Very well put. Alliances take years to build but can be broken in just days.
I'm tempted to think (hope? dream?) that the markets and trade will rebound if all this chaos makes American politics swing back towards an interest in global stability, but I think anyone partnering with the US would do so VERY carefully and right now the entire world is plotting how to remove US dependencies.
I was bringing this up with a guy yesterday who was genuinely supporting the policies and somebody chimed in that they were not worried at all, because everyone wants to trade with the big boy in town. Trust is not important if they are afraid of you (I'm paraphrasing). Quite a different perspective, but it is consistent with an observation I made about a lot of US comments, people are quite happy for their country/government to engage in tactics (e.g. bullying, industrial espionage even against partners...) that they are enraged if others (E.g. China) do it. Europeans seem to be much more susceptible to an "if you don't want it to be done to you don't do it to others" argument.
> "if you don't want it to be done to you don't do it to others"
Doesn't work. We opened trade to China in the '70s. They took advantage of us, stealing IP, manipulating currency, paying their people terrible wages, crapping all over the environment. We let their companies freely in the US, they very severely restricted US business ventures in China.
Detroit, a former shining city in the industrial heartland, is now a bandit infested ruin.
In the US, a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support owning a house with a yard, a non-working spouse, a car, and multiple children.
For me, coming from the Rust Belt, it's incredibly, painfully obvious that globalization's basically destroyed the US economy. I'm constantly amazed to meet well-meaning, intelligent people who don't seem to understand this fact.
The Rust Belt's just one part of the story, not the whole US economy. Globalization actually created tons of wealth for the USA, but that money hasn't been spread around fairly. It's all piled up in coastal cities and with rich folks while factory towns got left behind.
Cutting off global trade wouldn't fix anything - it would tank the overall economy while only helping a few powerful players pulling the strings. The real problem isn't trade deals; it's that the USA never properly invested the profits back into the communities that got hit hardest.
The US economy is the largest in the world, disposable income, both average and median, are highest and second highest respectively. Median income is 30-40% higher than comparable developed economies, and significant higher than China.
And supporting a whole family on a single income well was a very narrow window of time, and it required the US to have no real economic competitors. Where US workers had no competition on the world stage, but their output was sold on the world stage. So even if the US go isolationist that's still never coming back.
A lot of this is just social change from the womens liberation movement. Women went to work and the market adapted. Now, in the main, you need 2 incomes to run a home.
It's worse in a lot of countries where tax policy disadvantages the pre-1960 norm like the UK.
Some places relied on other ways to make money (here in Australia it was comodoties). A lot is just social change to two income households, and it's main contributor to living costs was housings. Two people bringing in money ,means that households can pay more for a mortgage or rent, driving up costs.
That's what drove up housing costs after we switched from single to double income households. But before that, but before that, people in lots of countries could afford a house and a family on a single income, despite competition from other countries.
It's not that this situation was unsustainable or only attainable for the US; this situation should have been the norm, with the additional income just providing extra luxury or time off, but instead we got screwed through artificial scarcity and more money going to the very rich instead of the working and middle class.
>In the US, a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support owning a house with a yard, a non-working spouse, a car, and multiple children
A lot of the change there is not down to China but limiting the ability to build a cheap house through nimbyism and regulation and then competition from other dual income / high earners bidding everything up. You could fix it by allocating everyone a bit of land and letting them build whatever on it even if it was just a shack. It's not really trade that's the main problem.
What? No; the problem is vastly more attributable to the tremendous transfer of wealth from the working classes to the wealthy that has occurred over the past 50 years.
Look at any graph of earnings by quintile over time, or of income or wealth inequality today, and you'll see that the fact that builders can't cut corners and sell us crappy houses and apartments that will fall down around our ears is far from the primary reason we have trouble affording things today.
Wealth is not zero sum though. LeBron James being great at basketball doesn't make you any worse at basketball. Jeff Bezos starting a company in his garage selling books online that became one of the biggest in the world worth many billions doesn't make me any poorer. Financial transactions are win-win. That is why there is a mutual thank you when making a purchase. The cafe owner would rather have my 2$ instead of coffee in their pot. I would rather have coffee in my cup instead of 2$. If neither of us thought we would not be better off the transaction would not happen
For the people who want ^this guy to shut up but haven't engaged.. which part of the above is wrong? I can see hyperbole of "bandit infested ruin" pushing some buttons but otoh it's seems likely that crime is connected to general economic health.
Rust Belt isn't the entire US economy. Blaming where the US is today on globalization is probably 30 years too late.
The US economy has created enormous wealth. Domestic policies on how to spread around the prosperity to all citizens is where the US failed. Think more of what Sanders and AOC talk about, not bringing back factories that will be 99% automated anyway. For one example, how can the most prosperous country in the world have a majority of its bankruptcies tied to medical debt? And somehow people want to blame China or globalization or some other boogie man?
It’s right and wrong. Globalisation has hurt the rust belt, but it’s also allowed for much cheaper goods, which many people have enjoyed. It’s also made other economies much richer, which has allowed them to purchase U.S. goods (China being an immense iPhone market, for example). It’s not zero sum. If the world economy grows, and the USA holds onto a massive slice of that growing pie, then the USA wins - as it has been doing.
And the part about life just being totally unaffordable now isn’t really to do with China stealing from the US - housing is catastrophically expensive in many countries, and is more to do with how it has evolved as an asset class than trade relationships.
Doesn't that balance out in the end though?
People in Detroit go from working at an automobile factory to working as a service worker at a local restaurant or retail store and their incomes go down massively, meaning all they can afford to buy is cheap crap from China sold at their local dollar store or discount retailer. They would rather have the old purchasing power and old retail options, especially since inflation has eroded a lot of those low prices.
For me the idea of "stealing IP" in a society like China seems to miss the entire point of what they're doing and seems to fall short of having respect for cultural differences. What we think of as "respecting intellectual property rights" can also be seen as "hoarding property" which is antithetical to communist ideals.
> In the US, a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support owning a house with a yard, a non-working spouse, a car, and multiple children.
That was never sustainable in the long run and no one can bring that back.
Well, we can't count on the entire rest of the world having all their factories bombed and being the only nation with reasonable manufacturing capability all the time.
The US was not an export-focused economy in the 50s and 60s. In fact trade as a percent of GDP bottomed out in those decades. Arguing that the prosperity for the average person was only "sustainable" in an environment where there wasn't foreign competition is an argument for tariffs.
In what way would the citizens of the US have been worse off had the rest of the world had reasonable manufacturing capability? I'd have thought that either it'd be the same, or better, because same production + trade.
It was the US benefiting from its position on the world stage as to why that was possible. The US was never and is not going to retain it's position on the world stage, and indeed under Trump it is radically declining.
The US is going to normalize with other western nations as we enter a multi-polar world.
The problem is Republicans don't accept that and think they can return to the 1950s.
I agree that the Rust Belt has had it rough, but it is not the entire US economy. I won't argue that people saw the future in the 70s, but those jobs were/are going away to automation regardless (and they are certainly not coming back). It's better to not be reliant on them now. In hindsight globalization was right move. And even if it wasn't, trying to blame the current US issues on globalization is 30 years too late.
Statistically the US manufactures more than it ever has on a $ amount, and is the #2 manufacturer in the world. Until recently, the US economy was the envy of the world. The trade situation the US setup did and does work, and along with other policies, led to enormous prosperity that was just unevenly distributed.
Where the US failed, and mostly around GOP and now Trump policies, is not spreading the growing prosperity to more of its citizens. Given this enormous prosperity where is universal healthcare, free/low cost college, UBI, etc...?
Unfortunately, the people who really need these policies have mostly voted against them for decades. Their anger is legitimate, but it's misplaced. Being angry at "globalization" or "illegals" or pick a group is a misdirection fed by years of AM radio and Fox News. Now we are seeing the cycle continue, but this time the US economy may really be destroyed.
Since your comment is comparing the US with China, maybe a bit of "whataboutism" is warranted here.
> stealing IP
Edward Snowden's leaks reveal that the US engages in wide-scale economic espionage. Additionally, the US also uses extra-territorial means of coercion to acquire cutting-edge technology -- see e.g. the Alstom case.
> manipulating currency
For many decades the US has been able to print money like a madman while the rest of the world absorbs the costs by virtue of the USD being the primary reserve currency globally. The US is also not above strong-arming its allies into appreciating their own currencies to boost American exports -- see the Plaza Accord, which partly contributed to Japan's subsequent Lost Decades.
> paying their people terrible wages
China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty in the last 20 years. In the US wages have remained stagnant for the working class over the same period, if not longer. Frustration among the working class -- which is entirely justified and understandable, by the way -- is probably one of the reasons why Trump was re-elected.
> crapping all over the environment
Chinese cities today are mostly clean and quiet, increasingly powered by renewable energy with more and more electric vehicles driven on the roads. The Chinese are also undertaking massive greening projects, such as the Great Green Wall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China) On a per-capita basis the Chinese emit far less carbon dioxide than Americans do.
The US, especially when compared to almost any other developed country, is in no moral position to be sanctimonious about environmental issues.
Don't blame other countries -- China or not -- for America's own catastrophic, chronic failure in leadership and subpar policymaking, especially when America has enjoyed so many entrenched advantages for so many decades (and still does).
> Trust is not important if they are afraid of you .. Europeans seem to be much more susceptible to an "if you don't want it to be done to you don't do it to others" argument.
I've noticed this also, having spent a lot of time in both places. Some would say this is part of the American national character, and it's the darker side of hard-nosed individualistic cowboys, etc. The famous opening speech of Patton comes to mind here:
> When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.
There's at least some truth to this and the mean-spirited arrogance/strength in the rest of the speech being in line with national character, I think it has to be admitted. This seems like the guy was certainly never cut out to be a diplomat or act with moderation, and maybe most Americans aren't. That said though.. maybe a deeper issue is that suffering (economic or otherwise) changes people. Makes them merely hypocrtical in the best case, aggravated and mean on average, or in the worst case positively cruel. A lot of America has not been ok for a long time now.
Respectfully, I am suggesting that OP has an intellectual disability to think deriving notions about the 'American' national character from Patton is some tocquevillian insight and he may find it profitable to watch Downfall to try and figure out Brussels' next move. Don't forget the dousing rods.
Americans are taught at a very young age about Manifest Destiny, the notion when starting in the East that America has a right all the way to the West. While events like Trail of Tears are mentioned, they're downplayed during early school years and not brought up again later when kids may be able to form an opinion. Essentially, winning is ingrained into the American mindset and is the driving force behind almost everything - this helps when making companies big and even bigger, but also mutual growth hard to fathom. Current US policy does feel very American. Seems like a make-or-break moment for the American model itself, and if it breaks there'll need to be a change starting from the early age education/propaganda.
When people say that China will replace the US as the world's largest buyer of exports, I always wonder what planet they're living on.
China does not WANT to do this. They have tons of protectionism. They give tons of preference to their own firms and protect their domestic market from foreign companies. This enables their firms to grow strong. This is a strategy which has been practiced by many many developing nations. They can't live without it and don't want to.
Why does gmerc think that China is going to rewrite its entire economic policy in order to take "market share?" We usually use that term to mean, you are selling stuff and want to sell to more customers because you make more money. In this context however we are talking about BUYING more stuff - why would it be sane for China to dominate the act of buying everything it can on the planet? (At the inevitable erosion of its manufacturing base - just like what happened to the USA when it opened up its markets.)
I mean you can think whatever you want about Trump and his actions, but it just makes zero sense to think that China will step in and fill the old role of the US here, when doing so is a polar opposite from their current trade strategy and would probably collapse their economy. And that gets to the real elephant in the room, which is that no one wants to do America's "old job" anymore. No one else wants to be the ubiquitous buyer of everything with big trade deficits all over the place, the vast majority of countries on earth defend their domestic markets and preference their local firms more than pre-Trump America did - exactly what are these new alliances that are going to arise, when everyone wants to sell to other countries, and no one wants to buy?
I happen to live in a country whose #1 export market was the USA and is being slapped with some of the largest tariffs. Time will tell of course but at the moment they pretty much just seem to be fucked and all they are saying is they are ready to come to the table and negotiate with the US as soon as possible. There just doesn't seem to be a ton of demand for their exports elsewhere - it's not like every country on earth isn't out there pimping its exports to anyone who will listen, pretty much all the time. If China or the EU had a burning need for a couple hundred billion dollars more of shellfish or textiles or what have you, they'd already be buying it.
I understand that argument I've never seen it spelled out by anyone other than me. I only brought it up as a last effort to explain the possible thinking behind these actions. It still won't make sense because even if you believe that you are the top dog and you can effortlessly bully others then you'd have to realize that you won't be the top dog in every situation all the time everywhere at the same time. There will be many instances where others who previously leaned your way for free will now look to get paid for leaning your way.
cycomanic says>"Europeans seem to be much more susceptible to an "if you don't want it to be done to you don't do it to others" argument"<
While they may "talk the talk", Europe doesn't "Walk the walk"! Europe has strong tariffs on imports. The USA is now simply equalizing the situation. Here's an example:
Automobile Tariffs by Country 2025: put your cursor on a country to see its automobile tariff. European tariffs on autos are roughly four times those of the USA. While you're there you can look up the "sales tax" too!
European companies have had tariffs on USA products for decades. Those tariffs protect and maintain industries within a country. The USA failed to maintain that protection: the USA lost jobs and harmed industry which guts an economy. Meanwhile, for example, Germany protected it's auto industry with tariffs on cars from abroad.
My feeling is that "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
There's no doubt that the "Law of Comparative Advantage"(LCA) in economics is a valid argument for trade. However, the LCA is almost always argued in the absence of externalities: costs generated by use of the LCA are usually not taken into account when examining a full economy: job losses, industry shrinkage and failure, etc.
The US has benefited massively from soaking up the best brains globally. That's not going to keep happening; I have plenty of colleagues already who are refusing to travel to the US. We may well even swing into brain drain as Trump et al move closer to executing their cultural revolution.
Meanwhile, all those other countries will start trading more with each other. The US stands to be left out. Won't happen overnight, but Trump is pissing away the advantages. When the dollar isn't the global currency anymore things will really start to hurt.
It's an idiotic take I agree. However, I don't think the US has benefited massively from soaking the best brains globally because of its foreign or trade policies. Most dominant voices about US foreign policy and foreign business interest has always been characterized by aggression and exploitation.
I highly doubt people were ok with that because the US had low tariffs on their countries exports to the US.
I heard people saying BLM and Covid were cultural revolutions that would lead to brain drain under Joe Biden. It was hype. Politicians who marched with BLM in the summer of 2020 by 2023 were saying they were never in favor of defunding the police
If you (the US) massively subsidize the world order through your financial markets, military defense, and foreign aid, it’s only fair that you get to take advantage of your position.
Historically, the US has done this at the expense of its working class. Now there is a populist feeling that we are owed a long due “payback” for our generosity.
The Bernie/AOC left believe the payback is owed by our elites, who enriched themselves by austerity and hollowing out our industrial base.
The Trump/MAGA right believe the payback is owed by other countries — freeloaders that have benefited from our technology, military defense, and foreign aid while simultaneously being net exporters to the US.
To the latter crowd, the kind of “bullying” behavior you describe is actually the equivalent of a gentle giant who never stood up for himself finally deciding that he won’t take any more shit.
Edit: To any downvoters, please comment with where you think I’m wrong. I’m not defending any policy, just providing what I believe is an accurate representation of the populist American mindset described in the parent comment.
> To the latter crowd, the kind of “bullying” behavior you describe is actually the equivalent of a gentle giant who never stood up for himself finally deciding that he won’t take any more shit.
Assuming this generous interpretation is accurate, then it's a problem of ignorance of the people holding this view. Characterizing other countries as 'freeloaders' is exactly that - ignorance.
America is the richest country in the world. That is the payback. Yet somehow the working class is screwed.
People don't want to admit wealth distribution is the problem because that would make them "communists". It's an emotional response. I'm scared how far they take it.
Whether or not the “right wing working class” are right in their root cause analysis, the domestic situation in the US is catastrophic enough to demand explanation:
“If we are the richest country on earth, why can’t I afford a house and healthcare?”
Answer 1: You are being taken advantage of by wealthy elites within your country!
Answer 2: The whole world has made Americans front the bill for a regime of global peace, security, and a trusted reserve currency, at the cost of you, the American worker!
Depending on which answer you choose, and which camp you ally with, your worldview will differ.
I know. There is no reason to believe in #2. Its an emotional response. And so you cant change it. Just like you cant use logic with a flat earther. And that's scary for the rest of the world. I just hope no wars happen.
Housing and healthcare are the two things that have little to do with trade. Housing affordability is almost entirely policy driven. In a "free" market (quoted because the definition typically doesn't take into account the necessity of a functional society to maintain property rights and values, just ask Detroit), housing affordability is entirely dependent on one's relative income and propensity to spend, i.e. you can have high absolute income (say in NYC) and still find you desired housing unaffordable. I think people intuitively understand this. Healthcare costs are more complicated but is also almost entirely a domestic issue.
"People don't want to admit wealth distribution is the problem because that would make them "communists"."
If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'. There's nothing emotional about a methodology that has failed over and over again.
Well, we’ve been going through wealth redistribution towards the “elites”, and no one batted an eye.
China popped the real estate bubble, collapsing entire industry giants and making the “elites” swallow the financial downturn. Literally allowing the “poor” to refinance their homes on the back of the “rich”, because they believe housing isn’t for speculation, but for living in.
Tariffs without windfall profits tax will be further wealth redistribution, from the poor to the wealthy
That is begging the question. The question is not "Why are some people poor" that is the default state of humanity, and has been for the past 100,000 years Homo Sapiens have existed. The question is what are the succesful doing right. It is not because of "hoarding wealth infinitely" that a doctor has more money saved up than someone addicted to drugs and living on the street. It is their decisions that lead to their current circumstances. The doctor spending a decade in medical school and residency has delayed a lot of gratification getting their, while the drug addict likely had some issues with impulse control or delayed gratification.
Politicians should just come out and say this to the people. Oh you can't afford a house? Oh you cant afford healthcare? But we are the richest country in the world. And the system is fair. It means you didn't earn it. Duh.
Communism is control of the economy via government owning the businesses. What you are describing is taxes in a free market system. They are not the same thing, and being convinced they are is the majority of the problem.
> If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'.
Like taking money generated by the labourer and giving it to the company owners to share with their idle families? And threatening unemployment and precariousness/homelessness for those who disagree? This seems to have failed again indeed
Indeed. Taxation is as old as civilization. Civilization is built on taxation. The first writing systems, the first numbers, the first money, it was all invented to enable taxation. People should finally quit being so childish about this. Unless you want to go back to the stone age, taxation is unavoidable.
> freeloaders that have benefited from our technology, military defense, and foreign aid while simultaneously being net exporters to the US.
I'm not trying to jump on you for having captured it, but the problem is that this is wholly nonsensical - the repayment for benefiting from our technology and military defense IS the net exporting to the US (via holding our currency). That "logic" is still based on having one foot in the paradigm of the financial engineering puppetmasters where getting real physical goods is somehow a liability rather than a benefit!
For sure, this enviable position has had a corrosive effect on our economy. But the inability to deal with that has been wholly down to self-inflicted policy wounds of previous decades - chiefly led by the Republican party marketing a game of fake "fiscal responsibility" whereby the government is prevented from taking deliberate action to mitigate the displacement of industry and workers, while the increased (but now centralized) wealth from offshoring (and other technological/economic gains) was merely handed over to the banksters in the form of low-interest loans that went into driving up the asset bubble.
The US has always been incredibly mercenary with their investment. If there was a way of squeezing more blood from the stone a previous president would have done it. You learned about economic policy yesterday. Now you think that picking tariffs by throwing darts can do better than seasoned economic expert trying to maximize benefit to the US. It's just laughable.
Did I ever defend a particular industrial policy? No. You misread my comment.
My comment was intended to give the GP poster insight into the mindset of Americans who revel in the “bullying” behavior they described.
But one point of inquiry — how are foreign aid programs like USAID mercenary? Even if they are CIA fronts, it’s hard to argue that they are in any way economically extractive.
Supposedly they have a seasoned economic expert on staff, Stephen Miran. Is this guy a kook? It wouldn't surprise me, Trump had Laura Loomer at the White House and 1/2 an hour later three members of the National Secure Council had been fired.
A central problem with this administration is it's headed by a psychopath, who has a long track record of being an untrustworthy liar. Could he pick an economics team that can actually make hard choices that are generally better for America? It's possible. But it's also possible these are just more kooks, or corrupt people looking to grift, or people who think like Peter Thiel, that democracy is over and needs to be replaced by a monarch.
My take? Impeach and remove Trump from office. Do it now. If the country wants these kinds of policies, they need to do it through the Congress. Not through a president, sane or insane.
> Currently a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital Management LP and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York City, Miran holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University and his dissertation advisor was Martin Feldstein, an eminent American economist who chaired the CEA during the Reagan administration.
> Miran.. points to Trump’s application of tariffs on China in 2018-2019, which he argues “passed with little discernible macroeconomic consequence.” He adds that during that time the U.S. dollar rose to offset the macroeconomic impact of the tariffs and resulted in significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury.. “The effective tariff rate on Chinese imports increased by 17.9 percentage points from the start of the trade war in 2018 to the maximum tariff rate in 2019,” the report said. “As the financial markets digested the news, the Chinese renminbi depreciated against the dollar over this period by 13.7 per cent, so that the after-tariff USD import price rose by 4.1 per cent.”
We don't actually know if Trump's tariff strategy is Stephen Miran's strategy, nor do we know what Stephen Miran thinks of the strategy.
What we do know is that Trump disproportionately attacks people who criticize him, withholds security protection from them, and sometimes even sends mobs to have them assassinated.
It also took some time before Mark Esper told the public that Trump ordered that protesters be shot.
Therefore, I think it's possible we won't get Stephen Miran's honest assessment in the near future. We'll just have to wait and see.
> The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is a United States agency within the Executive Office of the President established in 1946, which advises the president of the United States on economic policy. The CEA provides much of the empirical research for the White House and prepares the publicly-available annual Economic Report of the President.
It's clearly the Bernie/AOC left who are correct here. The US forced this world order on the rest of the world, and massively benefitted from it, so the payback is not owed by the rest of the world who had this forced on them (though they benefitted too) but by the wealthy elite, who benefitted by far the most from it.
Look at the number of multibillionaires the US has acquired over the past 40 years. The trillion dollar megacorps. The many millionaires in Congress. Those are the people who owe payback to the American public. But those are also the people who control the American public, control their news, and feed them misinformation.
> Europeans seem to be much more susceptible to an "if you don't want it to be done to you don't do it to others" argument.
I mean, in the specific realm of trade wars, that’s probably more correct, because the game theory of the thing tends to make retaliating against the aggressor nigh-inevitable, particularly in a “country v world” situation.
> I'm tempted to think (hope? dream?) that the markets and trade will rebound if all this chaos makes American politics swing back
The pump'n'dump scheme against Ukraine will forever change how small countries see the US support for democracy, even if it changes back to the previous status-quo.
The US treatment of Ukraine is having a massive impact on how everyone thinks about security.
All the US had to do was supply it's old weapons to Ukraine whilst replenishing it's stock (creating jobs in America) and things would have been fine. Now we're all in a world were Europeans are openly talking about developing nuclear weapons. Taiwan is totally on it's own, and Greenland is worried about being annexed.
> All the US had to do was supply it's old weapons to Ukraine whilst replenishing it's stock (creating jobs in America) and things would have been fine.
Well, no, it's not fine, partly because we can't replenish our stocks fast enough. Ukraine is consuming nearly the entire planet's production capacity of Patriot missiles, eating enough of our ATACMS stockpile that it makes Combatant Commanders nervous, and more. To say nothing of the argument "supply Ukraine for as long as it takes, even if that means indefinitely" never made any sense; actions taken without a clear, achievable end goal in mind are just a waste of resources.
Europe is openly talking about its own cooperative nuclear umbrella. Trump is correct that he deserves 100% of credit/blame for that, taking the heat for Putin.
It will be done by your friends the French, even if not to everyone. Poland is very keen on it.
In fact they are reopening and massively developing an airbase that will be hosting nukes near Colmar, 200 km from the German border. That's a 6 minute flight for a Dassault Rafale.
It sounds like you’re arguing for the military industrial complex.
“The Ukraine war is great because it creates US jobs through weapons manufacturing. Yeah, we might get our hair a bit mussed with the hundreds of thousands of deaths, but net-net it’s a win!”
In the end, countries are nuanced enough to understand American political dynamics. They see Orbans, they see Le Pens, they see Trump, and they know what is behind it. I am quite sure that Ukraine did not expect anything else from the Trump faction of the Republican party. His victory was not unlikely and he is a simple creature. If different factions win, they will be eager to work with America again, with less trust and reliance.
Realistically, it is for the best if countries are resilient to US failure. It will make Americans generationally poorer, but the world will be better off for it.
You are just assuming Attention craving/seeking Trump types don't exist in every country in the world.
If Trump and the rest of his podcasting/influencer buffoon class, can rise to power in the US riding on what is valued by Attention Economics, then the same can repeat in every country in the world.
The root cause is not changing cause the Algos have created a game that favor those who love Attention and will do whatever it takes to get it and keep it.
> No new tariffs were announced for Canada. Canada and Mexico’s exemption for USMCA/CUSMA qualifying goods was maintained. However, 25% tariffs on non-USMCA compliant Canadian goods, Canadian steel and aluminum, Canadian autos and parts, and the 10% tariff on Canadian energy exports remain in place.. there are signs that negotiators on both sides are trying to steer Canada-US trade to a more productive process of an expedited renegotiation of the Canada-US-Mexico Trade Agreement (CUSMA).
> both leaders claim their approaches have helped them this week avoid what Trump calls “liberation day” tariffs.. Mexican officials on Thursday said the strategy had borne fruit and they would focus on getting an even better deal. Economy minister Marcelo Ebrard said: “It's a great achievement, I’d say, from the point of view of where we started not long ago that there would be no exemptions.” .. Mexico remains upbeat, with [President] Sheinbaum on Thursday trying to lure companies to invest in USMCA-compliant production in the country. “We think that with the dialogue we’ve established there are the conditions to have a better deal,” she said.
You've completely ignored what I wrote. The formula the white house used to set tariffs would result in lower tariffs for Canada and Mexico. If both countries were included in the formula Trump would have to cut announced tariffs on both countries.
You're disagreeing with statements by the President of Mexico, describing the result of ongoing negotiations?
Canada and Mexico share a physical border with USA, which has already resulted in unique (i.e. unrelated to the math of 180+ other countries which don't physically border USA) tariffs tailored to border security goals, under national security emergency directives which overrode USMCA.
USMCA has been historically gamed by international manufacturers seeking more favorable terms for products destined to the US market. As stated by the leadership of both Mexico and Canada, USMCA will need to be renegotiated to address issues identified by all three parties, which would then reduce the need to invoke the emergency-power tariffs that have been deployed against 180+ countries.
> As stated by the leadership of both Mexico and Canada, USMCA will need to be renegotiated to address issues identified by all three parties
On the canada side, i think the issue identified that needs to be addressed is the US president being a dick.
(I'm not being sarcastic here, that is my genuine impression. If you disagree can you cite a source for what issues canada wants addressed? Obviously times are a bit weird since we are having an election and its considered bad form for the gov to do anything during election season)
> Some Members of Parliament have also advocated for increasing trade barriers on Chinese imports alongside the United States, which the Canadian government has recently begun doing unilaterally. Suggesting Canada could be interested in coordinating those China-related trade policy measures across all three USMCA members, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland recently said she sympathizes with US concerns that “Mexico is not acting the way that Canada and the US are when it comes to its economic relationship with China.”
That doesn't seem to support canada wanting to renogtiate usmca. The best way of handling that issue is probably not renegotiation (its way too specific of a situation to write a clause into the agreement for). Furthermore, Chrystia freeland hasn't been deputy PM for four months now, and the situation has changed a lot since then (not to mention we also have a new prime minister since then). At the time of that statement i don't think there was much appetitie for renegotiating usmca.
Compared to now where our current PM is straight up saying "The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperations, is over"
> A broader change to the USMCA also looks likely, with Carney saying there had been “so many violations” that the free trade agreement needs “a renegotiation”.
Trump tariffs are based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, overriding USMCA and other trade agreements. Any renegotiation of USMCA wouldn't stop the potential use of IEEPA to selectively override parts of USMCA v2.
It's more likely that USMCA violations referenced by Carney and Freeland were done by Mexico/China, at the economic expense of both Canada and USA.
All trade agreements are about surrendering some domestic power. What act or other domestic legal instrument is used is irrelavent.
In context it seems very unlikely this is about mexico, as carney is running on a platform of closer integration with mexico and strongly distancing canada ecconomically from the united states. Carney's ecconomic policies are not identical to the previous administration - it makes about as much sense to refer to trudeau/freeland's statements as it would to try and explain trump's policies by referencing things biden said/did.
Napkin math cannot apply to Mexico and Canada tariffs, because the USMCA (and preceding NAFTA) have long intertwined North American manufacturing supply chains, with components moving back and forth across borders.
Even the emergency border security tariffs and counter-tariffs announced earlier this year by US and Canada have since been carefully tailored for specific products and exceptions, as cooler heads prevailed on both sides of the border, to minimize immediate and catastrophic ripple effects across North American manufacturing.
The entire new tariff scheme is napkin math. Although it could also be napkin math done by some LLM.
If it was real math, it wouldn’t assume that there is some magical trade elasticity that is completely linear in the tariff rate. And real math might notice that the prices of goods that are subject to tariffs are an utterly absurd measure of value, cost, movement of money, or anything else.
Consider:
A US company does a bunch of R&D and designs a widget. They pay $10 each to a Chinese factory to manufacture it. They warehouse the widgets in Hong Kong. Each widget purchased by a US customer results in a “$100” item being imported. $90 stays in the US. $10 goes to China.
The same company does exactly the same thing except they ship in bulk to a US warehouse. The imported item is now “$10”. The tariff is 1/10 as much, the napkin math sees 1/10 as much trade imbalance, but the economic effect of the import is identical.
Or maybe they ship from Hong Kong to a French customer. This should be seen as an export from the US to France with $90 and an export from China to France worth $10. But I think it’s invisible to the napkin math.
Now consider that the US is home to some wildly successful companies with names like AMD and Nvidia. They sell chips for thousands of dollars each, worldwide. They pay TSMC quite a lot less to make them. If they warehouse in the US, they may be screwed now! If they ship from Taiwan to a buyer somewhere else, the US has, in effect, exported quite close to the full sale price of that chip, but no trade goods ever touched US soil. Can the napkin math sees that?
You can bet that several other countries use brains instead of napkins and will have no difficulty thinking that they could retaliate by restricting or taxing of these US-designed goods even if they’re imported from elsewhere. And China is working very hard to make their own alternatives, and they will surely be willing to export them.
(Don’t forget: The UK and Israel have CPU design expertise. ASML is dependent on tin zapping tech from San Diego, but they’re an EU company. And it looks like the successor to that tin zapping tech might be free electron lasers, and that technology come from US national labs and universities, but other countries also have FELs, and the nerdy physicists who fiddle with them are not happy with the US government right now.)
See the 2024 paper (40 pages) by Stephen Miran, current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, which has influenced tariff policy, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43589350
> Miran.. points to Trump’s application of tariffs on China in 2018-2019, which he argues “passed with little discernible macroeconomic consequence.” He adds that during that time the U.S. dollar rose to offset the macroeconomic impact of the tariffs and resulted in significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury.. “The effective tariff rate on Chinese imports increased by 17.9 percentage points from the start of the trade war in 2018 to the maximum tariff rate in 2019,” the report said. “As the financial markets digested the news, the Chinese renminbi depreciated against the dollar over this period by 13.7 per cent, so that the after-tariff USD import price rose by 4.1 per cent.”
(c) Should any trading partner take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters, I may further modify the HTSUS to decrease or limit in scope the duties imposed under this order.
Lobbyists and trade negotiators can read 700 words of strawman "napkin math", or 40 pages by CEA chair, or interviews with administration officials, to inform their negotiating position.
This is nonsense. The “non-reciprocal trade arrangements” mentioned don’t obviously exist at all, and, to the extent they exist, they are certainly not measured in any meaningful respect by the formulas going into the tariffs.
Having spent a whopping ten minutes finding official data (and I have no idea how good this data is as a whole — probably mediocre but far better than whatever nonsense the USTR is doing):
(a) The EU seems to thing that they run a trade surplus with us in goods and a deficit in services, and they’re close to balancing out.
(b) The US’s own data shows a net surplus with some countries and a net deficit with others. See here, page 28:
If the US was trying to negotiate sensibly and to identify anything remotely non-reciprocal, they would be rewarding the countries with positive numbers in that table! The US should be delighted to trade with Australia, Brazil, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc! By all means, we should buy more widgets and sell more fancy services!
As a silly analogy: if your housemate goes on a wild drunken rampage and starts trashing everything in sight while screaming “you need to reciprocate and wash the dishes more often and I will continue trashing things until you wash the dishes reciprocally,” the situation is not a viable negotiation tactic.
To the extent markets recover it will be because there’s confidence that exposure to bizarre and unpredictable behavior from the US has been reduced.
EU / China trade pacts, China / California, Mexico / EU. People have to patch around the mistaken over-reliance on sanity from the US. It’ll happen, not sure if it’ll take a few weeks or a few years though.
The people who voted for these policies have to feel a sufficient amount of pain from them to be sure they won't just vote for them again as soon as they get the chance. Most people who voted for Trump in 2024 would vote for him again if he ran for a 3rd term. Nobody can consider America a reliable partner until that isn't a laughable possibility again.
I'm tempted to think (hope? dream?) that the markets and trade will rebound if all this chaos makes American politics swing back towards an interest in global stability, but I think anyone partnering with the US would do so VERY carefully and right now the entire world is plotting how to remove US dependencies.