4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
  - thoughtstheseus 2y ago
    What you are saying is simply not sufficient. Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor. In case it’s not obvious, 100% tariffs on China means economic decoupling. Pick a side or strike out on your own but globalization as we know it just ended.
    - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
      Interestingly I've seen a few commentators in the UK suggest we should be more open to China as a result of all this.
      - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        China always seems to play the long game and it's so much better to buy from a reliable trading partner rather than one where the rules can change with no notice. Almost the entire point of having trading deals between nations is to provide predictability. The U.S. is now going to be treated as an international pariah with pretty much every nation aiming to reduce trade with the U.S.
      - thoughtstheseus 2y ago
        That makes sense to me. They both banned Samurai swords.
    - piva00 2y ago
      That's moving the goalposts though, there was nothing in any of the idiotic statements about the tariffs on trading with China.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      > Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor. Generally, if you want other countries to do what you want, then you aim for that rather than pushing them towards China, or worse, making China seem like the best trading partner in the world. But whatevs, you guys do you I suppose.

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.
- thoughtstheseus 2y ago
  What you are saying is simply not sufficient. Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor. In case it’s not obvious, 100% tariffs on China means economic decoupling. Pick a side or strike out on your own but globalization as we know it just ended.
  - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
    Interestingly I've seen a few commentators in the UK suggest we should be more open to China as a result of all this.
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      China always seems to play the long game and it's so much better to buy from a reliable trading partner rather than one where the rules can change with no notice. Almost the entire point of having trading deals between nations is to provide predictability. The U.S. is now going to be treated as an international pariah with pretty much every nation aiming to reduce trade with the U.S.
    - thoughtstheseus 2y ago
      That makes sense to me. They both banned Samurai swords.
  - piva00 2y ago
    That's moving the goalposts though, there was nothing in any of the idiotic statements about the tariffs on trading with China.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    > Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor. Generally, if you want other countries to do what you want, then you aim for that rather than pushing them towards China, or worse, making China seem like the best trading partner in the world. But whatevs, you guys do you I suppose.