3 ms·

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 goo

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
  Oh I did miss that, thanks. Are you saying the Norway rate violates the trade imbalance -> tariff formula that was published? I haven’t seen any reports on that. I clicked GP’s source but I can’t read it due to language difference. This would be anti trump so I assume the media would be yelling about it, but maybe I missed it. If that’s accurate though then I agree that it is confusing. Please contribute more details if you don’t mind.
  - magicalhippo 2y ago
    > I clicked GP’s source but I can’t read it due to language Sorry, been spoiled by Firefox's local translation feature so I just assumed language wouldn't be an issue. I rephrased it, but here's the opening remark translated: The United States is one of Norway's most important trading partners. Over the past few years, Norway's export value to the United States has been around NOK 60 billion, or 3 percent of total goods exports. We imported US goods worth NOK 82.7 billion last year, which constitutes 8 percent of total imports to Norway. The underlying statistics are available in English here[1], table 5. [1]: https://www.ssb.no/en/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statistikk/utenrikshandel-med-varer https://www.ssb.no/en/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statist...
  - verzali 2y ago
    The formula defaults to a minimum of 10%. If you are in surplus or have a deficit under 10%, you still got 10% tariffs.

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
Oh I did miss that, thanks. Are you saying the Norway rate violates the trade imbalance -> tariff formula that was published? I haven’t seen any reports on that. I clicked GP’s source but I can’t read it due to language difference. This would be anti trump so I assume the media would be yelling about it, but maybe I missed it. If that’s accurate though then I agree that it is confusing. Please contribute more details if you don’t mind.
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  > I clicked GP’s source but I can’t read it due to language Sorry, been spoiled by Firefox's local translation feature so I just assumed language wouldn't be an issue. I rephrased it, but here's the opening remark translated: The United States is one of Norway's most important trading partners. Over the past few years, Norway's export value to the United States has been around NOK 60 billion, or 3 percent of total goods exports. We imported US goods worth NOK 82.7 billion last year, which constitutes 8 percent of total imports to Norway. The underlying statistics are available in English here[1], table 5. [1]: https://www.ssb.no/en/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statistikk/utenrikshandel-med-varer https://www.ssb.no/en/utenriksokonomi/utenrikshandel/statist...
- verzali 2y ago
  The formula defaults to a minimum of 10%. If you are in surplus or have a deficit under 10%, you still got 10% tariffs.