Trade war?

[TheFrozenStrelet]

What do you guys think about the Tariffs Trump put in place against the EU and Canada? I think its a bad idea and not quite sure what this is supposed to accomplish but its Trump so whatever the fuck these days I guess. The EU and Canada are going to retaliate so I guess its time to grab some popcorn.

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-s ... iffs-after

[Snuden]

He is a good deal maker. The best deal maker.

[duckzilla]

It is quite a complex topic. The tariffs themselves already have an impact on many different levels of the economy.

Let's look at the example of steel tariffs. They have negative effects on american manufacturing as the decreased level of competition raises the price for steel and any derivative products in the US. Also these higher prices for steel will be passed to the customers, which means that any products which are either made of steel or whose production process needs machines made of steel will increase in price (cars/machines/airplanes/tanks/factory equipment).

At the same time, you could argue that the trade war has a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions as steel is now 'consumed' more locally. Less globalization can lead to lower GHG in general.

The political impact of tariffs should not be underestimated. A nice example would be the french+german coal and steel industries. After the 2nd world war, politicians on both sides of the Rhine wanted to make a potential future repetition of war between France/Germany impossible. This is why the "European Coal and Steel Community" was founded (first step to European Union) in order to integrate the heavy industries of both countries as far as possible. In the case of war, none of both would be able to produce the supplies needed for their war effort anymore, since the heavy industry now relies on supply of the other country. Long story short: the more interwined the economies of countries are, the more each country can lose in the case of war
-> globalization can be considered as a peace project, tariffs lead to more instability in international politics


edit: regarding the european/canadian 'retaliation', I would expect them to do the classic tit-for-tat strategy. In a multi-staged game, you would always copy the behavior which you opponent showed in the previous stage. If Trump introduces tariffs today, the EU will introduce tariffs tomorrow. If Trump cooperates tomorrow, the EU will cooperate the day after tomorrow.

[Snuden]

phpBB [video]

[Gendarme]

He is a good deal maker. The best deal maker.

Believe him.

[TheFrozenStrelet]

It is quite a complex topic. The tariffs themselves already have an impact on many different levels of the economy.

Let's look at the example of steel tariffs. They have negative effects on american manufacturing as the decreased level of competition raises the price for steel and any derivative products in the US. Also these higher prices for steel will be passed to the customers, which means that any products which are either made of steel or whose production process needs machines made of steel will increase in price (cars/machines/airplanes/tanks/factory equipment).

At the same time, you could argue that the trade war has a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions as steel is now 'consumed' more locally. Less globalization can lead to lower GHG in general.

The political impact of tariffs should not be underestimated. A nice example would be the french+german coal and steel industries. After the 2nd world war, politicians on both sides of the Rhine wanted to make a potential future repetition of war between France/Germany impossible. This is why the "European Coal and Steel Community" was founded (first step to European Union) in order to integrate the heavy industries of both countries as far as possible. In the case of war, none of both would be able to produce the supplies needed for their war effort anymore, since the heavy industry now relies on supply of the other country. Long story short: the more interwined the economies of countries are, the more each country can lose in the case of war
-> globalization can be considered as a peace project, tariffs lead to more instability in international politics


edit: regarding the european/canadian 'retaliation', I would expect them to do the classic tit-for-tat strategy. In a multi-staged game, you would always copy the behavior which you opponent showed in the previous stage. If Trump introduces tariffs today, the EU will introduce tariffs tomorrow. If Trump cooperates tomorrow, the EU will cooperate the day after tomorrow.

Trump is someone that is right no matter what. Nobody can tell Trump that he is wrong of there will be consequences just like with Hitler. I doubt Trump would care about any of the history you just mentioned and only cares about "Making America Great Again" or whatever that means. Trump would respond to your post as simply "other countries are ripping us off" and that would be his argument.

[duckzilla]

Trump is someone that is right no matter what. Nobody can tell Trump that he is wrong of there will be consequences just like with Hitler. I doubt Trump would care about any of the history you just mentioned and only cares about "Making America Great Again" or whatever that means. Trump would respond to your post as simply "other countries are ripping us off" and that would be his argument.

I think that Trump being right is not really the point. He does not seem to care about being right or wrong. I recently read a comment to a NYT article on the question whether Trump tries to "destroy the western alliance". Given his behavior, it is likely that he is simply a narcissist.

Here is a quote from the comment:

It is difficult for normal people to get inside the mind of a narcissist.

Trump doesn't have a goal of destroying the Western alliance. He doesn't have any goals in the sense of what that means to normal functioning people.

His actions are designed to call attention to himself. Period. And when people are upset with him, well, that's attention too. And it is working. Trump's supporters give him attention, world leaders give him attention, newspaper columnists give him attention (and attention and attention), Democrats give him attention, people who hate him give him attention. And on and on.

He probably doesn't even know what the "western alliance" is, much less how to destroy it.

He acted to get attention, and it has worked.

In the context of a potential trade war, it means that Trump simply does not care whether some of his action is useful for anyone or not. He wants to be in the spotlight and this can be assured by affronting the international community which was founded by the US themselves.

You could argue that Trump, in accordance to his narcissism, will be destructive whenever well functioning institutions are concerned, while he can be constructive with issues concerning dysfunctional situations that no one was able to solve up to now (North Korea, Israel/Palestine). This is where the "spotlight factor" is the highest.

[TheFrozenStrelet]

@duckzilla The NYT is really biased towards the democratic party. I really wouldn't take any news outlet seriously because their candidate didn't win. I think most of the news outlets have lost all credibility because their witch hunt against Trump has become really really overplayed.

If Trump gets North Korea to denuclearize then that will be better than anything Obama ever did. The "spotlight" idea seems probable or he might be trying to distract from domestic problems? Trump could have narcissism but it's hard to tell until the effects of his politics are known.

[duckzilla]

I'm not really convinced by your argument that you can't take news outlets seriously. From an outside perspective, it does not seem that you can underestimate the problem which the current president poses to the US.

Talking about the US/NK meeting in Singapore, the US did nothing but agree on the chinese position without getting any concessions. Example: the US apparently trades their legitimate right of joint military exercises with their ally South Korea for the non-legitimate nuclearization of North Korea, without giving any details about how this supposed 'de-nuclearization' exactly looks like. This is what China offered already years ago. You give up a legitimate right and basically betray the need of military reassurance of a close ally , while NK just 'declares', without further specification, to give up something they do without legitimization anyway. What a deal!

[TheFrozenStrelet]

I'm not really convinced by your argument that you can't take news outlets seriously. From an outside perspective, it does not seem that you can underestimate the problem which the current president poses to the US.

Talking about the US/NK meeting in Singapore, the US did nothing but agree on the chinese position without getting any concessions. Example: the US apparently trades their legitimate right of joint military exercises with their ally South Korea for the non-legitimate nuclearization of North Korea, without giving any details about how this supposed 'de-nuclearization' exactly looks like. This is what China offered already years ago. You give up a legitimate right and basically betray the need of military reassurance of a close ally , while NK just 'declares', without further specification, to give up something they do without legitimization anyway. What a deal!

We just have to wait and see how everything plays out. I can't really speculate without turning this conversation into a full pledge flame war lol