR • Designed to align (at least procedurally) with WTO rules • Used heavily in recent years (e.g., China tariffs) Difference from 338: • More structured and procedural • Covers more types of unfair conduct • Integrated into modern trade law framework ⸻ **Section 232 — Trade Expansion Act of 1962** Purpose: National security tariffs Authority granted: • President may impose tariffs if imports threaten national security • Commerce Department conducts investigation Used for: • Steel and aluminum tariffs (2018) Difference from 338 & 301: • Not about trade fairness • Justified on national security grounds • Much more discretionary ⸻ **IEEPA — International Emergency Economic Powers Act** Era: Cold War Purpose: Address foreign threats during a declared national emergency Authority granted: • President can regulate or block: • Trade • Financial transactions • Asset transfers • Triggered by a declared national emergency involving an “unusual and extraordinary threat” Key characteristics: • Extremely broad • Often used for sanctions • Does not require a trade investigation • Based on emergency powers, not trade law Difference from 301 and 338: • Not technically a “tariff statute” • Rooted in national emergency powers • Much broader — can block entire categories of transaction
No, they only shut down the ability to impose tariffs using IEEPA. All other legal methods a president can impose tariffs are still in effect and not affected by the court ruling. Full stop. You fucking moron and everybody else that thought you were right lol **Section 338 — Tariff Act of 1930** Era: Great Depression Purpose: Retaliate against discriminatory treatment of U.S. exports Authority granted: • President could impose up to 50% additional tariffs • Triggered if a country discriminated against U.S. goods Key characteristics: • Focused specifically on trade discrimination • Retaliatory in nature • Rarely used • Reflected the protectionist environment of 1930 Limitations: • Narrower legal framework • Pre-WTO, pre-modern trade system • Eventually overshadowed by later trade laws ⸻ **Section 301 — Trade Act of 1974** Era: Post-Bretton Woods, modern trade system Purpose: Enforce U.S. trade rights & combat unfair practices Authority granted: • Allows the President (via USTR) to impose tariffs or other restrictions • Triggered by unfair trade practices, including: • IP theft • Forced technology transfer • WTO violations • Unreasonable or discriminatory practices Key characteristics: • Broader than Section 338 • Formal investigation process via USTR • Designed to align (at least procedurally) with WTO rules • Used heavily in recent years (e.g., China tariffs) Difference from 338: • More structured and procedural • Covers more types of unfair conduct • Integrated into modern trade law framework ⸻ **Section 232 — Trade Expansion Act of 1962** Purpose: National security tariffs Authority granted: • President may impose tariffs if imports threaten national security • Commerce Department conducts investigation Used for: • Steel and aluminum tariffs (2018) Difference from 338 & 301: • Not about trade fairness • Justified on national security grounds • Much more discretionary ⸻ **IEEPA — International Emergency Economic Powers Act** Era: Cold War Purpose: Address foreign threats during a declared national emergency Authority granted: • President can regulate or block: • Trade • Financial transactions • Asset transfers • Triggered by a declared national emergency involving an “unusual and extraordinary threat” Key characteristics: • Extremely broad • Often used for sanctions • Does not require a trade investigation • Based on emergency powers, not trade law Difference from 301 and 338: • Not technically a “tariff statute” • Rooted in national emergency powers • Much broader — can block entire categories of transactions
The court ruling today confirmed that only Congress can impose taxes, and IEEPA did not specifically delegate tariff authority to the president. The other tariff laws which were passed by Congress specifically delegated the authority to impose tariffs to the President. The only thing that is embarrassing here your complete ignorance and lack of knowledge on how the law works. You are blinded by bias against 🥭 and it honestly makes people like you look fucking stupid as hell lol **Section 338 — Tariff Act of 1930** Era: Great Depression Purpose: Retaliate against discriminatory treatment of U.S. exports Authority granted: • President could impose up to 50% additional tariffs • Triggered if a country discriminated against U.S. goods Key characteristics: • Focused specifically on trade discrimination • Retaliatory in nature • Rarely used • Reflected the protectionist environment of 1930 Limitations: • Narrower legal framework • Pre-WTO, pre-modern trade system • Eventually overshadowed by later trade laws ⸻ **Section 301 — Trade Act of 1974** Era: Post-Bretton Woods, modern trade system Purpose: Enforce U.S. trade rights & combat unfair practices Authority granted: • Allows the President (via USTR) to impose tariffs or other restrictions • Triggered by unfair trade practices, including: • IP theft • Forced technology transfer • WTO violations • Unreasonable or discriminatory practices Key characteristics: • Broader than Section 338 • Formal investigation process via USTR • Designed to align (at least procedurally) with WTO rules • Used heavily in recent years (e.g., China tariffs) Difference from 338: • More structured and procedural • Covers more types of unfair conduct • Integrated into modern trade law framework ⸻ **Section 232 — Trade Expansion Act of 1962** Purpose: National security tariffs Authority granted: • President may impose tariffs if imports threaten national security • Commerce Department conducts investigation Used for: • Steel and aluminum tariffs (2018) Difference from 338 & 301: • Not about trade fairness • Justified on national security grounds • Much more discretionary ⸻ **IEEPA — International Emergency Economic Powers Act** Era: Cold War Purpose: Address foreign threats during a declared national emergency Authority granted: • President can regulate or block: • Trade • Financial transactions • Asset transfers • Triggered by a declared national emergency involving an “unusual and extraordinary threat” Key characteristics: • Extremely broad • Often used for sanctions • Does not require a trade investigation • Based on emergency powers, not trade law Difference from 301 and 338: • Not technically a “tariff statute” • Rooted in national emergency powers
Except the other laws actually do explicitly grant the president authority to impose tariffs. The court ruling today confirmed that only Congress can impose taxes, and IEEPA did not specifically delegate tariff authority to the president. The other tariff laws were passed by Congress, and specifically delegated the authority to impose tariffs to the President. No, they only shut down the ability to impose tariffs using IEEPA. All other legal methods a president can impose tariffs are still in effect and not affected by the court ruling. **Section 338 — Tariff Act of 1930** Era: Great Depression Purpose: Retaliate against discriminatory treatment of U.S. exports Authority granted: • President could impose up to 50% additional tariffs • Triggered if a country discriminated against U.S. goods Key characteristics: • Focused specifically on trade discrimination • Retaliatory in nature • Rarely used • Reflected the protectionist environment of 1930 Limitations: • Narrower legal framework • Pre-WTO, pre-modern trade system • Eventually overshadowed by later trade laws ⸻ **Section 301 — Trade Act of 1974** Era: Post-Bretton Woods, modern trade system Purpose: Enforce U.S. trade rights & combat unfair practices Authority granted: • Allows the President (via USTR) to impose tariffs or other restrictions • Triggered by unfair trade practices, including: • IP theft • Forced technology transfer • WTO violations • Unreasonable or discriminatory practices Key characteristics: • Broader than Section 338 • Formal investigation process via USTR • Designed to align (at least procedurally) with WTO rules • Used heavily in recent years (e.g., China tariffs) Difference from 338: • More structured and procedural • Covers more types of unfair conduct • Integrated into modern trade law framework ⸻ **Section 232 — Trade Expansion Act of 1962** Purpose: National security tariffs Authority granted: • President may impose tariffs if imports threaten national security • Commerce Department conducts investigation Used for: • Steel and aluminum tariffs (2018) Difference from 338 & 301: • Not about trade fairness • Justified on national security grounds • Much more discretionary ⸻ **IEEPA — International Emergency Economic Powers Act** Era: Cold War Purpose: Address foreign threats during a declared national emergency Authority granted: • President can regulate or block: • Trade • Financial transactions • Asset transfers • Triggered by a declared national emergency involving an “unusual and extraordinary threat” Key characteristics: • Extremely broad • Often used for sanctions • Does not require a trade investigation • Based on emergency powers, not trade law Difference from 301 and 338: • Not technically a “tariff statute” • Rooted in national emergency powers • Much broader — can block entire categories of transactions
No, they only shut down the ability to impose tariffs using IEEPA. All other legal methods a president can impose tariffs are still in effect and not affected by the court ruling. **Section 338 — Tariff Act of 1930** Era: Great Depression Purpose: Retaliate against discriminatory treatment of U.S. exports Authority granted: • President could impose up to 50% additional tariffs • Triggered if a country discriminated against U.S. goods Key characteristics: • Focused specifically on trade discrimination • Retaliatory in nature • Rarely used • Reflected the protectionist environment of 1930 Limitations: • Narrower legal framework • Pre-WTO, pre-modern trade system • Eventually overshadowed by later trade laws ⸻ **Section 301 — Trade Act of 1974** Era: Post-Bretton Woods, modern trade system Purpose: Enforce U.S. trade rights & combat unfair practices Authority granted: • Allows the President (via USTR) to impose tariffs or other restrictions • Triggered by unfair trade practices, including: • IP theft • Forced technology transfer • WTO violations • Unreasonable or discriminatory practices Key characteristics: • Broader than Section 338 • Formal investigation process via USTR • Designed to align (at least procedurally) with WTO rules • Used heavily in recent years (e.g., China tariffs) Difference from 338: • More structured and procedural • Covers more types of unfair conduct • Integrated into modern trade law framework ⸻ **Section 232 — Trade Expansion Act of 1962** Purpose: National security tariffs Authority granted: • President may impose tariffs if imports threaten national security • Commerce Department conducts investigation Used for: • Steel and aluminum tariffs (2018) Difference from 338 & 301: • Not about trade fairness • Justified on national security grounds • Much more discretionary ⸻ **IEEPA — International Emergency Economic Powers Act** Era: Cold War Purpose: Address foreign threats during a declared national emergency Authority granted: • President can regulate or block: • Trade • Financial transactions • Asset transfers • Triggered by a declared national emergency involving an “unusual and extraordinary threat” Key characteristics: • Extremely broad • Often used for sanctions • Does not require a trade investigation • Based on emergency powers, not trade law Difference from 301 and 338: • Not technically a “tariff statute” • Rooted in national emergency powers • Much broader — can block entire categories of transactions
WTO is halted for news but be careful in case this thing spikes high. Potential death trap
Low floats: FGL, WTO
WTO microfloat post split? Maybe like Fgl , tcgl
Umm... There is should a 100% chance that SCOTUS rules against Trump, because no President has the authority to unilaterally set Global Trade policy without Congressional approval. # The Court of International Trade Stuck Down President Trump’s Unilateral Tariffs Lower US courts have ruled that President Trump does not have the authority to impose sweeping, unilateral tariffs on almost every country in the world using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court of International Trade (CIT), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that Congress holds the exclusive authority to regulate commerce, and IEEPA does not grant the president unlimited power to impose taxes or tariffs. **Key Details on Court Rulings:** 1. **Initial Ruling (May 2025):** The Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York ruled that the Trump administration lacked the authority under IEEPA to impose global tariffs, stating such power belongs to Congress. 2. **Appellate Court Ruling (August 2025):** The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. upheld this, ruling that Trump could not declare national emergencies solely to impose import taxes on all countries. Lower courts have consistently ruled that President Trump overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose global "reciprocal" and "trafficking" tariffs on every country in the world. The courts found that while IEEPA allows the President to "regulate" imports during an emergency, it does not grant the unlimited power to tax, which the Constitution vests exclusively in Congress. **Supreme Court Status:** The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025, and a decision is expected imminently, possibly as soon as **February 20, 2026**. **Status of the World Trade Organization (WTO):** The WTO has not gone "out of business," but it has been severely weakened by U.S. policies under President Trump. On March 4, 2025, the U.S. notified the WTO that it would suspend its budget contributions indefinitely. The U.S. was responsible for roughly 11% of the WTO's budget. Before the 2025 shift toward unilateral tariffs, essentially, the WTO acted as a referee and a record-keeper, ensuring countries stuck to the "promises" (bindings) they made to each other, rather than acting as a central authority that dictated what those prices should be. Developed countries (like the U.S.) typically had very low bound rates (averaging **3.4%**), while developing nations often had higher ceilings.
it would be extremely funny if one day china bought and took over entire US and Israeli silver and gold supply just so they had an excuse to exclude the US and Israel from WTO and IMF for not delivering the gold and silver thereby turning the US and Israel economy from major power to Argentina and Greece overnight.
I think we may just be using “boycott” in slightly different ways. I’m not suggesting there was some coordinated global trade embargo against the US 20 years ago. But during the Iraq War there were very real consumer-level boycotts in parts of Europe and Canada, along with diplomatic and reputational strain. It didn’t collapse trade flows, but it did reflect a measurable drop in public sentiment toward US leadership at the time. Similarly now, when I say countries are “boycotting Trump,” I don’t mean governments are severing trade ties. I mean there are targeted procurement shifts, consumer pullbacks, and rhetoric that’s directed more at the administration than at the US system as a whole. That distinction matters. I agree that China’s rise wasn’t caused by a boycott. It was structural economics: industrial scale, WTO entry, supply chain clustering, cost advantage, etc. My broader point wasn’t that America was punished into decline, but that perception and political cycles can influence international alignment at the margins. And I also agree the US doesn’t dominate consumer manufacturing anymore. But we remain dominant in capital markets, energy, aerospace, defense, and high-value services. That’s part of why I don’t think any current “boycott” rhetoric is existential. My only larger point is that superpower status isn’t permanent in history. That doesn’t mean collapse is imminent. It just means shifts happen over decades, usually gradually, and often for structural reasons rather than emotional ones.
FGL looking good. WTO is doing a 1:5 reverse split, supposedly today. Post split float will about 2.2 million
I can't find the portal to yesterdays 'the lounge' but there were a couple folks talking about WTO and FGL being degenerate picks for potential rallies after reverse splits. Any more information on these would be greatly appreciated, please, thanks 🙏
Anyone looking at WTO? Absolute garbage company and stock - has done a reverse split twice so far in the past 12 months, losing money like a horny drunk in a strip club. Yesterday announced yet another (third in a year!) reverse split (effective the 17th). Recently, this week actually, had news which gave it a 20-30% one day pump. Garbage company, but, the stock does check the boxes for criteria that many of these stocks that run not just 40 or 50%, but 2 to 5x: \-Chinese (or Singapore/Hong Kong/etc.), \-recent split, \-delisting notification, and... \-very-low float (after the reverse split will have a float of 1.6 million)
> And its a problem when the government does it at the cost of foreign shareholders precious short term profits, why? Most normal, well adjusted human beings experience this thing called empathy, and are capable of learning from the past, and so don't wish to see their domestic industries crushed by foreign competition that isn't acting on an even field while middle class jobs are destroyed and replaced with nothing, resulting in the kind of political strife the often encourages xenophobia and worse. Which is part of why the WTO exists. Then again, this all assumes that you care about avoiding hypocrisy and like having a consistent stance on things. Normal people capable of basic empathy wouldn't then turn around and start furiously masterbating to the prospect of such a fate happening to other people. Ideally, if you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of neocolonialism, you wouldn't turn around and advocate others should be. But not all cultures view contradictions in a person as negative. Some find it makes them deeper the less consistent they are. Perhaps you're from one such culture. > But hey, comparing a countries investment policy to a corporations pricing practices says wonders about your perception of moral value. There's no inherent moral value in making an analogy, metaphor, or simile and this performative shtick isn't working.
> How is that a fundamental concept in international trade when every relationship with large powers is literally based on that. In the way the WTO exists and there are trade disputes, and in the same way the definition of the word protectionism inherently explains the concept. These are pretty basic concepts anyone familiar with like entry level concepts of global trade should know. > non-liberal Illiberal, also no one refers to liberal democracies as "liberals". The connotation of that term too strongly pushes it away from what you want it to convey. > Or is it just not okay with liberals when a non-liberal sovereignty does it to actually benefit their people? To be clear, what you're doing here is the international equivalent of simping for Amazon's pricing policies because of how much the shareholders get, without considering the mom and pop stores it impacts. > Its not amoral realpolitik Yes it is. > its absolutely moral, as evidenced by the 800 million people raised out of poverty and into the middle class in China. The creation of mass wealth isn't a moral act in itself and every form of government has lifted people out of poverty.
> It's a neat sleight of hand because it doesn't look like a subsidy, but when all is said and done favorable tax status can put just as much cash in hand as a check. This is a recognized WTO subsidy. Stop acting like you've identified some secret subsidy that no one knows about, when you're basically the last person in the room to hear about it, but you're surrounded by people more ignorant so they're impressed. > To better simplify it. Company A and B both make 1,000 dollars. Company A is taxed at 15%, and ends up with 850 dollars. It then receives a 50 dollar subsidy putting it at 900 dollars at the end. Company B pays a 1% tax rate and receives no direct subsidy. Leaving it with 990 dollars. > My argument is that Company B was subsidized, just in a way that is less apparent to most people. You need to establish what tax was “otherwise due” under a defined baseline, and that the foregone revenue is specific to the auto industry (or EVs), not just general features of the U.S. corporate tax system. "The US tax code is complex" is not a strong enough argument to hand wave the difference.
Forking is the easy way. But the 21mil limit theoretically can be removed if everyone agrees to do it. At one point community wasnt happy and agreed to split to Bitcoin cash (which, yes, was a fork), but it is something that was not foreseen and just happened because people felt like there was a good reason to do it. Right now there is no reason to remove the limit. But what if WTO and/or major governments around the world said, we'll adapt BTC under condition of limit being removed, or moved to some other value. (Followed by a good reason to do it like the need for more BTC in order to facilitate the demand and they dont want to deal in satoshis or something)... what then? You never know what will happen tomorrow, let alone in 5, 10, 20 years.
That was before NAFTA and admission of China to the WTO. Big context error here.
WTO just did a whole ass halt-and-dump right into closing. That’s unbelievable
https://www.stocktitan.net/news/WTO/u-time-subsidiary-lands-us-50-million-smart-server-intent-agreement-070t59njqfei.html
The rest of the world is a lot stupider and willing to accept highly unfavorable trade conditions than many people would like to admit. When China was trying to join the WTO, the world knew it is not really a free economy or fair market competition. So it set up some deals to hopefully offset the imbalance and exploitations. These measures largely failed and turned into massive trade deficits for the rest of the world, which just exceeded a trillion last year. Now you can't even unplug from trading with China easily, and can only suck up many trade practices infringing the WTO rules. If China pushes for Yuan as the world reserve currency, it will probably end up like the WTO scenario. Most of the world will mistakenly think it is a good thing, or the cheating can be offset by some "measures", but end up being massively exploited.
Analysis: What is "Wrong" with the Statement? This post (from January 2026) conflates trade policy with aviation safety regulations. From a legal, technical, and logistical standpoint, the statement contains several significant errors and misrepresentations of how international aviation works. 1. Presidential Authority vs. Regulatory Process (The "Decertification" Threat) • The Error: The President cannot unilaterally "decertify" an aircraft type via a social media post or executive order. • The Reality: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the regulatory body responsible for certifying aircraft. Decertification (revoking a Type Certificate) is a rigorous legal process that requires proof that an aircraft is unsafe or unairworthy. • Why it matters: Attempting to decertify a safe aircraft (like the Bombardier Global Express) purely for political leverage would likely be overturned by US courts as "arbitrary and capricious" and violates the FAA's statutory mandate to prioritize safety over politics. 2. The "Illegal" Refusal Claim • The Error: The claim that Canada has "illegally" refused to certify Gulfstream jets is factually incorrect regarding international law. • The Reality: Under the Chicago Convention (ICAO), every sovereign nation has the right to validate foreign aircraft certifications to ensure they meet their own safety standards. Transport Canada (TCCA) has historically delayed certification for the Gulfstream G500/G600 due to specific technical disagreements regarding the "stick pusher" (a stall protection system) and flight control software. • Context: Canada argued the system didn't meet their safety requirements for pilot situational awareness. While frustrating for Gulfstream, this is a standard regulatory dispute, not an "illegal" act. 3. The Logistical Impossibility ("All Aircraft Made in Canada") • The Error: The threat to decertify "all Aircraft made in Canada" overlooks the composition of the US commercial fleet. • The Reality: "Aircraft made in Canada" includes the Bombardier CRJ Series (CRJ-200, 700, 900) and the De Havilland Dash 8. These planes form the backbone of US regional aviation (operating as United Express, Delta Connection, and American Eagle). • Consequence: If the US actually decertified these planes, thousands of daily domestic flights within the US would be grounded immediately, crippling the US travel network and harming American travelers more than Canada. 4. Violation of Trade Agreements (USMCA/CUSMA) • The Error: Imposing a punitive 50% tariff and using safety certification as a trade weapon violates the spirit and likely the letter of the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement). • The Reality: While the President has broad powers to impose tariffs (often citing national security), using safety certification as a retaliatory trade barrier is a violation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. It suggests the US is corrupting its safety protocols for economic leverage, which damages the FAA's global reputation. 5. Technical Imprecision • The Models: The post refers to "Gulfstream 500, 600..." The correct nomenclature is G500, G600, G700, and G800. • Certification Status: The G800 was only certified by the FAA in April 2025. Validation by foreign authorities (like Canada) typically takes months or years after the primary certification. Accusing Canada of "refusing" a plane that was only just finished is a distortion of the standard timeline. Summary The statement attempts to use aviation safety certification—which is supposed to be a neutral, data-driven technical process—as a political bargaining chip. Carrying out the threat would be legally questionable, would violate international treaties, and would cause catastrophic disruption to the US domestic airline industry.
It's more complicated than that. Yes, China never should have been given favored nation status or allowed to join the WTO in 2001 without having first fixed their authoritarian problems. That was a failure of western governments. We never would have been truly able to stop an enormous economy like China though, that power vacuum was going to be filled by something. However, until the very recent past the creation of technology and ideas happened in the west because we had societies where people could speak truth to power and forge their own directions, along with a robust bankruptcy system that gave people the opportunity to fail.
I think the applications (and job loss) will accumulate over time. Luke Gromen has talked about how AI productivity 1.0, which was China being allowed to join the WTO, led to 35% of US mfg jobs being shed within 6 years. I think we're looking at something similar
Well, much more, no. Much less, yes. Also, many developed nations put out laughably bad data. The best example of that is Russia, but China, Brazil, India, etc. often pump out blatantly misleading and false data. The US has also been doing it more lately. It's funny that you're pretending there's no benefit from lying about their numbers, tho. Anyway, since China is no longer "primitive" (pretty demeaning word usage, mate), they can drop their "Developing Nation" WTO designation. Let's see how that works out for them.
Anti capitalism ( a lot is still there), opposition to WTO, anarchism movement, a lot of radical egalitarianism, hard focus on identity based hierarchies that was seeping in to business and especially in schools. Critical race theory in schools and general illiberalism on college campuses. Especially for the strong sensorship on certain types of speech.
For the better part of 40 years, since Reganomics and Globalization (eg: NAFTA, WTO, etc), the West open it's markets to the world so that is own companies could off shore jobs and still sell domestically. They sold it to the American public as deregulation, as open trade, as a focus on High Value Add Jobs and in the process export nearly their entire industrial base. The geniuses at Wall St. saw the market RIP to new all time highest, while goods good cheap. The Biggest ROI wasn't in mining or enrichment... it was in Technology. Technology sucked up most of the investment dollars. Just look at your own portfolio, do you own more tech stocks or copper? So today, after Covid and Tariffs we were hit with a reality dose. We don't control the inputs. This is a common paradox in business. At the start of a mega trend (eg: tech) we chase vulue and return, we are rewarded, we double down and win some more. During this process we miss how quickly the world has changed and where the value is now. Eventually we noticed the difference, either slowly via diminished returns or quickly via a Shock.
China would never move any production to Canada that doesn’t align with their interests or how they work. Like 10 years ago during the Obama administration when we trusted China and were going with a globalist movement, China took advantage of that, told US companies to start manufacturing there (with the promise of cheaper production) and then proceeded to commit the largest intellectual property theft in modern history basically stealing all the knowledge and processes from the companies that moved production there, and then running those companies out of China after taking the intellectual property, then basically getting Chinese companies to do it for cheaper (because they pay their people basically nothing) and then beat out the western companies on the international stage. Why in the world would they move production to somewhere where it’s gonna be more expensive like Canada (unless Canada would like to participate in the abusive underpaying conditions of sweatshops)? And I’m not a trump supporter at all but I do think something needs to be done about China and it’s definitely not letting them get any bigger than they are. They are a dirty playing country, the amount of indigenous Chinese people they have killed is disgusting all in the name of “development” and also the fact they still consider themself a developing country with the WTO just to get the benefits that actually developing countries should be getting is ridiculous as well and we’re just letting it happen. Also there is no “new world order” China has always been at the top 😭
My wife is a tariff specialist for DSV (one of the world's largest shipping companies), and the way she explained it to me was: A product bound for the US will have a “Country of Origin” (where it was made/warehoused) and a “Country of Departure” (where it was loaded on the convenience that moves it to the US). Tariffs are based on the Country of Origin. Currently tariff forms do include a section for Country of Origin, but under WTO rules the EU can change these documents to just list “EU Common Customs Area” as the CoO. Then the US will have to decide if they are willing to ignore the agreed WTO rules and refuse entry of the goods at that point. The EU can’t stop them from doing so, but it will (again under WTO) allow the EU to impose countermeasures, most likely triggering a spiraling series of changes. These constantly evolving changes, much more than the actual rates, will cause trade to ground to a halt as companies will not risk their goods being refused at port because the rules changed while they were enroute. The shipping companies will redirect their ships bound for the US to Canadian and Mexican ports, so they can be sure they can get the goods unloaded and cleared in customs and then they will have to be separately exported to the US from there, further increasing prices paid by the US consumer.
No, there are US Customs rules on "Rules of Origin" that require products to still document how their components are sourced. It's not "technically"legal for the US to do so, as it goes against the WTO treaties it's party too, which allows forming economic unified markets and customs zone, but due to it's size the US usually gets away with it, and until now the EU rarely had a reason to really oppose this. The problem for the US is that the EU always retaliates as a bloc. The EU Commission has exclusive competence on trade, so what the US thinks is a wedge to divide EU countries, simply does not operate that way.
Not really, because according to WTO rules they have to report on the country of origin which would ultimately be Denmark.
Not that rules apply anymore, but you technically can't do that under the WTO without justifications (hostile takeover of land probably isn't one of them). You're likely correct that the US will do it anyways so expect hardware to get even more expensive with new tariffs on ASML. >Trade without discrimination >1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.
GL timing your re-entry. You can’t exactly tariff individual EU countries for this reason. Likely blocked legally by both US law and WTO law.
WTO is a scam, I don't know why you would throw money into that
why the drops for UAVS, WTO and PRZO?
Possibly WTO huge contract and 207k float
Premarket Watchlist: **$WTO** **$ELUT** **$ALCY** ___ Mid term: **$SRXH** **$DVLT** **$TRAW** : Small float, watching this one for dips. Multiple drugs in pipeline. Ratutrelvir (Covid) & Tivoxavir marboxil (Oral influenza, H5N1), Narazaciclib oncology asset. Company is running low on cash so I’m expecting the run up to be diluted immediately to fund future projects. **Dec - 17** : Interim data (only 37 patients) released (-37%), showed favorable safety profile( lower adverse than Paxlovid(Major established company ), including activity in paxlovid ineligible patients. Followed by a massive sell off : https://finviz.com/news/255922/traws-pharma-reports-positive-interim-clinical-data-with-ratutrelvir-versus-paxlovid-shows-activity-in-paxlovid-ineligible-covid-19-patients Ph2 full release is on schedule in January, with that small cap if PR is solid I see a rally, but will exit most of position if it climbs in anticipation. Discord has full DD.
Imagine , Just imagine putting your hard earned money in EPWK, YYAI, YGMZ, WOK, WTO and other Chyniece piece of sheet.
Premarket Watchlist: **$WTO** **$ELUT** **$ALCY** ___ Mid term: **$SRXH** **$DVLT** **$TRAW** : Small float, watching this one for dips. Multiple drugs in pipeline. Ratutrelvir (Covid) & Tivoxavir marboxil (Oral influenza, H5N1), Narazaciclib oncology asset. Company is running low on cash so I’m expecting the run up to be diluted immediately to fund future projects. **Dec - 17** : Interim data (only 37 patients) released (-37%), showed favorable safety profile( lower adverse than Paxlovid(Major established company ), including activity in paxlovid ineligible patients. Followed by a massive sell off : https://finviz.com/news/255922/traws-pharma-reports-positive-interim-clinical-data-with-ratutrelvir-versus-paxlovid-shows-activity-in-paxlovid-ineligible-covid-19-patients Ph2 full release is on schedule in January, with that small cap if PR is solid I see a rally, but will exit most of position if it climbs in anticipation. Full DD in discord.
WTO for overnight and PM watch this could fly Huge contract and only a 207k float it was running good AH even with the bad timing of new years eve news release..NFA do your own DD just putting it out there might be a play early...
Im watching WTO for overnight and pre market I think its going to go higher..It was the only good news on Wed closing with that huge contract .I made a good profit on it ah wed. Just something to watch NFA...
Check WTO. Though it is a terrible stock with huge dilution, expecting a sharp pump before the dump.
Might watch WTO in pre market friday..It might run better with the news after holiday..
I didn't do anything all day then the news popped for WTO made a quick 500.00 AH HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE HOPE NEXT YEAR IS PROSPEROUS FOR US ALL...
Out of WTO second time 1.17 to 1.30
WTO AH doing good good volume coming in
WTO 295k float with huge contract
Unfortunately, I haven't been following updates much in the last year – I've gotten carried away with my own system for identifying market trends. But try starting with those who collect data: Eurostat, the WTO, the World Bank. They periodically publish data that reveals trends. They don't actually monitor the trends themselves. You can also write to me, and I'll be happy to share any information I have about the trends I'm working with.
I took the L on WTO to go all in on LGHL
>yes Then look up what is defined as dumping per WTO
I commented last week DVLT would dip to the 1.10-1.30 range. Keep on your watchlist. I’m still all in on WTO with a 1.24 avg. NFA
Who let China join the WTO? I forget
The US trade deficit began in the 70s. Europe's trade deficits began after China joined the WTO. Inflation exposed how bad it is. And they're letting BYD build EV assembly plants! lol
International trade law does not define them as selling at a loss but selling below their domestic market value in a foreign market. Sometimes that could be selling at a loss, but it could also mean that they are selling for a smaller margin. Whether something is being dumped needs to go through investigation and WTO review. Just because some random guy claims China is dumping their product does not mean that they are actually dumping their product, especially if its products that foreign market does not make. Dumping is sector specific, but lazy people just claims China dumps everything.
You're just cut and pasting CATO-level shit. Like yes, it is hard to compete with a state-owned enterprise which views full employment and GDP growth as metrics for success. You are not going to compete easily against a provincial governor who has a mandate to move currency around in his province by paying contractors to build shit, even if it's shit that doesn't do anything. They call that "dumping" and it's against WTO rules, but the WTO is a sclerotic organization at the best of times, which is why both Mangosteen and his predecessor both have held up appointments to the WTO so that its basically dead because it took them decades to rule on blatantly bad behavior like this.
WTO keep it on your watchlist. I’ve been commenting BDRX and WTO. BDRX basically did a 2x earlier if you checked my comments. I’m all in WTO now. NFA
WTO dipped. I’m basically all in on this one
PT on WTO and why you like?
Been commenting BDRX and WTO on here. It dipped to the 4s and now almost $8. That’s a 2x basically. Not in anymore but still in WTO. Keep it on your watchlist
Keep WTO and BDRX on your watchlist yall
WTO and BDRX y’all
WTO and BDRX been commenting these two. BDRX dipped to low 4’s and went to the 6 range earlier.
WTO y’all. Been commenting this one……
WTO yall keep it on your watchlist. I’ve been commenting this one.
https://preview.redd.it/ars3n26spz5g1.png?width=1178&format=png&auto=webp&s=23dff833cc78cf75259107c3cac3e01004dfed6d WKHS went to $18 premarket. All in WTO and BDRX now
1. Massive Revenue Windfall. Funding Tax Cuts and Debt Reduction 2. Reviving Industries and Creating Jobs Through Reshoring. (Reshoring will take time as did offshoring) 3. Negotiation Hammer for Fairer Deals 4. Prevents dumping and counters foreign subsidies For the US, tariffs aren’t a crutch. They’re not something we did to be mean. They don’t have “little to no benefit”. Tariffs can be a superpower for the US. They’ve funded growth, rebuilt factories, and rewritten deals no WTO whine could. Further, all large GDP countries use them to protect their interests and sectors that need to be protected against foreign countries. The take I originally replied is stupid. Flat out. This DAY ONE SHIT WE’RE TALKING HERE
Also looking at: KOS OMI ONL WTO Decisions, decisions. I guess the first one to leap, is what I'll go with.
WTO. Been commenting this week it dipped to 1.07 range and it went to 1.20 plus earlier. I’m still holding. Check it out yall
Mate I've seen you shill WTO so much it's starting to look like bot behaviour. I know you're not a bot and I've seen you call out some good trades but this is a place for discussion. At least give some analysis if you want people to jump in.
WTO https://preview.redd.it/8nilt1pmgd5g1.png?width=1178&format=png&auto=webp&s=ae0120f16c75291f34d4a6eca17628ad401855be
WTO has potential check it out yall. NFA
Check out WTO also. SMX was on my watchlist at $4.67 last week and BYND I was researching when it was 0.70 cents. I’m all in WTO now
WTO y’all keep this on your watchlist. It dipped to the 1.07 range earlier this week
WTO y’all keep this on your watchlist im all in basically
you never told us SMX unfortunately, but whats so good about WTO
Yeah no. YYAI WTO INHD PAVS what do they all have in common? Bottomless pit Chinese scam
WTO. I had SMX on my watchlist when it was $4.67 last week and I also was researching BYND when it was around 0.70
Maybe put WTO on your watchlist yall. SMX was on my watchlist last week at $4.67. I’m all in on WTO now. Got out of APLT
WTO y’all all in on this one
WTO y’all check it out if you’d like