3 ms·

I don’t understand the argument why EU would tariff China just because they need export. Can you elaborate?

by SvenL 2y ago

ethbr1 2y ago
Because the EU tariffing Chinese exports will be one of the asks for an EU-US trade deal. The ability of tariffed countries to sell their output elsewhere is understood by the people doing this. A better way to look at this is the first salvo to economically re-partition the world into spheres of influence. (i.e. circa 1960s) The principals have all written about how they see political-economic-military alliances as being inherently tied together. So their intent is to make this a US-dollar-NATO choice, rather than any of those in isolation. (Agree or disagree with their premise, feasibility, and/or morality, as one might)
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  So you want a tradeblock of democratic countries? Like NATOASEA? Could have had that but you sabotaged both ?
- spwa4 2y ago
  You forget what has already happened. Canada has escalated the trade war ... that cannot be explained by your reasoning. And the flaw is this: yes, Canada cannot seriously hope to defend against Russia without the US, and needs a US alliance, but they also see the US has no choice but to defend any Russian attack. Either that, or face Russian nukes in Ottawa. So, Canada escalates. Plus, I get that it makes sense for you to think about it this way. But given the choice to get fucked militarily BUT get a few more euros now, I guarantee every EU government will choose to get fucked militarily. 95% of the EU countries only have to "sacrifice" in that OTHER countries get fucked militarily, so it's not a hard choice. And that is before you factor in that Russia is not in any shape to attack any European nation of importance right now, not even Poland. In other words: the politicians choosing to act on the military problem or choose a quick buck ... will be out of office by the time their military decision matters! And, lastly, I put forward the history of the UN. The great forum for international cooperation and making compromises in shared interests. The first 3 things the UN was going to solve with this cooperation-not-obstinate-refusal-to-accept-reality was the "Arab Issue" (now better known as Israel-Palestine), Kashmir (which under UN guidance has lead to such "successes" as the Partition wars, which when combined made more victims than WW2 according to some sources), and the Congo-Rwanda issue (which has raged on, with no-one actually caring after colonialism ended, and is now at risk of turning into a pan-African war involving every country from Morocco to South Africa). I'm glad they got all those issues solved to everyone's satisfaction before they were going to try forcing the US, EU and ... to cooperate because otherwise absolutely no-one would believe they have any chance whatsoever. Besides: your hope that foreign governments will act in the interests of "the citizens of the world" (when the vast majority won't even act in the interest of their own citizens) ... what exactly is that idea based on? 12% of the world are free democracies and mostly do that. What about the rest?
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    That is a lot of response to a pretty tightly framed comment. Especially considering most of the consequential decisions and impacts will play out over the next 6+ months. Maybe people/governments will act one way; maybe another.
  - skinnymuch 2y ago
    Classic western mindset. Western liberal democracies aren’t real/free democracies.
    - ashoeafoot 2y ago
      If Russia fakes it and cannot make it, nobody can. Ignore the stark difference in behaviour before trump and after trump, because if trump is pure real politics then the before had to be idealistic and well meaning. You are monsters and the world knows. The thing from the swamp, that is your civilization . A gross, locust like beast, glueing stolen gold and shiny things to its great conquests. Needing war, because western advanced tech saved you from china and the others taking all back. Delenda Moscovia!
      - spwa4 2y ago
        It was the Soviets, Russia, that needed war so much they fed the whole world weapons. Russia still does that. The west simply gave some people better weapons to defend themselves.
- mindslight 2y ago
  So the goal is to rely on NATO as allies right after they threatened individual members of NATO and generally telegraphed that the alliance shouldn't be relied upon? Please, just stop steelmanning these actions as anything coherent that would possibly benefit the United States. In the best case, Trump is a demented has-been that only understands the world in terms of bullying. So sure, maybe the "plan" is to keep bullying Europe until they're joyfully professing that Trump's diapers smell just like roses and asking how high he'd like them to jump. But that just doesn't seem very in touch with reality.
  - stevenwoo 2y ago
    That Peter Navarro item resurfacing on news today (he is the chief advisor to Trump on tariffs) explains a lot. He made up at least one of the experts he quotes on trade in his non fiction books using an anagram of his own name. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser-peter-navarro-calls-fictional-alter-ego-an-inside-joke https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser... If something looks entirely stupid one the surface, it is exactly what it looks like, there's no 4-D chess with any of these guys except exploiting inaction of Congress to do things it could, like revoke the law that gave Trump these wide powers to tariff given for the "war on terrorism".
    - mindslight 2y ago
      It takes two thirds of the Senate and two thirds of the House to pass legislation. It takes two thirds of the Senate and only one half of the House to impeach and convict. And deposing this anti-American fuck would carry much more weight internationally for starting to repair the damage done to our relationships with our allies. Just sayin'.
      - stevenwoo 2y ago
        For non Americans, a slight clarification, passing a bill to revoke would only requiring half, but to override the presidential veto would require a 2/3 vote.
disgruntledphd2 2y ago
Because otherwise China will sell all of their tarrifed goods into the EU, undercutting local producers. Note that the EU is also removing their di minimus loophole (with a longer lead time, announced last month). See the tarriffs on BYD for likely moves on other goods. And yes, this is a bad idea. But it's the least worst idea available right now.

I don’t understand the argument why EU would tariff China just because they need export. Can you elaborate?

by SvenL 2y ago

I don’t understand the argument why EU would tariff China just because they need export. Can you elaborate?

Because the EU tariffing Chinese exports will be one of the asks for an EU-US trade deal. The ability of tariffed countries to sell their output elsewhere is understood by the people doing this. A better way to look at this is the first salvo to economically re-partition the world into spheres of influence. (i.e. circa 1960s) The principals have all written about how they see political-economic-military alliances as being inherently tied together. So their intent is to make this a US-dollar-NATO choice, rather than any of those in isolation. (Agree or disagree with their premise, feasibility, and/or morality, as one might)

ashoeafoot 2y ago
So you want a tradeblock of democratic countries? Like NATOASEA? Could have had that but you sabotaged both ?
spwa4 2y ago
You forget what has already happened. Canada has escalated the trade war ... that cannot be explained by your reasoning. And the flaw is this: yes, Canada cannot seriously hope to defend against Russia without the US, and needs a US alliance, but they also see the US has no choice but to defend any Russian attack. Either that, or face Russian nukes in Ottawa. So, Canada escalates. Plus, I get that it makes sense for you to think about it this way. But given the choice to get fucked militarily BUT get a few more euros now, I guarantee every EU government will choose to get fucked militarily. 95% of the EU countries only have to "sacrifice" in that OTHER countries get fucked militarily, so it's not a hard choice. And that is before you factor in that Russia is not in any shape to attack any European nation of importance right now, not even Poland. In other words: the politicians choosing to act on the military problem or choose a quick buck ... will be out of office by the time their military decision matters! And, lastly, I put forward the history of the UN. The great forum for international cooperation and making compromises in shared interests. The first 3 things the UN was going to solve with this cooperation-not-obstinate-refusal-to-accept-reality was the "Arab Issue" (now better known as Israel-Palestine), Kashmir (which under UN guidance has lead to such "successes" as the Partition wars, which when combined made more victims than WW2 according to some sources), and the Congo-Rwanda issue (which has raged on, with no-one actually caring after colonialism ended, and is now at risk of turning into a pan-African war involving every country from Morocco to South Africa). I'm glad they got all those issues solved to everyone's satisfaction before they were going to try forcing the US, EU and ... to cooperate because otherwise absolutely no-one would believe they have any chance whatsoever. Besides: your hope that foreign governments will act in the interests of "the citizens of the world" (when the vast majority won't even act in the interest of their own citizens) ... what exactly is that idea based on? 12% of the world are free democracies and mostly do that. What about the rest?
- ethbr1 2y ago
  That is a lot of response to a pretty tightly framed comment. Especially considering most of the consequential decisions and impacts will play out over the next 6+ months. Maybe people/governments will act one way; maybe another.
- skinnymuch 2y ago
  Classic western mindset. Western liberal democracies aren’t real/free democracies.
  - ashoeafoot 2y ago
    If Russia fakes it and cannot make it, nobody can. Ignore the stark difference in behaviour before trump and after trump, because if trump is pure real politics then the before had to be idealistic and well meaning. You are monsters and the world knows. The thing from the swamp, that is your civilization . A gross, locust like beast, glueing stolen gold and shiny things to its great conquests. Needing war, because western advanced tech saved you from china and the others taking all back. Delenda Moscovia!
    - spwa4 2y ago
      It was the Soviets, Russia, that needed war so much they fed the whole world weapons. Russia still does that. The west simply gave some people better weapons to defend themselves.
mindslight 2y ago
So the goal is to rely on NATO as allies right after they threatened individual members of NATO and generally telegraphed that the alliance shouldn't be relied upon? Please, just stop steelmanning these actions as anything coherent that would possibly benefit the United States. In the best case, Trump is a demented has-been that only understands the world in terms of bullying. So sure, maybe the "plan" is to keep bullying Europe until they're joyfully professing that Trump's diapers smell just like roses and asking how high he'd like them to jump. But that just doesn't seem very in touch with reality.
- stevenwoo 2y ago
  That Peter Navarro item resurfacing on news today (he is the chief advisor to Trump on tariffs) explains a lot. He made up at least one of the experts he quotes on trade in his non fiction books using an anagram of his own name. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser-peter-navarro-calls-fictional-alter-ego-an-inside-joke https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser... If something looks entirely stupid one the surface, it is exactly what it looks like, there's no 4-D chess with any of these guys except exploiting inaction of Congress to do things it could, like revoke the law that gave Trump these wide powers to tariff given for the "war on terrorism".
  - mindslight 2y ago
    It takes two thirds of the Senate and two thirds of the House to pass legislation. It takes two thirds of the Senate and only one half of the House to impeach and convict. And deposing this anti-American fuck would carry much more weight internationally for starting to repair the damage done to our relationships with our allies. Just sayin'.
    - stevenwoo 2y ago
      For non Americans, a slight clarification, passing a bill to revoke would only requiring half, but to override the presidential veto would require a 2/3 vote.

disgruntledphd2 2y ago

Because otherwise China will sell all of their tarrifed goods into the EU, undercutting local producers. Note that the EU is also removing their di minimus loophole (with a longer lead time, announced last month). See the tarriffs on BYD for likely moves on other goods. And yes, this is a bad idea. But it's the least worst idea available right now.