5 ms·

I don’t like Trump and I think it’s dystopian that we have basically a reality tv star in the white house. However - I do think it’s interesting how his over t

I don’t like Trump and I think it’s dystopian that we have basically a reality tv star in the white house. However - I do think it’s interesting how his over the top bravado is translated into stupidity by the media. Like he is all about shock and awe negotiating. He doesn’t mean everything he says or does in a direct way, much of it is for effect. When he drops massive tariffs on everyone at once, it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. Obviously there are side effects in the market, and it is kind of disrespectful in the current political culture, but I think it remains to be seen whether these will even be long term effects. If a few major countries capitulate in the next couple of weeks I think the market will probably catch its breath. In this case trump probably feels that he has the leverage to achieve a net positive arrangement and not just a neutral one. If someone is treating you badly for a while, which is not objectively true about the EU necessarily but clearly trump thinks it, it’s normal human behavior to not settle for a draw unless you are the weaker party. The media is almost doing him a favor in a way, like portraying him as being so crazy that he “just might do it”. They’re giving him a mad dog aura. Hmm.

watwut 2y ago
Reality that what you call bravado and consider cool when your friends do it ... everyone else sees as X is being dumb again. Trump is emotional and with low self control. He flips flops and is insecure. He crashed his companies around 6 times and managed to crash a casino. We are getting to see how and why it happened. He has certain charizma so some rich friend always helps him, including Putin. And plus the massive level of corruption he engages with helps him stay rich. But fundamentally, his businesses do badly.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  I mean bravado on a personal level (especially if someone is bad at it) and bravado in international negotiations are completely different animals. I feel like if you pretend it’s 1850 and there’s some great powers struggle afoot, trump makes a lot more sense. The game theory around international relations hasn’t really changed much since then, there’s just a veneer of ideology strapped on top of it. Btw it’s much easier to just label someone stupid than to seek to understand them. It is definitely tempting.
  - piva00 2y ago
    You can understand it and come to the conclusion it's stupid. They are orthogonal concepts.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Bravado on a personal level is the same kind of dumb. I can understand someone and conclude their behavior and reasoning are faulty, harmful or then call it dumb. This idea that everyone must project increasingly unlikely positive smart motivations onto Trump or conservatives in general despite what they say and do is harmful. > I feel like if you pretend it’s 1850 and there’s some great powers struggle afoot, trump makes a lot more sense. I would say, he does not. When there are powers struggles afoot, it is actually better to be capable to be strategic about who/how you antagonize and attack. > The game theory around international relations hasn’t really changed much since then, there’s just a veneer of ideology strapped on top of it. I would argue that it did changed a lot in between. International relations are not the same at all.
magicalhippo 2y ago
> it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. Last year Norway bought[1] goods for 83B NOK from the US, while the US bought goods from us for 62B NOK. We were slapped with a 16% blanket tariff, despite Norway having very few tariffs. The majority of US imports were machinery and transportation equipment. Cars have taxes but they are not US-specific, and we have no local car production to protect. We do have tariffs on clothing, 15%, and much higher on food we farm. However none on stuff we don't farm, for example we import a lot of corn from the US which has zero tariffs. So why exactly should we be in an uncomfortable position when we already import significantly more than the US buys from us? [1]: https://www.ssb.no/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statistikk/utenrikshandel-med-varer/artikler/norges-handel-med-usa https://www.ssb.no/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statistikk...
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  They are using trade imbalance as a proxy for protectionism. Is it oversimplified in a way that causes unjust collateral damage? Yes. Is oversimplifying a good political strategy, though? Maybe. Imagine the counter factual where every little detail is accounted for, they use some model to differentiate protectionism from natural imbalances, etc. That takes way longer, possibly stretching into years, can still be very error prone, and assuming those factors are taken into account during negotiations (it clearly affects negotiating position if you have a legitimate grievance) the end result of the oversimplify+negotiate approach won’t be that different from the more details oriented academic style approach. Also starting negotiations with some super complicated white paper does not put you in a strong negotiating position against (other) politicians. Basically check back in 3 months. If the deals aren’t renegotiated by then I will change my tune.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    You seem to have missed his point that Norway is buying more goods from the USA. If trade imbalance is a proxy for protectionism, then it's the US that is protectionist in this instance. He's punishing the people who are already doing what he says he wants done by the metric he claims to care about. Quite possibly with negative results as they react angrily to that. Which makes a mockery of all the people in this thread finding 4D chess answers to this stupidity.
jemmyw 2y ago
> it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. That might work in the short term, but it's not a good negotiating tactic. You need to build trust. If the EU had a deal on the table then engaging in that builds trust even if its not yet the deal you want. If you go in saying that you'll need to increase tariffs because the current system isn't working unless a deal is made - then fine. If you blow up the economy first and abandon the rules and order you put in place in order to try and strong arm an agreement then even if you get that agreement, you're the mob, the bully. Everyone will be working out how to get away from you, they'll have no trust in your agreements. He's already done the crazy thing. The negotiations are already compromised.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  The US is in a weird position though and I don’t think negotiations are affected like you say, for a specific reason. If everyone were roughly equals in terms of power, then I would agree with you. If Poland treats France like this, it would not end well for Poland. The trade imbalances are not a result of the US having been out negotiated by other countries in the past, though. That trade policy came from internal corruption, where American corporations influenced politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of national interests. Now the government is ignoring those particular corporate interests (they are played out by now for the most part anyway), and USA is suddenly negotiating for real again. USA doesn’t care about trust in this situation because there is a massive power imbalance in its favor.
  - jemmyw 2y ago
    The US is powerful, but it isn't all powerful. If this were the 1950s then the US could dictate and the world would fall into line. I think even if the US had been strategic about this then the outcome could be much more under its control - as per your example the US could have taken on China, especially with the support of its allies. Instead the US has applied tariffs to every country based on a bullshit formula. So I would argue that the power imbalance is not as one sided as you think. It's not just about which economy is bigger, but who is more willing to bear pain to get the outcome they want. Polling in the US was already against tariffs prior to these new ones. Support for retaliation is high in Europe. The US has some critical imports, and because of the way this bizarre formula has been calculated tariffs are higher against the poorer countries providing those - so it will be a pure tax on Americans. And if costs and inflation start rising then we'll see if Trump really can persuade the US population its worth waiting on the nebulous results he's hoping for.
lm28469 2y ago
Yeah except this isn't a Vegas casino, first we have international trade laws, second some country are honor based and will absolutely sink with you if it means they can save face.
nicbou 2y ago
As far as I can tell, countries are not capitulating. They're organising. I do think it's fair to translate it into stupidity. Alienating your allies for temporary gains is stupid, especially when it fails and does terrifying amounts of damage to the world economy. As a Canadian, I'd say that Trump broke something that will take generations to repair.
AlecSchueler 2y ago
> He doesn’t mean everything he says or does in a direct way, much of it is for effect. When he drops massive tariffs on everyone at once, it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. We understand that. That's why it sounds stupid. It's breaking trust and relationships in favour of showmanship. "Forcing" your allies to negotiate from "uncomfortable starting positions" is a terrible strategy longterm and will encourage them all to make plans to decentre you as much as possible.
jsnell 2y ago
> When he drops massive tariffs on everyone at once, it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. It might be the intent, though there is no proof of it, just like there's no proof for any of the other 4D chess fanfic. But if it's the intent, the means are obviously a horrible way to achieve that goal. If you want to force people to negotiate from an uncomfortable position while having all the leverage (rather than negotiating a mutually beneficial deal), you want to isolate them from support, you need a threat that hurts them worse than it'll hurt you, and you need them to believe that you won't back down such that their only option is to accept a bad deal. None of this is the case. By issuing the tariffs against ~all countries at the same time, the outcome of failed negotiations is going to be far worse for the US than for any other country (affecting a larger slice of their economy). These measures are intensely unpopular in the US, and opposing them is as popular abroad, so the public opinion is working toward a return to the status quo on both sides. Even if Trump himself doesn't care about public opinion, the Republican Senators and Representatives do, and they have the power to stop this. How long will it take for them to start fearing the general electorate more than the primary electorate? A couple of weeks? > If a few major countries capitulate in the next couple of weeks I think the market will probably catch its breath. How would they capitulate? The US itself has no idea of what its demands are. Again, something that you'd really want to line up in advance if this was all some galaxy brain negotiation play like you suggest.

watwut 2y ago

Reality that what you call bravado and consider cool when your friends do it ... everyone else sees as X is being dumb again. Trump is emotional and with low self control. He flips flops and is insecure. He crashed his companies around 6 times and managed to crash a casino. We are getting to see how and why it happened. He has certain charizma so some rich friend always helps him, including Putin. And plus the massive level of corruption he engages with helps him stay rich. But fundamentally, his businesses do badly.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
I mean bravado on a personal level (especially if someone is bad at it) and bravado in international negotiations are completely different animals. I feel like if you pretend it’s 1850 and there’s some great powers struggle afoot, trump makes a lot more sense. The game theory around international relations hasn’t really changed much since then, there’s just a veneer of ideology strapped on top of it. Btw it’s much easier to just label someone stupid than to seek to understand them. It is definitely tempting.
- piva00 2y ago
  You can understand it and come to the conclusion it's stupid. They are orthogonal concepts.
- watwut 2y ago
  Bravado on a personal level is the same kind of dumb. I can understand someone and conclude their behavior and reasoning are faulty, harmful or then call it dumb. This idea that everyone must project increasingly unlikely positive smart motivations onto Trump or conservatives in general despite what they say and do is harmful. > I feel like if you pretend it’s 1850 and there’s some great powers struggle afoot, trump makes a lot more sense. I would say, he does not. When there are powers struggles afoot, it is actually better to be capable to be strategic about who/how you antagonize and attack. > The game theory around international relations hasn’t really changed much since then, there’s just a veneer of ideology strapped on top of it. I would argue that it did changed a lot in between. International relations are not the same at all.

magicalhippo 2y ago

> it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. Last year Norway bought[1] goods for 83B NOK from the US, while the US bought goods from us for 62B NOK. We were slapped with a 16% blanket tariff, despite Norway having very few tariffs. The majority of US imports were machinery and transportation equipment. Cars have taxes but they are not US-specific, and we have no local car production to protect. We do have tariffs on clothing, 15%, and much higher on food we farm. However none on stuff we don't farm, for example we import a lot of corn from the US which has zero tariffs. So why exactly should we be in an uncomfortable position when we already import significantly more than the US buys from us? [1]: https://www.ssb.no/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statistikk/utenrikshandel-med-varer/artikler/norges-handel-med-usa https://www.ssb.no/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statistikk...

pfannkuchen 2y ago
They are using trade imbalance as a proxy for protectionism. Is it oversimplified in a way that causes unjust collateral damage? Yes. Is oversimplifying a good political strategy, though? Maybe. Imagine the counter factual where every little detail is accounted for, they use some model to differentiate protectionism from natural imbalances, etc. That takes way longer, possibly stretching into years, can still be very error prone, and assuming those factors are taken into account during negotiations (it clearly affects negotiating position if you have a legitimate grievance) the end result of the oversimplify+negotiate approach won’t be that different from the more details oriented academic style approach. Also starting negotiations with some super complicated white paper does not put you in a strong negotiating position against (other) politicians. Basically check back in 3 months. If the deals aren’t renegotiated by then I will change my tune.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  You seem to have missed his point that Norway is buying more goods from the USA. If trade imbalance is a proxy for protectionism, then it's the US that is protectionist in this instance. He's punishing the people who are already doing what he says he wants done by the metric he claims to care about. Quite possibly with negative results as they react angrily to that. Which makes a mockery of all the people in this thread finding 4D chess answers to this stupidity.

jemmyw 2y ago

> it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. That might work in the short term, but it's not a good negotiating tactic. You need to build trust. If the EU had a deal on the table then engaging in that builds trust even if its not yet the deal you want. If you go in saying that you'll need to increase tariffs because the current system isn't working unless a deal is made - then fine. If you blow up the economy first and abandon the rules and order you put in place in order to try and strong arm an agreement then even if you get that agreement, you're the mob, the bully. Everyone will be working out how to get away from you, they'll have no trust in your agreements. He's already done the crazy thing. The negotiations are already compromised.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
The US is in a weird position though and I don’t think negotiations are affected like you say, for a specific reason. If everyone were roughly equals in terms of power, then I would agree with you. If Poland treats France like this, it would not end well for Poland. The trade imbalances are not a result of the US having been out negotiated by other countries in the past, though. That trade policy came from internal corruption, where American corporations influenced politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of national interests. Now the government is ignoring those particular corporate interests (they are played out by now for the most part anyway), and USA is suddenly negotiating for real again. USA doesn’t care about trust in this situation because there is a massive power imbalance in its favor.
- jemmyw 2y ago
  The US is powerful, but it isn't all powerful. If this were the 1950s then the US could dictate and the world would fall into line. I think even if the US had been strategic about this then the outcome could be much more under its control - as per your example the US could have taken on China, especially with the support of its allies. Instead the US has applied tariffs to every country based on a bullshit formula. So I would argue that the power imbalance is not as one sided as you think. It's not just about which economy is bigger, but who is more willing to bear pain to get the outcome they want. Polling in the US was already against tariffs prior to these new ones. Support for retaliation is high in Europe. The US has some critical imports, and because of the way this bizarre formula has been calculated tariffs are higher against the poorer countries providing those - so it will be a pure tax on Americans. And if costs and inflation start rising then we'll see if Trump really can persuade the US population its worth waiting on the nebulous results he's hoping for.

lm28469 2y ago

Yeah except this isn't a Vegas casino, first we have international trade laws, second some country are honor based and will absolutely sink with you if it means they can save face.

nicbou 2y ago

As far as I can tell, countries are not capitulating. They're organising. I do think it's fair to translate it into stupidity. Alienating your allies for temporary gains is stupid, especially when it fails and does terrifying amounts of damage to the world economy. As a Canadian, I'd say that Trump broke something that will take generations to repair.

AlecSchueler 2y ago

> He doesn’t mean everything he says or does in a direct way, much of it is for effect. When he drops massive tariffs on everyone at once, it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. We understand that. That's why it sounds stupid. It's breaking trust and relationships in favour of showmanship. "Forcing" your allies to negotiate from "uncomfortable starting positions" is a terrible strategy longterm and will encourage them all to make plans to decentre you as much as possible.

jsnell 2y ago

> When he drops massive tariffs on everyone at once, it’s intended to force people to the table to negotiate with an uncomfortable starting position for them. It might be the intent, though there is no proof of it, just like there's no proof for any of the other 4D chess fanfic. But if it's the intent, the means are obviously a horrible way to achieve that goal. If you want to force people to negotiate from an uncomfortable position while having all the leverage (rather than negotiating a mutually beneficial deal), you want to isolate them from support, you need a threat that hurts them worse than it'll hurt you, and you need them to believe that you won't back down such that their only option is to accept a bad deal. None of this is the case. By issuing the tariffs against ~all countries at the same time, the outcome of failed negotiations is going to be far worse for the US than for any other country (affecting a larger slice of their economy). These measures are intensely unpopular in the US, and opposing them is as popular abroad, so the public opinion is working toward a return to the status quo on both sides. Even if Trump himself doesn't care about public opinion, the Republican Senators and Representatives do, and they have the power to stop this. How long will it take for them to start fearing the general electorate more than the primary electorate? A couple of weeks? > If a few major countries capitulate in the next couple of weeks I think the market will probably catch its breath. How would they capitulate? The US itself has no idea of what its demands are. Again, something that you'd really want to line up in advance if this was all some galaxy brain negotiation play like you suggest.