3 ms·

The central point seems to be his declarations to steadfastness and flexibility at the same time invite disbelief: if the intent is to negotiate then the "not o

by ggm 2y ago

The central point seems to be his declarations to steadfastness and flexibility at the same time invite disbelief: if the intent is to negotiate then the "not one inch" posture is unhelpful and if the intent is to push the Mar a Lago accord model, negotiating won't help because it undermines the financial consequences driving it. Domestic investor sentiment isn't really the point, nor the effect on people's retirement income. It would not think empathy is really driving this WH.

nprateem 2y ago
Have you read the mar a lago accord essay? In it, the author says: - 10% global baseline tariffs - Countries can be penalised with higher rates as negotiating tactic - Countries that retaliate will be outside the defence umbrella So the points aren't contradictory, just the comms is typically ham-fisted.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > - Countries that retaliate will be outside the defence umbrella See the weird bit is, if you wanted to go that direction, then starting by loudly proclaiming that the defence umbrella is, at best, flimsy, and maybe just broken, is perhaps not the best tactic.
  - gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
    >Retaliation measures are within the scope of consideration https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/04/economy/japan-tariff-support/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/04/economy/jap... https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/03/economy/trump-tariff-japan-response/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/03/economy/tru...
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      Oh, yeah, I mean retaliation is inevitable; China’s already announced it, the EU is discussing precisely _what_ it wants to do (the EC has historically preferred doing weird stuff to straight-up mirroring for this sort of thing), and as you say Japan’s talking about it. Really the game theory of the situation makes it more or less inevitable.

by ggm 2y ago

nprateem 2y ago

Have you read the mar a lago accord essay? In it, the author says: - 10% global baseline tariffs - Countries can be penalised with higher rates as negotiating tactic - Countries that retaliate will be outside the defence umbrella So the points aren't contradictory, just the comms is typically ham-fisted.

rsynnott 2y ago
> - Countries that retaliate will be outside the defence umbrella See the weird bit is, if you wanted to go that direction, then starting by loudly proclaiming that the defence umbrella is, at best, flimsy, and maybe just broken, is perhaps not the best tactic.
- gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
  >Retaliation measures are within the scope of consideration https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/04/economy/japan-tariff-support/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/04/economy/jap... https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/03/economy/trump-tariff-japan-response/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/03/economy/tru...
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    Oh, yeah, I mean retaliation is inevitable; China’s already announced it, the EU is discussing precisely _what_ it wants to do (the EC has historically preferred doing weird stuff to straight-up mirroring for this sort of thing), and as you say Japan’s talking about it. Really the game theory of the situation makes it more or less inevitable.