They touch on it in the article. What if the goal is to trade globally in cryptocurrency?

While this has been historically true, it’s not working this time.

But the dollar not only failed to strengthen this time, it fell, puzzling economists and hurting consumers. The dollar lost more than 5% against the euro and pound, and 6% against the yen since early April.

As with most things happening under this US administration, he pushes things to the breaking point to see how it reacts. He’s stress testing the global economy. From there, I would guess that he’d back off just before the breaking point and move on to something else.

I’ve posted this elsewhere (skip to paragraph 21 for the meaty parts). The short version is that the US demanded that trade partners implement protections for US companies in exchange for trade deals. Those trade deals are no longer present, so why don’t the governments reverse the protections since the US isn’t holding up their end of the bargain anymore?

For comments, I read that the upvote indicates that you feel that the comment is adding to the conversation and a downvote indicates that it detracts. I don’t know how this applies to the articles.

Americans get really upset when people go to the US and do things like they do in their home country, but also expect to be able to act like Americans in other countries. It’s a little arrogant or ignorant. Some people who who were even invited to study in the US have been deported for doing things that Americans do themselves, like protesting.

Whittle this story down to its core and you have, “guest in country breaks law and gets punished”. Is that really surprising? How about, “guest in country exercises rights of citizens and gets punished?”