4 ms·
EU member states agree first wave of retaliatory tariffs
- suraci 2y ago[flagged]
- JKCalhoun 2y agoWhat do you define as caved in?
- suraci 2y agoit's written in here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/04/cea-chairman-steve-miran-hudson-institute-event-remarks/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/04/cea-... * First, other countries can accept tariffs on their exports to the United States without retaliation, providing revenue to the U.S. Treasury to finance public goods provision. Critically, retaliation will exacerbate rather than improve the distribution of burdens and make it even more difficult for us to finance global public goods. Second, they can stop unfair and harmful trading practices by opening their markets and buying more from America; Third, they can boost defense spending and procurement from the U.S., buying more U.S.-made goods, and taking strain off our servicemembers and creating jobs here; Fourth, they can invest in and install factories in America. They won’t face tariffs if they make their stuff in this country; Fifth, they could simply write checks to Treasury that help us finance global public goods. *
- greenavocado 2y ago> distribution of burdens and make it even more difficult for us to finance global public goods I'm gonna need a translation
- rsynnott 2y agoThis is all extremely vague, and Japan and Korea have absolutely not "caved in" on this basis. Japan and Korea talking to the US; the EU did too, and Trump refused their zero-for-zero offer. But if those talks come to nothing, which seems likely, then Japan and Korea will absolutely introduce retaliatory tariffs, too; the game theory of the thing makes it more or less inevitable.
- suraci 2y ago> Japan and Korea will absolutely introduce retaliatory tariffs I really doubt about this, but I will wait to see
- mytailorisrich 2y agoNeither South Korea nor Japan are retliating and they sent delegation to "negotiate", which in context means to see what concessions they can offer to try to remove or lower the new tariffs. That's pretty much "caving in", but that's also expect: Both countries are not strong enough and too dependent on the US to do otherwise.
- rsynnott 2y agoThe EU is not yet retaliating (the tariffs mentioned in the article are retaliation for the US's steel and aluminium tariffs from last month, not the most recent batch), and is negotiating; as I mention there was a zero-for-zero option. Retaliation for the current round of tariffs is currently under discussion. Make no mistake, it'll be the same in Japan and SK. At least the credible threat of retaliation, if not retaliation already in action (the China approach) is required for any real negotiation.
- bayindirh 2y agoPulling the white flag up and sending a request for Country-2-Country special agreement.
- rsynnott 2y agoThis is related to _last_ month's tariffs on aluminium and steel. The EU tends to be measured on this sort of thing. The EU did offer Trump zero-for-zero as a result of the _current_ tariffs; he wasn't interested (which isn't particularly surprising, given that he seems to want trade deficits to magically go away).
- FranzFerdiNaN 2y agoThe EU has absolutely no reason to cave in. Its just not striking back like China is, rather being content and surprised watching the US commit economic suicide.
- Ekaros 2y agoAlso it is extremely unclear what "cave in" would mean. No tariffs on both sides? Some sort of tribute payment? USA having tariffs, but EU not?
- coldtea 2y agoOh, they will. This is for show.
- piva00 2y agoSeems like Trump blinked first in this game of chicken, not unexpected.
- JSR_FDED 2y ago> The timetable has also been extended to give negotiations with the US a chance: EU tariffs will come into force between 15 April and 1 December.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago> France, Ireland and Italy secured the removal of Bourbon whiskey from the list of targeted products, after Trump threatened that its inclusion would trigger counter-imposition of a 200% tariff on European alcohol. Wild times.
- lenerdenator 2y agoIreland is probably the place that got that passed. The US has a soft spot for Ireland.
- DHolzer 2y agoa tax evading soft spot that is.
- FirmwareBurner 2y agoThe EU could change that if it wanted to. I imagine more money is lost due to tax avoidance than from US tariffs.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago> The EU could change that if it wanted to. They definitely can't, given that tax decisions require unanimity. Like, if they didn't get this sorted when they had Ireland over a barrel in 2011, it's probably not going to happen. Full disclosure: I am an Irish citizen.
- forty 2y agoStill it would not be very hard for individual countries to find indirect ways to tax them individually. Like putting 50% VAT on extensive phones to target Apple, or on application stores revenue, etc.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
- codingbot3000 2y agoAs a European I have a rough understanding about the legal grounds of how tariff rules are being set in the EU. But on the US side - can a US citizen maybe explain the legal basis of the current tectonic shift in trade policy enacted through the tariffs? So far I assumed that the federal executive branch could only use tariffs to address security concerns or unfair practices. The actual policy change (especially the 10% base rate) is definitely more than that.
- piva00 2y agoDisclaimer: not American, not living in the USA. All the analysis I've read about it say that the one-sided implementation of broad tariffs is not legal according to current US laws. It doesn't matter though until it's litigated, goes through courts, appeals, Supreme Court, while all that process is ongoing the tariffs are there. And who the fuck knows how the Supreme Court will decide on this in the end?
- mwkaufma 2y agoTrump invoked a "state of emergency"
- rsynnott 2y agoWhat Trump's doing may be illegal, either on the basis that the law under which it is being done is itself unconstitutional (in that it delegates the power to set taxes from Congress, which isn't supposed to happen) or in that he is misusing that law (in that it is supposed to be for emergencies). Lawsuits are being taken against the state on both bases.
- outside1234 2y agoHe only has the ability to enact tariffs in an emergency, which he claims is the case, because "fentanyl", but probably will not live up to legal scrutiny. The challenge of course, is that it takes a lot of time to legally challenge it, and in the meantime, we have this chaos. This is why choosing a moral, steady, wise leader is important. The system can't keep up with the alternative.
- 2y ago
- dsign 2y ago"Retaliatory tariffs" is one of those things I don't understand but I'm afraid to ask.
- rsynnott 2y agoWhen someone tariffs you, you tariff them right back (but typically _only_ them). This is how trade wars work, typically.
- dsign 2y agoI haven't been familiar with trade wars before Trump. What I don't understand is what there is to win for the EU by suddenly imposing its own tariffs... that will slow down its own economy, even possibly cause social unrest. If US wants to do tariffs, fine, but there is no need to compound on the damage.
- rsynnott 2y agoThe point is to inflict pain on the aggressor; in general no-one ‘wins’ a trade war, and the goal is to make things bad enough for the aggressor that they back down. In this case, the aggressor inflicted much pain on _itself_, before the tariffs really even went into operation, that it has already partially backed down, but that’s kind of unusual that it would happen so quickly.
- Bayart 2y agoNote that those tariffs are related to earlier US tariffs from March, not the recent universal tariffs. The European MO in that respect is very consistent : take time to deliberate, reach consensus and apply pressure in kind. It's at odds with the news cycle but I prefer that over instant gratification.
- layer8 2y agoNotably, the EU proposed a zero-tariffs free-trade agreement to the US in February, and again a few days ago after the reciprocal-tariffs announcement. Trump rejected the proposal, presumably because it wouldn’t remove the US trade deficit.
- lossolo 2y agoHe said he wants the EU to pay €350 billion a year and to "pay for the past"—and I assume he'll feel emboldened to make even more demands and weaken the EU economy further. And all of that for "security" that's now pivoting to Asia? That sounds like a terrible deal for the EU. The EU spent €326 billion on its military in 2024. Add €350 billion to that, and you're looking at real-value spending higher than the U.S. military budget. On top of that, if that money is spent within the EU, you get economic growth plus full independence from the U.S. Trump is overplaying his hand with both the EU and China—especially with China, where some minerals essential to modern manufacturing are mined and processed almost entirely there (90%+ in some cases). You can't do cost-effective manufacturing in many industries without China—at least not for many years to come.
- af78 2y agoConsistent with what this German journalist at Handelsblatt reports https://nitter.net/HankeVela/status/1909259594787910009 https://nitter.net/HankeVela/status/1909259594787910009: Brussels is watching amazed, as Trump destroys the US economy. "Nobody in the Commission thought that the US government would be this stupid and self-destructive," an EU official tells me. "That they would blow up their own country by letting ChatGPT make their trade policy." EU officials are quietly preparing brutal countermeasures — but they’re in no rush. Markets are doing the work for them. Here’s what’s happening behind the scenes: Trump’s chaos is collapsing the US markets faster than any EU retaliation could. Inside the Commission and among EU governments, the mood is: Don't give Trump an excuse to blame this on others. Since February, the S&P 500 has dropped 20%. European officials believe Trump's trade chaos is backfiring — and see no reason to escalate while the damage grows organically. Inside the Commission and among EU trade ministers, the mood is calm — almost mocking. “We’ll just let them stew,” another senior official says. “If Trump doesn’t blink by the end of the month, we’re ready to hit hard.” But for now? They'll watch him sweat. German Economy Minister Robert Habeck summed up the mood: “We're under no time pressure. The Americans are under pressure and are now in a position of weakness,” he said. “The damage can get even worse — that’s why we must act calmly, carefully, but decisively.” Habeck also mocked Elon Musk’s call for a US-EU "zero-tariff" deal: “It's sign of weakness and fear. If he has something to say, he should go to his President... Before we talk about zero tariffs, stop the nonsense and mess you just made in the last week.”
- coldtea 2y ago"EU member states agree to cutting off their nose to spite their face"
- piva00 2y agoTit-for-tat is a pretty well known winning strategy in game theory for conflict resolution, it's very predictable: if you cooperate, I will cooperate, if you want to compete, I will compete. It gives a quite transparent off-ramp: if you start to cooperate, I will cooperate. There's no point in not playing tit-for-tat in this situation, not retaliating is a losing strategy.
- lukev 2y agoUnless one of the parties involved cares more about "winning" than the actual value function.
- piva00 2y agoThen we are out of any rationality, ending with both parties losing. In that case I'd guess that a player trying to win against every single other at the same time will be the ultimate loser.
- coffeebeqn 2y agoWhat is the optimal strategy in that case?
- lukev 2y agoMake things painful enough that one of the players decides to change their strategy (e.g, by changing who has been delegated decision-making authority. Hopefully.)
- benmmurphy 2y agofrom the point of maximising value in the economy its a game where in a single iteration co-operate is strictly better than any alternative. if the other player co-operates then that is the best outcome. if the other player defects then you are still better off co-operating than defecting. but the problem is the real game being played is different because the political process ends up diverging from maximising value in the economy. the free trade argument is this is because the political process is captured by concentrated interests who benefit from tariffs to reduce competition. the deadweight loss caused by tariffs to the rest of society is not properly accounted for in the political process because the cost is diffused over many people. other people who accept the text book comparative advantage argument but reject free trade will claim to have a different optimisation function that is not purely maximising value in the economy. for example maybe they think its important to have a strong manufacturing base in order to make it easier to re-arm to fight a conflict. but if we accept this situation then its difficult to say what the optimal strategy is because you don't really know the payoff matrices for the players. even what they tell you could be a lie and might be difficult to derive what their values are based on their actions.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lokar 2y agoThey should be going after digital and financial services
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]