3 ms·

The US tarrifs against the EU were not retaliatory, they were proactive (unless you want to consider them retaliatory tarrifs because of the EU's retaliatory ta

The US tarrifs against the EU were not retaliatory, they were proactive (unless you want to consider them retaliatory tarrifs because of the EU's retaliatory tarrfis. However, this dispute was, again, initiated by the USA). I'm sure some of the countries hit did attack first, but many didn't. Additionally, the way Trump sets up tarrifs creates major uncertainty (which I can only assume is intentional), that can clearly be seen in the way the stocks develop. This also sets these tarrifs apart.

no_wizard 1y ago
I have yet to hear a logical argument as to why we needed tariffs against Canada, Mexico, EU member states, the UK and basically every other ally we've had existing trade agreements with for decades. To be honest, this calls into any legitimate claims of using tariffs against China - the one country that I've seen logical, consistent arguments for enacting tariffs against - because they're implemented so haphazardly across the board there was no chance of building consensus with other countries, which would be a requirement for tariffs to actually work to change behavior. It seems that the belief is that somehow because the US is the largest economy currently, that access to it is so desirable that countries will be falling over at the negotiation table to regain access to the US market and thereby willing to agree to new things that are supposedly 'more fair' (re: more desirable for what the current administration believes to be desirable). Largely that doesn't seem to be happening, which is no surprise, but more over, when negotiations do happen, like we have seen with China, and now they're getting a better deal than we are, from everything I've read thus far. It seems this administration can't even stick to its own guns, because China called the bluff and the US capitulated to their core demands with relatively little resistance seemingly.

no_wizard 1y ago

I have yet to hear a logical argument as to why we needed tariffs against Canada, Mexico, EU member states, the UK and basically every other ally we've had existing trade agreements with for decades. To be honest, this calls into any legitimate claims of using tariffs against China - the one country that I've seen logical, consistent arguments for enacting tariffs against - because they're implemented so haphazardly across the board there was no chance of building consensus with other countries, which would be a requirement for tariffs to actually work to change behavior. It seems that the belief is that somehow because the US is the largest economy currently, that access to it is so desirable that countries will be falling over at the negotiation table to regain access to the US market and thereby willing to agree to new things that are supposedly 'more fair' (re: more desirable for what the current administration believes to be desirable). Largely that doesn't seem to be happening, which is no surprise, but more over, when negotiations do happen, like we have seen with China, and now they're getting a better deal than we are, from everything I've read thus far. It seems this administration can't even stick to its own guns, because China called the bluff and the US capitulated to their core demands with relatively little resistance seemingly.