3 ms·

> 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 g

by 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.
cmurf 2y ago
And he's shown capriciousness, willingness toward retribution, rewards fealty, and has long been in favor of bribes (very anti Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and has this time around told DOJ to not enforce it). He's not negotiating to benefit the U.S. or allies. Even if a country makes a deal, like USMCA - his deal - why won't he complain about it again in a month or a year and just reneg on the whole thing? This is the problem with untrustworthy liars.

by jemmyw 2y ago

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.

cmurf 2y ago

And he's shown capriciousness, willingness toward retribution, rewards fealty, and has long been in favor of bribes (very anti Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and has this time around told DOJ to not enforce it). He's not negotiating to benefit the U.S. or allies. Even if a country makes a deal, like USMCA - his deal - why won't he complain about it again in a month or a year and just reneg on the whole thing? This is the problem with untrustworthy liars.