Post New

I mean, it's no great insight that one of Trump's signature moves is to obtain a trivial, illusory, or unenforceable outcome in one of his "deals" and declare it the greatest victory. So it's not much of an insight to note that's one of the possible, if not likely, outcomes of his tariff morass. But it's interesting to see some groundwork being laid out, here by Mark Thiessen (the more "conservative" of the WaPo opinion writers):

A few weeks later, [then-President Trump] made the same offer to the European Union. “The European Union is coming to Washington tomorrow to negotiate a deal on Trade,” Trump tweeted, “I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies!”

None of our major trading partners showed any interest in Trump’s proposal.

Fast forward seven years, and the E.U. is suddenly offering to negotiate “zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods,” as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen put it last week. That sounded very much like the deal he offered them in his first term.

https://archive.ph/Qh1MR#selection-417.0-1219.190

Except, of course, it is very much not like the deal he offered them in his first term. There's a good reason why the EU would not accept a deal that dropped "all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies." The EU's primary trade restrictions deal with protecting their domestic agricultural sector, which (like in the United States) packs a huge amount of political punch. Plus, the Trump Administration has claimed that the backbone of their taxation system, the VAT, is itself a trade barrier - so they're not going to rework their entire economic system just to gain some extra access to the U.S. market.

So what's on offer is actually far far different from what Trump wanted. In fact, it's probably a pretty sweet deal for the EU, since their tariff rate on industrial goods from the U.S. is exceedingly low already (they only have a tariff rate of about 1% on all imports on average, which is almost all ag tariffs) - and they'd love to get tariff-free access for their automobile industry. But that type of deal is one that Trump's supporters can spin as a win, even if it has very little actual benefit (or even a slight detriment) to the U.S.

I don't doubt that the Administration will try to get much more, but given that they've already shown how easily they can get blown off a hand by even the slightest hiccup in the bond market, that's just so much weakness that it's hard to see how they can do well in these discussions. Trump hasn't done any of the work necessary to make domestic voters (outside of pure MAGA) comfortable with the long-term plan, so he can't handle the political pain. The downside to the "madman" theory of negotiation is that you can't assure your voters (or your Congressbeings) that you're not a madman - which gives your counterparties a lot of leverage over you.

That's why we're already seeing groundwork for "declare victory and go home" as an exit strategy.

Or:
Trump asks other countries to stick tariffs on China.

Trump asks other countries to stick tariffs on China.

I mean, he could ask. I mean, it sounds nice, in theory and if you don't actually think about the specifics.

But it's unlikely that any of China's material trading partners would do it. Who would, especially after we just engaged in such hostile trade actions against them. You're not going to get the EU or Japan to agree to provoke China at our behest. All the ASEAN countries have a binding trade agreement with China - and unlike the U.S., they are likely to abide by their existing trade treaties rather than tear them up when inconvenient.

So who would do it? Running down the list, ASEAN wouldn't, not the EU, not Japan, not South Korea. Taiwan's the only possible contender - they're not in ASEAN and might be susceptible to pressure. But that would be a hugely complicated thing. Then we get into Russia and Australia (no to both - they didn't get hit with major tariffs). Brazil isn't going to do that - they're salivating at taking our soybean markets away from us. I can't see India being willing to get into it with China at our request, either....China's as big a trading partner for them as we are. Then we're down to the UK (no major tariffs) and Canada (hell to the no).

That's all the big ones and the medium ones - everyone else is small fry. No doubt we can force countries that are tiny (like poor Lesotho) to put some tariffs on China, but that's not much of anything.

That's all the big ones and the medium ones - everyone else is small fry. No doubt we can force countries that are tiny (like poor Lesotho) to put some tariffs on China, but that's not much of anything.

Then China has the world by the short hairs, per this logic. Nothing we can do!

Then China has the world by the short hairs, per this logic. Nothing we can do!

There's lots we can do. We can try to encourage domestic reshoring of strategic industries, a la the bipartisan CHIPS Act and similar types of proposals. We can negotiate free trade agreements with our allies countries so that we are importing more from friendly nations than potential adversaries (our increased imports of Canadian oil, for example). We can strengthen the federal government's role in setting national industrial policy (which requires beefing up, not DOGE'ing down, its capacity) so that we have a counterweight to the industrial policy of China. We can coordinate both trade and diplomatic policy with nations around the world to try to cabin China's influence, by offering both our allies and developing nations compelling alternatives to trading with China and joining their bloc. You could spend a lot of time and resources trying to change the economy to make ourselves less dependent on trade with China so that we could actually have a good bargaining position, and then try to reform our trade with China only rather than precipitating a world wide trade offensive against every country on earth, friend or foe.

What we don't have is a magic button labelled "TARIFFS" (that most beautiful word in the English language!) that we can push to solve all these problems without having to do any work or compromise or form coalitions. That's a recipe for failure - we alienate the nations whose help we need, we reveal (very quickly) that we have no tolerance for pain in the bond markets or in our producers' supply chain, and we "declare war" against China without having done any of the work to be prepared to win that war.

Needed to pick this one:
We can try to encourage domestic reshoring of strategic industries, a la the bipartisan CHIPS Act and similar types of proposals.

Tariffs are another way to do that, btw. They do that without incurring the fiscal burden that a direct subsidy incurs. If you want to say "tariffs are inflationary!" you can...but so are things like the CHIPS Act.

We can negotiate free trade agreements with our allies countries so that we are importing more from friendly nations than potential adversaries (our increased imports of Canadian oil, for example).

We don't import Canadian oil because we need oil, btw. We import it to refine it and ship it elsewhere.

We can strengthen the federal government's role in setting national industrial policy (which requires beefing up, not DOGE'ing down, its capacity)

No. We don't need to over-regulate or have government people involved in every. little. thing. DOGE isn't just about reducing the size of the government but also about making it vastly more efficient that it is.

Here's an excellent example:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/new-change-t...

On Wednesday, DOGE announced via a post on X that the login button on the IRS website, previously located in the middle of the page, has been repositioned to the top right of the navigation bar. This adjustment aims to enhance user experience and streamline access to IRS accounts.


You might say, "Wow, Dope. They moved a button! Wow, that's just awesome, like they invented antigravity or something!" And it sounds trite and silly until you read...

An IRS engineer collaborated with DOGE to expedite this change, initially projected to take up to 103 days. However, the task was completed in just 71 minutes, showcasing the potential for efficiency when bureaucracy is minimized.

That's just to move the login button a few hundred pixels up the screen. Now imagine the delays and structural nonsense built into much bigger projects and programs. If we want to compete at a global scale we have to do much better.

We can coordinate both trade and diplomatic policy with nations around the world to try to cabin China's influence, by offering both our allies and developing nations compelling alternatives to trading with China and joining their bloc.

We've been doing this for decades, pretty much since the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union dissolved. How's it going for us? The Chinese have their tentacles in literally everything and the Europeans are playing right into theirs and, ironically, the Russians' hands by de-industrializing and increasing their dependencies on cheap Chinese goods and Russian energy.

The Europeans need to grow up, and fast.

As for Asia, do you really think the Japanese don't know exactly who they're dealing with in China?

What we don't have is a magic button labelled "TARIFFS" (that most beautiful word in the English language!) that we can push to solve all these problems without having to do any work or compromise or form coalitions. That's a recipe for failure - we alienate the nations whose help we need, we reveal (very quickly) that we have no tolerance for pain in the bond markets or in our producers' supply chain, and we "declare war" against China without having done any of the work to be prepared to win that war.

You're assuming that our friends and allies have been dealing with us straight this entire time. You know who is one of the worst industrial espionage outfits on the planet?

France.

well, trump apologist david brooks brought up the 1 obvious reason to force 1-on-1 negotiations...corruption !
'where can we donate don? what'll it take to get just our tariffs cut don?'

regarding the cliche of stupidity vs malice, MAGA's calling card is they are rarely mutually exclusive.

(via BBC, bare bones example of structural flaw in this approach)
nation A mines ore and sells to
B who makes drills and sell to
C who extract oil and sell to
A to run the mines.

according to team trump, every country is ripping off someone and getting ripped off.
no amount of 1-on-1 fixes this.
C is just not buying ore from A.

Tariffs are another way to do that, btw. They do that without incurring the fiscal burden that a direct subsidy incurs.

Unless you impose tariffs on everything from every country. If you're trying to reduce our strategic dependence on China for certain things, then targeted tariffs on China on those certain things can provide incentives to reshore to the U.S.

Of course, the major problem with doing that is that we have all sorts of international trade agreements under which nearly all countries have bargained not to do that. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, so to speak - we all agree not to use tariffs to block imports, and whichever countries end up with those industries based on their skills and talents and resources end up with them. There are some exceptions for militarily strategic things, of course....but you don't get to just decide that you'd rather have more textile factories just 'cause. I mean, you can decide that - but then you lose the benefits of the global trade regime that helped make your country so rich in the first place.

No. We don't need to over-regulate or have government people involved in every. little. thing.

But that's not what I said. If you want to make sure your capitalist economy ends up with the industries that you want it to end up with, rather than the industries that will result from the application of free market forces carried out by millions of free autonomous people and firms, then the government has to intervene. If you want to make sure your company is making microchips domestically rather than importing them, but it's cheaper to import them, then the government has to intervene.

However, that can't happen unless the government is big and strong enough to intervene. There's no magic bullet that avoids it. If you want the government to be able to do things, it has to be able to do things: it has to have the resources, personnel, experience, and capacity to actually shape the economy....if you want the country to end up with outcomes that are different from the free market outcomes. TANSTAAFL - you don't get to have a stripped-down bare-bones government and have the kind of outcomes that require powerful government interventions.

We've been doing this for decades, pretty much since the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union dissolved. How's it going for us?

Yeah, and we've had police for decades, but we still have crime. But that doesn't mean we should get rid of the police. We've been playing a global game of influence and strategy....but because the populist right doesn't like foreign aid, we've now given up entirely and gone home. China's been aggressive and resourceful in wooing developing nations because they've been putting in the work, and they've been successful even when we were pushing back on them. Imagine how things are going to be now.

You're assuming that our friends and allies have been dealing with us straight this entire time.

I have not. I noted in this very thread that Europe (like most countries) employs significant protectionism measures in favor of their politically powerful domestic agricultural sectors. As does the United States (hello, tariff-quota protections for sugar!). And the EU and the US have been negotiating for decades over various measures to mutually reduce those tariffs and non-tariff barriers: gradual and slow progress to be sure, and the barriers remain, but progress nonetheless.

And then Trump walks in and imposes the highest average tariffs across the globe in a century. Which is a thing one can do, but then it is unreasonable to expect that other countries' responses will be to work cooperatively with us.

Dope1: We don't import Canadian oil because we need oil, btw. We import it to refine it and ship it elsewhere.

That's incorrect. We need it to keep our refineries running, especially in the Midwest. And we do use it after it's refined (we also export some overseas and even return some back to Canada, after refinement).

Most American refineries are set up for the kinds of heavy crudes you get from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. That made sense when it looked as if the US was running out of domestic oil, but then came the shale oil revolution. American shale oil, it turns out, is typically light and high quality, meaning it is not best-suited for domestic refineries. The upshot is that while arithmetically America is energy independent – producing far more oil than it consumes – in practice it is anything but. It must keep sucking in heavy oils from elsewhere to feed its refineries while sending Texan crude off to Europe and Asia to be refined.


https://edconway.substack.com/p/america-still-need...

Of course, the major problem with doing that is that we have all sorts of international trade agreements under which nearly all countries have bargained not to do that. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, so to speak - we all agree not to use tariffs to block imports, and whichever countries end up with those industries based on their skills and talents and resources end up with them. There are some exceptions for militarily strategic things, of course....but you don't get to just decide that you'd rather have more textile factories just 'cause. I mean, you can decide that - but then you lose the benefits of the global trade regime that helped make your country so rich in the first place.


Making stuff, having land, labor, capital in one place, an abundance of natural resources and having 2 oceans to keep us out of European head-butting are why we're rich. Oh, those and a system of government that places primacy in the hands of the individual that's willing to work for are why we're rich and successful.

I actually support Free Trade. But you can't Free Trade your way into an economic system where all you do is financial services and software and that's the trajectory the United States has been on for 20 years. At some point you have to make tangible things.

If you want to make sure your capitalist economy ends up with the industries that you want it to end up with, rather than the industries that will result from the application of free market forces carried out by millions of free autonomous people and firms, then the government has to intervene. If you want to make sure your company is making microchips domestically rather than importing them, but it's cheaper to import them, then the government has to intervene.

And DOGE is cutting none of that. Oh, somebody will be along and claim that Elon Fired This One Critical Guy or Elon is Shredding That Critical Department. The truth of the matter is that the government is bloated, is slow, is behind private industry to such a degree that the two can't really communicate because the people in the government literally have no idea a) the speed at which the private sector moves nor b) the tech/issues behind why they do what they do.

Something has to give.

However, that can't happen unless the government is big and strong enough to intervene. There's no magic bullet that avoids it. If you want the government to be able to do things, it has to be able to do things: it has to have the resources, personnel, experience, and capacity to actually shape the economy....if you want the country to end up with outcomes that are different from the free market outcomes. TANSTAAFL - you don't get to have a stripped-down bare-bones government and have the kind of outcomes that require powerful government interventions.

The government is already ~24% of total GDP. How much bigger do you want them to be????

Yeah, and we've had police for decades, but we still have crime. But that doesn't mean we should get rid of the police.

Heh. That's the left wing position, not mine :)

China's been aggressive and resourceful in wooing developing nations because they've been putting in the work, and they've been successful even when we were pushing back on them. Imagine how things are going to be now.

China has been playing the long game.

a) Use peasant labor, lax environmental standards, IP theft and other means to establish themselves as a manufacturing super power
b) Orient the world's supply chains such that everything runs through them
c) Take the money you pull in from insourcing everyone else's manufacturing capacity to buy up the Western world's government debt. Then earn interest from the people you're trying to destroy.
d) Block anyone else's products from your market, while stealing their best tech and using it to build up homegrown capabilities.
e) Take more money and use to buy influence among other nations, signing them up to odious terms along the way.
f) Ruthlessly extract resources and exploit developing nations to extract wealth even more efficiently than the colonial powers did.

That's what Chinese "putting in the work" looks like. They're not nice guys. Never have been. It's not called Panda Face/Dragon Face for nothing.

I noted in this very thread that Europe (like most countries) employs significant protectionism measures in favor of their politically powerful domestic agricultural sectors. As does the United States (hello, tariff-quota protections for sugar!). And the EU and the US have been negotiating for decades over various measures to mutually reduce those tariffs and non-tariff barriers: gradual and slow progress to be sure, and the barriers remain, but progress nonetheless.

LOL. You think it's limited to just that? They've been playing subsidy games with Airbus jets - while simultaneously claiming that tax breaks to Boeing are the same thing and suing us for it at the WTO - for decades.

Which is a thing one can do, but then it is unreasonable to expect that other countries' responses will be to work cooperatively with us.

The Europeans in particular have
a) Happily drawn down their militaries to almost nothing
b) Spent the money they've saved on a social safety net
c) Have bought into every green scam they can and are rapidly destroying their industrial and energy bases.

Looking to Europe for any kind of policy leadership is folly.

Some kind of hard reset is required here.

And BTW. Here's how China treats Europe:

https://www.gbnews.com/news/british-steel-royal-na...

The emergency legislation empowers Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds to direct British Steel's board and staff, and allows him to enter company premises "using force if necessary".

The Government was forced to act after negotiations with Jingye broke down - with Reynolds telling Parliament that the firm had demanded "hundreds of millions of pounds" beyond the Government's offer.

The company also refused to accept conditions preventing fund transfers to China or ensuring blast furnaces were maintained.

(China owned British Steel up until yesterday, btw)

Oh, and one more by the way.

British Steel is in trouble because the Chinese are trying to redirect a critical element from the UK: coke. Can't fire up your blast furnaces without it.

Do you know where you get coke from? Coal. Which has been...largely gotten rid of in Europe.

An IRS engineer collaborated with DOGE to expedite this change, initially projected to take up to 103 days. However, the task was completed in just 71 minutes, showcasing the potential for efficiency when bureaucracy is minimized.

Dope, usually what happens is in a few days we find out that the 103 days is due to something like there are 250 thing scheduled ahead of it, and that when it comes up it only takes 110 minutes. Still more 71 minutes, but it's not 103 days. Nothing put out by Doge should be looked at as being accurate and truthful due to prior experience with their misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, lies, omissions, half truths, etc.

People here can see right through this. You've got to admit there are some very sharp and experienced people here - that's why I'm here, to listen to them.

Dope, usually what happens is in a few days we find out that the 103 days is due to something like there are 250 thing scheduled ahead of it, and that when it comes up it only takes 110 minutes. Still more 71 minutes, but it's not 103 days. Nothing put out by Doge should be looked at as being accurate and truthful due to prior experience with their misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, lies, omissions, half truths, etc.

All lies! Lies, I tell you!
The point, of course, is that the government does a lot of stupid crap that can be thinned out. And it is.

People here can see right through this. You've got to admit there are some very sharp and experienced people here - that's why I'm here, to listen to them.

LOL. Whatever works for you.

The truth of the matter is that the government is bloated, is slow, is behind private industry to such a degree that the two can't really communicate because the people in the government literally have no idea a) the speed at which the private sector moves nor b) the tech/issues behind why they do what they do.

Something has to give.

Story time. Other countries come over to look at how IRS collections works because the IRS does it better than anyone. When a tax due is uncollected the IRS first starts with dunning letters.

Dunning is the process of methodically communicating with customers to ensure the collection of accounts receivable. Communications progress from gentle reminders to threatening letters and phone calls and more or less intimidating location visits as accounts become more overdue.

As the balance ages out of dunning it's sent to collections, which starts with phone contacts and proceeds to agent going out and seizing cars, the whole smear. These agents are specially trained and retrained.

So those people who think the government is bloated, slow and inefficient talked Congress into doing experiments, they allowed civilian dunning letters, to civilian phone contacts, to civilians going out to taxpayers and seizing, etc. It turned out the civilians weren't as good at dunning, phone calls, etc., but there was one huge difference - they were terrible at taxpayer rights. They trampled on taxpayer rights badly and the training was poor.

What one company proposed was that the IRS give them the addresses and information for the dunning letters, they would mail them out, and as the balances aged out of dunning, they would be returned to the trained IRS collection staff. In the meantime the company would take a percentage of the amount collected from dunning. The IRS could show Congress that a lot was collected from dunning letters, the IRS was already set up to do that, and all that would happen is that the company would collect a percentage that would be more than the cost of the IRS dunning.

Under the mantra of "The government can't do anything right and is bloated, slow, and inefficient" are a bunch of pariahs who want to make easy money, and leave all unprofitable things to the government.

Dope1: An IRS engineer collaborated with DOGE to expedite this change, initially projected to take up to 103 days. However, the task was completed in just 71 minutes, showcasing the potential for efficiency when bureaucracy is minimized.

Jeebus.

Anyone who's ever worked in web design knows this is complete bullshit. But, hey, you read it on X so it must be true, right?

I also seem to recall reading that Elmo and DOGE were going to save the federal government $2 trillion only to have it turn out to be closer to $150 billion.

Do you know what the difference is between $2 trillion and $150 billion? Basically, $2 trillion.

The truth of the matter is that the government is bloated, is slow, is behind private industry to such a degree that the two can't really communicate because the people in the government literally have no idea a) the speed at which the private sector moves nor b) the tech/issues behind why they do what they do.

You are pulling this stuff out of your ass, or the FOX 'news' ass.

I had to the IRS website today in order to look something up.

And I got one of those “this is not a secure connection” messages.

The whole damned experience was hinky- http instead of https etc. etc.

Made me wonder if the IRS website is now hosted on a Xitter server.

The Europeans in particular have
a) Happily drawn down their militaries to almost nothing
b) Spent the money they've saved on a social safety net
c) Have bought into every green scam they can and are rapidly destroying their industrial and energy bases.

Looking to Europe for any kind of policy leadership is folly.

Even so. If you want to constrain China, we'll need allies. Even imperfect allies.

That's the folly of this "reset." If our primary goal is to contain growing Chinese hegemony, then we'll need to work with the rest of the Western economies and the developing economies of Asia. Warts and all. We can't do it if we suddenly regard virtually every other OECD nation as an adversary that needs to be thwarted for trade transgressions simultaneously with trying to contain China. Or if we start telling countries like Cambodia and Vietnam that, no, we need you to slash your domestic apparel industry so that we can go back to having low-wage low-productivity textile mill jobs again, for some reason.

Or if we just launch this aggressive trade action without preparation. Ideally you'd prefer to actually made more progress building up your domestic semiconductor industries and letting everyone know that they need to stockpile rare earths a long time before declaring a trade war against China. You know, so that we're in a better position to win that trade war. Spend some time beefing up the federal government's role in industrial policy (yes, the federal government's share of GDP is high, but that's almost entirely insurance programs and the military - everything else is basically a rounding error) so that your economy is already on a "war footing" before you start the war. Etc.

If you want to lead an action to constrain China, it's folly to simultaneously take that moment to declare virtually every other nation on earth an adversary when it comes to trade and then expect them to help you constrain China.

Even so. If you want to constrain China, we'll need allies. Even imperfect allies.
...

Ah, but you forgot Russia. Who needs European military when the 4-D chess player can drive a wedge between the two other great powers? They will help us as soon as Ukraine stops its war of aggression against our dear ally.

It's 1984. Oceania now wants to align with Eurasia against Eastasia. In 2017, the dogs on certain news channels had already changed the direction they were barking at. Should have been a clue.

Ah, but you forgot Russia. Who needs European military when the 4-D chess player can drive a wedge between the two other great powers? They will help us as soon as Ukraine stops its war of aggression against our dear ally.

Erm, okay.

Meanwhile, here's China today:

Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of the 5,000 years of Chinese civilization. The Chinese people do not cause trouble, nor are they afraid of trouble. Pressure, threats and blackmail are not the right way to deal with China.

This from one of their party higher-ups in Hong Kong.

Even so. If you want to constrain China, we'll need allies. Even imperfect allies.

Imperfect? I'd choose distracted and unserious as my adjectives for Europe these days.

If our primary goal is to contain growing Chinese hegemony, then we'll need to work with the rest of the Western economies and the developing economies of Asia.

I'd rather have gone that route also. But that's neither here nor there at this point, yes? I'll let you pick the metaphor about spilled milk or water under the bridge or the train having left the station. We're standing in Mexico, and Hernán Cortés just metaphorically burned the ships. No going back to Spain now.

Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of the 5,000 years of Chinese civilization. The Chinese people do not cause trouble, nor are they afraid of trouble. Pressure, threats and blackmail are not the right way to deal with China.

This from one of their party higher-ups in Hong Kong.

He was responding to this quote from J.D. Vance:

“To make it a little more crystal clear, we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.”

Asked about Vance’s comments at a regular news briefing Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said: “It’s both astonishing and lamentable to hear this vice president make such ignorant and disrespectful remarks.”

If our top officials eschew diplomatic niceties, we can hardly be surprised when other countries do the same in response.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/china/china-slams-v...

Imperfect? I'd choose distracted and unserious as my adjectives for Europe these days.

The EU is still the second largest economy on earth. Second largest in the world by volume of imports, second largest in the world by volume of exports. They are enormous in the global economic stage, whatever imprecations you wish to hurl at them. Add in the other major OECD players, and the balance of the Western economies is bigger in all respects than the U.S. So if you want to go to economic war against China, it's foolhardy beyond belief to not do it in concert with those countries.

I'd rather have gone that route also. But that's neither here nor there at this point, yes? I'll let you pick the metaphor about spilled milk or water under the bridge or the train having left the station.

No. After all, the Administration could admit their error, scrap the tariffs as ill-considered, and contritely express their desire to focus primarily on containing China and work to repair the relationship with the rest of the major global economic powers. It will be hard, because the U.S. has burned trust and goodwill that took eight decades to build. But it's the correct move if you're putting U.S. interests first. I know DJT doesn't do contrition, so that's a fantasy. But the fact that his personal failings don't allow him to change course doesn't mean that it's not possible. He's just going to keep compounding his error, instead of climbing down.

The metaphor I'd use is that "if you're in a hole, stop digging." The Administration has committed a disastrous error with this tariff policy. With each passing day that they continue to pursue it, the damage increases. They won't be able to undo all the damage, of course - but they could mitigate by abandoning this course. Rather than pretending that there's no alternative than to keep pressing on.

After all, the Administration could admit their error, scrap the tariffs as ill-considered, and contritely express their desire to focus primarily on containing China and work to repair the relationship with the rest of the major global economic powers.

Yeah that sounds like Trump.

It will be hard, because the U.S. has burned trust and goodwill that took eight decades to build.

Uhhh, okay. Let's not wax too dramatic, here.

It will be hard, because the U.S. has burned trust and goodwill that took eight decades to build.

Uhhh, okay. Let's not wax too dramatic, here.


Dope...if anything this is understated...... I have family, friends, ex work colleaugues and neighbours in just about every western country and a few in asia as well... we have not always seen eye to eye ....but the US has definately burned trust. The "ass kissing " line, sent the last hold outs over the edge....

I have family, friends, ex work colleaugues and neighbours in just about every western country and a few in asia as well... we have not always seen eye to eye ....but the US has definately burned trust. The "ass kissing " line, sent the last hold outs over the edge....

I'm not interested in short-term emotional reactions. Nation-states - serious ones, anyway - don't run like that. All that matters is long strategic alignment.

al's comment about 80 years of good will? Okay. I'll see that and raise with 3 or 4 hundred years of cultural conflicts in the Pacific Rim between China, Vietnam, The Philippines, Japan and Korea.

Yeah that sounds like Trump.

Like I said, I don't think he would. I think he's going to continue to choose the worse of the options available to him - to double down and stay the course, rather than do what would actually benefit us in our efforts to contain China. I expect him to do the wrong thing....but that doesn't mean the right thing isn't available as an option. If only there were some coordinate branch of government that had been expressly granted the tariff authority under the U.S. Constitution that could do something about this....

If only there were some coordinate branch of government that had been expressly granted the tariff authority under the U.S. Constitution that could do something about this....

Don’t worry. Some Obama-appointed judge will be issuing a nationwide injunction any day now.

Don’t worry. Some Obama-appointed judge will be issuing a nationwide injunction any day now.

There might indeed be. There's a decent argument that the President has exceeded the power granted to him by Congress in just deciding to levy all these new tariffs.

I mean, he's not just acting absent Congressional approval for these changes - for many of these countries we have actual free trade agreements that were approved by Congress that establish what the rate of tariffs between the U.S. and the other country will be, and he's acting contrary to laws passed by Congress.

He might even have some trouble with conservative judges, since this is the sort of thing that they have railed against in the past - an Executive shouting "emergency" and claiming all sorts of extra-legislative powers. There were a fair number of conservative COVID era rulings that curtailed the power of state and federal authorities to use a simple finding of emergency as a way of exercising powers that were normally supposed to be governed by what the legislature had adopted.

https://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/news/us-cour...

I also seem to recall reading that Elmo and DOGE were going to save the federal government $2 trillion only to have it turn out to be closer to $150 billion.

You have “save’ doing some pretty theoretical lifting there, as we don’t know, and I suspect even DOGE doesn’t know what they’ve really cut. They’ve chopped Alzheimer’s trials in midstream, taking years’ worth of research and throwing it in the trash bin. That’s “waste”, not “saving”.

They’ve chopped thousands of IRS agents, but we all know that those people bring in more than their salaries in chasing down scofflaws and tax cheats, so that “saving” is going to cost money when it’s all accounted for.

They’ve made cuts to mine safety administrators, the CDC unit in charge of norovirus prevention on cruise ships - during the worst norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships ever. That doesn’t cost?

There are so many more, and this is being done by a bunch of software geeks with zero, I say ZERO experience in government, who don’t even know what they’re cutting, but they see a contract and say “OK, cut that.” No thought, no discussion, no deliberation, just meat-axe.

I very well suspect that the $150B “saved” will actually cost more than $150B, and we will never know the real cost as some things that would have been done (like Alheimer’s research that might have led to something) won’t be - and our country will be poorer for it. Meanwhile China will forge ahead, as they are doing strategically in so many areas, and leave us sniffing their exhaust as they roar past us.

And meanwhile the morons applaud.

With each passing day that they continue to pursue it, the damage increases. They won't be able to undo all the damage, of course - but they could mitigate by abandoning this course. Rather than pretending that there's no alternative than to keep pressing on.

The problem is that Trump (and acolytes) are convinced the US can do it all single-handedly. The truth is that we are a mighty and powerful nation, but we are still only 25% of the economy, and less than that of military, and less than that of population.

We did not win World War II by ourselves, although the heroic movies from Hollywood and the programs on the History Channel mostly ignore that. It took Stalin and the sacrifices of 10 times as many soldiers as we had, it took England standing resolute and the French underground to bring about that result.

We did not win World War I alone, either; indeed we didn’t even enter the war until it was long underway, and even when we did it took another full year before we were properly mobilized for it, by which time much of the fighting and dying was already past.

We have done some wonderful and amazing things: the Marshall Plan, ending segregation, leading science, sharing with the world, but we are not the ONLY ones to think about - and it is astonishing to me that in a few short weeks this administration has set the entire world apart from us: England, France, Germany, the Scandanivan countries; Mexico and Canada, natural allies no longer; Japan and China too. We’ve abandoned Ukraine and tried to be friends with Russia, to what end?

This policy ranks among the most disastrous in the chronicle of the US, and will be told in the history books (assuming there are history books) alongside such misadventures as Vietnam, Teapot Dome, and the Civil War. Yes, it’s that bad - or will be if it continues. There is a possibility of mitigating, not eliminating the destruction, but it would need to start soon and be smart, and neither of those seems a likely prospect.

They’ve chopped thousands of IRS agents, but we all know that those people bring in more than their salaries in chasing down scofflaws and tax cheats, so that “saving” is going to cost money when it’s all accounted for.

I've seen estimates running at $500 billion in uncollected taxes.

Just for this year. THIS year.
https://fortune.com/2025/03/24/irs-tax-revenue-500...

For those that like digging into such things, it would be very interesting to compare tax collections this year to collections last year.

If the number really is that big, the collections shortfall will be larger over the 4 years of this administration than the cuts they claim they want to make.

--Peter

The problem is that Trump (and acolytes) are convinced the US can do it all single-handedly. The truth is that we are a mighty and powerful nation, but we are still only 25% of the economy, and less than that of military, and less than that of population.

Yes. They're convinced that other countries are absolutely desperate to do business with us - that our economy or businesses or people or what have you are so extraordinary that nations cannot countenance any possible risk to their status, and that they would pay any price at all for access. But as posted on TMF, none of the major economies are rushing in to make a deal. Because they're not willing to pay any price to be part of our world:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-pressed-fas...

Sure, of course they all had to call up the WH and start discussions. The U.S. blew up a hand grenade in the middle of the global economic system - every government owes it to their citizens to call us up and ask, "Why did you do that and what do you want?" And see if there's a trivial way to make this go away.

But other countries are going to be very loathe to enter into any kind of serious, long-term arrangement that reorders trade with the U.S. without a lot of long, thoughtful review. Especially since they can't really get any assurances from our side that whatever they negotiate would be honored. Since Trump can't be trusted to abide by a trade agreement (even one he negotiated and was approved by Congress, sorry about your USMCA Canada and Mexico) there's little benefit in making significant concessions in order to get anything from us.

"I'm not interested in short-term emotional reactions. Nation-states - serious ones, anyway - don't run like that"

Dope, .. perhaps you could notify this current US government that they are failing to meet your standards.....

Dope, .. perhaps you could notify this current US government that they are failing to meet your standards.....

In my next 1:1 with Trump I'll bring it up :)

But other countries are going to be very loathe to enter into any kind of serious, long-term arrangement that reorders trade with the U.S. without a lot of long, thoughtful review. Especially since they can't really get any assurances from our side that whatever they negotiate would be honored. Since Trump can't be trusted to abide by a trade agreement (even one he negotiated and was approved by Congress, sorry about your USMCA Canada and Mexico) there's little benefit in making significant concessions in order to get anything from us.

That's one way of looking at it. There are several *other* ways to look at it.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/14/china-would-los...

China is running a nearly $1-trillion trade surplus with the world. Its mercantilism is the result of market manipulations, product dumping, asymmetrical tariffs, patent, copyright and technology theft, a corrupt Chinese judicial system, and Western laxity—or what might be mildly called “bullying.” The U.S. accounts for about a third of China’s trade surplus, with most of the EU and Asian nations accounting for the other two-thirds.

In the past, third-party nations did not appreciate the ends to which China has gone to warp the international trading system. In one sense, unable to address their deficits with China, our friends and neutrals turned to America, where they sought to make up their trade asymmetries by going China-light and running surpluses with the U.S.

We've allowed a lot of this to happen. Let's sum up some more things:
-China manipulates their currency to keep it cheap so their goods sell abroad.
-China steals IP wantonly around the globe
-China's judicial system openly favors Chinese defendants

...and more.

VDH's point of other nations balancing their deficits with China by selling in our very open market is a great one. Remind me, why are we allowing that again?

I've made this point in the past:
Countries like Panama, which once thought China’s Belt and Road Initiative was advantageous, soon learned that it was exploitative. Nothing is free with China. Its Silk Road policy is mostly designed to manipulate strategically located—and soon to be indebted and subservient—nations as future choke points in times of global tensions and is directed at the West in general and in particular the U.S.

China is parking its Navy on strategic choke points for maritime trade around the globe. Be it the Panama Canal, the Cape of Good Hope, the Suez, name it, they're there. They're sending a very clear signal - readable to anyone with a map and a notion of who China is and what they want - that they intend to enforce their status as the world's supplier at the point of a gun one day.

VDH also ties this in
Most of the world accepts that the COVID-19 epidemic that killed and maimed millions worldwide was birthed in a Wuhan virology lab under the auspices of the People’s Liberation Army. The world also remembers that China and the Chinese-controlled WHO lied repeatedly about the origins and spread of the virus.

The global public may recall that China stopped all domestic flights out of Wuhan on the internal news of the lab leak of the virus, while for days greenlighting nonstop air travel to major European and American cities.

Yeah...you folks on this board may think Trump is driving other countries into China's arms...but you need to take into account a few more things.

And there's this carrot Trump can offer:
For now, Trump should persuade our allies that if they were not so subject to Chinese mercantilism, they would have more flexibility to ensure fair trade with the U.S. And thus, they should not do something self-destructive and side with China but instead join the U.S. to force China to keep its long-broken promises and play by international rules. A reduced import footprint from China in the U.S. could make room for increased imports from the EU, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—if they strike parity deals with the Trump administration.

Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of the 5,000 years of Chinese civilization. The Chinese people do not cause trouble, nor are they afraid of trouble. Pressure, threats and blackmail are not the right way to deal with China.

This from one of their party higher-ups in Hong Kong.

He was responding to this quote from J.D. Vance:

“To make it a little more crystal clear, we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.”


Regardless, BOTH sides are spouting BS. If I may speak on behalf of all the non-Chinese Asians:
China and Chinese civilization are no paragons of nonviolence and truth and charity and niceness. Chinese pirates have always been a menace. Koreans and Vietnamese had to repulse China multiple times.
The best that can be said is that they WERE not as bloodthirsty as the Western savages. Maybe because their science and technology voodoo was not as advanced in the past as now. But they could be just as bad or worse, regardless of the number of years of civilization. Nothing in Chinese culture will stop that. Power, money, racism are all drugs and now the Chinese have plenty of all three.

But other countries are going to be very loathe to enter into any kind of serious, long-term arrangement that reorders trade with the U.S. without a lot of long, thoughtful review. Especially since they can't really get any assurances from our side that whatever they negotiate would be honored.

Absolutely, the U.S has screwed the pooch when it comes to the on again, off again, on again, postponed, off again, on again (wash, rinse, repeat) tariffs. Even if Trump announced “Sorry, my bad. No more tariffs” no one would trust us. And that’s just the economic side of things.

Our allies will not share sensitive security information with us because of the morons Trump nominated and Republicans approved. Besides the fact that they can’t keep their mouths shut, they’re discussing highly sensitive information on their personal phones using an app anyone can download from the Apple App Store.

It will take decades to recover from this fustercluck, IF we’re lucky.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.