Post New

Can someone explain this to me in simple words? All I keep coming up with is this syllogism.

Trump says tariffs are going to bring so much money to the treasury that we won't even have to pay income taxes.

Trump is negotiating with countries to reduce their tariffs.

Therefore unicorns poop rainbows.

Can someone explain this to me in simple words? All I keep coming up with is this syllogism.

Trump says tariffs are going to bring so much money to the treasury that we won't even have to pay income taxes.

Trump is negotiating with countries to reduce their tariffs.

I think the logic goes something like this, if I can try to MAGA-splain:

1) The U.S. market is so important to every other country on earth that they will agree to do almost anything to have access to it - all that is needed is a President strong enough to force them to do it.

2) Therefore, we can impose 10-20% tariffs on every country on earth, and they will pay them, because doing business in America is to important to pass up (the Administration has apparently made clear that the 10% baseline tariff is here to stay, and it's not clear whether they will entertain removing the additional product specific tariffs like the 25% tariff on steel or autos).

3) We can also threaten to impose maximal tariffs on them on top of the tariffs that won't be removed (like we have with China), and they will be so fearful of that happening that they will agree to remove nearly all their trade barriers and agree to buy tons of U.S. stuff to avoid the super-high tariffs. And pay the 10-20% tariffs too.

4) Therefore we will not only get tons of tariff revenue, but we will also get massive increases in our exports.

* * *

There are a lot of problems with the above, but the main one is that first assumption is fundamentally wrong. The U.S. is certainly important to our global trading partners....but unlike what Ron Vara might have thought, they're not going to do anything to maintain access to it. All those nations have domestic constituencies that they have to answer to, so they cannot and will not merely prostrate themselves before the U.S. As one wag put it, we're doing a reverse Godfather - we're making them an offer they can't accept. Because as great as having access to the U.S. market is, it's only worth so much.

So what will unicorns poop?

So what will unicorns poop?


All the “truths” on Truth Social.

A copious, ginormous volume of unicorn poop…… flooding acres, flooding cities…

Steve Bannon was right.

"As one wag put it, we're doing a reverse Godfather - we're making them an offer they can't accept. Because as great as having access to the U.S. market is, it's only worth so much."

Also, what Trump and the MAGA faithful fail to understand is that the U.S. was getting something in return when the U.S. traded with other countries.

They forgot that part of the equation.

There is so much that Trump and his cult do not understand about basic trade economics. They were only looking at goods, not services, not research, not tourism, and not education. They were failing to recognize we got something when we imported goods from other countries in exchange for money. They cannot fathom that having a trade deficit with another country isn't necessarily a bad thing.

They fail to realize that the world trade system was set up to favor the U.S. Other countries were not taking advantage of the U.S., we were benefitting from their participation.

But MAGAssholes are all about grievance politics, they have to play the victim whenever they can, so they are quick and gullible enough to think other countries are taking advantage of the U.S. because their idiot cult leader mentions a goods deficit that he doesn't understand.

Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is facing plenty of trade problems. U.S. corporations were too quick to give away their IP in order to save a few dollars manufacturing overseas. The U.S. has lost control of quite a few key industries (rare earths, chip manufacturing, etc.). U.S. corporations take advantage of cheap international trade to evade U.S. taxes. All of those are issues, but blunt tariffs, the way Trump has implemented them are not going to solve any of them and will make a couple of them worse.

MAGAssholes don't realize what it took to get the U.S. to be the leader of the world, the most prosperous nation in the world. Now they are turning the U.S. into "just another country" or even worse.

So what will unicorns poop?

Ice cream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYWhdLO43Q

Joking aside, what I outlined above is (as far as I can tell) what the Administration genuinely believes will happen. They think other countries need the U.S. so much more than we need them, so not only will they perpetually pay a 10-20% entry fee just to get to our markets, but they'll also give us virtually any change in their trade policy (or even their non-trade policy, like VAT) that we want them to.

But then, if that's wrong we'll have a major problem with the "reciprocal" tariffs. Because then we're just isolating ourselves from the entire global economy - we end up cutting ourselves off from most international trade, and the rest of the world just carries on trading amongst themselves mostly without us.

We're a few weeks away (at most) from getting a real good idea of how that's going to shake out. Our five major trading partners that account for about 2/3 of our imports (EU, China, Canada, Mexico, Japan) seem relatively content to let this sit for a while, and see what happens when American consumers start encountering bare shelves in the early days of summer and all the trade-related supply problems start hitting the rest of the economy.

I remember ice cold Kool Aid.

Grape, Cherry, oh man it was good.

I guess I was abused.

High Frcctos Corn syrup in my food and drink.

But no "Oh my god run run run run run little Johnny is live-streaming it on Facebook run run run "

Modern culture, so much better.

…don't realize what it took to get the U.S. to be the leader of the world, the most prosperous nation in the world. Now they are turning the U.S. into "just another country" or even worse.

As my Dad would have said, “It takes a man to build a barn, but any jackass can kick one down”

- sutton
v thankful that that self-made Greatest Generation combat vet Eisenhower Republican not around to see any of this.

Ah, the Squatty Potty, "The stool for better stool". Classic! Anyone here try it?

They think other countries need the U.S. so much more than we need them, so not only will they perpetually pay a 10-20% entry fee just to get to our markets, but they'll also give us virtually any change in their trade policy (or even their non-trade policy, like VAT) that we want them to.

But then, if that's wrong we'll have a major problem with the "reciprocal" tariffs. Because then we're just isolating ourselves from the entire global economy - we end up cutting ourselves off from most international trade, and the rest of the world just carries on trading amongst themselves mostly without us.

Sigh.

You can't remove the United States from world trade.

BTW, Carney called up Trump the day after he won and said, 'let's talk'.

You can't remove the United States from world trade.

I mean - theoretically you could, if you wanted to. It's not impossible. It would be a horrible, wrenching experience for both the U.S. and the rest of the world.

But taking your point, that's exactly why the logic behind the tariffs doesn't really work. Trump's position is summed up in his statement that "they need us more than we need them" - but that's not exactly true. We can't remove the U.S. from trading with "them" - the rest of the world - so in a very real sense we need them just as much as they need us. Which is why other countries are calling us up to find out if there's any realistic space for negotiation here, and then finding out that there isn't - so they're just hanging back to see how we handle the consequences.

BTW, Carney called up Trump the day after he won and said, 'let's talk'.

Of course. We're still the U.S. It's not hard for the President to get any world leader to give him a call and try to flatter or cajole their country into getting something beneficial. Other than China, apparently.

Where Trump is mistaken is believing that just because they're willing to talk to us (of course they are!) means that they're willing to cut a deal with us on his terms. And....they're not. Most of our major trading partners have made it clear they're in no hurry to cut a deal - or in China's case, even to begin talks. They'll all be willing to agree on frameworks and protocols and a schedule of meetings to set out the parameters of reaching a trade deal. And I'm sure that Trump will be delighted to claim that these are actually trade deals, rather than just agreeing to discuss things. But if we're asking for the moon, or asking for inconsistent things, or not even able to clearly articulate what we're asking for....well, we're just not going to get anything material. Because our hand is not as strong as the Administration claims it is.

I mean - theoretically you could, if you wanted to. It's not impossible. It would be a horrible, wrenching experience for both the U.S. and the rest of the world.

If by "horrible, wrenching" you mean "the rest of the world's economy takes a massive hit" then sure.

But taking your point, that's exactly why the logic behind the tariffs doesn't really work. Trump's position is summed up in his statement that "they need us more than we need them" - but that's not exactly true. We can't remove the U.S. from trading with "them" - the rest of the world - so in a very real sense we need them just as much as they need us. Which is why other countries are calling us up to find out if there's any realistic space for negotiation here, and then finding out that there isn't - so they're just hanging back to see how we handle the consequences.

1. You're making a lot assumptions above. Why are you saying "there isn't realistic space for negotiations"? That's not true, not at all. I linked a piece describing what Italian Prime Minister Meloni and Trump talked about...you should read it. It basically confirms everything I've said about some of the aims of the tariffs.

2. Tariffs are a negotiating tool. Nothing more.

3. One more time - the country with the negative trade balance has more influence than you think. I think the problem here is you're conflating discretionary with critical goods and assuming everything is critical for our survival. It's not. No one starves if, say, cheap gym equipment sourced from China isn't as cheap anymore.

Most of our major trading partners have made it clear they're in no hurry to cut a deal - or in China's case, even to begin talks.

The Chinese already blinked on a few things. I linked this the other day also. The time window on this is 90 days, then we'll know more.

the most prosperous nation in the world.

---------------

$34T in debt and growing is NOT prosperous. We could all live like a billionaire if we each had a credit card with no limit.

Like our POTUS?
He's living like a billionaire on our dime. Super bowl, golf outings to name a couple.
BTW how much has that debt grown while he's been in office?

$34T in debt and growing

Growing faster now since January.

Getting set to explode with billionaire tax cuts.

Getting set to finish the job of destroying the middle class.

The very thing you complain about is the very thing you gave a green light to when you voted for Trump

That is incentive to support him in 2028 also!

Isn't this the best of times?

Let’s see what happens to the national debt if the Republicans pass more tax cuts.

Why are you saying "there isn't realistic space for negotiations"?

Because that's what both the Japanese and EU teams reported encountering. For example:

“To be frank, it’s still not completely clear what the U.S. really wants. They ask a very disparate number of different things,” said one European diplomat, who described the talks as in the discussion phase. “So we are still trying to figure out what are the real priorities from the U.S.”

“Europe coming up with offers would be a fucking mistake. Americans don’t want to negotiate,” said an EU diplomat. “It’s about strategic patience: let’s not push things and let [themselves] stew.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/29/us-tariff...

I mean, it's gratifying to Trump's ego that Meloni is willing to come to the U.S. and say all kinds of accommodating things to him - but she's not the one who negotiates trade for the EU. Von der Leyen is singing a different tune, and she's the one that matters.

I think the problem here is you're conflating discretionary with critical goods and assuming everything is critical for our survival. It's not. No one starves if, say, cheap gym equipment sourced from China isn't as cheap anymore.

Ah, but the question isn't what's critical for our survival. No one's going to starve in any event, since we're going to be awash in surplus agricultural products.

The question is what's critical for the Administration's survival. Within a few weeks (not 90 days) we're going to see real consequences for both consumers and workers as the impacts of the tariffs start to kick in. Bare shelves, more expensive products for the consumers. Layoffs among the people who work with those goods, like the 20K that got laid off from UPS and all the longshoremen and truckers and retail workers who are going to lose hours and jobs when there just isn't as much product working through the system. While we don't need cheap gym equipment from China, we want to have affordable....well, almost every consumer good. At some point the Administration isn't going to be able to hold the line against a lot of very angry voters who are disappointed that they and their families can't get the clothes and shoes and games and toys and housewares and textiles and everything else that they used to be able to get. At some point the Administration is going to be facing the same kinds of rising prices and supply chain shortages that cratered Biden's political position.

China and the EU can hold out a lot longer than the Administration can, and they know it. They only need to go through a few months of potential unemployment at some of their manufacturing sector, which they can solve with money. Which they have. And the relevant government actors (Xi and the EU collective government) are much more politically insulated than the Administration. Once voters start getting really angry about bare shelves and rising prices, Trump is going to have to fold.

If it even gets to that - if it looks like the Administration is asking for more than is reasonable, and a deal can't get done, this might to show up in the bond market as well - and we've already seen that Trump can't handle even 48 hours of that kind of consequence.

So, yeah - even if Meloni's happy to come over here and kiss Trump's ass (to borrow his formulation) because her voters will love that, Xi and von der Leyen and Sheinbaum have no reason to do that. They'll have talks, but they're not going to agree to anything that one-sidedly benefits the U.S. to any great degree - and Trump has invested too much into this effort to accept minor gains from trade talks at this point. It almost has to keep going for a while - our major trading partners almost have to test whether Trump can handle the pain that will be inflicted on his base. Which is why the EU, China, Canada, Mexico, and Japan are not rushing into a quick agreement with us to make this go away.

yes, others indicate the only reason to approach trump is a complete re-set trade terms to prior. (bribe or no bribe) get off his list so he can chase other squirrels.

it seems career trade staff responsible for wording and legalities, in order to produce anything NEW, were mostly terminated via doge.
but does it matter when even trump term 1.0 contracts are disregarded?

countries are careful of 2 things :
- wasting time w/trump (e.g., china)
- rightwing propaganda waving around xerox surplus as valid new contracts
(ala trump tax and tust documents)

Let’s see what happens to the national debt if the Republicans pass more tax cuts.

It will, OF COURSE, be Biden's fault.

Because that's what both the Japanese and EU teams reported encountering. For example:

Ha, I covered the EU specifically. Ursula What's-Her-Name wants to pursue a "zero for zero" strategy but what's NOT on the table is how Europe illegally subsidizes European products. Take Airbus. Airbus Industrie is a consortium among the UK, Germany, Spain and France, receives subsidies, and their national airlines subsidize further by buying Airbus jets.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2023/12...

Airbus chief executive Guillaume Faury said last week that his company may need financial support from European governments to develop a successor to its A320 jetliner and a smaller, hydrogen-powered commercial transport.

Faury told the Financial Times he remains “very committed” to a funding model in which a third of aircraft development costs are covered by government loans that do not need to be repaid unless the new aircraft is a market success.

LOL! They don't even hide it.
This is what Boeing gets to compete with. Pretty sweet gig when your competition gets interest-free loans and offloads 100% of the development risk and expense, amirite?

Trump's ego that Meloni is willing to come to the U.S. and say all kinds of accommodating things to him - but she's not the one who negotiates trade for the EU. Von der Leyen is singing a different tune, and she's the one that matters.


You're making another assumption. European countries are free to make their own treaties with the United States. Where does it say that we have to only negotiate with the EU a as a bloc? Why would we do that?

The question is what's critical for the Administration's survival.

And...so what? I could give a rip about the Administration's survival. The only reason I care at all is because the alternative - today's democrat party - is so odious, so strategically inept and consistently does things to empower America's enemies around the world that the only rational choice is to support whatever Republican is running.

China and the EU can hold out a lot longer than the Administration can, and they know it.

I've covered this. You're not necessarily correct on China.

Ever been to a Chinese factory? The ones in the not-so-nice parts of China? Well, I have. Let me tell you about places like Suzhou. All the big names you'd recognize have factories there. When you go to a Chinese factory Americans immediately think they'll see lots of tech an automation. You don't. What you see a bunch of folks straight from the vil lined up elbow-to-elbow Upton Sinclair-style screwing things together by hand. Repeat that scene hundreds of thousands of times and you have China's economy in a nutshell.

Xi keeps his throne because those 20M or more factory workers are churning out stuff. What happens when they're not?

No one's going to starve in any event, since we're going to be awash in surplus agricultural products.

Sure, but you’ll probably have to go to a U-Pick farm to get them.

😇

Where does it say that we have to only negotiate with the EU a as a bloc? Why would we do that?

Because that's how trade policy with the EU works. It's not just a club or friendly group of countries - it's an actual common market, which has formally integrated a lot of their economic and finance and trade functions into the EU. Were you not aware? Meloni - and Italy - can't cut their own deals with the U.S.

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relatio...

And...so what? I could give a rip about the Administration's survival.

Perhaps, but if the Administration doesn't survive, then their tariff and trade policy doesn't survive. China, the EU, Mexico and Canada don't have to outlast the United States' survival as a country - they just have to outlast Trump's ability to pursue this particular trade strategy. So if the domestic pressure on the Administration to make the shortages and price increases go away gets untenable for the Administration to resist any more, then those other countries will have "won" the trade war.

So they're going to certainly wait and see if Trump can hold his position once the tariff impact starts leading to bare shelves, higher prices, and lots of layoffs. That, combined with the limits on strategically important exports (like the rare earth metals) will impose a lot of pain on the U.S. very soon. And if that doesn't work, they'll just wait until we get into the X-mas season and all the stuff that's normally part of Black Friday (like toys and electronics and such) are now super expensive or not available.

Xi keeps his throne because those 20M or more factory workers are churning out stuff. What happens when they're not?

Nothing in the short run, meaning in a year or two. About 15% of Chinese exports go to the United States, so there would certainly be some pain and layoff for those workers. But the Chinese government can solve that problem with money. I mean, they'll mitigate some of that by trying to redirect the exports to other countries (who might be happy to get some low-cost stuff for their own consumers) - but what can't be mitigated can be cured with money. Give the laid off workers a generous stipend to carry them through the downturn. It's easy for them to that because this is all the result of the U.S.'s actions. We're the ones who decided to completely upend the global trade environment in an instant, not Xi. This will be a "rally 'round the flag" moment for China, and the government will be well-positioned to exploit that.

If anything, this might make Xi more secure on his throne. Trump's going to have a hard time blaming Biden for shortages and higher prices and a decline in the stock market - but Xi is going to have a really easy time blaming Trump for his country's economic woes, even the ones that were pre-existing, now that Trump has taken these steps.

Meloni - and Italy - can't cut their own deals with the U.S.

Meloni most certainly can cut side deals with the US. The EU does not buy weapons as a bloc, for example. Or sell individual things. Or sets national policy for each country.

As I’ve repeatedly said, this is about more than just tariffs.

Perhaps, but if the Administration doesn't survive, then their tariff and trade policy doesn't survive.

Hmm. About that - which President collected more in tariffs: Joe Biden or Trump? Would a theoretical President AOC govern the same way? Doubtful.

And if that doesn't work, they'll just wait until we get into the X-mas season and all the stuff that's normally part of Black Friday (like toys and electronics and such) are now super expensive or not available.

Electronics and smart phones were already exempt. Plus, you might be surprised how fast some companies are shifting production assembly to say, Vietnam to avoid tariffs. That’s a switch that’s been happening for a long time…


I mean, they'll mitigate some of that by trying to redirect the exports to other countries (who might be happy to get some low-cost stuff for their own consumers)

Who would that be? Why do you believe that Europe is somehow going to absorb what the United States spent on Chinese goods? They can’t.

I’ll give you this. I laughed out loud when I read that diplomat’s comments because it either came from a Brit -or- from somebody who knows that his/her statements will be repeated in the US press as a means to bash Trump. Whoever said that knew exactly who was listening and who would repeat it.

Unfortunately, too many people are thinking short term and not long term.

European countries are free to make their own treaties with the United States. Where does it say that we have to only negotiate with the EU a as a bloc? Why would we do that?

For the same reason non-US businesses are free to negotiate individual treaties with different US states. Or NOT? ROFLMAO !!!

You have just publicly documented you do NOT know what you are posting. Who is writing all this crap FOR YOU? Because your statements are totally irrational.

Meloni most certainly can cut side deals with the US. The EU does not buy weapons as a bloc, for example. Or sell individual things. Or sets national policy for each country.

True, but it does set all tariffs as a block. And all other trade policy - all of the terms under which "individual things" are imported and exported. And the EU VAT code, and the Common Agricultural Policy, and nearly all of the non-trade barriers that the U.S. would want to negotiate. All of that stuff is set by the European Commission, not individual countries. Almost everything important to trade negotiations is in the hands of the EU, not the individual countries.

Meloni - and Italy - are almost entirely irrelevant to these issues. Trump's going to have to negotiate with von der Leyen and Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič. He's the EU trade chief, and he's the one who will be cutting any actual trade deals with the U.S. - not individual country PM's. Early efforts to have those discussions with him before the tariffs were imposed failed utterly because the U.S. could not articulate what it wanted:

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-team-not-eng...

About that - which President collected more in tariffs: Joe Biden or Trump? Would a theoretical President AOC govern the same way?

Nobody's attempted this kind of tariff and trade policy since the days of Hawley-Smoot. I think many folks in Trump's base don't appreciate just how far out of standard even the 10% baseline tariff is for a modern country. The U.S.' general overall weighted tariff for all goods before Trump's proposal was about 1.45%, so we've nearly 10x that on just the baseline tariff even before getting into the product tariff increases or the "reciprocal" tariffs. To put that in perspective, the highest overall weighted tariff of any developed country on earth was South Korea's 4.85% average tariff - the EU is about 1.39%. That's how far we've gone beyond anything 'normal.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

Plus, you might be surprised how fast some companies are shifting production assembly to say, Vietnam to avoid tariffs. That’s a switch that’s been happening for a long time…

Not fast enough to materially affect things in six months, though. That's how long they have. Less, actually. Black Friday is November 28th. Which means goods that are going to be distributed to U.S. stores for Black Friday have to be leaving Chinese ports about 30 days prior. Which means all the manufacturers and importers and distributors and retailers have to have everything lined up for the goods to be moved well before October 28th. That might be enough time to accelerate or expand some plans already in place, but not enough to move the needle. Plus, keep in mind that Trump idiotically decided to launch this trade war against all the countries of the world all at once. So the possible alternative countries like Vietnam and Cambodia are also staring down the barrel of announced tariffs of nearly 50%, which also approach near-embargo levels. Firms can't assume that they'll be able to move to those markets to avoid tariffs. And no, the fact that one or more of them might have an agreement in principle with the U.S. in the coming months doesn't help with that - Trump has shown an unwillingness to honor even the trade pacts he's signed and have been ratified by Congress (hi, Canada and Mexico!), and certainly can't be relied upon to honor the less-formal 'handshake' deals that might be in place between now and Christmas.

Who would that be? Why do you believe that Europe is somehow going to absorb what the United States spent on Chinese goods? They can’t.

Not all of it, no. China will definitely bear loss of export markets. But the EU (and other countries) definitely can absorb some of China's export markets, especially if they start getting a nice price on those goods. The EU has as big an economy as the U.S. (bigger, in some respects), and can definitely take advantage of a bargain if Chinese goods start going on sale on global markets. Chinese exports to the U.S. are "only" about 15% of total Chinese exports. They won't be able to place all 15% with other countries, but they can certainly find a home for maybe four or five points worth.

That still leaves a 10% drop in exports. But again, Xi can solve that problem with money. The same mechanism that Trump is using to solve his domestic political problem with farmers. Just pay them off to get them through the temporary market conditions being caused by the tariff policy. Xi can solve his domestic political problem fairly easily that way. Trump cannot - he doesn't have a button he can push to re-fill store shelves.

True, but it does set all tariffs as a block. And all other trade policy - all of the terms under which "individual things" are imported and exported. And the EU VAT code, and the Common Agricultural Policy, and nearly all of the non-trade barriers that the U.S. would want to negotiate. All of that stuff is set by the European Commission, not individual countries. Almost everything important to trade negotiations is in the hands of the EU, not the individual countries.

There are individual components, as I've mentioned.

As an aside, the press over here views this as the Bad Orange Man is waging a tariff war against the rest of the world without ever addressing any of the other underlying issues - Europe's subsidies, China's intellectual theft, name it.

Nobody's attempted this kind of tariff and trade policy since the days of Hawley-Smoot.

True. But the democrats complained long and loud about the China tariffs that Trump imposed last time but then kept them in place when Biden was elected. While they probably wouldn't keep them at the same levels there are a few democrats that understand the long term play here and are willing to let Trump be the Ugly American that the rest of the world focuses on while quietly understanding the need to de-couple from China. So they'll loudly distance themselves from Trump but keep some of what he's put out there in place.

How can I say this? Because they've already done it.

Not fast enough to materially affect things in six months, though.

Likely not. Sadly, the public face of the democrat party, its supporters, and the media want Trump to fail and fail hard. The harder the better. They'd rather he cave completely, accomplish nothing, and see a stronger China out of all this just to have the short-term sugar high. The Chinese know it. The Europeans know it. So does everyone else. Playing to the democrats' penchant for leading the country over the cliff in the name of 'popularity' has been a weakness the rest of the world has exploited for a long, long time.

So, yes. You're probably right. Pity.


Not all of it, no

Not even a tenth of it. Why? They can't afford it.
What's hilarious about this debate is that nobody seems inclined to look at the ledgers on the other side and see what they're capable of. I had to laugh out loud at Canada today and what they think they're going to do with respect to cars and energy. The European version of that story is them talking tough about Russia while in reality writing Putin checks for energy and praying the US is willing to guarantee their security.

Black Friday is November 28th. Which means goods that are going to be distributed to U.S. stores for Black Friday have to be leaving Chinese ports about 30 days prior.

Try 2 months before.

But the EU (and other countries) definitely can absorb some of China's export markets, especially if they start getting a nice price on those goods.

Mmmm, not really. For one you assume that they're not getting 'a nice price' today. They're getting...the price today.
For two, the Europeans aren't going to suddenly expand their consumption of Chinese mops and toys and gym equipment just because the US isn't buying as much of it. Why would they? They've already established an economic equilibrium with respect to what they already import from China.

Is Europe going to all of a sudden buy more Chinese cars? (They buy zero today). How about Chinese jets? (Also zero). Chinese semiconductors? (Also zero).

The EU has as big an economy as the U.S. (bigger, in some respects), and can definitely take advantage of a bargain if Chinese goods start going on sale on global markets. Chinese exports to the U.S. are "only" about 15% of total Chinese exports. They won't be able to place all 15% with other countries, but they can certainly find a home for maybe four or five points worth.


Oh, by the by: What happens to European manufacturers - such as what remains - if their shores are suddenly flooded with Chinese goods at 'a nice price'? Do you think Ursula is going to absorb that just to spite Trump.

Nope. The reason is that the administration for all its faults has a point about worldwide protectionism and favoritism of their own products while simultaneously demanding free access to the American market.

I never read that point, ever, anywhere.

As an aside, the press over here views this as the Bad Orange Man is waging a tariff war against the rest of the world without ever addressing any of the other underlying issues - Europe's subsidies, China's intellectual theft, name it.

They're reporting on the tariffs because the tariffs are extraordinary and new. Trump has chosen to address longstanding U.S. complaints about other countries not through "normal" mechanisms, but by completely upending the entire global trade system.

So they'll loudly distance themselves from Trump but keep some of what he's put out there in place.

How can I say this? Because they've already done it.

This is a completely different order of magnitude. As I mentioned in my post, I don't think Trump's supporters truly appreciate the scope of what he's doing here - how completely beyond the pale these tariff levels are. An overall tariff rate of 10% on every product is unheard of for any developed country in the modern era. Again, the highest in the world before Trump was about 4.85%. Even if Trump decided to withdraw every new "reciprocal" tariff on his chart and just keep the others, we'd have an overall rate close to 15%.

Sadly, the public face of the democrat party, its supporters, and the media want Trump to fail and fail hard. The harder the better. They'd rather he cave completely, accomplish nothing, and see a stronger China out of all this just to have the short-term sugar high. The Chinese know it. The Europeans know it. So does everyone else. Playing to the democrats' penchant for leading the country over the cliff in the name of 'popularity' has been a weakness the rest of the world has exploited for a long, long time.

You can't blame this on the media or the Democrats. Trump came out with an ill-considered, thoughtless, and genuinely dumb tariff plan. Even if the media were singing his praises, the same thing would happen: the stores would start going bare in May, prices would rise throughout the summer, and Trump would be getting hammered in the polls as we headed into X-mas. How do we know that? Because that's what happened to Biden with supply chain problems and inflation. No matter how many pundits were on Team Transitory, Americans felt the impacts to the real economy - and registered how much they hated it.

Trump's the one who decided to put America's hand onto the hot stove. His Administration completely misjudged China's reaction, thinking they would move quickly to the table instead of them moving deliberately and almost welcoming the chance to have this type of confrontation with America on the world stage. They completely underestimated how slowly most of the countries of the world would move in responding to these tariffs, and completely underestimated how painful they would be immediately to U.S. firms and employers and the bond market.

For one you assume that they're not getting 'a nice price' today. They're getting...the price today.
For two, the Europeans aren't going to suddenly expand their consumption of Chinese mops and toys and gym equipment just because the US isn't buying as much of it. Why would they? They've already established an economic equilibrium with respect to what they already import from China.

Tariffs change prices. Embargos change prices. Now that goods can't be sent to the U.S., China's got a lot of excess manufacturing capacity relative to existing demand ex-U.S. That means prices will fall. The economic equilibrium between the EU and China (and indeed every country in the world and China) is going to change.

That's been the entire problem with the Administration's approach to all this - they didn't take into account that global trade is more than just the bilateral status between the U.S. and other countries. The EU was already China's largest export market and their largest trading partner. If all those goods start to go on sale and priced to move, they'll buy more. Not enough to make up for the US market, but they will buy more.

Is Europe going to all of a sudden buy more Chinese cars? (They buy zero today). How about Chinese jets? (Also zero). Chinese semiconductors? (Also zero).

What on earth are you talking about? China exported about 1 million cars to Europe in 2024 - in fact, China is literally the biggest import country for cars going to Europe. The EU gets about 1/3 of all of their semiconductors from China - they're one of China's biggest export markets.

The reason is that the administration for all its faults has a point about worldwide protectionism and favoritism of their own products while simultaneously demanding free access to the American market.

Again, this is the system we wanted. We built it. We wanted all the countries around the world to adopt our preferred frameworks for finance and capital markets, intellectual property and patent recognition, capital flows and investment protections, the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency, all of the global frameworks on postage and shipping and aviation, and our preferences for free trade. All while maintaining our own (admittedly smaller) but still not trivial subsidy programs in our Farm Bills and ethanol supports and sugar quotas and airline/car industry bailouts and all the stuff we do for our own politically powerful but inefficient domestic industries. This is the system that helped make the U.S. the richest country in the world.

They're understandably aghast that suddenly we want to upend the card table of the game that we were winning more than any other country, playing the victim card and complaining bitterly about how totally unfair it is that countries have agreed to take part in a system that enriches us and allows abundance for our citizens unmatched in any society on earth or in history. All because Donald Trump doesn't understand what trade surpluses and deficits actually mean.

They're reporting on the tariffs because the tariffs are extraordinary and new. Trump has chosen to address longstanding U.S. complaints about other countries not through "normal" mechanisms, but by completely upending the entire global trade system.

I'll give you this - America taking action is new. America putting up with bad behavior is sadly not new. It does seem to be the expectation, though.

Let me ask you this -

Is the "entire global trade system" sustainable for us or Europe? If so, why do you believe that it is?

This is a completely different order of magnitude.

Is it? In the (admittedly very small) saner elements of the democrat party, you don't think they don't look at the hollowing out of the American manufacturing base and think that this isn't a good thing? I remember a day when democrats said stuff like this

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Democrat Joe Lieberman (search), warning that America is "hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs," promises to reverse the trend as president with tax incentives and tougher trade policies.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/lieberman-vows-to-sa...

He pointed specifically to America's $100 billion trade debt with China, accusing the nation of manipulating Chinese currency to give its exports to the U.S. unfair advantage over American goods.

"There is an economic attack occurring against us that the administration simply is not defending against," the Connecticut senator said in an interview previewing the address.

The US trade deficit with China is now 3x the $100B, by the way.

You can't blame this on the media or the Democrats.

Their public stances are insane, so yes I can.

Even if the media were singing his praises, the same thing would happen: the stores would start going bare in May, prices would rise throughout the summer, and Trump would be getting hammered in the polls as we headed into X-mas.

Hmm. You're the one using polls as evidence. The media influences public opinion, which makes them a player in this whether you want to admit it or not.

Now that goods can't be sent to the U.S., China's got a lot of excess manufacturing capacity relative to existing demand ex-U.S. That means prices will fall. The economic equilibrium between the EU and China (and indeed every country in the world and China) is going to change.

Heh. And I'll go back to my question about European goods here...

What on earth are you talking about? China exported about 1 million cars to Europe in 2024 - in fact, China is literally the biggest import country for cars going to Europe. The EU gets about 1/3 of all of their semiconductors from China - they're one of China's biggest export markets.

Ah! Didn't know the Chinese send that many cars to Europe; I don't see them on the roads in the UK or France. My point is that the Europeans aren't suddenly going to allow the Chinese to take over more of the EU economy.

Again, this is the system we wanted. We built it. We wanted all the countries around the world to adopt our preferred frameworks for finance and capital markets, intellectual property and patent recognition, capital flows and investment protections, the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency, all of the global frameworks on postage and shipping and aviation, and our preferences for free trade.

This is NOT the 'system we wanted'. You're making yet another assumption that the rest of the world uses our frameworks for IP and patent recognition, capital flows and investment protections. They don't. Free trade requires fair trade as a prerequisite. That's the point.

All because Donald Trump doesn't understand what trade surpluses and deficits actually mean.

You're both correct and incorrect here on your macro point.
You're correct in that trade deficits aren't inherently bad.
You're incorrect in your description of the 'system' and the implications on the US economy.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/248004/percent...

Manufacturing is 10% of the US GDP. Normally I'd say, "I'd rather have 10% of a trillion dollars than 100% of a thousand". However, what's missed here is that we absolutely don't want some of the dependencies that we have on China and other places. The current system is building financial services and government spending as the top sources of national income. Are we a nation of building stuff any longer? The stats say no.

For the dozenth time, I wouldn't have done this the way Trump has. But something has to be done.

we absolutely don't want some of the dependencies that we have on China and other places.

Then why did NIXON initiate them and Reagan push them ever harder? You are confused.

Is the "entire global trade system" sustainable for us or Europe? If so, why do you believe that it is?

Of course it is.

Our trade deficit in goods is partially offset by the trade surplus we run in services - what remains is relatively modest compared to the size our economy. About 3% of total GDP, and well within historical modern norms. That can continue forever, and it will make us richer (overall) if it does. Foreign countries give us really cheap financing, which we use to buy all manner of things from them more cheaply than we can make ourselves - which frees up tons of our resources to concentrate on higher-end stuff that we can make more money on. In a nutshell, instead of using our capital on making t-shirts, we're using it to develop software and build AI and robots and make movies and companies like Facebook and Apple and Microsoft.

Are we a nation of building stuff any longer? The stats say no.

The stats say yes. Our industrial output is near an all-time high. We build more stuff than at any time in our history - just like we grow more stuff than at any point in our history, even though agriculture as a share of the U.S. economy has become incredibly tiny. No one's out there saying we're not a nation of growing stuff any more, simply because Ag is only 1% of our GDP, and the same is true of manufacturing.

If you ask me whether I'd rather be a global leader in software than making apparel, I'll choose the former over the latter every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

https://reason.com/2025/03/27/no-the-u-s-industria...

For the dozenth time, I wouldn't have done this the way Trump has. But something has to be done.

Even if you stipulate that "something has to be done," what Trump is doing is phenomenally stupid - not just the way he is doing it, but what he is doing. Even if something has to be done, that doesn't make this good policy just because it is "something."

<<China exported about 1 million cars to Europe in 2024 - in fact, China is literally the biggest import country for cars going to Europe. The EU gets about 1/3 of all of their semiconductors from China - they're one of China's biggest export markets.>>

Ah! Didn't know the Chinese send that many cars to Europe; I don't see them on the roads in the UK or France. My point is that the Europeans aren't suddenly going to allow the Chinese to take over more of the EU economy.

https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/electric/chinese-evs...

MG sell quite well. The name sounds British, but it's been Chinese owned since 2007.

Google AI:
"MG Motor's car sales in the UK have significantly increased, with the brand securing the 10th position in the UK for vehicle registrations in 2024. MG's total UK market share reached 4.18%, with 27.2% of its sales being electric vehicles. The company also achieved record UK sales, reaching 81,536 units."

Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_Motor

Of course it is.

Okay. Nothing more for me to add then.
We have a fundamentally differing view on what the US economy should look like.

The stats say yes. Our industrial output is near an all-time high. We build more stuff than at any time in our history - just like we grow more stuff than at any point in our history, even though agriculture as a share of the U.S. economy has become incredibly tiny. No one's out there saying we're not a nation of growing stuff any more, simply because Ag is only 1% of our GDP, and the same is true of manufacturing.

This one I think is more a statement of global market share and of the supply chain in general, plus critical industries. "Manufacturing" is quite a broad term. Are we leading the world in shipbuilding, for example? (We're at 0.2% of the world's output). What about heavy construction equipment? That one's a bit better at ~22%. Semiconductors is 12%.

Port cranes are something that we don't make many of, either. That's a heavy industry that needs reviving. Were you aware that the Chinese supply 80% of the cranes at US ports?

So "the stats" require double-clicking.

If you ask me whether I'd rather be a global leader in software than making apparel, I'll choose the former over the latter every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Don't think anyone would make that trade. Companies like Anduril will help push that dominance forward. That said, there are a lot of towns that used to have sawmills and things that don't today.

Even if you stipulate that "something has to be done," what Trump is doing is phenomenally stupid - not just the way he is doing it, but what he is doing. Even if something has to be done, that doesn't make this good policy just because it is "something."

That depends on if you think the trajectory the US was on was a sustainable one or not. You evidently believe that we were on a fine path but even Joe Biden didn't think so - hence the CHIPS act.

You're going to rejoinder that "Biden's way was a far better way to encourage onshoring of critical manufacturing" and you'd be 100% right if the US was on more sound fiscal footing. But since we're not it's a bit more nuanced than that.

Unfortunately, too many people are thinking short term and not long term.

I believe we are well beyond the issue of short-term or long-term thinking.

The problem is that the current administration is incapable of thinking.

That depends on if you think the trajectory the US was on was a sustainable one or not. You evidently believe that we were on a fine path but even Joe Biden didn't think so - hence the CHIPS act.

You're going to rejoinder that "Biden's way was a far better way to encourage onshoring of critical manufacturing" and you'd be 100% right if the US was on more sound fiscal footing.

Again, there is a fundamental difference between: i) there being a possible need to have targeted industrial policy to encourage onshoring of manufacturing of very specific, and certainly very limited, strategically important industries; and ii) there being a need for a broad-based reduction of bilateral trade deficits across the board. The former might be valuable in limited ways (though no country on earth can be completely self-sufficient in all strategic areas and it's probably neither a feasible or desirable goal to try). The latter is just a foolish idea based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what trade deficits actually are.

The U.S. is on pretty sound financial footing, at least as far as international trade and current account balances go. It doesn't make us weaker that we get a lot of our consumer goods like apparel and footwear from Cambodia and Vietnam, rather than trying to do it ourselves - it makes us stronger, because it allows us to devote more of our resources into high-value things rather than spending more on those basics. There was nothing wrong with the policy of identifying a few key industries where re-shoring might confer some strategic value, while refraining from disrupting the entire global economic order.

That's why Trump's tariff plan is so horrific and ill-conceived. It's not just how he's going about it - what he's trying to do is bad policy and will only impoversh, isolate, and weaken the U.S. Of course, the how is terrible also....

Sadly, the public face of the democrat party, its supporters, and the media want Trump to fail and fail hard.

I'm all in favor of Trump 'succeeding', if by succeeding you mean doing what's right for the USA and it's citizens. But Trump can't and won't do that! Because he is a shallow, incompetent grifter who is only in it for his own gain and for revenge on all those he has a grudge against. That is not a POTUS, that is a crime syndicate boss.

For the dozenth time, I wouldn't have done this the way Trump has. But something has to be done.


The 'something' sure as hell isn't what Trump is doing. He's a demented old fool, thinking with his gut and shooting from the hip.

The U.S. is on pretty sound financial footing, at least as far as international trade and current account balances go.

Not what I meant, of course. We now spend the almost the equivalent of our defense budget on interest alone. That means that current American taxpayers are spending a fairly large chunk of the budget on the past instead of on the future. Which means we don't have unlimited money to spend on more new stuff.

It doesn't make us weaker that we get a lot of our consumer goods like apparel and footwear from Cambodia and Vietnam, rather than trying to do it ourselves - it makes us stronger, because it allows us to devote more of our resources into high-value things rather than spending more on those basics.

Which would be why I'm not talking about clothes or mops: I've specifically mentioned semiconductors, ships, large engineering infrastructure and construction equipment. There's more beyond that, but you get the idea.

There was nothing wrong with the policy of identifying a few key industries where re-shoring might confer some strategic value, while refraining from disrupting the entire global economic order.

I didn't like the CHIPs act for one simple reason: it would have (actually, it will) turn Intel in the "United States Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation", allowing them to wallpaper over years of execution missteps. That's the problem with subsidies, sometimes the behavior you get isn't what you really need.

It's not just how he's going about it - what he's trying to do is bad policy

There's nothing wrong with on-shoring critical manufacturing items.

Which would be why I'm not talking about clothes or mops: I've specifically mentioned semiconductors, ships, large engineering infrastructure and construction equipment. There's more beyond that, but you get the idea.

But then you don't pursue a policy that fails to distinguish - at all - between clothes or mops and the other things. These aren't product-specific tariffs, for the most part. They are country specific tariffs based solely and entirely on the amount of the trade deficit, not any particular composition of the trade deficit by strategic or non-strategic imports. What he's doing is just indiscriminately trying to reduce trade deficits, not on-shoring critical manufacturing items.

There's nothing wrong with on-shoring critical manufacturing items.

That's not what he's doing. Oh, sure - one of the effects of what he's doing may be to encourage on-shoring of manufacturing everything, which will include some critical items. But again, what he's doing is trying to reduce every bi-lateral trade deficit with every country. Which is an absolutely foolhardy thing to try to do.

But then you don't pursue a policy that fails to distinguish - at all - between clothes or mops and the other things.

I've said a number of times I wouldn't have done it this way.

I've said a number of times I wouldn't have done it this way.

I know, but I think you're missing the point. This isn't a "this way" issue, at least as you've described your position. You wouldn't have done the "it" that Trump is doing. The "it" that Trump is doing isn't "something about reliance on Chinese imports for strategically important products." He's trying to bring down global trade imbalances with every country across the board without paying any attention at all to products or sources. That's a different "it" than what you're talking about.

You talk about it as if you and Trump agree on the objective but have a disagreement on the means. I view the discrepancy between what you talk about and what he is actually doing is having completely different objectives.

I think that's why we keep going back and forth. What Trump wants to do is phenomenally dumb even if he was going about it in a smart way. What you think needs to be done is something completely different - and while I also don't think it's especially necessary or worth the cost except in a very small sliver of niche cases, it's still very much not what Trump is actually doing.

I think that's why we keep going back and forth

We keep going back and forth because it’s an interesting discussion. That’s why.

For the dozenth time, I wouldn't have done this the way Trump has. But something has to be done.

Also, Americans need to lose weight. Trump's looming nationwide food shortage will help with that. (Not the way I would have done but...)

For the dozenth time, I wouldn't have done this the way Trump has. But something has to be done.

Well, I don't consider jumping off a cliff much of a solution, but it's what you voted for.

spending a fairly large chunk of the budget on the past instead of on the future.

That was THEIR CHOICE. Don't like it? Then PAY IT OFF NOW. Otherwise, you have no argument.

Hmm. Some other shoes are dropping.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/world/europe/eu...

Why Europe Fears a Flood of Cheap Goods From China

Am I good or am I good?

President Trump’s tariffs on China could lead to a hazardous scenario for European countries: the dumping of artificially cheap products that could undermine local industries.

You don't say.

It produces a vast array of artificially cheap goods — heavily subsidized electric vehicles, consumer electronics, toys, commercial grade steel and more — but much of that trade was destined for the endlessly voracious American marketplace.

Let's whip out the NYT translator: Vast array of subsidized goods meant to compete unfairly in the United States...but now there's a new target in town!

“The overcapacity challenge has taken a long time, but it has finally arrived in European capitals,” said Liana Fix, a Washington-based fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “There is a general trend and a feeling in Europe that in these times, Europe has to stand up for itself and has to protect itself.”

Yup, your time is nigh, Europe.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has promised to “engage constructively” with China even as she has warned about the “indirect effects” of the American tariffs and has vowed to closely watch the flow of Chinese goods. A new task force will monitor imports for signs of dumping.
“We cannot absorb global overcapacity nor will we accept dumping on our market,” Ms. von der Leyen said as Mr. Trump’s tariffs went into effect.

Stuff changes when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

Leaders who argue that closer ties with China may be part of the answer, like Mr. Sánchez in Spain and Mr. Starmer in Britain, have found it to be a politically winning message at a time when their countries are eager for more foreign investment.

Announcements of a new Chinese factory that will eventually create thousands of jobs are popular at home. But at times, that eagerness can threaten to undercut a consistent, European message on trade.
Image


Heh.

That article is hilarious.
When China's overcapacity and subsidies lead to a flood of goods that destabilize a local market, it's a-okay if that local market is the United States. But if that market is Europe? Mon dieu!

Can't have that.

And what if some leader stood up and said 'enough' and protected the said local market? It's Heroic Stunning And Brave if it's Ursula but Hitler Had Tariffs Too if we're talking about Trump.

Never change, NYT.

That was just teeing up the ball in the fairway.

Now for the drive down the middle:
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/china-sees-su...

China sees surge in worker protests over unpaid wages, factory closures and US tariffs

Hmmm. Who could have predicted this?
And what to do with all those folks in from the 'vil and no money is being sent home?

From Dao county in Hunan province to Suining city in Sichuan and Tongliao city in Inner Mongolia, numerous frustrated workers have taken to the streets to voice their grievances about overdue wages and to contest unfair layoffs at factories forced to shut down due to US tariffs.

The workers claimed that the Sichuan-based firm, which produces flexible circuit boards, had not compensated them for their wages since the beginning of the year and had withheld social security benefits for nearly two years from June 2023, according to the RFA report.

So a system built on smoke/mirrors and corruption is experiencing issues.

Earlier this week, more than a dozen migrant workers in Tuanjie village, located in the northwestern Shaanxi province's Xi'an prefecture, voiced their concerns at a local project office, stating that they had not received their wages since February 2025.

On April 24, hundreds of employees from Guangxin Sports Goods in Dao county organised a strike after the company's factory shut down without providing their owed compensation or social security benefits, as highlighted by the RFA report.

And now we have this:

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/beijing-weighs-fen...

Beijing Weighs Fentanyl Offer to U.S. to Start Trade Talks
Addressing Trump team’s gripes over China’s role in fentanyl crisis could let both sides soften trade stance

As I've said - repeatedly - this is about more than trade. A lot more.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s security czar, Wang Xiaohong, in recent days has been inquiring about what the Trump team wants China to do when it comes to the chemical ingredients used to make fentanyl, the people said. Chinese companies produce large quantities of the chemicals known as “precursors,” which are sold over the internet, flowing from China to criminal groups in Mexico and elsewhere that produce fentanyl and traffic it into the U.S.
Part of Beijing’s thinking involves dispatching Wang, who is the minister of public security and a senior leader within the State Council, China’s cabinet, to the U.S. to meet with senior Trump officials, the people said, or have him meet with U.S. officials in a third country.
The discussions remain fluid, the people cautioned, while adding that Beijing would like to see some softening of stance from President Trump on his trade offensive against China as well.

Both Trump and Xi have been offering up subtle hints to one another if you know where to look for them.

In a visible shift in tone Friday, China’s Commerce Ministry said it was weighing starting talks with the U.S. to halt a trade war while expressing Beijing’s wish for the Trump administration to “show sincerity” to talk.

Indeed.

So a system built on smoke/mirrors and corruption is experiencing issues.


And the conclusion you draw is…..?

It’s an important question. You state an obvious fact, but fail to go further with it.

Ok, that partially answers my question.

Still not sure the outcome will be as you anticipate

And the conclusion you draw is…..?

That you should read the rest of the thread.

That you should read the rest of the thread.

You’re correct with that comment. :-)

And it's starting to get noticed.

This is a subscription that I get: https://www.stratnews.com/

...and here's what they're saying today:

There is a huge, global propaganda program currently running, suggesting that the US economy is suffering from its tariff program while China remains relatively unaffected. We are writing this Special Alert because we believe just the opposite to be the case: the US is doing fine, with markets returning to even higher highs; new job figures in the healthy 150k/mo. range for the last three months on average; and generally steady performance.
We learned long ago that statistics out of China are unreliable at best, and always err to its favor. As often occurs, we tend to agree with the comments of Gordon Chang, who in a recent interview suggested that the Chinese GDP is running into negative numbers – i.e., the country is going into an economic retraction. To be clear, Chinese markets are often manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party, and with ease; therefore, they have no meaning, in the short term, other than to indicate the level of government intervention.
Ten years ago (in January 2015), we made a prediction that the CCP had lost control of its economy and was in fact in panic mode, and that it was then facing an implosion of sorts, as its business model, long buoyed by IP theft and subsidized exports (externally) and super-inflated infrastructure and housing buildouts (internally), was collapsing. One of our indicators was a complete public reversal by Xi Jinping on market manipulation, something that: a) had to happen to keep the charade going; but b) had to also include a remarkable, almost unheard-of loss of face (respect) in the doing.

As I've said, in many ways China is a House of Cards.

Anyway:
The numeric point being: contrary to the figures you’ve been reading in the WSJ, or the NYTimes, the real threat China is facing is the shuttering of thousands of companies, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of jobs, leading quickly to economic and political instability. And this would lead, almost certainly, to the elimination of Xi, and, one hopes, the modification of his InfoMerc model of modern economic parasitism.
In summary: We believe China is at another breaking point in its economic story; that the tariffs are already doing what was intended, just weeks into the program; and that the US needs to stay the course, while dropping the threats to its closest allies, so that all Inventing Nations can stand together, with little disruption and great effect.

suggesting that the US economy is suffering from its tariff program while China remains relatively unaffected.

That isn't what I've read. We're now 15% of China's exports, and it will be affected, but not as much as Trump would like, and China will be there as countries turn away from the US. China is mulling over talking with Trump, and may offer to crack down on chemicals used for Fentanyl. That may give Trump something to brag about as he backs down.

It isn't clear how much was stockpiled in the USA in anticipation of the tariff blunders.

China will be there as countries turn away from the US.

Yep. They’re such nice guys and we’re the new German Reich so we can expect the rest of the world to abandon us.

Yep. They’re such nice guys and we’re the new German Reich so we can expect the rest of the world to abandon us.

That’s definitely how China is presenting itself.

And that message is only buttressed by Donald Trump doing his best imitation of Der Führer

That’s definitely how China is presenting itself..

And it’s being lapped up by Useful Idiots here and abroad.

And it’s being lapped up by Useful Idiots here and abroad.

You misread what people are saying, because that’s not what any substantial number of people are saying.

China perceives a weakness and vacuum created by Trump’s tariffs and inconsistent application.


It’s rushing to fill that vacuum. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And it’s being lapped up by Useful Idiots here and abroad.

But....it's true, isn't it?

Not the part about China. China hasn't changed. But we have changed, right?

We're not going to keep being Mr. Nice Guy. We're deliberately and intentionally changing, going into Just Another Powerful Country mode. Rubio said it himself, on foreign policy - we're no longer going to do what's good for the world, we're going to do what's good for the United States.

When we do that, there's an effect. The effect is to reduce the difference between us and China to other countries. Not eliminate it, but reduce it. If we're no longer going to do what's good for the world, but instead do what's good for us, then a lot of countries need to modify their relationship with the U.S. to be more like any other power. Which means no longer relying on us to do what's right or good or in service to global interests. Which means that they have to triangulate us against the Chinese and other global powers, rather than just rely on us to respect their interests and needs on our own.

I mean, you can't just upend the global order and expect that it won't change things. Some changes will be to our benefit, but some will not. And the big change is that is is now in the interest of our former allies to try to check our power by plying us against the Chinese, rather than continuing to let us be the Leaders of the Free World.

Welcome to America First.

If we're no longer going to do what's good for the world, but instead do what's good for us, then a lot of countries need to modify their relationship with the U.S. to be more like any other power. Which means no longer relying on us to do what's right or good or in service to global interests.

A wonderful post, albaby (as usual), but I think you may have missed something (or perhaps I’m misreading - like that’s never happened before 😁).

When our previous leaders did “what’s good for the world”, we weren’t just being altruistic. I think they believed that if the world was more prosperous and had fewer military resources (atomic weapons, armies, etc.), that the United States would be better off as well.

On a personal level, I serve on the Board of a local non-profit that focuses on improving the living standards of inner city residents. I do it partly because I want to “give back” to the community where I prospered (somewhat altruistic) but more importantly, I believe if the living standards of people in our community improve, my life is better, too. More productive citizens that pay taxes, less crime, etc.

One of Trump’s many flaws is that he believes he can only win if he wins and you lose. Apparently he is unaware that win-win scenario’s can be beneficial.

Just my thoughts.

Apparently he is unaware that win-win scenario’s can be beneficial.

Just my thoughts.

And good thoughts, they are.

Win-win is how all successful negotiations proceed, unless “unconditional surrender” is on the table as it was with Germany and Japan in 1945.

For Trump, it seems, most negotiations are about unconditional surrender. Even if he poses them as “win-win”, you can’t trust him to hold up his side of the bargain (just ask New York contractors).

For Trump, he has to win and you have to lose.

Always.

Even if you have professed undying fealty to him. Eventually, he is going to screw you.

This is the thinking that brings on wars.

If we're no longer going to do what's good for the world, but instead do what's good for us,...

But those are seldom mutually exclusive.

You said it (or implied it) yourself when you pointed out that countries will reassess how they view us, and act accordingly. Before 2025, they largely viewed us positively. Their policies, therefore, were -on the whole- friendlier. So, we were more likely to get something we wanted. Be it a military base, or a lowering of trade barriers, or even just the other country not looking to China (or Russia). "Goodwill" has a value, even if it is intangible.

The Felon's facile chart reflecting his facile (mis)understanding of economics is clearly NOT putting America First. As you say, we're just another powerful country now. Somewhat ironically, I read an article several weeks ago that Germany is stepping up to be the "Leader of the Free World". Germany. The ones who caused us to assume that role 80 years ago.

You misread what people are saying

No, I don't. It's ORANGEMANHIRTLERBAD 24/7. It's not like you people are doing anything more than that.

China perceives a weakness and vacuum created by Trump’s tariffs and inconsistent application.

Do they.
China has several problems. I've posted a number of them, but in true, ahem, "blue" PA lib fashion those things get ignored in favor ORANGEMANHITERBADHITLERBAD.

There are serious structural issues inside the West. Don't worry, you'll suddenly see them when the first democrat starts talking about it.

But....it's true, isn't it?

Not the part about China. China hasn't changed. But we have changed, right?


What's true? That China holds all the cards, and that we're the BADGUYS here? I suppose if one chooses to marinate oneself in msnbc all day that would be the prevailing thought, wouldn't it?

The effect is to reduce the difference between us and China to other countries.

I'm going to stop you here, and let you ponder what you've typed here.

Come on, man.

Win-win is how all successful negotiations proceed

Indeed.

I'm going to let out a very big

Sigh.

...for all of you.

Maybe this isn't true.
Or maybe it is.

Guess we'll see:

https://nypost.com/2025/05/03/opinion/despite-thei...

Despite their denials, China is losing the tariffs war and retreating as fast as it can

Hmmm. What possible evidence could there be? All I see here is BADORANGEHITLERMAN bad.

China’s foreign ministry even released a video claiming that China “won’t kneel down” to the US, warning that bowing to US hegemony would be like drinking poison. At the BRICS meeting in Rio this week, Foreign Minister Wang Yi talked tough as well: “Silence or retreat will only embolden bullies.”

Interesting. And lol. The *US* is the bully here. Wonder how many on this board agree with that statement? 90%? 95?

Trump divulged in a Time magazine interview on April 25 that China’s Xi Jinping contacted him directly about tariffs, and later affirmed that he has since spoken with the Chinese dictator “many times.”

Let's assume Trump is lying or exaggerating. What else?

The Korean press has confirmed that “the United States and China have begun behind-the-scenes contact in relation to the ‘tariff war,’ ” and a high-ranking Chinese delegation was photographed entering the US Treasury Department in the early morning hours of April 24.

Hmm. What is that picture?
At 7 a.m. on the 24th (local time), a high-ranking official of China's Ministry of Finance (corresponding to the Ministry of Economy and Finance) was seen entering the headquarters building of the Ministry of Finance in Washington, U.S., accompanied by an entourage of about 10 people. The photo shows a Chinese entourage waiting for the two sides to finish their meeting. They were wearing ID cards to attend the G20 Finance Ministers' Meeting, and their nationality was written on the ID. Washington = Kang Tae-hwa Correspondent [출처:중앙일보] https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25331291

Wonder why western news doesn't talk about this?

Anyway.
They are in the huge piles of containers that missed the April 9 tariff deadline, sitting in Chinese ports. These are filled with goods that the tariffs have priced out of the US market. Meanwhile, cargo bookings for container voyages between China and the US are down by half.
They are in deserted factory floors all along the coast of China, where workers are being laid off by the tens of thousands. Textile, toy, electronic, and furniture factories are just a few of the industries being crushed by the tariffs.
They are in the empty streets and shuttered shops of the surrounding industrial towns and cities, whose one-time customers — the now unemployed factory workers — can’t afford to eat or shop in their favorite noodle stand or convenience stores.

Guess we'll see.

What's true? That China holds all the cards, and that we're the BADGUYS here?

No. That we're less of the GOODGUYS than we were previously.

We've announced, in no uncertain terms, that we have no intention of being the "good guys" any more. We're not going to be the baddies, but we're certainly going to be looking out only and exclusively for our own interests going forward. If there's a conflict between what's good for the world and what's good for us, we're choosing the latter.

That's a change. The whole point of America First is that we're changing our role in the world. Well, that has an impact. If we change how we're treating other countries, they'll change how they treat us.

Previously, all of the other countries that we count as our allies could afford to let the U.S. grow powerful without the need to take any actions to counter it. They could trust us not to treat them like adversaries. Those days are gone. So now it's in the best interests of many of our former allies to start checking our power on the international stage, to start triangulating between us and other global powers to thwart our dominance.

Again, this is what America First is all about. We're no longer going to be the Leader of the Free World, we're no longer going to be exceptional. We're looking out for our own interests only....which means all of the countries that have long been our allies are going to start treating us like that kind of country now. When you give up the responsibilities and constraints that come with the mantle of being the Leader of the Free World, you also give up the benefits of it as well.

Again, this is what America First is all about. We're no longer going to be the Leader of the Free World, we're no longer going to be exceptional

That’s a maximalist statement and one that’s not really backed up by how things are unfolding, sorry.

The current world trajectory was unsustainable. Completely.

I get that it’s great for American popularity when a democrat is in office and we throw all sorts of largesse around. Makes us feel good about ourselves and it spares Brussels from having to make adult decision about how to run the continent.

But the Euro ideal of six weeks vacation a year, a house in the Riveria, retiring at 50 and having free healthcare is awesome. Who doesn’t want that? All it requires is a big sugar daddy across the pond. Welp, it all carries a bill and that bill is now due.

I understand everything you’re saying. The problem with it is that we can’t afford it anymore. That’s the reality.

For Trump, he has to win and you have to lose.

I think its worse than that. He is willing to lose as long as you lose more.

--Peter

I understand everything you’re saying. The problem with it is that we can’t afford it anymore. That’s the reality.

It doesn't cost us anything to refrain from threatening Greenland, though.

Regardless of whether we can't afford it anymore (and I disagree with you that this wasn't sustainable), it's inarguable that we're choosing not to do it anymore. And once we don't do it anymore, we're not going to lose just the obligations that came with being the Leader of the Free World. We're also going to lose the benefits.

One of the benefits was that all of the countries that have been our allies would treat us as if we were not an adversary. Because they could rely on the fact that we wouldn't treat them as adversaries.

Now that we've changed that, it should be no surprise that all of our long-time allies are now going to start treating us like Just Another Country, rather than someplace exceptional. Again, not the baddies - but we're not The Good Guys as much as we have been, both under Democrats and Republicans.

It's not being "maximal." We have decided to be less what we used to be, and more self-interested. Perhaps not 100% self-interested, since Trumpism is merely ascendant and not completely implemented yet. But all of our longtime allies will and should start to treat us as walking away from taking into account anyone's interests but our own, as Rubio stated.

Which means that the difference between us and other countries has narrowed. China hasn't changed, but we have changed a lot.

It doesn't cost us anything to refrain from threatening Greenland, though.

Sure. That’s dumb.

One of the benefits was that all of the countries that have been our allies would treat us as if we were not an adversary. Because they could rely on the fact that we wouldn't treat them as adversaries.

There’s a Cold War saying, “The French are willing to defend Europe right down to the last American”. There’s another saying about friends like that…

The Europeans are about to have their own problems. All those Chinese goods that were destined to be dumped into our markets aren’t going to sit on shipping containers for long: they’ll dump that stuff in Europe.

Which means that the difference between us and other countries has narrowed. China hasn't changed, but we have changed a lot.

We’ve “changed” in that we’re asking the desdbeat 26 year old to move out of the basement and get a job.

What's true? That China holds all the cards, and that we're the BADGUYS here? I suppose if one chooses to marinate oneself in msnbc all day that would be the prevailing thought, wouldn't it?

China certainly doesn’t hold all the cards, but neither do we.

And squeezing China like we’re some Mafia mob boss is rife with the potential for unintended consequences….

Like- squeezing WalMart, Target, Lowes and thousands of small businesses here in the US even more than we squeeze China

Like…… the inflation that is about to increase here in proportion to the decrease in container ships arriving from China

Like…… the unemployment that will rise as small businesses collapse, trucking firms lay off drivers, and longshoremen have fewer ships to unload.

Like…… increasing the probability that China will strike trade deals with our allies in the Pacific


Like…… moving on their long term goal of taking Taiwan as a wag the dog effort to refocus the Chinese people away from concerns about their domestic economy.

And here’s another, happening right now in the fields around my house……


By this time, the fields in SE Michigan are usually sown with corn or soybeans, and the seedlings should be a couple of inches high. Not this year. They’re either lying fallow or are planted in cover crops- clover or grass for hay. Why is that, do you suppose? Not saying it’s everywhere, but it is certainly true in this area.

I usually play a guessing game with myself about this time of year…. Is this farmer planting soy beans, corn, or giving the land a rest?

This year- it’s all resting.

Probably in anticipation of a bail out from Trump. Or perhaps the farmers are just voicing a collective “F—- you”
Or maybe they’ve just given up.

Real dislocation, whose consequences will only gradually appear over the next few months.

I get that it’s great for American popularity when a democrat is in office and we throw all sorts of largesse around.

This is not throwing largesse around, it is spending that promoted American interests and resulted in America becoming the strongest and wealthiest nation on the planet. And, it’s been our policy for over 80 years, including both Democratic AND Republican administrations. In fact since WWII, some of the biggest deficits were incurred under Republican administrations.

Let’s see if Trump and Big Balls have a better result.

We’ve “changed” in that we’re asking the desdbeat 26 year old to move out of the basement and get a job.

Not even close. The EU and the rest of the OECD have a higher combined GDP than we do. Collectively they have higher military expenditures than we do. They may be in something of a subordinate role to us - after all we are the leaders of the free world - but nothing analogous to being the deadbeat child of us as parents. And we rely on them as partners in a host of endeavors, from sharing of intelligence and military installations to cooperation in establishing and enforcing all of the international treaties and agreements that allow us so much wealth.

And we benefitted from them being subordinate to us. We wanted Japan to demilitarize, and we were comparatively stronger because the Great Powers of Europe aren't on a war footing against each other. One benefit of Pax Americana was that the Europeans couldn't light their continent on fire over some foolishness in the Balkans or what have you. But we're going to change that - we want everyone else the world to start getitng stronger relative to us. So now, we're encouraging all the people who aren't us to build up their armies again. For some reason that completely escapes me, we're choosing to encourage them to beef up their domestic arms manufacturing - even though military arms exports are one of our most important export industries (several hundred billion per year).

Yeah, not like asking your deadbeat to move out. We're breaking up with our longtime business partner, even though that arrangement has been unbelievably successful for us, making us the most successful businessman on earth. And we're cutting loose a quite capable person. Oh, sure - perhaps not at our level - but certainly a force in the field. And we're encouraging him to start competing against us. So we can't be quite surprised when he starts exploring deals without us.

Part of the blinkered nature of "American First" is thinking that the U.S. gains so little from our longtime allies...even to conceiving of them as a "deadbeat 26-year-old."

And squeezing China like we’re some Mafia mob boss is rife with the potential for unintended consequences….

Because they deal with us fair and square, amirite? We’re the Ugly Americans here. We deserve to have people take advantage of us in the daily.

This is not throwing largesse around, it is spending that promoted American interests and resulted in America becoming the strongest and wealthiest nation on the planet

I remember a time when liberals used to bemoan the middle class being hollowed out and the rust belt going under.

Oh, well.

se. The EU and the rest of the OECD have a higher combined GDP than we do. Collectively they have higher military expenditures than we do.

Ahhh, the capable European militaries. The Germans are planning to deploy some troops to…Lithuania…I believe.

Care to guess when that’s going to happen? The answer to that should tell you something about European defense expenditures.

And we rely on them as partners in a host of endeavors, from sharing of intelligence and military installations to cooperation in establishing and enforcing all of the international treaties and agreements that allow us so much wealth.

Remind me. Whose troops man all those military installations and whose Navy guards the seas and whose spy satellites supply much of the intel? This isn’t nearly as strong a case as you think it is.

Look, I’ve said a dozen times I wouldn’t have done it this way. But you guys seriously need to study Europe more.

Because they deal with us fair and square, amirite?

No. As usual.

You really can’t see that you are a useful idiot?

As I've pointed out, there is much more than 'tariffs' going on in trade. The media constantly mentions tariffs but largely ignore everything else.

Like extra taxes.

https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/04/scott-bessent-r...

Europe’s rollout of tech regulation laws, like the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act have become a sticking point in wider transatlantic trade negotiations. American officials like Bessent argue such digital taxes unfairly burden U.S. firms and could undercut joint competition with China. (RELATED: ‘Strong And Clear Message’: European Bureaucrats Slap American Tech Giants With Massive Fines)

“We’re negotiating with a lot of different interests,” Bessent said at a White House press conference Tuesday. “Some of the European countries have put on an unfair digital service tax on our big internet provider — France and Italy — other counties, Germany and Poland, don’t have that. So we want to see that unfair tax of one of America’s great industries removed. It’s going to be a give and take. They have some internal matters to decide before they can engage in an external negotiation.”

and

The [Digital Services Act] regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms,” the European Commission’s website states. “Its main goal is to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation. It ensures user safety, protects fundamental rights, and creates a fair and open online platform environment.”

Sal Nuzzo, executive director of Consumer’s Defense, framed the trade talks as an opportunity to “[deliver] a blow to our shared adversary.”

“When our allies punish U.S. companies while doing business with communist China, it makes things more expensive for us,” Nuzzo told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The ongoing trade negotiations present the perfect opportunity for our European allies to strengthen our partnership through more open and fair regulatory regimes resulting in a win for both parties and delivering a blow to our shared adversary.”

Like extra taxes.

What taxes? Are they referring to the fines that are imposed for non-compliance with the domestic rules governing the provision of various internet services? These are sovereign countries - they're allowed to set the rules for what people do within their borders, just like we do. A few posts ago you were noting with approval the fines imposed on a company for violating our animal cruelty laws (which I also applaud) - do you think it would be fair for another country to regard those fines as "extra taxes" that warranted reciprocal trade consequences, if they didn't have similar rules?

What taxes? Are they referring to the fines that are imposed for non-compliance with the domestic rules governing the provision of various internet services? These are sovereign countries - they're allowed to set the rules for what people do within their borders, just like we do. A few posts ago you were noting with approval the fines imposed on a company for violating our animal cruelty laws (which I also applaud) - do you think it would be fair for another country to regard those fines as "extra taxes" that warranted reciprocal trade consequences, if they didn't have similar rules?

Bad equivalence. Are we engaging in animal cruelty to issue pull requests for browser code? Do we have a bunch of squirrels hooked up to treadmills powering the data centers?

The broader point of the other post was to show that the Europeans like to issue regulations that target US firms. It's not a problem if everything is applied equally - for example, if a US product is demonstrably unsafe there's no universe where they'd allow that in and that's fine.

However, if those rules went so far as to dictate how the code or whatever was developed in ways that alter its development process *and* essentially places the European Union as the de facto governing regulatory body for entire world...that won't fly. That's what California tries to be in the United States with respect to emissions regulations and other things, btw.

And as predicted, here comes the flood of cheap stuff:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/china-is-floo...

China’s EV tsunami
China isn’t just making more EVs—it’s dominating the game. With companies like BYD, Nio, and Xpeng, China has leapfrogged the legacy auto giants, cranking out sleek, affordable, tech-savvy EVs at scale. In 2024, China became the world’s top car exporter, surpassing Japan. A big reason? EVs.

And here’s the kicker: while Western automakers fight over 5% price margins, Chinese EVs roll off the line at 20–25% lower costs, backed by aggressive government subsidies, streamlined supply chains, and—yes—control over the rare earth minerals that power modern batteries.

Tariffs might slow imports, sure—but they could also stifle competition, keep prices high, and isolate U.S. consumers from some of the most advanced and affordable EVs on the planet.

...assuming the tech inside these cars was original. In many cases, it's not.

Do we have a bunch of squirrels hooked up to treadmills powering the data centers?

Why use squirrels? Use magats instead. Easily replaced when they fail (often) AND no penalty for how they are treated.

However, if those rules went so far as to dictate how the code or whatever was developed in ways that alter its development process *and* essentially places the European Union as the de facto governing regulatory body for entire world....that won't fly. That's what California tries to be in the United States with respect to emissions regulations and other things, btw.

How? Companies don't have to develop the same products, the same way, with the same characteristics for every market. They often don't. One classic example is an automobile, which has to be homologated to match the requirements for each jurisdiction they're being sold for. Including emissions standards, by the way - you can't sell cars in the U.S. that don't meet our emissions standards for various pollutants, even if those cars would be perfectly legal in your home country. Europe's perfectly free to adopt its own standards, and companies are perfectly free to choose not to offer their services in Europe if they don't want to meet those standards.

It doesn't fly for California because the U.S. is a single nation, with a presumption baked into the Commerce Clause that products will be able to be sold uniformly throughout the country. No such conditions apply to international trade, unless they are negotiated for and agreed to.

So Europe wants to have standards that it thinks are good for its citizens when it comes to data services. Who are we to tell them not to? After all, they're just as entitled to "Europe First" as we are to "America First."

So Europe wants to have standards that it thinks are good for its citizens when it comes to data services. Who are we to tell them not to? After all, they're just as entitled to "Europe First" as we are to "America First."

That's fine if they think that way.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international...

LONDON — The European Union on Wednesday outlined the steps that Apple must take to open up its iPhone and iPad operating systems to work better with competing technologies.

What does "open up" mean?

In its legally binding decision, the commission detailed measures that the iPhone maker has to take involving nine connectivity features for its iOS operating system.

The measures will give device and app makers better access to iPhone features that work with devices. For example, iPhone users will have “enhanced possibilities” to receive notifications on non-Apple smartwatches, including receiving pictures and the ability to reply to them. Users could also benefit from more seamless pairing of wireless headphones from other brands.

Access to Apple’s wireless file transfer technology would let third-party developers create apps similar to the AirDrop feature.

That last bit is interesting. Basically Apple has to fork over Air Drop tech to European competitors.

Oh, btw -
If the commission decides Google is in “non-compliance” with the DMA, it can issue a fine of up to 10% of the company’s annual global revenue. But officials have said that they want to avoid issuing blockbuster fines and instead negotiate with companies to get them to comply.

What does "open up" mean?

Compatible standards, allowing other devices/platforms to interact with it, etc. Very common stuff for electronic and computer devices. Sometimes standards emerge on their own, sometimes standards are set by government, sometimes companies try to use their market power to create "walled gardens" and the government steps in to prevent them from doing that. Pretty basic exercise of governmental authority to regulate the products and services offered within their jurisdiction.

If the commission decides Google is in “non-compliance” with the DMA, it can issue a fine of up to 10% of the company’s annual global revenue. But officials have said that they want to avoid issuing blockbuster fines and instead negotiate with companies to get them to comply.

Yeah, the same theory that underlies the doctrine of punitive damages here in the U.S. The government reserves to itself the power to impose a whacking big fine or penalty, so that even the wealthiest folks who violate the law won't just write off a smaller penalty as the cost of doing business.

Again, it's basic governmental sovereignty. Countries get to set the rules in their country. It's not just for immigration and border controls, doncha know - it covers everything that foreigners might want to get up to in their lands. Like, say, a foreign company like Apple or Google that wants the freedom to go into their marketplace....but not play by the local rules? Not going to fly, to borrow your expression....

Compatible standards, allowing other devices/platforms to interact with it, etc. Very common stuff for electronic and computer devices. Sometimes standards emerge on their own, sometimes standards are set by government, sometimes companies try to use their market power to create "walled gardens" and the government steps in to prevent them from doing that. Pretty basic exercise of governmental authority to regulate the products and services offered within their jurisdiction.

Sometimes. All PC memory is designed using the JEDEC spec for a particular generation of DRAM. Similarly SOC and PC bus topology follows standards set by international groups such as USB-IF and PCIe-SIG.
But not for everything. How many outfits do you believe have, say, Windows source access?

In other words, there are limits.

Like, say, a foreign company like Apple or Google that wants the freedom to go into their marketplace....but not play by the local rules? Not going to fly, to borrow your expression....

So if Apple refuses to transfer Air Drop tech to Europe so some European startup can copy it, you're cool with AAPL paying a $40 billion or so fine? That's a pretty big local rule.

You don't think it's in the US' best interest to watch out for potential abuses?

So if Apple refuses to transfer Air Drop tech to Europe so some European startup can copy it, you're cool with AAPL paying a $40 billion or so fine? That's a pretty big local rule.

They can always choose not to sell phones in Europe, after all. Interoperability is a fairly defensible goal for technology regulation, so it's not that much of a stretch for them to require Apple to do what's necessary technically to achieve that goal. It's not that big of a local rule - except to companies like Apple that wants to keep access to its devices proprietary. It's easy to see why they want to do that (it's a huge competitive advantage to them) and easy to see why regulators don't want them to be able to do that (because it thwarts interoperability.

You don't think it's in the US' best interest to watch out for potential abuses?

Sure. But one man's legitimate regulations are another man's abuses. I'm pretty sure that most of the world regards Trump's proposed tariffs as abuses - they clearly violate almost every trade agreement we've ever signed - but he seems to thing they're legitimate. Europe has every right to establish the rules for selling devices and services in their markets, and to prohibit practices they deem anti-competitive. If they want to regulate the software equivalent of a standard headphone jack size, so that third-parties can make peripherals that can "talk" to the devices, they can do that - and it's not an "abuse" just because Apple would prefer that only its own OEM or licensed devices can ever talk to their cellphones.

<They can always choose not to sell phones in Europe, after all. Interoperability is a fairly defensible goal for technology regulation, so it's not that much of a stretch for them to require Apple to do what's necessary technically to achieve that goal. It's not that big of a local rule - except to companies like Apple that wants to keep access to its devices proprietary. It's easy to see why they want to do that (it's a huge competitive advantage to them) and easy to see why regulators don't want them to be able to do that (because it thwarts interoperability.

This is more than mere interop, this is Europe forcing Apple to share tech.

Europe has every right to establish the rules for selling devices and services in their markets, and to prohibit practices they deem anti-competitive. If they want to regulate the software equivalent of a standard headphone jack size, so that third-parties can make peripherals that can "talk" to the devices, they can do that - and it's not an "abuse" just because Apple would prefer that only its own OEM or licensed devices can ever talk to their cellphones.

Standards are one thing. Demanding IP...is something else entirely. Are you okay with Europe demanding that Microsoft turn over Windows source code?

..assuming the tech inside these cars was original. In many cases, it's not.

Cite to credible sources for this? China is tops in electronics.

europeans dont want "open" in the way it is meant in the USA...ie a free for all and devil take the hindmost.... we have a lot of consumer protection laws for a very good reason, thats why our food is better, our street are safer, our internet is safer and our air , rivers and lakes are cleaner. we want basic protections , so that a trust in society can function.

This is more than mere interop, this is Europe forcing Apple to share tech.

No, it's generally just interoperability. Europe isn't forcing Apple to transfer ownership of any of their tech or IP (that's what we're doing with TikTok) - they're forcing Apple to open up access to their systems so that third party developers of software and peripherals can interact with it.

That's a perfectly legitimate exercise of sovereignty. They get to set the rules for how people do business in their countries. Foreigners have to follow the rules, too. If they decide that they do not want a "walled garden" type of product ecosystem in consumer electronics, they're allowed to do that. And they're allowed to require foreign companies like Apple to follow those rules when they do business there. That's what sovereignty is. It's why we get to keep using the imperial system of measurements (to use a minor example), even though that imposes some stupid unnecessary costs on many foreign companies and even though we're almost the only country in the world (other than Myanmar and Liberia, and <archer>you never really think of those other two as having their shit together</archer>).

That doesn't make what they're doing a "tax." Indeed, the very size of the penalty makes that implausible. It's sized to such an amount that there can't be any expectation that Apple will simply pay it as the cost of doing business there; it's so enormous that it can only have the effect of forcing Apple to comply with the rules.

. Europe isn't forcing Apple to transfer ownership of any of their tech or IP (that's what we're doing with TikTok) - they're forcing Apple to open up access to their systems so that third party developers of software and peripherals can interact with it.

The article specifically mentions AirDrop tech. Apple already provides APIs for software developers - that’s how people write apps in the first place.

The article specifically mentions AirDrop tech.

Right. It mentions it. But it doesn't say that Apple has to transfer ownership of that tech to anyone. It just says that they have to "open up" that tech so that third party app and peripheral designers can create products that are interoperable with it. Which is something that they can legitimately require of Apple as a requirement of selling their products in the EU. And it's not a tax.

Right. It mentions it. But it doesn't say that Apple has to transfer ownership of that tech to anyone.

No it doesn't. All I'm going on is what it said.

Which is something that they can legitimately require of Apple as a requirement of selling their products in the EU. And it's not a tax.

Don't recall saying anything about a tax.
At any rate, your point is only partially valid. Does Microsoft have to release Windows source code to operate in Europe? No, they don't. There's a line between ensuring interop and company secrets.

Don't recall saying anything about a tax.

From upthread, you wrote:

As I've pointed out, there is much more than 'tariffs' going on in trade. The media constantly mentions tariffs but largely ignore everything else.

Like extra taxes.

...in referring to the penalties imposed under the DMA. Some supporters of Trump's tariffs have tried to position those penalties as being "taxes" in disguise. But they're way too large. Taxes are generally charges that are imposed for the purpose of, and with the expectation of, raising revenue - but these are so big that they simply will not really raise any revenue, but instead force compliance (or more drastic changes).

At any rate, your point is only partially valid. Does Microsoft have to release Windows source code to operate in Europe? No, they don't. There's a line between ensuring interop and company secrets.

Does Microsoft need to release Windows source code to ensure interoperability under the DMA? Actually, let's step back - does Apple need to do that? Your article doesn't use the term "source code," and indeed does not any specific type of thing that Apple needs to provide in order to "open up" to interoperability. Is there anything to indicate that Apple is, in fact, being asked to release more than what Microsoft does in order to ensure interoperability?

...they're forcing Apple to open up access to their systems so that third party developers of software and peripherals can interact with it.

Just like Microsoft a few decades ago. They lost some anti-trust suits (or were going to lose), and ended up putting "hooks" into Windows (specifically) that third-party developers could have access to, and develop competing applications. They didn't have access to all of Windows. Just enough to assure that they could "hook" into Windows and have a stable app.

Which is why we have -for example- Vivaldi and Firefox. I'd say also WordPerfect, but that seems to have died. But OpenOffice is still a going thing.

Now, don't take this as an affront; I like the cut of your jib, but...

This argument - interoperability - is rather silly. One has been able to attach files to emails, texts, dropbox, etc for decades. There's no need for Apple to be forced to avail this technology to others. One need not have an Apple device to send/receive to other Apple devices. I think I first sent and received to an Apple device in 1983. From other devices. They're interoperable just fine. This was my profession for decades.

Same-same, file formats. A .xls can be read in Google docs, and used between Macs and PCs with relatively no friction, and that's been true for a generation also.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.