No - your analogy is naïve because you misunderstand the asset class Trump is trading.
This isn’t a salary negotiation. This is volatility harvesting at a sovereign scale. It's game theory on multiple fronts: market psychology, supply chain shock calibration, and adversarial signaling to allies and rivals simultaneously.
If he had started with "large tariffs from the very beginning," you get predictability. Predictability collapses optionality. You witnessed deliberate escalation to force maximum global risk repricing, not minimum entry-level negotiation. Every new announcement forces new algorithmic recalculations, new hedging, new capital flight, and new corporate boardroom panic. These are behavioral effects, not linear bargaining.
By iterating:
1. Initial announcement (lowball threat, tests global sensitivity).
2. Unexpected acceleration ("125%" and global tariffs = force majeure panic).
3. Pause and de-escalate ("90 days"): Capture peak volatility, harvest alpha, and trigger a relief rally.
He created an entire pricing cycle without needing a signed deal. He forced global counter-parties to show their hand early, without material U.S. cost.
If you think this is a "mistake" or "textbook," you’re viewing sovereign tactics like HR haggling over hourly rates. In reality, this is a structured option play at the national scale: implied threat pricing, forced repricing of adversary cost structures, and staged maneuvering room for future escalation.
This wasn’t a gaffe. It was a global gamma squeeze.
Bookmark this. You’ll come back to it.